Beta
×

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!

Raising Barriers to Entry into the Music Business

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the another-brick-in-the-wall dept.

Music 272

An anonymous reader writes "MP3newswire.net has an interesting commentary, inspired it seems by the woes of the Webcasting community. Basically they are saying that the RIAA is less concerned about piracy and more about the low barrier of entry into the online music business. For example, most slashdotters right now can start their own radio streams or distribute music files for next to nothing, just download the appropriate freeware and go. Through lawsuits and the DMCA the entertainment conglomerates are trying to make such acts much more expensive. So expensive that it is no longer affordable for the "average Joe" to trade or broadcast. The article makes a good argument on how the Internet has empowered individuals and artists to affordably express themselves online, and how a threatened record industry wants to stop that." Update: 10/20 6:55pm EST by C : More news from the webcasting front can be found in the article...

Rusty reports: "Friday afternoon, the RIAA and SoundExchange announced a temporary payment plan and fee reprieve for small webcasters while congress considers legislation.. Basically, by Monday, Oct 21st, small webcasters will need to pay a $500 a year minimum fee ($2500 max). While this rate still may be a problem for hobbyist webcasters, it is lower than the $2500-$6500 minimum that HR5469 called out.

From the RIAA's SoundExchange site:

"Any webcaster that qualifies as an 'eligible small webcaster' under H.R. 5469 will not be required to pay on October 20 the per performance (.0762 cents) royalties otherwise due under the Librarian of Congress' decision of July 8, 2002.

Instead, by October 21st, these eligible small webcasters may instead pay only the $500 annual minimum fee set by the Librarian of Congress for each year or portion thereof they have been in operation since 1998 (a maximum of $2500) until this Congress has had the opportunity to act on the pending legislation."
This still provides no relief for Live365, although their appeal hasn't been heard yet."

Ann Gabriel writes the following in response to Rusty's report from our last article on webcasting:

It appears that the message being sent to me in the response by SOMA FM's Rusty is that since HR 5469 does not directly affect me, I should sit quietly by and watch this travesty play itself out without saying anything.

What happened with HR 5469 directly affects EVERYONE is the webcasting community and to pretend otherwise is a joke.

There is nothing wrong with the fact that a group of people set out to negotiate a private deal for themselves intending to save themselves from the retroactive royalties that will come due on October 20, 2002.

But there is something horribly wrong with the FACT that what began as a private negotiation ended up being turned into a piece of legislation forced as a yolk around the necks of people who had no say in the matter.

I am tired of being asked as a member of the webcasting industry to accept something so horribly wrong just because some people think this deal was "the best they could get."

To sit by and accept the events that led up to the negotiations and the formation of the actual bill language is something I cannot do.

To me it would be like being invited over to lunch and expecting to eat Chicken Salad - and then being served Chicken S**t. There might be a large portion of the webcasting community who can stomach that, but I can't.

The RIAA never had any intention of dealing fairly, honestly and respectfully with the webcasting industry. Those that sat down privately to negotiate a deal for themselves did so in their own best interest and for their own individual reasons. I don't believe there was anything wrong with that.

But when the self-serving agenda of a few becomes something that is foisted upon the community as a whole, then I cannot, must not and will not stand by and accept such an American Injustice.

It is patently clear to me that the IWA and the VOW are separate organizations. To that end if you read my open letter carefully you will see that I point out the deal was NOT negotiated on behalf of the IWA and it's members, of which I was one until last week.

Just because people are claiming right now that HR 5469 in its present form will not really hurt the industry does not mean that is the truth. The only entity that HR 5469 helps is the RIAA and it is a sad truth that they care nothing about the industry they are destroying.

Ann Gabriel
Gabriel Media Inc.
Brian Hurley of Detroit Industrial also had his response to Rusty's words from that article.

In case you haven't had a chance, here's the latest article from The Register on the state of HR5469 as it was introduced to the Senate, earlier this week. And as a bit of a wrap up to this roller coaster week, this Reuter's article serves to provide a nice summary of the situation so far.

cancel ×

272 comments

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

this post (-1)

redhotchil (44670) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490557)

courtesy of clay woolam of http://clay.dyns.cx

Hey, Matthew Havener (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490700)

what's up bakc in teh hood me and my niggaz hooking up da shitz with cocks check this out k0k/a. [goatse.cx]

RIAA (4, Insightful)

King of Caffiene (517266) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490566)

The RIAA only cares about its own music. They don't care about quality or doing anything new and creative. Most new music really isn't good. I don't see how they can claim that piracy costs them "billions of dollars" every year when music sales are still going up. The only thing that cause people not to buy music is $18 a CD and shitty music.

Re:RIAA (5, Interesting)

Mahtar (324436) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490602)

I loathe the RIAA etc. as much as the next geek, but what hellhole do you people live in that CD's cost 18 dollars? Ok, Canada aside.

Prices from local media play (shitty pop stuff, I know):

Avril Lavigne - Let Go - 14 dollars
Linkin Park - Reanimation - 14 dollars
James Taylor - October Road - 14 dollars
Santana - Shaman - 15 dollars

Less popular, though better, stuff:

Angel's Egg - Gong - 13 dollars
Erpland - Ozric Tentacles - 13 dollars
Close To The Edge - Yes - 13 dollars
Leftoverture - Kansas - 11 dollars

And so on and so forth. If you want to make a case against the RIAA, by all means, do so. But please stop artificially inflating CD prices. It just hurts ones credibility, in the end.

Re:RIAA (5, Informative)

The J Kid (266953) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490699)

11 to 14 dollars....wow

Here in holland it used to be 45 guilders and thus now 22 Euros...which in return is about 21,50 Dollars..

And no, that's not because I live in some shitthole, but that's everywhere!

Re:RIAA (2, Informative)

danimrich (584138) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490831)

Yes, and that's not even the worst: If you're not into mainstream, you can pay as much as 25 Euros per CD (Austria).

Re:RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490704)

Sorry dude, but in the Tampa Bay area of Florida, USA, most CDs are $16-18, and you can count on $18 if you go to a major retailer in the mall. There are always a few titles that are released with lower prices, but mainstream CDs are priced high. There almost has to be a price-fixing scheme going on, but the prices remain constant.

