Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dealing with the RIAA?

Cliff posted about 12 years ago | from the bargains-with-the-devil dept.

News 259

This hasn't been a good year for music lovers since the RIAA has removed the kid gloves. In the past 3 months they have declared war on their own customers, silenced Internet Radio, and are targeting 3 other P2P networks for shutdown. At about this time last year, they wanted unprecedented access to your personal property, but fortunately saner heads prevailed here. It has been 4 years since Slashdot posted it's first story containing the phrase "RIAA", and in that time the RIAA has waged war on the Internet rather than try and use the technology for the benefit of their artists. Now there are people willing to play by the rules, but the RIAA is unresponsive, and their web site seems to provide more questions than clear answers. Who do you need to contact? What forms need to be filled? What agreements need to be signed? By whom? What do you have to pay? How is this value determined? If you are planning on offering the RIAA's music, what do you really have to do to play their music legally?

I've Read the Frelling Manual, and I still have Questions!
J.Charles asks: "Always looking for new ways to help out the independent music scene in my region, I recently started thinking about putting together a streaming radio station. Mind you, this is to be non-profit, with the sole purpose to help out independent artists. I had made a small stream years ago using Shoutcast, but this was before all of the RIAA stipulations were being crammed down everyones throats, and I really paid no mind to copyright law.

If I am to do this, I would like to keep it fully legit in the eyes of the RIAA, because we've already seen the MPAA come after file sharers, citing gigantic fines, at the university I work for, and I really don't have the money for legal counsel.

So I've found adequate hosting, and read up on the stipulations published on the RIAA website, but most of it is quite murky, and skims over the 'how-to' of things.

For example, do I really have to pay royalties for each stream running? If so, how do I keep track of that, or do I just have to pay the royalty times the number of my maximum consecutive streams available? Is there Shoutcast plugin software for generating the play list information that must be sent to Soundexchange? Are there any grants available to help offset the cost of paying royalties and license application fees ($500 a year!)?

Basically, I can't find any streams that appear to be running 'legit', so I have no one to answer all my questions. I've even thought about contacting the RIAA to see if someone there would assist me, and perhaps help fund this project, since it would make a good example of a legit site, and afterwards I could serve as educated help for other people in my situation. I mean, the RIAA recognizes streaming as an important business, you would think their interests would lie in helping educate people to use it the way they would like.

Is anyone out there running a legit stream, or know someone who does? better yet, has anyone seen a guide for people in my shoes?"

I'm, Trying to Play Nice, But They Won't Return My Calls!
Jarrett Wold asks: "I was working on a chat client earlier this year, and I wanted file sharing capabilities (a la Napster). However I did not want any of the legal liability so unlike Napster, I actually contacted RIAA and the MPAA before I started any development.

Considering RIAA and MPAA's itchy trigger finger regarding copyright issues I figured I would pitch a solution to them. It was simple, since they represent a large number of copyright holders, they should create a database listing all of those copyright holders. It's easy enough to determine that Metallica has copyrighted material, what happens with that unknown band that you're not sure about? At least this way we would have a definitive list for all the people represented by RIAA and MPAA. Who also bring the largest number of lawsuits against file sharing applications.

Now I'm not rich, I don't have a lawyer and considering I live in North Dakota, I make on average $8.25/HR for data driven web development. If you work at Burger King in another state, you make more than I do flipping burgers. I started a month long stretch of making phone calls and sending emails. I called RIAA around 15 times proposing that they construct a database of copyright holders so I could be compliant with copyright law. I even suggested that if they charged a penny per user they could pull in 250K a month for use of their database. It would also force file sharing apps to have a business model. I'm all for avoiding '.COM The Bubble, Part 2'.

The RIAA was flat-out uninterested. They would listen politely, and take down my number or refer me to a voicemail of either a legal person (who never returned phone calls) or some person in management who simply stated it wasn't their responsibility to compile such a database. So, after fifteen or so emails, a half dozen long distance phone calls I gave up on RIAA. They obviously want publicity about the injustice of file trading rather than fixing the problem.

I then proceeded to call the MPAA. They were amazingly helpful, everyone that I spoke seemed enthused about doing something along this line. I suppose when you represent studios rather than individual artists the motivation to fix a leaky faucet is top priority. However, after sending a variety of emails and speaking with half a dozen people on the first phone call, I was sent off to someone in their technical department and curtly told that they were working on their own solutions. Do not get me wrong, the MPAA was keenly interested in a fix, but it seems that they too feel that the burden of listing copyright holders is not on them. In fact one executive I spoke with noted that there would be thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of entries, in such a database. I suggested the revenue model again. It was received with interest and shot down in the next moment with the same argument.

So needless to say I gave up. I am now targeting my product specifically for the business market. I have noticed that CD-R manufacturers are not being sued for all the MP3's that are being burnt onto the media they freely distribute. The same goes for Samsung, I have yet to hear of them being sued for making VCR tapes that can record TV shows without commercials (if you're quick about it... ahem TiVo). Nor do I hear of ICQ being sued for it's file transfer abilities that also enable piracy if a user is so inclined.

At what point does the responsibility of the copyright owner come into play? Should it not be the representative groups (RIAA, MPAA) to come up with an 'exclusions list'? In fact technically speaking it's just not possible to determine what's copyrighted without something along those lines.

Who else has gone through this? I figure that the person who pirates is the one responsible, rather than the service itself. File sharing applications have valid purposes. However, if RIAA and the MPAA do not want to make a definitive list of copyrighted material it's nearly impossible to comply to excluding copyrighted material. Saying that file sharing applications facilitate piracy is the same thing as saying search engines facilitate piracy.

Napster had the wrong idea, if they could have worked out something with RIAA regarding this same concept they would be a leviathan. However it makes you wonder if these lawsuits weren't strategic in nature. I believe in the end, history will show that killing Napster was the worst mistake the music industry could have made. They lost control of a contained problem. It wasn't fixed. However when 26 million people scatter to the winds and start their own file sharing networks (Morpheus, Gnutella and many more) the problem is decentralized and unsolvable.

The biggest question of all is to the artist: why aren't you demanding some form of technical action out of the RIAA, instead of lawsuits? Why aren't you asking them to 'Sit down in a room with those file sharing companies and figure out a way to fix this'.

You can't sue them all!

