Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Media Businesses Entertainment Your Rights Online

RIAA Goes After Satellite Radio 547

Posted by Zonk
from the next-up-the-speak-and-spell dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Goes After Satellite Radio

Comments Filter:
  • No kidding? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SilverspurG (844751) * on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:43AM (#13738857) Homepage Journal
    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? (Score:5, Informative)

      by PortHaven (242123) on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:49AM (#13738908) Homepage
      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? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by SilverspurG (844751)
        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? (Score:5, Informative)

          by pedestrian crossing (802349) on Friday October 07, 2005 @10:09AM (#13739095) Homepage Journal

          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.

      • Cartel? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CdBee (742846) on Friday October 07, 2005 @10:09AM (#13739097)
        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
      • by shawn(at)fsu (447153) on Friday October 07, 2005 @10:12AM (#13739128) Homepage
        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
        • Re:No kidding? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by jandrese (485) *
          Actually, yes. Have you seen the per performance per user rates on music streamed over the internet? It's highway robbery.
      • Close . . . (Score:5, Funny)

        by Rob the Bold (788862) on Friday October 07, 2005 @10:27AM (#13739252)
        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? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DannyO152 (544940)

        Every now and then the recording companies mumble something about getting paid when radio stations play recordings and the radio stations call the bluff because airplay sells records. In fact, payola scandals demonstrate that there's an incentive for recording companies to pay the radio stations.

        I'm also wondering if there's a point where recording companies ask so much of Apple, satellite radio, internet broadcasters, and ring-tone distributors that they join up in backing a new recording company that sig

      • Re:No kidding? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hackstraw (262471) * on Friday October 07, 2005 @10:49AM (#13739458)
        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.
    • Yeah, there's a way. It's called ASCAP.
    • by Simonetta (207550) on Friday October 07, 2005 @11:59AM (#13740126)
      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.
  • power of the buyer (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:45AM (#13738873)
    The world can live without buying music from the record industry - can the record industry live without selling their crap? Don't buy.
    • 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 or
  • by Quasar1999 (520073) on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:45AM (#13738877) Journal
    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.
    • 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.
      • by Lucractius (649116) <Lucractius&gmail,com> on Friday October 07, 2005 @10:09AM (#13739093) Journal
        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.
      • by m50d (797211)
        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.

        That's ok. At $125,000 per song statutary damages, they can profit quite happily if you never buy another song afterwards.

    • 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 an
    • by jim_v2000 (818799) on Friday October 07, 2005 @10:43AM (#13739409)
      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.
      • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Friday October 07, 2005 @11:06AM (#13739627) Journal
        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.

  • by zwilliams07 (840650) on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:46AM (#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!
  • by cflorio (604840) on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:47AM (#13738889) Homepage
    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! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kranfer (620510) on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:47AM (#13738892) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by meatbridge (443871)
    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.
  • Hang on a second... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by uradu (10768) on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:48AM (#13738904)
    > could take revenue away from paid download music services.

    I thought the RIAA didn't like those either?!
  • I hate the RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Donniedarkness (895066) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {ssenkradeinnoD}> on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:49AM (#13738905) Homepage
    "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.

    • 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
  • ... 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.
  • by JudgeFurious (455868) on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:49AM (#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.
  • 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?

  • by digitaldc (879047) on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:50AM (#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)
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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

    • by justforaday (560408) on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:57AM (#13738994)
      What makes you think the record industry didn't try to villainize tape when it first came out?
    • There is no difference between recording from source A to medium B, or recording to medium C. Whether the source is a CD or radio, and whether the source is analog or digital is irrelevant. Whether the recording medium is analog or digital is irrelevant.

      It is illegal, if you're unauthorizedly making a copy of a copyrighted work. Unless, of course, there is an applicable exception.

      Fair use might apply, but it depends on the overall circumstances. You can't really say that anyone recording from the radio for
  • STOP (Score:5, Funny)

    by CSHARP123 (904951) on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:50AM (#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.
  • No Case (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mysqlrocks (783488) on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:50AM (#13738923) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • me thinks (Score:2, Insightful)

    by meatbridge (443871)
    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.
  • by ploafmaster general (920649) on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:51AM (#13738934) Homepage
    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... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:51AM (#13738937)
    One day they will sue themselves... and they will implode.
    Hail that day.
  • This single minded "money, money money" mantra is begining to get a bit old.
  • privilege (Score:2, Informative)

    by anonieuweling (536832)
    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)
  • by Bastian (66383) on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:53AM (#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 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 agains
  • ......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 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by AviLazar (741826)
    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.
  • by HeadCrash (75749) on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:56AM (#13738976) Homepage Journal
    ... 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...
  • 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.

  • by g0bshiTe (596213) on Friday October 07, 2005 @09:57AM (#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.
  • ...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."
  • 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...
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Sick to Death (Score:2, Interesting)

    by platypibri (762478)
    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 taug
  • by djupedal (584558) on Friday October 07, 2005 @10:00AM (#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.
  • by niiler (716140) on Friday October 07, 2005 @10:02AM (#13739035) Journal
    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.
  • by Psx29 (538840) on Friday October 07, 2005 @10:03AM (#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?
  • by Chabil Ha' (875116) on Friday October 07, 2005 @10:03AM (#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.
  • by Jaywalk (94910) on Friday October 07, 2005 @10:03AM (#13739043) Homepage
    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.
  • by rlp (11898) on Friday October 07, 2005 @10:07AM (#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.
  • by erroneus (253617) on Friday October 07, 2005 @10:08AM (#13739085) Homepage
    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.
  • by Peter Trepan (572016) on Friday October 07, 2005 @10:10AM (#13739102)
    I've been recording songs off the radio since elementary school, and I was perfectly content to listen to cassette tapes before CDs existed. How is this qualitatively different?

