RIAA Goes After Satellite Radio

nicholasjay writes "The RIAA is at it again. Now they don't like satellite radio. From the article 'The record industry ... believes the recording capability [of satellite radio receivers] is a clear copyright violation and could take revenue away from paid download music services.' This comes on the heels of both Sirius and XM announcing mp3 enabled players and the ability to record music heard on the radio. Also from the article: 'RIAA may seek $1 billion plus in music rights fees for a new contract covering 2007 to 2012 to replace the current $80 million pact that expires in 2006.'"

Comments

No kidding?

[SilverspurG]

From the article:

"The music industry is an important partner, and we continue to listen to their concerns in hopes of finding a resolution that benefits everyone, especially consumers," said Nathaniel Brown, a spokesman for XM.

I can't quite believe that XM got this far by pulling random CDs off the shelf and spinning them radio dj style without first negotiating at least a few contracts ahead of time. I don't personally believe in license agreements but they must have had to sign a contract somewhere which allows them to get around "for personal use only... not for broadcast".

If the music labels had a problem, shouldn't they have approached it at the front-end?

I'm sick of this suing customers/pointing the evil finger at them after the point of sale. It's fscking stupid.

Re:No kidding?

[PortHaven]

Radio NEVER has had to pay RIAA. Radio broadcasts were deemed "public performance" and had to pay their licenses to BMI/ASCAP/SESAC (the performance royalty companies). In fact, all these royalties RIAA has demanded from satellite radio, web radio, etc. Are completely new previously unheard of royalties. And it's all based on "caching".

For instance, you play music over the web. Your PC "buffers" the stream. RIAA made a case saying the buffering is a recording and therefore they need to be paid.

- The Saj

Re:No kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue isn't broadcasting; they have the rights to do that, the issue is that some of their receivers have the ability to record and the RIAA doesn't like that a user can record a song from the broadcast and then add it to their collection.

Re:No kidding?

[SilverspurG]

he issue is that some of their receivers have the ability to record and the RIAA doesn't like that a user can record a song from the broadcast

There is no way the recording labels could possibly not have known about the hardware ahead of time. If they didn't bother to ask about the hardware before signing the licensing deals it shouldn't be up to my tax dollars to go back and figure it out for them. What kind of fscking business are they running? If they had a problem with it, they should've approached it at contract time.

No wonder you're posting AC.

Re:No kidding?

[SilverspurG]

Radio NEVER has had to pay RIAA.

Don't most radio stations have agreements with the various record labels? I seem to remember someone taking care of that paperwork...

Re:No kidding?

[dacarr]

Yeah, there's a way. It's called ASCAP.

Re:No kidding?

[AviLazar]

they didn't bother to ask about the hardware before signing the licensing deals it shouldn't be up to my tax dollars to go back and figure it out for them

Are you sure they didn't mention, somewhere, that they frown on pirating. The contract may not explicity state everything they CAN'T do, but maybe what they can do. Maybe it should have fallen on the shoulderes of the satellite radio companies to be honest and disclose their plans. The recording devices didn't just magically appear one day w/o warning, they new about it for months if not years in advance.

As for your tax dollars at work - everyone gets their day in court - it is their right, just like it is your right. They pay taxes, just like you do...ummm scratch that, they pay WAY MORE taxes then you do.

Re:No kidding?

[SilverspurG]

Maybe it should have fallen on the shoulderes of the satellite radio companies to be honest and disclose their plans

And maybe, before the recording labels signed the agreements to allow for broadcast use of their product, they should have asked,"What of the recording security of the hardware which you will use?"

These things don't happen overnight. XM/Sirius must've been in the works at least 2 years before their products hit store shelves.

they pay WAY MORE taxes then you do

And they get way more back. You have studied the basic functionality of a pyramid scheme, haven't you? The people at the top always appear to pay more.

Re:No kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

For instance, you play music over the web. Your PC "buffers" the stream. RIAA made a case saying the buffering is a recording and therefore they need to be paid.

That's an insane case. You can also argue radio buffers the signal while it is going through it's circuits. Or even while it is in transit. There is for instance a way of storing information by bouncing a signal therefor delay=storage ?

Re:No kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

So when I listen to the radio, isn't the waveform "stored" in the copper on the radios PCB for a short period of time whilst it travels along? Hell, if it was a really *big* radio then wouldn't there be an easily measurable delay (like when you make a phone call to Australia from the UK?) Hell doesn't this mean that all forms of digital communication are not simply communication, but storage? It's basically impossible to communicate electronically without buffering happening somewhere along the line.

If I buy some music online and store it on my HD, when I play it back it's going to get buffered by my HD, by the OS and probably by my media player as well! So if that's OK, am I allowed to make infinite copies of the music I buy?

Re:No kidding?

[pedestrian crossing]

Don't most radio stations have agreements with the various record labels? I seem to remember someone taking care of that paperwork...

Not for the rights to play the music over the air, that is through ASCAP and BMI. Maybe there was some paperwork to arrange to get the promotional copies of the records from the record companies, the but broadcast rights are through ASCAP/BMI.

Re:No kidding?

[S.O.B.]

Satellite radio is not the same as analog radio. Analog radio is of lesser quality, has a relatively limited range and is not required to pay royalties or licensing fees. Satellite radio is CD or near CD quality, is continent wide and pays licensing fees.

This is no different than the way TV networks pay licensing fees for the shows that they broadcast.

What the RIAA has a problem with is the satellite radio providers giving their listeners the ability to record high quality copies of potentially hundreds of songs a month. That equates to a loss of hundreds of paid downloads for legitimate download services or dozens of CDs for brick and mortar music stores.

Re:No kidding?

[SilverspurG]

but broadcast rights are through ASCAP/BMI.

If so then how does the RIAA have any authority to have a beef about those broadcast rights? Apparently ASCAP/BMI had the authority to enter the agreement and they didn't see any problem with the hardware which was in use by satellite broadcasters. If they had seen a problem they wouldn't have signed the broadcast agreements. Simple as that.

If anything, the RIAA should be targeting ASCAP/BMI. The satellite broadcasters are no way at fault here.

Re:No kidding?

[shawn(at)fsu]

Your PC "buffers" the stream. RIAA made a case saying the buffering is a recording and therefore they need to be paid.

Does that mean you have to pay more when uses RealPlayer? /ducks

Re:No kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets face it, RIAA are cunts.

Re:No kidding?

[KDan]

I'd add that the signal is recorded in the EM waves that spread outwards from Earth. Once/if FTL (Faster Than Light) travel is invented, anyone with an FTL drive could travel away from earth for a little while, stop, record the broadcast, come back to Earth and put it on the evil file-sharing networks, thus depriving the record co^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H noble artists of their god-given right to enjoy the fruits of their labour!

Daniel

Re:No kidding?

[It doesn't come easy]

It may be insane but it has been a consistent argument used by any number of copyright holders. It's been so prevalent that the DMCA itself contains a "safe harbor" for ISP's that explicitly exempts the ISP from copyright infringement for the temporary copies held by the ISP's system. The problem with the necessity to provide a safe harbor for transitory copies is that it opens up the possibility of copyright infringement for anyone not specifically exempted (instead of for example defining what a transitory copy is and then making a blanket declaration that all transitory copies are exempt).

Re:No kidding?

[AviLazar]

And maybe, before the recording labels signed the agreements to allow for broadcast use of their product, they should have asked,"What of the recording security of the hardware which you will use?"

Are you so sure they didn't? Do you know what happend in those meetings, I sure don't. Have you seen the contract? I sure haven't. Don't assume. Also, in all honesty, when it comes to contract there is a moral obligation of a company to disclose any plans that might be deal breakers - and it is not that hard to figure out that satellite companies coming out with mp3 devices in their receivers would be a deal breaker. Let's be a little bit fair here, and not be so biased.

These things don't happen overnight. XM/Sirius must've been in the works at least 2 years before their products hit store shelves.

Absolutely correct, and since they knew about this for two years they should have disclosed it to the RIAA. I am sure they have heard about the RIAA getting pissy at people copying the music without authorization and then sueing them.

And they get way more back. You have studied the basic functionality of a pyramid scheme, haven't you? The people at the top always appear to pay more

Their tax returns, the rebate check they get may be higher then what you get...but they are still paying more taxes. Actually, a business that uses a decent CPA (we can assume the music labels have decent CPA's) can calculate the amount of taxes they need to pay fairly accurately. You argument is invalid - they are putting more into the tax revenue stream, and more into the system (purchasing supplies, hiring employees, contracters, etc) then you are - BY FAR!

Re:No kidding?

[Mysticalfruit]

I guess we're just going to have to ban FTL drives.

Re:No kidding?

[jedidiah]

The whole "analog vs. digital" thing is completely and utterly IRRELEVANT. A performance is a performance: period. There is already an appropriate governing body that hands out appropriate licenses under these conditons and RIAA aint it. They should be pimp slapped by the first judge that sees these shenanigans.

          This BS is bogus even by the industry's own self-serving definitions.

Re:No kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Analog radio is of lesser quality, has a relatively limited range and is not required to pay royalties or licensing fees.

Where did you get that idea? Regular radio stations pay fees to ASCAP/BMI all the time.

Re:No kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Radio NEVER has had to pay RIAA. Radio broadcasts were deemed "public performance" and had to pay their licenses to BMI/ASCAP/SESAC (the performance royalty companies)

The two are affiliated and tied in together. You should really try reading and comprehension sometime. You might enjoy it.

Re:No kidding?

[SilverspurG]

Are you so sure they didn't?

If they didn't then they're so inept that shouldn't warrant any extra help from the taxpayers. If they did, and signed the agreement anyway (the agreements have been signed), then they made their decision back then.

Their tax returns, the rebate check they get may be higher then what you get...but they are still paying more taxes

I asked you to consider the basic structure of a pyramid scheme. You demonstrate that you have no conceptual understanding nor desire to learn. I will continue to respond to your ridiculous posts at 1.

Re:No kidding?

[jedidiah]

So has most any other stereo since before most of you were born.

So what?

What makes them think that something has magically changed to alter law or precedent?

Re:No kidding?

[mrchaotica]

Satellite radio is not the same as analog radio. Analog radio is of lesser quality, has a relatively limited range and is not required to pay royalties or licensing fees. Satellite radio is CD or near CD quality, is continent wide and pays licensing fees.

Bullshit. A broadcast of a song is a broadcast of a song, regardless of the quality or range.

That equates to a loss of hundreds of paid downloads for legitimate download services or dozens of CDs for brick and mortar music stores.

Bullshit, again. First of all, the vast majority of people don't want every song they listen to. Second, most of them wouldn't bother even if they did. Third, people can record stuff off the analog radio, too, and they obviously don't care about the difference in quality (note the popularity of low-quality MP3s on P2P networks).

Finally, and most importantly, people have the right to time-shift satellite radio, just the same as they do with analog radio or TV (including satellite TV!).

Re:No kidding?

[BlkSprk]

The RIAA thinks they have a right here because they are making a case that web radio and satalite radio use buffers and there for copy the music, which real radio dosnt. Just wait folks, soon you will be walking down the street whistling a new song you heard on the radio, and an RIAA lawyer will pop up demanding royalties because you memerized it and are reproducing it at a lesser but still recognizable quality. There need to be a line drawn, I'm half joking, but I wouldn't be suprised if the RIAA made it a reality.

Re:No kidding?

[johnlcallaway]

ASCAP??? Is that the same as ASSHAT??? My dad would threatened to give me an ASSHAT, but I wasn't sure what he meant...

Re:No kidding?

[cloudreader]

Am I not storing the song or whatever in my brain??

Re:No kidding?

[jandrese]

Actually, yes. Have you seen the per performance per user rates on music streamed over the internet? It's highway robbery.

Re:No kidding?

[DannyO152]

Every now and then the recording companies mumble something about getting paid when radio stations play recordings and the radio stations call the bluff because airplay sells records. In fact, payola scandals demonstrate that there's an incentive for recording companies to pay the radio stations.

I'm also wondering if there's a point where recording companies ask so much of Apple, satellite radio, internet broadcasters, and ring-tone distributors that they join up in backing a new recording company that signs artists primarily for digital distribution and broadcast. As I think tangible media are important, this company would license the pressing and distribution rights for the cds, or allow the artist the retain the tangible rights, or press and distribute their own discs. By doing the same things that record companies used to do when they were hungry and necessarily agile -- tour support, signing and selling regional artists who can graduate to nationwide, scouting and signing of talent (and not management machines) -- in three to five years, they'll have stars. In ten years, they'll have superstars.

Re:No kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they should have done like radio and set up an agreement where they accept bribes to play what the record companies want.

Re:No kidding?

[networkBoy]

In this case the right being not a written law, but rather case law. While I don't see any judge wanting to overturn the Betamax decision, it can be done (far easier than if it was a law passed by congress). Once Betamax is voided all hell breaks loose.
-nB

Re:No kidding?

[citog]

Nah .. just put a music tax on them that's at least twice the cost of the FTL drive ... only fair

Re:No kidding?

[chanda3199]

I understand the post was in jest, but it got me to thinking. You can record regular FM broadcasts a number of ways. Why, then, is the RIAA *not* going after regular radio?

I'm sure this has been said a million times over, but it's becoming more and more clear that the RIAA is just afriad of change. They have a business model deeply rooted in late 80's technology and anything beyond that is not understood, therefore a threat and must be shut down. How sad.

Re:No kidding?

[AviLazar]

If they didn't then they're so inept that shouldn't warrant any extra help from the taxpayers. If they did, and signed the agreement anyway (the agreements have been signed), then they made their decision back then.

Because they need to plan and consider each and every possible avenue someone might take? Right...This is technology utilized in a new fashion; the satellite companies should have given full disclosure. Thats why there is such a thing as good-faith.

I asked you to consider the basic structure of a pyramid scheme. You demonstrate that you have no conceptual understanding nor desire to learn. I will continue to respond to your ridiculous posts at 1.

The pyramid scheme? You are trying to equate our government to the pyramid scheme. Alright, first all the original people of the pyramid scheme (our government) are dead - they have also paid into the system themselves. Second you are a member of the pyramid scheme - you are paying and benefiting from this scheme. Third the RIAA is paying WAY MORE then you, and thusly should benefit more then you. If you recall on the pyramid there are many pyramids, some for small change, some for big bucks. So your pyramid is based on (just guessing) $5000 in taxes paid per year. The RIAA's pyramid is based on (again guessing) 1 million+ per year. Unfortunately for the RIAA, they are stuck in the same pyramid as you. They are paying more then you, and getting the same as you in return. Actually, since they are a corporation they get double taxed.

The pyramid scheme has NOTHING to do with this conversation, it is why I chose to ignore it in the first place. When you want to give an analogy in an online forum, where conversations are not synchronous, then give your analogy in full, not with a statement like "consider XYZ," and refusing to give any supporting information.

Re:No kidding?

[91degrees]

Yes it is an insane case. Nevertheless, it's the argument the RIAA makes.

And I for one say it's totally and utterly moronic! The purpose of copyright is not to control incidental copies that may or may not be created during transmission. It's to allow the copyright owner to control distribution.

The specific mechanism that the hardware uses to transmit should not be a matter for the courts to worry about. It's totally irrelevent. The record indistry has not lost a sale since there is no way to get separate the copy from the device until it is actually played. Once we're there it is indistinguishable from any other receiver.

Re:No kidding?

[hackstraw]

Radio NEVER has had to pay RIAA. Radio broadcasts were deemed "public performance" and had to pay their licenses to BMI/ASCAP/SESAC (the performance royalty companies). In fact, all these royalties RIAA has demanded from satellite radio, web radio, etc. Are completely new previously unheard of royalties. And it's all based on "caching".

Your right. RIAA has never been involved with broadcast licenses. Pretty soon we might have things like cable and satellite TV service where people get a monthly bill and pay for the content that they receive. There will however never be a time in our lives where we can listen to music at restaurants, bars, shopping malls, in cars, and our homes. Its not a lucrative business anymore because there is simply no demand for such a service.

Why doesn't the RIAA just buy a big vault, put all of their CDs in it, lock to door, and stand on top of it and scream: "I've done locked up my toys, and nobody, including me will play with them!"

Judging by their behavior, I'm guessing that the RIAA is about done with. I'm guessing that music may go to more of a service business model vs a sales model, just like TV vs video recordings. Most video content by most people is viewed via a service such as cable or satellite. I pay something like $80 a month for my HD-DVR and my cable service. I pay about $0 a month for music recordings besides my ISP service bill (which is also my cable company, and yes the music I get is legally tradable). So, my cable provider is getting about $120 a month to provide me with internet, audio and video content. The RIAA affiliated companies gets $0.

The RIAA affiliated companies are done providing content distribution because they suck at it. They do not provide a greatly desired product like MP3s despite the customer demand that is almost 10 years old now. Most "CD quality" audio recordings are only at most 16bit/44.1 kHz, which too is almost 10 years old. Very few _amateur_ audio recordings are that low of a quality any more. For example, I record everything at 24bit and 96 kHz, and many people do that as well too.

I don't know how the moneys go as far as the RIAA vs ASCAP/BMI or whatever broadcast licenses are available. In fact, from what I understand you can pay something like $200 a year for a broadcast license and legally play almost anything you can get your hands on, again with $0 going to the RIAA.

I just don't get it how TV can stay alive, like the big 3, CBS, NBC, and ABC, which freely broadcast their content to the entire country for free _themselves_ with their own towers, and people _still pay_ for cable and satellite service. Remember, one of the biggest issues with satellite is that their customers _demand_ the free broadcast channels as well as the satellite programming.

In summary, the RIAA is done. They will lawyer their way until they die, but they are like a person trapped in the middle of the ocean that is drinking salt water "to stay alive". There inevitable death will only be sooner rather than later. RIP.

Re:No kidding?

[networkBoy]

It's actually an interesting thought experiment.
One must assume that if we've figured out FTL travel, we also have exquisite detectors to seperate the EM signal from the noise.
hm... I wonder if we can have some fun with this (along the lines of DHMO/Hydroxil Acid)

Hey record exec! did you know that by using FTLT it is possible to capture the remanant of earlier broadcasts, in essence making every broadcast a recording?
What!! Who do I call about this! Who can we sue!
-nB

Re:No kidding?

[SilverspurG]

Because they need to plan and consider each and every possible avenue someone might take?

1/8" stereo audio jacks are not some new uber-leet ultra-haxor way of recording content.

You're pretty good at making an argument out of nothing. Too bad /. doesn't have a words/post meter.

The pyramid scheme has NOTHING to do with this conversation

You brought up taxes. It is what it is. Sorry if you don't agree. You're wrong.

Re:No kidding?

[Ced_Ex]

I'd add that the signal is recorded in the EM waves that spread outwards from Earth.

Geez... I guess now the RIAA can extract lost revenue from aliens as well. Have they no limits to their insanity?!?!

Re:No kidding?

[ajservo]

I think other people have covered your licensing fees statement.

Satellite is NOT the same as analog, you're right. It's of lesser quality than the capability of analog signals. Whether or not your favorite Tejano Rap station broadcasts at full strength is up to them, but FM has a far superior fidelity to XM or Sirius. 2600 had an article on this from last year.

Both companies are using a single broadcast signal to project all 100+ of those channels into your radio. Those channels are highly compressed. It's not as though the reciever sends a signal up to the master satellite requesting the "moldy oldies" station and then your radio gets a full on signal. Nope, not at all. You get all the quality it'll deliver all at once for all stations (pay channels included) Don't be fooled into thinking that just because it's satellite it's better.

Re:No kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

This just in! Remembering a song you hear and then resinging it in the shower is a form of recording and is therefore a violation of copyright. If you wife hears you singing and gets the song stuck in her head, you're looking at serious fines and potential jailtime. Best not to ever listen to any music ever again. Its the only way to avoid the wrath of RIAA.

Re:No kidding?

[Spy der Mann]

For instance, you play music over the web. Your PC "buffers" the stream. RIAA made a case saying the buffering is a recording and therefore they need to be paid.

Grrr.... sometimes I'd wish Trinity appeared in front of RIAA executives and told them: "Buffer this."

Re:No kidding?

[AviLazar]

1/8" stereo audio jacks are not some new uber-leet ultra-haxor way of recording content.

We are talking about mp3 players pre-built with the radio units.

You brought up taxes. It is what it is. Sorry if you don't agree. You're wrong

Actually I am not. The pyramid scheme, is a scheme, because the person who starts it (potentially the two people below him) make the money, while the people at the bottom get nothing. The people who started that individual Pyramid did not put money into the system. It is so small it doesn't work. It is like me trying to insure 10 people. Insurance works on the process that a company has SO MANY clients, that a few getting injured will not be an issue. Also, the money is invested and reinvested to generate more money so the people at the "bottom" will get protection if they need it. The Pyramid Scheme does not offer such a protection - AT ALL!

Everyone pays into the gov't. Even our founding fathers paid taxes. The person who starts the pyramid (and again a few people below him, probably his friends) did not pay anything.
The government is not a pyramid scheme because the money you are paying goes into many services - most of which you realize now. You are not promised to be given money when you get to the top, you are given services immediately...hell you receive these services before you even start to pay taxes. Roads, public services (such as public schools), police, military, free medicine, etc. I know you want to base your argument around social security, it is a red herring. There are many services of the gov't you pay into you may never realize. For example, you pay into welfare, and you may never sit on welfare and benefit from it. You pay into this system because it is insurance in case you happen to suffer and need welfare. You pay into this system because of all the benefits you receive from the government - which other people like yourself - have paid into it, before and after you. This is nothing like the Pyramid Scheme which is about giving money to the people at the top, and leaving everyone else screwed.

In case you do not think you are benefitting from your taxes - drive to your local police station, PAL organization, military installation. Oh and when you drive there, remember, your car is enjoying that nice gov't built road. When you use your microwave, remember that microwave technology was invented by NASA who operates on tax dollars. The flame retardent material that firefighters use comes from technology NASA developed to help protect the space modules. When the firefighters save your burning house (god forbid it happen's) you will be thanking your tax dollars.

Yea you can try and equate our gov't taxes to the Pyramid Scheme, but then you just lowered everyone's respect of your opinion as a valid opinion.

Re:No kidding?

[SilverspurG]

The pyramid scheme, is a scheme, because the person who starts it (potentially the two people below him) make the money, while the people at the bottom get nothing

That's a rather juvenile way to look at it. That's a single use short-term pyramid scheme.

Using your exceptional powers of reasoning, can you think of a way to turn a single use pyramid scheme into a steady state system constantly generating the maximum amount of revenue with the minimum amount of effort?

Someday... just someday...

Re:No kidding?

[mario64]

What about the songs that get stored in my brain after hearing them once.

Even when I don't want them there. - We've all heard songs like that....

Re:No kidding?

[AviLazar]

Using your exceptional powers of reasoning, can you think of a way to turn a single use pyramid scheme into a steady state system constantly generating the maximum amount of revenue with the minimum amount of effort? Someday... just someday...

Except that is not the basis of how the pyramid scheme works. The people at the top are not using the money to generate new money, they are taking it and pocketing it for themselves, and then usually disappearing. If you want to keep changing the way it works, it is no longer a pyramid scheme. Here go to Here and read about it. The key thing to look for, right at the top is a non-sustainable business model that involves the exchange of money primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, usually without any product or service being delivered

The gov't is sustainable, and it does continue to reinvest and does continue to provide a service to the people who pay into it. The people are promised they will make more money then what they paid to get in. The gov't does not make any such promises. At no point did the gov't tell me that if I pay, in my lifetime, 10 million in taxes that I will receive 50 million.

Re:No kidding?

[SilverspurG]

Except that is not the basis of how the pyramid scheme works

What do you call a pyramid scheme was has evolved into a steady state system of continually siphoning money from lower levels while returning the minimum amount possible?

Re:No kidding?

[91degrees]

Now there's a thought...

Produce a neural network based recording device. Then it will not be storing a copy of music at all.

If the courts decide that it is a recording device, paint it purple and claim it's a totally different device as a result of this.

Re:No kidding?

[Sattwic]

How about a good old 'two-in-ones'? A radio receiver with a ordinary tape recorder?
Even equiptment as old as 15 years have the capability to record live radio!

How a mp3 recording facility along with a receiver is different beats me.

For decades people have connected their Satellite receivers or set-top boxes, etc to their VCRs and recorded TV shows.

I thought we were finished with the VRC, right to record problem long long back with a US Supreme Court ruling... and now this comes up.

Everytime good Engineers come up with better technology, the RIAA is going to sue people!!

What does RIAA want? freeze technology and science?

Re:No kidding?

[robertjw]

The RIAA can't target ASCAP/BMI. Harrassing ASCAP would directly impact the artists and their royalties. RIAA is OK with irritating the middle men, but doesn't want to go after the artists.

Re:No kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

a suicide bomber will do. given that the fundamental Islamists view our entertainment as a corrupting influence, I'm surprised they haven't tried attacking the RIAA/MPAA & their member corporations.

Re:No kidding?

[AviLazar]

What do you call a pyramid scheme was has evolved into a steady state system of continually siphoning money from lower levels while returning the minimum amount possible?

Again, you are not following the definition of a pyramid scheme. The pyramid scheme, at it's most basic, says that you will put X dollars into the system, so you will receive Y dollars in the future. Where Y>X. Also, you keep changing what your pyramid scheme is, so it is no longer a pyramid scheme. It is like saying "What do you call a car that has 10, huge wheels, a trailer, a two person front cab, can carry twenty tons, and has a special drivers license requirement?" Well, that isn't a car anymore, thats a truck. It's a silly argument.

So you are continually going around in circles with me trying to give you other answers, and I realize the answer you are trying to get me to say! Your answer is nonsensical, limited in sight at it's best, but in reality wrong. So if we can't agree, and all you are going to ask me is to rename the pyramid scheme (which the answer you are looking for is wrong), we can stop the argument right here. Did you read the link I posted to you?

Since we are arguing the same topic in two different threads, I am stopping the other thread (by not responding).

Re:No kidding?

[funaho]

You mean like the annoying "Eat Beef" song on those latest Boston Market commercials?

Re:No kidding?

[s4ck]

TRUE! Most record deal's "teritory" are either the solar system or the universe. Aliens "recording" and "caching" earth music transmision have an obligation to pay the RIAA.

Re:No kidding?

[SilverspurG]

you are not following the definition of a pyramid scheme

Pyramid schemes can very easily be turned into steady state systems.

Re:No kidding?

[malelder]

OK, the "they pay more taxes" thing just doesn't fly when discussing a corporation. While the actual dollar amount they pay in taxes probably does far exceed the actual dollar amount I (or most other USAian's) pay, I'm willing to bet my next tax return that the percentage of tax they pay is less than mine. It's downright retarded to compare the dollar amounts of taxes paid for an individual to a company. If you want to go down this road, you should be looking at the percentage of taxes paid on the income of both. Since I can't afford a battery of tax lawyers to find a bunch of loopholes and other tax dodges, I'm sure I pay a higher percentage of my income then nearly any corporation in the country. And on that note...the RIAA isn't a corporation, it is a 501(c)6 tax-exempt entity. So yeah, I probably do indeed pay more taxes then they do, unless they have one hell of huge bakesale and don't give that money to the studios or use it for lobbying. I appreciate you trying to play devils advocate to the situation, but in this case, the tax argument should not be brought up.

Re:No kidding?

[IAmTheDave]

Guy #1: "Leibovitz, Phederson, Yushuvayeva"-- Guy #2: Whatever happened to Ellis Island changing people's names so we can say them?

