OSDN | Our Network | Newsletters | Advertise | Shop     X 
Welcome to Slashdot Hardware Games Technology Microsoft Security
 faq
 code
 awards
 journals
 subscribe
 older stuff
 rob's page
 preferences
 submit story
 advertising
 supporters
 past polls
 topics
 about
 bugs
 jobs
 hof

Sections
apache
Aug 10
(1 recent)

apple
Aug 9
(3 recent)

articles
Aug 10
(35 recent)

askslashdot
Aug 10
(11 recent)

books
Aug 8
(1 recent)

bsd
Aug 10
(1 recent)

developers
Aug 10
(3 recent)

features
Jul 18

interviews
Aug 9
(1 recent)

radio
Jun 29

science
Aug 10
(13 recent)

yro
Aug 10
(6 recent)

RIAA Says Webcasting Royalties Are Too Low
MusicPosted by michael on Thursday August 08, @08:50AM
from the mo-money-mo-money-yo dept.
Karl writes "The RIAA announced today their intention to appeal the royalty rates for internet radio decided on by the Librarian of Congress. Today was the very last day to file for an appeal." The webcasters put out of business by the royalties include SomaFM, Monkeyradio, KPIG, and many others. At least a few Congressional representatives support revising CARP to give small webcasters a chance to survive.

 

 
Slashdot Login
Nickname:

Password:

[ Create a new account ]

Related Links
· RIAA
· appeal
· SomaFM
· Monkeyradio
· KPIG
· revising CARP
· give small webcasters a chance to survive
· More on Music
· Also by michael

<  Some Spammer Has a Crush on You | Transatlantic Model Airplane Flight to Begin Shortly  >
RIAA Says Webcasting Royalties Are Too Low | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 427 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
MonkeyRadio RULED :'( (Score:3, Insightful)
by cca93014 on Thursday August 08, @08:53AM (#4032039)
(User #466820 Info | http://www.solidstategroup.com/)
Jesus, I just said it RULED, and I'm not even American. Indeed it RULED.

I dont quite understand the reason tho. They've killed just about every decent net radio station out there - are they just making sure there's none left so they dont receive any royalties at all?

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Bah! (Score:1)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 08, @08:55AM (#4032058)
How does the RIAA expect people to make revenue?
Webcasters have a hard time paying for bandwidth as it is!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Bah! by brain159 (Score:2) Thursday August 08, @08:59AM
  • Re:Bah! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday August 08, @09:06AM
  • Re:Bah! by Pxtl (Score:2) Thursday August 08, @09:09AM
    • Re:Bah! by tubs (Score:1) Thursday August 08, @11:16AM
      • Re:Bah! by Pxtl (Score:1) Thursday August 08, @12:03PM
        • Re:Bah! by tubs (Score:1) Friday August 09, @05:15AM
I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH (Score:4, Funny)
by mcwop on Thursday August 08, @08:56AM (#4032060)
(User #31034 Info | http://www.ujoda.com/)
Today, I announced that CD prices are too high. I appeal to all people to purchase more used cd's. The notice of my intent has been officially filed as a Slashdot comment.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH by Bush_man10 (Score:1) Thursday August 08, @09:04AM
  • Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH by KUHurdler (Score:2) Thursday August 08, @09:26AM
    • Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH (Score:5, Insightful)
    by splanky on Thursday August 08, @09:32AM (#4032284)
    (User #598553 Info)
    I'll preface this biased statement by saying that I own a record store :o)

    Economics 101 of the record store music biz:
    1. There are new 'developing artist' price points. A lot of pretty big name artists first came out at this pricepoint (Limp Bizkit's first album did, Godsmack's first, Avril Lavigne)... We (record stores) end up selling them for about 5.99 - 6.99 and they cost us about 5.75 to 6.50.
    2. The superstar pricepoints cost us big bucks. The new springsteen album, for instance, costs just a tiny bit shy of 12 bucks. So we all sold it for 9.99 on the first day and, I'm not kidding, we lost about 2 bucks per CD sold.
    3. Every store pays about the same for CDs from the manufacturers.
    4. Stores make more of the their money now off of cooperative advertising. The cheesy mall stores that you see charge the record companies big bucks to have their posters up or their albums on sale.
    5. Record stores have been fighting the labels for lower prices for years. However with the consolidations in the music biz, the labels have their bosses (i.e. the shareholders) pushing for higher and higher returns, so the labels can't afford to reduce the price of albums lest they be sacked.
    6. Catalog sales of music are up a little or at least steady. However hit sales are way, way down. The industry believes it to be because of burning.
    7. The industry loses tons of money on most artists, but makes it up and then some on the big artists. However since the sales of big artists have been down, the economic detriment to the labels is obvious.
    8. Almost all record stores would not make a profit without lifestyle merchandise (i.e. piercings, belts, lava lamps, etc.) and used CDs.
    9. A typical record stores' profit margin on new CDs is LESS THAN 15%. No, I'm not kidding. And yes, I very much know what I'm talking about. That's less margin than gas stations and grocery stores.
    10. The typical profit margin on used CDs and lifestyle merchandise is over 50%. You can see why we move to selling more and more of that stuff.
    11. Consumer attitude towards pricing is that CDs are way, way to pricey and that record stores/labels could afford to sell them way cheaper. Obviously our industry has totally failed here to create value for our customers. You hear nowhere near the bellyaching about software where you buy a Microsoft Office CD that costs them 82 cents to make and they sell for $300! Or about videogames that sell for fifty bucks. It's because consumers feel they've been getting additional value from software and games, but not from music. Is the pop star of today really any better than the pop star of years gone by? Albums now are longer and better produced, but is the music really any better? A lot of our customers don't feel so, so the price of CDs to them still seems to be too high.

    What would I do as a reasonable music consumer (as opposed to someone who just thinks music should be free and artists will still record if we steal their works)?

