Slashdot Mirror
Radio Royalty Legislation Described As 'RIAA Bailout'
An anonymous reader tips an article at TechDirt about draft legislation from Representative Jerry Nadler (D-NY) that would dramatically increase the music royalty fees for cable and satellite radio to put them at the same level as internet radio streaming. TechDirt calls this the 'RIAA Bailout Act of 2012' and says the RIAA has been pursuing similar legislation to increase royalty rates for terrestrial radio as well.
"As it stands now, the rates are so damaging that Pandora — the top player in the space — has made it clear it may never be profitable. Yes, never. Nadler's bill would effectively make sure that no one else in that market would be profitable either. The end result? Many of these services don't exist or never get started. That would actually mean fewer services, fewer listeners and lower royalties. It's almost as if he has no concept of price elasticity. Lower prices can create higher total income. Also, the idea that any particular Congressional Rep. should be (effectively) determining what the "fair" price is for anything is, well, horrifying. "
Seems they (the RIAA) would rather take nothing, and blame it on piracy, than take something!
"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
the government we currently have wants to control everything. 'spread the wealth around' i think is the catch-phrase
I need a bailout. What about the American people? The national debt passed 16 trillion recently.
Nadler's bill would effectively make sure that no one else in that market would be profitable either. The end result? Many of these services don't exist or never get started.
I think that's quite the desired effect by the RIAA, to repress technologies and services. This is a deep rooted mentality that has been "proven" in their eyes by cassette tapes (remember when people were duping records and recording radio plays and that was destroying everything?) and Napster and Bittorrent -- all new technologies that they attribute with the decline of their iron grip on their "consumers." Internet radio is just the latest demon and, of course, if their profits slide it will be the new scapegoat. The article notices this as well:
“Congressman Nadler’s discussion draft would only perpetuate this hypocrisy and worsen an already flawed legislative mistake that is discriminating against new technology and hampering innovation,"
I do slightly object to this statement:
t's almost as if he has no concept of price elasticity. Lower prices can create higher total income.
No, I disagree with you there. I think services like Amazon and iTunes have shown them this and they reject that concept anyway. They built up their empires by reducing the diversity of music and creating a single song that everyone had to have. Radio jockeys play it 24/7, the Billboard Top 100 tells you what it is and it's basically slammed down your throat everywhere. This strategy payed off very well for them for quite some time. They wanted to reduce the amount of music you wanted or desired and price it out at $18 for the album. Everybody had to buy it and that's why you can pick up New Kids on the Block or Brittany Spears albums at your local thrift store for pennies now. And that's the best way the RIAA could have it since everyone got sick of that music, burned out on it and had to have the next $18 album that they were told to buy. Since everyone had to buy it that was $18 * tons of money.
Now new technology comes along and offers a more diverse music repertoire and the possibility of buying that single song and *GASP* radio jockeys that aren't yoked into playing the same goddamn song over and over again. And this frightens the music executives. They know about price elasticity, they just don't want the profits they should be making and instead wish to return to a simpler time when they told you what to pay and everyone paid that because there was no other option and society was shoving it down their throats. Lower prices CAN create higher profits but the way the RIAA has been running the show means it probably will not.
My work here is dung.
These royalties go to the correct respective artists/labels based on the actual songs. The media middleman does not deserve any profit or credit, as it is not the middleman's work that the consumers actually want.
Any step towards killing the media middleman is a positive one as far as I'm concerned. Artists are like businesses - if you can't make a living off of your works then it's time to move on to something else.
I'm dead against arbitrary media levies, but that is not at all the same thing.
For the record, I do buy music, but only when I know the money is going to the actual artist. I like beatport and have little hesitation toward buying expensive concert tickets for artists I like.
I love watching greedy people try to imposeold business models on new technologies and systems.
It's like watching Bashar Al-assad (RIAA) cling to dictatorial power through Russian and Chinese influence (congress) while, American CIA Officers (no actual corresponding role in this analogy) funds "rebels, and definitely NOT terrorists" (file sharing and other new technology adherents) to disrupt a regime in the name (in my best George W. Bush impression) FREEDUM.
