Web Radio and the RIAA 232
Andrew Leonard writes: "Steve Marks, VP of legal affairs of the RIAA, is duking it out with critics in a point-counterpoint debate focusing on the nitty-gritty details of how artists will be compensated by the new rules on Webcasting royalties."
Compensation (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Compensation (Score:2, Insightful)
My point is that all this crap is pointless. Singles should be played freely. They are only put out to sell the whole album anyway.
To the RIAA, digital == piratable (Score:2, Insightful)
But what is to stop anyone from just recording a song off the radio?
To the RIAA, a digital transmission is easier to pirate than an analog transmission, as there is zero loss from one generation to the next. That's why we've seen sh*t such as the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, etc.
Re:Compensation (Score:2)
The RIAA will soon try to put an end to that. It would be the RIAA's greatest dream come true if you needed to pay for a subscription to listen to music in the car. Satellite radio anyone?
Redundant statement coming up
Napster flying high
Napster grounded, record industry sales drop 9%.
I am eating some starved artists Big Mac right now!
Re:Compensation (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Compensation (Score:3, Informative)
Nope. I was saying that it was coincidence, and that the economy going tankola is probably a better explanation for record sales going into the toilet.
Re:Compensation (Score:2)
Well, one of the massive advantages of the internet, peer-to-peer informational trading, finally saw daylight with the advent of Napster; at this point in time ordinary people enjoyed power unprecedented in recent history, as interest in the internet soared. This power included the power to transform businesses overnight: some went up, some went down.
Reading these tea leaves, the RIAA determined to maintain its revenue stream free from the threat that the internet posed. They successfully sued Napster and got Congress to impose all sorts of restrictions on the free exchange of information. In addition, the FBI used the internet in an Unconstitutional but highly effective means, snooping over the web.
The combination of all these attacks on the free exchange of information (there are more, and I could go on, but will keep this short) nipped the New Economy in the bud; failed dot-coms with no business plan notwithstanding, the internet then became what it is today: interactive TV in which if something doesn't make money for somebody it's not useful. And so the promise that was the internet was to a large degree usurped by big business once they figured out what the internet was and how they could control it. When MS won it's battle in court, IMO that was the death's knell for the New Economy, because it proved that large consolidated and concentrated business enterprises will generally prevail over small, distributed operations.
Once that happened, the dot-coms fell like dominoes, taking the Clinton-era prosperity with them. No more New Economy, just the same old song and dance...
That's my theory of Economics, and I'm sticking with it!
Re:Compensation (Score:2)
That's a big load of horse-shit...
That's like saying TV is just a big commercial for television shows.
If that were the case, why would you bother watching/listening? Maybe actors should be paying us for watching TV, since we then go out and buy their posters and magazines?
Re:Compensation (Score:2)
Heh, more and more, that's the case. Any show with a bit of an audience is in the process of being made available on DVD. Movies presented on TV that are cut for time and/or content can also serve double duty as ads for the VHS or DVD.
Re:Compensation (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't ever listen to the RIAA saying that they're fighting for artist rights, or ensuring that artists are properly compensated. That's not their job. The RIAA's job is to protect the interests of the recording companies.
If BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, AFTRA, etc. weigh in, then you can listen with a slightly less-jaded ear, but the RIAA saying they're looking out for artists is like Microsoft saying that they're only trying to squash unix [wehavethewayout.com] for the good of their customers.
Like them or not, the RIAA is a very effective organization for what they do - but I take offense when they purport to represent the interests of recording artists.
Well (Score:4, Insightful)
No, just non-RIAA stations... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No, just non-RIAA stations... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well (Score:2)
So the basic effect of CARP is that it puts all the internet-only broadcasters out of business, but still allows all those Top-40 stations to continue streaming their generic TRL crapfest to anyone with half a brain. This is just another attempt by the RIAA to turn a market that is new and interesting into a known commodity that they know they can control.
Re:Well (Score:2, Insightful)
Have artists ever been compensated for their music (Score:4, Insightful)
The artists I like make all their money selling t-shirts and products on tour...