I guess, my North Dakotan notion of business is that if there's a problem fix it before it gets out of hand, however it seems RIAA wants to do the opposite. I guess lawsuits could conceivably be a nice addition to the bottom line and excuse for bad accounting...;)"

And One Last Plea, for Internet Radio...
If you are still interested in saving internet radio, there is one last chance, until the next one arrives next year. There is a bill in play right now that must be passed before October 20th if some of the more popular Internet Radio sites are to return. You can find out more information on this latest push from the Radio and Internet Newsletter and also from Soma FM.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Flash FXP is a Trojan, Charles DeWeese is a Phed. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4434763)

I implore every use of this software to be weary and on guard! I would have a good firewall with a drop all, allow exception rule set, ethereal, windump/[tcpdump on *nix], and a pcap lib, or use sniffer, and get ready to watch this thing with hawk eyes. Given the author's tradition of reporting usage, selling information to marketing companies, and revoking registrations without cause, we must be prepared for his latest Trojan horse. The program is delightful, irresistible, for it is feature laden, stable. But its target is warez users, and I strongly feel this warez-centric program serves to report to the government the biggest abuses. Remember, that the information he claims is benign is encrypted, so you will never see the payload of this machinations and undesired packets. He also uses port 80 to send information out on, so please be using an application firewall such as Kerio. I would not trust Charles unless he releases source code. We are already help hostage by a closed source MSCVRT, and other runtime libraries, any of which could perform undocumented tasks with encrypted packets, you might see packets but the nature of the payload is occluded. I strongly recommend that nobody trusts outgoing packets they cannot decrypt. Anyways, for the technically savvy, one should peruse through the packets this thing produces, and ask yourself, do you really trust some man who will not end these perpetual and consistent accusations by revealing some of the source code to allay the growing fears he is part of a dragnet cabal to capture people determined to be felon software pirates. He is a party to your own demise, the "Robin Hood" loopholes are closed, and Charles could make money off you and put you in jail. He makes money off of FlashFXP, he targets the warez community, the program sends packets that are extraneous to file transfers that are encrypted, he has revoked registrations without cause, he sells your information to marketers I have confirmed this through SpamCop, and he is in cahoots with federal authorities to help Trojan and compromise your computer.

Re:Flash FXP is a Trojan, Charles DeWeese is a Phe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4435135)

FlashFXP only works on windows so you must be some fucking lame ass in the first place so you get what you deserve.

Same as usual (0, Redundant)

grumwsmith (612309) | about 12 years ago | (#4434767)

The RIAA and MPAA aren't interested because I've contacted them before... and i got zilch correspondence. They're causing the problem!

Oh, nice going, graham! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4435246)

The RIAA and MPAA aren't interested because I've contacted them before

Wow - you must have really pissed them off. You contact them and as a result they aren't interested in playing ball with anyone! Well, at least we know who to blame. To everyone who is refused by the RIAA or MPAA, address your angry e-mail to graham - he says that it'a all his fault 8->

Well, there's one way to deal with them.... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4434768)

Link to every day from /.

Re:Well, there's one way to deal with them.... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4434868)

Add stuff like this to your hosts file

Block ads, and pester the RIAA server

Re:Well, there's one way to deal with them.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4434956)

This is fantastic! Mod up!

Re:Well, there's one way to deal with them.... (1) (577887) | about 12 years ago | (#4435257)

That's so much fun I *almost* want to stop blocking pop-up windows with Mozilla!

All I need is a script that looks for onload="'http://...');" and makes the appropriate adjustment to my /etc/hosts for me!

Re:Well, there's one way to deal with them.... (1)

zaffir (546764) | about 12 years ago | (#4435364)

Now what about the poor sysadmin that has to deal with all this? I mean really, this isn't like calling the record exec's houses at 2:00am every morning. Hmm... now THERE'S an idea...

This isn't funny. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4434916)


Yeah, it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4435188)


Obligatory Beowulf Post (0, Redundant)

davidstrauss (544062) | about 12 years ago | (#4434779)

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of lawyers...

fsck 'em if they can't take a joke (3, Informative)

swschrad (312009) | about 12 years ago | (#4434784)

if all they have to do is crab and whine instead of working for a solution, fsck 'em.

I had the idea of striking some CDs of an out of print album for holiday presents, and was able to find all the information to do that several years ago on da ISH... but it looked like $500 each for the eight or so, so the project died.

one thing you CAN do is check out the music licensors, generally ascap and bmi, and follow the link trail. this is for the MUSIC rights only, though, rights to a particular recording (the mechanical rights) should be licenseable from the harry fox agency.

if you are working from a legitimate product, there will be licensing clues for each song in the libretto or on the back of the CD insert, in the form of "COLIC AND DIAPERS", (C) 2001, I. B. Goofy and Snot Bugger, BMI 3:26. to track that down, the agency is BMI, the song title is "COLIC AND DIAPERS", copyright date 2001, and I. B Goofy and Snot Bugger are the artists who will get their nickel per performance.

Re:fsck 'em if they can't take a joke (1)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | about 12 years ago | (#4434799)

A little known fact is that Snot Bugger actually had an extensive solo career before his torrid years with the beautiful and dangerously talented I. B. Goofy...

And the answer is..... (3, Insightful)

legoleg (514805) | about 12 years ago | (#4434792)

Nobody knows..... maybe its security through obscurity? : )

from the post (2, Funny)

3prong (241218) | about 12 years ago | (#4434796)

It has been 4 years since Slashdot posted it's first story containing the phrase "RIAA"...

Good thing "RIAA" is over 4 characters or we'd never know when the first story was. :(

Re:from the post (2)

Jouster (144775) | about 12 years ago | (#4434803)

Nah. When one has "Powers. Secret Powers [] ," one can get away with searches of fewer characters.

Of course, it'd be rather amusing if, in fact, even Taco couldn't....


Re:from the post (2)

krow (129804) | about 12 years ago | (#4434811)

Search has been doing three or more characters for over a month now.

And yeah, it was lame.

Re:from the post (1)

3prong (241218) | about 12 years ago | (#4434825)

Didn't know that. It's better than 4 at least. When will it support "AND"?

Re:from the post (2)

krow (129804) | about 12 years ago | (#4435184)

Its on the list, but the search engine has never ranked very high in the list of features.

Re:from the post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4435321)

For a site that likes to portray itself as one of the leading tech sites on the web, Slashdot STILL has about the lamest search capabilities I've ever seen. I don't think that Google has anything to fear from slashcode.

Re:from the post (2)

Cliff (4114) | about 12 years ago | (#4434816)

Actually, the Search engine is now indexing words of 3 or more chars, and has been for about a month now. Methinks someone hasn't gotten around to updating the wording on the search pages, yet. ;D

New Campaign (5, Informative)

asv108 (141455) | about 12 years ago | (#4434801)

I submitted this a few days ago but it was rejected as usual:

Get ready for a big PR campiagn by the RIAA that is designed to make music traders feel guilty. The cross media campaign was kicked off today with the unveiling of the music united website [] , radio and TV spots should be out soon featuring several big names such as Madonna and Nelly talking about how poor they have become since the days of Napster, even though music sales went up with napster's popularity.