CD prices are the main reason I don't buy much music anymore. And when I do, it is usually from a website.

Andy

Re:RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490719)

Um, I believe that would be surburban mall "record" stores. I know I can get the same things in the few independant stores in the city that cost literally twice as much in a mall shop. Why is that anyway? Or are suburbanites just that gullible?

Re:RIAA (1)

VictimlessChris (562438) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490721)

I live in philly, and semi-low prices are only available if you go to a Best Buy and get the latest teen sensation. If you want more selection, or CDs from lesser known artists, you can go to a Tower Records, The Wall (or whatever its called now), or similar stores and pay upwards of $18 for ONE CD. That's just how it is.

Re:RIAA at $20/whack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490731)

I'll bolster the previous assesment of CDs costing around $20. I've never seen (and I look every month or so) Rock CDs less newer than 5 years old sell for less than $16. $18-25 (well, $25 if it's a double-set, like Smashing Pumpkins' last)

Re:RIAA (5, Informative)

realgone (147744) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490738)

what hellhole do you people live in that CD's cost 18 dollars?
New York City, baby -- hellhole to the stars.

If I were to go to any of the major reatil outlets here and buy a regular CD (not on sale, not part of a specially reduced back catalog series), yes, it would cost me $17.99 or $18.99 pre-tax. Prices get a little better if you visit a more independently minded retailer [othermusic.com] , but the selection sometimes suffers. (Stocked titles are often more ecletic, and if your idea of "eclectic" doesn't match the owner's idea of "eclectic", yer out of luck.)

I wouldn't presume to say that the Big Apple is an accurate representation of the music market as a whole, but those prices the parent mentioned are indeed a reality for those of us in urban markets.

What the hell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490860)

If a CD was $18 Cdn (which most aren't where I live) that'd still be ~$12 US. In reality, the popular CDs tend to be around $12 - $15 Cdn.
Which is far less than you pay, but is still overpriced as far as I'm concerned.

When will you learn, things are cheaper in Canada!

Re:RIAA (2)

rodgerd (402) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490865)

Whee - mid-tier pricing! Immediate 50% cut to the artists' royalties!

Re:RIAA (1)

balloonpup (462282) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490869)

Springfield, Massachusetts also tends to run a bit high. At the local FYE (formerly The Wall) CDs run $15-$21 a piece, for new releases and the like...

Re:RIAA (3, Informative)

FattMattP (86246) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490903)

I loathe the RIAA etc. as much as the next geek, but what hellhole do you people live in that CD's cost 18 dollars?
I guess a better question is where do you live that CDs are so cheap? The hellhole I live in is San Francisco and CDs are in the $16-$19 range. There are some small shops where you can get stuff cheaper. I've found the best thing to do is to buy used.

Re:RIAA (3, Informative)

krinsh (94283) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490904)

Is that per artist at one store? Borders, or Wal-Mart? Walk into any FYE (or the stores formerly known as Disc Jockey, Camelot, etc. until they were all bought out by a giant media distribution conglomerate) and ALL the discs by new and popular artists range from $17 to $22. You used to be able to find discs at $9.99 to $11; now even those are all at least $13. I'm talking anything. Granted, cassettes are far far cheaper but the selection is not there and the store (at least all the ones I have visited and I live in WV, work in VA, get my kids from PA and shop sometimes in MD) WILL NOT order anything for you - or they'll claim they cannot find it in their system.

A prime example of this in my own town. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490571)

hahaha I Lied!! 3rd POST BIATCH!

- LiarTroll

( Read More... | 1 comment ) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490577)

The worst thing an aspiring first poster can see.

Missed it by that much.

Re:( Read More... | 1 comment ) (-1, Troll)

King of Caffiene (517266) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490586)

beat ya to it

explains it (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490583)

this could be why, no matter how many studies say otherwise, the music industry is still very persistant on saying piracy hurts them...

Freeware?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490587)

So where can I download the appropriate software? Anyone...

Thanks

Re:Freeware?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490592)

www.google.com

Kids these days are so fucking lazy.

Re:Freeware?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490672)

Gee! I thought you might really know something... You may have downloaded something from a URL you were directed to on Google, but I seriously doubt that you have ever downloaded anything from "www.google.com".

BTW, Thank you.

duh? (5, Interesting)

dermusikman (540176) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490591)

i thought this rather clear from the very beginning... or perhaps i assumed too much.

i really came to understand just how much power we have (and how little they do) when my father suggested the industry was going to develop a new medium and that CDs would be obsolete, i rebutted: "well, the RIAA may make something new, maybe even better - but CDs won't die easily. anyone can publish their own music, now, at a nominal cost..."

they have lost the power because they lost the monopoly. and they're scared as hell. that seems to be typical in many industries now...

Re:duh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490713)

it is assuming a bit much... the slashdot community is quite biased b/c pretty much everyone in here knows what their doin'. but other people don't: I met an artist that had lots of works being "pirated" and asked him what he thought of napster (which was big at the time).
He gave a response that didn't really say which side he was on and then spoke of somthing else... so people who are loosing money off of this sometimes don't even know it. this guys works they show up on nearly all p2p apps like Imesh, kazaa: people were stealing his works without him even knowing... he was a bit surprised...
so not everyone knows everything egghead

Re:duh? (3, Insightful)

treat (84622) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490897)

i thought this rather clear from the very beginning... or perhaps i assumed too much.

This should be clear to everyone, but people forget quickly. Just as people consider it a new and shocking claim that the US's war in Iraq has something to do with oil.

Why are you dodging the issue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490593)

RIAA should be concerned about handing out free sandwich!

Prevention? (5, Insightful)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490594)

I'm thinking, despite the RIAA doing everything possible to reinforce their crumbling kingdom, isn't it already too late?

Maybe I'm overestimating the intelligence of the public, but if technology exists today that enables people to trade and distribute information freely (music, in this case), and such technology is in use literally everywhere you look, how can you really stop that? Even if you implement some new technology that enables you to stop the exchange, the old systems are still out there.