This isn't about the money, it's about control. If they can get a law that makes default royalities so high no-one can enter the business, they'd be overjoyed. Then, when everyone else is locked out of the business, they can buy up the failed businesses, and run their own monopoly services. They might not be extracting every last cent out of the music, but they, and only they would control it. (Artists and Listeners can take a hike)
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
The more star systems will slip through your fingers. Or to put it in more terrestrial terms, no company, when hit with arbitrary regulation, will simply take it up the a$$. The newly regulated company will A) pass the cost on to the customer, B) lay people off, or C) go out of business. This is the same unintended consequence that stalks Net Neutrality. If you think a phone company like AT&T (which btw, has only a 3.67% profit margin) will simply continue to increase available bandwidth and quality of service because some government flunky forced them to handle everyone's pointless video chat traffic, think again. They will delay or stop service improvements or they will raise the rates for everyone. Don't believe me? Ever look at all the little persnickety fees on your bill? All those social-engineering mandates are listed there.
Anyone with a few thousand can create a damned good recording studio, cut an album
How should someone who writes and records an album verify that the songs he wrote don't accidentally infringe a third party's copyright?
release it online independently (and to streaming sites)
How should they promote it to listeners who aren't already streaming music in their vehicles? These listeners use FM radio because they don't already have a sufficiently expensive data plan or they aren't aware of the streaming sites.
Can somebody explain why the government is involved in this at all? Why are royalty fees simply negotiated between the licensor and licensee?
This is not like utilities, food, or health care where we need to prevent an oligarchy from profiteering by withholding necessities. If you do not agree to the fees, do not license the content.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Lower prices can create higher total income.
This is true when the lower price generates more sales. This is not happening in the music world.
People are buying single tracks or tuning into Pandora instead of building up a collection of CDs. This benefits the consumer because it is much more efficient to listen to music this way.
i.e. the new cost structure of the internet means that the consumer reap most of the rewards of improved efficiency. I am not a friend of the RIAA but I do recognize that they have left the land of honey and milk for a barren desert.
It would be fascinating if someone were to start an IndieGoGo fundraiser to "Buy a Senator"
Buy a senator and have him introduce a bill - something good, like forcing the cablecos to share their lines with competitors at cost, or legalizing marijuana for adults.
How much money would it take? $5 million? $10M, $20M before a senator publicly announces, "Okay, I'll do it. What law do you want introduced and give the cash to my campaign manager so he can get to work on spinning this"
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
It sounds to me like the music industry is bent on self-destruction, and this is something we should encourage. Let them price themselves out of existence. Once they're gone, maybe we can have some good music again.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
The entitlement mentality of the RIAA is astounding.
Radio has for decades played their songs as advertising. In the past record companies have gotten in trouble for paying radio stations to play certain music.
Now they want to have their cake and eat it too.
There is NO DIFFERENCE between the radio playing the song and a streaming service playing the song. It is still advertising for the record company. I have bought many songs after hearing them on a streaming service. I also already own many songs that play on streaming services I listen to. The record company being paid per play by streaming services is obnoxious crap.
I always smile when I think of how badly Apple and Amazon screwed over the record companies in providing access to digital versions of their music. They had the ability to build their own stores and they were idiotic enough to fail and it the process hand over billions to companies that laid the digital groundwork for them. True, record companies make money from Amazon and Apple, but Amazon and Apple make money off the record companies too _and_ they completely control the ecosystem.
I'm anxiously waiting for Apple, Amazon, and Google to start getting into the business of distributing artists songs just like they do for app developers. They could also use their promotional capabilities to drive sales for these artists. Sales where they make more money than selling what the record companies give them. When this happens the writing will be on the wall and the record companies will finally die the death they so deserve.
Nadler's bill would effectively make sure that no one else in that market would be profitable either. The end result? Many of these services don't exist or never get started. That would actually mean fewer services, fewer listeners and lower royalties. It's almost as if he has no concept of price elasticity. Lower prices can create higher total income.
This is too simplistic of a view. By limiting the number of stations that can play music you licence, you will make less money on the licencing, sure. But you also will have more control over what plays on the airwaves (or satallite waves, etc). By playing king-maker for what's hot and what's not you end up making far more money in the long run. The music industry has to compete with it's back catalog, all the way back to when music was first recorded. They need some way to get people to buy current music over the greatest of the past. They do this by controlling what becomes popular.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
The media middleman does not deserve any profit or credit, as it is not the middleman's work that the consumers actually want.
