RIAA Goes After Satellite Radio

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.'"

No kidding?

[SilverspurG (844751)]

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?

[PortHaven (242123)]

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

Cartel?

[CdBee (742846)]

I wasn't sure it was right when I heard of anti-cartel legislation being used against RIAA copyright-infringement suits but it sounds now like this industry body is becoming the collective negotiator for the formerly competing record industries

time was, they competed for airplay. Now they threaten those playing - and therefore promoting - their music

Re:No kidding?

[shawn(at)fsu (447153)]

Your PC "buffers" the stream. RIAA made a case saying the buffering is a recording and therefore they need to be paid.

Does that mean you have to pay more when uses RealPlayer? /ducks

Close . . .

[Rob the Bold (788862)]

In fact, all these royalties RIAA has demanded from satellite radio . . .[a]re completely new previously unheard of royalties. And it's all based on "caching".

I think the actual term for RIAA's practice is "cashing".

Re:No kidding?

[hackstraw (262471)]

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".

Your right. RIAA has never been involved with broadcast licenses. Pretty soon we might have things like cable and satellite TV service where people get a monthly bill and pay for the content that they receive. There will however never be a time in our lives where we can listen to music at restaurants, bars, shopping malls, in cars, and our homes. Its not a lucrative business anymore because there is simply no demand for such a service.

Why doesn't the RIAA just buy a big vault, put all of their CDs in it, lock to door, and stand on top of it and scream: "I've done locked up my toys, and nobody, including me will play with them!"

Judging by their behavior, I'm guessing that the RIAA is about done with. I'm guessing that music may go to more of a service business model vs a sales model, just like TV vs video recordings. Most video content by most people is viewed via a service such as cable or satellite. I pay something like $80 a month for my HD-DVR and my cable service. I pay about $0 a month for music recordings besides my ISP service bill (which is also my cable company, and yes the music I get is legally tradable). So, my cable provider is getting about $120 a month to provide me with internet, audio and video content. The RIAA affiliated companies gets $0.

The RIAA affiliated companies are done providing content distribution because they suck at it. They do not provide a greatly desired product like MP3s despite the customer demand that is almost 10 years old now. Most "CD quality" audio recordings are only at most 16bit/44.1 kHz, which too is almost 10 years old. Very few _amateur_ audio recordings are that low of a quality any more. For example, I record everything at 24bit and 96 kHz, and many people do that as well too.

I don't know how the moneys go as far as the RIAA vs ASCAP/BMI or whatever broadcast licenses are available. In fact, from what I understand you can pay something like $200 a year for a broadcast license and legally play almost anything you can get your hands on, again with $0 going to the RIAA.

I just don't get it how TV can stay alive, like the big 3, CBS, NBC, and ABC, which freely broadcast their content to the entire country for free _themselves_ with their own towers, and people _still pay_ for cable and satellite service. Remember, one of the biggest issues with satellite is that their customers _demand_ the free broadcast channels as well as the satellite programming.

In summary, the RIAA is done. They will lawyer their way until they die, but they are like a person trapped in the middle of the ocean that is drinking salt water "to stay alive". There inevitable death will only be sooner rather than later. RIP.

Re:No kidding?

[pedestrian crossing (802349)]

Don't most radio stations have agreements with the various record labels? I seem to remember someone taking care of that paperwork...

Not for the rights to play the music over the air, that is through ASCAP and BMI. Maybe there was some paperwork to arrange to get the promotional copies of the records from the record companies, the but broadcast rights are through ASCAP/BMI.

Re:No kidding?

[BlkSprk (840773)]

The RIAA thinks they have a right here because they are making a case that web radio and satalite radio use buffers and there for copy the music, which real radio dosnt. Just wait folks, soon you will be walking down the street whistling a new song you heard on the radio, and an RIAA lawyer will pop up demanding royalties because you memerized it and are reproducing it at a lesser but still recognizable quality. There need to be a line drawn, I'm half joking, but I wouldn't be suprised if the RIAA made it a reality.

RIAA: "I can file that suit in one note!"

[HTH NE1 (675604)]

The RIAA thinks they have a right here because...

The RIAA thinks it owns the patent, copyright, and trademark on all music throughout the universe in perpetuity. They'd sue for the damnation of every harp plucker on the other side of the pearly gates if they could.