I don't see how the RIAA can really stop Joe Musician from burning his own CDs and selling them through his webpage. The best they can hope for is to criminalize it, right? Wouldn't it just go 'underground' like software piracy at that point?
=Smidge=

Re:Prevention? (5, Interesting)

Jungle guy (567570) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490736)

I live in Brazil, an and artist named "Lobao" has done just that. He was tired of being ripped off by record companies, that wouldn't pay him his copyright fees (as they control the retail channel and can underestimate the sellings), and started his own record company. His marketing strategy is based on his website, where you can buy his Cds, his shows and word-of-mouth - he was well-know before doing that.

He is not interested in fighting Napster or Kazaa, as most of the songs you find there are MP3s in the 128 bitrate area - real fans aren't satisfied with them. To win the piracy, he simply sets the price of his records to a half or a third of other companies. As people see this as a fair price, they are willing to pay for it and support the artist.

Now his label is promoting new artists, who wouldn't have a chance in the big, payola driven, record companies.

Re:Prevention? (3, Interesting)

Soko (17987) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490836)

Good for Lobao [google.ca] ! Wish I could read Portugese...

This is what needs to happen elsewhere! This is where artists need to go - direct to thier listeners.

If I had the business smarts/time/money, I think I'd start a company that did one thing only - helped artists go direct to the public like this guy did. Help them set up a web site that provided thier listeners with such services as:

- buy pre-made CD
- burn tracks direct
- special recordings (my wife would flip if I got Creed to sing a song just for her - worth mucho $ to me)
- lots of other cool stuff
(Sorry - I have to...
- ????
- Profit!!!!)

I'd also provide the promotion needed to get people to the site. You would then be certain that your money is going to the artist in question, not some (In My Humble Opinion)looney executive's [riaa.org] pocket.

There are other hurdles to clear - radio play being a major obstacle - but I bet it would work.

Soko

Re:Prevention? (2)

TMB (70166) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490880)

Sounds like you're looking for something like The Orchard [theorchard.com] .

[TMB]

Re:Prevention? (2, Insightful)

Soul-Burn666 (574119) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490905)

Actually, keep the "Profit!!!" and remove the ???s.

Maybe it'll not be as much huge monatry like the record companies make, but more like emotional profit. Both the artist and the people profit.
The artist doesn't need to work too much to create an album and distribute it (except for the actual musical work, ofcourse)
The customer gets to listen to many different artists at a reasonable price.

Both not feeling ripped-off.

Re:Prevention? (3, Insightful)

Subcarrier (262294) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490745)

isn't it already too late?

Oh, yes. Pandora's box is already open and the winds of change are blowing. No matter how big an ass RIAA has (is?), it's too late to sit on this.

What I really hate is the amount of consumers' money that is being expended to postpone the inevitable. I would like to see tech companies dreaming up cool new things, rather than concentrating on complicated DRM technologies will be DOA. I definately don't want to pay a tax that goes to support a dying industry.

Well, DUH! (5, Informative)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490595)

Anyone who's watched the actions of the RIAA over the past few years can see this. Everything they've done to "squash piracy" has also, incidentally, made it more difficult to distribute music. We've yet to see a single sign that they might be trying to adapt to a changing world; every move has been to stomp, stomp, STOMP out new distribution methods and technologies.

The only good thing to come out of all this is that if they continue their currect practises, they'll render themselves irrelevant...

Backwards! (5, Insightful)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490660)

They are doing their best to quash competition and to raise the barrier to entry. Stopping piracy is a false mantra and only an afterthought.

from their side, hell yes. (5, Insightful)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490598)

Of course they are trying to do this.

Good grief. It's obvious to me, if you have a business model based on total control, and something comes along to challenge that control, you do one of three things:

Adapt

Squelch competition in any manner necessary

Die

Of course, it causes much pain and suffering on the parts of the musicians, the djs, and last but not least, Mr Average Pete. (Joe gets too much credit)

Re:from their side, hell yes. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490617)

According to your name, you're a stinking towelhead. You are not welcome in America and should be shot on the spot.

MOD PARENT UP! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490737)

I agree with this post!

Re:from their side, hell yes. (0, Flamebait)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490743)

Don't you just love freedom of speech?
BTW, I think it's time for you mommy to log on and check oprah's website, isn't it? Be a good little boy and logoff now. Or do you have more little snide remarks?

Re:from their side, hell yes. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490811)

"Blame me" is a racial name? Man I *have* been asleep a while... what is he, Canadian?

Re:from their side, hell yes.--"The odd zone" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490635)

Well I can see the "hellhold" when it comes to doing something put out by an artist that they "own". But how would the RIAA "squelch" what an independent puts out? They obviously can't say "you must publish through us". No contract, no control.

Re:from their side, hell yes.--"The odd zone" (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490803)

I know nothing about the music industry and such, but in order to get distribution, radio/tv play and advertising etc, aren't musicians almost relegated to going through an RIAA company? Wouldn't they pretty much have to sign a contract with them in order to make any money? Isn't that the whole point of the article? The RIAA is trying to stop artists from having another way of producing income (ie without the help of the RIAA) who in turn don't get their cut.

Raising barriers. (5, Insightful)

bl968 (190792) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490600)

Most companies want to make it harder to compete with them in their business sphere of influence. It's little surprise that the recording industries want to do the same. What the recording industries will end up facing is the fact that consumers are getting fed up with their tactics and this will eventually turn around and bite them in their ass hard. I personally will no longer go out and buy music. Not because I am pirating their content but because I got very tired very quickly of their assuming I was a thief. When enough people come to this decision then the recording industries influence will lessen and the balance can tip back towards the consumers.

Well, there's a shock. (5, Insightful)

JKConsult (598845) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490607)

Really? I mean, for all the posturing and evil acts they've committed over the past few years, I had no earthly idea that the RIAA was trying to make it more expensive (via penalties, subscription costs, or whatever they're shooting for these days) for me to trade music.

However, I disagree with the first thesis of the article on face. The RIAA could not give two shits less where their fees come from. I promise you, if Satan himself (the real one, not Hillary Rosen) were to bring them a business plan, they'd jump on it. So, why do they care about the startup costs of traditional, "terrestrial" radio stations? They don't. They just want to receive money whenever "their" music is played. They don't care if it's net stream, radio, or on TV commercials. Say what you want about the RIAA (and you can start by saying they're rat-bastard pieces of shit), but one thing they're not about is caring who it is that gives them money.