Well said indeed. In fact, I'd be interested in knowing if the RIAA had any issues with the switch from AM to FM? What about shortwave - that sure isn't "relatively small range" of broadcast. You can't just say "it's better quality, so things are different." There is no guideline anywhere for what quality is considered a different product. "Near CD" is bullshit - what is "CD" quality? Just because something is broadcast in 192kbps or 320kbps doesn't mean it's better. It simply means it's closer to the quality captured in the original recording - and if that sucks, so does the 320kbps digital version of it.

Re:No kidding?

[AviLazar]

Pyramid schemes can very easily be turned into steady state systems.

Then we are not talking about a pyramid scheme. Again, read the link I posted to you. It talks about people who liken pyramid schemes to things such as social security and other governmental services. It does a good job, better then me, and is supported. It is a short read (took me all of 5 minutes). So, please, give it a read before responding. I like this discussion we are having, but I need it to be informed.

Pyramid Scheme
Discusses Pyramid Schemes and Social Security

Re:No kidding?

[Vancorps]

I'll keep that in mind when I'm driving through the mountains where you can't even receive FM radio stations.

Say what you like about the quality of XM and FM but the reality is that XM is consistent, sure there are one or two times in a year I won't get signal because I'm going under a tunnel or something but with FM there are all kinds of distortions that crop up everyday. With that said I don't know how you can in any reasonable way say the quality is better. Who cares if the sound is better if you can't get it as consistently.

Also the thing that confuses me here is that I just installed my XM tuner in my car and it has not 1 not 2, but 3 transponders which tells me that your information is either dated or inaccurate. I switch to channel 81 and I'm on transponder 2, channel 20 I'm on 1. I would imagine this has dramatically improved quality of broadcasts when compared to the past. As of right now I get much better sound out of XM than I do on any FM station in the area.

Of course I'm in the desert, go north where there is a lot more in the atmosphere and many tall buildings around you and it may be different. I'll find out when I head to LA and Vegas next weekend.

Re:No kidding?

[SilverspurG]

Pyramid schemes can very easily be turned into steady state systems.
 
Then we are not talking about a pyramid scheme.

Yes. It's still a pyramid scheme.

Again, read the link I posted to you

Who the fsck do you think you are? With your level of intellect, you don't have time in a thousand lives to read everything that I'd like to throw at people of your mentality.

Re:No kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The gov't is sustainable, and it does continue to reinvest and does continue to provide a service to the people who pay into it. The people are promised they will make more money then what they paid to get in. The gov't does not make any such promises. At no point did the gov't tell me that if I pay, in my lifetime, 10 million in taxes that I will receive 50 million.

So if you're an American, I hope you'll be right up there with me when it comes to abolishing Social(ist) (In)security? :)

Re:No kidding?

[AviLazar]

OK, the "they pay more taxes" thing just doesn't fly when discussing a corporation. While the actual dollar amount they pay in taxes probably does far exceed the actual dollar amount I (or most other USAian's) pay, I'm willing to bet my next tax return that the percentage of tax they pay is less than mine. It's downright retarded to compare the dollar amounts of taxes paid for an individual to a company. If you want to go down this road, you should be looking at the percentage of taxes paid on the income of both. Since I can't afford a battery of tax lawyers to find a bunch of loopholes and other tax dodges, I'm sure I pay a higher percentage of my income then nearly any corporation in the country. And on that note...the RIAA isn't a corporation, it is a 501(c)6 tax-exempt entity. So yeah, I probably do indeed pay more taxes then they do, unless they have one hell of huge bakesale and don't give that money to the studios or use it for lobbying. I appreciate you trying to play devils advocate to the situation, but in this case, the tax argument should not be brought up.

Why doesn't it fly? You are saying it is your (and my) tax dollars at work, making it sound like they are leaching for free - when in reality they pay into the system. For example, let's say someone rear ends your car and you need to go to court to sue the person - you are spending my tax dollars (as well as the RIAA's) for a lawsuit. At least the RIAA's lawsuit has a noticeable effect on my life, and your life, but your's does not. So are we to say you are being silly for suing someone and wasting my tax dollars? No...it is your right to do so. I will not begrudge you utilizing governmental services in the way they are supposed to be used, but I ask in turn you give the same respect to everyone else.

As for percentages - the RIAA does a lot more then just pay taxes (double taxed since they are a corporation). They also employee people - who generate taxes, they buy things - which generate taxes. In the end, you cannot, in all fairness, begrudge them and use "this is my tax money" since they are also paying into the system.

How do you know they are utilizing loop-holes? They may have a very legitimate claim. Also, as for paying more taxes - no, indeed you do not pay anywhere NEAR the amount of taxes they do. You are also not aware of the percentage of taxes they pay. Do you even know what percentage of taxes you pay? I bet you would have to look at your last years income tax returns.

The tax argument was brought up ONLY because you mentioned it.

Re:No kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

For instance, you play music over the web. Your PC "buffers" the stream. RIAA made a case saying the buffering is a recording and therefore they need to be paid.


But wait...portable CD players have been "buffering" to give us skip free music as we walk/jog/run etc. All of us with these players should pay a RIAA royalty for playing our music. I know they are almost on the obsolete list but are still used by many.

Re:No kidding?

[stlhawkeye]

The RIAA thinks they have a right here because they are making a case that web radio and satalite radio use buffers and there for copy the music, which real radio dosnt. Just wait folks, soon you will be walking down the street whistling a new song you heard on the radio, and an RIAA lawyer will pop up demanding royalties because you memerized it and are reproducing it at a lesser but still recognizable quality. There need to be a line drawn, I'm half joking, but I wouldn't be suprised if the RIAA made it a reality.

In the case of a device that records a potentially permanent copy for the specific purpose of later playback, I believe the law is on the RIAA's side. What they really want here is a bite out of satellite radio's ass because it's becoming very popular and the members of the RIAA want in on the revenue stream while the elevator is near to the ground floor still. Rather than innovate, they're going to take advantage of the legal system and try to establish themselves as part of the revenue-generating process somewhere. Again, I believe the law may be on their side for the radio TiVo thing, and if so, I wouldn't blame them for pursuing it. This particular group, however, is somewhat reknown for using lawyers and belligerance to make up profit lost from both illegal activity and their own lack of aggressive market research and foresight. If we had iTunes before we had Napster, I believe the landscape of these disputes would be much less contentious. But they wanted no part of any such venture, and now they're pissing away money on trying to elbow their way into these new revenue streams that they've missed out on.

Re:No kidding?

[ajservo]

Well, I don't live in a mountainous area, so I couldn't tell you.

And just 'cause they have 3 transponders doesn't mean they're giving you all the available bandwidth for those channels. They're keeping some of it for future use, I'd bet you anything you're not getting a full quality capability of a strong FM signal.

And if you're out in the desert, since you have no terrestrial blockage, I'd bet that the local FM stations are going to broadcast at lower wattage because signals will travel farther on lower power.

If you live in one of the larger cities, they tend to broadcast much higher wattage signals that will sound significantly better, and they do so because of surrounding buildings in the city that could potentially block the signal. If you don't have one of these buildings near you, you get a nice clean FM signal.

Re:No kidding?

[arpk4n3]

It's similar to the lawsuits following the Digital Millenium Act, in which the FCC was planning to put royalty fees on internet radio. When they realised that this would eliminate internet radio as a feasible form of communications, in conjunction with the fact that airwave radio stations do not have to pay royalties, it was eliminated from the table. Paying royalties to play songs on the radio would eliminate radio, but why would the RIAA want to eliminate one of their greatest assets? Major-label artists canvass the airwaves of traditional radio--again, it feels like the RIAA is attempting to stop other music from smaller labels from being heard so as to reinforce their dominance. Downloading, which we are hearing is, according to the RIAA, hurting CD sales, is now legitimate and indeed, preferred to XM radio airplay? Must we condemn new technologies until they become profitable?

Re:No kidding?

[DamienNightbane]

Shut up! They might hear you!

Re:No kidding?

[AviLazar]

Who the fsck do you think you are? With your level of intellect, you don't have time in a thousand lives to read everything that I'd like to throw at people of your mentality.

1) I gave you a short link so we could have a better conversation, one which I was enjoying. The best part about democracy is we can talk about this, while people in such places as China cannot. 2) Due to your need to turn this into a flame, the conversation is now over.

Re:No kidding?

[Robocoastie]

wouldn't they cry if they bothered to find out why people get Sat. radio and discover that many get it for talk radio and other non-music reasons. They think the world revolves around Brittany and PDiddy.

Re:No kidding?

[SilverspurG]

Due to your need to turn this into a flame, the conversation is now over.

I've accomplished my goal. Your repeated demonstrations of ignoring reality for the sole purpose of mindless argument were becoming tiresome.

Re:No kidding?

[ivan256]

So, my cable provider is getting about $120 a month to provide me with internet, audio and video content. The RIAA affiliated companies gets $0.

Not entirely true... I bet they get royalties from your cable company from the music-only "radio" channels and from the music-video channels.

Remember, one of the biggest issues with satellite is that their customers _demand_ the free broadcast channels as well as the satellite programming.

That issue is so 1980s. All the sattelite companies rebroadcast the local brodcast channels now.

In summary, the RIAA is done. They will lawyer their way until they die, but they are like a person trapped in the middle of the ocean that is drinking salt water "to stay alive". There inevitable death will only be sooner rather than later. RIP.

I think for the most part you're right, but congress may step in and legislate them a pile of revenue still.

Re:No kidding?

[dual_boot_brain]

Moral obligations != legal obligations. There is no good faith requirement in contracts. If you make a bad bargin, you are stuck with it. If it is a contract of adhesion and to enforce the contract would be considered unconscionable then the court, may, reform the contract. However, if the lawyers for the music biz are reduced to arguing unconscionability, then they have pretty much lost.

Re:No kidding?

[quartzeye]

Wait just one second. If the RIAA can collect royalties because caching is considered recording, how do radio stations get away with time shifting their broadcaast. I don't think there is a radio station today that does not shift their broadcast so that they have a chance of deleteing offensive speach before it hits the air. The FCC penalties for such language can be rather large.

Maybe the RIAA is going to go after the over-air broadcasts next. Eventually there will not be anything to listen to but talk radio because the RIAA has so poisened the well that no one will enter the market because of the inability to make a profit.

Re:No kidding?

[AviLazar]

I've accomplished my goal. Your repeated demonstrations of ignoring reality for the sole purpose of mindless argument were becoming tiresome.

Coming from a person who quickly, and repeatedly degenerates themselves to flaming; not to mention refuses to review even the simplist of evidence - yea that means a lot.

Re:No kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone could argue as LONG and as HARD as they want, but piracy is piracy, people.
Get used to being called one if your going to steal!

[/sarcasm]

Re:No kidding?

[AviLazar]

Moral obligations != legal obligations. There is no good faith requirement in contracts. If you make a bad bargin, you are stuck with it. If it is a contract of adhesion and to enforce the contract would be considered unconscionable then the court, may, reform the contract. However, if the lawyers for the music biz are reduced to arguing unconscionability, then they have pretty much lost.

Actually, the law discusses moral obligations all the time. good faith clauses are, often times, placed in contracts - especially large contracts. If a company can prove that they, in good faith, did not try and circumvent another company they are ok. But if it is proven that the company tried circumventing the contract by neglecting pertinant information they can be held liable. These kinds of laws prevent people from doing just what we are talking about "Oh I didn't mention it so it never hit the contract and is therefore not valid."

Re:No kidding?

[computechnica]

I have a XM Roady 2 with a Car mount and House mount in my office. I take it back and forth from car to office. 95% of my listening is FOX/CNN news, XM Comedy XL, and the Oppie and Anthony show. I occasionally flip to music when the kids are in the car.
I am also guilty of using Audacity to record songs to my MP3 player (about 2 a month), but then I was recording them from radio before XM. There is little quality difference between XM and FM.

Re:No kidding?

[malelder]

1. Did you read my reply? You seem to be still trying to answer the other guy in this thread.

2. They are not a corporation. They are a tax-exempt entity...they don't have to pay taxes unless they make money in a way that doesn't benefit their members (the recording studios). In their 2001 tax return (I don't have time to file another Freedom of Information Act for new returns) they made 9.7 million dollars from piracy cases, which they claim to have given all of that back to the recording studios to cover "losses".

3. And no...since they aren't a government agency, they don't need me to help pay for their legal costs (which seems to be the argument you and the other poster seem to be going around and around on). As a 501(c)6 entity, they can accept donations to help cover those payments...and I have to add, that those donations are NOT allowed to be used as tax dodges due to their (c)6 classification. Once again, they ARE NOT a government agency...they do spend a large amount of money giving donations to many different government officials in order to ensure they vote on laws that benefit the RIAA and its members, but in no way are they entitled to any government money.

4. Yeah..they pay employees, and those people pay taxes on their income...noone disputed that. But that doesn't mean in any way that we should all kick in some of our income tax to cover their losses. Once again, they are an entity created to protect the interests of the recording studios, mainly in the form of lobbying and now, playing Music Policeman. They are not a government agency, so my income tax paid to the United States Government should have nothing to do with them.

5. Do you live in the United States? I'm not sure which state covers all the court costs for a civil case (which would be your hypothetical case about the car accident), but in my experience, the loser of the case pays a majority of those fee's. Heck, even in a lot of criminal cases, monetary fines and restitution help defray the costs of the trial itself.

6. And once again...since they are EXEMPT FROM TAXES, yes, I do pay more income tax then they do. By they, I mean the RIAA...not it's individual employees.

7. I didn't actually bring this up, I just wanted people reading the thread to know that your particular argument against the previous poster about the "tax dollars at work" thing wasn't correct.

8. The "loopholes" comment was aimed at real corporations...which, as I've mentioned several times already, the RIAA isn't.

9. I'm guessing at this point I've been trolled, since your most recent reply had nearly nothing to do with mine :/ Oh well, such is Slashdot.

Re:No kidding?

[SilverspurG]

Just couldn't get enough, even after you pronounced it "over", eh?

Coming from a person who quickly

You've been ignoring reality for over 3 hours in over 15 posts. I actually feel confident that there isn't a single other person on the planet who would continue to entertain you.

You should be thanking me for wasting my time on you. It's actually a compliment.

not to mention refuses to review even the simplist of evidence

For the last 4 posts, at least, the only piece of evidence necessary is to recognize that a steady state pyramid scheme is still a pyramid scheme.

If a steady state pyramid scheme is not a pyramid scheme, then what is it? If you can't say what you mean without redirecting to some outside post then you need to spend more time thinking about it.

Re:No kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, have you read the recent Grokster vs. MGM decision? Basically, the Supreme Court upheld the Sony (i.e., Betamax) decision regarding Substantial Non-infringing Use (SNIU). No judge is going to overturn this 20-year old case law at this point.

Re:No kidding?

[AviLazar]

Sorry if I did not respond to all of the posts. So let me respond:
1) No longer speaking to the other guy who degenerated to a troll
2) OK they are a non-profit. Hopefully they gave all the money (minus expenses) to the organizations they represent. Given the greed of those organizations, I am sure they want every penny. Did they embezzel some money, I don't know and until otherwise proven they filled out a legal document stating they did what they were supposed to do
3) I agree we do not need to pay for their legal costs, but if they are going after people who did criminal acts they have a right to make a gov't attorney do the sueing. Just like in any criminal case, the gov't sends their attorneys against the defendent. I think that ONLY the gov't can prosecute in a criminal case.
4) I don't think we should kick in to cover their losses. However, if they are doing the work the gov't is supposed to be doing, they have a legitimate gripe. Imagine if someone mugged you, and the gov't didn't do anything leaving it up to you to gather evidence and get this guy prosecutted...wouldn't you feel a bit slighted?
5) I do live in the US. Philadelphia, PA to be more exact. In general, AFAIK, the loser only pays fee's if he is sued for the fee's but a judge has to agree to let the case happen. This is done so big companies don't beat someone in court (via expensive lawyers, who are paid millions) and then after beating the person in court saying "Hey our lawyers cost us 3 million, poor joe schmoe needs to cover that tab"...which obviously, poor joe schmoe can't.
6)As an exempt from taxes organization they are not making a profit either - so yea, a company that doesn't make a profit doesn't pay taxes. Even non-exempt companies (i.e. corporations) who do not make a profit pay no taxes. If you own a company, and the company makes $10,000 in a given year, but in the same year the company loses $10,000 (expenses) - the company pays no taxes. A non-profit pays no taxes even if they make a "profit" the reason is because they give this profit to the people they represent. Also, money you win in a lawsuit cannot be taxed.
7)Would you please specify what you didn't bring up
8)I disagree with the previous posters assumptions that the RIAA should ahve to pay the court fee's and not the gov't. By court fee's i mean the expenses of judge, bailiff, building, etc. They are allowed to go to court just like we are.
9) Again, I apologize, I was inundated with so many different posts I ignored a bunch. Up until a certain point (when he flamed) I enjoyed speaking with the other guy, but he became a troll. That and he tried to liken the gov't to the pyramid scheme.

Re:No kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is because with traditional methods (i.e. cassette tape) you had an analog recording. And we all know that generational copies loose some information. Their beef seems to be with digital recording of a digital broadcast because you do not loose anyhing in a digital copy

Re:No kidding?

[SilverspurG]

1) No longer speaking to the other guy who degenerated to a troll

Cross thread notoriety. I like that.

I am going to correct you yet again. A troll is someone who ignores facts and reality for the sole purpose of furthering an argument or harassing another party. That would be you.

Re:No kidding?

[AviLazar]

You've been ignoring reality for over 3 hours in over 15 posts. I actually feel confident that there isn't a single other person on the planet who would continue to entertain you.

I don't know, if I gave a stripper a couple hundred bucks I am sure she would entertain me.

You should be thanking me for wasting my time on you. It's actually a compliment.

Actually my discussion with you, up until the point you became a troll, was educational and I learned some stuff (on my own). Because I needed to find evidence to counter your points, I went and checked out some stuff I hadn't before, but I was vaguely aware of.

For the last 4 posts, at least, the only piece of evidence necessary is to recognize that a steady state pyramid scheme is still a pyramid scheme.

Until you read the links and comment on them, why are you continuing to persue this?

Re:No kidding?

[SilverspurG]

Until you read the links and comment on them

This discussion is not about you congratulating yourself on your web searching skills.

This discussion is (has been, for the last hour) about: What do you call a steady-state pyramid scheme? I call it a pyramid scheme. What do you call it?

Re:No kidding?

[clarkcox3]

The RIAA thinks they have a right here because they are making a case that web radio and satalite radio use buffers and there for copy the music, which real radio dosnt

Not so fast; I can claim that a regular radio "buffers" the music, a single sample at a time, in the wires between the amplifier and the speakers. :)

Re:No kidding?

[Macadamizer]

Wait just one second. If the RIAA can collect royalties because caching is considered recording, how do radio stations get away with time shifting their broadcaast.

For one thing, copyright law specifically gives radio stations the right to do this. See 17 U.S.C. 112.

Re:No kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism?

Re:No kidding?

[Omnieiunium]

Ah, who are you kidding? No one uses realplayer!

Re:No kidding?

[PortHaven]

Actually, there are LAWS against such agreements between record labels and radio stations. It's called "Payola"

The giving of money, perks, gifts, or additional servicing for "radio airplay". It's very touchy and in truth a lot of "payola" goes on. I worked as a DJ on a college station and we were constantly warned about such. For instance. We could receive CDs from labels but we could not promise to play them. Nor could we accept for instance "we'll send you extra CDs if you play ours". Or any of the sort.

Of course, RIAA does it quite a bit....and periodically gets hit for it with a small slap on the wrist.

Re:No kidding?

[PortHaven]

And in fact, real radio now DOES buffer the broadcast. They're called digital delays. When you talk on the radio it is often recorded with a 2-5 second delay.

However, because there was no way that broadcast radio stations (a very large corporate entity itself) was going to start paying RIAA royalties over such. The DMCA put a clause to specifically exclude traditional broadcast radio from such royalty claims.

Re:No kidding?

[David M. Sweeney]

[Their] inevitable death will only be sooner rather than later. RIP.

You misspelled "good riddance."

Re:No kidding?

[PortHaven]

Doesn't matter, the DMCA has a specific provision excluding/protecting broadcast radio stations. They're allowed to even make a digital copy of a song.

Do you think ClearChannel didn't have it's $$$ being delt out to ensure it was protected. Modern IP rights merely benefit the powerful wealthy. They seldom have clauses of protection for general public and are seldom upheld for smaller individuals. Often are too expensive and inaccessible as well.

But the radio station conglomerates (ClearChannel, Cox, etc) made sure they had clauses to protect their age old business model when the DMCA was written.

Re:No kidding?

[PortHaven]

Balogne...

They had a problem with analog...but lost that battle in the courts. They figured it was a different time, and "digital" gave them an excuse to re-open the matter. They paid a lot of money $$$ for congressional support and gained major advances in accumulating more control.

Analog quality versus Digital quality is a "red herring"...

What does quality have to do with "copyrights". Ring tones were was less quality than the actual songs. RIAA attacked those as well...did they not?

Re:No kidding?

[AndersOSU]

That issue is so 1980s. All the sattelite companies rebroadcast the local brodcast channels now.

Not true. All satelite companies reboradcast major market channels by now.
My parents, as recently as two years ago had DirecTV, and did not recieve the local stations for a mediumish city in Ohio.

As soon as their contract was up they canceled and went back to cable.

Re:No kidding?

[Ced_Ex]

Who? The aliens? FYI, they know what you're going to say before you've even said it. Your brainwaves give your thoughts away!

Fortunately, I have this produce which blocks it. Made from an alloy. I can't tell you what it is until after you've put it on in case they are listening.

Re:No kidding?

[ivan256]

Generally the only stations that don't get rebroadcast are the ones that aren't broadcast over the air... Like public access. There aren't many people who care enough about those stations to pay the $20-$30 a month difference in price between sattelite and cable.

Saying it's only major market stations over DirecTV is just plain false. I live in the Boston market, and not only do I get the Boston CBS, FOX, NBC, ABC, PBS, and UPN stations, but I get the southern New Hampshire and Rhode Island versions too. Over cable (I have both right now... Doesn't make sense to me that internet + CATV would be cheaper than just internet, but whatever) I only get the Boston locals plus my local access channel. Generally, if there's any chance you could get it with an antenna, you can get it over sattelite.

Plus, they must have known what channels they were going to get before they signed up. If it didn't have the channels they wanted, why did they?

Re:No kidding?

[DamienNightbane]

No. The RIAA. We don't need to be giving them any more ideas!

Re:No kidding?

[JRGKGB]

the SDARS providers did in fact negotiate a deal with RIAA (through Soundexchange) for royalties. They pay a flat 10% of gross proceeds.

Observe: http://www.soundexchange.com/rates.html (down at the bottom of the page, the last entry)

As far as on the front end - SDARS providers (XM in particular) have not exactly been acting in good faith. For example: XM has deployed a network of terrestrial repeaters that theoretically could be used to deliver local content - the NAB agreed to allow this provided XM committed not to deliver local programming... then turned around and set up local traffic service for dozens of markets.

More info: http://www.techcentralstation.com/011404E.html

I suspect the RIAA feels the same was as the NAB did about local programming - it was far outside the scope and spirit of their existing agreements, hence their panties being in a wad.

When I first saw this headline - I assumed it was because the RIAA was going after XM and Sirius for their flagrant DMCA violations. The DMCA is utterly ludicrous in terms of what it requires (particularly in regards to the "performance complement" restricting the number of songs by the same artist or on the same album in a given time period - but it is in fact the law and the SDARS don't appear to even be trying to conform to it. I wonder how long until the RIAA goes after them for that.

Re:No kidding?

[HTH NE1]

Except you don't need FTL to do it, only a sufficiently EM-reflective distant body to bounce the signal back and the ability to extract the signal from the background noise.

Re:No kidding?

[bigpat]

The RIAA thinks they have a right here because they are making a case that web radio and satalite radio use buffers and there for copy the music, which real radio dosnt.

Isn't that settled law from the betamax decision? I thought time shifting was considered fair use.

Re:No kidding?

[gordguide]

Interesting, but even more interesting, the RIAA seems to be "grandfathering" the radio and TV industries while simultaneously attacking new technologies. In fact, that could be a rather effective defense for XM/Sirius and who-knows-who-else.

You see, every radio station caches the output; there is the "tape delay" used to prevent someone swearing, etc and offending the sensibilities of middle America from making it to the transmitter. TV stations do the same thing to avoid any naked breasts, nasty words, and the like. The thing is, the whole broadcast is cached continuously, not just one show or another.

Sat providers, probably every cable company, you name it. They all cache audio and video.

Every broadcast must be logged for FCC compliance; the entire output of every station must be recorded and stored for a certain amount of time. Now, this is required as a condition of the broadcast license, but still, it's a recording of copyrighted work that the RIAA ignores.

Now, if you fail to enforce your trademarks, you can lose them. Copyright is a bit different, but none the less if it did end up in court then failing to enforce your rights on one industry while targeting another could easily result in the courts deciding you don't really have or deserve the right to harass people for caching anymore.

Re:No kidding?

[kimvette]

Not to mention the capacitors, especially in the stereo processor your FM receiver has.

Want to know something that is even more insidious? Your brain is an information storage device - and unlicensed one at that. Who knows, tomorrow you may end up with an earworm of "toxic" or "oops I did it again" (I refuse to capitalize those titles :-p) going through your head 50 times tomorrow, and for each performance of that recording, RIAA member labels will not be compensated. Oh the horror! In the near future you will have to have to pay long-term memory licensing fees based on your IQ, because part of your IQ score is figured by testing your memory. There will also be licensing fees for your short-term memory, but if you're a potsmoker with little to no short term memory left, the requirement for you to pay the short-term memory RIAA licensing fee will be either prorated or waived depending on how chronic you are.

Think of the poor starving manufactured pop artists who can only afford two Gulfstream jets and one yacht!

Re:No kidding?

[kimvette]

You misspelled "'60s technology" (if you want to include on the FM and AM stereo broadcasting era), or "'20s technology" if referring to simply broadcasting any music over public airwaves. ;)

Re:No kidding?

[malelder]

Guess thats why I keep coming back here...it's fun to agree to disagree (;

Re:No kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The RIAA thinks they have a right here because they are making a case that web radio and satalite radio use buffers and there for copy the music, which real radio dosnt."

Uh, ya, radios kind do have a buffer that works great for later playback. I used it all the time back in the day. It's called a cassette tape. And the quality was better than whistling!

Re:No kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

"In this case the right being not a written law, but rather case law."

So is much of our legal system. Our legal system, as convoluted as it is by various laws passed by various commititties and such, is still heavily based on precedent. This is the system we chose to keep when suceeding from mary old England. A precedent is stronger than a passed law. A passed law is only effective once tried in court by judge and/or jury. For the Betamax law, the Supremes have already backed the previous decision. It isn't going anywhere for quite some time.

Re:No kidding?

[ScrewMaster]

Yes, I agree ... nothing lasts forever. Even the Great Pyramid will be dust some day.

The only issue I have with the RIAA, the MPAA and all the other AA's and AA-like organizations around the planet is all the damage they're doing and will continue to do before they finally exit stage left.

Re:No kidding?

[cdrdude]

They should be pimp slapped by the first judge that sees these shenanigans

I'll be sure to (*_*)

Re:No kidding?

[andrewman327]

That reminds me of the team of lawyers on The Simpsons who tell Homer he can only write his own music if he avoids using the note of C (it's copyrighted).

why?

[U1timateZer0]

Whatever they can do to squeeze a few extra pennies out of anyone, I guess.

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are some gigantic pennies! One billion dollars worth!

Some currently available mp3 players

[DirtyHarry]

can record to mp3 directly from radio already... or is this something different?