Consumers want to be informed of what recorded music of at least competent quality has become available. It's the middleman's job to make the consumers aware of the work.
I'm still not sure, what is RIAA's purpose? The artists compose and perform the music, the distributors (radio stations, iTunes, Google Play, Pandora and P2P etc) distribute that music to the masses. What is RIAA's role in this ecosystem? Where does RIAA fit?
Is it possible to set up an alternative RIAA?
Not as long as the music publishers affiliated with the major record labels threaten to sue people who write their own songs for copyright infringement on the grounds that too much of a melody was accidentally copied. See, for example, Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music and Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton.
Was there not some kind of law already about the Governments ability to set the "market" price for goods and services? Something about free market or other.
I honestly believe that they'd rather that the music just died, than live with the thought that somewhere out there, Alice might be passing Bob her iPod and saying "Hey, listen to this".
When the only music left is appropriately sub-licensed in commercials, TV and movies, they might stop. Maybe. But the concept of plain old music, that can be played right out there in the open and insinuate itself into just anyone's ears without them being forced to pay first? That makes them beat their hookers with horrific ferocity.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
When RIAA music becomes prohibitively expensive for radio stations, non-RIAA music will get more airplay and exposure.
"pirates are being pirates? ok, let's punish the people who play by the rules even more" (thereby creating more pirates)
it's just like all that crap before you get to the actual movie on a dvd. who wants to sit through that? but i pirate the movie on the web, i don't get that bullshit
hey RIAA: your legislation and your controlling ways simply makes piracy more attractive
if instead of legislating how about you eat some humble pie by admitting that the fucking Internet happened, therefore meaning you need to change your economic model. therefore, you make people less likely to want to pirate
or let companies like Apple realize this for you, and erode your power further because now they take over your distribution powers, by having financial success with what music companies should have been doing. iTunes should have been your initiative, jackasses
your move, morons. why don't you aim for your pinkie toe this time
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
that's right! You heard me! POSSIBLY NOT AT ALL
Music is the new marijuana, except that no one is going to make any illegal profits...
Can somebody explain why the government is involved in this at all? Why are royalty fees simply negotiated between the licensor and licensee?
There are two copyrights involved: copyright in the underlying musical work and copyright in the sound recording. Three different cover versions of "Yesterday" by three different recording artists, for example, are three different sound recordings of one musical work by one songwriter. As of right now, only the musical work is subject to royalties in all broadcast mediums, and these are already negotiated with BMI and ASCAP. The difference is that unlike webcasters, cable and satellite radio systems currently don't owe any extra royalties for performing a sound recording. It would take an act of Congress to make cable and satellite radio systems subject to royalties in the first place.
This is not like utilities, food, or health care where we need to prevent an oligarchy from profiteering by withholding necessities. If you do not agree to the fees, do not license the content.
Until you start suing people for writing competing songs that are vaguely similar.
Businesses like Pandora were never powerful enough to take on the RIAA. But if radio stations will be affected then major contenders like Clear Channel will get into the ring.
The artists compose and perform the music, the distributors (radio stations, iTunes, Google Play, Pandora and P2P etc) distribute that music to the masses. What is RIAA's role in this ecosystem?
Originally, the RIAA was formed to establish the "New Orthophonic" emphasis curve for vinyl records. Now, it boils down to promoting the music.
"Hey boys! Here's a big pile of money!" Someone will bite.
This might work if such a public fund were set up with complete transparency and controlled by a PAC or lobby. The money couldn't go directly to a senator but could be used to run political advertising that endorses the candidate.
Billions of people must die before the RIAA is defeated? Doesn't sound like much of a plan to me, one of the billions.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
What essential difference between copyright and patent are you thinking of? If it's the requirement that the alleged infringer have had access to the plaintiff's work, then radio play creates a presumption of access.
Is it possible to set up an alternative RIAA? Trade group monopoly must be broken.
Well, I'm not in the business but used to gig. After seeing people that should have some minor record deal being signed to littler labels like Afternoon Records or Asthmatic Kitty, it's my opinion that the best replacement for the RIAA is no replacement at all. The RIAA is restricting their member labels and being destructive "in the interests of their members" ... sometimes this is helpful but in the instance of online radio, it's quite the opposite. Meanwhile a lot of the smaller labels affiliated with the RIAA suffer while the top executives make millions. The way I see it, by setting up an alternative RIAA, you'll inevitably fall prey to that sort of bullshit. Like the best capitalistic systems, the music industry would be healthier if the labels competed with each other and actually desired exposure (which they do) like online radio and no single entity was acting as a self-appointed policeman to how that system worked. Then and only then would you see.