This whole article reads like it was written for the back of a cereal box.

Re:Well, there's a shock. (1)

obsidian head (568045) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490696)

Yes they care. They harm their relationship with distributors otherwise. And they really control their brick & mortar distributors -- but not these new ones.

Re:Well, there's a shock. (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490711)

If they don't care WHO gives them money, why aren't they trying to impose 'pay per play' charges equally on terrestrial broadcasts, as well as webcasts? Or if they can't work out how many listeners a terrestrial station has, at least start charging them per song as opposed to a flat rate yearly charge? They do *indeed* seem to be picking on webcasters.

Re:Well, there's a shock. (5, Insightful)

WeaponOfChoice (615003) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490786)

The difference for the RIAA is one of scale I believe. It is far easier for them to extract royalties from a single corporate entity (lets say ClearChannel for arguements sake) with large revenues than from 1600 smaller concerns who are much more frugal with their money as their operating profits are smaller (or nil).
Executives in the RIAA know how to make the former type of deal. What they are not dealing with well is the idea of having to deal with thousands of companies (perhaps even tens or hundreds of thousands) all of whom are going to want their personal perspectives considered when it comes time to pay up.
The article states that: "...cheap and easy distribution of media devalues the obsolete distribution methods they make their fortunes on." and this applies equally well to the royalty collection practice. If the RIAA cannot take advantage of the economies of scale offered by large scale distributers (radio/retail et al.) they risk being sucked into a system that may cost them as much to administer as they stand to make from it.

Whatever you call it.. (2, Insightful)

mumblestheclown (569987) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490615)

"Curbing piracy" and "conrolling alternate means of distribution" mean the same thing when the alternate means are (like it or not) illegal.

If some new means of distributing content would hurt the bottom line of the RIAA and may not be legal, in our adversarial capitalist world it's the RIAA's job to try to squash the new means, the new mean's job to fight back, and for the courts to decide where the line should be drawn given the ultimate goal of the granted-not-natural right of copyright to encourage the creation of useful arts for generations to come.

Re:Whatever you call it.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490816)

So you're saying that it's the American way for a monopoly to try and make it's potential competition illegal? And the courts should decide who gets the monopoly and who should obliterated? Doesn't quite sound right.

Small business argument... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490623)

Ok. So this could be the "small business argument", if it is a decent way to make money, then it should be presented to the NFIB [nfib.com] , America's most powerful small business lobbying organization.

The Internet Is Great For Musicians (5, Informative)

MBCook (132727) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490633)

Well it's really too bad, because the internet is a great way for bands to find audiences. I can think of quite a few bands whose CDs I've bought who I never would have found if it wasn't for Napster/KaZaA/etc. Bands like Moxy Fruvous (a canadian group) I had never heard of. I think I MIGHT have heard one of their songs once. But really they get no radio play (at least that's what it seems like to me). I found them because of Napster, and now own every CD they've made because of it. A large chunk of my music collection came this way; because as it's been said, I can't afford to drop $20+ on a CD from a band I've never heard of. But if I go online, download a few of their songs, I can find out if it's worth it. If it is, I buy the CDs. If not, I ditch the files. It seems to me that more and more artists will start to hate the RIAA and come out against them. Prince (?) did this a little while ago, but hopefully the next artists to come out won't use "i sp34k no CAPS im srt-hnd for u and r smart at what 'dey speak." I don't know how many good points he made in what he came out with, I couldn't read past the 1st line without a major headache and thinking he was an idiot. I'm sure that's not true, I've seen interviews with him on TV, but anyone who types like that instantly looks like an idiot to me. I guess I'm really ramblin' here. So in summary: RIAA bad, internet good, trading good, l33t im srt-hnd bad.

Re:The Internet Is Great For Musicians (1)

/dev/trash (182850) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490682)

I wonder if the RIAA realizes this? I used to listen to KPIG all the time and I actually bought CD's after listening to some of their playlist. I had never heard of Ashley MacIsaac before then. So by listening to an online stream I was pursuaded to get the whole album. KPIG and the like are going to have either shutdown or be for-pay and I won't listen. So I won't buy CD's.

Not just Kazaa/"pirate" sites... regular web too (3, Interesting)

mekkab (133181) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490896)

There are bands that distribute their songs for free either from their website (Wilco being the most famous example and the most successful- after giving away free mp3's that album broke the top 10 its first week. The only advertisement was newspapers saying "hey, this band gave away their music!") or from MP3.com-

good example are the Ex-Models and SICK FM. (NJ's own!)

While googling "The Idea of North" (a dope shellac track, I wanted to find out what it was about) I found the Ex-Models "The idea of Peter North"- dl'd all their stuff from mp3.com, and loved it. THrough them I found out about Sick FM.

Oh, RE: prince's last announcement- someone de-133t'd it on slashdot- (they just s/3133t/elite/g for every annoying word) it was a little over blown but held some interesting points that no one can disagree with: Creativity := good; -- yes I can code in ada!
Big_Corporations := bad;

non-RIAA music (5, Interesting)

r5t8i6y3 (574628) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490640)

there a quite a few Internet radio stations that don't broadcast RIAA music.

what i'm interested in is what RIAA could due to make this impossible, because this is something that will weaken RIAA in the long run.

put another way, what can RIAA do to prevent non-RIAA music from becoming more and more popular?

hi (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490658)

stop posting all your shit in <tt>, fucktard.

Time to vote with your $$$ (5, Insightful)

rotwhylr (618309) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490644)

If you are fed up with the RIAA and their backdoor legal manuvers, boycott RIAA artists and the stations that play their music. Find and support local and/or web-based artists and the broadcasters who support them.

Creating your own music or 'net radio station hasn't gotten any harder. This is simply new incentive to dump mass-produced drivel right where it belongs.

(crinkle, crinkle, STUFF)

Re:Time to vote with your $$$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490662)

Mod parent up.

Re:Time to vote with your $$$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490932)

I've been boycotting RIAA artists and the stations for the last 7 years.

So far it has not made any difference whatsoever.

