×

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!

Webcaster Alliance Threatens To Sue RIAA

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the let's-get-straight-to-the-smiting dept.

The Courts 303

detroitindustrial writes "The Washington Post reports that the Webcaster Alliance is threatening to sue the RIAA under the Sherman Antitrust Act. In their letter to the RIAA, the Webcaster Alliance alleges that the RIAA and the Voice of Webcasters negotiated in collusion and, 'were apparently intent on either eliminating their competitors and/or raising barriers to entry in the market for small commercial webcasting.' It goes on to say that the RIAA also wanted to eliminate smaller webcasters, who tend to play more independent material, in order to maintain their monopoly on music distribution."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

303 comments

jesus loves you! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403336)

He wants to know when a good time to come over is.

Old Europe (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403376)

Now Germany is mad at Italy because Berlusconi shouted down a heckler at the EU. Boo-hoo-hoo! Germany is almost as fucking useless as France --- which is pretty fucking useless.

Re:Old Europe (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403540)

germany isn't mad at italy. germany is just mad at berlusconi and stefani, i.e. at the italian government, for their blatant lack of diplomacy and the danger they represent for the european integration. (background: After a german EU congressman criticized berlusconi and gave a list of very concrete problems for europe caused by the berlusconi government, berlusconi had no way to deny the truth and just tried it with an insult: he said they were producing a movie about nazis, and he'd love to see the german EU congressman in the role of the concentration camp captain)

While this brought all european governments, and especially the german government, up against the italian government, it can't harm the friendship between the german and italian people.

you seem to be afraid of a strong and united europe, and your hate against france and germany (certainly for having forged a european counterweight to the unilateralism and "preemtive war doctrine" of bush). Again, this won't destroy the strong friendship between the european and american people. It's just that bush's lack of diplomacy and his way to endanger world peace lead to tensions between the bush government and european governments.

finally, just because you lack diplomacy and social intelligence (as your insults show), doesn't mean we more cultivated slashdotters will hate all people who didn't have the chance to build up the necessary intellect before posting a comment, we just dislike the total wankers who use the forum to express their frustrated stupidity
and aren't even capable of keeping their posts on topic

Re:jesus loves you! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403415)

one time i snuck into the bathroom while my sister was taking a shower and i peeked behind the shower curtain. her back was to my face, so she didn't see me at first. then she turned around and freaked at me poking my face in at her. she freaked so bad that she slipped and hit her head on the plumbing and there was blood. my dad burst in and i don't remember what happened after that but i have this big bump on my head to match my sisters.

then this one time i went into the attic to see if i could find my old star wars toys because i loved playing with them. we have this pull down ladder to get into the attic. it's really warm up there, and there's lots of dust. there were these cool trunks too but they were locked. my star wars toys were nowhere to be found, so they were probably in one of the trunks. that or my parents got rid of them without telling me. they do that a lot.

then there was this one time i was walking to the shore and i found a really big tire. oh, i already wrote about that.

then there was this one time after i scared my sister in the bathroom, i was messing around in the back of the house and she was gardening. i asked her how deep i'd have to dig a hole to properly bury someone. i don't remember what happened after that but i have another big bump on my head. that's not fair. my head hurts.

IANAL, but YOUEVENMOREANAL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403461)

o~

o~
.

.
. o~
Filc fell fial fidl fill fill fill fikl fizl filx fisl fiml fifl fill fgll filh fill

prost fisty! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403338)

* Are you gay?
* Are you a nigger?
* Are you a GAY NIGGER?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!

Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.

Why not sign up now? It's quick and easy, only 2 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of "GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE" [imdb.com] and watch it.

Second, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on EFNet, and apply for membership.

Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.isprime.com as one of the EFNet servers.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

-A Proud and Gay Nigger

-aaaaa--a-----a----a-------a----
a-----a-aa----a---a-a-----a-a---
a-------a-a---a--a---a---a---a--
a--aaaa-a--a--a-a-----a-a-----a-
a-----a-a---a-a-aaaaaaa-aaaaaaa-
a-----a-a----aa-a-----a-a-----a-
-aaaaa--a-----a-a-----a-a-----a-

another failure! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403362)

Jesus wins this time.