    For new CDs, I'd buy those developing artist CDs and only those. That way the record companies will learn that if you charge 6 bucks for something tons of people will buy, but if you charge 15 bucks, very few will buy. If I wanted a big artist that is expensive, I'd wait for it used - The great thing about capitalism is that the almighty consumer will have his/her say and that if you show your elasticity of demand (i.e. you will pay one lower price but not a higher) pricing will change.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH by siskbc (Score:1) Thursday August 08, @09:49AM
    • I Agree by krypt0n0mic0n (Score:1) Thursday August 08, @10:09AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH (Score:5, Funny)
      by TheTomcat on Thursday August 08, @10:25AM (#4032576)
      (User #53158 Info | http://sean.caedmon.net/)
      6. Catalog sales of music are up a little or at least steady. However hit sales are way, way down. The industry believes it to be because of burning.

      I believe it to be because anyone who actually likes the "hits" merely has to wait 30 minutes before it comes back up in any top 40 radio station's rotation.

      S
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH by Evro (Score:1) Thursday August 08, @10:36AM
      • Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH (Score:5, Insightful)
      by PainKilleR-CE on Thursday August 08, @10:46AM (#4032707)
      (User #597083 Info)
      11. Consumer attitude towards pricing is that CDs are way, way to pricey and that record stores/labels could afford to sell them way cheaper. Obviously our industry has totally failed here to create value for our customers. You hear nowhere near the bellyaching about software where you buy a Microsoft Office CD that costs them 82 cents to make and they sell for $300! Or about videogames that sell for fifty bucks.

      I'd have to say that last part is not quite true. Office and Windows are probably among the most highly pirated pieces of software in the industry, and price point has a lot to do with that. A great deal of the popularity of the open source movement in business has more to do with cost than with the availability of the source code. Similarly, most gamers feel that the prices of PC games are too high (this may or may not be true of console games as well, I find that many gamers feel that console games are a better value in some cases because bugs are less prevalent with the limited platform than with PC games). The PC games industry has an added problem in that the early adopters (who pay the most for those games) also are the most likely to suffer from the bugs in that game and have to spend the most time working through those bugs. Software like Office, on the other hand, is something few people buy more than once every few years (Office 97 is still the most common version, though Office 2000 is growing), and usually purchase with a computer (at a lower price point, when they're already spending quite a bit of money).

      As an additional point, the consumers of music CDs tend to represent a much broader range of incomes, whereas the majority of Office licenses go to corporations, and the gamers that buy the most PC games are the same people that are spending $400 on a video card that will be replaced in the product line in 6 months (meaning that they'll buy another video card in 6-12 months at nearly the same price point).

      What my personal exposure to the PC gamers has shown (through doing tech support and running an online gaming league) is that gamers are starting to pay more attention to the price/performance ratio of their hardware, and are more willing to spend the $50+ for a new game from a reliable developer that has a good history (or perceived good history) of releasing games that are fairly well finished and will provide a great deal of entertainment for their money (ie replay value, online experience, and the depth of the single play-through). Gamers are streaming towards AMD CPUs for their price/performance, and nVidia's GeForce MX line, even though they know they can get something better if they pay more money, they get the best value, knowing fully well that the system requirements of games are well below what they're buying anyway.

      It's because consumers feel they've been getting additional value from software and games, but not from music. Is the pop star of today really any better than the pop star of years gone by? Albums now are longer and better produced, but is the music really any better? A lot of our customers don't feel so, so the price of CDs to them still seems to be too high.

      Actually, although many people do feel that the value of newer albums isn't as much as older albums were previously, I think the biggest factor is that the music industry said that CD prices would drop, and they have instead risen. When I first started buying CDs they were about $5 more than the cassettes I was buying before that, even though they were already cheaper to produce than cassettes. Since my budget for music didn't grow, I was buying about 2/3rds as much music as I had been buying before, simply because I was spending $15 per CD rather than $10 per cassette. Now that my budget for that has grown, the CD prices have risen as well, and a new CD can run anywhere from $17 to $20 for even non-top-40 bands, unless I take the time to go looking for them at smaller stores with smaller selections to get them for the $14 or $15 I was paying 10 years ago

      Read the rest of this comment...

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH by Reziac (Score:2) Thursday August 08, @10:46AM
    • Nobody's accusing record _stores_ of getting rich by xant (Score:2) Thursday August 08, @11:10AM
    • Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH by Sloppy (Score:2) Thursday August 08, @11:47AM
    • Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH by acoustix (Score:2) Thursday August 08, @11:52AM
    • Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH by SevenTowers (Score:2) Thursday August 08, @12:08PM
    • Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH by ottffssent (Score:2) Thursday August 08, @01:20PM
    • Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH by ksw2 (Score:2) Thursday August 08, @02:08PM
    • Grocery store margins by willpost (Score:1) Thursday August 08, @05:29PM
    • Link to actual grocery store margin by splanky (Score:1) Thursday August 08, @11:26AM
    • 6 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:I announce that CD prices are TOO HIGH by Rohan427 (Score:1) Thursday August 08, @02:00PM
  • used CDs? by commodoresloat (Score:2) Thursday August 08, @05:28PM
  • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
Do rates apply to streaming on-demand? (Score:2, Interesting)
by turnstyle on Thursday August 08, @08:57AM (#4032068)
(User #588788 Info | http://www.turnstyle.com/)
Does anybody know if the royalty rates apply to on-demand streaming as well as Internet Radio?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
RIP Netradio. (Score:2)
by Zephy (jon AT aezis DOT net) on Thursday August 08, @08:58AM (#4032070)
(User #539060 Info | http://www.l33t.me.uk/)
The Term "Nail in the coffin" comes to mind.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Outrageous! (Score:5, Insightful)
by Ratface (cookie@nospam.yoyo.org) on Thursday August 08, @08:59AM (#4032073)
(User #21117 Info | http://www.cookstour.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday August 18, @07:40AM)
The RIAA are quickly making their way to the top of the hate list for any free thinking individual. Does anyone know whether their appeal opens up the possibility for other groups to argue that the rates are too high??