Re:New Campaign (4, Insightful)

teamhasnoi (554944) | about 12 years ago | (#4435033)

This is rich:

Quote from website. Sean (P. Diddy) Combs, Multi-Platinum Award Winning Artist, Producer, Founder and CEO of Bad Boy Entertainment: "As an artist who has dedicated his life to music and the music business, I have seen what illegal music copying has done and continues to do to new and established musicians. I understand why people download music, but for me and my fellow artists, this is our livelihood. When you make an illegal copy, you're stealing from the artist. It's that simple. Every single day we're out here pouring our hearts and souls into making music for everyone to enjoy. What if you didn't get paid for your job? Put yourself in our shoes!"

The greatest ripoff artist of all time has the gall to say this. Listen up, SEAN COMBS. You owe me for having to put up with your over-sampled, entirely lifted 'music'. You are an excellent example of how 'the public' will eat anything put in front of them, including a steaming bowl of crap. Put yourself in our shoes, INDEED.

Re:New Campaign (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4435067)

I'm putting myself in your shoes:

"I got, bad bling bling, bitches and money, a fat blunt, yo. I'm da pimp, yo.Where's ma fuckin' money, biyatch. Biyatch better get me my money tonight or yo mama is out on da street, yo."

Okay, I've put myself in your shoes. What am I supposed to feel guilty about?

Re:New Campaign (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4435089)

ah fuck, nowadays the shit called music is just a bunch of ghetto kids jumping up and down saying non-sensical words they call "rap", I wonder why there's so many black musicians anyway, does that shit sell? Maybe they found out African-Americans buy a lot of crap from black artists and they can't stop promoting the hell out of it. godfuckingdammit, watch those videoclips, pure hedonism. stupid idiot like "p diddy" drops out of highschool, sings some shit and gets away with attempted murder, stupid asshole. yeah the world's not fucking fair. bin laden should fucking nuke hollywood.

hello to the NSA, when are your MIB going to pick me up?

A message to musicians. (4, Insightful)

trotski (592530) | about 12 years ago | (#4435342)

So I spent 5 minuites of my valueable time reading some of the artists quotes. The one thing that confused me is why all of these artist feel as though their being robbed. Perhaps they should pay more attention to making money in a way that can NEVER be 'stolen' from the. One word:


Perhaps Sean Coumbs or Brittny Spears should spend less time sitting around complaining how they'll 'only' make a million on their next album and not two million, and spend more of their time TOURING... if you think about it, it makes sense. I mean, I'd pay 40 bucks to see a band a love, hell I'm going to see the String Cheese Incident in Vancouver on Thursday for 43.50. Now mulitply that by a few hundred thousand people, all over the country, thats a lot of money! Furthermore, concidering that artists make significantly more money on concert tickets than they do on CDs, since the record companies keep most of their CD money.

Touring is a financial model that can (and has made ) millions. Look at the Grateful Dead or Phish. These are bands that made millions of dollars, most of which they made by touring, not by selling CDs. Hell if you look at the record sales for Grateful Dead CDs, they rarely made any money, ususally managing to sell enough to break even.

So my message to the artists quoted on the music united website:

Stop whining and start touring! Realize that the reason people steal 'your' music is because they feel ripped off by you. You want your millions? Go out to the people and perform, most of us will be happy to come see you."

The simplest answer: (5, Interesting)

LaserBeams (412546) | about 12 years ago | (#4434804)

"If you are planning on offering the RIAA's music, what do you really have to do to play their music legally?"

Give them lots of money.

Granted, that's not the way it should be, but as it currently stands, that is how it is. They're just acting like greedy, bratty kids with too much money, and parents who are (largely) content to just slap them on the wrist.

Treat them as such.

Re:The simplest answer: (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4435090)

Probably you have to invite them to your mansion, and provide them with coke and hookers. Then bring a suitcase full of cash.

I Could get on Board (1, Troll)

carrier lost (222597) | about 12 years ago | (#4434823)

What if Bush were to campaign for regime change.. the RIAA?


I only mod up...

Re:I Could get on Board (1, Troll)

carrier lost (222597) | about 12 years ago | (#4435004)

What if Bush were to campaign for regime change.. the RIAA?


for the humor impaired, this is a joke, not a troll

Re:I Could get on Board (1)

Twirlip of the Mists (615030) | about 12 years ago | (#4435255)

for the humor impaired, this is a joke, not a troll

I guess it worked! You got -1 troll the first time you posted this, and +1 funny the second time! Pretty impressive!

It's all about the money they're "losing" (0)

PixellationStation (537257) | about 12 years ago | (#4434831)

I've been screwed so many times by buying a $17.99 CD and having only 1 or 2 good songs on it. This wouldn't be so bad if the vast majority of the money didn't go to the big record companies. This is why it's so hard for bands to be successful these days. You have to have a mega-hit, but you also have to have a mega-contract... I'm not planning on ever buying a commercially produced CD again, unless it is from a select few bands that I really enjoy...

Re:It's all about the money they're "losing" (1)

Twirlip of the Mists (615030) | about 12 years ago | (#4435263)

I've been screwed so many times by buying a $17.99 CD and having only 1 or 2 good songs on it.

Just to play the Devil's advocate, you know you can still buy singles, right?

Don't flame me or anything. I'm just trying to offer a slightly different perspective.

Their music? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4434836)

How insane is that statement? Is it their music?

"How do I legally use the city's toilet water without breaking the law?"

Re:Their music? (5, Funny)

vudujava (614609) | about 12 years ago | (#4434933)

I just got a cease and desist from the RIAA for singing along to the radio in my car! Now they want $15 million dollars in royalties for all the songs I've sung over the years -- turns out I am the reason their record sales have slumped!

Re:Their music? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4435314)

I've heard you sing. I can understand why you've affected record sales so much. I know I wouldn't want to buy a song after hearing you sing it.

Re:Their music? (2)

MyHair (589485) | about 12 years ago | (#4435179)

"How do I legally use the city's toilet water without breaking the law?"

Read the EULA. It's usually a roll of paper on a spindle near the source.

RIAA Just Wants You To Go Away (5, Interesting)

reallocate (142797) | about 12 years ago | (#4434839)

The RIAA isn't interested in resolving this issue. Their only interest in copyright is as a legal tool to retain effective ownership of product. They don't want to see innovative distribution schemes. Proposals that would enable distribution of copywritten product within their stated parameters don't interest them. From their point of view, it's all unwanted competition.