So, shall we say 10 o'clock?

I'm looking forward to having buttsex with you, my son.

Imagine this! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403344)

Imagine this running on a beow...
Oh, wait.
Never mind.

RIAA Sues Radio Stations for Giving Away Music (5, Interesting)

Khakionion (544166) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403354)

It's about time. The subject line refers to an article on The Onion about RIAA's intolerance for FM radio stations giving away music. Unfortunately, it is a very real problem here on the Internet. Hopefully this, in conjunction with the backlash noted on The Register today (it's on Slashdot's "Register" sidebar), even Joe Sixpack will wake up to the RIAA's ridiculous behavior.

Re:RIAA Sues Radio Stations for Giving Away Music (2, Interesting)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403537)

It's true though, radio stations do have to pay for the music they play. And not just for the recording either. They also have to license the words of the song and the notes of the music...

And they probably pay a lot more than $2000 a year...

This sucks for commercial-free internet radio.

Re:RIAA Sues Radio Stations for Giving Away Music (5, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403538)

Recording and radio are two very different models for distributing music. Recorded music is sold in a play-when-you-want-it form that the artist and their promoters expect to be paid for. Radio is the establishment of a channel through which music is pushed, and the artists see this as a promotional vehicle.

Artists need radio airplay to start their carrers. Hardly anybody will pay to hear an artist they've never heard before, so it's a critical first step in becoming an established artist so they can make sales with CDs and concert tickets. It's the free samples they give away so people will be more likely to buy the products.

The thing is, the RIAA tries to keep radio stations on a tight leash. If you want to have early access to the hot new song from established artist A, you have to play the songs from the not-yet-known-to-anybody artists B, C, and D. They RIAA tries hard to claim that there's not a specific quid-pro-quo, but everybody knows its the stations that are most cooperative in playing the arists the label wants played that get the most access to that label's popular artists.

This is why the RIAA would like to see the small time indie webstreamers vanish... if they're playing indie music they'll create demand for the artists who aren't being distributed by the RIAA members, and effectively steal market share from them. If it were possible for an artist to establish credibilty through non-RIAA means such as indie webstreamers and P2P downloads, and then get thier songs onto over-the-air radio stations, that artist could then enter the concert market and bypass the RIAA altogether. The RIAA would like the rule that you must already have an RIAA-published CD before being heard radio channels to hold true because that cements their role in the process, however the technology now exists to promote an artist without ever having a CD... and that's what really scares the RIAA.

Re:RIAA Sues Radio Stations for Giving Away Music (-1)

elmegil (12001) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403636)

If only I hadn't wasted my mod points on other useless threads. This is probably the best post on this subject I've seen so far this time around.

Bulshit (3, Interesting)

poptones (653660) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403681)

This is why the RIAA would like to see the small time indie webstreamers vanish... if they're playing indie music they'll create demand for the artists who aren't being distributed by the RIAA members, and effectively steal market share from them

There's nothing at all stopping these "broadcasters" from playing non-RIAA label music. There's no way the RIAA can prevent it. And this fact is irrelevant, because it's not the non-RIAA music these "indies" want. The RIAA is fighting to retain control of their own poduct - they cannot control product to which they have NOT paid for rights.

The broadcasters, like you, have no argument here. If they want to play music from unsigned artists, they can. And if they would sign those artists to contracts before the RIAA gets to them, granting them rights to play given works no matter what, then the RIAA couldn't even prevent it after they signed the artists.

But the artists aren't going to do that because they see the RIAA as the master of the market, and lawsuits like these only perpeptuate that control.

These "independant broadcasters" are enemies of the revolution.

First post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403356)

nt

In soviet russia.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403360)

Monopolistic Corporations sue you.

Oh wait..

Re:In soviet russia.. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403585)

i thougt the monopoly game had been prohibited in soviet russia

In soviet russia (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403592)

the monopoly game thinks you're prohibited.