Here's an example, I just purchased Headlight's latest album on vinyl and minutes later I had downloaded the MP3s. I can list tons of non-RIAA labels that do this and you can go on Bandcamp and see a third party system doing this for labels and selfpublished artists (for example, here's the album I just bought). Now, from the RIAA point of view this is super bad. I just got TWO copies of an album for one price and on top of that you can stream that album right there for free, possibly forever. Oh my god, copyright violations! Now, if you were the RIAA or a replacement for the RIAA you would find yourself in the position of making a decision about this sort of sales tactic. And that's bad whether you weigh in one way or another. Fine, let Metallica or whoever else I don't care about put up a picture of their album and ask for $20 from their fans for it before even hearing it. They can do what they want. But you'll find that if you throw your lot in with RIAA, you won't be able to upload live videos of your own concerts to YouTube, you might have ads on your music videos and you'll be restricted by this umbrella. Furthermore, no matter how forgiving you are of your fan's misdeeds, the RIAA is not. And I think a replacement is a bad thing.
Frankly put the advent of the internet and digital distribution means that artists shouldn't have to depend on the RIAA or an RIAA replacement. They should exist in hundreds of different labels acting, innovating and competing on their own terms (diversity is a good thing).
Right now it feels like an exacerbated Pareto Law inside the music industry and it doesn't have to be that way. Your attention, your ears, your money and your support should be spread around and free of restricted influence by some massive entity.
Right now, there's music out there that you like that somebody somewhere is making. But if they're not on a label that's part of the RIAA, you're most likely never going to hear it. That's why internet radio stations are so important to upending the RIAA, self-published groups from Portland can be heard by Brooklynites and vice versa. That's why I think the RIAA is trying to impose arcane radio royalty fees.
My work here is dung.
If Pandora is really that big (I don't use it) why don't they just give the Recording industry the finger and be an outlet for Indies or Albums not under contract with the RIAA. They wouldn't have to pay the RIAA protection racket and probably work out a really reasonable revenue model for Indies and their groupies. I think I've heard enough Metallica and Nickelback to last me for a lifetime anyway. If I never hear their stuff again I won't miss it. Lots of Indie stuff is just as good if not better. Actually, some is way better.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
WTF is the government doing sticking its nose into negotiations over payments for music royalties to begin with?
Aside from pandering to voters, that is.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Please be more specific than a quotation from the film The Princess Bride. If I write a song, what steps should I take to ensure that I didn't accidentally write a song that is substantially similar to an existing song?
its about control and by that i mean repression of technology and culture and censorship. .....this is our world not some rich prick lawyers and the fact copyright is NOT advancing the public domain and even one can say that its not allowing artists to create is a truth.
THIS is a global thing we all need to unite behind and fight like mad
adobe audition is 400$
a pc that can use it is 200$
decent sound card added about 200$
would argue don't worry about infringing others stuff as long as your not doing it blatantly ...
why not go get all that 17th century public domain and cut it to new things like guitars and change it up....
create a new industry one that starts off free and ends free or very cheap....
a stomp of a cdr is 1 penny now
i see they still want 29.95 in stores for new cdrs.
lets take the cash back from them and spend it in our local economies and make the earth a better place.
Creative people will find a way to create regardless of the restrictions and those that create these are going broke everyone....
i recently posted how almost all but one chain of movie theatres is going broke cause no one is actually going.... ...well it only made 47 million....from 5000 movie theatres....
and the one that made money
and it isnt due to piracy its cause of your lawsuits and its cause of prices( 20$ for a pop n popcorn anyone?)
and for a sh!t Movie that i'd never again see nor wish i had subjected myself too.
being camerad in theatre ad spied on makes people feel creeped out and then you make already unstable people lose it and kill people ......
and i think im near a stage soon to move to a setting where im gonna show all of you the future......a future without control
( yea i borrowed a line form the matrix )
I really hope this passes and gains support from everyone. Honestly.