Re:Have artists ever been compensated for their mu (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Have artists ever been compensated for their mu (Score:2)
Maybe they consider the lobbyists to be the TRUE "artists". After all, they must be doing some pretty creative work on the legislators to get some of the crap introduced and passed that they have...
Hows this for double talk (Score:2, Interesting)
"..., 50 percent of the royalties go DIRECTLY to artists (without passing go)"
AND
"Isn't it prudent to protect that investment with some kind of safeguard remedy in the event the board,..."
so... which is it? DIRECTLY without passing GO or protection of your investment? Ah... gotta love lawyers
Re:Have artists ever been compensated for their mu (Score:2)
Correct me if I am wrong, but I bet those CD's you bought were from relatively smaller bands, not larger ones. Most of the larger ones record labels would have a FIT if the band skipped around them to sell CD's. I know that was the case when we were with a label (albeit a much smaller one than Sony or similar). They were present at the shows selling our albums.
Pertinent info can be found... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pertinent info can be found... (Score:2, Informative)
They should all just go off-shore (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway how can they enforce this on some 14 year old shoutcasting through his cable connection?
Re:Pertinent info can be found... (Score:2)
I love how the recording industry tries to deny this with the following quote:
KSDS-FM
The rates are $184 per year per listener. This means the example they use, KSDS-FM, must average less than zero-point-three listeners.
Jut just as bad, or maybe worse are the paperwork requirements:
1. The name of the service; [dnalounge.com]
2. The channel of the program (AM/FM stations use station ID);
3. The type of program (archived/looped/live);
4. Date of transmission;
5. Time of transmission;
6. Time zone of origination of transmission;
7. Numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program;
8. Duration of transmission (to nearest second);
9. Sound recording title;
10. The ISRC code of the recording;
11. The release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of compilation albums, the release year of the album and copyright date of the track;
12. Featured recording artist;
13. Retail album title;
14. The recording label;
15. The UPC code of the retail album;
16. The catalog number;
17. The copyright owner information;
18. The musical genre of the channel or program (station format);
In addition, webcasters must report information on the audience as well:
1. The name of the service or entity;
2. The channel or program;
3. The date and time that the user logged in (the user's timezone);
4. The date and time that the user logged out (the user's timezone);
5. The time zone where the signal was received (user);
6. Unique user identifier;
7. The country in which the user received the transmissions.
-
No webmastser? (Score:5, Funny)
Finally, with regard to your observation that the confusion about the artists' share of royalties is the fault of SoundExchange because its Web site is not up to date, you'll be happy to know that's because SoundExchange doesn't have a webmaster -- thereby eliminating one more thing that might otherwise "siphon" money from the artists
Does it really seem like that should be considered a good thing? I mean, isn't that a little bit like telling people the airline doesn't have a pilot, thereby eliminating one more thing that might otherwise "siphon" money from the airline stockholders?
But don't worry...
Re:No webmastser? (Score:1)
-jhon
Re:No webmastser? (Score:1)
Actally, it's most like telling a heart patient that his pacemaker is nice and cheap, but let's just hope that battery never runs out, because we can't replace it...
Re:No webmastser? (Score:2)
Urgh (Score:4, Interesting)
Since the FCC allowed Clear Channel to own up to 49% of as many local radio stations as they wanted, I've heard a lot more crap on the radio, both from shitty Creed ripoffs and more screaming car salesman. Stuff like live365.com keeps me going during work hours. If this passes, I'll probably just turn the radio up till I go deaf. It would be better than commercial radio is now.
Re:Urgh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Urgh (Score:1)
Re:Urgh (Score:2, Insightful)
My alarm is set to the local "modern rock" station, and there was a stretch of several months where every single morning I inevitably heard a Linkin Park song (technically, one of three, but they're all very similar). How's that for variety?
