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!

RIAA Goes After Satellite Radio

Zonk posted about 9 years ago | from the next-up-the-speak-and-spell dept.

Music 547

nicholasjay writes "The RIAA is at it again. Now they don't like satellite radio. From the article 'The record industry ... believes the recording capability [of satellite radio receivers] is a clear copyright violation and could take revenue away from paid download music services.' This comes on the heels of both Sirius and XM announcing mp3 enabled players and the ability to record music heard on the radio. Also from the article: 'RIAA may seek $1 billion plus in music rights fees for a new contract covering 2007 to 2012 to replace the current $80 million pact that expires in 2006.'"

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

No kidding? (5, Insightful)

SilverspurG (844751) | about 9 years ago | (#13738857)

From the article:
"The music industry is an important partner, and we continue to listen to their concerns in hopes of finding a resolution that benefits everyone, especially consumers," said Nathaniel Brown, a spokesman for XM.
I can't quite believe that XM got this far by pulling random CDs off the shelf and spinning them radio dj style without first negotiating at least a few contracts ahead of time. I don't personally believe in license agreements but they must have had to sign a contract somewhere which allows them to get around "for personal use only... not for broadcast".

If the music labels had a problem, shouldn't they have approached it at the front-end?

I'm sick of this suing customers/pointing the evil finger at them after the point of sale. It's fscking stupid.

Re:No kidding? (5, Informative)

PortHaven (242123) | about 9 years ago | (#13738908)

Radio NEVER has had to pay RIAA. Radio broadcasts were deemed "public performance" and had to pay their licenses to BMI/ASCAP/SESAC (the performance royalty companies). In fact, all these royalties RIAA has demanded from satellite radio, web radio, etc. Are completely new previously unheard of royalties. And it's all based on "caching".

For instance, you play music over the web. Your PC "buffers" the stream. RIAA made a case saying the buffering is a recording and therefore they need to be paid.

- The Saj

Re:No kidding? (3, Interesting)

SilverspurG (844751) | about 9 years ago | (#13739000)

Radio NEVER has had to pay RIAA.
Don't most radio stations have agreements with the various record labels? I seem to remember someone taking care of that paperwork...

Re:No kidding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13739072)

For instance, you play music over the web. Your PC "buffers" the stream. RIAA made a case saying the buffering is a recording and therefore they need to be paid.

That's an insane case. You can also argue radio buffers the signal while it is going through it's circuits. Or even while it is in transit. There is for instance a way of storing information by bouncing a signal therefor delay=storage ?

Re:No kidding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13738909)

The issue isn't broadcasting; they have the rights to do that, the issue is that some of their receivers have the ability to record and the RIAA doesn't like that a user can record a song from the broadcast and then add it to their collection.

Re:No kidding? (2, Insightful)

SilverspurG (844751) | about 9 years ago | (#13738953)

he issue is that some of their receivers have the ability to record and the RIAA doesn't like that a user can record a song from the broadcast
There is no way the recording labels could possibly not have known about the hardware ahead of time. If they didn't bother to ask about the hardware before signing the licensing deals it shouldn't be up to my tax dollars to go back and figure it out for them. What kind of fscking business are they running? If they had a problem with it, they should've approached it at contract time.

No wonder you're posting AC.

Re:No kidding? (1)

AviLazar (741826) | about 9 years ago | (#13739020)

they didn't bother to ask about the hardware before signing the licensing deals it shouldn't be up to my tax dollars to go back and figure it out for them

Are you sure they didn't mention, somewhere, that they frown on pirating. The contract may not explicity state everything they CAN'T do, but maybe what they can do. Maybe it should have fallen on the shoulderes of the satellite radio companies to be honest and disclose their plans. The recording devices didn't just magically appear one day w/o warning, they new about it for months if not years in advance.

As for your tax dollars at work - everyone gets their day in court - it is their right, just like it is your right. They pay taxes, just like you do...ummm scratch that, they pay WAY MORE taxes then you do.

Re:No kidding? (1)

SilverspurG (844751) | about 9 years ago | (#13739045)

Maybe it should have fallen on the shoulderes of the satellite radio companies to be honest and disclose their plans
And maybe, before the recording labels signed the agreements to allow for broadcast use of their product, they should have asked,"What of the recording security of the hardware which you will use?"

These things don't happen overnight. XM/Sirius must've been in the works at least 2 years before their products hit store shelves.
they pay WAY MORE taxes then you do
And they get way more back. You have studied the basic functionality of a pyramid scheme, haven't you? The people at the top always appear to pay more.

Re:No kidding? (1)

dacarr (562277) | about 9 years ago | (#13739005)

Yeah, there's a way. It's called ASCAP.

why? (1)

U1timateZer0 (855425) | about 9 years ago | (#13738860)

Whatever they can do to squeeze a few extra pennies out of anyone, I guess.

