RIAA Goes After Satellite Radio 547
nicholasjay writes "The RIAA is at it again. Now they don't like satellite radio. From the article 'The record industry ... believes the recording capability [of satellite radio receivers] is a clear copyright violation and could take revenue away from paid download music services.' This comes on the heels of both Sirius and XM announcing mp3 enabled players and the ability to record music heard on the radio. Also from the article: 'RIAA may seek $1 billion plus in music rights fees for a new contract covering 2007 to 2012 to replace the current $80 million pact that expires in 2006.'"
Re:No kidding? (Score:5, Informative)
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
There's really only going to be one solution (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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)
privilege (Score:2, Informative)
Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad (Score:2, Informative)
Radio broadcasts are analog transmissions and are therefore subject to signal degradation. Satellite broadcasts are digital and although you may get a loss of signal from time to time, the signal integrity should be maintained otherwise. Therefore, SatRadio has the potential to deliver near perfect quality transmissions, and that's what has the RIAA concerned.
Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad (Score:4, Informative)
From the RIAA site... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No kidding? (Score:5, Informative)
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:The beginning of the end (Score:2, Informative)
It will go to arbitration, where they will settle somewhere between the 3% they pay now -- and the 6% that the RIAA wants. I'll tell you now, your subscription price will not go up. This is a classic case of the RIAA posturing by using the media to negotiate... and the media is only happy to oblige by blowing this out of proportion.
XM and Sirius knew this day was coming, as did us shareholders. This is blown way out of proportion.
Don't worry, it's happening already (Score:3, Informative)
Apparently you can get sued for singing with the kids [s-t.com]
interesting take (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:No kidding? (Score:2, Informative)
Where did you get that idea? Regular radio stations pay fees to ASCAP/BMI all the time.
Re:The beginning of the end (Score:3, Informative)
That's ok. At $125,000 per song statutary damages, they can profit quite happily if you never buy another song afterwards.
Re:No kidding? (Score:5, Informative)
-nB
False: The quality is equal or less (Score:5, Informative)
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:Grokster comes back to bite us. (Score:3, Informative)
Grokster wasn't rulled illegal - the judges never made a ruling on that. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios%2C_Inc._
"None of the opinions said definitely whether or not Grokster did induce infringement or whether Grokster was liable."
Re:No kidding? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Broadcast Flag (Score:2, Informative)
Correct. Ever heard of the broadcast flag? Recording is already being prevented on HDTV...
See: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/14/14402
Howard Stern (Score:3, Informative)
I noticed that since Sirius rearranged their programming, the two stations reserved for Howard Stern are grouped with all the low-quality/low-bandwidth entertainment and talk stations. I wonder if Howard Stern is still going to get the higher bandwidth low compression that the music channels have? If not, then I'll have to cancel my Sirius subscription. The only thing that's playing on Howard Stern's channels right now are the farters, and it's hard to tell if it's a higher or lower bandwidth channel.
Re:No kidding? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:False: The quality is equal or less (Score:2, Informative)
Analog radio is inherently imperfect because the information is not discrete. A loss of amplitude, or an attenuation, means a change in the content of the signal, and there's no checking mechanism to know that something changed. So what get's played (or recorded) is not exactly what was broadcast.
With digital it takes a change greater than a specific size in order to change the actual information content of the signal. And when that happens there are mechanisms to detect and correct this. So the information that is played (or recorded) is essentially exactly the same as what was broadcast. Certainly with compression, the recording can be rendered into a state that is comparable to what is received via FM radio, but it doesn't have to be. For all intents and purposes, satellite radio is capable of sending out lossless audio data, if they so desired, whereas with FM radio there's not a whole lot that can be done toward that end. The RIAA is thus "protecting" themselves against the potentiality of this kind of distribution.
Furthermore, satellite radio cannot be considered a "public service", as someone else claimed, because you have to pay to hear it. And so it doesn't fall under the same rules as AM/FM radio.
But I'm not siding with the RIAA here, because I'm sure they are asking for something much more than what they really deserve. However, I think they do have a right to request a certain amount of compensation for the satellite stations out there that really are streaming content of a reasonable fidelity. Because in those cases, they are creating a copy of the copyrighted content which is, in practice, "very close" to the original source, in aural effect if not in ones and zeroes. And copying is the exclusive right of the copyright holder; they have the right to allow or disallow. (Hence the term "copyright".)
Re:1985: Taping from Radio - 2005: Mp3 from SatRad (Score:3, Informative)
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 any purpose is doing so fairly. It always depends.
Also, there is the 17 USC 1008 exception, but it does depend on who is doing the recording, why they're doing it, and what devices or media they're using to accomplish it. 1008 would likely protect taping from the radio, but not making an mp3 from the radio. Note that there are important definitions of the terms in 1008 in 101 and 1001, which people often don't read, resulting in misunderstandings of what 1008 actually says.
Re:No kidding? (Score:3, Informative)
Do you think ClearChannel didn't have it's $$$ being delt out to ensure it was protected. Modern IP rights merely benefit the powerful wealthy. They seldom have clauses of protection for general public and are seldom upheld for smaller individuals. Often are too expensive and inaccessible as well.
But the radio station conglomerates (ClearChannel, Cox, etc) made sure they had clauses to protect their age old business model when the DMCA was written.
Digital Media: Jack Valenti on "Justice Talking" (Score:4, Informative)
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:Disable Autoplay (Score:2, Informative)