Slashdot Mirror
Tension Between Record Labels And Digital Radio
An anonymous reader writes "Now that digtial radio devices are allowing recording of shows, you knew it wouldn't be long before music executives started raising a fuss. They're worried that users will prefer to record the high-quality audio (for free) to buying a download or CD." From the article: "For now, the Recording Industry Association of America is in negotiations with satellite radio companies and is opening discussions with radio broadcasters over specific products. But over the long term, the music industry says, Congress should find a way to regulate these new digital radio networks so labels can get paid when consumers keep copies of songs, as is the case with iTunes."
i test-drove XM radio in a shiny new rental car. the compression artifacting hurts my head, and makes most of the content unlistenable. imho, there's no issue here: if i want quality audio, i'll purchase a cd, or download some FLAC, or even record an FM station.
Congress should find a way to regulate these new digital radio networks so labels can get paid when consumers keep copies of songs, as is the case with iTunes.
Last I checked it was legal to record off the radio. The AHRA covers this...
The act failed to define "noncommercial use by a consumer" however " In short, the reported legislation [Section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use." (House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992) .
Although now that I think about it, technically the music industry is getting around this part of the legislation by not going after consumers recording digital media off the radio, but in fact threating to pull out of agreements with digital radio broadcasters if they don't implement this system. This is the kind of shit that gets them investigated by Elliot Spitzer.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
All uses that are not explicitly covered by copyright law are "fair use" under the 9th Amendment. Wherein the rights NOT explicitly given to Congress or the President are reserved to the People themselves. No explicit grant is required.
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
Up and coming is "HD Radio" which is the next big disaster coming. It uses the so-called "IBOC" (In-Band On-Channel) technology to jam digital carriers on either side of the AM or FM audio signal. It's known to decrease station coverage and cause background noise on the station itself.
It doesn't actually accomplish anything, seeing as there's hardly enough of a bit rate for one subchannel besides the main one (as far as music), let alone more than that.
But the reason I bring it up is that people say, "well I can just record it off my FM radio," without realizing that this is coming. The RIAA has already been talking about controls on digital radio to prevent people from doing that stuff there too.
Don't take your FM for granted, the government wants to take that too.
It looks like Congress has made some legal distinction based on how you get the information. E.g. the information in a terrestrial radio broadcast is in a different legal category than satellite radio or an internet download.
This is ridiculous -- e.g. if I ran IP over a radio frequency, then what? What category am I in?
FTFA:
"Congress has historically come down on the side of the broadcasters in this debate, saying that radio stations can play whatever music they want while paying only a relatively small amount of money to songwriters and publishers for the right to "perform" the song on-air--and not paying record companies at all.
"Similarly, the right of consumers to tape songs off the radio has generally been held to be fair use.
"However, when Congress set the rules for Internet and other digital broadcasts in 1998, it gave record companies the right to royalties from Internet and satellite radio broadcasts. That's set up a patchwork of different rules for different new media companies, even as technology has brought the way consumers use their services more closely together."
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Fair use or not, the Slashdot article says:
"They're worried that users will prefer to record the high-quality audio (for free) to buying a download or CD."
And on Wikipedia, for XM satellite radio, the only one I checked, it says:
"Due to lack of bandwidth and too many channels, the maximum bitrate XM broadcast from its satellite per music channel is limited to 64kbs."
Therefore, this is all B.S. since 64 kbps is not generally considered to be high-quality.
I'm your huckleberry
Sorry but XM is far from CD quality. It's more like a low quality 128kbps mp3.
Yes it sounds better than FM because of greater dynamic range and no compression (ok many channels have compression now so that is no longer a good point) but it certianly does not sound as good as a CD.
Anyone choosing to record their music from XM or sirius instead of buying the CD to rip or getting a torrent of the whole album recorded as 256kbps VBR mp3's is a nutjob with lots of time to waste as it has to go in realtime.
Now, recording the upcoming howard stern into an mp3 so they can listen to it later, yeah. I can see that and other shows you want to time shift.
But their reasoning as described in the article? that is purely retarted concerns from executives that dont even have the foggiest idea as to what they are talking about.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Actually, "fair use" is based on the ol' First Amendment. It was first introduced in the early 1800s.
The ruling that recording "broadcast" TV constitutes fair use however dates to Betamax.
In other words, fair use isn't going anywhere, but the current statute defines it more broadly than the courts require under freedom of speech/press.
I have a sirius s50 and I record songs, but you know what? I record them only so I know what songs it is I need to buy on itunes. I think these people have their head up their ass. The quality isn't even as good with jocks talking in the beginning or end of the song on a recorded satelite radio anyway.
In modern, U.S. law, it didn't actually grow out of Betamax (you're thinking of the time-shifting finding) - it gained a statutory definition in the Copyright Act of 1976, and was recognized common law (interpreted varyingly, to be sure) before that.
I forget what 8 was for.
I call bullshit
http://harveydanger.com/downloads/
I had no idea who they were before I downloaded their free album, and now I have developed a bit of a liking for some of their songs, so I would consider buying the other albums or seeing them in concert.
"I wonder where our current creative interpretation that copyright trumps the 1st amendment came from?"
Looking at the examples of other repealed content in the Constitution, the First would either have to rewrite the offending content entirely (as was done with the Eleventh Amendment, the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Seventeenth Amendment), or include explicit words like "is hereby repealed" (Twenty-First Amendment). Unless or until there's a new amendment that says something like "The Congress shall not have the power to secure for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries," the First Amendment and the Copyright Clause will have to coexist as far as the federal courts are concerned.
Sure it is, as long as the broadcaster is paying an analogous amount to the copyright holder for the right to broadcast the material in each case. I don't know if that's true here or not, but it seems to me that this is exactly what copyright is for: the copyright holder can force the broadcaster to pay them an amount commensurate with what they think they'll lose in individual sales before allowing them to broadcast the material. It's up to the broadcaster how they finance that payment; if their business model is viable, they'll manage, and if not, they won't be able to deprive the holder of income they're due. Either way, it's in both parties' interests to go for the solution that maximises the number of people who will pay to hear the material.
Whether or not the current copyright arrangements are ethical, particularly when it comes to artists signing away their copyright to middlemen, is an entirely different question, of course.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
My cousin got XM for Christmas. I was riding with him last week, and on a number of music stations, there were commercials for "Xantrax 3 Diet Pill" or whatever the hell it's called. The commercial title even showed up on the player screen.
It won't be long until satellite radio is equally infested with commercials. They don't care that you're already paying for it. The more money they can rake in, the better. Cable and satellite TV subcribers have already forgotten that the biggest selling point of cable and sat were, you guessed it, no commercials. Now look how things are.
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
Umm no.. Music stations on XM or Sirius do not have commercials. XM used to be they removed them about 2 years ago to better compete with Sirius The talk radio stations have commercials on XM because they are syndicated and live, gotta fill something in there.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?