Re:Some currently available mp3 players

[Quasar1999]

Yes, radio is analog with noise and static... Satelite radio is digital and a perfect (in theory) reproduction.

Re:Some currently available mp3 players

[xhorder]

But it's highly compressed... I would hardly call it "perfect"

Re:Some currently available mp3 players

[SatanicPuppy]

It's not even close, trust me.

And the "recording" feature they're talking about is a joke as well. I remember when I was 8 or 9 copying crap off the radio, because I didn't have enough cash to buy the album...Lunging across the room to hammer record and miss as little of the song as possible. Just what I want to regress to, 22 years later, WHILE DRIVING. I think not.

I've got a player with this "feature" and I've never once used it. Just when you think the RIAA can't possibly piss you off any more...

Re:Some currently available mp3 players

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's highly compressed... I would hardly call it "perfect"

Compressed and lossy are different things. It can be compressed (like with .zip) and a perfect copy, or compressed with lossy compression (like .mp3) and not a perfect copy.

Re:Some currently available mp3 players

[mdarksbane]

Yes, but so were the tapes that the music industry was selling 15 years ago.

Re:Some currently available mp3 players

[PriceIke]

> Just when you think the RIAA can't possibly piss you off any more...

Should have been the headline to this story. These people are out of control. I guess it's a good thing, because they're making it known each time they do stuff like this that they are nothing but money-grubbing bottom-feeders who have no interest in advancing their industry or even the well-being of their artists or their artists' work. They just want ALL the money, ALL the control, ALL the power, screw the artists, screw innovation and especially screw the public.

Re:Some currently available mp3 players

[magarity]

Lunging across the room ... WHILE DRIVING.
 
What the heck are you driving???

Re:Some currently available mp3 players

[justforaday]

I believe he's referring to compression in the traditional audio sense of the word. This means that it has a reduced dynamic range. However, the point is that it's a "perfect" recording of what was transmitted, regardless of how accurately that signal represents the original source material (such as a CD or vinyl or whatever).

Re:Some currently available mp3 players

[bernywork]

It has to be said..."A 1969 Buick Riviera, why?"

A friend of mine had one, huge car. A few lounge chairs on wheels.

Re:Some currently available mp3 players

[macthulhu]

Must be he's got the cruise control set on his Winnebago...

Re:Some currently available mp3 players

[MarkGriz]

"I remember when I was 8 or 9 copying crap off the radio, because I didn't have enough cash to buy the album...Lunging across the room to hammer record and miss as little of the song as possible."

And hoping the DJ would STFU and not talk over the beginning of the song.

Good times..... good times....

Re:Some currently available mp3 players

[SatanicPuppy]

Heh. Well, I generally leave my "MyFi" (Gag. Stupid name.) sitting in the passenger seat, so it's more like leaning over, picking it up, fiddling with buttons...It's just too much bother when driving. I never use it when I'm not in the car (rather listen to MP3s), so if it ain't easy to do in the car, I don't do it.

I should have just bought an iPod, but I had a perception of satelite radio that turned out to be a misapprehension. Ah well.

Re:Some currently available mp3 players

[SatanicPuppy]

I used to work as a DJ...They call that a "post" and it's the mark of a "good" DJ that they talk until a fraction of a second before the first words (they call that "hitting the post"). I was never a "good" DJ in that sense, exactly because I had spent my childhood cursing those jackasses.

I still have tapes lying around with inane DJ crap from the 80's immortalized on them...And my own inane crap from 1997-2000 as well.

Re:Some currently available mp3 players

[Maxo-Texas]

No he is talking about how you would wait for your song to come on and then lunge across the room to start recording it. I got my copy of "hold your head up" this way- it sounded great on cassette off the radio and I never bought a copy on vinyl in the store as a result.

As far as driving-- he's mixing metaphors between what he used to do and what he would need to do now while driving.

He needn't worry- in most cases there is a 10-15 second buffer for these recordings so you have more time to react.

---

Riaa is insane and doomed in so many ways from pissing off their customers to a coming tsunami of non-RIAA artists all over the world. There is more good music than you could spend your entire life listening too already and more is made every day. A lot of it is cheap or free.

Re:Some currently available mp3 players

[DirtyHarry]

Ok - didnt know that.

Still - isnt it generally possible to connect any (satellite) radio reciever to a recording unit?

Sorry if this is a stupid question to you. I just dont seem to get the point of this...

power of the buyer

[Anonymous Coward]

The world can live without buying music from the record industry - can the record industry live without selling their crap? Don't buy.

The beginning of the end

[Quasar1999]

Looks like the RIAA is seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, and it's looking more and more like a train.

Obviously they are trying to keep their distribution model valid (read crappy CDs), but everywhere they turn, they're losing... so... they decide to jack up the price of distrubtion rights so high that they will either force the companies to stop distributing anything other than CDs, or will pay the insane prices for the right, and the RIAA will continue to be fat and rich.

Unfortunetly for them, they will eventually fall with this tactic, and fall hard.

Re:The beginning of the end

[JaffaKREE]

You can't sue *EVERYONE*.

Seriously, is their goal to sue every single person in America ? That doesn't seem like a good long-term business model. I'm generally less likely to buy things from companies that have taken legal action against me.

Re:The beginning of the end

[erick99]

If they replace an 80M deal with a 1B deal; that would be a twelve-fold increase in licensing fees. I've got to believe that my $12.99/month XM fee would go up, maybe not by a factor of 12, but by an amount that I am not likely to consider wanting to pay.

Re:The beginning of the end

[debest]

You are completely right about this being about retaining the recording companies' control over the music industry. It doesn't matter that, in a courtroom, a lawsuit (to prevent making devices that record satellite broadcasts to MP3) would ultimately fail. The point is that this is the RIAA's job! They are supposed to be the asshats who object to anything that could remotely challenge the control and revenues of the companies that it represents, regardless of its legality.

The RIAA has to fight against any and all threats to its members. As long as its members continue to try to maximize profits (ie. as long as they are in business), this organization will be constantly lobbying and making noise against anything that upsets their business model. The only thing that will shut them up is the bankrupcy of all the major recording labels.

Dare to dream....

Re:The beginning of the end

[Lucractius]

Judge Julie:
This is Case No. 47g, Everyone vs. Everyone. [gavels, and all fall quiet] Representing the side of Everyone is Gerald Broflovski.

Gerald:
Thank you, your honor. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Everyone has committed a crime here, and Everyone must pay for that crime. My client, Everyone, has been hurt by this crime and must be compensated.

Re:The beginning of the end

[TrAvELAr]

Not only that, but how much more are we going to have to pay the labels for CDs we actually buy because all of their revenue is going into suing other companies?

Re:The beginning of the end

[Anonymous Coward]

XM and Sirius' royalties to the RIAA are based on a revenue share %. The reason the amount seems small now ($80 million) is because the previous 5 years, the companies didn't have high revenue). Using the current contract % for projected revenue from 2007-2012, the amount paid by XM will be about $500 million. So in other words, the RIAA is looking to double their royalty %.

It will go to arbitration, where they will settle somewhere between the 3% they pay now -- and the 6% that the RIAA wants. I'll tell you now, your subscription price will not go up. This is a classic case of the RIAA posturing by using the media to negotiate... and the media is only happy to oblige by blowing this out of proportion.

XM and Sirius knew this day was coming, as did us shareholders. This is blown way out of proportion.

Re:The beginning of the end

[leuk_he]

They are not SUEING everyone. They are offering settelements to everyone with the threath to sue if you do not settle.

Re:The beginning of the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Ehm, as long as you choose to buy their CDs?

Re:The beginning of the end

[ReelOddeeo]

You can't sue *EVERYONE*

Gimme a break. Next you'll be telling me that I can NOT win a boxing match against a cloud of locusts. :-)

Re:The beginning of the end

[MindStalker]

Your absolutly right any association has to fight to keep its members happy. So the blame really should be the large record labels who encourage this action.

Re:The beginning of the end

[hamlet2600]

Gerald:

If everyone would kindly take a dollar from their right hand pocket and place it in the right hand pocket of the person sitting next to them, I believe my client will drop their grievance.

Re:The beginning of the end

[m50d]

Seriously, is their goal to sue every single person in America ? That doesn't seem like a good long-term business model. I'm generally less likely to buy things from companies that have taken legal action against me.

That's ok. At $125,000 per song statutary damages, they can profit quite happily if you never buy another song afterwards.

Re:The beginning of the end

[jim_v2000]

Obviously they are trying to keep their distribution model valid (read crappy CDs)

I vowed earlier this week to never buy another music CD. I ordered a new album of a group I like from Half.com and got it in the mail the other day. I then put it in my computer and tried to rip the music off as MP3s so I wouldn't have to put the CD in my machine all of the time. However, my ripper of choice (Wimpdows Media Player) wouldn't see my cd drive as having anything in it. I though the cd had some kind of protection on it that wouldn't let my machine read it. However, it opened fine with the little player they included...so I tried another ripping program I found online. That pulled the tracks off, but they sounded like static. Then I stumpled across something on Google that mentioned new music cd's installing something on people's machines called "Plug and Play Manager". I checked my running services and sure enough, there it was. Some more research turned up that somehow, from what I understood, it integrated itself with the IDE drivers for my CD drives, and then wouldn't allow any applications other than their shitty player access to the cd. Well, I worked for Symantec awhile ago, and I figured that if I could get viruses off a machine, I could get this thing off.

Well, first of all, this "Plug and Play Manager" runs as a service. And you can't stop the service. You can't end task on the process that the service starts. I couldn't even see the files that it uses, because they are stored in a folder that starts with $sys$... which apparently I could only see from the command prompt. And even tehn, I could only delete the files in Safe Mode w/Command Prompt. AND THEN after I deleted those files and cleared out the registry keys, when I tried to restart my computer, it started to load my cd drivers and rebooted again. Even in safemode. And the Windows repair feature didn't help. I ended up having to format/reinstall Windows.

Talk about bitch DRM...I was pretty pissed. I bought the damn music, and it happened to come on a CD. If I want to copy the music that I purchased onto my computer to listen to it, that's my business. The RIAA can kiss my ass. I'm never buying another one of their disks again.

Re:The beginning of the end

[TheRaven64]

Where do you live? Does your jurisdiction have an equivalent of the UK's computer misuse act? If so, then report the music label to the authorities and request that they press charges. If they don't, then lodge a civil suit.

If they ran a program on your computer without your consent, then that is illegal in most jurisdictions. If you bought something that was advertised as a music CD, and it contained a virus[1], then the authors of the virus are liable for your time in removing it and for punitive damages. Don't settle for anything less than $10,000 (after all, that seems to be what they consider a good round number for sharing a song on a P2P network).

[1] A virus is a self-replicating program. This program installed (replicated) itself with no user intervention, and is hence a virus.

Re:The beginning of the end

[wed128]

Buying CDs is STILL the only way to get high quality uncompressed music legally, and on a physical media none the less.

Re:The beginning of the end

[Spy der Mann]

You can't sue *EVERYONE*. Seriously, is their goal to sue every single person in America ?

Oooh... i can already see the court, and the case being "RIAA vs. The People". Cool B-)

Re:The beginning of the end

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, nowadays you can't, because it would take forever to lace up the little tiny gloves for that many locusts. But I remember being able to pay a nickel to see a hundred rounds of bare knuckle man v. locust boxing. Now that was a sport!

Re:The beginning of the end

[ArsonSmith]

They are making a deadly mistake. They are trying to regulate a market where there is already a healthy cheap and easily accessable black market. The only thing they can do is find the incientives for the black market and elimnate them. With their current actions they are only exaserbating the black market almost to a ligitimization point.

Re:The beginning of the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the end, and not a moment too soon. But how does one go about actually disbanding, oulawing or
disintegrating an association like the RIAA? It's like a mad dog that needs to be put down. Maybe the
latest RICO suits against the RIAA will help. Is is possible that the RIAA could be forcibly disbanded
if found guilty of racketeering? The death of the RIAA would be a huge reason to rejoice.

Re:The beginning of the end

[FellowConspirator]

Report the software to the FBI and FTC. Make sure to press them about it. DRM is okay, but software of that nature installing itself without your explicit consent violates several federal laws.

In the meantime, you could simply use something other than Windows to rip the tracks. After all, Microsoft is intentionally complicit with the recording industries efforts in this area. If you don't like it now, just you wait.

Re:The beginning of the end

[Kishar]

Nothing, if we all stop buying CDs.

Re:The beginning of the end

[MaskedSlacker]

This is why one should not use windows. Any OS that allows for unauthorized software installation is a piece of crap (oh wait, only one OS does that). I would definitely open suit against whatever company published the disc for that.

Re:The beginning of the end

[SilverspurG]

But how does one go about actually disbanding, oulawing or disintegrating an association like the RIAA?

The only way to do it is get to the root of the problem. The root of the problem is pyramid scheme and plutocracy.

If you read the page at sec.gov, it quotes:"The fraudsters behind a pyramid scheme may go to great lengths to make the program look like a legitimate multi-level marketing program". Remove the words "multi-level marketing" to make it reflect reality. They obviously had to include some language which wouldn't implicate themselves. That one's called obfuscation.

Re:The beginning of the end

[jim_v2000]

I'm pretty sure I didn't click anything to install it, because I have autoplay disabled on my drives. But I'll try it again today and see what happens.

Re:The beginning of the end

[endoplasmicMessenger]

I don't understand. Does Half.com have it's own CD format and in-built player? Or is this a CD format that you might pick up at any old store?

Re:The beginning of the end

[JhohannaVH]

That is some serious BS right there. Damnit. That sucks. Because I *love* CDs because I can so tell about the quality loss. But to not be able to import the songs onto a computer is straight up BAH! Who was the CD?
Jho

Re:The beginning of the end

[jim_v2000]

It was a Switchfoot CD, and I believe the publisher was Columbia

Re:The beginning of the end

[spxero]

Did you try going to 'Run' and typing 'services.msc'? From here you can see all the services that start up with windows, and disable or stop them.

http://www.blackviper.com/BlackViper used to have all the windows processes listed and which ones you could remove safely. I think his site has been down for a while, but try Google.

Re:The beginning of the end

[JhohannaVH]

EWWWWWWW!!! That's so bad. Cuz they are local to where I live. :( *blah* I'm sorry you had to go through all of that, what a pain in the ass. Which sucks, cuz they are a Christian band... and (MHO) they rather bite. But that's just me... they aren't my style. But they WON'T STOP TORTURING US WITH THEM!!!!!!!! :D Cuz they are local kids made it big I guess.

Jho

Re:The beginning of the end

[gstoddart]

I vowed earlier this week to never buy another music CD. I ordered a new album of a group I like from Half.com and got it in the mail the other day. I then put it in my computer and tried to rip the music off as MP3s so I wouldn't have to put the CD in my machine all of the time. However, my ripper of choice (Wimpdows Media Player) wouldn't see my cd drive as having anything in it. I though the cd had some kind of protection on it that wouldn't let my machine read it.

I've encountered several CDs like this. They get shipped in some wierd way that to a simple player, they are just that. But to a computer (well, a Windows machine) they look like program disks and behave differently.

And, yes, I've fought with the installation of software when I simply put the CD in to play.

My solution, though not everyone can do this, is to use my FreeBSD machine to rip my CDs. Since DRM crap isn't implemented by FreeBSD, it actually lets me more easily access the songs on it.

I don't much like some damned crappy player software being installed on my machine by virtue of the fact that I put an audio CD in my computer to play it.

Re:The beginning of the end

[jim_v2000]

My solution, though not everyone can do this, is to use my FreeBSD machine to rip my CDs

Yeah, I was thinking about that. I downloaded Fedora Core 4 awhile ago, but I haven't installed it yet. Any suggestions for a Linux Disto/ripping program? Or even FreeBSD...how difficult is that to install compared to a Linux distro? Where do I get it and what ripping software do you use?

Re:The beginning of the end

[gstoddart]

Yeah, I was thinking about that. I downloaded Fedora Core 4 awhile ago, but I haven't installed it yet. Any suggestions for a Linux Disto/ripping program? Or even FreeBSD...how difficult is that to install compared to a Linux distro? Where do I get it and what ripping software do you use?

I can't suggest a Linux distro since I've not used Linux in several years. Truthfully, if you can install a Linux, I should think FreeBSD is of almost identical complexity. The FreeBSD Site is a great starting point to find documentation and download distros.

The software I use is dagrab, with the following shell script:

        #!/bin/sh
        # rip_cd

        dagrab -C -a -N

and them I use lame to turn the wav files to mp3 as follows:

        #!/bin/sh
        # wav2mp3

        for i in *.wav
        do

                fb=`basename $i .wav`
                lame -b 192 $i $fb.mp3
                rm $i
        done

So a "rip_cd ; wav2mp3" and walk away is all I do to make my MP3s from CD.

Since dagrab will work for either FreeBSD/Linux, your choice of platform shouldn't be a huge big deal. If you're more familiar with Linux, just use it -- no point in getting an entire new OS just for one piece of software, especially since it already runs on either.

Truthfully, I've had those scripts for several years now, and I never really remember what is actually doing the work. They just run without needing to think about them.

Cheers

Re:The beginning of the end

[Ahnteis]

Turn Off Autoplay.
Get TweakUI from microsoft (search for "powertoys") and turn off autoplay for both data and audio cds.

Yes, you will have to start installers on CD manually.

Re:The beginning of the end

[hisstory student]

W O W ! Thanks for the heads-up. That's all I need is to have to reinstall Windows _again_. This is so very very sad. I had feared that it would come to this. Now my fear has become reality.
It may be years before I can buy another music CD. I'm really really really bummed!.

Re:The beginning of the end

[jim_v2000]

It was just the same old cd you'd get anywhere...Half.com is kinda like eBay, only without bidding/auctions. It's by eBay. Sometimes you can find things cheap there.

Re:The beginning of the end

[bridgette]

Do you have a link to the info on this "Plug and Play Manager"? Since you worked at Symantec, I'm sure you didn't get this copy protection service confused with the Plug and Play service that Windows is always running, but I'm curious to know if there's some relationship (Could the CD run something that does something funky to the PnP on Windows boxes?). What version of Windows were you running?

I'm really curious about this and want to dig in more, hopefully I can get more info without having to <shudder> purchase a Switchfoot CD :)

Re:The beginning of the end

[Anonymous Coward]

You might try one of those Knoppix style boot-from-disk options for a quick rip. Even Fedora will let you boot into "rescue" mode without installing.

Under Linux, you might try:

  cdparanoia -vz -d /dev/cdrom ${TRACK_NUMBER} ${NAME}.wav

  lame -h -m s ${NAME}.wav ${NAME}.mp3

For all tracks: cdparanoia -vz -d /dev/cdrom -B

With lame, you might find "-m j" works better, and you may want to use "-b 256" or -V to improve the bitrate.

Re:The beginning of the end

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet you a case of beer the CD he bought didn't have the official Compact Disc logo on the case anywhere. This little loophole is commonly used so they can claim the product is not sold as an authentic "Compact Disc" and therefore does not need to adhere to official specs or be compatible with official cd players/cd drives.

Re:The beginning of the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple solution. Don't give these RIAA pigs any money.

Re:The beginning of the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Good and valid (I like the idea), but only to a point. There could very well have been a lable on the package that said something to the effect of, "Digging you way into this package to play the music you bought gives us the rigth to put crap on your computer and, should this cause any damage, that's just too damn bad." Forget RTFM, RTFULA. Sad, but true, this seems to be not just nasty BS, but somewhat enforceable. HOWEVER, most states in the US (and, hopefully elsewhere in the world) have some sort of law stating that a product is returnable if it is not as advertised. Therefore, if you were not informed of this malware that the supposed audio CD installed, then it did not perform as advertised and, at the very least, you're due a refund... Unless there's a ULA giving them permission to bugger you without lube.

Re:The beginning of the end

[lithiumfrost]

I am going to take a stab at this and suggest that he most likely lives in the US, based on his report of ordering a CD off of half.com. I can order something from there in Canada, but that's a stretch, and a hassle because of the border. Here's a link...

I agree that he shoudl seek damages, however. That software is crap.

Re:The beginning of the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy independent. The music's better (unless you're a Madonna or Michael Jackson fan) and the labels are usually run by decent, hard working people. Metropolis Records is one of my favorites, and handles Funker Vogt, Apoptygma Berzerk, VNV Nation, Diary of Dreams, Informatik, Melotron, etc. If you like http://www.rantradio.com/ then you'll love this stuff.

Regarding the RIAA, their actions are increasingly impossible to discern from the protection and shake-down routines of yesteryear. They are classic parasites who have a serious problem: their artists are increasingly tired and several generations of incompetent management at the labels (hiring of rich friends kids who have no qualifications other than the silver spoon dangling out their back orifice), they've driven revenues from the work of artists down. It has to be frustrating when you can't even suck off of other people's artistry well.

So now they have to find blood from the artists that got away. They know the music being distributed via P2P networks is increasingly not theirs, but with the force of their legal friends, they've got at least another generation or two to milk from these new hosts. In order to kill them off, it's going to take someone eliminating their legal fund and their means to coerce others to pay protection money. The satellite move is a clear indication they're desperate for more fuel for the litigation - this is a deep pocket litigant move that they're certain will settle for a quarter the demand.

If the satellite boys hold out and litigate, it's over just like SCO has found out with IBM. We need to put pressure on both satellite vendors - if they fold, we're gone. Perhaps one more big fight and these guys are history.

Re:The beginning of the end

[Hosiah]

Objection! Everyone not guilty by reason of insanity!

Greedy Bastards

[AcheronHades]

I am sick of the RIAA. I used to download songs to try them out, see what I liked. Now I just download out of spite cause I fucking hate those greedy bastards.

Re:Greedy Bastards

[fandog]

I don't see why this is flamebait, he's expressing a legitimate (and perfectly understandable) opinion on the subject matter... Anyway, my .02

Silly RIAA...

[zwilliams07]

Instead of going for the little pups, go for the big dogs. Go sue Energy providers! Yeah! Cause you know, we couldn't pirate music if it weren't for electricity powering computers and other electronic equipment. Yeah, that show them!

Re:Silly RIAA...

[Grakun]

I'll run my computer off a generator if I have to. Of course, I'd have to make some cut backs, to cover the cost of fuel. Out of spite, I'd cut back in my legal entertainment purchases.

Re:Silly RIAA...

[hal2814]

Gasoline companies fit under the umbrella of "energy providers" so unless you're going to hook that generator up to a bicycle or something, it's not going to run.

Re:Silly RIAA...

[SlayerofGods]

Edison solved that problem well over 100 years ago ;)
They'll never stop us!

Re:Silly RIAA...

[Chi-RAV]

I'm gonna sue the sun and put all you hippies out of solar energy....

Re:Silly RIAA...

[bernywork]

I'll get a whole heap of giant capacitors.... a few lightning rods.... Hang on... Does that mean the RIAA will sue God as an energy supplier?

Ooooh yeah, this outta be fun.

Re:Silly RIAA...

[Cracell]

We are on it, as well as sueing the energy providers we at the RIAA have big plans to sue computer makers, software makers, gas companies (how could you listen to illegal songs in the cold) as well as everyone that makes anything, because we have found it all ties in to music one way or the other. Now this may seem crazy but we have an army of lawyers large enough to take over England, and we paid off every American judge, so things so go smoothly...but you didn't hear this from me.

Re:Silly RIAA...

[cloudreader]

No. If I were the RIAA I will sue the capacitor maker, lightning rod maker and finally you :)

WTF?

[Obsi]

Okay, if I understand sattelite radio buisness model right, they're paying the record companies for the right to play the songs on the services.

I don't see how the sattelite radio equipment makers can be thinking straight in this matter.

Then again, ANY sattelite radio hardware that could take a headphone connection has been able to (indirectly) record songs (send output to PC, which is running a program like Cool Edit Pro.) Damn, missed chance for a 1stpost with meaning too :(

Re:WTF?

[SilverspurG]

I don't see how the sattelite radio equipment makers can be thinking straight in this matter.

Other way around. How the fsck could the big record labels not know in advance what hardware was going to be used? If they had a problem with the recording security of the hardware they could have refused to grant the service broadcast rights for their music.

Simple as that. No lawsuit needed. No wasted taxpayer money. No more overpriced attorneys.

Re:WTF?

[AviLazar]

Other way around. How the fsck could the big record labels not know in advance what hardware was going to be used? If they had a problem with the recording security of the hardware they could have refused to grant the service broadcast rights for their music.

No he had it right his way, you are just being anti-RIAA just because they are the RIAA. The RIAA does not know what the internal plans of the satellite radio companies are. As I told you before, the satellite radio companies should have been forthcoming.

And again, as for the tax dollars --- everyone is allowed to have their day in court, and if you are worried about tax dollars - you should be happy to realize that the RIAA puts tax dollars into the system - more then you - the RIAA employees people who put money into the system - more then you. The RIAA is paying for the overpriced attorneys - not your tax money.

As for the lawsuit, it will only hit court if both parties cannot come to an agreement - which if you plan on blaming anyone it should be both sides

Re:WTF?

[SilverspurG]

The RIAA does not know what the internal plans of the satellite radio companies are

Who signed the agreements allowing XM/Sirius to make public broadcast of what would otherwise be CDs pressed for personal use only? Whoever signed that contract is the only person with the authority to be raising questions about the recording security of the hardware.

If the RIAA wasn't involved with those agreements, then the RIAA has absolutely no business shouting about their terms.

Re:WTF?

[Obsi]

Other way around

I concede to you on that point. But you do raise an interesting point by saying How the fsck could the big record labels... Perhaps this is just another RIAA PR stunt, much like suing 14-year old girls and they're hoping that sattelite radio HW makers will simply fold over like the average Joe/Jane does when faced with a lawsuit.

I for one am hoping that they will not fold. Besides, I feel this is a slippery slope they're on. Taking action against the HW manufacturers == taking action against companies that make stereo systems with built in tape recorders.

Although the quality is vastly different (FM radio on tape vs. sat radio in MP3 format) I dare say the comparison is valid.

Re:WTF?

[SilverspurG]

I'll pass this along to you: other posters have informed me that broadcast rights are garnered through agreements with ASCAP/BMI.

Same line of logic still holds, as well as the new question of how does the RIAA presume to have authority over a contract made between parties which doesn't even involve them? I gather that ASCAP has been doing this for quite some time and, if there were a legitimate problem with recording security of the hardware, it would've been addressed at signing time.

Re:WTF?

[AviLazar]

Who signed the agreements allowing XM/Sirius to make public broadcast of what would otherwise be CDs pressed for personal use only? Whoever signed that contract is the only person with the authority to be raising questions about the recording security of the hardware. If the RIAA wasn't involved with those agreements, then the RIAA has absolutely no business shouting about their terms.

No I am sure anyone can raise questions about recording security of the hardware. Yup, yea I am pretty sure the Constitution gives US citizens that protection.

Why would you assume the RIAA was not involved in those agreements? And you do realize the RIAA represents music labels - so they may have been contracted by the music labels to do the fighting - so they can argue it.

You still, totally, ignored my statement that the satellite radio companies did not give full disclosure - and you yourself said the satellite radio companies probably were planning this for two years.

Radio broadcasts have always been free to listen, but not to copy. It is advertisement for the music labels, in the hope you will like the song and buy the CD...not that you will copy the music.

Re:WTF?

[SilverspurG]

Why would you assume the RIAA was not involved in those agreements?

If they were then the argument is over. They agreed to it back then. What's the problem now?

You still, totally, ignored my statement that the satellite radio companies did not give full disclosure

It wasn't a corporate secret that these things would have 1/8" stereo audio jacks. If there was a problem with potential recording it should've been addressed at the agreement signing time.

