Slashdot Mirror
RIAA loses court battle over royalties
Jeff Hyche wrote in to point us the latest RIAA
shenanigan. The record industry organization had been attempting to garner a larger amount of royalties from digital distribution - IE Internet, satellites and cable modems.
What's the deal with the phone numbers? These are not Atlanta phone numbers, they are New York phone numbers...
You are right. I didn't notice that. BMG owns La Face Records, so perhaps you have to call BMG to deal with La Face Records?
I'm not going to boycott them. If I can I try to get CD's used, but still, boycotting RIAA would mean not listening to some of my favorite artists.
I for one am I not going to stop buying music from good artist to spite the RIAA. I like having legit CD's and liner notes rather than listen to somewhat degraded MP3's. I also have a slow connection so getting MP3's is rather time consuming. There has to be better solutions than boycotting, but in the meantime, get MP3 if you can deal with that.
How did the Library of Congress get mixup up in this? Doesn't this go through the Copyright Office?
The RIAA is the sum of its parts, and it does what its owners tell it to do. Each member could take a walk with its dues if it wanted to.
EXCUSE ME HOW DID THAT REPLY GET DOWN TO -2?!?! CHANGE THE URL TO HAVE -2 IN IT, YOU WILL SEE THAT SLASHDOT CANNOT KEEP UP WITH ME AND IS THEREFOR *CHEATING* AT LEAST PUT -2 IN THE MENU THAT'S JUST NOT RIGHT. ROB, I _DEMAND_ YOU PUT A STOP TO THIS RIGHT NOW OR I WILL BE FORCED TO PRESS CHARGES!
The RIAA should go to jail for attempted murder, they tried to kill mp3.
They are really stinky!
MOST DEFINATELY, BROTHER!
I must admit that the mp3 revolution is allowing great musicians to globally distribute their ideas without capitulating to the avaricious demands of of the RIAA and the labels they represent. The RIAA is a thoroughly despicable organization; they are nothing but smug, sanctimonius, and unscrupulous thugs. They deserve nothing but defeat.
What the hell is your problem?
Your post is wasting bandwidth too, so shut up.
That looks like a bug. Maybe a moderation race condition:
1. A checks the score: it's 0
2. B checks the score: it's 0
3. A decrements the score
4. B decrements the score
Now it's at -2. If you're a moderator you might be able to fix that kind of thing.
To see those 'hidden' comments: Find the link at -1 threshold that says "1 reply(s) below your threshold" or something like that. Copy the URL it points at and edit the -1 on it to -2. You'll be able to see those posts now.
That makes me wonder: exploitable holes to force people to -2/+6, anyone?
Man, if I could go to a Metallica concert every day -- or my god, even a Led Zeppelin concert!!! -- I'd love that. But let's face it. "Canned" music is not "for sheep". It's way more practical (and realistic) than what you're suggesting. Who can tour with every band every day?
What are you going to do if your favorite band/singer/whatever dies/breaks up? Then no more concerts to go see. Boy, if I could just hear them do beethoven's 9th again...
Maybe if everybody listened to the... ahem... music you listen to that would be possible. But most "mainstream" bands charge some money for the privelege of attending their concert.
You pay every time you want to hear a song... who's really the sheep here?
I'd say you're both bozos. :)
e.g. is exmpli gratia: for example.
i.e. is id est: that is.
They can generally be used interchangably.
You guys really ought to learn your Latin
bleargh.
Nice to see the government making a sensible decision for a change...now if they could just get those people over to the USPTO. Hopefully the manufacturers of audio gear will listen more to their customers than these overlords of popular music.
Smug bastards tho - check out http://www.riaa.com/tech/tech_mp3.htm##_top
'specially that last line, "...Feel free to enjoy Millennium (RIAA 2000)(44.1KHz, Stereo), ambient drive-by Trip-Hop sounds by the Avatars of Dub -- yes it is MP3 -- but not for long."