Also, the notion of a database to track copyright is interesting, but, at least in the U.S., isn't copyright vested in the author, automatically, at the moment of authorship? Tracking who actually owns copyright at a given time would be more useful.

Re:RIAA Just Wants You To Go Away (4, Interesting)

Jonny Ringo (444580) | about 12 years ago | (#4435053)

Very good point. Why would the RIAA want to help us find other music channels unrelated to them. The RIAA is a group of the 5 biggest record labels. Its just not in thier interest.

The answer is to not support these record labels and find out how deep this goes. Do these record labels own other labels? Maybe we can compile are own database as a open effort. Kind of like what the cddb does only we just keep track of music/artists that belong to bad labels.

I have already boycotted these labels personaly, to be honest though it was of my own interest. The internet/streaming radios (mostly) has led me to discover such a vast amount of music that I didn't even know was out there. The music I now listen to doesn't come from the major lables, and do not listen to the radio either. I think you'll find boycotting the riaa won't be to hard, and will enable you to find rare better music that you will enjoy more.

Re:RIAA Just Wants You To Go Away (5, Insightful)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about 12 years ago | (#4435155)

Good luck getting this crowd to boycott. Every time it's suggested, a hundred people shout about how boycotts never do anything. Apparently, using the Napster-of-the-month and complaining on Slashdot is a much more effective way of getting the record industries' attention.

Why is RIAA involved? (5, Insightful)

Bartab (233395) | about 12 years ago | (#4434843)

"Always looking for new ways to help out the independent music scene in my region, I recently started thinking about putting together a streaming radio station.

If they are independent then RIAA members have no contract with them, and thus RIAA does not dictate the terms of their performance (either public or recorded)

So again, why do you care about the RIAA? Are you trying to mix in Metallica with your "only helping local indie bands" stream?

Re:Why is RIAA involved? (2)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 12 years ago | (#4435026)

"Are you trying to mix in Metallica with your "only helping local indie bands" stream?"

Probably not, but you forget that nowadays all that matters is that you could...

Napster.... (5, Interesting)

jeffy124 (453342) | about 12 years ago | (#4434848)

For the guy asking about an RIAA listing of songs, etc.

Back right before Napster's death, they had a list to abide by. IIRC - The judge required the RIAA (more accurately, the labels) to provide those lists. So a list has once been made, and probably still lying around somewhere, albeit somewhat outdated. Very interesting they aren't interested in providing such a list any longer.

Ignore them (5, Insightful)

Compact Dick (518888) | about 12 years ago | (#4434859)

Mind you, this is to be non-profit, with the sole purpose to help out independent artists.

<snip />

If I am to do this, I would like to keep it fully legit in the eyes of the RIAA...

If you plan to stream music solely from independent artists who have no connection with the RIAA, then I suggest you ignore them altogether.

They should not have a say in matters that they had nothing to do with.

He's Right (3, Informative)

AlaskanUnderachiever (561294) | about 12 years ago | (#4435253)

He's absolutely right. If your artists are independents and are NOT signed to the RIAA or similar then you don't have to pay a dime to the bastards

That's right. Not a stinking single dime.
However, you're gonna have to keep MAD records to hold up the evidence that none of your music is from RIAA artists.

Piracy never hurt print. (5, Insightful)

Vegan Pagan (251984) | about 12 years ago | (#4434865)

If piracy could do damage, it should have killed books, newspapers and magazines years ago because text is the most easily copyable data. Instead, the late 1990s saw the growth of Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and countless newspapers and magazines putting much of their text and images online with no strings attached except for advertizing. They didn't even complain, probably because copying helped them. Also, music is harder to copy than text, and movies are harder still.

So music and movie publishers are inherently safer than text publishers from counterfieting, yet they act more paranoid. Do they think they are entitled to something that text publishers are not? And why do they want protection from copying when copying would help them? Do they LIKE copying? It gets them attention that their music never could!

Re:Piracy never hurt print. (4, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | about 12 years ago | (#4435103)

because text is the most easily copyable data.

How do you figure? It's easier to copy the latest Stephen King bestseller than it is to copy the latest Britany bestseller? I can rip a 65-minute CD in seconds; a 500 page book in... hours, maybe? And that's upstream of any OCR, which is the only thing that would make it compressed and portable enough to be of any enduring use.

The text and images that Amazon use are teasers and promos, not complete copies by any means.

Piracy is an issue for the RIAA (as has been stated so many times on this board, it should be on a FAQ somewhere...) because CD burning and file-sharing programs made it easy for the average consumer to copy and distribute the media.

Text piracy has not taken off yet because it is a bitch to digitize the original paper. Video piracy is only now on the cusp of being a problem for the studios because, up until now, the average consumer was surfing a mere dial-up connection unsuitable for the larger filesizes.

Do they LIKE copying? It gets them attention that their music never could!

Huh? Wha...?

Re:Piracy never hurt print. (0)

VacheRoi (579735) | about 12 years ago | (#4435111)

Not according to Harlan Ellison. :>

Re:Piracy never hurt print. (2, Informative)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | about 12 years ago | (#4435240)

Which reminds me, it's prolly not a bad idea to provide the Harlan KICK link [] here. Amidst the din created by the RIAA, MPAA, college kids and Linux SysAdmins, it doesn't hurt to hear the perspective of an artist periodically, particularly since, as far as ranting goes, Mr. Ellison holds a black belt

Re:Piracy never hurt print. (2, Insightful)

kaphka (50736) | about 12 years ago | (#4435126)

If piracy could do damage, it should have killed books, newspapers and magazines years ago because text is the most easily copyable data.
Uh... sure. "Hey, that novel you were telling me about sounds great. Can you make a copy for me?"

(Do moderators even bother to read the comments anymore, or do they just mod stuff up at random?)

It's About Control (5, Insightful)

brandido (612020) | about 12 years ago | (#4434871)

Jarrett Wold wrote:
Napster had the wrong idea, if they could have worked out something with RIAA regarding this same concept they would be a leviathan. However it makes you wonder if these lawsuits weren't strategic in nature. I believe in the end, history will show that killing Napster was the worst mistake the music industry could have made. They lost control of a contained problem. It wasn't fixed. However when 26 million people scatter to the winds and start their own file sharing networks (Morpheus, Gnutella and many more) the problem is decentralized and unsolvable.
I think that the main issue is that both the MPAA and the RIAA want control of the distribution channels. At the beginning of the legal case against Napster, there was no way that Napster was going to give the RIAA and the MPAA the control they wanted - Napster thought they couldn't lose. Once Napster started to lose, the RIAA and MPAA didn't want to settle, they wanted to make an example of Napster. What better way to stop copycat Napsters than to show their business model couldn't work. There was no way they could have forseen the rise of the Peer2Peer trading. In hindsight, Jarrett Wold is right - they would have been much better able to keep control with a well-heeled Leviathan Napster than a plethora of mini-napsters. But then again, the RIAA and MPAA have been famous for being short-sighted.