Re:WTF?

[AviLazar]

If they were then the argument is over. They agreed to it back then. What's the problem now?

How do you know it covered or didn't cover recording devices?

It wasn't a corporate secret that these things would have 1/8" stereo audio jacks. If there was a problem with potential recording it should've been addressed at the agreement signing time.

And again, do you have the contract - do you know if it was or was not addressed? That is why they are taking legal action.

Also, even if it was not mentioned. Let's say the contract was signed two years ago...If the RIAA can prove that the satellite companies planned - BEFORE that two years ago - recording devices into their units they can sue for not disclosing this information. Also, even if it wasn't mentioned in the contract - this new feature (which is a dramatic function enhancement) can cause the old contract to be invalidated or renegotiated.


but either way, for you or me to talk about the contract without seeing the contract and having a good grasp of it is futile.

Re:WTF?

[SilverspurG]

How do you know it covered or didn't cover recording devices?

If it was a concern then it should have. If it doesn't then it shouldn't suddenly be a problem now.

Do you always whine about what you ate for breakfast at lunchtime?

And again, do you have the contract - do you know if it was or was not addressed?

Again. If it was a concern then it should have been addressed at the time of signing. If it wasn't a concern then it shouldn't be a concern now. Technology has not changed that much since then. Everyone knows you can record using a tape deck. We've been able to do that since the 70s.
If the RIAA can prove that the satellite companies planned - BEFORE that two years ago - recording devices into their units they can sue for not disclosing this informationOh, I get it. Your entire argument is based on the fact that no one saw the possibility of recording ahead of time. Everyone thought that the XM/Sirius receivers would be welded into the stereo systems of production line vehicles with security systems preventing the speakers from ever being rewired. Perhaps the plan was for 50000 volt charges to be rigged to the panels covering the car stereo head unit.

What kind of "I'm stupid" drug are you on?

Re:WTF?

[AviLazar]

If it was a concern then it should have. If it doesn't then it shouldn't suddenly be a problem now. Do you always whine about what you ate for breakfast at lunchtime?

And again, how do you know it wasn't. I only whine about what I ate for breakfast (at lunchtime) when I find out that what I ordered wasn't what I received, and what I received is causing me diarrhea

Re:WTF?

[SilverspurG]

I only whine about what I ate for breakfast (at lunchtime) when I find out that what I ordered wasn't what I received

If the RIAA were composed of 12-year olds maybe I could understand that they didn't know what they were signing.

Maybe that explains it...

Re:wtf?

[DragonTHC]

FM quality is lower than most MP3 files

Re:WTF?

[AviLazar]

If the RIAA were composed of 12-year olds maybe I could understand that they didn't know what they were signing. Maybe that explains it...

Or maybe, just maybe, after they ordered a specific item, they got something else. Maybe, both parties have a responsibility...yes I am quite sure I read somewhere about moral responsibility and full disclosure.

Re:WTF?

[AngryNick]

So now RIAA's fear is that people will use XM to create MP3s that they can then share with all their friends. I have a box full of cassette tapes in my basement that were made in the 80's by recording radio...yet it wasn't a big deal to the RIAA back then.

I buy an albumn to get the whole 10-15 tracks, not just the one or two singles that get air play. Just like radio, I can't see XM doing anything but generating new sales for the music industry.

My patience is growing thin for the entertainment industry. You can only make so much money with a crappy product. Evolve or die out.

Re:wtf?

[Rod Beauvex]

I read somewhere that the FM sampling rate of FM radio is 22050 Hz. Your typical MP3 is 44100. Most FM radio stations thmeselves use MP3 now.

Off topic, buyt you know what sounds really good? Am stereo. Yes, there is such a thing. And a really good station can sound loads better than FM. Too bad the Clear Channel usually silence these transmitters when they buy the stations.

Re:WTF?

[Blakey Rat]

Broadcast rights are secured from the BMI and ASCAP organizations, not the RIAA. The RIAA handles "recordings," not "performances."

Not the time to buy xm then eh?

[cflorio]

If this contract expires in 2006, then I'd say I'm not going to be buying an xm radio system any time soon. Increases like that would either have to be passed on or xm would go tits up.

Re:Not the time to buy xm then eh?

[mrchaotica]

I really hope XM countersues, saying that the RIAA's FUD is resulting in lost business, and citing examples like this.

BS!

[Kranfer]

I can record radio on my Computer, Radio in my car, Boom Box radio etc. Is their goal to encrypt all radio transmissions? Serius and XM radio are pay for subscriptions. WTF?

When are they going to sue my birds for listening to music all day? The birds could start mocking the music exactly!

"Your birds are singing these copywritten songs... We are suing them. They need to appear in court on these days!"

the RIAA is starting to overstep its bounds.

Re:BS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but you're one of those dang computer hackers aren't you?

Re:BS!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Starting" to overstep?

Re:BS!

[Universal Indicator]

...and if that mocking bird don't sing....

Re:BS!

[amastbaum]

this reminds me of the CBDTPA (consumer broadband and digital television promotion act), wherein an intrinsically impossible system was proposed for encryption/copy protection to be implemented at every stage of media delivery. The point that no one seems to get is that to be perceived by humans, media must be analog at some point. be it with pirating movies with a camcorder, tape recording FM radio, or capturing a stream, there is no way around it. period. the riaa is clearly just getting frantic and ignoring the obvious (or banking on ignorance?).

Re:BS!

[kfg]

When are they going to sue my birds for listening to music all day? The birds could start mocking the music exactly!

Well, they're already perfectly willing to sue you for whistling a happy tune. It only seems a matter of time before they come after you as guardian ad litem of your bird.

And don't try any of the "public domain" shit. They've jiggered to law to get you for whistling a tune that everyone stipulates was composed by Anon. 400 years ago if they think there's enough money in it.

And your little bird too.

KFG

me thinks

[meatbridge]

someone should organize a "buy no music day" or perhaps a full week to teach the RIAA that they aren't holding all the cards.

Re:me thinks

[JaffaKREE]

we call it "every day || week" around these parts.

Re:me thinks

[Donniedarkness]

Or a "download as much music as you possibly can" day. That'd be amusing.

Re:me thinks

[mmdog]

How about a "Don't ever buy music again, at all, until the RIAA formally announces it's dissolution" campaign? Donate to the bands you like directly and do NOTHING else.

Re:me thinks

[Scutter]

that someone should organize

Someone, eh? Why not you? Why are you waiting for "someone"?

Re:me thinks

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a buy indie music day/week?

You could still get music, maybe some bands you never heard before, and not support the RIAA.

Re:me thinks

[zaren]

Well, I haven't bought a CD this year so far, but I'm looking at buying a few for the missuz for Christmas (like I usually do). Pirating music? Nope. Downloading from iTunes? Nope. Listening to satellite radio? Nope. There's just no new music out there worth spending the money or time on. In fact, I just re-discovered my old Dream Theater cds and am working on ruining my voice again trying to sing along :)

Re:me thinks

[digitaldc]

Dust off those Rush albums too :)

Re:me thinks

[Excen]

Wrong answer! That has been conclusively proven by scholars both inside and outside the academic realm to not work at all. You wanna know why? Because if people all agree to not buy music on Blah the Yadda-yadda-th, people will just go out and buy their albums the next day. In more complex terms, the consumption is just displaced since the demand for the crap the RIAA puts out does not change. If we were able to boycott the next 20 American Idol crap CDs as a nation, we might just have an effect on the dickheads.

Re:me thinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Ew. (Sorry, but ew.)

Hide your Sony Walkmans!

[josea]

Isnt a Sony Tape Walkman just the low-tech version of the mp3 recorders SIRI and XM are preparing to release? I still use mine for that purpose.

And now I know...

[HerculesMO]

Why Metallica isn't listed on Yahoo's Music Store.

Hang on a second...

[uradu]

> could take revenue away from paid download music services.

I thought the RIAA didn't like those either?!

Re:Hang on a second...

[Anonymous Coward]

> > could take revenue away from paid download music services.

> I thought the RIAA didn't like those either?!

it's not that they don't like online music stores (OMS), it's just that, if you take revenue away from OMS, then they can't pay higher price for RIAA.

I hate the RIAA

[Donniedarkness]

"The record industry ... believes the recording capability [of satellite radio receivers] is a clear copyright violation and could take revenue away from paid download music services."

So satellite radio might hurt downloadable music, which the RIAA wants to kill, also? Honestly, I hate the RIAA...Satellite radios let you record music? You know what? So do cassette tapes... and they have, for years.

Re:I hate the RIAA

[Feyr]

the interesting part is that the CAPABILITY to record itself is the copyright violation. i wasn't aware that the riaa had a copyright on that. or that it was even copyrightable.

someone at the riaa needs to be clued

Re:I hate the RIAA

[Donniedarkness]

"someone at the riaa needs to be clued"

I think you misspelled "clubbed". The biggest problem, from my perspective, is that too many people seem to think that the RIAA is a government institution, and don't really question it. If news like this was to be put on a major news network, such as CNN, then I think we'd be seeing changes.

Re:I hate the RIAA

[badasscat]

"someone at the riaa needs to be clued"

I think you misspelled "clubbed".

Well, that was good for my morning laugh...

I hate to say it but I'm starting to miss Hilary Rosen!

Who's the new RIAA whipping boy/girl anyway? Why don't we have a name to attach to this idiocy anymore? I want a specific target for my ire!

Re:I hate the RIAA

[Harry Coin]

Yes, but these copies are digital. Diiiiiigggiiitallll!!!

Re:I hate the RIAA

[Shelled]

At one time the RIAA claimed cassettes were the death of the music industry and fought manufacturers, back in the day before hardware and software companies combined into today's cartels. That's why the digital cassette format - DAT - was forced to carry copy protection flags.

When are people finally going to figure out the RIAA has nothing to do with "protecting artists" and promoting creativity and put that rabid dog down for good. The damage their self-proclaimed "rights" do to society at large outweights by multiple orders of magnitude whatever good is being claimed.

Those who want pirated, gets them anyways

[LogicallyGenius]

Look at the cost of the legal media.

What XM should do ...

[argoff]

... is relocate their company in some offshore juristiction that isn't anal about copyrights, and then tell the RIAA to go to hell and rebroadcast whatever they desire to.
Even if the RIAA sues them to cut of their revenue stream, it's a big world out there and a billion people are starting to come on-line to the global economy. The RIAA will have more problems with this then XM will.

There's really only going to be one solution

[JudgeFurious]

  We're going to have to somehow convince the entire world to stop listening to music for however long it takes to kill these sons of bitches. There's no other completely effective solution.

Re:There's really only going to be one solution

[rpozz]

Let them continue with this crap and they will eventually kill their own business model. Nobody needs music, but they need your money. If they weren't so incredibly greedy, piracy problems could be resolved with prices of $5/CD and $0.50/track.

Re:There's really only going to be one solution

[Anonymous Coward]

No, then people will say, its only $5, or only $0.50, its not much money, they won't miss it.

Will someone please...

[Fahrvergnuugen]

Will someone please put a stop to this? Seriously, it's getting old.

Day after day we hear about how the RIAA is trying to revoke our fair use rights. Will someone please just slap them and tell them they're wrong?

Re:Will someone please...

[BLKMGK]

Actually it's FAR more likely that the *AAs of the world will buy enough legislators to revoke any "fair use" rights we may still have. It's honestly going to take consumers taking up torches and pitchforks to storm the castle before these guys get a clue. Eventually they will have screwed things up so badly that even Joe Average Consumer will run into issues and then all hell will break loose. I can hardly wait!

Re:Will someone please...

[NewStarRising]

Are you volunteering?

Seriously, there are enough of us here (and elsewhere) who disagree with what the RIAA are doing ... why is no-one doing much about it?

As we all know, if we want to put a stop to their activities, they must find it more profitable to do something else.

The RIAA are beholden to their member companies, who are beholden to their shareholders, who are in it for the $$$.

Convincing the companies that the RIAA tactics are losing money for their shareholders is the only way to alter their tactics.

Re:Will someone please...

[Fahrvergnuugen]

Are you volunteering?

Sure, count me in. What exactly are we going to do?

1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRadio

[digitaldc]

What is the difference between taping a song off the radio and creating an Mp3 from radio? Please, someone tell me because I am confused.
I would like someone from the RIAA to address why they need to go this route.
You can buy a CD, copy it, rip it and give it away...is this a violation too? Or can you only give it to someone who already owns it? (doesn't make sense)

STOP

[CSHARP123]

I have stopped listening to music altogether. I have acquired a new skill of singing. My wife and children have not sued me yet.

Re:STOP

[the eric conspiracy]

In related news the Patent Office has awarded Patent # 6,234,113 which claims "Use of human vocal cords as transducers for the production of musical works" to the RIAA.

Re:STOP

[JustNiz]

...But if you sing anything other than your own compositions to them, then you would need to pay performance royalties.

Re:STOP

[digitaldc]

The RIAA is furiously researching this musical outburst, they are contacting their lawyers to see if there is some way they can sue for this too.

Re:STOP

[Anonymous Coward]

...and if you record your own singing performance on cassette tape or "music CD", you're paying the RIAA. They get a royalty, even if the song is one your kid wrote.

"Ve have many ways of making you pay."

Re:STOP

[rk87]

For those of you that didn't get the joke - ubersoft.net

Re:STOP

[TheRaven64]

I think, fortunately, that Opera have prior art.

No Case

[mysqlrocks]

Even if the conflict winds up in court, Crockett said in his report he did not believe such a suit would succeed because fair use laws allow users to record songs for their own use.

They know they don't have a case. They're just trying to drum enough publicity to get some legislation done that would help further their control. It's all about money. If you can't earn it, steal it. But I guess it's not theft if you are a multi-billion dollar company.

How long?

[mmdog]

How long will it be I wonder before the RIAA as an entity falls by the wayside? It seems to me that their tactics are getting more and more aggressive, which I take as an indication that they are scared. I just hope it's not too long.

me thinks

[meatbridge]

that someone should organize a "buy no music day" or better yet a "buy no music week" to remind the RIAA that they aren't holding all the cards. of coarse they'd probably blame the drop in record sales on the late peer to peer networks.

Same argument as the VCR

[ploafmaster general]

Seems to me that these XM recording devices are rather like having a VCR for your radio. If it's legal for consumers to time-shift their television entertainment by recording it, why shouldn't the same apply to radio?

Re:Same argument as the VCR

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "PLOAF," not "P-LOAF." Ask about it.

Okay. I'm asking. PLOAF?

Re:Same argument as the VCR

[Anonymous Coward]

The game here is to convince the public that recording in general, for any reason, is illegal (or barring that, at least immoral). That makes it easier to get laws changed since the general opinion will already be where the media companies would like the laws to be.

VCR recording is allowed now, but the object here is to make people forget that by pretending that ruling doesn't exist. Treat every media form as different and force the same battle to be fought over and over and over again. Eventually, you win by attrition, if nothing else.

Re:Same argument as the VCR

[fury88]

Actually I own the Pioneer XM2Go receiver. The recording quality is fair at best. RIAA just does not make sense at all. Why bother suing people for recording quality that is not CD? It's SO obvious they are just clutching at straws now as a last ditch effort. They are messing with the wrong people too.. I own 1000+ CD's.

Re:Same argument as the VCR

[ploafmaster general]

Alright, you asked, so you're in for a mundane story now... I used to play Bungie's Myth/Myth 2 with some buddies when I was in High School, and we encountered another order in online play with the simple monicker of "PLOAF". We thought it was hilarious, and repeatedly asked them what the name meant, but with nary an answer. So we started using the word for anything - any part of speach, any meaning. I put it on my ole' car's license plate once, too. Why am I the ploafmaster? Well, I suppose that's because I kept using the word, and become known for it in my social circles during college. Later, during a random search on the interwebness, I was disheartened to discover that the original name from that Myth Order was shorthand for "The Pimento Loafers." Bastards. To me, it's the same as it ever was, though.

Re:Same argument as the VCR

[1ucius]

Ultimately, there is a specific, 4-factor balancing test for deciding whether something is or is not a fair use. The ScT held that timeshifting commercial tv broadcasts could be a fair use -- largely because the timeshifting did not harm the copyright owners. It's at least possible that the balancing test could come differently when the copyright's owner is harmed by the recording.

One day...

[Anonymous Coward]

One day they will sue themselves... and they will implode.
Hail that day.

Re:One day...

[Guppy06]

I'm pretty sure Sony makes an XM receiver.

And cassette tapes killed the radio industry too

[loraksus]

This single minded "money, money money" mantra is begining to get a bit old.

privilege

[anonieuweling]

The ability to record for private use off `the radio` is an old privilege. Currently we (in Europe?) even pay (!) for the media on which we store those recordings. So the **AA can go away. They have no foot to stand on. $$$ is already paid, eventhough that very same media can be used for non-**AA involved uses. (as your own photo's, Linux downloads, etc)

Late to the game

[Bastian]

I think the RIAA has missed the train. If they wanted to stop this, they should have started way back when electronics started including tape recorders with their home stereo equipment.

The thing I don't get...

[MacGod]

The biggest thing that I don't get about the RIAA's tactics of late (lawsuits and so on) is why they don't expend more effort and more money on combating pirated CDs in China/Brazil/etc. I'm not saying that downloading or illegal copying in North America is any "better", but the problem with duplicated CDs just seems so much bigger. My only guess is one of three things:

1) They are going after CD-duplicating pirates in Asia/S. America et al. and we just don't hear about it

2) They think that the battle against downloaders (and now satellite radio) is more "winnable"

3) (The jaded, cynical option) They know that the markets where illegal dupes are sold don't have any money to buy the real deal with, so they look at it as advertising. Whereas North American consumers do have money, and the RIAA thinks that if they can get people to stop downloading (HA!) then people will just go back to buying CDs.

Re:The thing I don't get...

[sheddd]

The biggest thing that I don't get about the RIAA's tactics of late (lawsuits and so on) is why they don't expend more effort and more money on combating pirated CDs in China/Brazil/etc.

Lawyers 1st rule:
Look for the money

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad

[southpolesammy]

ObDisclaimer: I am not a radio engineer or even terribly knowledgable in this field, but I did stay...eh nevermind....

Radio broadcasts are analog transmissions and are therefore subject to signal degradation. Satellite broadcasts are digital and although you may get a loss of signal from time to time, the signal integrity should be maintained otherwise. Therefore, SatRadio has the potential to deliver near perfect quality transmissions, and that's what has the RIAA concerned.

Making new Red Tape

[Miaomiao]

This sounds almost exactly like the old problem the mpaa and the riaa had with "recordable tapes" and "vhs tapes" ages ago.

Since then they've put it off saying it's analog, so not perfect so fine, but it's digital so this is a giant case of deja-vu.

This has very little to do with downloadable content, and is a rehashing of old laws where fair use is established. What everyone should wait for is, will previous court rulings be preserved? Or will rights of people in the states be overridden in favor of the corporations?

The MPAA/RIAA might not be able to really stop free internet downloading completely, or the more major problem of cd-copying, or even people just recording shows off of tv/radio, but they can make all of these a royal pain to do with lots of legal red tape.

So let me get this straight...

[8127972]

......The RIAA Overlords don't like the recording of XM and Sirrus radio even though fair use likely allows this?

What crack are they smoking and why aren't they sharing it with the rest of us? It's clearly some good stuff as they are totally out to lunch on this one.

I'll buy this one

[AviLazar]

Yea radio is nice, but me listening to the radio does not give me the right to own a copy of the music. So I can understand why the RIAA will want to go after satellite radio to have them remove these mp3 capabilities. Some people will say "but we have had tape decks in radio's for years" - yes but the quality is different. A tape copy of radio is a far cry from a digital copy.

Just because we do not like the RIAA does not make them wrong each and every single time.

Re:I'll buy this one

[clambake]

Yea radio is nice, but me listening to the radio does not give me the right to own a copy of the music.

Really? How much did the radios station pay the public for taking up a HUGE swatch of the EM band? Free, you say? So what are we getting in return then?

Re:I'll buy this one

[qwp]

Just because of quality doesn't remove the clauses for fair use.
I have never seen anything saying if you loose 1/2 the quality it is ok to record copywritten work. Although i have seen it written that it is perfectly ok to record copywritten work for your own entertainment. (Betamax).

So where do you get this whole justification about quality?
Besides, you could always record a record at perfect analog quality.

Re:I'll buy this one

[CupBeEmpty]

The only problem is that the "Fair Use" exception to copyright law DOES allow us to have a copy. It is exactly the same as going to the library renting a book with a picture of Mount Fuji and then copying it and putting it on the tack board near your desk. If you were really stringent about fair use you would provide a complete reference to the work. Also it must be completely for personal use... no sharing or selling. It is the same as recording TV with VHS or TiVO. No one is gearing up to sue Comcast because they provide cable service that makes it possible to record digital copies of TV shows.

Re:I'll buy this one

[zoomba]

Actually, the right to record off the radio for personal, non-commercial uses, is protected as fair use.

Re:I'll buy this one

[romeo_in_blk_jeans]

What I see here is a promotion of a double standard. How exactly is time shifting on TIVO any different whatsoever from time shifting an XM broadcast? If you already have the right to time shift tv shows on digital media, it's clearly a trivial problem to extend that logic to time shifting music on digital media. I'm not saying you have a right to own it just because you can record it. Technically, you don't. Owning a copy of your {tv show, xm broadcast} is an inevitable side effect of time shifting. How exactly am I supposed to record a TV show without making a copy that I could, potentially, distribute?

Re:I'll buy this one

[AviLazar]

Really? How much did the radios station pay the public for taking up a HUGE swatch of the EM band? Free, you say? So what are we getting in return then?

The public does not own the airwaves, the government does - there is a difference. But it gives a lot of people a warm fuzzy feeling to hear that the airwaves are public.

The radio stations are also under some heavy restrictions. They need to do emergency braodcasts at the drop of a hat, they need to give time every hour (and i think temperature). There are many things the radio companies HAVE to give to the public in their broadcasts.

Then again, you are not getting charged anything - but the radio companies are generatting tax revenue, promoting local and non-local bands which make those bands money, which generates tax revenue. They are making jobs. And as for payment - they run a lot of contests, which gets people money and prizes.

The radio companies do pay the government to have radio operating licenses. So they are paying.
You cannot oversimplify this.

You are allowed to own a ham radio --- how much are you paying?

Re:I'll buy this one

[BVis]

Fair use?

Why do you hate America?

Re:I'll buy this one

[AviLazar]

Actually, the right to record off the radio for personal, non-commercial uses, is protected as fair use.

And the RIAA is not sueing the individual owner of these satellite radio/mp3 players - they are going after a company that is producing these devices...a company that has a contract with members of the RIAA.

Re:I'll buy this one

[zoomba]

Huh?

Re:I'll buy this one

[Morrolan]

Quality difference between a tape copy from the airwaves and a mp3 copy from a satellite radio are irrelevant...
What you meant to say is that it is quite alright to copy the music, you just have to listen to it on a crappy player or with crappy speakers/headphones.
Perhaps you meant to say that only hearing impaired people can legally listen to the mp3 copies...

Re:I'll buy this one

[BVis]

+1 Sarcasm :)

Re:I'll buy this one

[Anonymous Coward]

"The public does not own the airwaves, the government does - there is a difference. "

One that escaped your definition. The government does not own the airwaves, it holds them in trust for the public who do. Big difference. The government is us, or was when it was a representative republic/democracy/pick your poison. Why people are so intent on treating them as substitute king and ruler is beyond me.

Re:I'll buy this one

[Guysmiley777]

Nice argument, you tool. But digital copies of satellite radio's compressed audio is as bad (or worse) than an analog copy of an FM broadcast.

Re:I'll buy this one

[AviLazar]

Nice argument, you tool

My g/f agree's with you, I am a tool. But she enjoy's it more then you do.

Re:I'll buy this one

[SnowDog_2112]

I never say this, but mod parent up. The government doesn't own the airwaves -- you and I do. We empower and entrust the government to regulate them for us.

This reminds me of south park episode...

[SolitaryMan]

When they tried to stop "wallmart" by just not bying

Good idea, I think, but impossible to implement.

Re:This reminds me of south park episode...

[j0e_average]

Impossible to consistently implement on any level other than that of the individual.

For example, I have steadfastly decided not to:

1) Shop at Wal-Mart;
2) Buy any music CD;
3) Use any Microsoft product on my personal computer.

I'm not proclaiming this as a way of saying "Look at me!" I've just made a conscious decision that as a consumer, I have a choice where my money goes, and I'm making that choice.

If enough people feel the same way as me, they may choose to make similar choices and the market will respond. If not, I still feel that my choices are right for me.

Re:This reminds me of south park episode...

[jedidiah]

As a general rule of thumb I try to avoid any 800lb gorilla in any market. I also try to avoid buying too much from one particular francise or megacorp. This heuristic wraps up your three rules into a single one.

        It's always in my own interests to maintain some diversity in the market. It needs to be there just for the health of the economy, nevermind the personal benefits.

Re:This reminds me of south park episode...

[Anonymous Coward]

This heuristic wraps up your three rules into a single one.

Yes, it does! I like it!

Re:This reminds me of south park episode...

[MightyYar]

For example, I have steadfastly decided not to:

1) Shop at Wal-Mart;
2) Buy any music CD;
3) Use any Microsoft product on my personal computer.

Arrrrr, matey, I have a similar philosophy, except mine is more piratey - shiver me timbers. I will not PAY for an RIAA recording (I still buy independents)... occasionally I will also buy a used recording, since they get no revenue. Microsoft, similarly, gets used but not paid for, though they are making this increasingly hard. When it hits a certain threshold they will not get any use at all.

How do I justify this? I don't - instead I don't have any morality issues with non-profit piracy. I come from a long line of pirates. My father bought two VCRs so that we could record all of our rented videos. I still have a pile of them somewhere.

Wal-Mart? I'm not a hater. I live in the city so I don't see what the big deal is, but I understand people who like the small downtowns of yore could get quite upset. Don't worry, all companies rise and fall. I suspect the driving culture has spawned Wal-Mart, and when it falls so will they.

Apparently the RIAA has never heard of...

[HeadCrash]

... a magical little thing called a "Tape Recorder". Or at the very least a "Line Out Jack". I mean, yeah, the quality of XM/Sirius is CD-level so the comparison to taping plain old OTA radio is a bit weak, but it still applies.

I figure eventually the RIAA is going ot end up suing everyone on the planet, including its own members. Such is the insanity of the corporate world...

Re:Apparently the RIAA has never heard of...

[Powercntrl]

I mean, yeah, the quality of XM/Sirius is CD-level so the comparison to taping plain old OTA radio is a bit weak, but it still applies.

Actually, the sound quality of XM is pretty bad compared to FM through a decent quality tuner. And no, this isn't he CD vs Vinyl argument either. You don't need "golden ears" to tell the difference, just a reasonable set of speakers. XM's audio streams are highly compressed. You're probably confusing XM and Sirius with the "audio only" channels of Dish Network and DirecTV. Those actually are near-CD quality.

There's quite a few threads on AudioAsylum about sat. radio quality (or lack thereof).

Re:Apparently the RIAA has never heard of...

[b1t r0t]

... a magical little thing called a "Tape Recorder". Or at the very least a "Line Out Jack". I mean, yeah, the quality of XM/Sirius is CD-level so the comparison to taping plain old OTA radio is a bit weak, but it still applies.

I guess they forgot about the Line Out Jack after home taping killed the record industry back in the '80s. Yeah, that must be it.

Re:Apparently the RIAA has never heard of...

[MightyYar]

"I mean, yeah, the quality of XM/Sirius is CD-level so the comparison to taping plain old OTA radio is a bit weak, but it still applies."