It will end the RIAA. Pandora will become profitable by streaming unencumbered music.
Once "non-RIAA music ... get[s] more airplay and exposure", what stops music publishers affiliated with RIAA labels from suing non-RIAA artists on trumped-up charges of accidental copyright infringement?
left the land of honey and milk for a barren desert.
Smart move, a different ordering of those words would have put you in court with Capitol Records for copyright infringement.
Unfortunately there were sentiments in your post that might have mirrored lyrics in Lynyrd Skynyrd's song "Workin' for MCA" off their double platinum album Second Helping. Warner Bros would also like to examine your use of the phrase "barren desert" and compare it to a song by the band America.
Your summons is in the mail.
My work here is dung.
Right now the record labels aren't rights holders for cable and satellite broadcasts of sound recordings of nondramatic musical works. They want to become rights holders.
and combine that with a more open and free 3d model sci fi effects bunch and your ability to really do takes off
bryce7.1 FREE ( adobe audtion ( 400$) for sound animations) as i stated above.
WHO needs them....scare the hell out of 200000 actors and musicians and there lawyers ....and if you do profit make sure you donate locally to some charities like food banks and others and make sure you spend as much as you can into local stores....
SHOW the business community there is value in NOT having a strong aggressive long term copyright.
ONE could do mock ups of what you could do if you were allowed and yet sorry cant share or sell....
get a few local musicians to do sound works for your videos ,pay em beer money and then make em a website and put up a few songs and ....wella
gee its not hard and if you do this ill make a search engine for such ventures.....
chronoss
president
united hackers association
I don't see how the page you linked applies, for two reasons. First, I thought use by a U.S. resident of a work of a U.S. author was subject to U.S. law, not international treaties. Second, I thought sound recordings, as opposed to the underlying musical works, were not covered by the Berne Convention and thus needed a separate "phonogram treaty", especially in light of article 13 of the treaty you mentioned.
+1 for that. The only reason I can think of for setting up the alternative is so there is representation. The alternative will do not a lot really, just be a way for stating you're not RIAA.
You killed yourself with your gimme-gimme attitudes.
A lot less shitty music now, thanks to you faggots.
FTFY.
The end result? Many of these services don't exist or never get started.
Yes, that's the whole point. The RIAA will gladly give up royalties if they can eliminate competition.
If they had their way (which they are), the only music you could hear would be from RIAA owned artists and the only way you could hear it was from RIAA owned distribution channels.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
we get and form the NON label association and have people put forward a 5$ a month indemnity fee, this then gets us a lawyer for everyone that will fight them right back
use the same thing , you sue them for slander and defamation of character and liable etc, as well as any left overs we can use to aid lobby groups in your nations to help make life better and make the public domain healthier.
Write original material?
Then let me rephrase: What should I do to verify that my material is in fact legally original?
oh the horror
Most people on Slashdot are begging for such interferrence.
From supporting Net Neutrality, to strongly favoring the party of Hollywood over Republicans - there's pretty much no angle that most Slashdot readers are not shoring up support for this very legislation.
So why are you so surprised when a tiny shift from that which you already advocate for occurs? You voted for it, indeed you DEMANDED that government be involved in the world of media and intent.
Here it is. Rejoice.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Then let me rephrase: How should an indie recording artist advertise more efficiently than the establishment, which has both economies of scale and radio program director goodwill to its advantage?
viva pirate radio! make little 1 watt transmitters that runs on 12 volt DC to turn any mp3 player in a car in to a tiny pirate radio capable of covering several city blocks, and just as easily be run from an AC outlet with a wallwart transformer, murder the RIAA with millions of tiny cuts
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
"That would actually mean fewer services, fewer listeners and lower royalties. It's almost as if he has no concept of price elasticity. Lower prices can create higher total income. Also, the idea that any particular Congressional Rep. should be (effectively) determining what the "fair" price is for anything is, well, horrifying."
This exact same argument could be made about taxes. Higher taxes discourages growth, with reduces the number of tax payers, which reduces tax revenue. And isn't it horrifying how members of congress get to determine what is someone's "fair share" of the tax burden. Replace the RIAA with taxes from this description and it fits perfectly. Amazing...
Damn those greedy corporate loving repub....wait a minute...