Re:why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13738890)

Those are some gigantic pennies! One billion dollars worth!

Some currently available mp3 players (1, Insightful)

DirtyHarry (162125) | about 9 years ago | (#13738865)

can record to mp3 directly from radio already... or is this something different?

Re:Some currently available mp3 players (1, Interesting)

Quasar1999 (520073) | about 9 years ago | (#13738899)

Yes, radio is analog with noise and static... Satelite radio is digital and a perfect (in theory) reproduction.

Re:Some currently available mp3 players (3, Interesting)

xhorder (232326) | about 9 years ago | (#13738933)

But it's highly compressed... I would hardly call it "perfect"

Re:Some currently available mp3 players (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | about 9 years ago | (#13738988)

It's not even close, trust me.

And the "recording" feature they're talking about is a joke as well. I remember when I was 8 or 9 copying crap off the radio, because I didn't have enough cash to buy the album...Lunging across the room to hammer record and miss as little of the song as possible. Just what I want to regress to, 22 years later, WHILE DRIVING. I think not.

I've got a player with this "feature" and I've never once used it. Just when you think the RIAA can't possibly piss you off any more...

Re:Some currently available mp3 players (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13739021)

But it's highly compressed... I would hardly call it "perfect"

Compressed and lossy are different things. It can be compressed (like with .zip) and a perfect copy, or compressed with lossy compression (like .mp3) and not a perfect copy.

First?! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13738866)

Weeee

Re:First?! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13738884)

What does it feel like to not only suck at life but at the internet as well?

power of the buyer (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13738873)

The world can live without buying music from the record industry - can the record industry live without selling their crap? Don't buy.

This reminds me of south park episode... (1)

SolitaryMan (538416) | about 9 years ago | (#13738975)

When they tried to stop "wallmart" by just not bying

Good idea, I think, but impossible to implement.

Can the record industry live...? Oh yes. (2, Interesting)

Chordonblue (585047) | about 9 years ago | (#13739075)

Don't buy. Right. While you're at it, don't go to any movies that might have RIAA music as part of the soundtrack and don't go to any store that might have a radio playing RIAA music.

LICENSING! That's how the RIAA will out-survive all of us. Even if the entire CD industry collapses, the RIAA will still have licensing rights to all that music. Clearly, the RIAA needs some form of regulation as they are a true monopoly with no real competitors. While we're at it, some clarification on copyright might be in order as well.

The RIAA amazes me because they went from an organization that few but musicians even heard of to one of the most reviled organizations on the planet and... They don't CARE! I guess they don't have to do they?

The beginning of the end (4, Insightful)

Quasar1999 (520073) | about 9 years ago | (#13738877)

Looks like the RIAA is seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, and it's looking more and more like a train.

Obviously they are trying to keep their distribution model valid (read crappy CDs), but everywhere they turn, they're losing... so... they decide to jack up the price of distrubtion rights so high that they will either force the companies to stop distributing anything other than CDs, or will pay the insane prices for the right, and the RIAA will continue to be fat and rich.

Unfortunetly for them, they will eventually fall with this tactic, and fall hard.

Re:The beginning of the end (2, Insightful)

JaffaKREE (766802) | about 9 years ago | (#13738891)

You can't sue *EVERYONE*.

Seriously, is their goal to sue every single person in America ? That doesn't seem like a good long-term business model. I'm generally less likely to buy things from companies that have taken legal action against me.

Re:The beginning of the end (1)

erick99 (743982) | about 9 years ago | (#13738911)

If they replace an 80M deal with a 1B deal; that would be a twelve-fold increase in licensing fees. I've got to believe that my $12.99/month XM fee would go up, maybe not by a factor of 12, but by an amount that I am not likely to consider wanting to pay.

Re:The beginning of the end (2, Insightful)

debest (471937) | about 9 years ago | (#13739024)

You are completely right about this being about retaining the recording companies' control over the music industry. It doesn't matter that, in a courtroom, a lawsuit (to prevent making devices that record satellite broadcasts to MP3) would ultimately fail. The point is that this is the RIAA's job! They are supposed to be the asshats who object to anything that could remotely challenge the control and revenues of the companies that it represents, regardless of its legality.

The RIAA has to fight against any and all threats to its members. As long as its members continue to try to maximize profits (ie. as long as they are in business), this organization will be constantly lobbying and making noise against anything that upsets their business model. The only thing that will shut them up is the bankrupcy of all the major recording labels.

Dare to dream....

Greedy Bastards (1, Flamebait)

AcheronHades (837485) | about 9 years ago | (#13738880)

I am sick of the RIAA. I used to download songs to try them out, see what I liked. Now I just download out of spite cause I fucking hate those greedy bastards.