I have such difficulty imagining what the high-ups at RIAA are thinking. Crushing diversity and turning broadcasters against them isn't going to help even them one single bit.

The only option right now is for brave broadcasters to practise civil disobedience and find ways to continue broadcasting. Support your favourite internet radio station!

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Outrageous! (Score:5, Insightful)
    by CrazyDuke on Thursday August 08, @09:13AM (#4032162)
    (User #529195 Info)
    "The RIAA are quickly making their way to the top of the hate list for any free thinking individual."

    Well, I guess its a good thing for them there aren't too many of those left. Seriously, ask any ordinary Joe what he thinks about it. You'll be lucky if they have even half a clue.

    Not a troll. Not a flaimbait. Just an observation on the sad state of affairs.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Outrageous! (Score:4, Insightful)
    by PainKilleR-CE on Thursday August 08, @09:46AM (#4032380)
    (User #597083 Info)
    I have such difficulty imagining what the high-ups at RIAA are thinking. Crushing diversity and turning broadcasters against them isn't going to help even them one single bit.

    Diversity is exactly what they don't want, and any broadcaster that isn't owned by them doesn't matter to them, anyway. Even if 90% of the music that was available on Napster came straight out of the top 40, the remaining 10% was large enough to create some diversity, moving listeners to buy independant CDs or CDs from artists that barely register on the RIAA's scope. Diversity is part of what the internet has created in music, and is one of the biggest reasons that a #1 album today sells about half as many copies as a #1 album 10 years ago.

    Before the internet was in most people's homes, the music industry could easily guide people's listening habits, and react when an artist managed to slip past them and sell CDs without their help. When Nirvana started selling copies of their first major-label album, the industry reacted by pushing them into heavy radio and MTV rotations and signing any band that sounded remotely like Nirvana, and then pushed all of that onto the airwaves. The same thing can be seen through most of the recording industry's modern history, ultimately speeding up the normal cycle of music being rejected by society in favour of something different, so the life-span of 'grunge rock' was about 2-3 years instead of the 10 years it might've been had it hit in an atmosphere where the industry wasn't pushing two-bit clones to try to squeeze out every penny. This is also why some artists will see one album or single bring in outrageous sales, and then the next will fall horribly, because people are no longer interested in hearing something from them when they heard the previous single everywhere they went.

    Once the internet hit, people could find new music for themselves, or get recommendations (and samples) from other people all over the world, either through chat programs (including instant messaging) or through bulletin boards on websites either for artists they like or general music interest sites. Most of the larger online music stores will recommend things based on whatever metrics they use to determine what you might like from what you've bought (or what you're looking at), and will let you listen to short samples of the music. All of this means that people are spending more of their CD-buying money on back catalogues and lesser-known artists, so the recording industry isn't making as much of a profit as they could if everyone was buying what they told them to (though, of course, they're still making money off of most of those CDs, and they write off any money they lose from supporting a particular artist anyway).

    Personally, the majority of my music comes from recommendations of people I trust (in terms of their tastes in music anyway), or from particular artists that I've found reliably release music I enjoy, even if their music changes in style quite a bit from one release to the next. In many cases I'm not aware that a new album has been released until it's been around long enough to get some reviews (or for someone else I know to have bought it), so I'll get a chance to find out whether or not I should worry about that particular album, and go find some way to really listen to at least a few songs from it before I buy it.

    People are becoming more discerning buyers and are growing a more diverse taste in music. This makes the consumers less predictable for the RIAA's member corporations, and they, understandably, don't like that. What they should be doing to capitalize on this is open themselves up to cater to the internet consumers, but instead they're trying to push it away, because they don't understand, yet, how to handle this whole thing. Chances are that whatever they come up with will be lacking in some ways, but once they find something that's just good enough (rather than as good as can be), it'll most likely gain enough acceptance that the majority of people will forget wh

    Read the rest of this comment...

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Outrageous! by sealawyer (Score:1) Thursday August 08, @11:01AM
  • Re:Outrageous! by Melantha_Bacchae (Score:1) Thursday August 08, @12:23PM
  • Re:Outrageous! (I know what they are thinking.) by EvilBudMan (Score:1) Thursday August 08, @12:52PM
  • Re:Outrageous! by curunir (Score:3) Thursday August 08, @01:18PM
  • Re:Outrageous! by place4linux (Score:1) Thursday August 08, @04:28PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Outrageous! by jesterzog (Score:2) Friday August 09, @03:05AM
  • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
Hilary Rosen is a dirty dirty whore (Score:2, Funny)
by kableh (mack at rebellands@net) on Thursday August 08, @09:00AM (#4032080)
(User #155146 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
Nice to see that Hilary Rosen's email address isnt anywhere to be found on the RIAA website. Guess she knows better.

Fscking RIAA, glad I haven't bought a CD from them in 3 years or so. Now if you'll excuse me, time to go pirate some more music. Fuckers.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Clearly the rates.. (Score:2, Funny)
by I_am_God_Here (A_Pair_of_Cat_Eyes@yahoo.com.spamsucks) on Thursday August 08, @09:01AM (#4032085)
(User #413090 Info)
are too low. They haven't put all the webcasters out of business yet so obviously the royalties are to low. I see where the RIAA is going with this.

I am begining to wonder about the RIAA business plan.
1) Bad PR
2) ???
3) Profit
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Pot, meet Kettle. (Score:3, Interesting)
by jweb on Thursday August 08, @09:01AM (#4032086)
(User #520801 Info)
From the text of the press release:


The Librarian of Congress was duped by Yahoo!’s self-serving testimony in the CARP.