Re:It's About Control (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4434972)

the RIAA and MPAA have been famous for being short-sighted.

But I thought they were looking 95 years into the future.

Audiogalaxy? (1)

Handpaper (566373) | about 12 years ago | (#4434888)

IIRC, Audiogalaxy did prevent file transfers if they had been shown that the material in question was copyright. This seemed to depend on whether music publishers could be bothered to inform AG (e.g. Iron Maiden's tracks were pretty freely available, but not Metallica's). Even so, the option was there for the music industry, but they preferred to shut the site down completely. This has made getting hold of the deleted and unpublished material that AG users shared a lot more difficult, since other P2P networks don't seem to have such stuff (and seem to be clogged with pr0n MPEGs in any case).

Re:Audiogalaxy? (1)

jellybear (96058) | about 12 years ago | (#4435098)

Actually, the courts gave Audiogalaxy a chance. They said that if Audiogalaxy could successfully screen the mp3's that were traded, based on the RIAA's lists, then they wouldn't be shut down. The reason Audiogalaxy WAS shut down, was because they were unable to prevent users from sharing mp3s with altered filenames, like "Beetlez" or "Mettalica" etc. Audiogalaxy couldn't live up to the bargain that the court offered them.

Can this be fixed by *trying* to pay? (4, Interesting)

TyZone (555958) | about 12 years ago | (#4434963)

I've heard it said that if you have a debt and you make a good-faith attempt to pay it and the payment is refused, then the person (or company) can no longer pursue collection of that debt.

If this is actually how it works, then could a large group of people ruin the RIAA's grand plan by sending them a *huge* number of checks for the very small amounts owed for duplication, semi-public (semi-private?) performance or whatever of their copyrighted music?


I don't know the numbers that are actually being thrown around, but apparently, the position at the RIAA is that by downloading a song from the Internet instead of buying a CD, I am costing them some amount of money.

Fair enough. Figure a high-dollar CD, so we'll use a figure of $18.00 as the amount I didn't spend. Now, I don't work for free, so if I'm going to pay them for their music, I want compensation for my materials, effort, etc. So let's knock off the cost of *my* CD, the wear and tear on my burner, the use of my connectivity (all marked up, of course) and let's not forget my *time* (including the time spent doing accounting on their behalf to calculate and arrange payment).

Since I don't do this a lot, there are no economies of scale, and everything costs more when I'm doing it than in their huge and more efficient operation. I figure I end up owing them a balance of $0.02. I write a check for that amount and mail it in (have to find out just where to send it).

It has *got* to cost them way more than $0.02 just to open the envelope and process the check. I figure the odds are good that I'll either get it back with a form letter or it'll never be cashed.

If either of those happens, have they refused to accept payment for the use of their copyrighted music? Does this undermine their position?

Any attorneys out there who can comment on this?

Re:Can this be fixed by *trying* to pay? (1)

tsg (262138) | about 12 years ago | (#4435241)

IANAL, but they are not obligated to accept what you deem fit as payment for their goods. And I'm pretty sure a "good faith attempt" only applies to a mutually agreed upon debt (ie. both parties agreed to the transaction but one is having trouble meeting his end), and not to something you acquired illegally.

They can decide to only sell Britt N'Sync albums bundled together in box sets for $400 a pop and there's not much you can do about it. You can try to bargain with them to get the one album you want but they are in no way required to accept your offer. But then, you aren't required to buy it either.

Creative Commons is one solution (5, Interesting)

adrianbye (452416) | about 12 years ago | (#4434971)

Creative Commons [] is an non profit orgnanization started by Larry Lessig dedicated to releasing alternative licenses for music, video and all other content. (disclaimer, I am involved).

Soon we'll be releasing some licenses to the public which will enable artists to do exactly what you need - mark their content according to how they want it to be distributed. We don't believe in only having the black and white options of just copyright or public domain. While those are good, we're going to create some more differences, such as "non-commercially redistributable", "derivatives allowed", "no derivatives allowed", etc.

It doesn't solve your problem *today*, but it will start to help soon. You can subscribe [] to our mailing list to stay informed.

Re:Creative Commons is one solution (0)

VacheRoi (579735) | about 12 years ago | (#4435121)

The EFF also has the OAL (Open Audio License.)

Webcasting Legally (by jwz) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4434973)

They just need a scapegoat (4, Insightful)

abhikhurana (325468) | about 12 years ago | (#4434982)

In my opinion, RIAA is just looking for a scape goat... music sales are falling partly because not many good songs are bring released and partly because of overall economic slowdown,and these guys at RIAA need someway to explain to their shareholders( not RIAA shareholders but shareholders of companiesforming RIAA) that why they are not able to sell more CDs. So they have chosen to blame the online community... I mean how many people in this world have broadband access anyway that they can download music? I still remember that in countries like India,its cheaper to just go and buy the CD than trying to download a song on a dialup. In such places, downloading one or two songs is concievable but mass downloads,now way. Are the record companies implying that the online community is the community which mostly buys their music?? What kind of logic is there in this argument?? And if its actually true, why dont they just release music targeted at the non online communitzy or people who are less likely to download songs?

who cares? (3, Insightful)

gyratedotorg (545872) | about 12 years ago | (#4434986)

If you are planning on offering the RIAA's music, what do you really have to do to play their music legally?

who cares about the riaa's music? ignore that cookie-cutter crap and support your local bands.

Re:who cares? (1)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | about 12 years ago | (#4435113)

support your local bands

Easy for you to say.

My local bands suck.

Re:who cares? (1)

chris_mahan (256577) | about 12 years ago | (#4435359)

Better to support sucky local bands than to give money to the RIAA so they can pay their freedom-stealing lawyers.

Topic Suggestion (5, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 12 years ago | (#4435007)

"It has been 4 years since Slashdot posted it's first story containing the phrase "RIAA""

So maybe it's high time to give them (or at least the *AAs in general) their own category?

Re:Topic Suggestion (4, Funny)

joebp (528430) | about 12 years ago | (#4435252)

"It has been 4 years since Slashdot posted it's first story containing the phrase "RIAA""
So maybe it's high time to give them (or at least the *AAs in general) their own category?
I propose the name 'Trade Association Idiots', and a picture of an angry lawyer.