Silly RIAA... (5, Funny)

zwilliams07 (840650) | about 9 years ago | (#13738881)

Instead of going for the little pups, go for the big dogs. Go sue Energy providers! Yeah! Cause you know, we couldn't pirate music if it weren't for electricity powering computers and other electronic equipment. Yeah, that show them!

Re:Silly RIAA... (1)

Grakun (706100) | about 9 years ago | (#13739081)

I'll run my computer off a generator if I have to. Of course, I'd have to make some cut backs, to cover the cost of fuel. Out of spite, I'd cut back in my legal entertainment purchases.

WTF? (1)

Obsi (912791) | about 9 years ago | (#13738887)

Okay, if I understand sattelite radio buisness model right, they're paying the record companies for the right to play the songs on the services.

I don't see how the sattelite radio equipment makers can be thinking straight in this matter.

Then again, ANY sattelite radio hardware that could take a headphone connection has been able to (indirectly) record songs (send output to PC, which is running a program like Cool Edit Pro.) Damn, missed chance for a 1stpost with meaning too :(

Re:WTF? (4, Interesting)

SilverspurG (844751) | about 9 years ago | (#13738920)

I don't see how the sattelite radio equipment makers can be thinking straight in this matter.
Other way around. How the fsck could the big record labels not know in advance what hardware was going to be used? If they had a problem with the recording security of the hardware they could have refused to grant the service broadcast rights for their music.

Simple as that. No lawsuit needed. No wasted taxpayer money. No more overpriced attorneys.

Re:WTF? (1)

AviLazar (741826) | about 9 years ago | (#13739068)

Other way around. How the fsck could the big record labels not know in advance what hardware was going to be used? If they had a problem with the recording security of the hardware they could have refused to grant the service broadcast rights for their music.

No he had it right his way, you are just being anti-RIAA just because they are the RIAA. The RIAA does not know what the internal plans of the satellite radio companies are. As I told you before, the satellite radio companies should have been forthcoming.

And again, as for the tax dollars --- everyone is allowed to have their day in court, and if you are worried about tax dollars - you should be happy to realize that the RIAA puts tax dollars into the system - more then you - the RIAA employees people who put money into the system - more then you. The RIAA is paying for the overpriced attorneys - not your tax money.

As for the lawsuit, it will only hit court if both parties cannot come to an agreement - which if you plan on blaming anyone it should be both sides

Not the time to buy xm then eh? (3, Interesting)

cflorio (604840) | about 9 years ago | (#13738889)

If this contract expires in 2006, then I'd say I'm not going to be buying an xm radio system any time soon. Increases like that would either have to be passed on or xm would go tits up.

BS! (5, Funny)

Kranfer (620510) | about 9 years ago | (#13738892)

I can record radio on my Computer, Radio in my car, Boom Box radio etc. Is their goal to encrypt all radio transmissions? Serius and XM radio are pay for subscriptions. WTF?

When are they going to sue my birds for listening to music all day? The birds could start mocking the music exactly!

"Your birds are singing these copywritten songs... We are suing them. They need to appear in court on these days!"

the RIAA is starting to overstep its bounds.

me thinks (2, Insightful)

meatbridge (443871) | about 9 years ago | (#13738896)

someone should organize a "buy no music day" or perhaps a full week to teach the RIAA that they aren't holding all the cards.

Re:me thinks (1)

JaffaKREE (766802) | about 9 years ago | (#13738922)

we call it "every day || week" around these parts.

Re:me thinks (1)

Donniedarkness (895066) | about 9 years ago | (#13738944)

Or a "download as much music as you possibly can" day. That'd be amusing.

Re:me thinks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13739062)

How about a buy indie music day/week?

You could still get music, maybe some bands you never heard before, and not support the RIAA.

Hide your Sony Walkmans! (1)

josea (41750) | about 9 years ago | (#13738897)

Isnt a Sony Tape Walkman just the low-tech version of the mp3 recorders SIRI [google.com] and XM [google.com] are preparing to release? I still use mine for that purpose.

And now I know... (0, Offtopic)

HerculesMO (693085) | about 9 years ago | (#13738900)

Why Metallica isn't listed on Yahoo's Music Store.

Re:And now I know... (1)

Half-Baked (771927) | about 9 years ago | (#13739034)

Fuck Metallica, they were once one of the most respected, hardcore bands in Metal, butr now tey're a bunch of sellout little bitches,
so just for the record Fuck metallica Fuck them up their fuckin asses with a Marshall full stack

Hang on a second... (2, Interesting)

uradu (10768) | about 9 years ago | (#13738904)

> could take revenue away from paid download music services.

I thought the RIAA didn't like those either?!

I hate the RIAA (3, Interesting)

Donniedarkness (895066) | about 9 years ago | (#13738905)

"The record industry ... believes the recording capability [of satellite radio receivers] is a clear copyright violation and could take revenue away from paid download music services."