All of this quality talk is just BS anyway. Most people are perfectly happy with the quality of FM. How many years did we listen to crappy cassette tapes of the radio? My car was full of them. Fact is, in a car or on headphones (which is where most people listen to music), it doesn't much matter what the source is.

I seriously doubt that the average iPodder is going to notice the difference between an mp3 that came straight from CD and one that went through a D to A conversion first. Hell, with a good setup I probably couldn't tell.

I used to record FM to my Hi-Fi VCR and then make mix cassette tapes from that source. Hi-Fi VHS is nearly indistinguishable from CD to my ear.

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad

[linuxpng]

This one is funnier.. With satellite radio you are already paying for the music and the service. I guess they want you to continue to pay twice.

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad

[*weasel]

What is the difference between taping a song off the radio and creating an Mp3 from radio?

In short: quality levels. According to the rulings.

I would like someone from the RIAA to address why they need to go this route.

Read up on how they basically killed internet radio stations. It's the same argument.

You can buy a CD, copy it, rip it and give it away...is this a violation too?

You can legally make backup copies, and convert its format for personal use.
Ripping it to mp3 counts as such a copy. Making mp3s from discs you own is legal.

Or can you only give it to someone who already owns it? (doesn't make sense)

You can 'loan' it to other people. You can't gift it to them. Gifting is distribution and thereby civil copyright infringment. (if you charge for it, you're on the way to criminal infringement.)

How old is this problem?

[jimcooncat]

The record industry ... believes the recording capability [of satellite radio receivers] is a clear copyright violation and could take revenue away from paid download music services.

Point 1: Recording capabilities don't violate copyright, people do.

Point 2: No, they can't have my 15 year old clock/radio with built-in cassette recorder.

Point 3: I'm sure they receive some whopping royalty on the blank cassette media I buy in the five-for-a-buck package.

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad

[justforaday]

What makes you think the record industry didn't try to villainize tape when it first came out?

I suggest someone patent

[g0bshiTe]

2 business models

The first being the practice of suing based on made up figures claiming lost revenues from technology similar to what's been around for years.

The second would be the business model of essentially spam lawsuits, whereby your business would supeana tons of people naming them as defendants in a lawsuit claiming false copyright violation and hoping they settle out of court.

You could then charge the RIAA and MPAA lisencing fees.

In other news

[djupedal]

...the RIAA's main offices in North Hollywood, California were broken into early Friday morning, but the smell aparently was too much for the burglers, who were both found dead at the scene.

When asked about cause of death, the Coroner shrugged and said "I'd guess the poor crooks were dead before they hit the floor... I'm used to the smell of death, but this place seems to have a corner on the market."

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad

[digitaldc]

So I see, a minute quality (de)gradation is the justification for making it illegal to record.
Using this rationale, then anyone recording HDTV (rather than a regular signal) should be sued too?

arrgghh!!!!

[advocate_one]

I've got this box on my bedside table at home, it's some 25 years old, it has a radio receiver, and twin cassette decks... I could/can record anything I want off the radio and make copies of them... what is the fscking problem with these guys??? the satellite radio is no greater in fidelity than an ordinary FM receiver... it's potentially less in fidelity as far as I can recall... and the MP3s you can record off it are unlikely to match the fidelity of my cassette recordings either...

Can't see the wood for the trees

[Boiling_point_]

I was always taught that the music industry needed airplay (spaceplay?) as a primary marketing activity. If they make it uneconomical for radio to exist, what position does that leave them in to attract new listeners?

I guess they'd be the only ones that could afford their own fees so they'd have to set up their own radio replacement facility to communicate with the public. Then they don't even need payola, it's one big commercial for themselves.

Odd thought.

Nothing to see

[tbannist]

This is just more of the new RIAA business model, threaten to sue their customers so that they can jack prices up to compensate for falling sales.

The sales are falling because they suck, but admitting that would get the heads of the RIAA companies fired, so they've got to blame someone new every year.

This is a problem seeking solution

[Pan T. Hose]

How hard would it be develop a system (we are talking about digital via-satelite broadcasting multimedia after all) that would automaticly count the songs recorded by any given user and then split a number X proportionally to the number of listenings/recordings ratio (weighted averages) where X would be a monthly license fee. This is a satelite radio that might potentionally interfere with global radio field spanning across multiple juristictions so it is fair to exclude it from the god given rights to listen/record that would otherwise be unalienable in the case of plain old radio.

We and most importantly the RIAA members have to understand that satelite is not a local ground radio station. Both the technical, economical and legal implications are completely different and our collective attitude towards that technology must be as rational as it possibly can.

We have to explain it to our less savvy peers, for they are the ones who make the difference when it comes to voting. That is how a pure democracy works.

Sick to Death

[platypibri]

I'm VERY much a "fair play", "do the right thing" kind of guy. So I am a bit surprised by the level of searing hatred I am developing for the RIAA. I guess they'd only really be satisfied if all of our listening devices were coin-op (or maybe dollar-op?).
The truth is that most of us have lived ALL of our lived being assaulted by music at every turn. Restaurants, stores, outdoor events, commercials.... We are used to having it everywhere and NOW they think we should pay for it all. In parenting, we are taught (those of us who were taught) that you need shelter your children when they are young, because when they become teenagers, it's impossible to "clamp down" on them if you let them have total freedom before that. Same concept. You can't give it away all our lives and then try to clamp down because you don't like the technology. As wrong as I think it is, the file sharing rebellion is a fairly natural expression in the wake of the new "out of nowhere" RIAA oppression. When all avenues are exhausted, I'm sure you'll have some rebels burning hundreds of copies of CDs and leaving them on street corners just out of resentment.
The RIAA should instead focus on those of us who have been buyers of music all our lives, and start trying to make us VERY happy so we KEEP buying. Messing with XM radio and the iTunes pricing schedule is a good way to make me sympathetic to pirates.

Re:Sick to Death

[Obsi]

MOD PARENT UP. Q. F. T.

From the RIAA site...

[djupedal]

Audio Home Recording Act: This 1992 legislation exempts consumers from lawsuits for copyright violations when they record music for private, noncommercial use and eases access to advanced digital audio recording technologies. The law also provides for the payment of modest royalties to music creators and copyright owners, and mandates the inclusion of the Serial Copying Management Systems in all consumer digital audio recorders to limit multi-generational audio copying (i.e., making copies of copies). This legislation will also apply to all future digital recording technologies, so Congress will not be forced to revisit the issue as each new product becomes available.

Re:From the RIAA site...

[trezor]

the inclusion of the Serial Copying Management Systems in all consumer digital audio recorders to limit multi-generational audio copying (i.e., making copies of copies). This legislation will also apply to all future digital recording technologies, so Congress will not be forced to revisit the issue as each new product becomes available.

How nice of the RIAA to provide congress with instructions that doesn't require renewal for every new gadget that enters the market. I mean, you shouldn't exhaust your servants either.

Re:From the RIAA site...

[Alistar]

Yea, except they aren't going after the consumers in this one.

They are trying to stop the technology from being deployed, not stop the use of said technology.

Tape recorders

[dacarr]

Didn't they try this when tape recorders were first released to the general public back in...oh, I don't know, the 1970s? Or even predate that with 4- and 8-track recorders for home use - go back to the 1960s. Maybe somebody older than me (I was born around the time Nixon resigned) can enlighten me here.

I'm beginning to think

[niiler]

that the RIAA is really a giant money sucking leech. Consider:

• They illegally trespass onto people's computers in clear violation of a number of statutes in order to further their bottom lines
• When offered exonerating evidence, they refuse to consider it as this might cut into profits
• They want to sue anyone who has the means to play something that could possibly be copyright (whether to them or not, it doesn't matter)
• They want to prevent things from going into the public domain and thereby enclose the digital commons
• And...for the kicker, they actually produce....nothing. Rather, they front money for other people to do work while getting paybacks that make usurers like the credit card companies look like angels. Artists make like 1% of the net?

If these folks aren't leeches and a detriment to our society, then I don't know what is.

Re:I'm beginning to think

[Anonymous Coward]

Radio NEVER has had to pay RIAA. Radio broadcasts were deemed "public performance" and had to pay their licenses to BMI/ASCAP/SESAC (the performance royalty companies). In fact, all these royalties RIAA has demanded from satellite radio, web radio, etc. Are completely new previously unheard of royalties. And it's all based on "caching". For instance, you play music over the web. Your PC "buffers" the stream. RIAA made a case saying the buffering is a recording and therefore they need to be paid.

Going after sattelite radio?

[Psx29]

Does this mean they are going to go after those music only tv channels that are carried by most major cable/sattelite tv companies as well?

RIAA against concerts

[the_2nd_coming]

The RIAA has decided that concerts are too much of a threat to their revenues because of the ability of people to record the performance and trade it on-line. Any Rock star that performs in a public venue will be sued.

Re:RIAA against concerts

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA has decided that concerts are too much of a threat to their revenues because of the ability of people to record the performance and trade it on-line. Any Rock star that performs in a public venue will be sued.

You need to email the RIAA and notify them of this oversight immediately!

It's only a matter of time...

[Chabil Ha']

It's only a matter of time before the RIAA implodes. The more they push, the more people are going to be fed up with their scare tactics, extortion, and blatant abuse of those trying to innovate the way music is broadcasted to the world.

The opportunity is widening for a record company to form that gets *good* music together under a banner that benefits primarily the consumer and the artist, without the pimp and whore attitude the RIAA has.

Re:It's only a matter of time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Google Music!!

Re:It's only a matter of time...

[tarogue]

Your assertion is based on the assumption that a majority (or even a significant minority) are aware of what the RIAA is doing. If it's not on the front page, the sports page, or the comics page, most people won't even know it's happenning. Until it affects JQ Public directly, he won't even notice it happenning to his neighbor. Such is the attention span of pretty much everyone in the world.

Re:And cassette tapes killed the radio industry to

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you've gotten it wrong the mantra is "MONEY, MONEY, MONEY... MONEY"; You really must get yer facts correct :)

Grokster comes back to bite us.

[Jaywalk]

The Supreme Court changed the rules and the RIAA is trying to use it to prop up their broken business model. As Lawrence Lessig observes, the old rule was that a technology was okay if it had "significant non-infringing uses." But, in the Grokster ruling, they ruled that Grokster was illegal because it was the service was "promoting" infringement. The RIAA apparently figures this is their license to go after any technology which does not promote their business model.

Re:Grokster comes back to bite us.

[minerat]

Why is this modded so high? It may be interesting, but it certainly isn't correct.

Grokster wasn't rulled illegal - the judges never made a ruling on that. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios%2C_Inc._v ._Grokster%2C_Ltd.
"None of the opinions said definitely whether or not Grokster did induce infringement or whether Grokster was liable."

Finally, a reason for me to consider satellite rad

[Anonymous Coward]

I never cared for the idea of paying for the radio. I have free terrestrial radio, CDs, and an internet connection (and lots of local bands with free and/or cheap music), why should I pay for something I already have for free?

But if the RIAA hates them I love them. I should subscribe!

Frm TFA: "Major labels argue radio subscribers can use new portable devices to illegally download songs"

I have news for the RI Ass A: I can "illegally download" songs from my free terrestrial radio! In fact, my CD of Rush's Farewell To Kings (among others) was recorded on tape from terrestrial FM, then later (20 years later) sampled and burned. And guess what? It sounds better than MP3! Sure, it's not true CD quality but neither is an MP3.

"The music industry is an important partner..."

Well hell, I guess I won't be buying a satellite radio after all.

Someone PLEASE shoot all RIAA employees and burn their buildings to the ground? Thank you!

A Month Without Buying Music

[schmedley]

Or better yet, a year!

I had a house fire last winter that destroyed all my CDs and mp3s. My insurance company reimbursed me for the losses but I refuse to give the RIAA a freakin penny so I haven't bought a single disc or download (nor have I "liberated" any toons). Each month I get income from the insurance settlement too. So I'm getting paid to F the RIAA, woohoo!

Sad thing is I'm sure it wont be long before they pass a law requiring insurance loss reimbursements for music be spent on new music or forfeited to the RIAA. Hell, with the legislative fire sale going on in DeeCee it wont take but a few weeks for them to buy a hoard of rethuglican lawmakers and make their wildest dreams come true.

Compassionate Conservatism = government by the highest bidder.

Re:A Month Without Buying Music

[ostermei]

If you really wanna kick the RIAA in the teeth, buy some independent music. That'll let 'em know that you're still more than willing to buy music... just not theirs. Allow me to give you a few recommendations to get you started:

• The Decemberists {VERY highly recommended)
• Bloc Party
• Iron & Wine
• The Postal Service
• Fruit Bats
• Andrew Bird
• Los Straitjackets
• Neko Case
• Astaire
• Damien Rice
• Harvey Danger (in case you missed the story on them here a couple days back about them releasing their latest CD as a completely free download... OGG format and all!)

And I'm sure you probably know about it already, but just in case, you can check out the RIAA Radar to verify if a band/artist is part of the problem or not.

(And if any of you are following along at home, yes... this is basically the same as the last post I made on /. :)

The solution

[VincenzoRomano]

RIAA has in mind the one and only solution:
1. prevent any broadcasting, podcasting and streaming and
2. prevent anything that can record and reproduce the performances they need to sqeeze revenues from.

But I'm not sure this will solve the problem once and forever.

RIAA vs World

[springbox]

Following their string of unsuccessful attempts to protect their intellectual property from mostly low profile targets, the Recording Industry Association of America has decided to take the world to court.

"It's the next logical step to protecting our artists," said Joe Leecher, a spokesman for the RIAA, "While not everyone is guility of infringing on our copyrighted material, most are. Who can you trust these days? People have this crazy idea that just because they paid for a plastic disc that gives them the right to copy its data and listen to it on other electronics that they might own. It's outrageous!"

This case, which is scheduled to be filed with the US Supreme Court early next week, follows the RIAA's other pursuits including suing individuals for not paying royalities for repeadetly listening to songs in their mind and their unsuccessful launch of the self destructing play once audio CD. Many outspoken critics of the RIAA have already simontaneously voiced their concerns making the loudest "what the fuck?" heard around the entire planet.

Can the record industry live...? Oh yes.

[Chordonblue]

Don't buy. Right. While you're at it, don't go to any movies that might have RIAA music as part of the soundtrack and don't go to any store that might have a radio playing RIAA music.

LICENSING! That's how the RIAA will out-survive all of us. Even if the entire CD industry collapses, the RIAA will still have licensing rights to all that music. Clearly, the RIAA needs some form of regulation as they are a true monopoly with no real competitors. While we're at it, some clarification on copyright might be in order as well.

The RIAA amazes me because they went from an organization that few but musicians even heard of to one of the most reviled organizations on the planet and... They don't CARE! I guess they don't have to do they?

Re:Can the record industry live...? Oh yes.

[billcopc]

Licensing isn't going to fly very high buddy. If retail sales dropped 50% overnight, you'd see a lot of artists going "Hey WTF" because they would be making ZERO. In many cases the label fronts you the money to record/produce your album, and then recoup the loan off the initial sales. If you don't sell enough to break even, you basically worked for free.

If the artists stop making profits, the artists stop making MUSIC. If the artists stop making music then the RIAA no longer has a product to throw around. No self-respecting artist is going to record solely for licensed playback unless he's a Kenny G or something. The big incentive for signing movie soundtracks is that you get broad visibility and easier entry into the charts. I'd say Evanescence got their big break thanks to the Daredevil movie, as did many others. Yeah the movie kind of sucked, but at least the music was catchy ;)

Re:Can the record industry live...? Oh yes.

[xystren]

Licensing isn't going to fly very high buddy. If retail sales dropped 50% overnight, you'd see a lot of artists going "Hey WTF" because they would be making ZERO. In many cases the label fronts you the money to record/produce your album, and then recoup the loan off the initial sales. If you don't sell enough to break even, you basically worked for free.

And if retail sales dropped off 50%, the RIAA would be the first to cry "FOUL" look what P2P has done to our profits!!!! Mind you, they already are crying this river, yet are still posting record (pardon the pun) profits.

What I find more surprising, with all the cr&p that they are releasing now that their retail sales haven't dropped 50%. I haven't bought a CD now for probably now 5 years. I don't want to risk shelling out 15bux for 1 song and a bunch of other cr&p. Ahh well, at least my g/f still buys CDs often so I can hear the cr&p they are releasing...

Sigh.... I must be getting old now. I seem to only be listening to the classic rock stations, and [shudder] talk radio. The funny part is, I'm even enjoying TALK radio.

I never thought those words would have come out of my mouth.

I find it interesting, that virtually every store you go into, all the CDs from the different publishers, all cost the same? Could one cry "Price Fixing"???? Granted it's up to the retail outlet to set the price, but, even still, if I go to a hardware store, and pick out two of the same type hammers (same weight, size, intended use) from two different manufacturers, odds are they will be a different price (say Stanley or Craftsman).

Things that make you go Hmmmmm.........[sorry RIAA, I didn't mean to violate CR there]

Re:Can the record industry live...? Oh yes.

[MightyYar]

"If the artists stop making profits, the artists stop making MUSIC."

Music has existed for as long as humans have existed, and probably was being made by our ancestors. Music will continue to exist long after our current civilization has fallen.

No if you want to talk quantity of music, sure, quantity would decline. Quality? That depends on your impression of what gets played on the radio now. Personally I don't think it could possibly decline unless they started murdering cats on-air, but my wife quite likes the current hits - so there you go. I'm all for killing the RIAA.

Re:Can the record industry live...? Oh yes.

[uncqual]

Don't buy. Right. While you're at it, don't go to any movies that might have RIAA music as part of the soundtrack and don't go to any store that might have a radio playing RIAA music.

A person's decision not to buy personal copies of RIAA "taxed" music doesn't mean that they must avoid all places where such music is heard. It is perfectly principled to make a decision to behave in this way. Indeed, it is even very logical - if everyone acted this way, stores wouldn't play the RIAA music (no one would recognize it) and movie producers would not use RIAA music (they would seek deals with independents since RIAA artists would be unknown).

Re:Can the record industry live...? Oh yes.

[billcopc]

Ok let me rephrase: the artists will keep making music, they just won't be selling it through the conventional methods.

The "noise makers", aka the people who have no redeeming values other than pretending to sing and showing off some cleavage, they will vanish, back to the smelly murky depths of McDonalds drive-thru and suburban strip joints.

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad

[Prospero's Grue]

What is the difference between taping a song off the radio and creating an Mp3 from radio? Please, someone tell me because I am confused.

As others have said, it's only an issue of medium and quality. I've been recording mp3s off my FM radio for quite some time now. Some music, mostly CBC documentaries and late-night OTR variety shows, actually. So, they're 96k - instead of 128/192k - but you can't beat the price!

Not materially different than recording a TV show then keeping a copy, in my opinion.

And yes, the recordings are for my own use. I do not distribute.

Modest Proposal

[rlp]

Here's a suggestion for the RIAA - replace all current music distribution channels with the following:

When you wish to listen to music, you proceed to an RIAA sponsored Listening Center that will be located in most major cities. You wait in a convenient line and then purchase a ticket specfiying which music selections you wich to listen to. After a brief detour through a metal detector and s search for recording devices by courteous staff (former mob enforcers), you proceed to an individual soundproof listening chamber. In the chamber, you are permitted to listen to each musical selection one time. Afterwards, you're free to leave provided you sign a legal document stating that you will not hum or sing any of the songs you've just heard.

Re:Modest Proposal

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, while they're at it, they can contract Ticket Master to sell the tickets and *they* get to charge their customeray 25% of the ticket price for "convenience".

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad

[killmenow]

You can't gift it to them. Gifting is distribution and thereby civil copyright infringment.

So, it's a copyright violation for me to go into Media Play and purchase the new Fiona Apple CD to give to my sister for her birthday?

Then, according to the Grokster test, does that make Media Play liable also as they encourage and actively promote this type of gifting activity?

Wow ... a whole new untapped revenue stream for the RIAA ... suing their retailers.

RIAA Serves Their Purpose

[erroneus]

The RIAA (and the MPAA and the BSA and all those similar organizations) exist for the very purpose they are acting on in these stories.

If we want to rid ourselves of their existance, we should #1 appeal to their members that they are not acting in the 'industry's best interests' and #2 appeal to the government(s) that these organizations exist to do nothing less than to act a singular means by which large entities are made into a single larger entity by which legal muscle is used to bully and intimidate individual consumers into unfair settlements and otherwise abuse the legal system to their own ends.

These abusive organizations should be striken down completely. If individuals need to protect their interests, they should be required to protect them individually just as individuals are required to defend themselves individually.

Re:RIAA Serves Their Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this RIAA fight has to be taken to the next level: appeal to the RIAA members directly. Use persuasion, coercion, shame, and whatever else. It will eventually stigmatize the members to be openly called RIAA members. That's the only sensible democratic approach to work in the long run. Legal, political, economic, and social arguments can only work up to their natural limits.

How about asking some prominent RIAA members about the organization's pursuit of little girls in court of law while we have enormous social injustices going unchecked?

Re:RIAA Serves Their Purpose

[fonetik]

Use persuasion, coercion, shame, and whatever else. It will eventually stigmatize the members to be openly called RIAA members.

Sounds like the same stuff that Scientology does against their enemies. Pretty effective. I'd think that it would just make them more anonymous, or they'd spin it to legitimize their stance. I think a better idea is to fight industry with industry. Make sure you support the hell out of XM and Sirius if they fight the good fight against the RIAA. They have very expensive lawyers with extemely thin watches to do the bashing for you.

Re:RIAA Serves Their Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

Radio NEVER has had to pay RIAA. Radio broadcasts were deemed "public performance" and had to pay their licenses to BMI/ASCAP/SESAC (the performance royalty companies). In fact, all these royalties RIAA has demanded from satellite radio, web radio, etc. Are completely new previously unheard of royalties. And it's all based on "caching". For instance, you play music over the web. Your PC "buffers" the stream. RIAA made a case saying the buffering is a recording and therefore they need to be paid.

Re:RIAA Serves Their Purpose

[cheaphomemadeacid]

<hide behind something very solid> time to strike a deal with all those terrorists? maybe THEY can take out the riaa? :=) </hide>

Cartel?

[CdBee]

I wasn't sure it was right when I heard of anti-cartel legislation being used against RIAA copyright-infringement suits but it sounds now like this industry body is becoming the collective negotiator for the formerly competing record industries

time was, they competed for airplay. Now they threaten those playing - and therefore promoting - their music

Why no one cares about the RIAA

[abenton]

I, for one, don't give a shit how big the RIAA is. They increasingly heckle and sue normal people for copyright violations for things they didnt even create. Its much the say entity as Credit Bureaus, where there was really no point in creating them BUT to make money. I mean, whoever invented Equifax decided on their own that they would monitor every purchase i make, and then CHARGE others to judge how i spend. The RIAA is just a money-hogging group of old-wealthy bastards. And i for one have no problem, while sitting in my apartment i barely make rent on, taking 18hrs of classes and working fulltime, ripping music and transferring it to a CD, harddrive, or my ipod. They will lose this battle as long as its 'big guy in mansions' vs 'hometown kids and single-family moms'. Its called common sense, i suggest the RIAA straightens their shit out

Haven't they heard of cassette tapes?

[Peter Trepan]

I've been recording songs off the radio since elementary school, and I was perfectly content to listen to cassette tapes before CDs existed. How is this qualitatively different?

The RIAA is powered by the naivete of musicians. I think this whole thing can only be solved when musical artists start seeing pop music as a hobby and not as a potential career. How many people do you know who make a living purely through their band, anyway? At least if they put their music in the public domain, they'd save themselves the trouble of attempting to play the fixed game of "getting discovered."

Re:Haven't they heard of cassette tapes?

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly

In related news...

[NotFamous]

Humming and whistling have been outlawed. Toe-tapping is still legal, except for the song "Wipeout". Resume normal transmission...

Understatement of the Century

[nightsweat]

"the RIAA is starting to overstep its bounds"

Re:Understatement of the Century

[Kranfer]

Heh. Well some things the RIAA has done I agree with. Stealing music is simply wrong. However, radio is free... if you want to record some staticy music with the possibility of random ads being on your CD why not? Hearing horrible quiality all the time will want you to buy the the album I would think.

Re:Understatement of the Century

[Anonymous Coward]

HA! Do you agree with their brainwashing campaign?

Well some things the RIAA has done I agree with. Stealing music is simply wrong.

Copyright Infringement is not Stealing.

Re:Understatement of the Century

[Kranfer]

As someone whose family recieved royalties from the music industry.... yes. Some of their campaign information I agree with. I don't agree with "stealing" music at all. However I don't like them trying to stop people from recording it when it is given to them through subscription. Its a slightly weird stance...

Don't worry, it's happening already

[lokedhs]

I know you were joking, but unfortunately reality caught up with you:

Apparently you can get sued for singing with the kids

Re:Don't worry, it's happening already

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for bringing me back to depressing reality. My Friday was far too shiny and happy.

The Last Battles..

[bahwi]

The Last Battles before their dying industry practices are all but useless.

Fight, or change? They've chosen Fight. And who can blame them? Change means less revenue. But Change, as we have always found out, is inevitable.

Even in the VoIP world with the FCC trying to pass new regulations to limit VoIP, some VoIP providers are going out there and becoming CLECs, and still continuing down that road. Change is inevitable, but you have to put up with the previous industry people's last battles.

Re:Finally, a reason for me to consider satellite

[Obsi]

New Meaning of RIAA:
Really Idiotic {Assholes | Asshats | Analretentives} of America

What about

[tacokill]

What about time-shifting? You assume that I am recording for archiving purposes. But I am not. I am recording so that I can go back 5 seconds and re-hear what Howard Stern actually said. I just didn't hear it clearly the first time.

Ever heard of tape boomboxes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you go sue sony, toshiba and the like for making those infringing devices (such as CD burners and XM tuners)...and while you're at it, come to my house and repo every device I've got that records media as well...rip out my tape decks, steal my cd burners, and don't forget to grab my brain and rip my lips off as you walk out the door, just in case I remember the tune and start humming it.

Friggin' idiots. End rant.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

brilliantly insightful...

interesting take

[ch-chuck]

published this week in theregister.co.uk , But it's a very phony war. The MPAA is only too happy to play the cartoon role the techno utopians have created for them, in a narrative dominated by fear, domination and control. Like small children playing a game of ghost, they've succeeded only in frightening the bejesus out of each other.

And this thoroughly dishonest debate - you could call it the artistic versus the autistic - is lopsided to begin with. It's Jack, not Larry, who has Sin City and Mean Streets. But only by taking the long view can you see how irrelevant both of their phony stances really are.

Re:interesting take

[prockcore]

Minor note in relation to this. I noticed that the Sin City DVD does *not* have any of your standard warnings on it. No FBI warning, no Interpol warning not even in french, nothing. It shows the Dimension logo and goes straight to the menu. Playing the movie goes straight to the movie.

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad

[Harlan879]

Nono, it's legal to give someone the original CD, and it's legal to rip the music and put it on your iPod and listen in the subway, and it's legal to let someone else listen to your iPod, but it's illegal to permanently give someone else the ripped music, either by burning a copy of the CD for them or by giving them the MP3.

Action to take

[Anonymous Coward]

I am ripping all 200 of my CDs and offering them as torrents, and on Kazaa with md5sum hashes to help others ensure validity on a separate website (linked, of course). I am also going to start creating a torrent and upload of every single track from those CDs with associated md5s.