The Ball is in our Court (5, Interesting)

bwt (68845) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490656)

The ball really is in our court. The barrier to entry IS lower IF you are publishing music that grants the right to play it. The RIAA controls huge amounts of music that will never be legal to stream for free, but that doesn't mean that if I go out and make my own music that I can't make it "free music" as in "free software". This situation is NO different than the battle against proprietary software. Instead of trying to get RIAA music for free, we need to promote all new music.

I really don't see why it would be so hard to set up a net radio station and say "send us your music under a licence that allows it and we'll play it". Frankly, if somebody could post a link of a net station doing that right now, I'd be listening too it.

People out there need to stop whining about how evil the RIAA is, that is old news. Just make, play, and listen to free music. That's all it takes.

Re:The Ball is in our Court (4, Interesting)

namespan (225296) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490708)

I really don't see why it would be so hard to set up a net radio station and say "send us your music under a licence that allows it and we'll play it".

I'd like to get this straight. I've been told a number of contradicting things here. Some folks say that they CAN hit you for webcasting fees, whether or not you have permission from the copyright holders. Some folks say they can't do it justly, but they can harass you.

This has come up a fair bit in the context of a discussion inside of a non-profit musician's organization I work with. We actually get booking at a chain of bookstores (Border's) because our members do original music... presto, no ASCAP dues! But we're not certain we're on totally solid ground...

Re:The Ball is in our Court (3, Insightful)

bwt (68845) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490744)


Of course you can publish for free if you have the permission of the copyright holder. Since every original thing you say is copyrighted, to suppose otherwise would say you have to pay fees to talk.

In fact, the fees are proportional to the number of ASCAP song listenings, so if that number is zero, then the fees are zero. If they hassle you, send them a check for $0.

www.rantradio.com (5, Interesting)

Perianwyr Stormcrow (157913) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490850)

RantRadio does this- and in fact it's managed to get licenses to play its music from the labels representing artists it plays.

And they are always looking for new things.

stream offshore? (4, Interesting)

f64 (590009) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490665)

i know it's not addressing the issue of legislature in the US, but isn't it possible to just stream whatever audio through a foreign server (assuming such a server would be outside US jurisdiction)? : f64 : piracy - the lazy revolution

Dinosaurs Will Die (5, Interesting)

ralphus (577885) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490670)

NOFX [nofx.org] , indie punk band says it best:

Sit back watch it crumble, see the drowning watch the fall
I feel just terrible about it, that's sarcasm, let it burn
I'm gonna make at toast when it falls apart
I'm gonna raise my glass above my heart
Then someone shouts that's what they get!
For all the years of hit and run for all the piss broke bands on VH one
Where did all their money go? Don't we all know?
Parasitic music industry as it destroys itself
We'll show them how it's supposed to be

Music written from devotion not ambition, not for fame
Zero people are exploited there are no tricks up our sleeve
Were gonna fight against the mass appeal
Were gonna kill the seven record deal
Make records that have more then one good song
The dinosaurs will slowly die and I do believe no one will cry
I'm just fucking glad I'm gonna be there to watch the fall
Prehistoric music industry three feet in la brea tar
Extinction never felt so good

If you think anyone will feel badly you are sadly mistaken
The time has come for evolution, fuck collusion, kill the big five
What ever happened to the handshake?
whatever happened to deals no one would break?
whatever happened to integrity?
It's still there, it always was for playing music just because
A million reasons why all dinosaurs must (will) die !!!!

Re:Dinosaurs Will Die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490802)

What lousy lyrics.

It's easy to see why they adopted a political ideology rather than try to succeed based on artistic merit.

Replace the word "music" with "software..." (5, Interesting)

erik_fredricks (446470) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490673)

...and this sounds like the same behavior Uncled Sam attacked Microsoft over. When the majors smell competition from an indie label (such as Matador), the simply buy and appropriate it. When that fails, they do their best to make it utterly impossible for someone to get started in the business without their "help."

They Must Be Right (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490675)

Sharing = communism

Freedom of Expression = sharing of ideas

Therefore, freedom of expression = evil
Patriotic Americans should oppose evil.
Therefore, go RIAA!

That opinion piece isn't very clear... (5, Informative)

fortinbras47 (457756) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490680)

That opinion piece left me hanging in terms of what the bill ACTUALLY does. I think this link here [kurthanson.com] provides a bit more clarity and has links to other sites. The bill in the house was HR.5469

Just glancing at stuff, a very disturbing aspect of the bill is that for an individual webcaster, it defines as "gross revenues" to include any revenue from media, entertainment, Internet or wireless business where the individual owns more than %5. I don't really know, if this is how it works, but if Joe Blow owns a computer consulting company doing wireless installs, (or hell has 5% of it), and he streams mp3s somewhere, does he have to pay licensing and royalty fees on the revenues of his business?!?!?!?

Looks like Gephardt and some other Democrats opposed [house.gov] it.

It All Started With Punk! (5, Interesting)

szyzyg (7313) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490686)

At least in the UK, it was all about rebellion and doing it yourself, destroying that crappy prog-rock that had taken over the world. Studio production costs were the barrier, and everyone was producing albums with choirs and orchestras. Anyone remember King Arthur & The Holy Grail.... On Ice?

Punk bands were recording tracks onto 2 track tape in their bedrooms and pressing up a few hundred 7"s to sell. The costs were low and there was a huge explosion in musical diversity. Then.... it all kinda went away for a bit, suddenly synth bands were everything and synths cost a load of money, production values went up again and the music business regained some control over what was getting released. But... the computer technology that was so expensive in the early 80's obeyed Moore's law and the gear came down in price quickly. By '86 we start to see the first house records coming out of chicago. Artists would create reel to rell versions of their latest productions to try out live, then they'd tweak it until it was time to press up some vinyl.

Then it crossed the atlantic and the UK rave scene suddenly grew up out of bedroom acts. Orbital talk about producing 'Chime' for the cost of a high quality blank tape. Anyone doing electronic music could sidestept eh expensive recording studios, press up a few hundred 12" records and have an underground hit. As time went on the electronic tools got better and better, and the producers got better too, expanding the range of music coming out of their bedroom studios.

Then we have the advent of the recordable CD and variable pitch CD players, now you didn;t even need to press up 12"s or carry around tapes which had a habit of getting chewed up (the first acid house record famously got destroyed by the tape machine - 'Acid Trax' originally had a vocal, but that version was lost). About the same time the internet really got going and people began sharing mp2's on download sites so people could get hot tracks without waiting for them to be released. Later mp3 came along with better sound quality and smaller file sizes.

