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."

Comments

Re:Fair use?

[kfg]

And the founding fathers, particularly Jefferson, had a fair bit to say about the matter, making it explicit that copyright was an incursion against the rights of the people (as partially enumerated in the First Amendment) and to be tolerated only so far as that incursion actually contributed to the public good.

The fly in the oinment is that the above required the power to grant copyright be included in the Constitution itself, using what are, perhaps, the most vauge terms in the entire document.

Thus the court was recently given to the opinion that while it held certain sympathies with those who feel the term of copyright is now far in excess of what the founders would have found tolerable, nontheless the Constitution effectively gives Congress the right to set such term at anything less than forever, since it simply says "limited time."

Welcome to the Brave New World of "limited" meaning "forever and all encompassing minus one."

KFG

Papa Heinlein said it best ... in 1939.

[Dr. Zowie]

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.
--RAH, Life Line, 1939

Re:Fair use?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

If I swipe your lawnmower and sell it to your neighbor, does he get to keep it because he paid for it?

If I copy your lawnmower and sell it to your neighbor, does he get to keep it because he paid for it?

What's the difference

[caldaean]

So, what they are saying are that they want to get paid for music already paid for (by the radio station), because someone records it and listens to it later? How is that different from getting paid for music already paid for (by buying an album) and listening to it later? Of course, that would be the next logical step for them to take. Have everybody insert an implant which will register every time you hear a song, and charge you for it. The way the music industry is acting nowadays, it's not strange that people don't like them.

What nonsense. Utter nonsense

[tkrotchko]

First of all, and this is important:

    Neither Sirius nor XM broadcast in anything approaching CD quality. At best, some of the stations are broadcast in what is equal to 128kb/s mp3 or aac. Most channels are roughly FM quality.

    Second, the fact that this is broadcast digitally is irrelevant; there is no access to the digital stream, so by the time you can record the music, it's already analog. Therefore, this is really nothing more than recording radio.

    Can you make digital copies of this analog stream (re-read my last paragraph)? Yes. But then, you can do that with FM radio as well.

Let's be clear about this. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANALOG AND SATELLITE RADIO EXCEPT THAT FOR NOW THE MUSIC CHANNELS DON'T HAVE COMMERCIALS.

The RIAA appears to be using the words "digital" in a way to evoke fear of piracy. It's so transparent that you'd have to be really naive to believe anything about the RIAA's position.