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."
Isn't it considered "fair use" to record a broadcast for personal use? This is exactly like someone recording a TV show with their VCR. Nor is it any different then hooking up a radio to a tape recorder and recording favorite music. I guess the RIAA bigwigs fear anything that makes it "convenient" to record a broadcast.
In light of that, I sure hope they don't start pushing Congress to put DRM chips in every audio recording device out there like MPAA's anti-"analog hole" chip push.
I think they should stop fighting technology and start using it as a buisness model...
When you subscribe to XM or Sirius?
"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."
So they want to be paid by both the broadcasters and the listeners? Paid twice for the same product? If that's the case, will the RIAA be charging broadcasters less money for broadcasting songs with the metaphorical broadcast flag set, or will the prices continue to remain as high as they are even though they'll also be seeing money from recorders?
The US has the best legislature money can buy!
The recording industry chooses to allow satellite radio broadcasts. They can choose not to, if they feel it helps their business. But there is no need for federal regulation just because the recording industry can't figure out how to run their business effectively.
But this is not about Internet broadcasts. This is about satellite broadcasts that the user has already purchased the right to listen to. Who is to say the he/she cannot timeshift that music to listen to it an a more appropriate time. I pay a monthly (yearly in my case) fee to listen to premium satellite content. I will NOT pay an additional fee to be "allowed" to listen to it again or record it.
Repant. Thy end is sheer.
Radio stations pay to RIAA and suchlike for broadcasing rights already. This is where the music is sold. If RIAA thinks it is underpaid, it could try to raise the price for the stations.
Why add another piece of legislature?
Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes
Congress should find a way to regulate these new digital radio networks so labels can get paid when consumers keep copies of songs
While they are at it, how about passing a law so that MUSCIANS can get paid when then labels sell their music?
So now, I have to pay for radio so I can hear it the way it's meant to be. But I can't even record some songs I like so I can hear them again? What about fair play?
See, it's just not even worth it. You might as well just be buying CDs because you actually get to control some of what you pay for. Control is key because then you can enjoy it when the mood strikes you and not have to work around something just to get your way. I don't care about the difference between buying something and licensing it. If I pay money, I expect SOMEthing to go my way. Anytime the distributors get involved with anything, they want to control it and get me to pay more than I would have for what I thought was fair and enjoy it on my terms. But somehow the distributors get uptight whenever things aren't on their terms. Is that what the artists want? Do they even care?
In the future, will there be such a thing as a commercial format with wide distribution that doesn't restrict the user in some way, preventing them from enjoying it on their terms? It seems to me that there won't, because if a user enjoys something on their terms, distributors can't start charging you when you want to do something else with it that you hadn't intended on at the point of purchase. Say you bought CDs, and after that you bought a portable digital audio jukebox. Naturally you want to put your fucking music on there and carry it around with you, but that won't be possible. This is garbage.
Just preview tracks online, through P2P or whatever, and then buy what you like. Am I really insane for doing this? Fuck the distributors. They're insane.
Twinstiq, game news
This my thinking exactly. What are radio stations paying for if the end consumer has to pay again for the same material?
Moreover, I don't think a 64 Kb/s stream from Sirius or XM qualifies as a "high quality recording". From what I've heard it's better than AM radio but worse than FM when it comes to audio quality.
Your train went off the rails when you started with the assumption that the record labels have absolute IP rights to the music that they sell. Copyright is a time-limited privilege, granted to further the public interest, not to enrich the "owners" of IP.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I guess the RIAA bigwigs fear anything that makes it "convenient" to record a broadcast.
You know, we need to take a step back. The parties the RIAA represents are distributors. Many industries have distributors - people that help match buyers with sellers and add expense to the process. Distribution as a viable business often emerges when it is difficult to put the buyer and seller directly together. It dies when new technologies develop that make this easy.
Consider Geico. They sell insurance directly to consumers, bypassing agents. Their model is to cut out the middleman and save the 15-20% overhead associated with distribution, keeping much of that and giving enough of that savings to the consumer to have a competitive advantage.
Should an angry army of insurance agents band, form a trade association, restrain trade, intimidate consumers and fight progress? That'd be absurd. A good friend of mine owns an insurance agency and he's found the way to compete is not suing his customers, but rather proving higher levels of service. He actually saved me 15% off of Geico which I was previously with, and provides me with a lot of expertise and attention in my insurance policies I never got with the direct model. Insurance is actually a market where knowledge is valuable and many consumers will pay a bit more to benefit from it.
Dell has cut out the middleman too. Do you see Best Buy suing all of us for going direct? Of course not. Compete or die. Countless other industries have gone between the flux of direct and distribution. The science comes down to this: When you add value to the consumer that exceeds the additional cost through the distribution process, the consumer will naturally buy through distribution. If you don't add more value than cost, they will bypass you.
The recording industry is cranking out tired artists, relying on a model of selecting a limited set of musicians and "putting lipstick on the pig" through aggressive marketing to sell the stuff. Worse yet, their distribution adds exceptional cost - more than double the original cost that goes to the artist (most of the cost to the consumer is to the distributor - this is a hint that the process is out of control), yet their product is less convenient to the consumer than the direct option. They're adding cost and inconvenience, not any added service. Unfortunately the distribution/direct paradigm has shifted due to technology and they're adding cost with no value. Excluding anticompetitive practices, litigation and legislation based on gifts to corrupt politicians, they will die... unless they can provide value once again that exceeds the cost they add to the product.
*scoove*
"our livelihood and our families' annuity. "
But it's not.
I don't have a problem with authors and musicians making a living on their works, but I don't see where copyright was meant to be an annuity down through the generations.
At best, copyright was meant to give a person enough to encourage them to be more creative because it allows them the means to live and work as a creative person. We all benefit.
But what benefit is there to society that Elvis's daughter makes money from his songs? I don't mean that in the socialist sense, I simply mean that copyright is not a natural law. Its a device of law that people decided society was better off giving authors a limited monopoly to prevent unauthorized copying. Therefore, you can't make the argument that there is somehow a natural law that establishes ownership of a creative work for all time.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you