Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

12 of 547 comments (clear)

  1. No kidding? by SilverspurG · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.
    --
    fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    1. Re:No kidding? by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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!).
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:No kidding? by BlkSprk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:No kidding? by hackstraw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. The beginning of the end by Quasar1999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    ---
    Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    1. Re:The beginning of the end by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  3. It's only a matter of time... by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
  4. RIAA Serves Their Purpose by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Cartel? by CdBee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
  6. Understatement of the Century by nightsweat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "the RIAA is starting to overstep its bounds"

    --

    the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
  7. Re:Not the time to buy xm then eh? by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  8. Music's social contract breaking down by Simonetta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.