So satellite radio might hurt downloadable music, which the RIAA wants to kill, also? Honestly, I hate the RIAA...Satellite radios let you record music? You know what? So do cassette tapes... and they have, for years.

Re:I hate the RIAA (1)

Feyr (449684) | about 9 years ago | (#13739003)

the interesting part is that the CAPABILITY to record itself is the copyright violation. i wasn't aware that the riaa had a copyright on that. or that it was even copyrightable.

someone at the riaa needs to be clued

Re:I hate the RIAA (2, Insightful)

Donniedarkness (895066) | about 9 years ago | (#13739033)

"someone at the riaa needs to be clued"

I think you misspelled "clubbed". The biggest problem, from my perspective, is that too many people seem to think that the RIAA is a government institution, and don't really question it. If news like this was to be put on a major news network, such as CNN, then I think we'd be seeing changes.

Those who want pirated, gets them anyways (1)

LogicallyGenius (916669) | about 9 years ago | (#13738906)

Look at the cost of the legal media.

What XM should do ... (1)

argoff (142580) | about 9 years ago | (#13738907)

... is relocate their company in some offshore juristiction that isn't anal about copyrights, and then tell the RIAA to go to hell and rebroadcast whatever they desire to.
Even if the RIAA sues them to cut of their revenue stream, it's a big world out there and a billion people are starting to come on-line to the global economy. The RIAA will have more problems with this then XM will.

There's really only going to be one solution (2, Informative)

JudgeFurious (455868) | about 9 years ago | (#13738913)


  We're going to have to somehow convince the entire world to stop listening to music for however long it takes to kill these sons of bitches. There's no other completely effective solution.

Re:There's really only going to be one solution (1)

rpozz (249652) | about 9 years ago | (#13738977)

Let them continue with this crap and they will eventually kill their own business model. Nobody needs music, but they need your money. If they weren't so incredibly greedy, piracy problems could be resolved with prices of $5/CD and $0.50/track.

Will someone please... (1)

Fahrvergnuugen (700293) | about 9 years ago | (#13738915)

Will someone please put a stop to this? Seriously, it's getting old.

Day after day we hear about how the RIAA is trying to revoke our fair use rights. Will someone please just slap them and tell them they're wrong?

1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRadio (4, Informative)

digitaldc (879047) | about 9 years ago | (#13738917)

What is the difference between taping a song off the radio and creating an Mp3 from radio? Please, someone tell me because I am confused.
I would like someone from the RIAA to address why they need to go this route.
You can buy a CD, copy it, rip it and give it away...is this a violation too? Or can you only give it to someone who already owns it? (doesn't make sense)

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad (1, Informative)

southpolesammy (150094) | about 9 years ago | (#13738956)

ObDisclaimer: I am not a radio engineer or even terribly knowledgable in this field, but I did stay...eh nevermind....

Radio broadcasts are analog transmissions and are therefore subject to signal degradation. Satellite broadcasts are digital and although you may get a loss of signal from time to time, the signal integrity should be maintained otherwise. Therefore, SatRadio has the potential to deliver near perfect quality transmissions, and that's what has the RIAA concerned.

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad (0)

digitaldc (879047) | about 9 years ago | (#13739001)

So I see, a minute quality (de)gradation is the justification for making it illegal to record.
Using this rationale, then anyone recording HDTV (rather than a regular signal) should be sued too?

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad (1)

linuxpng (314861) | about 9 years ago | (#13738980)

This one is funnier.. With satellite radio you are already paying for the music and the service. I guess they want you to continue to pay twice.

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad (1)

*weasel (174362) | about 9 years ago | (#13738985)

What is the difference between taping a song off the radio and creating an Mp3 from radio?

In short: quality levels. According to the rulings.

I would like someone from the RIAA to address why they need to go this route.

Read up on how they basically killed internet radio stations. It's the same argument.

You can buy a CD, copy it, rip it and give it away...is this a violation too?

You can legally make backup copies, and convert its format for personal use.
Ripping it to mp3 counts as such a copy. Making mp3s from discs you own is legal.

Or can you only give it to someone who already owns it? (doesn't make sense)

You can 'loan' it to other people. You can't gift it to them. Gifting is distribution and thereby civil copyright infringment. (if you charge for it, you're on the way to criminal infringement.)

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad (1)

killmenow (184444) | about 9 years ago | (#13739083)

You can't gift it to them. Gifting is distribution and thereby civil copyright infringment.
So, it's a copyright violation for me to go into Media Play and purchase the new Fiona Apple CD to give to my sister for her birthday?

Then, according to the Grokster test, does that make Media Play liable also as they encourage and actively promote this type of gifting activity?