    The RIAA is powered by the naivete of musicians. I think this whole thing can only be solved when musical artists start seeing pop music as a hobby and not as a potential career. How many people do you know who make a living purely through their band, anyway? At least if they put their music in the public domain, they'd save themselves the trouble of attempting to play the fixed game of "getting discovered."
  • interesting take (Score:3, Informative)

    by ch-chuck (9622) on Friday October 07, 2005 @10:20AM (#13739189) Homepage
    published this week in theregister.co.uk [theregister.co.uk] , But it's a very phony war. The MPAA is only too happy to play the cartoon role the techno utopians have created for them, in a narrative dominated by fear, domination and control. Like small children playing a game of ghost, they've succeeded only in frightening the bejesus out of each other.

    And this thoroughly dishonest debate - you could call it the artistic versus the autistic - is lopsided to begin with. It's Jack, not Larry, who has Sin City and Mean Streets. But only by taking the long view can you see how irrelevant both of their phony stances really are.

  • S50 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dr_dank (472072) on Friday October 07, 2005 @10:24AM (#13739223) Homepage Journal
    Later this month, Sirius is coming out with their portable unit, the S50, that will be able to record 3 streams as well as store mp3s for portable listening. I think its a safe bet that the satellite radio recordings will be kept on a separate bank of flash chips that can't be accessed by the USB port or some other kind of proprietary format for the recorded programs.

    The RIAA would have a fit if one could simply move the files onto the harddrive in an unencumbered format so easily.
  • by Bohnanza (523456) on Friday October 07, 2005 @10:41AM (#13739395)
    I heard a catchy song on the radio this morning and now it's stuck in my head!
  • It FINALLY happened (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gosand (234100) on Friday October 07, 2005 @11:20AM (#13739762)
    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".

  • by Hosiah (849792) on Friday October 07, 2005 @11:57AM (#13740107)
    "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."

  • by chia_monkey (593501) on Friday October 07, 2005 @12:41PM (#13740515) Journal
    WTF? People have been using their tape decks to record off the radio for years. And then maybe a few more years. And then a few years more. They've recorded top 40 countdowns. Just recorded songs. Recorded tapes full of radio play and then made mixed tapes. Hell...before I even had a ghetto blaster (or boom box depending on where you're from...that's a debate for another time) I took a big clunky tape recorder (kinda like the ones you see in old police movies where they stick the tape recorder in front of the suspect in the interrogation room) in front of the speaker on the TV to record a top 40 countdown. That's right, I got Survivor and "Eye of the Tiger" in all its glory, taped on a crappy old tape recorder sitting next to the TV. And I liked it! We played that tape all around the neighborhood.

    The point is this: People have been recording from the radio, from TV, from their friend's records, from their parent's tapes, from their own CDs for about as long as there has been recordable media. The RIAA needs to realize that nothing they do will keep people from recording what they want. What they NEED to do is work on their business model, their distribution model, licensing models, etc and figure out how to make money from the products they sell instead of trying to rape the living crap out of the artists while also gouging the consumer.
  • by pclminion (145572) on Friday October 07, 2005 @12:54PM (#13740615)
    Why the hell would I record music off satellite radio when I can just download it off a P2P network?

    The RIAA is slowly going absolutely nuts. Where can I get some of whatever they're tripping on?

  • by Chitlenz (184283) <(chitlenz) (at) (chitlenz.com)> on Friday October 07, 2005 @01:03PM (#13740687) Homepage
    I am a Sirius subscriber, and I LOVE it for the most part, aside from the occasional static I get under power lines (the solution to this, apparently, is to install an FM demodulator and directly connect the SAT reciever to the back of the deck, unfortunately I have an eclipse Spyder which has all kinds of weirdness with the stereo, but I digress). For the most part, I've been fortunate in that I was a rave dj (as in warehouse party) growing up, and my tastes haven't changed much over the years. The REASON this is important is that electronica producers have pretty much always released their music on small, mom and pop labels that typically have no ties to big business at all. How is it that the RIAA can try to enforce rules over and over again on behalf of small labels like this who aren't even members of their own organization. I mean, it's become like some kind of mafia protection racket almost. In this case, if the RIAA wins, Sirius will have no choice but to try to get people like me to underwrite this, and its just not going to happen.

    I love my satellite, but I will NOT be paying any more for it. Not to mention, what happens to the folks who payed the flat fee for their reciever under the nuance that there would never be a subscription fee? (this may no longer be offered, but at one time you could pay 300$ or so and get a lifetime sub.). Does someone expect them to come back to the table? Which contract is valid there, the one between Sirius and the RIAA or the one between Sirius and their customers?

    Just some thoughts - chitlenz

  • Psst. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Kaenneth (82978) on Friday October 07, 2005 @03:51PM (#13742147) Homepage Journal
    Psst, SCO, I hear the RIAA is running Linux servers to spam P2P music networks, and not paying you license fees.

    Psst, RIAA, I hear SCO is licensing Linux servers capable of sharing music files, and not paying you license fees.
  • by ngr8 (504185) on Friday October 07, 2005 @04:15PM (#13742341) Journal
    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.

There are worse things in life than death. Have you ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman? -- Woody Allen

Working...