(They'll get my MP3 player when they pry it from my cold, dead, hard drive)
Can you just let the RIAA have their way? Just forget them and their labels. Forget mp3, CDs, minidisks, etc. and try live music for a change. Have any of you ever heard a Bartok string quartet performed live? Zakir Hussain and Shivkumar Sharma in concert? Witness the peerless synchronicity of gamelan gong kebjar? The ethereal sounds of an Ockeghem mass sung in a real cathedral? You folks just have to get out more often instead of caring so passionately for the vicarious and ersatz experience of recorded music on digital media.
DO NOT BUY ANYTHING FROM THEM:
-
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
-----------------------------------------------
BMG Entertainment
1540 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
(212) 930-3999 / fax: (212) 930-4758
EMI Records
1290 Avenue of the Americas
39th Floor
New York, NY 10104
Sony Music Entertainment, Inc.
550 Madison Ave, Sixth Floor
New York, NY 10022
(212) 833-6105
Universal Music Group
100 Universal City Plaza
Universal City, CA 91608
(818) 777-8409
Warner Music Group
4000 Warner Blvd
Burbank, CA 91522
(818) 977-7900 / fax: (818) 977-3135
Rhino Records
10635 Santa Monica Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90025-8300
(310) 474-4778
fax: (310) 441-6580
Tommy Boy Records
902 Broadway 13th Floor
New York, NY 10010
(212) 388-8300 / fax: (212) 388-8400
La Face Records
One Capital City Plaza, Suite 1500
Atlanta, GA 30326
(212) 930-3999 / fax: (212) 930-4758
H.O.L.A. Recordings, Inc.
235 Park Avenue South 10 th Floor
New York City, NY 10003
(212) 777-5678
Maybe the reason is because a lot of these companies and organizations [opinion,opinion] haven't earned their "tons o' money" in a fair and equatible manner.
Profit *earned* shouldn't be in dispute.
Profit garnered thru dubious means should be questioned.
If they do not agree with the actions the RIAA is taking, why do they not leave the RIAA? The RIAA does what its members want it to do. I blame the members for not withdrawing from this organization.
Of course, I'm not completely boycotting RIAA labels, just mostly. In the last year, I've bought around 40 CDs, of which 5 have been from labels who are members of the RIAA. The other 35 came from independent record labels.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
RIAA is one of those entities that is created out of nothingness to fill a perceived void, but once instantiated fights to the bitter end to preserve its lifeless hulk. Witness stock brokers and internet trading. A few steps behind are record labels and internet media (MP3 et al). A few steps further behind are realty conglomerates and online auctions. All of the former entities came into being when we as a society or community needed a buffering entity to make it easier to deal with a specific type of service, media generation, or purchase.
The difference is how the entity reacts to its changing environment. I get my stock updates from an automated web-based system, and execute trades online. My realtor (I bought another house last year) sent me digital images of houses she thought I'd like via email, and her brokerage ditched the controlling operational rules and allows its clients to browse MLS listings directly. But RIAA? RIAA has dug in its heels so hard against the changing technological environment that it has virtually guaranteed its own demise.
RIAA wants to stop the unencumbered flow of digital media by killing MP3? They might as well try to quell a revolution by driving firearms manufacturers out of business. People will fight against ethically corrupt entities even if it means taking a pitchfork against a tank. RIAA keeps fighting these little battles because it doesn't realize that it has already lost the war. And even this argument gets a little tiring, because there's no need for anyone to ever buy into RIAA's fossilized rules again. It's an entity that has only as much power as we voluntarily give it.
Listen to what you want, pay artists as directly as you can, support organizations that treat their artists well, and *poof* RIAA diappears into the grave it has already dug for itself.
I think not...(*poof*)
I guess I should point out that you listed the firms that represent over 80% of the music sales in the US. Something that you, and many others, do not understand is that the RIAA is a separate entity from its component parts. Many members do not agree with the actions that the RIAA has taken and are generally unhappy with it. To 'boycott' their music would not accomplish anything. Instead, why not take some time to write a thoughtful letter to them and/or to the RIAA giving your thoughts in a calm and rational manner. That, IMHO, would be the best way for people to make a change in the system. (Mind you, I'm practicing what I'm preaching: I'm flying down to LA on Monday to talk with Warner.)