This is, of course, opposed to the self-serving testimony of the RIAA.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Support the Internet Radio Fairness Act! (Score:5, Informative)
by stere0 (slashdot.stereo@lu) on Thursday August 08, @09:01AM (#4032087)
(User #526823 Info | http://www.stereo.lu/)

If you live in the states, please support the IRFA! This legislation would protect small internet radios while ensuring fair royalties get paid to the artists. This is crucial if we want radios such as SomaFM back

Quoting SomaFM's website:
The Internet Radio Fairness Act has just been introduced to congress. If passed, this bill would allow SomaFM to return to the air. We need you to send a fax to your representatives [voiceofwebcasters.org] asking them to support the Internet Radio Fairness Act. It will only take 3 minutes to fill out the form! We would also like you to call your representatives at their offices and ask them to support the Internet Radio Fairness Act as well. We need to bombard them with requests. Tell your friends to do the same thing.

They also have a page about faxes here [somafm.com].

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
What about Shoutcast? (Score:1, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 08, @09:01AM (#4032088)
Please excuse my ignorance on the matter, but does the RIAA's fee apply to people who run Shoutcast streaming audio servers??
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
No, they're still too high... (Score:5, Interesting)
by sdo1 on Thursday August 08, @09:01AM (#4032090)
(User #213835 Info)
If you look at the royalties paid by broadcast radio, they're very low on a per-listener basis when compared to webcasting.

The RIAA has great control of broadcast radio (search around here, Salon, and other places and you'll find huge number of articles about legalized payola and other tactics they use). Webcasting was, and still is, the wild frontier. No RIAA control. At this point, I believe it is less about the money (Webcasting is still very small) and more about the control.

So tell me this... why the hell does webcasting have to be any different than broadcast radio on a per-listener basis? It shouldn't be that hard to calculate.

-S
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Here's an idea (Score:2, Interesting)
by Salsaman (gabriel@DIE.SPAMM ... pixle.demon.co.uk) on Thursday August 08, @09:02AM (#4032094)
(User #141471 Info)
Instead of streaming audio files over the net, stream image files.

Here's how it would work. The broadcaster takes an audio file, and converts it to an image (e.g. a png). Each client would have a plugin which converts the image file back to a music file. Now since you're not actually streaming audio files, the CARP charges wouldn't apply, would they ?

I am surprised nobody has suggested this before.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Here's an idea by liquidsin (Score:2) Thursday August 08, @09:11AM
  • Re:Here's an idea by sirisak (Score:1) Thursday August 08, @09:23AM
    • Re:Here's an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
    by sylvester on Thursday August 08, @09:23AM (#4032224)
    (User #98418 Info | http://www.studentforce.ca/)
    I dunno where slashdotters get ideas like this.

    The law is not code to find bugs in. The law is not stupid. The law has judges that are (mostly) hired and trained to use their judgement to stop stupid things like this. Your idea demonstrates such an unfathomable naivety about the way Western law works that I think you just might be a troll.

    Most of the time when you see people skirting the law, they're using explicitely defined loopholes and tugging them bigger. Sometimes even those people get slammed by judges for pushing things too far. That's the whole point of having judges, is because we aren't good enough to write law (code) that thinks of every case.

    Sheesh.

    -Rob
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Here's an idea by vofka (Score:1) Thursday August 08, @09:33AM
  • Re:Here's an idea by ThogScully (Score:1) Thursday August 08, @09:48AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Here's an idea by tomstdenis (Score:2) Thursday August 08, @09:49AM
  • Why not do this with kiddie pr0n? by siskbc (Score:1) Thursday August 08, @10:42AM
  • Re:Here's an idea by Maran (Score:2) Thursday August 08, @09:51AM
  • 5 replies beneath your current threshold.
Is that so? (Score:1)
by LordYUK on Thursday August 08, @09:04AM (#4032109)
(User #552359 Info | http://www.threemoons.net/)
“The Librarian’s decision was based on a misguided reading of the record. Not only was improper weight given to the testimony of Yahoo! but some 140 separate licensing deals were thrown out by the Librarian. The end result significantly undervalued the music used by Internet radio companies.”

Silly Librarian, you dont read records, you LISTEN to them!!

and for bad joke number 2...

Wait a second, isnt that exactly what the record companies do to the artists, undervalue their music and pay them pennies??

Let the mod points fly!!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Perhaps... (Score:2, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 08, @09:04AM (#4032111)
Perhaps government decisions like that should be treated just as if someone had declared that internet content will be strictly monitored, and that one no longer has control over what he/she can publish on the net. Otherwise, one by one the gov't may put into place smaller laws that affect the privacy of smaller groups on the net, and before we know it, each of us has some sort of net restrictions, and we won't be strong enough to do anything about it.
So, don't let the government profit in that way...they're one, we're many. Computer users of the world, unite! :)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
The RIAA is missing the real solution (Score:1)
by RawCode on Thursday August 08, @09:05AM (#4032115)
(User #464152 Info)
What with all this legal rambling the RIAA/MPAA is doing, they are both missing the point completely. Any laws set up un the US will (for the most part) only have effect in the US. What about the rest of the world? Are they gonna care about the royalties of the RIAA, or weather or not is legal to tradde movies over the internet? No. These organizations (or rather the companies they represent) should stop worring about such small potatos and fix a failing business model

The Internet; it will change your life (for better or worse)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
We need offshore servers. (Score:3, Insightful)
by MADCOWbeserk on Thursday August 08, @09:05AM (#4032118)
(User #515545 Info)
Why can't these stations stream off an offshore host. To me that appears to be an easy solution to give an FU to the RIAA. I'm not saying that they still couldn't shut people down, but it might be much harder.

Or maybe Peercast [slashdot.org] will save the day.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Time to initiate the /. effect (Score:5, Funny)
by Apocalypse111 on Thursday August 08, @09:07AM (#4032133)
(User #597674 Info)
Those SOB's at the RIAA still haven't gotten it... if they just keep quiet, then actions like the following will not be neccesary...