Wow ... a whole new untapped revenue stream for the RIAA ... suing their retailers.

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad (3, Informative)

justforaday (560408) | about 9 years ago | (#13738994)

What makes you think the record industry didn't try to villainize tape when it first came out?

Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad (1)

Prospero's Grue (876407) | about 9 years ago | (#13739076)

What is the difference between taping a song off the radio and creating an Mp3 from radio? Please, someone tell me because I am confused.

As others have said, it's only an issue of medium and quality. I've been recording mp3s off my FM radio for quite some time now. Some music, mostly CBC documentaries and late-night OTR variety shows, actually. So, they're 96k - instead of 128/192k - but you can't beat the price!

Not materially different than recording a TV show then keeping a copy, in my opinion.

And yes, the recordings are for my own use. I do not distribute.

STOP (5, Funny)

CSHARP123 (904951) | about 9 years ago | (#13738919)

I have stopped listening to music altogether. I have acquired a new skill of singing. My wife and children have not sued me yet.

Re:STOP (2, Funny)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 9 years ago | (#13738970)

In related news the Patent Office has awarded Patent # 6,234,113 which claims "Use of human vocal cords as transducers for the production of musical works" to the RIAA.

Re:STOP (1)

JustNiz (692889) | about 9 years ago | (#13738987)

...But if you sing anything other than your own compositions to them, then you would need to pay performance royalties.

Re:STOP (1)

digitaldc (879047) | about 9 years ago | (#13739073)

The RIAA is furiously researching this musical outburst, they are contacting their lawyers to see if there is some way they can sue for this too.

No Case (2, Interesting)

mysqlrocks (783488) | about 9 years ago | (#13738923)

Even if the conflict winds up in court, Crockett said in his report he did not believe such a suit would succeed because fair use laws allow users to record songs for their own use.

They know they don't have a case. They're just trying to drum enough publicity to get some legislation done that would help further their control. It's all about money. If you can't earn it, steal it. But I guess it's not theft if you are a multi-billion dollar company.

How long? (1)

mmdog (34909) | about 9 years ago | (#13738924)

How long will it be I wonder before the RIAA as an entity falls by the wayside? It seems to me that their tactics are getting more and more aggressive, which I take as an indication that they are scared. I just hope it's not too long.

me thinks (2, Insightful)

meatbridge (443871) | about 9 years ago | (#13738925)

that someone should organize a "buy no music day" or better yet a "buy no music week" to remind the RIAA that they aren't holding all the cards. of coarse they'd probably blame the drop in record sales on the late peer to peer networks.

Re:me thinks (1)

mmdog (34909) | about 9 years ago | (#13738964)

How about a "Don't ever buy music again, at all, until the RIAA formally announces it's dissolution" campaign? Donate to the bands you like directly and do NOTHING else.

Re:me thinks (1)

Scutter (18425) | about 9 years ago | (#13739046)

that someone should organize

Someone, eh? Why not you? Why are you waiting for "someone"?

Same argument as the VCR (5, Interesting)

ploafmaster general (920649) | about 9 years ago | (#13738934)

Seems to me that these XM recording devices are rather like having a VCR for your radio. If it's legal for consumers to time-shift their television entertainment by recording it, why shouldn't the same apply to radio?

Re:Same argument as the VCR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13739063)

It's "PLOAF," not "P-LOAF." Ask about it.

Okay. I'm asking. PLOAF?

One day... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13738937)

One day they will sue themselves... and they will implode.
Hail that day.

And cassette tapes killed the radio industry too (1)

loraksus (171574) | about 9 years ago | (#13738939)

This single minded "money, money money" mantra is begining to get a bit old.

Re:And cassette tapes killed the radio industry to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13739042)

No, you've gotten it wrong the mantra is "MONEY, MONEY, MONEY... MONEY"; You really must get yer facts correct :)

privilege (2, Informative)

anonieuweling (536832) | about 9 years ago | (#13738941)

The ability to record for private use off `the radio` is an old privilege. Currently we (in Europe?) even pay (!) for the media on which we store those recordings. So the **AA can go away. They have no foot to stand on. $$$ is already paid, eventhough that very same media can be used for non-**AA involved uses. (as your own photo's, Linux downloads, etc)

Late to the game (3, Funny)

Bastian (66383) | about 9 years ago | (#13738948)

I think the RIAA has missed the train. If they wanted to stop this, they should have started way back when electronics started including tape recorders with their home stereo equipment.