Re:No kidding?

[robertjw (728654)]

The RIAA can't target ASCAP/BMI. Harrassing ASCAP would directly impact the artists and their royalties. RIAA is OK with irritating the middle men, but doesn't want to go after the artists.

Re:No kidding?

[jedidiah (1196)]

The whole "analog vs. digital" thing is completely and utterly IRRELEVANT. A performance is a performance: period. There is already an appropriate governing body that hands out appropriate licenses under these conditons and RIAA aint it. They should be pimp slapped by the first judge that sees these shenanigans.

          This BS is bogus even by the industry's own self-serving definitions.

Re:No kidding?

[mrchaotica (681592)]

Satellite radio is not the same as analog radio. Analog radio is of lesser quality, has a relatively limited range and is not required to pay royalties or licensing fees. Satellite radio is CD or near CD quality, is continent wide and pays licensing fees.

Bullshit. A broadcast of a song is a broadcast of a song, regardless of the quality or range.

That equates to a loss of hundreds of paid downloads for legitimate download services or dozens of CDs for brick and mortar music stores.

Bullshit, again. First of all, the vast majority of people don't want every song they listen to. Second, most of them wouldn't bother even if they did. Third, people can record stuff off the analog radio, too, and they obviously don't care about the difference in quality (note the popularity of low-quality MP3s on P2P networks).

Finally, and most importantly, people have the right to time-shift satellite radio, just the same as they do with analog radio or TV (including satellite TV!).

Re:No kidding?

[networkBoy (774728)]

In this case the right being not a written law, but rather case law. While I don't see any judge wanting to overturn the Betamax decision, it can be done (far easier than if it was a law passed by congress). Once Betamax is voided all hell breaks loose.
-nB

False: The quality is equal or less

[tkrotchko (124118)]

"Analog radio is of lesser quality, "

It is not.

Perhaps it is within possibility that if the satellite providers used a significant amount of bandwidth for a channel, and the analog station compressed the hell out of the FM station, then it might be better, but the reality is that good FM (i.e. WGMS out of Washington DC, or lots of other PBS stations) blows away any satellite service.

On the Sirius service, voice channels sound about the same or worse as shortwave broadcasts; the bit rates are so low that it takes you a couple weeks to get used to the sound. The music is okay, but clearly like low-grade FM; things like Saxophones are rendered so poorly on Sirius that you can barely tell that's what they are. Certain stations (i.e. Classical) are obviously given a higher bandwidth.

But stuff like NPR is better via FM because there is a lot less compression.

The advantages satellite has over terrestrial radio is country-wide access and no commercials. Sound quality is average at best.

Re:No kidding?

[ajservo (708572)]

I think other people have covered your licensing fees statement.

Satellite is NOT the same as analog, you're right. It's of lesser quality than the capability of analog signals. Whether or not your favorite Tejano Rap station broadcasts at full strength is up to them, but FM has a far superior fidelity to XM or Sirius. 2600 had an article on this from last year.

Both companies are using a single broadcast signal to project all 100+ of those channels into your radio. Those channels are highly compressed. It's not as though the reciever sends a signal up to the master satellite requesting the "moldy oldies" station and then your radio gets a full on signal. Nope, not at all. You get all the quality it'll deliver all at once for all stations (pay channels included) Don't be fooled into thinking that just because it's satellite it's better.

Re:No kidding?

[Ced_Ex (789138)]

I'd add that the signal is recorded in the EM waves that spread outwards from Earth.

Geez... I guess now the RIAA can extract lost revenue from aliens as well. Have they no limits to their insanity?!?!

Music's social contract breaking down

[Simonetta (207550)]

The music recording industry has painted itself into a corner by going digital. There was formerly a clear difference between an audio presentation (the sound that goes into people's ears) and the recording of that sound. Digitization of the entire industry has completely removed that difference. If a sound is heard, it has been digitized and stored.

    The financial structure of the industry as developed in the 20th century depends on a high price paid by the listener to the music industry for each individual recording. This price is roughly one hour of minimum wage earnings
per fifteen minutes of music recording. This price has been stable throughout the 20th century and has been inflation-proof.
In return, the music industry provides a centralized repository of all the musical styles currently of popular interest, a filtering service of the junk and mediocrity, and exposure to the best of new music performances.