No, that's not true. I only have maybe 10 CDs to my name and find that the regular radio has everything I want to listen to most of the time (except for specialty stuff that the RIAA probably doesn't control anyway). The best way to get rid of the RIAA is to kill them. How do you kill them? You write a nice letter to them telling them they have caused you to no-longer purchase CDs for two reasons. One, the current music available is generally crap and singles aren't available of the worthwhile stuff often enough. The CD medium is decades old and no longer the best option anyway. Second, their campaign against their customers is unethical, immoral, and does not engender love so it is worth falling back on free music just to keep them without money. This will have a couple quick results. First, musicians, capable of making money more-quickly through their own distribution methods (it's not that hard...all the music labels provide is a blowhorn with an increasingly-evil connotation) and start selling music on their own without giving money to music labels which then goes to the RIAA. That means we can buy music we want from people who aren't lawyers and probably believe in fair-use even though their former labels were so greedy they had to be contracted out of that belief. Second, the music labels lose money that would directly come from us (because of the described boycott) and then the RIAA dies because its membership fees (executives' souls, plus billions) is no-longer worth the price.

IMO music artists are given too much idol-like attention anyway. Some artists are indeed very good and deserve respect but the need to own entire CDs because of one track, or because an artist has a better choreographer than vocal instructor, or because of their looks, is insane. Music labels aren't selling music as it is and that is where their model has failed. Bouncing boy-bands and barely-clad bulemics are better material for equally-shallow media like [fill-in-any-worthless-magazine-or-tv-show here].

The RIAA will die, but we can help expedite the process today. You may think they have so much money that your vote doesn't make a difference and you would be as wrong as people thinking votes don't make a difference in elections. Take a stand today. Have a backbone worthy of your ancestors, country, beliefs, religion, friends.

Thoughts?

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad

[aesiamun]

You can't gift it to them. Gifting is distribution and thereby civil copyright infringment. (if you charge for it, you're on the way to criminal infringement.)

So does this mean that the copy of Vanilla Ice's new album that I gave my roommate was an illegal transaction? Wow...too bad i'll go to jail for a cd that is so terrible.

Coming soon...

[IcyNeko]

RIAA sues "Radio Stations" for transmitting "radio waves" containing music files which users can then "cache" in a cassette tape.

This is old news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Orbitcast.com talked about this a while ago.

The Samsung neXus and Sirius S50 won't allow for the copying of recorded content off of the units - so it's a non-issue.

Now, the RIAA will definitely up the costs of both satellite radio broadcasts, as well as for iTunes when the contracts expire. But that has absolutely nothing to do with these devices.... that has everything to do with the RIAA's greed.

Re:This is old news...

[ras31337]

How do you know the neXus and S50 won't let recorded content get copied? These receivers haven't even hit the market yet.

S50

[dr_dank]

Later this month, Sirius is coming out with their portable unit, the S50, that will be able to record 3 streams as well as store mp3s for portable listening. I think its a safe bet that the satellite radio recordings will be kept on a separate bank of flash chips that can't be accessed by the USB port or some other kind of proprietary format for the recorded programs.

The RIAA would have a fit if one could simply move the files onto the harddrive in an unencumbered format so easily.

what the fsck is with the RIAA?

[j-joshers]

They look at and sign a contract and then after a while they just decide the contract is utterly worthless and want a new one? This is unbelievable and insulting. It's funny how they claim to respect the law and then crap all over anyone who dares negotiate a contract with them (including the artists!).

Close . . .

[Rob the Bold]

In fact, all these royalties RIAA has demanded from satellite radio . . .[a]re completely new previously unheard of royalties. And it's all based on "caching".

I think the actual term for RIAA's practice is "cashing".

Re:Close . . .

[dotwaffle]

In the vain attempt at making their budget go "Ca-ching!".

Yeah, I used to call is ca-ching before I realised...

Don't sing "Happy Birthday" though....

[at_slashdot]

Make sure you don't sing Happy Birthday in public
http://www.unhappybirthday.com/

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad

[Lucractius]

Is that gifting them your copy or the original copy, since if i lose my copy and they find it and i never know thats hardly illegal ;)
and then theres the blatantly obvious problem of is buying a CD as a gift for someone illegal if any kind of transfer counts as distribution?

Isnt actual music downloads more of a threat?

[Wontsomebodypleaseth]

Isnt music downloads more of a threat such as Torrents or Gnutella than a radio tivo.... Shouldnt the RIAA be after say Torrentreactor.org or mininova.org than sirius???

This just in

[jeffasselin]

The American Congress has just voted, at the request of the RIAA, to outlaw biological recording devices from recording or reproducing any artistic performance distributed by a RIAA member. The law requires the government to hire "zombies" to remove any such biological recording devices left in the country.

A senator later declared: "We will not be deploying them in the Washington, D.C. area, as it's well known politicians and lobbyists don't possess or use such devices." RIAA executives are also perfectly safe, according to our sources.

"People were replaying our music inside their head, and even sometimes were 'humming' it aloud, which is a clear breach of our rights and should require payement of royalties. Since the current goverment's mind-control and mind-reading technologies aren't quite ready yet, we got this law passed to completely outlaw such biological recording devices." declared a RIAA spokesman.

*sigh*

[dakkon1024]

The RIAA reflects the will of the musicians, record labels, and the end user of their music. Yes they own it, and they can do what ever the legally want with it. I'm reading post after post of you, the end user, complaining about it. You don't like it, don't buy it & don't listen to. If this was the material world, it would be like complaining you can't drive some ones Ferrari. Get over it, you want free music, you're stuck in your Kia.

Re:*sigh*

[myz24]

No, actually it's not about wanting to drive my neighbors Ferrari or driving my Kia (not free BTW). It's more like, buying said Ferrari (or not free Kia) and being told how to drive it, where to drive it and when to drive it. RIAA is pissed off they can't or don't know how to compete in todays digital world and are looking to exploit every angle they can to prevent themselves from losing business until they can get their head wrapped around this great new digital way of distributing content. It's unfortunate they're wasting so much time fucking over the very people they would hope to target down the road.

I think it's rediculous that they are getting their undies in a bundle over people being given the ability to record music from their satellite based music system. They're argument will be because you can make perfect digital copies over and and over with no degradation but why can't they deal with that when it comes to it? Why punish the good people for what bad people do? Ugg, I'm tired of corporate America.

Re:*sigh*

[dakkon1024]

>Why punish the good people for what bad people do? A system, such as the criminal justice system, needs to be able to effectively police its users. In this system, the people who own the music cannot effectively control what happens to their property. Also, Nobody is being punished, there are mealy trying to shut down a system that is adversity effecting there business goals. You can still listen to all their music by going to the store and buying the CD. >It's more like, buying said Ferrari (or not free Kia) and being told how to drive it, where to drive it and when to drive it Really, you mean we don't have any laws governing how you can use your car? >I think it's ridiculous that they are getting their undies in a bundle over people being given the ability to record music from their satellite based music system. Hey, if you worked really hard to build a house, and I stole it, I bet you would feel pretty crappy. Wake up & smell the real world.

Re:*sigh*

[myz24]

I think you're stuck in a black and white world because there is a lot more gray area in mine evidently. To say that nobody is getting punished is shortsighted. The average consumer *is* getting bent because....why shouldn't they be allowed to record off of XM? People are *paying money* to listen to satellite radio. Stations buy the rights to play songs. If the consumer wishes to record a song what's the harm here? The station paid for the rights, the consumer paid their subscription fee , what's the big deal? I mean, I used to record off the radio onto tape all the time growing up and radio is free if you ignore the value of your time spent listening to commercials.

It comes right back around to XM/satellite being digital and the quality of the music being recorded is much higher than the "old" analog FM radio system. It's a bunch of bullshit. Screw progress, why don't we all just go back to records? They're the perfect medium for the RIAA because they're difficult to reproduce and wear out. Think of the cash they could make on people buying new records. This of course flys in the face of what you're actually purchasing, the right to listen to the music or the medium on which it is stored...which is it RIAA...which is it?

Your laws govern how I drive comment is weak. Here again there is some gray area you can't ignore. How pissed off would vehicle owners be if manufacturers wouldn't honor warranty work if the owner had slightly modified their cars? Oh wait, they'd be pissed off enough to get congress to pass the laws like this. This is called consumer protection, something sorely lacking these days.

Your last comment about me building a house and getting it stolen does not apply here. You tell me the difference between recording XM radio vs. FM radio without giving me the antiprogress bullshit of the source being digital in the case of XM radio and I might start to understand where you're coming from.

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad

[angle_slam]

Using this rationale, then anyone recording HDTV (rather than a regular signal) should be sued too?

That's where the industry wants it to go. Witness broadcast flags and HDMI.

They'll be after me next...

[Bohnanza]

I heard a catchy song on the radio this morning and now it's stuck in my head!

Restricting Radio Recording is part of their plan

[doublem]

Actually, they DO want to encrypt Radio Transmissions, or at least force hardware manufacturers to respect a "Broadcast Only" flag.

I'm just too lazy to hunt up the links, but it's been covered on slashdot.

I'm sure they'd push for digitally signed headphones if someone showed them a demo unit, and held up the "Headphone Splitter" they sell for the iPod (Y-Cable in white plastic) as a scary hacker "Copyright circumvention device."

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury....

[NIN1385]

Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe that his client wrote "Stinky Britches" ten years ago. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself!

But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: Ladies and gentlemen this [pointing to a picture of Chewbacca] is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE! (Background: Damnit! What? He's using the Chewbacca defense!) Why would a Wookiee--an eight foot tall Wookiee--want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

But more important, you have to ask yourself, what does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!

Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense!

And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.

If Chewbacca lived on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad

[chingador]

The quality of the transmition

False: The quality is equal or less

[tkrotchko]

"Analog radio is of lesser quality, "

It is not.

Perhaps it is within possibility that if the satellite providers used a significant amount of bandwidth for a channel, and the analog station compressed the hell out of the FM station, then it might be better, but the reality is that good FM (i.e. WGMS out of Washington DC, or lots of other PBS stations) blows away any satellite service.

On the Sirius service, voice channels sound about the same or worse as shortwave broadcasts; the bit rates are so low that it takes you a couple weeks to get used to the sound. The music is okay, but clearly like low-grade FM; things like Saxophones are rendered so poorly on Sirius that you can barely tell that's what they are. Certain stations (i.e. Classical) are obviously given a higher bandwidth.

But stuff like NPR is better via FM because there is a lot less compression.

The advantages satellite has over terrestrial radio is country-wide access and no commercials. Sound quality is average at best.

One solution

[Hrvat]

There is really only one solution to all this RIAA crap. We should start another publishing company (call it Slashdot publishing) and don't join RIAA. Then start wooing customers (artists) away from RIAA members by offering larger cuts of the CD and downloads. We then keep competitive pricing with RIAA publishers. RIAA dies and we move on to rake in the profit and bathe in champagne.

Re:One solution

[toomz]

The only problem with this idea being that the label won't be able to afford the mind control (read: radio play/flashy commercial CD packaging) required to be taken seriously.

wtf?

[kk5wa]

Seeing that the quality of an XM signal is somewhere between AM broadcast and not quite broadcast FM (most mp3's I'm guessing), why is this an issue? I rip to ogg with a better quality than XM (and I have been an XM subscriber over a year now).

I can't count the times that I have heard a great song and cranked my stereo up, only to have the experience notched down by the obvious bandwidth limitations in XM's signal.

Still enjoy it, though. Nothing better for long drives.

RIAA doesnt like anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel that the vindictive RIAA (and its sister group the MPAA) don't like anyone sharing music (or movies), no matter who they are. For every finger they point at a music lover for "illegal music sharing", four more are pointing at themselves.

Perhaps a judge in the US will put a stop to this madness and prevent the RIAA from eventually suing everyone on the planet who has ever made a cassette of their favourite songs for personal use. It would tie up the courts for decades.

Message from the RIAA

[doublem]

I work for the RIAA

Thank you for your recommendation.

We are looking into this potential resolution to the current copyright piracy plague sweeping the globe.

At first glance, it does appear secure, but some of our internal managers are saying that it would be useless without some laws requiring people attend these establishments. Another faction recommends we instead push for a flat "Media Tax" on all citizens, and issue coupons for musical selections. This idea is gaining momentum.

A few managers have said the whole chain of thought is a bad idea. We've fired those managers.

Why bother? The sound quality doesn't approach CD

[PeeAitchPee]

Despite the marketing hype, XM / Sirius quality is somewhere between FM radio and typical mp3 quality, but the compression is clearly audible. It's great for a car environment but one can easily tell the difference between satellite audio and a higher-quality source. So why bother making illegal mp3s of lower-quality source material in the first place?

I'm actually glad...

[dugjohnson]

The RIAA has been picking on relatively small fish to date. They are now suing companies backed by some of the largest corporations in the US, corporations with WAY more lawyers than the RIAA has. I hope they are squashed like the bug that they are.

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the difference between taping a song off the radio and creating an Mp3 from radio?

Does there have to be a difference? The only important difference is that 2005 is later than 1985, so the music industry has a chance to try again. People occasionally act enough like citizens to prevent corporations and governments from taking our rights... but every new generation is another chance for us to fail, and we're practically never active enough to recover rights once they've been lost.

and dolphins...

[antdude]

I would like to see RIAA sue dolphins that sing part of the songs too. Dolphins recently sang the old Batman song.

Sue these scum bags

[anand78]

The direction this is going is certainly not pleasent. I guess ther should be large scale demonstration against these scare tactics. Music is a form of entertainment and it should be like that. If you have to flip through law books merely for listening to a song FUCK THAT MUSIC. I guess we should avoid like cancer any music or music label that is affiliated to these Scumbags.

In my case I heard Western music all my life but when I moved to US I switched to classical music from my own country. The reason, well CD - 5 bucks Cassette -- 2 bucks, here CD - 16-20 bucks and download $1.

Huh

[tkrotchko]

"A tape copy of radio is a far cry from a digital copy. "

Why?

Quality-wise, there won't be any difference; the quality of Satellite broadcasts is low; its lower than the shoutcasts broadcasts you can get with iTunes or WinAmp.

the long hard fall

[cogit0]

So i'm wondering when the beginning of the end will actually begin. RIAA has been pulling stuff like this since they started losing what they deemed their "fair share" of the market, repeatedly looking for excuses to perpetuate their model, as someone stated above. Sometimes they have justification for copywrite infringement. But most of the time they are trying to rewrite information property rights to suit their own needs.

When is it gonna stop working in their favor? When will society/the legal system/RIAA realize that they are gripping the past a little bit too tightly and society tends to follow innovation?

Re:the long hard fall

[Anonymous Coward]

When will society/the legal system/RIAA realize that they are gripping the past a little bit too tightly and society tends to follow innovation?

When it's pried from the cold dead husks of RIAA members.

How long before...

[Anonymous Coward]

'The record industry ... believes the recording capability [of human brain] is a clear copyright violation and could take revenue away from paid download music services.'

... everyone would be required to listen music only thru (DRMed) headphones that give short-time-memory erasing electroconvulsive shock to the listener when session is over (or attempt is made to remove them from one's head).

Re:How long before...

[An ominous Cow art]

There's no doubt in my mind that they would do it if they thought they could get away with it. The MPAA members would be quick to develop goggle that do the same...

I, Criminal!

[EddyPearson]

I'm a criminal. i've been running from the law for years, and now i make my final stand! I was young and foolish! i didn't know that when my friend left the country and gave me his CDs i was breaking the law. But now, after years of running, i shall hide no more!

My heinous crime will be made public and I shall face what is coming too me. I can never take back what i did that fateful day! Why oh why did i ever get into music! I knew it would be my downfall, but my young mind was corrupt by the evils of this world!

God have mercy on my soul.

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad

[JourneymanMereel]

You can buy a CD, copy it, rip it and give it away...is this a violation too? Or can you only give it to someone who already owns it? (doesn't make sense)

If you do all 4 of these things, then yes, it is a violation. If you do them in the any of the following combinations, it's legal:

* Buy a CD and give it away
* Buy a CD, copy it, rip it
* Buy a CD, copy it, give it and the copy to the same person
* Buy a CD, rip it, give the CD away and delete all the riped files (or give them with the CD, as long as you don't retain a copy)

What's not legal is giving away the disk (basically your license to play the song) and keeping the music (or a copy of it) in any form.

I know why the RIAA is going after XM/Sirius

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because they can not pay a ton of money to promote the same 10 crappy songs over and over on their stations. I've had both XM and Sirius, and they have a very diverse playlist even on their "popular" stations. It's one of the reasons people switch to satellite radio, to get away from those 10 crap songs the record companies pay radio stations to play to their zombie listeners. Remover commercials and censorship why wouldn't people want to pay $12 bucks a month?

a final solution!

[TRRosen]

The is one simple and final solution to all this copyright BS.

Broad all inclusive compulsory liscencing. I'm talking about extending out to all forms media audio, video and text and all forms of distribution broadcast, downloads physical copies.

Just imagine if suddenly anyone could distibute anything in anyway by just paying a fair amount in royalties. Music services would compete based on service. cable TV would compete with direct downloads. This would seperate the content from the delivery system and prevent someone that controls one side from controlling the other.

You can't really uninvent something, can you?

[gelfling]

I wish them well at the RIAA - I hope they spend ever increasing portions of their shrinking revenue stream on litigating against more and more people. Because in the end you really can't uninvent something. We wil find ever more clever ways to hide from them and other than opening the phone book and randomly suing whole letters of the alphabet there is little they can do about it.

Download services?

[Bezben]

quote: could take revenue away from paid download music services

The same download services they are crippling themselves through their greedy attempts to force higher prices?

LAST F^&*!N STRAW

[Anonymous Coward]

[rant] gad damn RIAA! I am getting sick and f^&*!n tired of those bitches whining about this and that. If the bastard RIAA members (f^&*!n sell out b!tch3s) don't like the capability of recording their sh!tty music, don't let them play it. RIAA STFU ALREADY!!!! Next they will be telling me the $300 Tao XM2go radio I bought will no longer be allowed to record the music I subscribe to? [/rant]

I agree with you though, there needs to be another union of non RIAA recording studios. People have mentioned that recording equipment and disc duplicators are cheap enough. Good effin plan, man.

Broadcast Flag

[EXrider]

Using this rationale, then anyone recording HDTV (rather than a regular signal) should be sued too?

Correct. Ever heard of the broadcast flag? Recording is already being prevented on HDTV...

See: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/14/144025 2&tid=129

mmm

[Anonymous Coward]

1200% price hick sounds good

Watch out broadcast radio...

[Anonymous Coward]

...because you're next.

I've recorded off radio for years when I was younger, along with 99% of other middle and high school aged kids. By this definition you can do the same thing with broadcast and any $20 boom box.

Let's save some time

[tclark]

Maybe the RIAA should just list everyone they don't plan on suing, since that should be a short, easily compiled list.

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad

[TheRaven64]

Oh, that's good. That means it must be legal to record lossy copies of things, such as MP3s and MPEG-4 video. Since it must really be distribution, rather than recording, that they are worried about (since you have the right to time-shift at any quality), then presumably they are saying it is acceptable to distribute lossy copies of copyright works owned by them. Good of them to be so keen to set that precedent.

Howard Stern

[lowrydr310]

I have Sirius and the voice channels are very annoying, to the point where I won't listen to them. AM radio sounds better. The music stations are better, but some of them just get irritating after a while. One of their selling points is that subscribers get to stream their channels free over the internet. I thought this would be nice as I'd get to listen to music at work, however the quality is so bad (highly compressed, low bandwidth)that it's not worth it.

I noticed that since Sirius rearranged their programming, the two stations reserved for Howard Stern are grouped with all the low-quality/low-bandwidth entertainment and talk stations. I wonder if Howard Stern is still going to get the higher bandwidth low compression that the music channels have? If not, then I'll have to cancel my Sirius subscription. The only thing that's playing on Howard Stern's channels right now are the farters, and it's hard to tell if it's a higher or lower bandwidth channel.

Re:Howard Stern

[SkyFire360]

I thought this would be nice as I'd get to listen to music at work, however the quality is so bad (highly compressed, low bandwidth)that it's not worth it.

Have you checked out ShoutCast? 30,000+ free internet radio stations, most of them commercial free, and streaming at the bitrate of your choosing (well, most stations). The sound quality is quite good, and can even reach spectacular quality using the combination of Winamp and a plugin called Ozone. Play around with the settings and listen to the difference... it's amazing what analog modeling can do for a 128k music file. Works with MP3s, Streams, and even videos too!

If 30,000+ radio stations seems a little overwhelming, might I suggest my favoriate station Beatblender (128k, streaming WMA) for some great ambient, work-inducing music.

You know..

[ECramer]

I'm starting to think these RIAA people aren't very nice.

re: "The RIAA is at it again"

[Rayaru]

Is the RIAA ever not at it?

No!

[Newer Guy]

The difference is that the RIAA gets a royalty from EVERY TAPE PURCHASED! Buy a cassette - the RIAA gets a few cents. Buy a blank audio CD? Ditto! Even though you might be buying that cassette to record your physics lecture in college, the RIAA still gets their $$! That's the difference.....

It FINALLY happened

[gosand]

Did everyone miss the fact that this is one of their concerns: "...violation and could take revenue away from paid download music services."

We now have the RIAA defending and fight for music download services? Funny how the worm turns, it only took them about 10 years to recognize music downloads as "valid".

Hey, you!

[Anonymous Coward]

you just heard my voice! pay me! otherwise I will sue you!

Re:Hey, you!

[Widowwolf]

WHAT? I am deaf from the crappy radio music...

How much coke does RIAA need..?

[shareme]

How much coke does RIAa need before it prices itslef fully out of the music business??

Digital !=perfect

[Anonymous Coward]

A CD recorded off of terrestrial FM isn't CD quality, but neither is an MP3. MP3s are lossy. A CD recorded off of terrestrial FM has better quality then an MP3 ripped from the original factory CD.

An MP3 ripped from a CD recorded off of terrestrial radio is about the same quality as an MP3 ripped from a factory CD.

If we were talking lossless SHN files you might have a (negligible) point, Mr. Shill.

MLAA?

[krysith]

Maybe what we need is the MLAA (Music Listeners Association of America).

Fight fire with fire.

The EFF handles many different issues, many of which go over the head of the average American. But an organization which exists solely to protect peoples right to listen to music would be easy for most people to understand, especially when the RIAA is taking actions like it has in recent years.

I wonder if the hardware manufacturers who keep getting dictated to and sued by the RIAA would like to join as associate members...

Re:MLAA?

[niiler]

But everyone knows that the MLAA will be secretly funded by the EFF and will therefore become the echo chamber of one of the most insidiously anti-capitalist group permitted to exist.

Snork. :-)

But basically, I agree. It is time to create an uprising of sorts against the RIAA. Perhaps another way to do it would be to create a network of micro-radio stations that would play good up and coming artist's music for free. Such tunes could be redistributed about the country via a P2P network.

Missing Point

[dunc78]

I think you and the others are missing the point. Of course you can give a cd or song as a gift, but once you do that you know longer have any rights to that CD or song. So if you have a copy, you have an illegal copy.

Re:Missing Point

[killmenow]

Actually, I quite got the point. I was shooting for +5, Funny.

Re:Missing Point

[CyricZ]

You obviously didn't get the point. You fucking failed. And you failed badly.

What about human memory?

[Thedalek]

When I see RIAA insanity like this, I wonder just how far we are from a reality in which they claim infringement on people who can completely remember a song.

Forget 1984. The thought police aren't going to be looking for subversion. They're going after that song that's been stuck in your head for the past two hours.

Combination in restraint of free trade

[jcocomo]

The RIAA seems bent on distrupting every new distribution channel for music. I wonder if because of this they could be legally construed as a "combination in restraint of free trade" such as was made illegal by USC Title 15 section 3(a)? IANAL, but it seems to me that an organization of large corporations colluding to prevent new ways of distributing a product they, in combination, have an apparent monopoly on is exactly the sort of thing anti-trust laws are designed to prevent.

Perhaps a petition demanding that the US DOJ attempt to enforce this law against the RIAA is in order. Are there any actual lawyers who would care to comment?

All this takes to fix is courage of conviction

[Kylere]

Since 2001 I have not purchased a t-shirt, CD, concert ticket, key chain, etc from any band that falls under the RIAA. It is obvious that many of you still buy their BS or they would not have the revenue to do these types of things. You should all be ashamed especially since so many great bands have nothing to do with the RIAA.

Hell if you read about the music industry you would stop supporting them anyways, anyone who thinks organized crime is not heavily involved in the industry is ignorant or just plain bloody stupid.

Re:All this takes to fix is courage of conviction

[E-Rock-23]

Organized crime? Eh, possibly, but doubtful.

If anything, the RIAA is a mafia-style group on its own these days, so it really doesn't need any backing from the more "traditional" mob. Their hitmen? Lawyers. Their Dons? The heads of each of the member conglomerates. Their scheme? Racketeering: the lawsuits pretty much amount to "You pay us protection money or we'll make your life miserable."

They've been counter-sued using RICO (pops, Wikipedia ish teh awesome), which is probably the best defense against them right now. As long as people know about the RICO defense, there's hope for us yet.

But, I agree with you 100%. As long as people keep buying this crap, they keep validating the RIAA's corrupt business model, encouraging them to continue with the shady practices.

Boycott, anyone?

Re:All this takes to fix is courage of conviction

[sabat]

Just wait until it's illegal or impossible not to buy these things. No, I'm not nuts, just a little paranoid. What if there was a nice little agreement between all your local grocery chains and the RIAA, so that you are forced to pay for an RIAA CD every time you buy something at the store.

Competition will just come in and fix that, right?

Er, well, no, maybe not. For one thing, the RIAA can just buy them out. If not, the grocery stores can simply find a way to make it illegal for anyone to compete with them.

At that point, you grow your own food, support the RIAA, or starve.

Welcome to the future.

Re:All this takes to fix is courage of conviction

[Kylere]

I do not think you are paranoid, but your example is poor. The nutcases with the racks of cosmoline coated AK's in the backwoods would have gone nuts and started shooting people long before it got to this point.

However I can see them selling negative value CD's that would reduce your grocery bill if you took one. But that would be easy to skip also.

Re:All this takes to fix is courage of conviction

[Kylere]

I am not challenging you to be a dick, but it is not doubtful at all. Mafia groups have constantly beeen involved in the record business. MCA has a long history of mob connections to the point that they were burning down buildings of retailers who could not push their crap. The connection is not tenuous but SOLID, read Stiffed: A True Story of McA, the Music Business, and the Mafia ( it is available online many places )

Don't kid yourself these bastards are purely evil.

Re:All this takes to fix is courage of conviction

[sabat]

I did pull the example out of my ass, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. The backwoods boys would be easily put down by the military. And the grocery bill reduction CDs -- well, sure, it'd start that way. But given the example of Greed 2.0 by the record companies, don't think they'll stop with just an incentive.

I remember

[ajs318]

I remember, back in the 1970s, there was an appliance known as the "radio-cassette recorder". This was transportable {i.e. it had a handle} and allowed you to enjoy listening to the wireless {MW, LW and FM -- FM stereo on the bigger, more expensive models with two speakers} or your favourite audio cassettes, anywhere there was a power point. {If you put batteries in the thing, you didn't even need the power point, and you could listen to both sides of a C-90 on a single set. Supposedly. Made the machine even heavier to carry, though.} But these devices did not only allow you just to listen to music: you could also record from the radio onto a blank cassette.

Nobody ever had a problem with the existence of radio cassette recorders. Everyone used to record their favourite songs from the radio. Sometimes we'd even go out and buy a "45" if we liked the song enough. Ah, the 1970s and 80s were wonderful times if you were a kid .....