/got nothin'

Awesome (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403363)

The next few years are really going to see a jump in self-expression and netbound A/V communications solutions. Anything that blasts the RIAA to prevent them from pulling some shit here is **a good thing**.

what if... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403385)

... there was some backdoor in kazaa, morpheus and other p2p apps, and someone used it to DOS the riaa?

Re:what if... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403478)

kazaa or morpheus does notr un on DOS. You psussy!!

Re:what if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403566)

but your comment obviously shows that you do
for the other idiots who wouldn't know what DoS means, it stands for a "Denyal of Service" attack.
(no one, except that idiot, still uses the old ms "disk operating system". Finally, if you don't know about an acronym, you can look it up on www.acronymfinder.com

RIAA would have you believe it's already happened (1)

NFW (560362) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403650)

Rather than the usual technique of flooding the target with bogus data, p2p apps are flooding the clients with useful data... it's not that people can't access the recording industry, it's just that P2P apps have altered the 'clients' so that they don't even want to. Or so RIAA wants you to think.

There might be other factors, of course. Monopolistic price-fixing, monotonous pop music, minimal marketing of non-pop music, and the generally weak economy, for example...

Re:what if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403711)

and if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped.

Bout Time (5, Interesting)

Izago909 (637084) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403389)

It's about damn time. They should have been stopped when they extorted royalties from webcasters who would never play any pop filth that they 'represent'. Why should someone have to pay royalties to a body that doesn't hold any of the rights to the content that's being played?

SomaFM forever!!

what's soma FM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403438)

what's soma FM? link? k thx

Re:Bout Time (2, Insightful)

MrLint (519792) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403472)

Can you substantiate this claim? It seems that it would be patently illegal to ask for payment to play music that the RIAA members dont have copyright on.

Re:Bout Time (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403523)

That's the point, it SHOULD be illegal, but because of bullshit laws, it isn't.

Immoral, unethical (2)

Archfeld (6757) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403560)

but illegal no sadly not, in fact it is legal and the LAW OF THE LAND. After all our elected/payed official have stood up for the rights of those that put them in office and made a broad statement, that the average netzine is a HACKER, a THIEF who given any chance will steal anything, ohhh and we are all terrorist supporters, are anti american way, hate god and most of us are sexual deviants in some way or the spam would not be soo bad...If we will just step aside, let the government and corporation 'fix' things for us everything will get better, AND/OR people will stop complaining so much....

Re:Bout Time (1)

ennerseed (463366) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403631)

Why should someone have to pay royalties to a body that doesn't hold any of the rights to the content that's being played?

But the RIAA said they will try to find the people who hold the copyright. So don't worry

Re:Bout Time (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403658)

I don't think it's quite like that (although with the screwy logic used to justify the royalty rates, I'm not totally sure). I think it's just that if you happen to want to play any RIAA music at all, you have to pay a minimum royalty. $2000 is a lot to pay for a station that has no actual revenue.

Where ya going with this? (1)

siskbc (598067) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403676)

Why should someone have to pay royalties to a body that doesn't hold any of the rights to the content that's being played?

No, they represent the companies that own the rights to the recordings, and these companies entered into this arrangement of their own free will. There are some labels not represented by the RIAA; presumably, the stations are free to seek their own deal with them individually. So what angle are you taking on this - I don't like payola either, but they do have every right to do it.

Three words: (1)

EZmagz (538905) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403393)

Good For Them.

/me applauds

Four words: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403480)

Developers Developers Developers Developers

To quote Data from TNG... (2, Funny)

SunPin (596554) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403621)

Good for you.

Thank you for your deep contribution to this /. discussion.

Re:Three words: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403653)

I couldn't agree more. Just have to get this off my chest:

BOUT DAMN TIME

I hope the bloodied, lifeless hulk of what was
once RIAA soon sinks beneath the waves, to be
remembered no more.

DIE, RIAA, DIE...

(im not bitter or anything)

You'd better watch out, RIAA (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403398)

because if you don't behave, I too will write a letter I won't show you threatening to sue you.