    It was successful. There was pure capitalism among the various large and small record companies. There was a separation between the new music presenting services (radio and discos) and the record distribution networks.
Talented people could gain exposure to many new styles from many different parts of the globe. They could create important new musical styles and have a marketplace and a financial structure to successfully present them.

    Everything changed by going digital and by corporate consolidation. Three companies own and control a vast percentage of the radio stations of the USA. Four or five corporations control about 80-90% of the music industry in the world. Digitization of the music playback machines means that all music presentation comes from recordings. There is no longer any difference between exposed to new music and having a recording of that music. This plays
havoc with the structure of companies that sell recordings and use the proceeds of the sales to finance the filtering, product distribution, and new music exposure services.

    The companies want to return to the old business model, but only in the ways that are most profitable to them. They want their customers to continue to buy recordings at the old price, and also pay again for the new music exposure
, junk filtering, and distribution services that used to be incorporated into the recording's price. As Slashdot readers know, they are meeting resistance from their customers.

      With lots of money going to technology development of digital encryption of recordings and payoffs to politicians for custom-tailored laws protecting their interests, they will be successful in reconstructing their old business model in the short run. In the long run (ten years or more) they will cut off their supply of new musical influences. All the people who are shut out of consuming music industry product because they can't afford to buy it will develop new musical alternatives that they will deliberately hide from the music industry. The music industry won't be the center of musical culture and development in the way that it is now. The best musicians now all want record contracts and seek out the music company executives. That means that music industry employees have been the most knowledgeable about the best new music. That will end.

      But no one will notice because music is basically a young person's industry and the number of young people in the world continues to grow rapidly each year. So the music industry will continue to grow. But the principle that the music industry is the source of the best music available will pass. There will develop many underground secret music societies.

    The real question is whether the music industry will take the position that they 'own' the music created by these secret societies. Will they chose to hunt them down, imprison their musicians and steal their ideas, or simply ignore them as being non-commercially viable and therefore unworthy of investment.

Re:No kidding?

[SilverspurG (844751)]

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

power of the buyer

[by Anonymous Coward]

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

The beginning of the end

[Quasar1999 (520073)]

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

[jim_v2000 (818799)]

Obviously they are trying to keep their distribution model valid (read crappy CDs)

I vowed earlier this week to never buy another music CD. I ordered a new album of a group I like from Half.com and got it in the mail the other day. I then put it in my computer and tried to rip the music off as MP3s so I wouldn't have to put the CD in my machine all of the time. However, my ripper of choice (Wimpdows Media Player) wouldn't see my cd drive as having anything in it. I though the cd had some kind of protection on it that wouldn't let my machine read it. However, it opened fine with the little player they included...so I tried another ripping program I found online. That pulled the tracks off, but they sounded like static. Then I stumpled across something on Google that mentioned new music cd's installing something on people's machines called "Plug and Play Manager". I checked my running services and sure enough, there it was. Some more research turned up that somehow, from what I understood, it integrated itself with the IDE drivers for my CD drives, and then wouldn't allow any applications other than their shitty player access to the cd. Well, I worked for Symantec awhile ago, and I figured that if I could get viruses off a machine, I could get this thing off.

Well, first of all, this "Plug and Play Manager" runs as a service. And you can't stop the service. You can't end task on the process that the service starts. I couldn't even see the files that it uses, because they are stored in a folder that starts with $sys$... which apparently I could only see from the command prompt. And even tehn, I could only delete the files in Safe Mode w/Command Prompt. AND THEN after I deleted those files and cleared out the registry keys, when I tried to restart my computer, it started to load my cd drivers and rebooted again. Even in safemode. And the Windows repair feature didn't help. I ended up having to format/reinstall Windows.

Talk about bitch DRM...I was pretty pissed. I bought the damn music, and it happened to come on a CD. If I want to copy the music that I purchased onto my computer to listen to it, that's my business. The RIAA can kiss my ass. I'm never buying another one of their disks again.

Re:The beginning of the end

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

Where do you live? Does your jurisdiction have an equivalent of the UK's computer misuse act? If so, then report the music label to the authorities and request that they press charges. If they don't, then lodge a civil suit.