The music industry of course ignored all this, except for the occasional crossover electronic track used in commercials.

In november '97 I released mp3serv - the first live microcasting radio system, it was a bitch to setup, but a few people used it to do live radio from PC's. A year later Shoutcast brought the concept to windows PC's. Then web services like myplay made radio possible using nothing more than a web browser.

Barriers to entry are always getting knocked down, technology is really good at solving some types of problem.

Re:It All Started With Punk! (3, Informative)

mrscorpio (265337) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490862)

I just hope that you realize that punk started in the USA with The Velvet Underground, the New York Dolls, Television, and Iggy and the Stooges...then Malcom ripped off Richard Hell, created Sid Vicious/The Sex Pistols, and thus began the commercial success of "punk", a bastardized version of what started in New York in the late 60's/early 70's.

Chris

Art (5, Insightful)

DrugCheese (266151) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490691)

I agree that artists need to be paid.
But art needs to be public in my opinion.

If something like the RIAA existed 1000 years ago think of where music would be now.

Art is inspired by art.

I say this with a grain of salt as I like to call myself an artists of several mediums. But the only truely original artist was that caveman who first smeared his shit on the wall, or the first to beat the ground with a bone in a rythm. The rest of us have all been inspired by some form of art whether we admit it or not.

My point is that the more art is stifled the less art evolves.

Just my opinion

indy (4, Insightful)

dirvish (574948) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490703)

It is time to start flooding the market with independent record labels and sites like IUMA [iuma.com] . The people need to reclaim their music from the coorporations.

Seems like more of the same (2)

certron (57841) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490705)

I was going to do a research paper on something similar, but I couldn't find enough scholarly writings on the topic. My paper was going to go through how the music industry and technology interface, and how the technology and contract laws give them large ownership of music, and how if they moved to a digital distribution model (which they could) it would violate their previous business model based on artificial scarcity and monopolistic competition. (my research paper now deals with drug advertising and what it really costs, as wel as patents etc)

What it all boils down to is that the recording and movie industries are reaping the benefits of digital technologies (ease of duplication, ease of manipulation, ease of distribution, fidelity of media) and then working their hardest to deny those benefits to everyone else (ease of storage, duplication, reproduction, transport esp. networked transport, etc).

I won't even go into their 'right to virus' and 'p2p hax0rama' efforts...

Simple... (4, Insightful)

Gruneun (261463) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490712)

So expensive that it is no longer affordable for the "average Joe" to trade or broadcast.

No, it makes it more difficult from someone to trade or broadcast material that is controlled by the RIAA. It doesn't hinder "average Joe" from broadcasting material of his own creation, nor material created by other that "average Joe" has been given permission to distribute.

If "average Joe" wants to broadcast my music, he can damn well pay me for it. If he doesn't want to pay the prices, according to the value I put on my music, he should make his own or find cheaper content.

Really nothing new (5, Interesting)

Nick Arnett (39349) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490723)

These are companies who have been accustomed for decades to domination of the industry through their control of distribution. They have consistently rejected new technology that would threaten that control, even when it was clear that consumers wanted it.

IIRC, in 1985, I wrote a piece for Rolling Stone about a company, Personics, that had a system that would allow people to make custom audio cassettes at high quality and speed in music stores. People loved it because it was what they were doing ANYWAY -- making tapes of their favorite songs in the order they wanted. But the record companies used their control of music copyrights to deny Personics access to popular music. And this was in spite of the fact that it partially solved the enormous cost of returns from music stores (50 percent) and the lost sales when sudden hits weren't in stock (and most hits are sudden hits).

Here we are 17 years later and they're still abusing copyright to control distribution of music. Personic's founder had a good idea -- create a compulsory license for music distribution, similar to the one that exists for music performance.

Nick

Re:Really nothing new-Rogue organization. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490760)

Actually I have a question. There's an attached story (hyperlinked) to the one we're reading were it says that even the labels aren't for what the RIAA's doing (down near the bottom of the page). So if the labels aren't for it, and the artist aren't for it, etc, etc. Then doesn't that make the RIAA a rogue organization? Something is seriously broken here.

Simple question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490729)

If you want to stream audio, (or video), which consists entirely of your own work, or work for which you have the rights, in a non-proprietary format, (E.G. Ogg Vorbis), are there any licensing fees to be paid? I assume that there now are, although I'm not sure.

I'm in the EU, (the U.K., actually), the European situtation is the most relevant to me, what what is the situation in the U.S.A., and Japan?

The new music industry (2, Insightful)

EggplantMan (549708) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490740)

I have long held the opinion that computers, due to their nature, will deflate music prices dramatically and destroy the current media distribution cartels. Due to file trading, the service of providing music has decreased in value, and music cartels will be forced to lower their prices in order to sell music over the internet. If they lower their prices I would expect that more than a few asses will be canned in order to trim the cruft. On the other hand, should the RIAA open up 'RIAA ONLINE!' (RIAOL) us geeks can expect to gain some jobs.

Now is the time when we should be paying close scrutiny to the RIAA however, since instead of bowing to market (consumer) pressures, they are hellbent on strongarming everything that comes in between them and their fiefdom.

I look forward to the day when all of the media cartels have fallen, and the sham that is hollywood swirls (counterclockwise) into the shitter.

Grow up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490742)

The RIAA is not "evil", and neither is Microsoft. However, your zealotry is.

Re:Grow up (0)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490872)

That depends on what your defenition of evil is. I hate to be so cliché and quote a dicionary defenition but...

evil Pronunciation Key (vl)
adj. eviler, evilest
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.


Actually, by many definitions of evil, Microsoft and the RIAA can easily be defined as being evil. It can be argued that they are morally bad/wrong, that they cause ruin (or try to) to people who don't have the money to pay their artificially high licensing costs; it can definately be said that many people regard them as bad/blameworthy by report, and many of their 'temper tantrum' legal actions seem full of anger and spite.

So don't just say they're not evil without looking up the defenition first.

This keeps coming up. (5, Interesting)

FreeLinux (555387) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490747)

I'll get moderated to hell for this, but.....