And then I'll tell slashdot. Muahahahaha!

Fairly difficult to trust a group ... (3, Funny)

burgburgburg (574866) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403403)

whose acronym is VOW. Or is that just me?

Re:Fairly difficult to trust a group ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403528)

It's you.

classic RIAA (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403406)

From the article:
"...the RIAA negotiated with a group called Voice of Webcasters, which represented fewer than 15 Internet radio stations..."

This is classic RIAA. IT's funny becuase they wouldn't have so much trouble selling people on the idea of good behavior regarding the copying of music if they themselves were more honest brokers.

Re:classic RIAA (4, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403557)

Typical straw-man situation. They struck a deal with the 13 webcasters most friendly to them, rather than the webscasters that they already ran out of business. They're trying to claim those 13 represent the whole population of webcasters, but they don't.

Sherman Anti-Trust Act Nothing (5, Interesting)

MBCook (132727) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403411)

Sherman Anti-Trust Act nothing, I bet it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a RICO complaint against them. They sure sound like they're about to cross the edge to me. Do what we tell you (don't download stuff) or we'll make you regret it (erase your hard drive) sure sounds like racateering to me. Do they do anything to try to stop indie lables? If you can't make a RICO complaint against them now, at the rate they're going, I can't help but wonder how long it will be before they do qualify.

and what exactly is stopping small labels? (3, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403417)

It goes on to say that the RIAA also wanted to eliminate smaller webcasters, who tend to play more independent material, in order to maintain their monopoly on music distribution.

What prevents smaller webcasters from hooking up with those indie labels? A record label can set any license they want. If SuperBanana Records(and the artist) wants to let webcasters play 'It Aint Easy Being Yellow' by the Bananaettes, so be it, right?

Re:and what exactly is stopping small labels? (3, Interesting)

Telastyn (206146) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403495)

The more appropriate question is more likely "What prevents artists from hooking up with those indie labels?"

Re:and what exactly is stopping small labels? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403518)

Greed. They get more with the big labels (publicity engine).

Re:and what exactly is stopping small labels? (3, Insightful)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403616)

The laws in place don't allow record labels to pick a price. There is a fixed price, which is far higher than small webcasters can afford. It doesn't matter if indie labels, or anyone else, feel like lowering the bar.

This law wasn't to benefit copyright holders, it was to benefit advertisers by bringing about market consolidation (forcing small webcasters out of business).

Who Are They? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403419)

From their FAQ: "Webcaster Alliance was formed to encourage fair treatment and growth for webcasters of all sizes, from the smallest hobbyists to large terrestrial radio stations. Webcaster Alliance works to address the technological, legislative and content development and distribution issues that face webcasters, the streaming media community and streaming media listeners."

Music? (2, Interesting)

stripe (680068) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403421)

If one can sue over copyright infringment based of a reppetitive set of tones, what is to stop someone from generating millions of tonal combintations with a computer copyrighting the lot of them and suing every "artist" that ends up duplicating them?

Re:Music? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403471)

If one can sue over copyright infringment based of a reppetitive set of tones, what is to stop someone from generating millions of tonal combintations with a computer copyrighting the lot of them and suing every "artist" that ends up duplicating them?

In the end a lone voice will be heard... "Needs more cowbell."

Re:Music? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403526)

Nothing.

Re:Music? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403547)

::scrambles off to write the program::

Re:Music? (4, Funny)

JUSTONEMORELATTE (584508) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403575)

If one can sue over copyright infringment based of a reppetitive set of tones, what is to stop someone from generating millions of tonal combintations with a computer copyrighting the lot of them and suing every "artist" that ends up duplicating them?

Oh, sure. Next you'll be telling me that someone can just copyright all possible Phone Numbers? [magnus-opus.com]

--

Re:Music? (2, Funny)

TomSawyer (100674) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403588)

If one can sue over copyright infringment based of a reppetitive set of tones, what is to stop someone from generating millions of tonal combintations with a computer copyrighting the lot of them and suing every "artist"

uhm, you might just want to consider listening to a different music genre and reconsider that thought. I think having to put artist is parenthesis should have tipped you off.

exactly! (1)

Thinkit3 (671998) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403716)

All ideas exist outside of time. Nobody creates any idea. This is why copyright is illogical.