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad

[MightyYar]

Isn't that funny? I mean, the age old tradition of making the girl you like a mix-tape is illegal... sad, sad, sad.

I always thought it was funny that if I taped it off of the radio and gave it to someone, that was illegal. Wow, do we have our laws f'd up!

All non-commercial use should be legal.

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad

[Anonymous Coward]

You actually bought some Vanilla Ice? That's pretty criminal in and of itself!

ATTN: RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Just stop. Seriously.

Re:False: The quality is equal or less

[daBass]

Right on. I was CTO of long defunct internet only "radio" startup puremix.com. Back in 2000 the British rights collectors wanted incredible amounts of money from us because we were "digital" (never mind that we were 64Kbps Real and WM7 and thus sounded nowhere near good FM quality) and people could - theoreticaly, there was no easy to use software to do it - make "perfect copies". Never mind the fact that like normal radio stations we crossfaded our songs and had DJs (pre-recorded) talk over intros. Who would want a copy of that when you could get a CP rip off napster?

For some reason people seem to think "digital" means "great quality", speaking of "digital quality". Heck, even Newsweek Europe did a big section on digital TV (Sky Satelite service in particular) in Europe and they too couldn't get enough of "digital quality". now let me tell you about the "digital quality" of Sky. It was so good I canceled my subscription after it going downhill for years because of adding more channels but not mor bandwidth support them...

Take Money Away from Download Services?

[segedunum]

But, but, but, those are the services that the RIAA say are being greedy and taking money away from them.......errrrr, arrr, I give up.

Seriously

[lildogie]

I've been singing for 24 years.

It's at least as much fun to make music as to listen to it.

Plus I make more friends.

Plus I support my community and contribute to non-confrontational politics.

Exactly the opposite of what's going on with the RIAA.

Casettes and the like?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this just like recording the radio on casette or saving a TV show for later? It is possible for both to have copies made and sent free or for a fee to people, but did those mediums get crushed?

I think the RIAA just hates mp3.

Re:Got to be kidding

[dwandy]

This is no different than the way TV networks pay licensing fees for the shows that they broadcast.
What the RIAA has a problem with is the satellite radio providers giving their listeners the ability to record high quality copies of potentially hundreds of songs a month.

Wow, then it's real lucky for the TV networks that there's no way to record high quality versions of the TV shows and make them available on the internet.
...what a lucky break that is.

Re:False: The quality is equal or less

[WaterBreath]

It's not the actual sound quality that's at issue. It's the fact that whatever the satellite broadcasts will make it intact to the receiver, in pretty much perfect digital form.

Analog radio is inherently imperfect because the information is not discrete. A loss of amplitude, or an attenuation, means a change in the content of the signal, and there's no checking mechanism to know that something changed. So what get's played (or recorded) is not exactly what was broadcast.

With digital it takes a change greater than a specific size in order to change the actual information content of the signal. And when that happens there are mechanisms to detect and correct this. So the information that is played (or recorded) is essentially exactly the same as what was broadcast. Certainly with compression, the recording can be rendered into a state that is comparable to what is received via FM radio, but it doesn't have to be. For all intents and purposes, satellite radio is capable of sending out lossless audio data, if they so desired, whereas with FM radio there's not a whole lot that can be done toward that end. The RIAA is thus "protecting" themselves against the potentiality of this kind of distribution.

Furthermore, satellite radio cannot be considered a "public service", as someone else claimed, because you have to pay to hear it. And so it doesn't fall under the same rules as AM/FM radio.

But I'm not siding with the RIAA here, because I'm sure they are asking for something much more than what they really deserve. However, I think they do have a right to request a certain amount of compensation for the satellite stations out there that really are streaming content of a reasonable fidelity. Because in those cases, they are creating a copy of the copyrighted content which is, in practice, "very close" to the original source, in aural effect if not in ones and zeroes. And copying is the exclusive right of the copyright holder; they have the right to allow or disallow. (Hence the term "copyright".)

Everyone out for satellite radio

[Anonymous Coward]

This just comes on the heels of ClearChannel Entertainment asking for more radio channels in each designated marketing area, http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseac tion=Articles.san&s=34892&Nid=15862&p=240709, because "free radio can't compete" with satellite/Internet broadcasts. It's another case of "Strike It Down Before It Takes Our Market!!!"

Well, let's follow the reasoning through to...

[Hosiah]

"RIAA sues God for creating air"

Since everybody knows that sound waves are transmitted through the air, that means that music can travel through this unsecured medium to be heard by many life forms, some larger than microscopic, which did not monetarily reimburse the music-producing entity. God was quoted as defending air: "All my land-dwelling living creatures need air to breathe! Isn't that 'fair use'?", but the RIAA responds, "He could have come up with creatures who didn't need to breathe."

Re:Well, let's follow the reasoning through to...

[Anonymous Coward]

But air was created through evolution! It will be the Scopes Monkey trial meets Betamax trial.

Prosecution: Now, we all know the Lord in heaven created the Earth. By industry approximations, it was late in the first day.

Defence: Objection your Honor. My client, God, may not even exist! The Defence subscribes to the idea that photosynthesis evolved over millions of years and filled the atmosphere with oxygen.

*three agonizing years later*

Defence: And that's why you can't time-shift air...
Prosecution: Objection your Honor! That statement is very damaging to my case.

Re:False: The quality is equal or less

[nester]

There's no such thing as lossless adc->dac.

Music's social contract breaking down

[Simonetta]

The music recording industry has painted itself into a corner by going digital. There was formerly a clear difference between an audio presentation (the sound that goes into people's ears) and the recording of that sound. Digitization of the entire industry has completely removed that difference. If a sound is heard, it has been digitized and stored.

    The financial structure of the industry as developed in the 20th century depends on a high price paid by the listener to the music industry for each individual recording. This price is roughly one hour of minimum wage earnings
per fifteen minutes of music recording. This price has been stable throughout the 20th century and has been inflation-proof.
In return, the music industry provides a centralized repository of all the musical styles currently of popular interest, a filtering service of the junk and mediocrity, and exposure to the best of new music performances.

    It was successful. There was pure capitalism among the various large and small record companies. There was a separation between the new music presenting services (radio and discos) and the record distribution networks.
Talented people could gain exposure to many new styles from many different parts of the globe. They could create important new musical styles and have a marketplace and a financial structure to successfully present them.

    Everything changed by going digital and by corporate consolidation. Three companies own and control a vast percentage of the radio stations of the USA. Four or five corporations control about 80-90% of the music industry in the world. Digitization of the music playback machines means that all music presentation comes from recordings. There is no longer any difference between exposed to new music and having a recording of that music. This plays
havoc with the structure of companies that sell recordings and use the proceeds of the sales to finance the filtering, product distribution, and new music exposure services.

    The companies want to return to the old business model, but only in the ways that are most profitable to them. They want their customers to continue to buy recordings at the old price, and also pay again for the new music exposure
, junk filtering, and distribution services that used to be incorporated into the recording's price. As Slashdot readers know, they are meeting resistance from their customers.

      With lots of money going to technology development of digital encryption of recordings and payoffs to politicians for custom-tailored laws protecting their interests, they will be successful in reconstructing their old business model in the short run. In the long run (ten years or more) they will cut off their supply of new musical influences. All the people who are shut out of consuming music industry product because they can't afford to buy it will develop new musical alternatives that they will deliberately hide from the music industry. The music industry won't be the center of musical culture and development in the way that it is now. The best musicians now all want record contracts and seek out the music company executives. That means that music industry employees have been the most knowledgeable about the best new music. That will end.

      But no one will notice because music is basically a young person's industry and the number of young people in the world continues to grow rapidly each year. So the music industry will continue to grow. But the principle that the music industry is the source of the best music available will pass. There will develop many underground secret music societies.

    The real question is whether the music industry will take the position that they 'own' the music created by these secret societies. Will they chose to hunt them down, imprison their musicians and steal their ideas, or simply ignore them as being non-commercially viable and therefore unworthy of investment.

You know what they remind me of?

[ShyGuy91284]

They're beginning to remind me of a pissed off old man that does't like anything modern or new......

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad

[jeffkjo1]

According to the recording industry Association of America taping broadcasts off the radio is not a fair use right. So the difference is, basically they think both are illegal.

Moop

[rolandog]

Lol, similar quotes:

Tom, I'm standing in South Park, Colorado, where the rock band Moop has refused to play. The strike started yesterday and could well into next week.

...

Tom, we're now entering the second day of the rock band Moop's refusal to play, and the second day of absolutely no other news to report on. In a recent poll we asked people if Moop's refusal to play would stop them from downloading music off the internet. One person said yes, two persons said no. And 97 persons said 'Who the hell is Moop?'

Then again, I think that by not buying, and having all radio stations to stop broadcasting music a strong argument might be made against the RIAA. I guess this is just a case in which the RIAA has become a big,... Big, BIG-ass leech. It's sad that because the artists have become tech-unaware (or ignorant) they can't stand up for themselves and avoid getting robbed by their contractors.

You're missing the point

[tkrotchko]

"It's the fact that whatever the satellite broadcasts will make it intact to the receiver, in pretty much perfect digital form."

No, not really. Because the digital signals go through the air as analog, they are subject to interference, which causes dropouts. Yes, satellite signals drop out all the time in a moving car. In heavily wooded areas, the signal is frequently dropped.

But that misses the point. If I send highly compressed music to you in digital form, yes, you can make a perfect digital copy of highly compressed music. The same way that I plug the line-out of an expensive FM receiver into the input jack of my PC and make perfect digital copies of FM radio.

There is no difference in either theory or sound quality.

Re:You're missing the point

[WaterBreath]

Because the digital signals go through the air as analog, they are subject to interference, which causes dropouts. Yes, satellite signals drop out all the time in a moving car.

But the "digital" method by which the bits are encoded onto the analog signal, and the managing overhead of data packets, make digital signals very resistant to distortion. Both physically, and logically.

Forgive me if I delve into detail that you yourself are already familiar with. I'm sure there are many here who are not...

For the physical side, the reason for the resilience is very simple. Rather than an arbitrary EM potential level (or frequency) translating to an exact audio level, a tolerance-range of EM levels (or frequencies) corresponds to either a 1, or 0. But only if it endures for a certain period of time, which also has tolerance ranges built in. And as long as the signal is within tolerances, the receiver can constantly reorient itself to the signal. So there is no such thing as gradual shifting in the signal without the receiver keeping up. So, in analaog radio, when you have an amplitude drop or attenuation, you get incorrect frequencies or amplitudes right out of the speakers, or right to your recording media. With digital, however, all that can happen is to change a 0 into a 1, or vice versa, and it takes a much bigger and longer distortion to cause that. But even beyond that, if a bit flips, this is very often detectable because of extra header info sent along with the signal.

Either a data packet makes the transmission without error, with detectable and correctable error, with detectable destructive errors, with undetectable destructive errors, or not at all. It is very rare to have undetectable destructive errors that have significant effects on the output at the receiving end. The more common detectably destroyed packets can just be thrown out, never put on the wire to the speaker or recording device. So the end result of a distorted packet is almost 100% of the time the same as a completely lost packet: i.e. dropped information. A service drop is simply a human-detectable duration of these situations.

So, with a digital broadcast you can be pretty confident then when you have received data that's deemed okay to put on the wire, that information was received intact. This is very different from what analog radio allows, where the actual information content being received decays in quality as the signal itself decays. Here, every little distortion makes it right to the speakers or recording device, as received. Which is why a cheap analog radio, or a cheap analog TV, will play static on stations where nothing is broadcast, whereas with even a digital receiver it's trivial to tell that there's no signal, and play nothing.

If I send highly compressed music to you in digital form, yes, you can make a perfect digital copy of highly compressed music.

But this is not the necessary scenario. It's up to the braodcasters if they want to do it that way. There is a distinctly possible scenario that allows the copyright to be breached. If the broadcaster chooses to transmit data that is minimally compressed (preserving the copyright), and a listener happens to have a nice long period of reliable reception, they can get a copy of the content which for most intents and purposes is identical to the original, without paying for the copy/distribution. Which is where the breach can happen. I'm not saying there's stations out there doing this. My guess is that most are not afraid to compress their audio more than we'd like, just so they can get more signals through the air in a smaller bandwidth. But the potentiality exists. And this is why I say I think the RIAA has a reason to worry, but not necessarily a reason to litigate. That would need to be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on the lossyness the broadcasters are employing/allowing.

This of course says nothing about the quality of the actual content that was broadcasted. Significantly compressed audio can lose a lot of information, and quality... but I addressed that in response to someone else's comments on "losslessness".

Re:You're missing the point

[tkrotchko]

"There is a distinctly possible scenario that allows the copyright to be breached."

Yes, but its the same possible scenario that allows the copyright to be breached with terrestrial radio. The quality, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with copyright infringement.

That distinction between digital and analog seems to have been made by the RIAA/MPAA as an arbitrary way of dispensing with fair-use defenses by getting different copyright laws passed on digital content.

The whole thing breaks down at the point the signal is digitized because the distinction is not important.

Re:You're missing the point

[WaterBreath]

its the same possible scenario that allows the copyright to be breached with terrestrial radio

It's not the same, because there's no way to transmit a "perfect" copy of audio content across AM/FM radio band without applying non-standard forms of compression or band-multiplexing. Every satellite radio company gets to choose the bandwidth given to each "station", and the protocols and codecs used by the reception hardware. And then they get to charge for access to this. Furthermore, the AM/FM radio band is free to access, and requires no proprietary hardware. AM/FM radio stations get no profit directly from playing particular content. Rather their profit comes from the spaces between the content: advertisements.

That distinction between digital and analog seems to have been made by the RIAA/MPAA

I thought it was the FCC (or Supreme Court maybe? some branch of the government, at any rate, not the RIAA) that made this distinction, as an effective "excuse" to allow radio broadcasts to fall under public or fair use, which prevents the copyright holders from obtaining licensing fees for the broadcast.

It's actually kind of "unfair" to the RIAA that this interpretation made it into practice, because that's not how it works in the visual art and video world, AFAIK. Though I could be wrong on that point.

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad

[cpt kangarooski]

There is no difference between recording from source A to medium B, or recording to medium C. Whether the source is a CD or radio, and whether the source is analog or digital is irrelevant. Whether the recording medium is analog or digital is irrelevant.

It is illegal, if you're unauthorizedly making a copy of a copyrighted work. Unless, of course, there is an applicable exception.

Fair use might apply, but it depends on the overall circumstances. You can't really say that anyone recording from the radio for any purpose is doing so fairly. It always depends.

Also, there is the 17 USC 1008 exception, but it does depend on who is doing the recording, why they're doing it, and what devices or media they're using to accomplish it. 1008 would likely protect taping from the radio, but not making an mp3 from the radio. Note that there are important definitions of the terms in 1008 in 101 and 1001, which people often don't read, resulting in misunderstandings of what 1008 actually says.

The solution is simple

[cove209]

Nuke the RIAA

Birds and ringtones

[matt me]

Some birds in urban areas have been reported to mimic cellphone tones. As these progress from monophonic to polyphonic and has the birds co-operate, full orchestral performances are the eventual conclusion. I actually heard some wingless demented creature screaming around on a bike bubbling sylables. Clearly it had never heard any skat, so I kindly put it out of it's misery.

A tape copy

[wytcld]

There are tape decks that can make a copy that's as good as any digital copy. We all know that audiofiles prefer high-end vinyl to CD's, right? Well, the source for all the historic high-end vinyl was tape. The best tape decks are that good. And a good analog tape of a good vinyl disk which itself is sourced from good master tapes will be higher fidelity than any current consumer digital product.

People who say "Digital is better" must be comparing it to their memory of an old 8-track or the cassette that was built into their childhood Sears All-in-One Music Center along with the ceramic-cartridge turntable. High-end tape equipment with high-end tape is better than almost all digital rigs. There are enough artifacts in both that discerning listerners can tell live music from reproduction, but just barely.

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad

[cpt kangarooski]

What's not legal is giving away the disk (basically your license to play the song) and keeping the music (or a copy of it) in any form

That's incorrect. I can think of some scenarios where it is lawful to do this. Also, there is no such thing as a license to play music in conjunction with ordinary consumers and CDs. Stop being fooled into thinking that there are licenses when there aren't; when there are, they'll be unmistakable (e.g. long, boring EULAs).

You know what

[Emperor Tiberius]

Fuck the RIAA. First they rail up the price of CDs to ~$16 a pop. Then they try and force other music services (e.g., iTunes) to fuck the customer with higher prices. And now, they're going after satellite radio. I'm glad to pay $10/month to listen to good, commercial-free music, and now because of their insatiable greed, that's in danger.

If the RIAA manages to jack that up...

Try holding down 'shift' on CD insert

[Tetravus]

You can disable the Windows autoplay functionality that's reinstalling the drivers by holding down the shift key when you insert the CD. Per this Engadget post. And, since you'll be ripping the tracks to MP3 you only need to do this once per new disc.

Because nobody ever recorded off the radio???

[chia_monkey]

WTF? People have been using their tape decks to record off the radio for years. And then maybe a few more years. And then a few years more. They've recorded top 40 countdowns. Just recorded songs. Recorded tapes full of radio play and then made mixed tapes. Hell...before I even had a ghetto blaster (or boom box depending on where you're from...that's a debate for another time) I took a big clunky tape recorder (kinda like the ones you see in old police movies where they stick the tape recorder in front of the suspect in the interrogation room) in front of the speaker on the TV to record a top 40 countdown. That's right, I got Survivor and "Eye of the Tiger" in all its glory, taped on a crappy old tape recorder sitting next to the TV. And I liked it! We played that tape all around the neighborhood.

The point is this: People have been recording from the radio, from TV, from their friend's records, from their parent's tapes, from their own CDs for about as long as there has been recordable media. The RIAA needs to realize that nothing they do will keep people from recording what they want. What they NEED to do is work on their business model, their distribution model, licensing models, etc and figure out how to make money from the products they sell instead of trying to rape the living crap out of the artists while also gouging the consumer.

Request for RIAA office locations

[Anonymous Coward]

Will somebody please post a link detailing the locations of RIAA offices so I can walk into the lobby of each and take a large dump on the rug?

no sense

[zimothy]

All because the devices can record? Why don't they just prosecute all the people who made cassette tapes in the 80s too. I can almost hear them sitting back in their offices going 'wow this is way more profitable than actually making good music or movies anymore!'

This doesn't even make sense!

[pclminion]

Why the hell would I record music off satellite radio when I can just download it off a P2P network?

The RIAA is slowly going absolutely nuts. Where can I get some of whatever they're tripping on?

Yeah this is pretty much crap

[Chitlenz]

I am a Sirius subscriber, and I LOVE it for the most part, aside from the occasional static I get under power lines (the solution to this, apparently, is to install an FM demodulator and directly connect the SAT reciever to the back of the deck, unfortunately I have an eclipse Spyder which has all kinds of weirdness with the stereo, but I digress). For the most part, I've been fortunate in that I was a rave dj (as in warehouse party) growing up, and my tastes haven't changed much over the years. The REASON this is important is that electronica producers have pretty much always released their music on small, mom and pop labels that typically have no ties to big business at all. How is it that the RIAA can try to enforce rules over and over again on behalf of small labels like this who aren't even members of their own organization. I mean, it's become like some kind of mafia protection racket almost. In this case, if the RIAA wins, Sirius will have no choice but to try to get people like me to underwrite this, and its just not going to happen.

I love my satellite, but I will NOT be paying any more for it. Not to mention, what happens to the folks who payed the flat fee for their reciever under the nuance that there would never be a subscription fee? (this may no longer be offered, but at one time you could pay 300$ or so and get a lifetime sub.). Does someone expect them to come back to the table? Which contract is valid there, the one between Sirius and the RIAA or the one between Sirius and their customers?

Just some thoughts - chitlenz

It's the consumer;...

[djupedal]

Nice try, but your logic folds back on itself.

' From the article: Major labels argue radio subscribers can use new portable devices to illegally download songs.'

Their principal worry is Y (use of), not X (deployment of).

The RIAA wants to stop X, yes...Why? So that Y can't happen. The summation being that once X happens, Y will automatically follow.

In the end, this means they are going after consumer's _choices_, which is, after all, going after the c o n s u m e r.

Public Radio

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why, ladies and gentlemen, I listen to public radio!

Re:False: The quality is equal or less

[AmberMan]

Maybe Sirius sound quality is mediocre, but I have XM. The quality of the audio for music is better than any FM radio that I've ever had. Basically, it's roughly comparable to a CD. I can snip any song (with a Tivo-like feature built into the received) and save it as an mp3 or whatever. So I can see why RIAA is concerned. They do compress the voice channels a lot, but not the music.

sue folks who play radios/CD players too loud?

[derniers]

I hear that the RIAA is going to sue anyone who plays music (from any source) loud enough for anyone else to hear........ "single user license" means single user........

Time shifting vs. archiving

[geekee]

" Seems to me that these XM recording devices are rather like having a VCR for your radio. If it's legal for consumers to time-shift their television entertainment by recording it, why shouldn't the same apply to radio?"

I don't think the recording industry is worried about time shifting, but instead of people building their music collections from satellite radio without paying Apple, Real, Yahoo, etc, for the songs. It's a valid concern, but /.ers are not interested in arguements that take away free stuff.

Re:Time shifting vs. archiving

[technos]

But you're paying the radio company, who *is* paying the RIAA.. Whereas terrestrial broadcasters pay the RIAA nothing. They're already making more money than they would be allowed under the old system. This is just another power grab.

RIAA Goes after Gillian

[Anonymous Coward]

Gillian was reported receiving un-authorized radio signals on a remote island.
A team of lawyers will be quickly sent out to quickly remove all the teeth from Gillian and serve his with a law suit for 2 billion dollars or if he settles out of court they will take $2000 (but they still want his teeth!).

Re:RIAA Goes after Gillian

[Guru2Newbie]

Umm, who's Gillian? Gillian Anderson from the X-Files??

You don't by chance mean Gilligan from Gilligan's Island, do you (a.k.a. Bob Denver, RIP)?

You remember, "Seven stranded castaways...Gilligan, The Skipper too, the Millionaire...and his Wife, the mooOOOoovie star, The Professor and Marianne...here on Gilligan's Isle!"

RIAA must really hate when....

[Anonymous Coward]

I use the line out of my Sirius radio connected to the line-in of my MP3 player and record hour blocks of the stream to listen to while jogging.

Recording vs. Performance ?

[Ed_Pinkley]

This may be off topic but I have been looking for an excuse to ask this question and since ASCAP and BMI came up, here it is.

There seems to be a fundamental difference between the way performance organizations (ASCAP, BMI) handle things and the way recording organizations (RIAA) handle things. Here is an example (in the US.)

I have been to hundreds of birthdays in my life so far. At darn near every one of them we sing "Happy Birthday." People get offended if you don't sing it. "Re-light the candles! we forgot to sing the birthday song!!" However, at restaurants, they will celebrate a birthday by having many of the employees come by with a cake and they all sing... A different song!

The reason for this difference, IIRC, is that there is a copyright on the melody of the song "Happy Birthday". http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp I assume that restaurants would have to pay a fee/royalty if they "perform" the copyrighted Happy Birthday song. However, I have never in my 100's of birthday parties had a team of ASCAP/ABI lawyers threaten me or the other copyright violators at the party with litigation. I conclude there must be a difference between the restaurant, who is generating revenue from performing the song (and entertaining customers) and the party-goers who are not. (except for the one who gets the presents, but that is another issue)

So, let's extend that same situation to the recording world. iToons can make a copy of a song and sell it. They are generating revenue from that sale so they must pay the RIAA for the privilege. If I do the same thing without making any money in any way I get sued.

Can someone more qualified than me please explain the difference?

Re:Recording vs. Performance ?

[AndersOSU]

While I am certianly not qualified I'm going to offer my opinion anyways.

I suspect that the reason restaurants sing their own song, and not the "Happy Birthday Song" is not for fear of copyright suits, but rather to add their own flavor.

Think of it as auditory flare.

Re:Recording vs. Performance ?

[PortHaven]

The difference, is that BMI/SESAC/ASCAP only collect royalty rights for "public" performances:

Karaoke bars, music in the mall, nightclubs, churches, etc.

And "public performance" is distinctly detailed. For example: most would think a wedding would require payment. Right, the DJ is playing before people. Thus public! However, wedding receptions are in fact "private" events. Therefore, they do not require a royalty.

They may be just as harsh as RIAA in collecting but they at least have a much more fair basis than RIAA. And for that reason I have much less problem with their royalty system. (Though I do believe there should be a single payment point.)

Re:Recording vs. Performance ?

[shmlco]

The comparison isn't analogous. A closer one would be you singing your own version of, say, the latest B. Spears song at a family gathering. However, you'd be in trouble the second you recorded your version and attempted to distribute it, as in all likelyhood the musical arrangements and lyrics are also under copyright.

The fact remains that that song is hers, not yours, and you do not have the rights, or her permission, to distribute her work. The fact you don't profit from that distribution doesn't matter.

Re:Recording vs. Performance ?

[generic-man]

It's far easier for Time Warner (who owns the "Happy Birthday" rights through a subsidiary) to sue a big chain than it would be for them to sue every little restaurant where their songs get sung. As a result, the big chains get paranoid about copyright violations.

True story: I was at an Applebee's in Ann Arbor, MI, and there was some basketball game on the TVs at the bar with the sound muted. They actually put a clear sticker on the bottom part of the TV that said, "Due to copyright restrictions, the audio may not be played." (Emphasis mine.) As a graduate of Slashdot Law School, I am simply amazed at the amount of legal ignorance going on in today's casual dining establishments.

Congress could void it, too.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Congress could void Betamax, too, by legislation.

At the moment they're still too clueful. The realize that a vote for such a law would take away something many of their consituents do regularly, and they'd be seen as bad guys and bounced.

Unfortunately, new applications don't have an entrenched constituency. So groups like the RIAA can convince congresscritters they can get away with passing draconian laws for them and collect the contributions and other fringes with impunity.

Potential solution: Start tracking and publishing the voting records of any congresscritters on these issues - in places where voters who care (your way) will see them.

Don't wait for the media to do it for you. They're the same guys paying the new laws.

Instead take a lesson from successful organizations like the AARP, NRA, and so on. Study what they do and repeat it in your context.

greedy bitchs

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly what it sounds like.

digital is better madness

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a moot point anyway because you broadcast a digitally encoded cd via analog transmission.... but still, due to marketing ppl actually believe digital is higher quality, uh, 'just because'. Analog is a infinite spectrum while digital is a quantified representation of an analog source.

Sue Me

[nurb432]

I guess ill be sued next, i was dreaming of music last night.

Im evil. I didnt pay my fee for the 're-enactment'.

These people really need to be stopped.

Re:False: The quality is equal or less

[Wyatt Earp]

XM does compress the music channels alot. But they have a very good compression system in place, when XM and Sirius were first in beta testing I read a review in an audiophile magazine on them, I want to say from memory that music channels were lower bit-rates than 128k mp3s and even then they were dogging Sirus over thier quality.

It's the law that's broken

[geekee]

" The Supreme Court changed the rules and the RIAA is trying to use it to prop up their broken business model."

The constitution protects copyrighted works. period. Congress made exceptions for analog recording becuase they didn't see this as a threat to copyright. Clearly digital copying is a threat because there is no point in buying a tune from Apple if you got a perfect copy from your satellite receiver. Basically allowing digital copying of copyrighted material is unconstitutional, but no one here gets it.

Re:It's the law that's broken

[Detritus]

The Congress could eliminate all copyrights and patents today if they wished to do so. The Constitution gives them the power to grant copyrights and patents, it does not obligate them to do so.