The thing I don't get... (1)

MacGod (320762) | about 9 years ago | (#13738950)

The biggest thing that I don't get about the RIAA's tactics of late (lawsuits and so on) is why they don't expend more effort and more money on combating pirated CDs in China/Brazil/etc. I'm not saying that downloading or illegal copying in North America is any "better", but the problem with duplicated CDs just seems so much bigger. My only guess is one of three things:

1) They are going after CD-duplicating pirates in Asia/S. America et al. and we just don't hear about it

2) They think that the battle against downloaders (and now satellite radio) is more "winnable"

3) (The jaded, cynical option) They know that the markets where illegal dupes are sold don't have any money to buy the real deal with, so they look at it as advertising. Whereas North American consumers do have money, and the RIAA thinks that if they can get people to stop downloading (HA!) then people will just go back to buying CDs.

Making new Red Tape (1)

Miaomiao (618330) | about 9 years ago | (#13738962)

This sounds almost exactly like the old problem the mpaa and the riaa had with "recordable tapes" and "vhs tapes" ages ago.

Since then they've put it off saying it's analog, so not perfect so fine, but it's digital so this is a giant case of deja-vu.

This has very little to do with downloadable content, and is a rehashing of old laws where fair use is established. What everyone should wait for is, will previous court rulings be preserved? Or will rights of people in the states be overridden in favor of the corporations?

The MPAA/RIAA might not be able to really stop free internet downloading completely, or the more major problem of cd-copying, or even people just recording shows off of tv/radio, but they can make all of these a royal pain to do with lots of legal red tape.

So let me get this straight... (1)

8127972 (73495) | about 9 years ago | (#13738963)

......The RIAA Overlords don't like the recording of XM and Sirrus radio even though fair use likely allows this?

What crack are they smoking and why aren't they sharing it with the rest of us? It's clearly some good stuff as they are totally out to lunch on this one.

I'll buy this one (1, Insightful)

AviLazar (741826) | about 9 years ago | (#13738967)

Yea radio is nice, but me listening to the radio does not give me the right to own a copy of the music. So I can understand why the RIAA will want to go after satellite radio to have them remove these mp3 capabilities. Some people will say "but we have had tape decks in radio's for years" - yes but the quality is different. A tape copy of radio is a far cry from a digital copy.

Just because we do not like the RIAA does not make them wrong each and every single time.

Apparently the RIAA has never heard of... (3, Insightful)

HeadCrash (75749) | about 9 years ago | (#13738976)

... a magical little thing called a "Tape Recorder". Or at the very least a "Line Out Jack". I mean, yeah, the quality of XM/Sirius is CD-level so the comparison to taping plain old OTA radio is a bit weak, but it still applies.

I figure eventually the RIAA is going ot end up suing everyone on the planet, including its own members. Such is the insanity of the corporate world...

How old is this problem? (2, Interesting)

jimcooncat (605197) | about 9 years ago | (#13738993)

The record industry ... believes the recording capability [of satellite radio receivers] is a clear copyright violation and could take revenue away from paid download music services.

Point 1: Recording capabilities don't violate copyright, people do.

Point 2: No, they can't have my 15 year old clock/radio with built-in cassette recorder.

Point 3: I'm sure they receive some whopping royalty on the blank cassette media I buy in the five-for-a-buck package.

I suggest someone patent (2, Funny)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about 9 years ago | (#13738995)

2 business models

The first being the practice of suing based on made up figures claiming lost revenues from technology similar to what's been around for years.

The second would be the business model of essentially spam lawsuits, whereby your business would supeana tons of people naming them as defendants in a lawsuit claiming false copyright violation and hoping they settle out of court.

You could then charge the RIAA and MPAA lisencing fees.

In other news (1)

djupedal (584558) | about 9 years ago | (#13738998)

...the RIAA's main offices in North Hollywood, California were broken into early Friday morning, but the smell aparently was too much for the burglers, who were both found dead at the scene.

When asked about cause of death, the Coroner shrugged and said "I'd guess the poor crooks were dead before they hit the floor... I'm used to the smell of death, but this place seems to have a corner on the market."

arrgghh!!!! (1)

advocate_one (662832) | about 9 years ago | (#13739002)

I've got this box on my bedside table at home, it's some 25 years old, it has a radio receiver, and twin cassette decks... I could/can record anything I want off the radio and make copies of them... what is the fscking problem with these guys??? the satellite radio is no greater in fidelity than an ordinary FM receiver... it's potentially less in fidelity as far as I can recall... and the MP3s you can record off it are unlikely to match the fidelity of my cassette recordings either...

Can't see the wood for the trees (1)

Boiling_point_ (443831) | about 9 years ago | (#13739006)

I was always taught that the music industry needed airplay (spaceplay?) as a primary marketing activity. If they make it uneconomical for radio to exist, what position does that leave them in to attract new listeners?

I guess they'd be the only ones that could afford their own fees so they'd have to set up their own radio replacement facility to communicate with the public. Then they don't even need payola, it's one big commercial for themselves.

Odd thought.

Nothing to see (1)

tbannist (230135) | about 9 years ago | (#13739010)

This is just more of the new RIAA business model, threaten to sue their customers so that they can jack prices up to compensate for falling sales.