Commercial vs Non Commercial Radio Stations (5, Insightful)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403426)

Okay, I've been thinking about this for the last few weeks.

Do all radio stations have to pay royalties, or only commercial radio stations? I think it's the latter, since our college runs its own non-commercial radio station and they don't have to pay any royalties that I know of.

A majority of the online radio stations are non-commercial, as in, they don't run radio stations for money. Most are run by shoutcast and other hobbyists anyway. So, why should these radio stations have to pay royalties, if their real-world (pardon the expression) counterparts do nt have to?

Re:Commercial vs Non Commercial Radio Stations (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403477)

They pay royalties to organizations that give money directly to the artists, thus bypassing the record companies! Really!

BUT, Congress and the FCC decided that webcasting counts as mechanical reproduction, not just broadcasting, so you've gotta pay royalties to the record companies as if you were selling copies of their CDs. (Or offering them for download.)

This is called *CORUPTION IN THE GOVERNMENT*, boys and girls!

Re:Commercial vs Non Commercial Radio Stations (1)

Bagheera (71311) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403578)

In a word, "Yes" since any broadcast radio station (eg: not intended for the amature "Ham" audience - who aren't allowed to play music) is considered commercial and thus falls under the appropriate government regulations. In the case of college stations playing Indie bands, the broadcast rights are often secured directly from the artists rather than going through an intermediary.

Webcasting falls into a strange gray area that I'm yet to entirely figure out. Something I probably should figure out, since I operate a webcast radio station.

Re:Commercial vs Non Commercial Radio Stations (4, Interesting)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403581)

There are specific laws for webcasting that are different from those regarding radio broadcasts.

Why should there be different laws? Otherwise, it would be too cheap to run a webcast! There would be so many different webcasters that advertisers would never know which market was listening to which stations, and labels would have no way to ensure that their product was adequately represented. Mass hysteria! Dogs and cats living together!

I'm not exaggerating. That's actually the reason. Congress just wanted to bring about "market consolidation."

ClearChannel only webcasting.

Re:Commercial vs Non Commercial Radio Stations (1, Insightful)

wytcld (179112) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403594)

Radio stations don't pay royalties at all. Broadcast of music is seen as working to advertise it, thus the musicians and distributors are compensated for the use of their work by the free advertising it receives through that use.

The Internet, for totally arbitrary reasons, isn't treated that way. However, in the RIAA scheme, a radio station that simulcasts over the Net will pay less than an outfit that only uses the Net, and not the airwaves at all. So existing radio stations receive an effective subsidy for Net broadcasts of their largely-monopolistic trash.

Re:Commercial vs Non Commercial Radio Stations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403618)

and so music dies...

Re:Commercial vs Non Commercial Radio Stations (2, Informative)

gilroy (155262) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403724)

Blockquoth the poster:

Radio stations don't pay royalties at all.

This, I am pretty sure, is not true. What about ASCAP etc.? I think there might be a compulsory-license thing going on, but I know that radio stations can't go down to Wal-Mart, buy some CDs, and just start playing them.


The crime is, Congress mandated that webcasters be treated in a ridiculously more harsh manner than regular broadcasters, all in the name of "market consolidation".

The grand plan (4, Interesting)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403429)

The grand plan in the current music industry is to condition people over many generations to a specific..managible genre of music. AKA SPAM-IN-CAN CorpRock Musak. It makes perfect marketing sense. If you can manage and control what users listen to, then you can better predict your profit margins. Ever notice how all the "Alternative" music sounds the same of the past 15 years? Utter crap. And to add more salt to the wound, there is even talk in the industry to scientifically figure out what waveforms people like...err I mean music for even better corp-rock crap

May not turn out as planned (5, Insightful)

Tha_Big_Guy23 (603419) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403442)

While their intentions are noble,(Read: It's about time someone went after the RIAA)I don't think that they'll have the money available to pull off an anti-trust lawsuit against the RIAA. The RIAA could probably throw enough money into the lawsuit to keep it in courts for ages. These independant webcasters are going to need some help if they have any chance of pulling this off. I may sound negative, but it's the truth.