David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
David E. Weekly
Code / Think / Teach / Learn
h4x0r for
Huh? It would be really annoying if authors typeset, composed and printed their own works. I speak of course, as a typesetter/compositor/graphic artist. I'd be losing my job... ;)
nb: go ms (ie manuscript not microsoft)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
An Anonymous Coward asked,
It does go through the Copyright Office. But the Copyright Office is part of the Library of Congress.
RIAA does not get any royalties directly. The royalties go to the recording company of a particular artist. It is the recording companies who are members of the RIAA, which is a trade association.
Congress got involved by passing the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995. The Library of Congress, through the Copyright Office, is federally authorized to set royalty rates for cable and satellite transmission of music. The RIAA immediately started squealing. Evidently the LOC originally determined that 5% was a fair royalty, but the RIAA believed that digital subscription music services (like MUZAK, in its cable/satellite form) should pony up 40% or more, on the same model as cable television networks, who pay handsome royalties for the license to broadcast motion pictures.
The RIAA, BTW, does not mention this recent court decision on their web page. Imagine that.
Oops, I was mistaken. I foolishly read the RIAA PR before reading the court decision. The RIAA is acting as the agent of recording companies and copyright holders here. They collect and distribute this new kind of performance royalty, even for non-members.
RIAA originally asked for 41.5%.
Prior to the 1995 Act, the copyright holders (composer, lyricist, publisher) were already entitled to royalties for the use of music. What the 1995 Act does is to give the recording companies a cut too, for a specialized sort of performance right.
IANAL, but from reading the court's decision, it does not seem to me that this royalty structure applies to all audio music transmitted via satellite or cable. The ruling seems to directly affect only commercial subscription services. Nothing says that this is completely irrelevant to other transmission of music, though, since the decision itself refers to an earlier ruling on jukeboxes.
Who in thier right mind thinks this way? The only other people that I see thinking in that sort of convoluted logic is Microsoft. Theyve convinced themselves that they DESERVE 40% of profit of music... just because they always have. Thats rediculous. The landscape is changing and they arent in the picture in the same way anymore.
Since RIAA is universally hated now, I think it would be nice if we had a poll that when..
:)
What's the most hated internet based interest/group/company/product/idea.
1. RIAA
2. DIVX
3. US CRYPTO Export laws.
4. Software Patents
5. Farunfsck (cant spell) German MP3 codec makers.
6. Anti-Emulator Companies..
Ofcourse, Microsoft would be left out.. since it wont be fare.. if it was in this poll
--
Why was this moderated up?
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
It probably wasn't. If you look close you'll
find most of Ellis-D's posts are 0 or -1. He's
just been moderated down often enough to have
been bitten by the auto-moderation scoring that
has some people starting with scores of 2 and 3
every time they post, just the other way around.
Given the score this has risen to, maybe he'll be
able to post at 1 again now. I dunno how the formula works.
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
Sigh, the RIAA keep trying to make me hate them more, it's going to get to the point where I can't dispise their existance any longer. They do not give a rats ass about the music's creators or performers, they want these royalties to buy themselves a new yacht. The RIAA is run by the heads of it's member companies, they are the rich of the rich. If I thought maybe they cared about the artists on their labels this wouldn't be such a horrible thing to do, but they don't care. These record companies are just a logo and some accountants, they own the key steps that an artist needs to release a CD. They feel threatened by MP3 because it allows anyone with a few bucks to build a decent recording studio. It's all about money. The record companies want more of it and damn everyone else.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
I know this is going to sound naive, but it isn't mentioned explicitly in the article. Is RIAA getting 6.5% royalty of all music transmitted through the net/satellite/cable, or just 6.5% of the music belonging to their members?
If it's just a member thing, then I don't see how congress ever got involved to begin with; it's none of their business. If it's not just members, then I don't understand why the congress people who originally voted for the 6.5% aren't already in jail for corruption. Am I not seeing something?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
From reading the News.com article, it seems that the current issue here was with companies like Muzak that transmit music to customers through satellites and broadband connections, i.e. what you hear in malls over the public address system.
But what intrigues me is this comment: "The fight is a product of a 1995 law that for the first time let recording companies collect royalties for performances of digital music. Until then, only the copyright owners for the lyrics or notes could demand payments."
What law is that? How does it affect certain types of music, for example, something I write and record myself, and distribute myself? Would I have to pay RIAA royalties on something they haven't touched?