The sales are falling because they suck, but admitting that would get the heads of the RIAA companies fired, so they've got to blame someone new every year.

This is a problem seeking solution (2)

Pan T. Hose (707794) | about 9 years ago | (#13739011)

How hard would it be develop a system (we are talking about digital via-satelite broadcasting multimedia after all) that would automaticly count the songs recorded by any given user and then split a number X proportionally to the number of listenings/recordings ratio (weighted averages) where X would be a monthly license fee. This is a satelite radio that might potentionally interfere with global radio field spanning across multiple juristictions so it is fair to exclude it from the god given rights to listen/record that would otherwise be unalienable in the case of plain old radio.

We and most importantly the RIAA members have to understand that satelite is not a local ground radio station. Both the technical, economical and legal implications are completely different and our collective attitude towards that technology must be as rational as it possibly can.

We have to explain it to our less savvy peers, for they are the ones who make the difference when it comes to voting. That is how a pure democracy works.

Sick to Death (2, Interesting)

platypibri (762478) | about 9 years ago | (#13739016)

I'm VERY much a "fair play", "do the right thing" kind of guy. So I am a bit surprised by the level of searing hatred I am developing for the RIAA. I guess they'd only really be satisfied if all of our listening devices were coin-op (or maybe dollar-op?).
The truth is that most of us have lived ALL of our lived being assaulted by music at every turn. Restaurants, stores, outdoor events, commercials.... We are used to having it everywhere and NOW they think we should pay for it all. In parenting, we are taught (those of us who were taught) that you need shelter your children when they are young, because when they become teenagers, it's impossible to "clamp down" on them if you let them have total freedom before that. Same concept. You can't give it away all our lives and then try to clamp down because you don't like the technology. As wrong as I think it is, the file sharing rebellion is a fairly natural expression in the wake of the new "out of nowhere" RIAA oppression. When all avenues are exhausted, I'm sure you'll have some rebels burning hundreds of copies of CDs and leaving them on street corners just out of resentment.
The RIAA should instead focus on those of us who have been buyers of music all our lives, and start trying to make us VERY happy so we KEEP buying. Messing with XM radio and the iTunes pricing schedule is a good way to make me sympathetic to pirates.

From the RIAA site... (4, Informative)

djupedal (584558) | about 9 years ago | (#13739019)

Audio Home Recording Act [riaa.com] : This 1992 legislation exempts consumers from lawsuits for copyright violations when they record music for private, noncommercial use and eases access to advanced digital audio recording technologies. The law also provides for the payment of modest royalties to music creators and copyright owners, and mandates the inclusion of the Serial Copying Management Systems in all consumer digital audio recorders to limit multi-generational audio copying (i.e., making copies of copies). This legislation will also apply to all future digital recording technologies, so Congress will not be forced to revisit the issue as each new product becomes available.

Tape recorders (1)

dacarr (562277) | about 9 years ago | (#13739030)

Didn't they try this when tape recorders were first released to the general public back in...oh, I don't know, the 1970s? Or even predate that with 4- and 8-track recorders for home use - go back to the 1960s. Maybe somebody older than me (I was born around the time Nixon resigned) can enlighten me here.

I'm beginning to think (2, Insightful)

niiler (716140) | about 9 years ago | (#13739035)

that the RIAA is really a giant money sucking leech. Consider:
  • They illegally trespass onto people's computers in clear violation of a number of statutes in order to further their bottom lines
  • When offered exonerating evidence, they refuse to consider it as this might cut into profits
  • They want to sue anyone who has the means to play something that could possibly be copyright (whether to them or not, it doesn't matter)
  • They want to prevent things from going into the public domain and thereby enclose the digital commons
  • And...for the kicker, they actually produce....nothing. Rather, they front money for other people to do work while getting paybacks that make usurers like the credit card companies look like angels. Artists make like 1% of the net?
If these folks aren't leeches and a detriment to our society, then I don't know what is.

Re:I'm beginning to think (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13739044)

Radio NEVER has had to pay RIAA. Radio broadcasts were deemed "public performance" and had to pay their licenses to BMI/ASCAP/SESAC (the performance royalty companies). In fact, all these royalties RIAA has demanded from satellite radio, web radio, etc. Are completely new previously unheard of royalties. And it's all based on "caching". For instance, you play music over the web. Your PC "buffers" the stream. RIAA made a case saying the buffering is a recording and therefore they need to be paid.

Going after sattelite radio? (2, Interesting)

Psx29 (538840) | about 9 years ago | (#13739038)

Does this mean they are going to go after those music only tv channels that are carried by most major cable/sattelite tv companies as well?