(pre-emptive reply to the reply know I'm gonna get: if it had been a republican, there'd be a damn "republicans" post within the first few minutes. this is /., you know it to be true)
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
You do all realize that this is precisely the argument used to lower taxes in general, right? And specifically, to lower taxes on businesses. If we replace "royalty" with "tax" and "Pandora" with "every small business in America", then you have the exact argument that Republicans use to support tax breaks.
Just thought I'd point that out. So, in order to be intellectually consistent, should we also support Republicans on the tax breaks? Should we slash taxes to encourage economic growth?
Then maybe the riaa would be dissolved. They don't add any value to music anyway so that would be a good thing.
That just shows how ridiculous it all is. internet streaming should never have been any different to radio streaming. So that should be coming down to match radio streaming, not the other way round.
SURELY NOT!!!!!
I would have thought by now that just as measurable numbers of people are starting to move away from Broadcast/Cable/Sat TV to stream instead, that there would be similar movement in audio.
An unintended consequence of this move might be to put terrestrial and satellite stations completely out of the music business.
Oh joy! A future where every radio station is in an all talk format.....
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
I think that in this case the 800-pound gorilla in the room is the fact that US terrestrial radio has been able to successfully keep extending an exemption from paying royalties to the owners of the sound recordings that Congress has granted them since 1934 or so; at the time the exemption was given in order for them to build their FM networks... wait! they're still building them. That's what it must be ... or else it would imply that radio and the NAB who represents them were just a bunch of greedbags.. clearly, this can't be!
we're not talking about the publishing side, only sound recordings, which is totally different
Keep in mind that every other radio station in the entire world is paying this sound recording royalty for the use of music on their stations.
Made sense to give US radio a break when records were selling by the bucketload, but now that they don't anymore, what's the reason for those stations to keep making bushels of money off advertisers by broadcasting that music for free, only paying the songwriters but not those who own the recordings?
The kicker is that because of reciprocity laws, no US owner of sound recordings gets paid from radio stations in the rest of the world for those same royalties which go to black box and gets shared by foreign companies since the royalties are not paid to foreign copyright owners by US terrestrial radio.
Of course, on the other hand Internet and Satellite radios have to pay... lovely... >:(
A COPYRIGHT IS NOT A PATENT.
I agree with this statement in the most literal sense. In which post did I say otherwise? A copyright is unlike a patent in that a copyright covers original works of authorship and a patent covers inventions. A copyright is unlike a patent in that a copyright is defined in Title 17, United States Code, and a patent is defined in Title 35, United States Code. But just because a copyright is not exactly the same thing as a a patent doesn't mean they can't share some similarities. For example, both a copyright and a patent are exclusive rights in the output of a person's mind.
How you "reform" a system based on corrupt practice, I'll never know, but there you are.
Personally I'm willing to take the chance with them. This sticking with "devil you know" thing sucks
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Berne is the treaty that allows a foreign author protection under US law and a US author protection under foreign signatories copyright laws.
No treaty is needed to allow a U.S. author protection under U.S. law. Should foreign recording artists start demanding royalties under the Berne Convention in excess of those to which a domestic artist is entitled, watch certain radio stations switch to an all-domestic format.
determining what the "fair" price is for anything... can only happen by using something called "the market". Setting prices by any other means always fails.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
I started reading the title and thought that it might be an article about Prince or BB King.
------------------
"They dug up the whole street. But it was just, like dirt and stuff underneath."
How many audiophiles...
This signature is false.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of discussion on here about the fairness of this legislation. Namely, since the early 2000s, Internet radio stations have had to pay ludicrous fees just to stay on the 'net, simply because the words 'on the Internet' were included in the station's description. There is zero reason satellite and cable (and honestly airwave) radio shouldn't be subjected to the same ludicrous requirement. The sooner this happens, the less income there will be to fund the legal teams behind the recording industry.
Here's a good place to start.
Do you understand that when you record something yourself, you own the copyright to the recording?
Yes, provided I own the copyright in the musical work or have permission from the owner of copyright in the musical work. Otherwise, "protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully." Title 17, United States Code, section 103(a). The question here is how I can be sure that once I've written a piece of music, it ends up original enough that I own a valid copyright.
Right now it feels like an exacerbated Pareto Law inside the music industry and it doesn't have to be that way.