You live in Palo Alto. I'm in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (where, incidentally, those companies' products make up for more than 95% of country-wide music sales). And they don't listen to us at all here.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
Before this law passed, the RIAA couldn't get any of this money. Now they think they deserve 6.5x what the 1995 law so generously gave them? What will they be satisfied with? Do they wish to become the only organization that can sell music to the public? Do they wish for a large share of every company that deals with music?
The RIAA is trying to become a horizontally and vertically integrated company that's the only game in town. They can't do this in the marketplace, so they're trying to do it in the courts. They can't do it with present law, so they're trying to legislate and get rulings on future law. Law which helps no one but themselves, and harms many.
The way to make music successful is through love of the music, the crowd, the scene and the culture. They don't respect listeners.
It was early in the morning when I wrote the above, So please don't flame me over it..
But there are other record assioations out there. BMI I think is a non profit orginazations, but alot of the underground label don't co-enside w/ the RIAA.
"Windows 98 Second Edition works and players better than ever." -Microsoft's Home page on Win98SE.
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Thank you mindstalker for clearing that up for me. But the comment about Microsoft about their product. I'm not a die hard MS guy, but I do like 98 becuase of the hw/sw support it delievers and the gui.. But I like linux, but it can be a pain in the ass like MS products. But i'm sticking w/ 98 until I get a new machine.
"Windows 98 Second Edition works and players better than ever." -Microsoft's Home page on Win98SE.
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
I feel that the RIAA should be shut down. They make so much money off the artis and the artist.. Well lets see he has a sore butt.
I will not let myself join RIAA due their "stupidity". As I have mentioned before, I own my own record label and the label goes against the RIAA's beliefs. Our artists are the one's making the money, becuase we charge for the materials needed (which comes out our pocket) + $1 additional which is sent to the artist. So if we round out the prices of tapes and paper w/ print, we may score $.02 from each tape..... Not much at all, when the artist is paid $1 per tape. They are the ones that do all the work in all actuallality.
"Windows 98 Second Edition works and players better than ever." -Microsoft's Home page on Win98SE.
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
I believe his main point is not that they make alot money, but the amount of money they make off thier artist in comparison to the amount the artist themselves make money. The average artist makes less than 5% of thier record sales this is outragious and a complete abuse of thier power over the artist.
Here is the Text of the opinion of the Court
for those of you who are interested.. havn't finished reading it yet.. will give my opinion then
Use e.g. instead of i.e. when giving examples, dammit.
down with M$ dammit ;)
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
People like shouldn't even bother reading /. As for suing, get a life there is nothing to sue for, besides Rob owns /. and he can do whatever he likes to the posts. Quit wasting bandwidth, better yet quit wasting air the rest of us might need some day and just kill yourself now.
_ ___________________
Ok moderators, I am ready for the -1, go ahead quick......
____________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
I feel that the RIAA should be shut down. They make so much money off the artis and the artist.. Well lets see he has a sore butt.
This seems to be a common train of thought with Slashdot readers, and it's one I take issue with.
Let's stop focussing on how much money anyone makes, Bill Gates, the RIAA, or whomever. It's just NOT relevant to anything. I would love for EVERYONE to make a ton of money at what they do.
I think the REAL issue we have is that the RIAA continually tries to impede on other people's rights, just like the REAL complaint we have with Microsoft/Bill Gates is the quality of the product, and industry domination that Microsoft imposes.
Linux advocates definitely have an anti-profit reputation. Let's keep our agenda's striaght and stop fixating on what other people make. It just shows jealousy, not a desire to make things better.
My $.03
http://www.bullnet.com
The big record companies *are* spoon-feeding us bland music by no-talent hacks, and we lap it up. Britney Spears has talents, I'm sure, but they're not singing. But I'm not really in favour of a boycott, because they do occasionally have flashes of integrity where they produce something worthwhile (though strangely, nothing comes to mind).
I would, however, like to suggest that you check out your local indie label/band/whatever. I'm sure you'll find more diversity, good music, and talented musicians in your area than in a whole stable of big money stars.
And you can feel good about yourself, too, having taken the moral high ground... or something.