Click Here to help the /.ing of the RIAA website [riaa.com] or alternatly click here [riaa.org]
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
why are riaa artists still publishing their songs (Score:4, Funny)
by bunaminenu on Thursday August 08, @09:08AM (#4032137)
(User #547940 Info)
they don't want anybody to listen to their music, so, why are they publishing?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:why are riaa artists still publishing their son (Score:5, Insightful)
    by funky womble on Thursday August 08, @09:37AM (#4032313)
    (User #518255 Info | http://spacehopper.org/)
    I think they do want people to listen to their music, that's the whole point. What they don't want is for people to learn about and start to like other types of music which the RIAA members aren't involved in, something which is more likely to happen with a broad base of internet radio stations.

    There's not much point in paying to setup an internet radio station which broadcasts exactly the same as the broadcast stations: there's a lot of work involved (and I think a lot of people listening to mass-market media aren't really inclined to do that kind of thing).

    So you tend to find a much wider variety of music on 'net radio, which gives people choice of music from different countries, and genres not traditionally represented by RIAA members. Not really conducive to having member's music heard all the time.

    I think another part of it is that it's quite a bit harder to push music to a large number of online stations, all run by different people, than it is to promote to the normal broadcast stations, which are often represented by a few parent companies, and I'd guess probably common playlists.

    Compare with some of the reasons people came up with as to why they thought the RIAA went so hard after AudioGalaxy. (AG really went out of their way to filter mp3s of artists who didn't want their wusic shared, not just RIAA members but everyone, so I don't think the copyright-violation claims by the RIAA entirely ring true there).

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
The obvious solution. (Score:5, Insightful)
by yeoua on Thursday August 08, @09:09AM (#4032143)
(User #86835 Info)
The obvious solution, IMHO, is that there should be fees... that are based on percent profit. Why should the RIAA profit from someone who isn't profitting in the first place? This would essentially be free advertising, that the RIAA would not have to pay for.

Besides, who pays for radio anyway? So unless someone actually does pay, and the internet radio guys have ads... they get zero profit, and so the RIAA gets zero profit.

But still gets free advertising for whatever is being played. So what exactly was the problem?

And if they think that people will record songs from them and what not... well, its more difficult than it sounds. Recording a live stream is very annoying... similar to recording a radio stream. First, you have no idea when a specific song will play. And even if you continually recorded the stream to get to the song... or for more than once song, you still gotta edit it down to the individual songs. This is more trouble than its worth, when Kazaa or the like would do just fine.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Contact info for RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
by Ratface (cookie@nospam.yoyo.org) on Thursday August 08, @09:10AM (#4032147)
(User #21117 Info | http://www.cookstour.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday August 18, @07:40AM)
http://www.riaa.com/contact.cfm [riaa.com]

Here's a contact form to make your views known to the RIAA.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
The RIAA obviously understand nothing (Score:2, Insightful)
by Nosher (simon@nosher.net) on Thursday August 08, @09:10AM (#4032148)
(User #574322 Info | http://nosher.net/)
So the RIAA has the jaw-dropping temerity to accuse Yahoo! of "self-serving interest" (isn't that what business is all about anyway?). This is from the same organisation whose press-releases appear to suggest that CDs didn't appear until the 1990s, who even suggest that "turning music into a file is great" whilst trying to stamp out the ability of the rest of us to do so, and who wrote the book on "self-serving interest". Just what version of reality are these people partaking in? It's obviously not the same as the rest of us.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
It's time to schedule the RIAA boycott! (Score:2)
by dpilot on Thursday August 08, @09:16AM (#4032183)
(User #134227 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
Let's pick a time, at the moment I think February would do the job, and take RIAA sales *and music downloads* as close to zero as we can. Let's get heard. But getting the music downloads to zero is as important as the purchases, if not moreso. We need this to be a political statement, not just an economic one, even though economics are an important part.

Personally, I've been on a low-level RIAA boycott for years. A bit too much like Frank Zappa's "half-hearted war against apathy." The other side is getting my family to buy-in to such a thing. For that reason, I don't believe a Christmas boycott could be made to stick in a broad population. But I believe the month of February could make a loud statement.

We have 5.5 months to get it organized.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Listen to foreign radio (Score:2)
by sien on Thursday August 08, @09:17AM (#4032188)
(User #35268 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
Isn't there a simple answer to this ? Just listen to foreign stations. The Internet is international. Make the RIAA lobby every government in every place, or attempt to block countries.

To start off - try JJJ [abc.net.au] which is an Australian alternativish station. For cool beats try Xanu FM [www.xanu.ca].

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
A bargain at twice the price (Score:2)
by tuxedo-steve on Thursday August 08, @09:18AM (#4032190)
(User #33545 Info)
I don't think it would have made a lick of difference if the L of C mandated royalty rates ten times as high: the RIAA still would have appealed, saying it's too low.

Just the nature of the game. Whoever dies with the most money, wins. The RIAA is just playing to win.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Who didn't see this coming? (Score:2)
by Uttles (tom.utleyNO@SPAMalumni.clemson.edu) on Thursday August 08, @09:18AM (#4032194)
(User #324447 Info | http://eduslash.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday April 11, @04:52PM)
Seriously, this is the whole reason they're fighting internet music trading in the first place, so they can say how much we have to pay to hear music, no matter how we hear it. The whole damn thing is BS and I'm now a firm supporter of those who "pirate" music.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
I somehow find this quote appropriate here... (Score:5, Interesting)
by Jugalator (jonas DOT nordlund AT hotpop DOT com) on Thursday August 08, @09:23AM (#4032227)
(User #259273 Info | http://jugalator.cjb.net/)
"Only the continuous and steady application of the methods for suppressing a doctrine, etc., makes it possible for a plan to succeed."
-- Adolf Hitler
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
They don't want the small ones to stay (Score:1)
by Taliban Lecher on Thursday August 08, @09:24AM (#4032230)
(User #539524 Info)
when do we get it? They want big partners, with which they can make big deals with big margins allowing them to subsidize other marketing campaigns (like paying DJs to play stuff). They want to control it and with too cheap to setup webradio we will just end up in chaos where everyone listens the music he likes.