RIAA against concerts (1)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | about 9 years ago | (#13739040)

The RIAA has decided that concerts are too much of a threat to their revenues because of the ability of people to record the performance and trade it on-line. Any Rock star that performs in a public venue will be sued.

It's only a matter of time... (4, Insightful)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | about 9 years ago | (#13739041)

It's only a matter of time before the RIAA implodes. The more they push, the more people are going to be fed up with their scare tactics, extortion, and blatant abuse of those trying to innovate the way music is broadcasted to the world.

The opportunity is widening for a record company to form that gets *good* music together under a banner that benefits primarily the consumer and the artist, without the pimp and whore attitude the RIAA has.

Grokster comes back to bite us. (3, Interesting)

Jaywalk (94910) | about 9 years ago | (#13739043)

The Supreme Court changed the rules and the RIAA is trying to use it to prop up their broken business model. As Lawrence Lessig [wired.com] observes, the old rule was that a technology was okay if it had "significant non-infringing uses." But, in the Grokster ruling, they ruled that Grokster was illegal because it was the service was "promoting" infringement. The RIAA apparently figures this is their license to go after any technology which does not promote their business model.

fagor2 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13739047)

Of its core FreeBSD project, is not prone to systems. The Gay DON'T FEEL THAT clearl7. There world-spanning hot on the heels of the resignation

Finally, a reason for me to consider satellite rad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13739055)

I never cared for the idea of paying for the radio. I have free terrestrial radio, CDs, and an internet connection (and lots of local bands with free and/or cheap music), why should I pay for something I already have for free?

But if the RIAA hates them I love them. I should subscribe!

Frm TFA: "Major labels argue radio subscribers can use new portable devices to illegally download songs"

I have news for the RI Ass A: I can "illegally download" songs from my free terrestrial radio! In fact, my CD of Rush's Farewell To Kings (among others) was recorded on tape from terrestrial FM, then later (20 years later) sampled and burned. And guess what? It sounds better than MP3! Sure, it's not true CD quality but neither is an MP3.

"The music industry is an important partner..."

Well hell, I guess I won't be buying a satellite radio after all.

Someone PLEASE shoot all RIAA employees and burn their buildings to the ground? Thank you!

A Month Without Buying Music (1)

schmedley (267117) | about 9 years ago | (#13739057)

Or better yet, a year!

I had a house fire last winter that destroyed all my CDs and mp3s. My insurance company reimbursed me for the losses but I refuse to give the RIAA a freakin penny so I haven't bought a single disc or download (nor have I "liberated" any toons). Each month I get income from the insurance settlement too. So I'm getting paid to F the RIAA, woohoo!

Sad thing is I'm sure it wont be long before they pass a law requiring insurance loss reimbursements for music be spent on new music or forfeited to the RIAA. Hell, with the legislative fire sale going on in DeeCee it wont take but a few weeks for them to buy a hoard of rethuglican lawmakers and make their wildest dreams come true.

Compassionate Conservatism = government by the highest bidder.

The solution (2, Insightful)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | about 9 years ago | (#13739069)

RIAA has in mind the one and only solution:
1. prevent any broadcasting, podcasting [wikipedia.org] and streaming and
2. prevent anything that can record and reproduce the performances they need to sqeeze revenues from.

But I'm not sure this will solve the problem once and forever.

RIAA vs World (1)

springbox (853816) | about 9 years ago | (#13739071)

Following their string of unsuccessful attempts to protect their intellectual property from mostly low profile targets, the Recording Industry Association of America has decided to take the world to court.

"It's the next logical step to protecting our artists," said Joe Leecher, a spokesman for the RIAA, "While not everyone is guility of infringing on our copyrighted material, most are. Who can you trust these days? People have this crazy idea that just because they paid for a plastic disc that gives them the right to copy its data and listen to it on other electronics that they might own. It's outrageous!"

This case, which is scheduled to be filed with the US Supreme Court early next week, follows the RIAA's other pursuits including suing individuals for not paying royalities for repeadetly listening to songs in their mind and their unsuccessful launch of the self destructing play once audio CD. Many outspoken critics of the RIAA have already simontaneously voiced their concerns making the loudest "what the fuck?" heard around the entire planet.

Modest Proposal (5, Funny)

rlp (11898) | about 9 years ago | (#13739077)

Here's a suggestion for the RIAA - replace all current music distribution channels with the following:

When you wish to listen to music, you proceed to an RIAA sponsored Listening Center that will be located in most major cities. You wait in a convenient line and then purchase a ticket specfiying which music selections you wich to listen to. After a brief detour through a metal detector and s search for recording devices by courteous staff (former mob enforcers), you proceed to an individual soundproof listening chamber. In the chamber, you are permitted to listen to each musical selection one time. Afterwards, you're free to leave provided you sign a legal document stating that you will not hum or sing any of the songs you've just heard.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?