If they ran a program on your computer without your consent, then that is illegal in most jurisdictions. If you bought something that was advertised as a music CD, and it contained a virus[1], then the authors of the virus are liable for your time in removing it and for punitive damages. Don't settle for anything less than $10,000 (after all, that seems to be what they consider a good round number for sharing a song on a P2P network).

[1] A virus is a self-replicating program. This program installed (replicated) itself with no user intervention, and is hence a virus.

Re:The beginning of the end

[Lucractius (649116)]

Judge Julie:
This is Case No. 47g, Everyone vs. Everyone. [gavels, and all fall quiet] Representing the side of Everyone is Gerald Broflovski.

Gerald:
Thank you, your honor. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Everyone has committed a crime here, and Everyone must pay for that crime. My client, Everyone, has been hurt by this crime and must be compensated.

Silly RIAA...

[zwilliams07 (840650)]

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!

Not the time to buy xm then eh?

[cflorio (604840)]

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.

Re:Not the time to buy xm then eh?

[mrchaotica (681592)]

I really hope XM countersues, saying that the RIAA's FUD is resulting in lost business, and citing examples like this.

BS!

[Kranfer (620510)]

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.

Understatement of the Century

[nightsweat (604367)]

"the RIAA is starting to overstep its bounds"

Hang on a second...

[uradu (10768)]

> could take revenue away from paid download music services.

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

I hate the RIAA

[Donniedarkness (895066)]

"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.

There's really only going to be one solution

[JudgeFurious (455868)]

  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.

1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRadio

[digitaldc (879047)]

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

[justforaday (560408)]

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

STOP

[CSHARP123 (904951)]

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

[the eric conspiracy (20178)]

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.

No Case

[mysqlrocks (783488)]

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.

Same argument as the VCR

[ploafmaster general (920649)]

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?

One day...

[by Anonymous Coward]

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

Late to the game

[Bastian (66383)]

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.

Apparently the RIAA has never heard of...

[HeadCrash (75749)]

... 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...

From the RIAA site...

[djupedal (584558)]

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.

It's only a matter of time...

[Chabil Ha' (875116)]

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.

[Jaywalk (94910)]

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.

Modest Proposal

[rlp (11898)]

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.

RIAA Serves Their Purpose

[erroneus (253617)]

The RIAA (and the MPAA and the BSA and all those similar organizations) exist for the very purpose they are acting on in these stories.

If we want to rid ourselves of their existance, we should #1 appeal to their members that they are not acting in the 'industry's best interests' and #2 appeal to the government(s) that these organizations exist to do nothing less than to act a singular means by which large entities are made into a single larger entity by which legal muscle is used to bully and intimidate individual consumers into unfair settlements and otherwise abuse the legal system to their own ends.

These abusive organizations should be striken down completely. If individuals need to protect their interests, they should be required to protect them individually just as individuals are required to defend themselves individually.

It FINALLY happened

[gosand (234100)]

Did everyone miss the fact that this is one of their concerns: "...violation and could take revenue away from paid download music services."

We now have the RIAA defending and fight for music download services? Funny how the worm turns, it only took them about 10 years to recognize music downloads as "valid".

Well, let's follow the reasoning through to...

[Hosiah (849792)]

"RIAA sues God for creating air"

Since everybody knows that sound waves are transmitted through the air, that means that music can travel through this unsecured medium to be heard by many life forms, some larger than microscopic, which did not monetarily reimburse the music-producing entity. God was quoted as defending air: "All my land-dwelling living creatures need air to breathe! Isn't that 'fair use'?", but the RIAA responds, "He could have come up with creatures who didn't need to breathe."

Digital Media: Jack Valenti on "Justice Talking"

[ngr8 (504185)]

For extra fun try NPR's Justice Talking "The First Amendment in a Digital Age [justicetalking.org]" which aired on 16 September 2005 with Jack Valenti (MPAA), Floyd Abrams (Pentagon Papers), and Lawrence Lessig (Creative Commons).

Interesting discussion of Intellectual Property & etc. And my sense of the discussion was that the (former jefe of) MPAA's resembled the effect of talking to a Television Set.

I only wish Hunter Thompson had moderated.

Re:WTF?

[SilverspurG (844751)]

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:Some currently available mp3 players

[xhorder (232326)]

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