This seems to be a good place to get an overview (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4435025)

DNA Lounge [] It's JWZ's club. (JWZ of emacs/netscape/mozilla fame).

Jarett: an idea (2, Interesting)

jellybear (96058) | about 12 years ago | (#4435043)

I found your post on Slashdot really interesting, especially with
respect to the attitude of those organizations towards small-scale
enterprises. One idea that occurred to me was that you could create a
web interface for MPAA and RIAA to input their exclusion list. You could
also give them a special e-mail address that gets processed by a perl
script. Give them each an account, and keep a record of your offer to
exclude copyrighted material. If you've done all that, you've already
done more than ICQ, TiVo and Samsung. I think, also, that you would come
under the DMCA safe harbour. Of course, I can't give you legal advice,
just some ideas that occurred to me.

Good luck!

Personal USe Law (1)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | about 12 years ago | (#4435049)

First off yes you do pay a piracy fee each time you buy a vcr tape or cd-r disk..

Look up Personla Use Law..its right in thelaw howq the money is distributed to both the RIAA and MPAA

Second, the RIAA and MPAA make money off of piracy..

How? Remember artists are paid based on sales figures.. ah what happens if you have a nice way to skew thee sales results to avoid paying ahigher royalty?

Of course they won't deal with you. (4, Insightful)

theBraindonor (577245) | about 12 years ago | (#4435071)

The RIAA has bet the farm on DRM! It's obvious from the post that they feel they have the solution to their problems. Even worse, they have declared their own customers to be the enemy. So much for all the times I've been told, "The customer is always right."

So, when you call up the RIAA and don't mention that you are contacting them on the behalf of a commercial entity, they assume you are a customer. Would most people give their sworn enemies the time of day if they called? No way.

Based on this attitude, the only choice is to push DRM. Sure they label it Digital Rights Management, but we all know it stands for Digital Restrictions Management. They honestly think that they have the right to police and search their customers private property.

I can't wait until DRM falls flat on it's face. Of course they'll just be blaming their customers for that as well--which is what they've done for a long time.

Another way to annoy them with compliance (3, Interesting)

Jafa (75430) | about 12 years ago | (#4435092)

Regarding trying to play by the rules, a friend of mine tried that and found out it really bothers them.

We've done a few kayak videos (aka "kayak porn"- all action, no plot), so it's fast music and a bunch of people dropping big waterfalls. Once we tried to be totally compliant, and contacted some studio for a band that we used a lot of music for. The lady my buddy talked to seemed rather annoyed that she had to do some paperwork for the 50$ check we were going to pay (something like a nickel for each video we estimated we'd make/sell). So we went ahead and payed them anyway.

And the next time she said don't bother, it's not worth it to them.

So, for the small timers, they just don't want you to bug them. And now adays we don't. We try to use local music and get permission, and the small bands with great music totally dig having there stuff used at no charge.


Without getting into the politics. . . (5, Informative)

kfg (145172) | about 12 years ago | (#4435093)

the first thing you have to realize is that it *isn't the RIAA's music.* They are just a trade orginization representing the interests of their members.

*You* are not its customer. Its members are. You absolutely can't understand anything that's going on in this whole issue until you get that absolutely clear in your head.

They are a PR/Legal/Lobbying entity, they don't even do marketing, that is left up to the individual copyright holders and they certainly don't do sales. They represent, ummmmmmm, interests. Of their members. Not you. Their members.

Remember that music is *published,* so look at it this way, if you wanted to publish copies of your favorite bit of abandonware who would you contact? Not a software trade group. You'd contact the publisher. The idea is pretty straightforward. You would have to contact them directly, have their lawyers talk to your lawyers, negotiate terms, draw up a contract, etc..

That's exactly what you have to do with any published work, including music.

With one caveat. Congress recognized that music was somehow different from most copyrighted works and established the idea of a *statutory* license. This license cannot be denied. It's terms are set by the Federal Government, not the copyright holder. These terms include the payment of a *mechanical* royalty.

If your use of a published piece of music meets the terms set forth by the statute for payment of mechanical royalties negotiation of an individual contract is unnecessary. The contract terms are stipulated by law. You must, however, still contract by filling the proper forms with the copyright holder ( *or its representative* ).

Now in some bizarre twist of fate the RIAA has been designated as the admistrator of internet related *mechanical* royalties, and ONLY mechanical royalties, any use that does not meet the statute must still be individually negotiated with the actual copyright holder, which is NOT the RIAA, it is one of its members ( unless the copyright holder is not an RIAA member, then you must still contact and make arangements with the actual copyright holder).

This put the RIAA in an interesting position. They aren't an orinization suited for this purpose. What to do? Start a new orginization of course. THIS is that orginization:

These are the people you need to contact to arrange the payment of mechanical royalties to those copyright holders who have designated the RIAA as their representative in such matters. Some of them apparently even gone so far as to designate Soundexchange as the representative to negotiate nonmechanical royalties as well, but my guess is that's only the smaller recording companies who do not retain their own lawyers for that purpose.

You'll find the site contains a wealth of information and even copies of the appropriate forms.

The people you talked to at the RIAA should have simply refered you to them, but they're all administrative PR types, i.e., dickheads.

IANAL, but I have been the owner of a small music publishing company, although of the pre-internet variety. With all this RIAA/DMCA crap who knows, I might just get back into the "biz" as a small independant specializing in small artists/labels who also think the RIAA are dickheads.

I doubt it though. The entire industry is too filthy for my tastes these days.


Really. Think about it. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4435120)

what do you really have to do to play their music legally?

Stop stealing it.

Gosh, that almost hurt.

blah (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4435125)

There hasn't been any new riaa news, but slashdot needs at least one riaa bashfest per week so they'll just rehash old stories so that you can rehash your old bitchings and karma whoring...

yawn slashdot.

More RIAA 'wisdom' from (3, Interesting)

teamhasnoi (554944) | about 12 years ago | (#4435141)

Copying CDs

It's okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.
It's also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R's, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) - but, again, not for commercial purposes.
Beyond that, there's no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won't usually raise concerns so long as:
The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
The copy is just for your personal use. It's not a personal use - in fact, it's illegal - to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.
The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying.
Remember, it's never okay to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make.

No metion of "Fair Use" in there. Note how they don't say it's *legal* to make a copy for yourself? ...won't usually raise concerns ...

Hey Sniper - Try the RIAA. Leave the regular joes alone.

sniper (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4435146)

ya why doens't this fuckin' sniper start sniping people worth sniping, sniping some joe blow at his gas station is pointless and petty.