Re:May not turn out as planned (1)

taped2thedesk (614051) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403476)

Can the states get in on this, like they did in the Microsoft anti-trust case?

Perhaps with a good number of states backing it they could pull it off.

I have some sympathy for the RIAA (2, Funny)

PhysicsExpert (665793) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403444)

Although many people here at slashdot don't agree with the RIAA and their anti digital stance I think that we have to have some sympathy with them here. Unlike traditional radio it is easy to make copys of songs that have been webcasted and then place them on peer to peer networks such as bittorrent and napster. What inevitably happens is that people will record internet radio stations all day and then put all the CD quality songs up for download, thereby harming the music industry.

What might be a better idea is to limit webcasting to unsigned bands that need the publicity. In this way we could listen to tracks first before buying and the inevitable piracy would actually work in favour of the music industry.

Re:I have some sympathy for the RIAA (1)

gdarklighter (666840) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403527)

Unlike traditional radio it is easy to make copys of songs that have been webcasted and then place them on peer to peer networks such as bittorrent and napster.

It's perfectly easy. Get a radio with a line out jack, plug it into your computer's line in jack. Don't have a line in jack? Buy a sound card with one or a USB audio capture device (Griffin's iMic comes to mind). Streaming audio is no easier to pirate than radio.

Re:I have some sympathy for the RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403550)

Unlike traditional radio it is easy to make copies of songs?

Put cassette tape or blank cd into the appropriate component in your stereo stack. Hit record.

Damn, that was hard eh? The rules should be different because you have to physically press the record button???

Re:I have some sympathy for the RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403595)

we've all heard this before
in the the song (rolling stones, so riaa) called
"sympathy with the devil"

Re:I have some sympathy for the RIAA (2, Insightful)

common_sence (686407) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403619)

What inevitably happens is that people will record internet radio stations all day and then put all the CD quality songs up for download, thereby harming the music industry.

(sarcasm)Yea, all the streaming audio I hear is CD quality.(/sarcasm)

For the vast majority of Internet users, listening to streaming audio is only a substitution when it isn't possible to hear it on a real radio.

Of course, there is another way to hurt them. STOP BUYING THEIR CRAP! Get involved with the local music scene, or anything to promote indie labels, indie bands, etc. When ppl stop buying their products, they'll be forced to take notice.

Buncha greedy pigs...

Re:I have some sympathy for the RIAA (5, Informative)

Xcott Craver (615642) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403669)

There's a lot to dispute here.

| Unlike traditional radio it is easy to make copys [sic] of songs that have been webcasted

As others have pointed out, this is not at all unlike traditional radio. Capturing from an FM radio station probably gives you better quality.

| and then place them on peer to peer networks such as bittorrent and napster

Neither of these are presently peer-to-peer networks.

| What inevitably happens is that people will record internet radio stations all day

History tells us that this is not what inevitably happens. Nor do people spend all day scanning in library books and thus putting book publishers out of business.

| and then put all the CD quality songs up for download

...definitely not CD-quality songs...

| thereby harming the music industry.

Possibly, but I'd like to see more evidence that the distribution of crappy MP3s really cuts into record company sales.

Hobbyists should pay for their hobby (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403447)

However John Simson of the RIAA's collection arm, SoundExchange, argues that broadcasters should pay for their hobby.


"The average hunter spends around $1,800 per year on their hobby. How much do photographers spend?" he told us. "It's all well and good to run a hobby, but Kodak doesn't give out free film. It's only right to pay a reasonable fee," he said.


Hobbyists should pay for their hobbies; unless that hobby contributes something to society. A hunter hunts for himself, usually. A photographer takes pictures for his own enjoyment, usually. I am a Paid on Call Firefighter. That's my hobby. And I get 9 dollars an hour when I'm on call and 7 bucks per hour for training. The independent broadcasters contribute to society, too.