Compensation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Compensation? (Score:1)
Example:
Here on slashdot, we, the "posters" get exposure which results traffic that generates revenue for slashdot (see the little ad boxes)? We "posters", are slashdot's exploited artists. I fully expect to be compensated by slashdot!
Please send my royalty check to:
Jhon
PO Box 1234
Los Angeles, CA 90022
Re:Compensation? (Score:3, Insightful)
long time stations to die (Score:3, Interesting)
The process was completely undemocratic -- none of these stations was allowed to testify at CARP. WCPE was specifically excluded
see also WXYC's save our streams page [wxyc.org] and Save Our Streams [saveourstreams.org]
Not new (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not new (Score:2)
Given the opportunity, would you have opted to ignore the Manhattan Project because the suspected relationship between matter and energy was "nothing new" (what with Einstein's theories and all)?
So, (Score:2)
Check out VISA's cure for Shoplifting! [lostbrain.com]
tcd004
Re:So, (Score:2)
The problem I see is that the RIAA is wanting to rake in even more cash to the detriment of their customers and the end consumer. Music should be a subsidized product. The music industry should give deep discounts on product because in the end that product being broadcast is as much an advertisement as it is anything else. Therefore if X is cost of play-time for music and Y is the cost of ad time on the caster then X-Y = $amount caster pays for content.
50% of royalties go to artists? (Score:5, Insightful)
Only 50% will go to the artists. But when I put aup a bad account for collection at my job, we pay, in most cases, only 25%, and maybe less than that. Why are the collection "fees" imposed by the RIAA so high?
Sounds like a ripoff to me.
Re:50% of royalties go to artists? (Score:2)
the radio station has to pay to play a song. playing a song is advortizing that band. why is the RIAA not paying to promote the band?
same thing goes with designer shirts...never understood that.
Re:50% of royalties go to artists? (Score:2)
Something sick and evil happened in the early 80's where videos themselves became valued content, and the basis for their own cable channel. The viewers are watching commercials, intersperced with more commercials - 24 hours a day - and the fuckers at MTV couldn't leave that absurd business model alone, and for some reason felt it necessary to toss in some game shows and other crap.
They had people endlessly watching commercials, and they changed it. I'll never understand.
Re:50% of royalties go to artists? (Score:2)
You know, every time I an article about the RIAA.. (Score:3, Funny)
-Paul.
Re:You know, every time I an article about the RIA (Score:2, Funny)
Here's an idea: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Here's an idea: (Score:2)
On the topic of independent bands, the prototypical fiercely independent band that everyone should be listening to, if they aren't already, is Fugazi [southern.com]. Their music is incredible and they've held to their principles for fifteen years (I saw them here last year, only $5 and they played for over two hours!). Dischord Records [dischord.com], started by singer/guitarist Ian Mackaye is the model for independent labels. Check them out.
Also, a little semi-local plug, if you liked the Refreshments ("Down Together", "Banditos", and the theme song from "King of the Hill"), check out Roger Clyne and the Peacemakers [azpeacemakers.com] (Roger was the lead singer of the Refreshments).
-J
Re:Here's an idea: (Score:2)
Re:Here's an idea: (Score:2)
What you used to have was a bootleg t-shirt. Sorry, but it's true. That's why the "This is not a Fugazi T-Shirt" T-shirt came out, because Fugazi threatened to sue the bootlegger.
Re:Here's an idea: (Score:2)
Re:Here's an idea: (Score:3, Insightful)
The major labels are constantly buying smaller labels. That's the business model for many small labels. So, a web broadcaster can often get consent from a small label to play their content for free over the internet. However, if that smaller label gets bought by a member of the RIAA, the content once again falls under CARP.
So it ends up being a massive headache for a web broadcaster to continually check with label who owns the content that you're broadcasting to see if they've changed their mind. One of the reasons why record companies continually buy up smaller labels is to force more alternative radio stations to pay their ASCAP/BMI fees.
what is the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Artists have never been compensated for any of this.
The RIAA shuts down one site
The RIAA bans one piece of software
Money that is supposed to go to 'the artist' will always be caught in this never ending cycle.