There is an glimmer of truth to the article's line of argument but, the low cost and ease of publishing by the internet has long been touted as one of its major advantages. To an extent it certainly is true, the internet does empower the "little man". But, there is much more to it and Slashdotters seem unwilling to acknowledge this.

The fact is that publishers of art, specifically musicians need more than an inexpensive distribution channel. They need two other things, talent and, more so, marketing.

I'm sure that there are numerous extremely talented musicians out there that we will never hear of and it has nothing to do with the RIAA controlling streaming. Their obscurity will be because they lack a powerful marketing arm promoting their work. This marketing power is what the RIAA members or recording labels provide. Without the marketing power of the labels almost all musicians will fade into obscurity regardless of what distribution channels are available to them.

Regardless of anyone's willingness to accept this fact it is clearly born out today. For the past 5 to 10 years musicians have had the ability to publish and distribute their productions at a very low cost. Yet, there has yet to be a single artist who has achieved wide-spread popularity or fame through these channels.

Conversely, there are countless "artists", that are household names today, who haven't even a smidgen of talent. There are dozens of Top 10 performers that would still be growing corn in Kansas or washing cars in London if it weren't for the powerful marketing of the big labels.

Now be honest, could the Spice Girls have sold any significant number of albums had they gone it on their own and distributed through the internet? Would Brittney be flashing her belly button for Pepsi or, would she be doing Country & Western in some sleazy dive in Ohio for $8 an hour?

Re:This keeps coming up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490797)

"The fact is that publishers of art, specifically musicians need more than an inexpensive distribution channel. They need two other things, talent and, more so, marketing."

This is at least interesting. It's been a while since I've heard someone on /. who cared about what the publishers needed. If you ask me, they need to stop screwing the talent.

"For the past 5 to 10 years musicians have had the ability to publish and distribute their productions at a very low cost. Yet, there has yet to be a single artist who has achieved wide-spread popularity or fame through these channels."

This portion of the poster's argument just isn't true. For one thing, this has been the case for more than ten years. Remember selling tapes out of your trunk? And for another, artists as diverse as Ani DiFranco [righteousbabe.com] , the Dead Kennedys [alternativetentacles.com] and N.W.A. [ruthlessrecords.com] have ridden independently-produced records to fame and... a modicum of financial stability.

Re:This keeps coming up. (2)

Animats (122034) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490824)

I'm sure that there are numerous extremely talented musicians out there that we will never hear of and it has nothing to do with the RIAA controlling streaming.

I dunno. Try some of those sites for unsigned musicians. Most of them suck.

Re:This keeps coming up. (1)

Maul (83993) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490893)

Buy some of those CDs of signed (RIAA Controlled) musicians. Most of them suck.

Re:This keeps coming up.-Marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490866)

The solution is the same one that's used to distribute net music. That's right the internet.
Go to the new and improved shoutcast were not only can you hear artist. You can also get more information on both the music and the artist.
But one can say that the person without computer access is left out. Correct on both counts. No net music & no net advertising, although word of mouth seems to be effective. Maybe someone can do for music what internet cafes do for the internet?
Go to StarBucks, get your java, get your Internet & music as well. Independent music stores could have a T1 out the back. Music on demand, or simply the owner could grab what he thinks would sell, and burns and labels it. More profit for him because there's less overhead. Remember were ever there's an unfulfilled demand someone will figure out a way to address it.

Flawed (2)

FreeLinux (555387) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490927)

Go to the new and improved shoutcast

Mainstream labels market their artists. They don't rely on people digging for research on Shoucast to get the word out about a new band or album. They put the word in everybody's face, whether they like it or not.

The labels advertise with giant posters and billboards, everywhere. They get radio stations to play the songs incessantly, via payola or some other arm twisting or back scratching. The labels advertise on television. They make deals with the movie studios (sometimes the same people) to use and promote the artist in movies. They arrange and further promote concert tours.

When a label decides to promote a new artist, it is an all out media blitz. Everyone is going to see it, regardless of whether they want to or not, regardless of whether they think the music is great or sucks!

When an independent puts up a web site on some obscure corner of the internet, hardly anyone ever sees it and no one notices when it dies shortly there after.

Re:This keeps coming up. (2)

danheskett (178529) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490907)

It all depends on your goal. If your goal is to be rich, powerful, famous, and popular as long as possible, then yes, you need marketing ala RIAA.

If your goal is to enrich people, to get your art around to people, to enjoy yourself and to further your internal development, then no, as an artist you need no marketing.

Thats the question. I listen to a very small amount of music. I've bought exactly two CDs in my life, one of which was used and was subseqently given as a gift.

I will not support terrorist organizations like the RIAA.

Now, if you are an artist of some sort, there are plenty of ways to distribute your art for free or with low cost. And sometimes you can even scratch out a bit of living doing it. Are you going to be famous? Probably not.

Re:This keeps coming up. (1)

f64 (590009) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490918)

>Now be honest, could the Spice Girls have sold any
>significant number of albums had they gone it on
>their own and distributed through the internet?

i guess this would be an argument for *any* music distribution system that doesn't depend on marketing.

frankly, to say that marketing (as it looks today) is a necessity for musicians to exist is to buy into what is presupposed by large labels (ie "we facilitate the release of less-commercial music thanks to our sales of a few mega-stars"), while a smaller, less industrialized way of distributing music might actually allow for "less-commercial" artist to prevail (using paypal, whatever), as well as slaughtering the giant corps (which in itself is good, since it gives the economic power, as well as the power of esthetics, back to the people who create and listen to music).

most of the interesting music i get nowdays comes through the internet; either as links in a mag or site, or using p2p filesharing and searching random words.

an unaffiliated plug would be mochipet [mochipet.com] who'm i found thorugh some glitch music site.


f64 : p2p - the lazy revolution

Got me thinking about sound... (0, Offtopic)

PhysicsScholar (617526) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490759)

Physics books typically discuss the molecular nature of sound, but then derive the sound wave equations by modeling air as a continuous elastic medium.

I mean, mathematically this is just fine, but I find it much more satisfying to derive the wave equations directly from the molecular point of view.

I also think this is a more straightforward derivation, since it completely avoids any need to deal with specific heat ratios or adiabatic processes. The effects associated with these terms arise quite naturally directly from the molecular model.