It's probably just a CIA plot to get pass some new civil liberties smashing laws.

Once people are scared enough of the sniper they will let the government pass PATRIOT ACT part II for some temporary safety.

Idea: Consumer's Union (5, Interesting)

MyHair (589485) | about 12 years ago | (#4435165)

Just a strange idea I had while reading another comment on another /. RIAA story: if the RIAA is succeeding in controling the distribution and sales for vast majority of the music we listen to, what would happen if we formed a "consumer's union" of sorts?

It would be more organized and longer-term than a boycott; think of it as more like a labor union or trade union, but representing consumers instead of manufacturers or distributors.

If the RIAA and other entertainment (and software) interests start using DRM to strictly control how we can use our purchased music then we may benefit from a large union or lobby that has enough support to hurt the RIAA (or whoever) financially with a boycott or even organizing other forms of entertainment to displace what the RIAA is offering.

The union could publish a Consumer Reports style magazine and/or web site with reviews on consumer entertainment hardware and cost versus restrictions and how that compares to what we're used to: tapes and CDs.

In short, if the IP companies are teaming up through producers and distributors, why can't we team up as consumers and tell THEM how we're going to buy music?

Heck, I used the word "lobby" above and just now realized that such a union could lobby against anti-consumer legislation and back up any threats with member voters. Individuals writing in to their legislators saying they'll vote for someone else may catch a lawmaker's notice, but a block of voters belonging to one group saying the same thing in unison really gets their attention.

I haven't really thought this idea through and I'm not a leader, and this will probably sort itself out through market dynamics sooner or later regardless of the law. But there you are. Discuss.

Re:Idea: Consumer's Union (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4435183)

dude...GET REAL.

All these people that absolutely depsise the riaa and mpaa still buy the latest MTV band (they say they don't like the pop crap but sorry jay-z and korn is still pop crap) or the latest DVD of anime or sci-fi. So if these hardcore haters can't even stop buying this trash for a few weeks then how could a consumers union of the scale you suggest ever work?

Re:Idea: Consumer's Union (3, Interesting)

MyHair (589485) | about 12 years ago | (#4435247)

All these people that absolutely depsise the riaa and mpaa still buy [their products] . . . . So if these hardcore haters can't even stop buying this trash for a few weeks then how could a consumers union of the scale you suggest ever work?

That's sort of my point. Sort of.

Individually people aren't upset enough to avoid buying what they want, and even if they are they probbly figure it doesn't make a difference.

But if a small group formed and started demonstrating and pontificating it's possible that enough people will feel the same way and join. Then when you're part of a group there's a better chance of people thinking their not buying something might make a difference. Plus there's a feeling of belonging or elitism by being a part of this group that's trying to make a difference.

The most likely scenario if a group like this formed is that they would be labelled fringe kind of like the FSF or PETA. (First two grass-roots but passionate groups off the top of my head; don't compare and get offended.) But if it did get big it would be a powerful pro-consumer lobby and possibly put some fear into greedy near-monopolies like the RIAA family.

costs (4, Funny)

cosyne (324176) | about 12 years ago | (#4435173)

If you are planning on offering the RIAA's music, what do you really have to do to play their music legally?

Hey kid, how much you got? Really? What a coincidence!

Reverse irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4435196)

This all sounds like the story of the golden goose told backwards. The goose gets killed at first, but is then used later to create gold..

Open Audio and other Free entertainment (3, Interesting)

SnakeStu (60546) | about 12 years ago | (#4435211)

Any direct "fight" against the RIAA or other corporate entertainment interests is virtually guaranteed to lose. This is also true for trying to "work with them" beyond the scope of what they have already approved. They don't have to care about those who argue or want something beyond the trash entertainment conveyor belt, because those who don't abide by the corporate "rules" are too few, and the bulk of their paying audience either does not understand, or does not care about, their rights. To make a real impact, one must undercut the corporate entertainment foundation by actively doing three things:
  1. Promote the enjoyment of Free entertainment to people who might not otherwise pay attention to something that lacks the "corporate seal of approval."
  2. Produce every type of Free entertainment your talents allow, and make it very clear that it is Free.
  3. Lead by example: Stop -- completely stop -- paying third parties for entertainment, and encourage others to do the same. (I have no disagreement with paying artists directly.)
Are any of those easy? No. Are all of them critical to making any inroads against corporate entertainment, and the attacks on our rights? Yes, I believe so.

My new mantra is "Enjoy some Free entertainment, and keep your money in your pocket." Feel free to borrow that whenever and wherever appropriate! :-)

Contact the Individual Companies... (3, Insightful)

Usefull Idiot (202445) | about 12 years ago | (#4435215)

not the RIAA or MPAA.

They are Associations of recording companies and motion picture companies. The job of the RIAA and MPAA are to: Provide a united front in litigation, lobbying, and public relations for the companies. If you noticed - there is no uniform RIAA music sharing program, there are a few different ones run by different groups of companies... In other words, even the companies that employ the RIAA can't agree on compensation. If you want to get a master list of music and copyright holders - contact the individual music labels, they better have at least some sort of crude list, and compile the master list yourself.

I wish you luck in your endeavors...

Top 4 Music Piracy Lies/Inanities Told (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4435221)

  1. "The RIAA is coing after its customers..."
    Are people who steal and pirate ones property customers any longer? If I'm a regular patron of a local liquor store and decide to one day knock it over, should the newspaper deadlines declare "Liquor Store Customer Charged With Armed Robbery"?
  2. If music sales are up then this proves Napster/Gnutella/whatever is not harming record sales b/c only filesharing (instead of, say, the economy) has an impact on music industry numbers. If record sales are down for the year, however, it was the economy/boy bands/anything-but-filesharing-programs that are to blame.
  3. "Most of the music on a typical CD is crap with maybe a couple good songs. And the RIAA are bastards for not letting me download complete albums off the internet!"
  4. "Record companies rip off artists. Therefore I'll support them by decreasing their royalties even further. And, oh yeah, Metallica sucks!"

Re:Top 4 Music Piracy Lies/Inanities Told (1)

Xformer (595973) | about 12 years ago | (#4435299)

...and of course you would post that anonymously.

I've bought several CDs because I was able to grab a few tracks off of Napster or something similar, to try it out before I went and bought the CD. The track samples at, for example,, are nice, but not enough and in fact non-existent half the time.

No doubt the RIAA wouldn't recognize that use, but that's only because they're seeing the trees and not the forest.

Who knows... (2, Funny)

Xformer (595973) | about 12 years ago | (#4435224)

I guess lawsuits could conceivably be a nice addition to the bottom line and excuse for bad accounting...