Unfortunately music consumption is not about arts, aesthetics and stuff. It is about event fun, like Hockey, Baseball and Festivals.

So they want to build groups who listen to the same shit and that takes marketing and lots of money. Control is key there. Actually I think with the smaller spots offering alternative Music, that the alt music could finally bring down the entire music industry we know today, because they make 80% gross of non music products (like events, t-Shirts, Videos, collectibles). As long as webradio was a small side effect they liked it and read futer trends examining it. Now they are faced with the fact that they don't control that channel so they had to do something about it.

Somehow I hate them for their sheer power to invade my life by surrounding me with Britney Spears prints everywhere I go. Even the cutest tits running around town occasionally are convertet to penalty-spots for my eyes by that shirts. If I lose my eye-sight one day I will have to take THE MUSIC INDUSTRY to court
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Why go out of business? (Score:2)
by BinBoy on Thursday August 08, @09:28AM (#4032255)
(User #164798 Info | http://www.binaryboy.com/)
Does internet radio really need to go out of business? Is it impossible to exist without broadcasting the same copyrighted music that everyone else broadcasts? There are lots of independent bands that would love to have their music played without royalties. There's probably a lot of talented people who could do talk shows and news as well. Wouldn't this avoid any royalty payments? Surely someone in internet radio can produce original programming!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Justice Department Time (Score:2)
by haplo21112 (haplo.epithna@com) on Thursday August 08, @09:28AM (#4032257)
(User #184264 Info | http://www.epithna.com/)
If the Justice Department could just finish up with Microsoft, they could get started on these guys...
The RIAA, and MPAA both need some old school trust breaking justice visited on them. These f***s are organized and legalized crime at its best.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
SO what ... (Score:4, Interesting)
by Lumpy (dont_type_this.timgray@lambdanet.com) on Thursday August 08, @09:28AM (#4032259)
(User #12016 Info | http://www.your-website-sucks.com/)
I have started my switch to indie only music (It's kinda like switching from windows to linux btw...) as I have gotten sick of the crap that is being pulled.

well you know what... Local artists and indie artists are actually better than anything that is part of the RIAA's clan... You can actually talk to these people, and when they play for you they play their heart out for you and for the music.

My reccomendation to anyone upset about the RIAA? screw em, avoid their music, support only your locals and indie artists... (And look watch for the sellouts.. several used-to-be indie artists are now minions of the RIAA... and if they are, speak your displeasure and add them to your avoid list too.)

this is the only way it will change, and you will discover that your music will start to taste better.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
And the word from the streaming tech. companies is (Score:1)
by philkerr on Thursday August 08, @09:30AM (#4032269)
(User #180450 Info | http://www.plus24.com/)
With Real pushing their Helix technologies [helixcommunity.org] and Apple with their Darwin [apple.com] I'd be interested to hear what companies in the streaming world feel about this.

Higher start-up and running costs mean less people using their technologies.

Of course I'd prefer to use Icecast [icecast.org] but Real and Apple have far more cash to fight this than the Xiph crew.

Phil

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Supporting poor countries (Score:1)
by Dexter77 (dexter@thisIsForS.PA.M.luukku.com) on Thursday August 08, @09:31AM (#4032277)
(User #442723 Info)
I can see RIAA's strategy now clearly.

Net radio station have to move their servers to countries where RIAA has no influence.

After few years all radio listeners have switched to the Internet radios. Since by then USA has no working net radios the 3rd world countries gain all profit.

This just a way to support poor countries!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
I am now SUPER PISSED OFF (Score:2)
by Tranvisor ({Tranvisor} {at} {techie.com}) on Thursday August 08, @09:32AM (#4032282)
(User #250175 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
I feel like firebombing Rosen's office. I swear.

When I read this story I got a bad feeling. I whent to www.reallifecomics.com , a good comic by the way, to listen to some good old final fantasy radio. live365 now requires $5/month. Jesus fucking virgin Mary Christ.

I now have to pay the RIAA money to listen to old video game music?? Music which I know was written and performed by the Japanese?? Yeah, I'm certain Hilary will send Square the check. Yeah right.

ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!
No more final fantasy radio??????!!!!!!!!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
So how hard would it be (Score:1)
by RoboOp on Thursday August 08, @09:35AM (#4032304)
(User #460207 Info)
To find unsigned artists that _are_ willing to have their works broadcast over the web in terms that internet stations find agreeable?

I don't see any reason why internet stations in large metropolitan areas couldn't spend a portion of their time seeking local artists that _would_ be willing to have their stuff played, and maybe even local businesses that would be willing to carry a bit of the load financially.

You give local artists a worldwide platform, give your site a sense of community and undermine the RIAA. Sounds like win-win-win to me.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Here is a better Idea....to solve the Problem (Score:2)
by haplo21112 (haplo.epithna@com) on Thursday August 08, @09:37AM (#4032311)
(User #184264 Info | http://www.epithna.com/)
I am willing to sue the RIAA, to gain the rights that we should all have. If we can find a way to attack the suit, and reason in support of it.

Goals should be:
1. To establish that once a CD is purchased it is mine and I may do with it as I please.
2. Establish RAND fees for streaming music that fair to the artist who recorded it.
3. Prove the RIAA is a Monopoly and should be taken apart piece by piece.
4. Prove they have controlled the music industry for far to long...and have done a piss poor job of it.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Why is there a fee at all? (Score:4, Insightful)
by smiff on Thursday August 08, @09:38AM (#4032317)
(User #578693 Info)
With conventional radio, the record companies pay the radio stations (via indies) more than the radio stations pay in royalties. Live streams are simply advertisements for music. The record companies don't want those advertisements shut off, and they don't care about the royalties.