The RIAA should be subsidizing them.

Re:Hobbyists should pay for their hobby (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403615)

and lobbyists should pay for their lobby

Re:Hobbyists should pay for their hobby (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403706)

There's a precedent for corporate sponsorship of Public Broadcasting in this country (USA). Come on, EMI! Come on, Sony! Kick in some Good Will.

Re:Hobbyists should pay for their hobby (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403723)

Also since to create a internet broadcast you would need a computer (not free), internet connection with a good upstream speed (also not free) and idealy a registered domain and website (also not free) webcasters are already spending money for their hobby.

Just like SCO (-1, Flamebait)

mao che minh (611166) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403466)

The Web Caster Alliance has simply gone too far this time. Since they (the WCA) find themselves unable to compete with the superior business model of the RIAA they must resort to petty litigation, much like how SCO is behaving in the new marketplace that involves a Linux.

The Web Casters Alliance should be ashamed of themselves for resorting to such underhanded tactics. Hopefully any potential judge or jury will see right through this hollow attack and rightfully defend the RIAA.

Re:Just like SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403536)

Unless you were being sarcastic, could you elaborate? It seems to me that they're complaining more about anti-competitive behavior (gee, we haven't heard this before) than what SCO is doing (everything to survive).

Re:Just like SCO (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403587)

Congratulations, you've just been Trolled(TM).

Lawsuits (5, Funny)

$exyNerdie (683214) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403467)


Not to sound like trolling but looking at the number of lawsuits being filed these days, legal profession seems very appealing compared to IT and so far it hasn't been affected by outsourcing either !!

Re:Lawsuits (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403639)

you know all the nonsense that's been going on with doctors? lawyers are the next one's on the hit list of insurance companies. sooner or later (coughsoonercough) their malpractice rates are going to head for the sky and lots of lawyers will be looking for other jobs. therefore... legal professions might not seem so interesting.

you do have a point about outsourcing, but then again, you can file your divorce online for about $200; so who knows

Who do these kids think they are? (0, Flamebait)

pocide (688221) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403468)

They think they can sue the RIAA for not allowing them to play copyrighted material without permission? This is one of the most absurd things I've heard in a while....

Just like the Visa antitrust case... (0, Offtopic)

SamMichaels (213605) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403497)

Visa/Mastercard merchants filed a class action lawsuit against Visa for FORCING you to process the debit cards. So basically any merchant between 1992 and last year is going to get a piece of the pie.

I think this will ultimately end up being that any person who purchased music, listened to radio, or listened to an online station in a certain time period will get part of a settlement...similar to the Visa case.

When I become president, I'll disband the RIAA for being communist :)

This is scary (0, Troll)

kmweber (196563) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403506)

I don't understand why people think that there's something wrong with two private entities getting together and deciding to act in concert. It's not like they're killing people--they're just trying to make money and hopefully stop people from stealing their stuff.

This is good news! (3, Interesting)

RCAMVideogames (653705) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403513)

I make a living off of copyrighted material. These webcasters are forced to ethier stop or go underground becuase of the RIAA. This monopoly has no positive impact on the people outside of the record industry. There motive must be to keep the real radio and new services like XM alive. Therefore internet radio must be stopped. Thanks to ole Sherman, we don't have to take their trash.

Where do i send my donations? (5, Interesting)

stang7423 (601640) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403525)

The RIAA has gotten out of control. This suit looks like ond of the best counter attacks that has been launched against the RIAA. Now I want to give some of my hard earned money that would have otherwise (according to the RIAA) gone for recorded music to help support the legal fees of their oppostion.

Why do you hate the RIAA? (1, Interesting)

pocide (688221) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403633)

I work for a production company, and the RIAA (also, BMI) helps me by protecting my rights and being an easy go-between when it comes to ensuring I receive my due royalties.