All that one really needs to do is derive basic differential equations of fluid mechanics from the molecular model. If only the RIAA did this, maybe they'd sell some more records with good music on them rather than the same old pop hits time after time.

(I use Netscape v3.04 and the Microsoft browser v4.0. As much as I hate to abet the Microsoft juggernaut, this section looks a lot better with the MS browser.)

Hello??? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490847)

Dear Mr. Moderator,

I know that this post uses some really big words and that you are terribly impressed by it. The fact that the porster is a self professed physics expert must be equally awe inspiring to you. But, if you use a dictionary and find out what these words mean, you will see that they are strung together in an incoherent fashion. (That means that they don't make any sense.)

I realize that there was no way for you to know this but, the oabove post is a Troll and a bad one at that. Please don't mod it up. OK?

Free Speech!? (1)

danimrich (584138) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490763)

"We're not against the concept of free speech, but it should be limited to politicians." Seems kinda similar.

Up and Coming musicians (4, Interesting)

intrico (100334) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490776)

Keep in mind that this only applies to music that the RIAA companies own. There's lots of good music on the net from "up and coming" musicians that have not signed contracts yet with greedy record levels. Bands such as these can broadcast over the internet all they want without repercussion, since they are not copyrighted by RIAA member companies. This would be good healthy competition.

Contradictions in the Arguement (3, Interesting)

SN74S181 (581549) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490778)

There are some contradictions in the arguement being made here. There is no 'barrier to entry' for musicians. You record your music and you find an independent Net Radio program to broadcast it for you.

The 'barrier' seems to be in place when people want to put up Web broadcasting sites and use the mass marketed pabulum music. Which is NOT the music made by the independent musicians.

It always seems to revolve around a 'gimmie gimme' attitude that people seem to think they have the right to broadcast music made by artists whose permission they do not have, nor do they care if they have.

If you're going to build your alternative music industry, stop trying to play Brittney on it. It's really that simple.

Funny tidbits... (4, Insightful)

Crasoum (618885) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490784)

For all the suing the RIAA is doing for "music", as Courtney Love published a great article [salon.com] on file sharing napster and what it does for an artist.

There were a billion music downloads last year, but music sales are up. Where's the evidence that downloads hurt business? Downloads are creating more demand. Why aren't record companies embracing this great opportunity? Why aren't they trying to talk to the kids passing compilations around to learn what they like? Why is the RIAA suing the companies that are stimulating this new demand? What's the point of going after people swapping cruddy-sounding MP3s? Cash! Cash they have no intention of passing onto us, the writers of their profits.

There is also another quote by her that went something like 'When am I getting my check from napster?' but I can't find where I read it...

The RIAA helps make software more robust (5, Interesting)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490822)

The RIAA's draconian tactics play same role of pesticides or antibiotics in the Internet "ecosystem". Their laws and lawyers are able to destroy 99% of the "pests", but the remaining 1% which are resistant to their attacks then have a clear playing field to play in.


The death of Napster-style centralized p2p lead to the dominance of Kazaa-style distributed p2p, and the death of traditional streaming will lead to the dominance of distributed p2p streaming [peercast.org] .


Please take some time to write the RIAA and thank them for their support in advancing the state of the art in free content distribution. :^)

RIAA != The Music Industry (5, Insightful)

Gray (5042) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490828)

I run a indie record label and I've got nothing to do with the RIAA.

If you'd like to broadcast releases to which I own the rights, more power to you.

If you run a broadcaster and the RIAA is all up in your face, I encourage you to just stop playing releases from RIAA member labels.

The cost of entry to the music business is in fact lower then ever. Todays home studio is able to do what 10 years ago was the stuff of wet dreams. Plus CD reproduction costs are lower then ever. You can start an record label for less then $5k these days, I'm living proof.

Business plan (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490842)

1. Represent lots of popular recording labels
2. Try to prevent other recording labels becoming well known
3. Profit
4. Profit
5. Profit
6. Profit
7. Profit
8. Profit
9. Profit
10. Profit

note the lack of a ?????? entry!

It's evolution baby.... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490853)

The RIAA is close to extinction and they know it. Think of these measures as the flailing paws of a drowning dog.

And for those of you that like to throw this "artists must be paid" mantra around....DEFINE Artist for us all before you start slinging around ill conceived opinions.

I would argue that PERFORMERS should be paid, the product at issue with the RIAA vs. internet users is information, we're not even talking about a nicely printed album inserta with lyrics and snazzy cover art, which in it's own right deserves a few pennies.

Information control will only become more difficult as technology progresses, the RIAA would be better off adapting rather than resisting, but this is one dog that just isn't learning any new tricks. I'm still AMAZED that they have not yet jumped on the biggest internet bus of all - that of MISinformation. I could digress, but maybe I shouldn't hand them the control they want without a price;)

similar to MS strategies (3, Interesting)

carpe_noctem (457178) | more than 11 years ago | (#4490888)

I've got a friend of mine that has been an intern at Microsoft for the last two consecutive summers, and will probably be recuruited by them when he graduates from college. I'm no big fan of MS (especially Windows programming, but whatever, he seems to like it), but I am always interested to hear his perspectives on working there.
Anyways, I asked him once what he thought of the whole palladium issue, and he said that the best way to tell anything that Microsoft is going to do is simply to see what could earn them the most money. Just follow the trail, and you can pretty much figure out exactly what business strategy they're going to take.
As obvious as that is, people tend to classify big market forces such as the RIAA and Microsoft as giant evil entities set on destroying all competition, crushing the human spirit of independence, and so forth. All the RIAA really wants is just to net its investors as much money as possible. Making it harder for webcasters to startup is a two edged sword; this will give the RIAA et al the power to control the future of internet radio, and thus, the type of music that people will be able to readily hear on the internet. It's all about market control, and it seems to me that the RIAA just wants to clear out the battlefield before they get involved in this particular arena.

Business plan suggestion for the RIAA (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4490898)

Why don't they:

1. Set up a $1/minute 56Kbps BBS
2. Put loads of Ogg Vorbis files of popular songs on it
3. Profit

Seems obvious to me. They could sell overpriced blank CD-Rs at the same time :-)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>