This is all about control. The record companies want internet radio to pay royalties, so the stations will have no choice but to accept payola from the record companies. The fact that internet radio stations tend to play independent music further threatens the RIAA.

I will say it again. This issue is not about royalties. It is about controlling the market and silencing the competition.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Multicasting. (Score:1, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 08, @09:40AM (#4032336)
Screw unicasting.

Multicasting is the answer. The RIAA wants huge royalties per listener, right? If stations started multicasting their music it would literally be impossible to calculate. You'd just be firing a fixed bandwith of packets out there, and ANYONE with a digital "ear" can listen in.

Internet broadcasters would also be using a LOT less bandwidth.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Multicasting. (Score:4, Interesting)
    by MadAhab (slasher@@@ahab...com) on Thursday August 08, @10:32AM (#4032618)
    (User #40080 Info | http://www.ahab.com/)
    This is a good idea and absolutely essential. But on top of multicast, you'd want a p2p way of multiplying the number of streams served. There are a couple ways this could be done:
    1. Work with existing streaming technologies and build p2p reflectors. This will probably require an encapsulating protocol, however, and clients that can use it. OTOH, this will increase the number of peers.
    2. Write a ground-up streaming system that can serve to regular clients in a format they can understand, e.g. ogg. OTOH, this makes free riders overly abundant.
    There are a couple of things the software will have to address:
    1. A lot of people have limited upstream bandwidth or aren't peers on the net (private IPs). This means that there will always be a stream-availability problem. Oh well.
    2. For the same reason, low-bandwith streams are probably about it. Oh, well.
    3. RIAA and other gangsters are already salivating at the thought of shutting it down from the start. This means having a more distributed p2p architecture a la gnutella.
    4. Due to the numbers of people likely to be non-reflectors, i.e. leaves not branches, you would want a tiered system - kinda like ntp - where tier one providers provide streams only to those who reflect streams further. Since clients could be hacked to lie about their level, you would need access controls to stop leechers at the tier one level. But these would also be a pain to maintain, so there would have to be some automated way of checking to see if your downstream clients are in fact making streams available. To prevent trivial hacks, these checks would have to be performed by another peer of tier one.
    5. There would most likely be *large* buffering going on. But a stream delayed by a minute or more from the original source would not be a big deal most of the time.
    It's non-trivial to write something like this. It could also decide the war being waged against humanity by the information priesthood.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
The only thing we can do.... (Score:1)
by cnelzie on Thursday August 08, @09:41AM (#4032346)
(User #451984 Info | http://slashdot.org/)

    There is simply one thing that we can. Locate and determine which artists are signed with recording labels that are part of the RIAA. I believe that there are a number of smaller labels that aren't members.

      Perhaps I am wrong. Anyway, instead of buying the music provided for by RIAA members, simply buy music produced by those smaller labels or your favorite local band that turns out their own stuff.

      Get your friends to do it, if you can get them to turn of MTV and the radio, that is. Sure, it sucks! There are more than a few bands that I enjoy and would love to own the music they create. However, I have to give it up.

      I suppose that makes me one of the few (perhaps less than 5%) that ACTUALLY votes with my dollar. If you feel that the RIAA is bad, simply stop buying the music they create.

      We are all mostly geeks, right? Being geeks, we should be able to locate information as to what bands are with labels that are members of the RIAA.

        Someone can provide a list a web-site, something that will help people in buying the music that supports freedom. I would, I am just to damn busy and quite frankly music is just not all that important to me.

-.-
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
The RIAA is Right! (Score:4, Funny)
by teamhasnoi (teamhasnoiNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Thursday August 08, @09:44AM (#4032362)
(User #554944 Info)
Of course, webcasting royalties are too low! How would the cash-strapped RIAA be able to compete with someone who could just 'stream' at will?

Besides, the RIAA keeps costs down for the consumer by making sure that only well-known, popular music gets streamed, not obscure artists who haven't proven themselves on MTV.

Clearly, the RIAA has our best interests in mind. Copyright and royalties are complicated and should be left to them to figure out. This also frees up artists like Britney and N*SYNC to focus on what's really important. The music.

This saves us all money and trouble in the long run. Go RIAA!

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
The Artists (Score:1)
by Beatbyte on Thursday August 08, @09:45AM (#4032369)
(User #163694 Info | http://www.hooklinesinker.org/)
A way out of this is to have a webcasting radio station that plays only artists that are not involved with the RIAA. I know of a few hundred artists that aren't and I'm sure there would be plenty of content.

I hear all this stuff going on about people bitching but CD sales are still happening. A lot of you guys still buy CDs.

Support the people that make money without the RIAA and the artists will be happy, and the RIAA will not.

shameless plug->

check out my band here: there will be another 8 mp3's posted next week after we record this weekend.

www.awrittendeathwish.com
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
A question on jurisdiction (Score:1)
by Winterblink on Thursday August 08, @09:46AM (#4032376)
(User #575267 Info | http://winterblink.com/)
How does this affect webcasting in other countries (Canada, the UK, etc)? If the RIAA institute higher royalty fees, doesn't that only take effect in the US?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Color me doubtful (Score:2)
by Kefaa on Thursday August 08, @09:47AM (#4032386)
(User #76147 Info)
While this looks good on the surface, it is a very few representatives. The RIAA can even use this as PR. "Look even Congress thinks changing the laws are a bad idea." The RIAA has shown little hesitation in throwing money at the issue of their bottom line. If this gets any headway at all, it will die in committee.

Until someone shows Congress why they should not support the RIAA/MPAA (i.e. they do not get re-elected) expect it to be a long cold winter.