Perhaps, in an effort to justify the cost of the lawyers, they could somehow come up with this "missing income" they keep ranting about and become the next Enron or WorldCom.

Who's up next for the perp walk?

A question for an artist familiar with the RIAA (2, Insightful)

jrst (467762) | about 12 years ago | (#4435227)

We constantly hear of artists getting screwed. Yet artists willfully sign over their rights to the record labels, RIAA, or whoever. (You might take exception to the term "willfully", but I haven't yet heard of anyone having a gun held to their head.)

Way-back-when, volume distribution channels made sense to obtain economies of scale that no one individual could obtain.

Today that economy of scale argument doesn't apply (at least is significantly), which is why mom-and-pop web stores can reach an audience as large as the big guys. At least for Internet-capable consumers, which seems to be the core consumer group of concen.

The technology exists today for artists to form their own version of the RIAA. It wouldn't even require a central organization/site, but could be distributed. (Simple model: songs contain the URL of where to pay.)

The problem isn't technical. It would only take a handful (or 1) of successful artists to bankroll the development (I'm sure there are plenty of open source developers who would jump at the chance).

So why haven't the artists created such an entity?

Obviously this won't do anything for back catalogs. But the problem will remain unless someone takes the first step.

Re:A question for an artist familiar with the RIAA (2)

thumbtack (445103) | about 12 years ago | (#4435264)

Its called "plantation mentality". Most artists are out for themselves, not the good of the community. Another artist is another competitor.

Declared war on their own customers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4435229)

Yeah, I guess they've "declared war on their own customers", sort of like a store that prosecutes shoplifters has "declared war on their own customers". Granted the RIAA's methods are idiotic, but I don't think the fact the people they're going after happen to be their customers means anything.

RIAA and artists? Riiiiiight! (3, Insightful)

Eric Smith (4379) | about 12 years ago | (#4435237)

and in that time the RIAA has waged war on the Internet rather than try and use the technology for the benefit of their artists
"Benefit of their artists"??? Are you smoking crack or what? Why would you think that the RIAA gives half a rat's ass for artists? Their concern is for the recording industry, to which artists are only viewed as a necessary evil.

Sadly, the only way the artists are going to get any halfway-reasonable cut of royalties from distribution on the internet is if they strike out on their own (and perhaps form their own recording companies), or if they convince Congress to pass some legislation benefitting them. Otherwise the RIAA and its members will continue to have not the slightest bit of concern for the artists.

Why ICQ is not sued. (3, Interesting)

/dev/trash (182850) | about 12 years ago | (#4435242)

They are owned by AOL TimeWarner.

Here's the way it is..... (5, Informative)

thumbtack (445103) | about 12 years ago | (#4435245)

Last year I had an opportunity to speak with one of the licensed services that are available, who was sued by the RIAA, for being too interactive.
Several points were emphasised
1) This is the price take it or leave it. (there is no negotiating the price, it's set.)
2) You have to write snailmail, and be sure to include the business information (I was told unless you have approx $1,000,000 in liquid assets they won't even talk to you or respond.)
3) Everything, the terms, price, these discussions are confidential or you pay an outragous fine.
4) You play what we tell you to play, not what you want.

There is a really good article on []
Globe Technology thats starts "The following are 10 rules of e-business failure, a list inspired by the recording industry's imaginative approach:"

Try this (1)

Ironpoint (463916) | about 12 years ago | (#4435250)

Dear RIAA,

How can I set up DRM? I'm ready to start restrictin'. With the help of the RIAA I hope to keep everyone from visiting my site or radio station and funnel them through the cartel channels. Please Help, some people are already asking me for MP3s, all I have been able to do is give them a mp3 of 8 min of silence. Although this might violate RIAA copyrights, I don't know what else to do. I may be forced to jam pencils in their ears.

Believe it or not not... (1)

just4now (571727) | about 12 years ago | (#4435259)

...Music is not free, unless you produce it yourself. Artists go on-and-on about creatitivity and freedom blah blah blah but they have to pay bills like the rest of us. Some of this is an attempt to get us to help pay their bills. If this is done outside of this RIAA thing, cool. Otherwise, the music producers and music consumers are both being shafted.

Re:Believe it or not not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4435295)

IF you got bills to pay either go out and do some live performances like the rest of musicians for the last 10,000 years of civilization or get a real job. I ain't paying 20$ a cd you can sit on your fat ass for the rest of your life. Hey the guys who sell the 5$ bootlegs on the corner got bills to pay to, but at least they get off their ass and hustle to make ends meet not like some spoiled star that lives high above the corner in a mutlimillion dollar condo and sits around complaining about how evil pirates are making them so poor they might have to actually do some work. I don't download much music but i'll be damned if i pay some spoiled "musician" to go into the study squeel out some shitty tracks and then some producers in a lab filled with computers and mixers on the other side of the country make it not sound like total shit while the artist vacations in some exotic island. Artist can cry me a river i don't give a good god damn.

Analogy (1)

Ironpoint (463916) | about 12 years ago | (#4435272)

Isn't this like asking the columbian drug lords to help you start up your own cocaine production...

RIAA ultimate objective (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4435286)

I can't reveal who I am, only that I work for RIAA's special projects team.

This team is currently in the final stages of plan Equalize. Equalize has been in the works for over 4 years now, it is funded by the trillions of dollars that are gained from everything ranging from overpriced music to economic damages gained from suing Kid Billy at University of ANystate.

The bottomless warchest which these sources have provided the RIAA, have enabled our team to develop time travel technology. The project's aim is to send a team of assasins back in time to kill chiarglione, fraunhoffer and anyone remotely associated to mp3 encoding/decoding.

I know it is futile to write this, since in a few days no one will know a thing about mp#. I just had to tell the world to lighten my heavy conscience.

If some of you have read this and are wondering how you'll know when the change has taken place-- just keep reading this message over and over again until you have no idea what it's talking about

Why. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4435308)

If you are planning on offering the RIAA's music, what do you really have to do to play their music legally?

Why, I just have to dip my balls in it!

No precedent (2, Insightful)

ShadowDrake (588020) | about 12 years ago | (#4435356)

They don't want to be held to anything now, so as to avoid setting precedent.

If they said today "Okay... want to stream, send a cheque for $x to PO Box y...", they'd have a hard time defending it if they said, later:

"We've decided the appropriate streaming fee is $3x"

"We're losing $2x per unauthorised stream occuring"


"They're all pirating b*****s", which is promptly responded to with the display of a cancelled cheque for $x.

There's a word that describes the RIAA perfectly: (1)

Primer (25308) | about 12 years ago | (#4435362)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?