You're too generous. I was thinking Sturgeon's law.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
As much as I love Pandora and it's ilk (and I really do) the royalty thing is only half the reason it's unprofitable. The big reason, which I don't see addressed, is the stark lack of commercials.
Don't get me wrong, that's one of my favorite things about Pandora... for every 6 or 7 songs, you get one quick commercial, and back to the music. Compare to FM stations, which generally have 3-4 songs at most before cutting away for half-a-dozen commercials, and you can easily see why one is making more money than the other.
This signature is false.
Your summary includes the quote: "As it stands now, the rates are so damaging that Pandora — the top player in the space — has made it clear it may never be profitable. Yes, never." The link you included talks about Pandora's founder supporting a bill and opposing another one, but in that article he never says anything like "the rates are so damaging that Pandora — the top player in the space — has made it clear it may never be profitable". That quote does come from the TechDirt article without a source.
Bilk you for $20/mo and then send a seperate bill for the music royalty fees.
I canceled my multiple Sirius subscriptions on the spot. Nice to pay music royalty fees even if you don't listen to music on their service.
I do hope that artists of the future choose to distribute their music via means they can control and directly benefit from, rather than broker everything through these greedy dinosaurs.
The Oatmeal illustrated it perfectly... theoatmeal.com/comics/music_industry
The pro-copyright side has:
-turned the word "pirate" from about buff burly men pillaging on the seas to a bunch of kids and grandmas sharing files behind their desks
-turned copyright infringement and file sharing to mean "theft" and "stealing"
-promoted the whole concept of "lost potential sales"
So it's only appropriate they get a taste of their own medicine. I'm surprised we don't see more of their own logic and methods thrown back at them.
Go ahead RIAA that will drive even more to piracy.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Really!!??!! Next your going to tell us that lowering taxes can increase revenue.
jerrywaddler
as he's known in the citay!
The only thing you can do to prevent yourself from getting sued for infringement is to not release an album.
If copyright promotes not publishing works in the first place, then copyright has failed "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
the outcome of the George Harrison case was purely the result of bastardary by Allen Klein.
Let's assume for this discussion that that explains Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music. Now what explains Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton?
Let them price themselves to death. There are other ways to produce music that do not involve the RIAA. You should know that there are other ways to produce and deliver music that do not involve the RIAA. Musicians can now deliver direct to customers and there are distribution companies that do not involve the RIAA. If you are still listening to commercial music under this Union then it is your own fault that you are paying outrageous prices that often (usually) benefit the distribution companies at the expense of the artist. The ones who benefit from the RIAA are the mega stars of music. But is there music really that good? Or are you convinced that you like them through a barrage of marketing and advertising? The answer is: they are not that good and you are conditioned to like what you think you naturally like. In reality there is a lot of great music out there and it is totally free. Why? Because the artist is more interested in marketing themselves then making money off every single listener.
The future of music distribution is dead. The reason is that you the consumer pay the bulk of distribution costs already. You pay for bandwidth through your ISP and this is how the music travels from the producer to the listener. Since the cost of physical distribution is approaching $0, the value of the distribution company is also reaching $0. So the distribution companies and the RIAA are working hard to convince you that alternate channels are evil and wrong... such as the illegal closing of MegaUpload.
You should look at http://jamendo.com/ for a large list of free music. Start downloading your own list of free music under the creative commons or similar licenses. Then share your favourite songs with ur friends. Then someday soon, your friends will share new free music with you. When that day arrives, you can forget about RIAA and the distributors marketing attempts to convince you that what you want is what they sell.
If you are actually creative, vs just pretending to be, writing original lyrics is not a fucking problem.
But one still has to come up with an original melody that is sung with those lyrics. George Harrison lost the "My Sweet Lord" lawsuit despite completely different lyrics. Or are you a rap fan?
"My Sweet Lord" was nine notes ("My sweet lord / Really wanna see you" vs. "He's so fine / How'm I gonna do it"), not three. But even nine notes in a pentatonic scale, where each of the first eight can be long or short, can have only half a billion combinations, enough to have a substantial likelihood of collision.
I believe that treaties can trump US statutory law.
Then the United States already may not be living up to its obligations under Berne: "No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. Any rights in a work eligible for protection under this title that derive from this title, other Federal or State statutes, or the common law, shall not be expanded or reduced by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto." (17 USC 104(c))