So....

[steveo777]

Is this how Sony will be paying for it's losses on the PS3?

Oh... BURN!!!

Unbelievable

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever I read or hear conversations like this I just marvel at how easy it is to give up on RIAA music and quit buying, listening, downloading, going to concerts, listening to the radio or otherwise participating in this farce. When the RIAA decides to come to their senses and figures out that pandora's box has been opened and copying is not going away, and decides to work WITH the technology and what customers want instead of making everyone on the planet a criminal, then MAYBE I'll consider listening to their crappy music. Until then, go away, and take your ridiculous lawsuits with you.

Retaliation from a scale of one

[mattr]

I am pretty sure I have not bought a CD in a music store in at least 15 years, barring any instance I might have forgotten. I have bought CDs at times from individual musicians or bands performing on the street, and I recently bought in a movie theater the CD of a band that provided the sound track ("Blood or Fire" by Attack All Around, for the live-action movie "Initial D").

I made this decision when I realized in college that the CD albums were *way* too expensive. I would consider a $8 or $10 album though now.

So I listen to less music than music addicts, though I do enjoy it. I hear it on radio and TV.

Also I recently built a little perl program that serves me pages from books off my website, just for my use, to my mobile phone. I'm reading out of print books, mostly, and ones I've already bought. I tend to buy the same books more than once over the years actually and am always looking for good authors in the bookstore when I have some spending money.

So my books program, it works great. The time spent on the train when most people are staring dumbly across the train car, or maybe reading a newspaper or listening to their iPod, I spend reading a book. My program keeps track of where I left off reading any of the books I've been reading, and I figure at 0.3 cents a 128 byte packet, it is expensive compared to when I used to use my Palm, but say at the high end of acceptable. If I had a way to give one of those two dollars per book to the estate of the author I would like to.

Maybe this strategy would work with living authors too, if they didn't mind. We could keep score of who we read most and find most satisfying, and then either buy a new book from them, or buy a coupon for them next time we go to the bookstore.

Maybe we could start with book publishers and then extend a model that works to music. I think the RIAA is asking for it, and they deserve a professional job. I also liked the suggestion about tracking down dirt about the people suing that girl. It has a thrilling medieval feel to it.

Here here...

[jpellino]

Early CD players had S/N in the 90s, though now it can be upward of 120, and IIRC analog FM radio is in the high 70s anyway. (Let's take AM radio off the table for now - it's down to baseball games and talk radio - neither of which concerns them.)

If they're looking at perceived quality - it's *mostly* impossible for *most* listeners in *most* mobile listening situations to know if they're listening to a good FM signal or CD Audio or MP3 or Digital Radio with out looking at the freaking dial. Especially with the top down. Anything beyond these conditions amounts to a tax on audiophiles.

Since they're trying to add another layer besides BMI and ASCAP, this is all about money to another part of the chain, certainly not the artists. They need to accept their buggy whip status and - oh, I dunno - INNOVATE?

I'm sick and fscking tired...

[optikshell]

of hearing about this bullsh!t. The RIAA sues PersonX, the RIAA loses, the RIAA sues PersonX's kids. When the fsck is someone going to grab ahold of them and beat the sh!t out of them. Jesus fscking metal. I don't usually get upset about this stuff, but seriously, this is all they've been doing lately. Their entire business model has shifted to completely PISS OFF EVERYONE. I've been doing it for a while, and I urge everyone who can to do the same: Don't buy music associated by the RIAA, don't listen to it, don't download it. This is absolutely retarded... is there no one who can check them?

Artist to iTunes Direct

[SteveM]

I'm also wondering if there's a point where recording companies ask so much of Apple, satellite radio, internet broadcasters, and ring-tone distributors that they join up in backing a new recording company that signs artists primarily for digital distribution and broadcast.

It is already happening in Japan: http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/features/arts/20051006 TDY14001.htm

Artists are signing directly with iTunes bypassing the record companies.

This has to scare the crap out of the RIAA and record companies.

The technology is there for artist to record and distribute without needing a record company. So when Brofman says we'll cut iTunes off at the knees it is a hollow threat, as Apple can deal directly with the artists.

SteveM

Somebody please tell the RIAA

[rossdee]

That satellites are in orbit. They are not in the RIAA's jurisdiction.

You know, it's just not that essential

[Nom du Keyboard]

You know, free music on the radio is just not that essential to my life. It's not like air, water, food, shelter. If the price for music becomes too high (e.g. 10% news, 40% music, 50% commericals to pay for the music) I'll stop listening. And when I stop listening, I stop buying as well. Like many people, I've got enough good music on my shelf already to last me for the rest of my life.

And that's what I feel the RIAA simply does not understand. Music is nice, fun, interesting -- but not essential. If it was, I'd start singing it myself.

Re:False: The quality is equal or less

[m4g02]

A loss of amplitude, or an attenuation, means a change in the content of the signal

FM is frequency modulated so most probably a loss of amplitude won't distort the analog data being transmitted.

So what's the bitrate?

[keyrat rafa]

I've heard FM compared to a 96kbps mp3. Are you saying satellite radio is worse than this?

Or CAAAA-CHING!!!

[googly eyes]

EOM

when will the RIAA moronocity end?

[The Lynxpro]

Seriously. When will the big tech companies finally come to the conclusion that the RIAA is a threat to them, and simply buy out each member of the RIAA? None of the RIAA members, Warner Music (now 80% separate from Time Warner), EMI, Universal, or SonyBMG are worth $1 billion. Why doesn't the tech industry come to an agreement to cross license their wares and buy up those various companies and pull out of the RIAA?

$1 billion is chump change for the likes of Apple, Microsoft, and Yahoo. XM and Sirius also have vested interests, but then again, so do all the other big groups that offer digital music stations such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable (soon to be spun off from Time Warner corporate), Charter, as well as Dish and DirecTV.

If the RIAA and the associated music labels were eliminated, that would knock off 70 cents (U.S.) from the 99 cents fee per download from iTunes. And with that, legitimate digital music purchases would start to move towards parity with the illegal P2P swapping, which would be beneficial to all parties.

In summary, we need visionary CEOs like Steve Jobs and far less Edgar Bronfmans in the business world so that tech and media both grow without stiffing consumers and thus encouraging criminal behavior because of short-sighted pigopolist policies.

The enemy of my enemy is, *My head hurts*

[Anonymous Coward]

With the RIAA and Clear Channel, a major investor of XM, fight, I don't know who to root for. *Head explodes* ;)

You have it backwards

[freeweed]

Just because we do not like the RIAA does not make them wrong each and every single time.

It's because the RIAA is wrong each and every single time, that we (or at least I) do not like them.

Re:No kidding? Time for new lables

[foolish_to_be_here]

No, maybe it is time for new competition. If Apple(Beetles) and Virgin can create a record lable why can't Microsoft, Apple(Steve), and XM radio? As I recall, the old RCA lable was created by RCA's radio station. He who controls the source can control the distribution.

next, the RIAA molesters are after YOUR kid

[harvey the nerd]

Demented and dangerous. This week we observed that RIAA is a literal child molester (m-w.com, definition #1.) Now they open another broad attack on public music access. These people are dangerous subversives, sic semper tyrannis. (btw, I have never used the P2P music "sharing" programs).

Who or what is next with these vampires? Not my kids, but maybe yours.

o_O

[Konrad9]

uh...
Maybe I'm wrong, I could be wrong. I'm wrong a lot.
But when I went to work on Monday, all those sat radios had fairly large price tags on them, as well as monthly subscription fees.
So... it's illegal to pay for the music you listen to now?
What the hell!?

Are we done yet?

[oahazmatt]

RIAA to iTMS: Give us more money!
iTMS to RIAA: No.
RIAA to Microsoft: You'll give us more money?
Microsoft to RIAA: No.
RIAA to XM: Gimme your wallet!

water in speaker, I solder another 2nd pair wires

[Anonymous Coward]

A stoned drunken friend (could be a webmaster) pours beer or vodka into the radio, and after it dries out, you find the speakers are dead, so you go buy new speakers and open the case and replace the speakers, with new ones, glue/solder/screws/etc , and when your in there you drill a small hole for an "extra pair" of wires to come out. Maybe there is even room to mount a crossover transformer or a op amp to give a "balanced line out."

whoop whoop.

they don't teach that in school

Caching? What caching? Not on _Satellite_ Radio.

[TrentTheThief]

As far as Satellite radio is concerned the entire issue is moot. "Satellite Radio" no more caches the music than does your FM radio. Satellite Radios are _radios_.

IMHO, the pukebrains of the RIAA are once again concerned about web broadcasting and having paranoic delusions that people are saving _every_ song every played.

And, once more, they equate declining sales with the infamous downloaders rather than with crappy albums. Though in my case, I don't buy CDs any longer simply because I _do_ have satellite radio! I have three XM radios: One at work, one at home, and one in my car. I don't see any need to keep any music. Why? Saving music is like collecting porn pictures: Why bother hoarding when it's right there waiting for you?

I haven't even played a CD in over a year. Satellite radio may not be perfect as defined by some geeky audiophile, but again, who care? I can't tell the difference. Any deficiency is more than balanced by the fact that I don't hear those damned TrimSpa commercials and that I no longer have to listen to egomaniacal DJs sharing their crappy personalities with the world.

The days of regular terrestrial broadcast radio are definitely numbered. It doesn't matter if you use Sirius or XM, it's the last nails in broadcast's coffin.

Reformation

[klept]

The RIAA is trying to maintain the status quo, what with Brittney Chan, this satillite bruhaha, etc.. Instead they should be adapting to the megashift changes occuring and figure a way how to make even more bucks out of it. It's like the Reformation in Europe in the 1500s, and the established orders trying to maintain their influence rather than realizing that printing by movable type 50 years ago changed everything. For printing today read internet.

The RIAA are quickly becoming poisonous

[Anonymous Coward]

Great free sheet music web sites like this http://icking-music-archive.org/ the gmd music archive are getting harder to find. If you do a google search string for "music notation pdf" software there seems to be more and more garbage sites getting top billing, of which this: http://www.classical.net/music/links/midiarch.html is an example.

Public domain notated music is being subverted by these a$$holes!

What happens when the plastic goes away?

[halr9000]

a new recording company that signs artists primarily for digital distribution and broadcast. As I think tangible media are important, this company would license the pressing and distribution rights for the cds, or allow the artist the retain the tangible rights

Ok, I'm not disagreeing with anything you said here. The point I want to make is that what happens when(/if) in the future that physical recordable media were to go away? Just hypothethically here. In that world, how would an artist have any means to control how their own product is used and distributed if not for some kind of DRM scheme? I'm not expousing one, I can't stand the thought of DRM like most here. I'm just saying that if I create something, *I* and *I* alone get to decide what to do with it. Of course, that can include signing away all of my rights. But if there is no longer physically distributable media for an artist to sell on the side at shows (the assumption here is that there is a superior replacmenet) and everything is digital only, what do you do for those who don't like giving out free beer?

Re:What happens when the plastic goes away?

[DannyO152]

Sorry for the late response -- I usually say my piece and don't look back.

I'm an old guy, late 40s, and while I have all my cds ripped, I feel better knowing that if the hard drive fails, the worst that happens is I re-rip my disks. Now cd's are not as indestructible as it was suggested when they were introduced twenty years ago, but they still seem to outlast vinyl, which would have pops and clicks within a couple of years of manufacturing.

But you know what I really miss while enjoying the advantages of the mp3 generation? Liner notes. Musician credits. Songwriter credits. Because I loved to see and make the connections between the musicians I liked. Pop music seems most fun and interesting when it's easy to get singles into the hands of fans, IMHO. So I think downloadable mp3s are a great thing. But I'm guessing the serious collector and serious fan will still want to have that thing on the shelf. And the packaging of the tangible good has provided an opportunity for brand awareness, like the album jackets for BlueNote or Atlantic records which helped communicate to the fans that here was a new artist from the folks who brought you Jimmy Smith or Ray Charles, so it should be cool. So, since I see advantages for producer and consumer, I expect the tangible collection will continue; the pricing will change as demand varies, of course. Of course, these could be the loony rantings of a child born in the 50s, No?

"Home taping is killing music"

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember?

Re:False: The quality is equal or less

[WaterBreath]

At the point where you quoted me I had referred only to "analog radio", not AM or FM specifically. You can find music on AM too.

Life Lessons

[SiDeWaYs FaTmAn]

Momma always told me to share.

It's really simple

[avik42]

It's really simple.. STOP buying records made by RIAA. But that won't happen because having opinion (no matter how shitty) is noble. Having the balls to live up and stand up takes balls. Which most of you don't have. You have opinions but no balls.

I already quit buying Music CDs provided by RIAA. If you have the balls, stop belly aching and hurt them where it matters.. MONEY.

But like I said, that will take balls. Heaven forbid if we got rid of "manufactured" boy/girl groups.

Re:False: The quality is equal or less

[WaterBreath]

I'm not talking about ADC/DAC here. Obviously there's information loss in the recording process (ADC), there's information loss during any compression that might happen, and there's information loss during playback (DAC). But for all intents and purposes, the copyrighted content is the output of the original digital recording process. And if the compression of that output is deemed sufficiently "preservative", then the output of that is still covered by copyright. And burning to digital media involves no final DAC. So with digital transmission, there is the distinct possibility of copyrighted content being "copied" or "distributed" in a format that is very largely uncompromised. Whether stations are actually doing it or not is another story. And that's where I said the RIAA may be out of line in this action, but do have reason to be worried about the future.

RIAA sues for existence

[ekimminau]

Lets see, back in 1972 I had a suitcase Boom box with an 8track recorder which allowed me to record directly off the radio to an 8 track.
Then I got my boom box with the cassette recorder that allowed me to record to a cassette directly of the radio or any other source plugged into the auxillary audio in jack, such as my portable CD walkman or the turntable that now sits in the bottom of a closet.
Add tho this argument the dual CD deck I bought at Best Buy 4-5 years ago that lets me record to cassette from any audio source connected to my stereo, which also happens to include my Dish Satellite receiver with 120+ channels of Sirius audio programming. I made a number of Christmas cassettes for a holiday trip last year. I recorded a couple of O'Reilley factors for listening on the way to work.
Add in the CD recorder that is also now hooked to my stereo which can also record any connected audio source.
I have been seriously considering buying a stereo connected DVD burner right after Christmas so I can burn a few shows directly to DVD but the DVD burner can also make VCD and music CDs so I can eliminate the cassettes from my world by converting all my cassettes to MP3 or music CDs.
I paid for all my 8 track tapes. I paid for all my cassettes. I pay for my Satellite Dish access, I pay for my own blank CD's and DVDs.
I think the RIAA should try for a law that says every experience is owned by the viewer and require anyone participating in your personal experience is required to pay you royalty revenue. Lets see them solve the logistical nightmare of a super stadium live simulcast rock concert or the Super Bowl. Every viewer is entitled to royalty from every other participant.
In summary, what a crock.

Dear RIAA:

[addictedavi]

Shut the fuck up.
Please.

RIAA KMA

[Anonymous Coward]

Last year I stopped buying CD's altogether when I hear what the RIAA was doing with law suits. I don't use any of the MP3 services (legal or otherwise) either.

I don't miss the music one bit. The stuff coming out lately is crap anyway. I sometimes listen to the radio on the way to and from work, or on cable I'll tune the digital music channels, but my life has been just fine without CD's of any kind.

I urge everyone to do the same thing. If everyone put off buying CD's for a year, it would certainly be a substantial boycot. For me, its worked out just fine without any impact to my life. It actually gives me more time to think and I don't think I'll buy any next year either.

I bought maybe 5-6 CD's a year in the past at $11 a piece. So I've taken only $66 from them, but its actually become a lifestyle choice for me. I prefer not to give them more money to sue people. Spend your money on something else for a year...you won't miss it, and collectively it will declaw the RIAA and undermine their whole campaign for world domination. Do you think the music industry will put money into an entity if they know that it is actually making their sales worse?

Once again, wrong about copyright...

[dooglio]

'The record industry ... believes the recording capability [of satellite radio receivers] is a clear copyright violation and could take revenue away from paid download music services.'

Since when is the ability to record a copyright violation? Making personal copies of creative works is allowed under fair use, something the spinmeisters at the RIAA keep forgetting about. Distribution is the issue here, not recording.

How are they supposed to get exposure

[moeinvt]

How is an artist, especially an up-and-comer supposed to get any exposure if you can't play their music on the radio and can't distribute it via the Internet? When last I checked, bands were mailing promo-CDs to radio stations all the time begging for air play. How many people are going to go to a concert or buy a CD when they have never heard any of the band's music? Do we have to rely on MTV and a few Movie and TV soundtracks to tell us what to listen to?

This is getting old

[Anonymous Coward]

The law does not guerentee companies their profits. Neither does it secure the amount of profit they get. Let's say I invented a way to live forever which would eleminate the need for life insurance. Can a life insurance company sue me because I'm taking away their profit? Of course not. So what's up RIAA's ass?

RIAA: "I can file that suit in one note!"

[HTH NE1]

The RIAA thinks they have a right here because...

The RIAA thinks it owns the patent, copyright, and trademark on all music throughout the universe in perpetuity. They'd sue for the damnation of every harp plucker on the other side of the pearly gates if they could.

Re:False: The quality is equal or less

[robertjw]

For all intents and purposes, satellite radio is capable of sending out lossless audio data, if they so desired, whereas with FM radio there's not a whole lot that can be done toward that end.

Not exactly. Both are an issue of cost. The satellite companies are restricted by bandwidth issues, it's not economically viable for a satellite radio provider to stream lossless audio data. At the same time FM radio stations are limited by FCC licensing, transmitter strength, etc... Again, it's not economically viable for most FM stations to broadcast at the strength required to provide lossless or nearly lossless transmissions. Both technologies could be used to provide higher quality broadcasts than they do, but it wouldn't make financial sense.

Furthermore, satellite radio cannot be considered a "public service", as someone else claimed, because you have to pay to hear it. And so it doesn't fall under the same rules as AM/FM radio.

AM/FM radio are licensed as 'performances'. Most times when a band conducts a real live performance it's not free. A satellite is no different, customers are paying to listen to the performance. AM/FM radio is a free performance in the park, satellite radio is at Radio City Music Hall (or Red Rocks or your local State Fair). Both are still a performance.

However, I think they do have a right to request a certain amount of compensation for the satellite stations out there that really are streaming content of a reasonable fidelity.

Any broadcaster has to pay royalties to ASCAP/BMI which go to the artists. Why should the RIAA get a licensing fee as well. Why should the satellite providers have to pay twice?

Logic errors

[Eric Damron]

I've got to play Devil's advocate here.

"Satellite is NOT the same as analog, you're right. It's of lesser quality than the capability of analog signals. Whether or not your favorite Tejano Rap station broadcasts at full strength is up to them, but FM has a far superior fidelity to XM or Sirius. 2600 had an article on this from last year."

I sense a flaw in your logic. Although it is technically correct that analog broadcasts can give higher fidelity than digital, it's not relevant. The difference between DVD quality and really being there too small for the human ear/brain to detect.

"Both companies are using a single broadcast signal to project all 100+ of those channels into your radio. Those channels are highly compressed. It's not as though the reciever sends a signal up to the master satellite requesting the "moldy oldies" station and then your radio gets a full on signal. Nope, not at all. You get all the quality it'll deliver all at once for all stations (pay channels included) Don't be fooled into thinking that just because it's satellite it's better."

I don't know if they compress the data stream or not. If they start with CD quality and do compress the data then the compression algorithm will determine if they lose any quality at all. It is not inconceivable that there won't be a loss.

That being said, I think the RIAA are corporate bastards and I hope that their unbridled greed bites them in their collective ass.

Re:Logic errors

[ajservo]

What's my flaw? I can hear the difference in a compressed and uncompressed audio signal. Lots of people can. It's really a matter more of if you think it's passable for what you're wanting from the service. If you're a satellite user, and the sound is okay enough, you'll tolerate it. I've heard it, and I don't like it. I can wait it out for now. Satellite radio's still in it's infancy. When it's had room to grow out more like the satellite TV companies did, it got better and better all the time.

They do compress the stream. There's no way XM or Sirus is capable of broadcasting the full 100+ channels at full CD quality audio. CD audio is about 1.4 Mbps. XM is broadcasting ALL of their channels simultaneously at roughly 4 Mbps. So, you're getting about the signal capability of 4 - 44.1Khz 16 bit channels covering 100 channels of audio. Yes, there's going to be a lot of compression. How much, I'm sure it varies by channel, but if you wanna average the 4 Mbps over all 100 channels, that's about 40 Kbps. Assuming that they probably use several transponders to broadcast this with an increased rate of transfer for the channels (less channels on the Mbps would hopefully mean better audio quality) and that would mean the audio would increase in quality.

I'll give you an allowance of 96-128 kbps for the audio on satellite. Great, so it's mp3 quality at best.
I've read that they use a varied version of the AAC codec. So, potentially, you've got audio that will at best sound "similar" to uncompressed, but still have some range issues.

But that's a hope for you at best. All I've ever read or heard XM brag about is their pair of satellites, "Rock" and "Roll" that cover the entire band of stations.

The relevance of all of this? To invalidate your need of self validation in buying up an XM/Sirius reciever. You're the one who wanted to play Devil's Advocate here. Check up on your technology's capabilities and see if it's meeting your needs before you rally behind it so strongly. It didn't meet up to my audio needs, so I passed on it, and I recommend so to anyone I know that asks me about it.

If you want to piss off the RIAA...

[Anonymous Coward]

shop at allofmp3.com.

Simple as that.

Bannishment

[ckibbyrun]

While the RIAA is at it, why don't they sue every company that has ever made a device that can record and later play sounds.

Psst.

[Kaenneth]

Psst, SCO, I hear the RIAA is running Linux servers to spam P2P music networks, and not paying you license fees.

Psst, RIAA, I hear SCO is licensing Linux servers capable of sharing music files, and not paying you license fees.

Digital Media: Jack Valenti on "Justice Talking"

[ngr8]

For extra fun try NPR's Justice Talking "The First Amendment in a Digital Age" which aired on 16 September 2005 with Jack Valenti (MPAA), Floyd Abrams (Pentagon Papers), and Lawrence Lessig (Creative Commons).

Interesting discussion of Intellectual Property & etc. And my sense of the discussion was that the (former jefe of) MPAA's resembled the effect of talking to a Television Set.

I only wish Hunter Thompson had moderated.

Fraud! 4color brochure != reality. Sky is blue.

[Anomalyst]

In other news:
Sun rises in the east, sets in the west.
Bears defecate in the woods.

Charging for atmospheric ingestion...

[Pizpump]

Probably won't be long before the RIAA decides we have to pay them to breathe the same oxygen that the musicians breathe.

Re:False: The quality is equal or less

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't work in any sort of communications field do you? It's pretty obvious... now I will explain it before the rest of the non-techies out there start believing this.

#1 The music channels on both Sirius and XM sound higher quality not because of extra bandwidth or compression methods... plain and simple: These stations are broadcast BY Sirius and XM and come from a digital source

#2 The voice channels on both Sirius and XM sound of a lower quality, not because of less bandwidth or compression methods.... plain and simple: These stations are LEASED by Sirius and XM, the come from an analog source.... You can run these through the washing machine all you want, they will still be dirty....

Have you ever tried to run an analog signal through a digital processor? Ever tried to convert an over air signal to polyphonic stereo? You cannot get an over-air signal (even one that is LEASED by, not ORIGINATING from a digital satellite station) to sound CD Quality.

Howard Stern will be broadcast by Sirius, so expect it to sound of a higher quality than Nationalist Pansy Radio (which Sirius and XM LEASE and do not ORIGINATE

Re:False: The quality is equal or less

[tkrotchko]

The quality of NPR over FM is significantly better than Sirius.

ESPN is significantly better over AM than Sirius.

And most of Sirius's content is produced in-house and originates in NYC. And all the talk channels sound terrible.

Tell you what. Give it a listen rather than argue with me. You'll see the 2nd response to my original post that I'm not the only person who has noted this. In fact, there's probably a bunch of people that you know or work with that listen to Sirius; they'll probably let you listen if you ask.

Disable Autoplay

[gadlaw]

Never ever let any of those CD's or DVD's load their own players on your computer. Disable autoplay (google it) or hold down shiftkey when you put your cd/dvd in the computer. Use CDex(http://sourceforge.net/projects/cdexos) to rip your cd's. Use Winamp to play your cd's. Use VLC (www.videolan.org/vlc/) player to run your DVD's. They can't take over your computer unless you let them.

Re:Disable Autoplay

[Awedaura]

Disable Autoplay: Press: Win+R Enter: gpedit.msc Expand: user configuration Expand: Administrative Templates Click: System Highlight: Turn off Autoplay Right click: Properties Click: ENABLED (All drives) OK Problem solved.

Re:False: The quality is equal or less

[HaveNoMouth]

Analog radio is inherently imperfect because the information is not discrete. A loss of amplitude, or an attenuation, means a change in the content of the signal, and there's no checking mechanism to know that something changed. So what get's played (or recorded) is not exactly what was broadcast.

I'd put it another way. Digital radio is inherently imperfect because the information is discrete. Analog signals start out perfect in theory but degrade in practice because of the imperfect environment of the real world. Digital signals are born imperfect because they're quantized, and quantization always introduces errors. However this error is known, controllable, and can be made as small as desired (but never zero). In practice, digital signals aren't as sensitive to degradation from the imperfect environment as analog, and what degradation there is is more predictable. Thus the tradeoff is one of random, hard-to-predict errors vs. less random, more controllable, more predictable errors.

I record radio for my own purposes daily

[CoderB]

I listen to Don and Mike which runs from 12-4 for me. Due to interference from my work environment I can't listen to the program via AM radio. I also can't listen via internet because the admins have blocked streams in general.

So I have a job on my computer that records the line input source to mp3 files and listen to them the next day. Frankly this sounds like something the RIAA would object to.

Re:False: The quality is equal or less

[surprise_audit]

satellite radio cannot be considered a "public service", as someone else claimed, because you have to pay to hear it.

I have Dish Network right now, because cable was getting stupidly expensive, and I can get a bunch of no-video music channels. I'll bet I could record those to VHS, or even to one of the new DVD recorders, at reasonable quality. I wonder if the RIAA is going after Dish Network and DirectTV next??

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad

[paul248]

Satellite radio may be digital, but it typically sounds worse than FM, after they compress the streams down to 48kbps or so.

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA gets paid whenever you buy a blank tape. RIAA doesn't get paid whenever you record from XM or Serius.

Buffering

[Thomas Shaddack]

Buffering is a natural property of the transmission path, even for analog radio/TV broadcasts, due to the slowness of light. In the simplest case of a satellite on a geostationary orbit and a straight line from the point under it up and down, the signal has to travel twice 35786 km, which amounts to 0.24 second roundtrip time. Which amounts to 6 or 7 video half-frames (for PAL or NTSC respectively), buffered in the empty space between the transmitter, satellite, and receiver. The signal path acts like a FIFO buffer here.

Also, frame buffering takes place in the new 100Hz TVs, and in basically everything that handles video in a digital way.

There is no principial difference for PC-based streaming. So where's the problem?

Leaks in the Roof of the Music Industry

[Secret Agent Man]

From what I'm seeing, it looks like every single available media that plays music will have to be specifically covered so that the RIAA can't jump up and get more money from them.

Re:False: The quality is equal or less

[WaterBreath]

You're correct, of course. I guess I didn't mean that digital radio is "perfect", but rather that the signal degradation is "controlled". Whereas in analog radio, it is not.

Re:False: The quality is equal or less

[m4g02]

I see it now, my mistake.