Without organizations like the RIAA and BMI, I wouldn't recoup even 10% of the royalties I'm owed. I don't have an album in stores, so when one of my beats gets played, it's not a case of "hey, free advertising for his album." I need to be payed for those spins, and the RIAA has been nothing short of nice when it comes to helping me iron out copyright and legal issues.

Re:Why do you hate the RIAA? (0)

Wehesheit (555256) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403705)

microsoft is nice to it's friends as well. I don't like them because of the anti-p2p quest and selling me $20 cd's when dvd's are the same price with 10X the content.

A small step for man? (3, Interesting)

scottymonkeypants (627445) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403535)

I think that this is a step in the right direction. More groups should be challenging the stranglehold that the RIAA currently has on the music industry, and this is a good beginning.

This isn't just about getting free music, either, nor is it about not having to hear "crappy pop music" on the radio or whatever. It's about the RIAA and the major labels screwing over their artists and everyone else on the planet in the name of making a buck. Their business model simply isn't effective anymore.

I think we need to see more moves like this, and then things will finally start to change.

Why sue when you can burn them out? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403548)

Cheaper too.

In other news... (1)

Fuzzle (590327) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403564)

Reputed "small man" David has taken on the aptly named Goliath. Stay tuned, we'll have the results at midnite!

Good Luck (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403569)

They'll get about as far as Kazaa did. The RIAA is a legal juggernaut. They have a bottomless pit of money to work with.

greed (2, Interesting)

geekmetal (682313) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403586)

Webcasters of all sizes have wrangled with the recording industry since 1998, when Congress passed a law requiring Internet radio stations to pay royalties to artists and record labels.

The RIAA by far looks to be the greediest of all in corporate america. There sure should be more musicians like Tom Petty out there who need a little support in tuning down the greed.
As long as the small stations can survive we will have music

Internet revolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403657)

With the web causing such a revolution in the market (not just music) makes me wonder what things will look like say 10 years down the line. Act now and let not the corporate world take too big a bite out of it or it is we who will lose.

Re:greed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6403684)

Greedy and being that at the expense of individuals or small corporations which do not have the money or power to stand up against them.tsk tsk *kicks RIAA's fat hairy ass*

Why are web radio stations different? (3, Informative)

Hamster Lover (558288) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403624)

In a related article it was stated that DTV pays royalties of 6.5% of revenue for their digital broadcasts. I inferred from the article that traditional radio stations pay much less percentage wise. Canadian radio stations pay 1.4% of total revenue, if I am not mistaken.

Now, if we assume that the minimum royalty rate for a small web broadcaster of $2000 represents 6.5% of revenue then the RIAA assumes that a small webcaster produces about $31,00 of revenue per year, or about $2600 a month. The question is, does that seem like a reasonable assumption? I don't think any small webcaster makes anything close to that, if anything at all after salaries, equipment costs, etc. This leaves established radio stations or corporations with money as the only players in the game, small webcasters are completely out of it financially. I wonder what percentage of revenue the RIAA thinks $2000 dollars represents for a small webcaster.

Webcasters continue to sell out freedom, film at 1 (3, Interesting)

poptones (653660) | more than 10 years ago | (#6403626)

I'm sick to death of hearing about webcasters pissing and moaning about the RIAA. If these fuckers really cared about embracing indie music there's nothing at all stopping them from picking up artists who have not entered the belly of the beast. There's a real opportunity here to exact a fundamental change not only in distribution, but in the way popular new music becomes popular - but just like MP3.COM, these players really don't believe the hype they're seliing. They don't even believe in their own product, which is the reason they incessantly lobby for "rights" to the other guy's prpoduct.

What they want is the "freedom" to give even more hype to the same old shit the RIAA is already peddling; To help further enlave us all to the old Hollywood lobby.

There is a world of music out there, much of it completely unrepresented in the US [online.fr] - artists that would LOVE exposure from these "independant broadcasters." Yet these alleged "independants" don't care for that - no, they want "the right" to help spread the boy band gospel.

Fuck the RIAA... and fuck these online broadcasters. Maybe they'll sue each other into oblivion and we can be rid of all of it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...