Sadly, this is exactly the attitude the RIAA wishes to foster...hopelessness.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
RIAA needs a reality check (Score:5, Interesting)
by Lxy on Thursday August 08, @09:51AM (#4032410)
(User #80823 Info)
I work for a small radio station here in the US. We had a few listeners in Germany that liked us. They'd e-mail us all the time and request stuff, it was pretty cool.

Then the mighty hand of the RIAA took away our webcasting. We couldn't afford their rediculous fees and the audio server is now someone's workstation.

Here's what I don't get. By playing the music we play, we encourage those listeners to go out and buy CDs. Apparently the RIAA doesn't understand that. Somehow, allowing people to hear a SAMPLE of music the RIAA produces, encouraging people to buy a full album, is considered piracy to them. Do they realize how much of their sales are based off of listeners who heard it on the radio first? Eventually the RIAA will probably sue radio stations out of existence for this "piracy" that they've only tolerated thus far.

I particularly liked This post [slashdot.org] yesterday. Substitute in your favorite *AA. I think this is the future of RIAA owned music as well.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
If you're still not convinced... (Score:5, Informative)
by plaa (sampo DOT niskanen AT iki DOT fi) on Thursday August 08, @09:52AM (#4032417)
(User #29967 Info | http://www.iki.fi/plaa/)
I was searching for info about CD prices, as a local newspaper said they were on the verge of dropping significantly. I came across the RIAA explanation why a CD cost so much [riaa.org]. In typical Slashdot manner, I haven't actually read any RIAA stuff before.

Read it and weep. That should convince you what double-faced bullshit the RIAA is spurring about. A few extracts:

Then come marketing and promotion costs -- perhaps the most expensive part of the music business today.

So they tell us that a major part of the cost comes from advertising to us, which has no value for us? Great... (Okay, this is a bit beside the point.)

For example, when you hear a song played on the radio -- that didn’t just happen! Labels make investments in artists by paying for both the production and the promotion of the album, and promotion is very expensive. New technology such as the Internet offers new ways for artists to reach music fans, but it still requires that some entity, whether it is a traditional label or another kind of company, market and promote that artist so that fans are aware of new releases.

Are they saying they pay the radio stations to play and promote their music? A bit of a contradiction I'd say...

Between 1983 and 1996, the average price of a CD fell by more than 40%. Over this same period of time, consumer prices (measured by the Consumer Price Index, or CPI) rose nearly 60%. If CD prices had risen at the same rate as consumer prices over this period, the average retail price of a CD in 1996 would have been $33.86 instead of $12.75.

The CD was invented in 1980. They're comparing the production price of a three-year-old technology to its price 13 years later? Oh, give me a break...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Greedy bastards (Score:1)
by Fooknut on Thursday August 08, @09:56AM (#4032445)
(User #73366 Info)
They aren't even the ones creating or selling music. What a freakin crock!

These people just want money.

These tactics surpass microsofts bullying business tactics by far. I don't see a difference between this and using force to maintain a monopoly. RIAA is basically ensuring that the music industry as it is now is and will be the ONLY major player. Screw consumers, screw artists.

Pisses me off.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
A memory from 1973's "Flashback" (Score:2, Interesting)
by e-gold (jray&free-market,net) on Thursday August 08, @10:00AM (#4032472)
(User #36755 Info | http://www.e-gold.com/e-gold.asp?cid=101574 | Last Journal: Friday May 10, @08:09AM)
Last Sunday morning I was on a 3.5 hour drive, and listening to a radio show called "Flashback." They were doing 1973 rock songs, blended with news and ancient commercials from 1973 (and of course, modern radio commercials -- mostly for Florida's teeming personal-injury bar).

Anyway, during one of the "1973 news" segments, the host read something official from (a group like the RIAA but not the RIAA itself, I think it was some sort of musicians' union?) that forbade musicians from recording any more albums on vinyl, because record albums took jobs away from live musicians! Once he had read this very-brief news-piece, the announcer didn't comment at all, but he went right on to play what I'd call "album rock." (I forget the song.) I sat there, thinking about the RIAA, and Jack Valenti, etc. doing the same thing today.

I wish I could be more precise, but this is the best my memory can do. My point is that these groups, whose "generals" want to continually "fight the previous war," always end up doing their own side more harm than good.

IMO what's needed is more ways for fans to pay for individual songs they like (rather than entire expensive CDs) with LESS friction & more freedom-to-choose. This would benefit all consumers, and the productive people in the entertainment industry.
JMR

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Leia's response (Score:1)
by Tomster on Thursday August 08, @10:07AM (#4032495)
(User #5075 Info | http://fullyqualifiedurl.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday January 06, @01:39AM)
"The more you tighten your grip, RIAA, the more musicians will slip through your fingers."

-Thomas
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Just listen to the Blues! (Score:2)
by n-baxley (nate&baxleys,org) on Thursday August 08, @10:09AM (#4032507)
(User #103975 Info | http://www.baxleys.org/nate/ | Last Journal: Friday November 16, @10:19AM)
Most of the good artists are dead and almost all the good stuff can be found used and cheap! The perfect solution.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Boycott CDs (Score:2)
by Zelet ([moc.www] [ta] [telez]) on Thursday August 08, @10:18AM (#4032541)
(User #515452 Info)
Please everybody, we need to get together on a SPECIFIC DATE on when to start a CD boycott. This has to be publicized and noted to everybody possible so that the decrease in sales will not be attributed to piracy.

The problem with the current "boycott" is that everybody started at their own time and pace and now there is just a "slump in sales" that is blamed on piracy. Let’s get together and set a date. We need a date that is meaningful and will have maximum impact.

Help guys! (and gals)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 15 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • (1) | 2 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
    		  FROM THE DESK OF Dorothy Gale Auntie Em: Hate you. Hate Kansas. Taking the dog. Dorothy
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2002 OSDN.
    [ home | awards | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertise | self serve ad system | about | terms of service | privacy | faq ]