AM and FM anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not exactly... (Score:4, Insightful)
In order for AM and FM stations to broadcast, they have to pay license fees to the major performing rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC). These not-for-profit organizations then distribute royalties to the songwriters (not necessarily the recording artist).
What's interesting here is that the RIAA is using copyright infringement as it's argument to squash these technologies that it can't control, while dressing it up as "fighting for the rights of artists." Laughable.
It's not copyright infringement for a radio station because they have physical media (bought or provided) and pay license fees to broadcast the works via radio - they aren't making a copy of the information. I'm surprised that we aren't hearing more about digital radio facing the same hurdles as web-streaming.
Re:Not exactly... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not exactly... (Score:2)
Exactly - and that's what's so insane about this whole thing. I'm amazed (but not completely surprised) that the RIAA is getting away with these kinds of assaults.
This has been a problem for a while now, though. Every time a new technology comes along, people think that we need to make new rules for that technology. I'm amazed at the number of companies that have policies specifically for email. While their existing communications policies would probably have covered email just fine, they insist on creating new policies to cover each new technology.
If I'm unproductive from surfing the web or posting on Slashdot, that shouldn't be any different from if I was unproductive because I took a long lunch, read a book, or doodled on my sketchpad, yet we have tons of "acceptable internet use" policies.
So now we have the RIAA leveraging this situation to make more money and squash anyone that doesn't play by their rules. Unfortunately, the majority of the music consumers out there don't care enough about the situation to seek out alternate (independent) artists, don't understand the issues, don't really care about the issues, and provide the inertia and cash for the RIAA to continue doing what it does.
This is a land grab - the RIAA is trying to make sure that it controls internet distribution since it can't (legally) control distribution by radio. That doesn't mean they don't - only that they're not supposed to.
Re:AM and FM anyone? (Score:2, Informative)
Now that the Powers That Wanna Be feel they can extract an exact headcount of listeners on the web, they figure that nailing down an exact per-listener fee model makes sense.
This is just another case where copious amounts of exact data drives people to bad decisionmaking.
Re:AM and FM anyone? (Score:2)
Not even close. You pay for your "free" radio by being subjected to advertising. Same for TV. The customers of a radio station and a TV station are the advertisers. You are the product that the station delivers to its customers. The music and TV shows are simply part of the overhead needed by the station to create it's product for delivery to its customers.
This is needed exposure (Score:3, Interesting)
So far the RIAA has been feeding the information to the wide audience. The more the general populace understands that many of their favorite artists don't make a dime from record sales, the more likely the RIAA will be forced to join us back in the real world.
printer friendly version (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/04/03/web_r adio_redux/print.html [salon.com]
I like this last bit:
As for SoundExchange's inability to update its Web site due to not having an on-staff webmaster, please take a look at this 10-minute guide to HTML. I'm sure some of the talented folks at SoundExchange could pick up the skills needed to update the text of your Web site within a couple of days, and it would have saved many hours of many people's time (and prevented much confusion) if there hadn't been a number of folks pointing to the SoundExchange site as proof that (for instance) SoundExchange will not be paying the artists directly.
It is always good to encourage techical literacy.
Does Regular Radio Pay? (Score:3, Interesting)
If they do- I have to admit, I did not know that. If they don't, why are internet radio stations any different?
Personally this matters less and less to me as I become more and more disinterested in what "popular" music is floating around out there.
As is regularly posted in this discussion, there are a lot of bands that just want to be heard and have not sold out. They are usually much more interesting. And lets be honest - it does not take a whole lot of talent to produce most of what you can hear on the radio or buy on a $17.oo CD
.
Re:Does Regular Radio Pay? (Score:1)
Re:Does Regular Radio Pay? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes and no.
Yes, stations pay something called "performance royalties". These royalties are administered by "performing rights organizations" (BMI, ASCAP, SECAM) and are disbursed via a complex schedule that takes into account the medium of distribution (e.g., radio, TV, jukebox) and the number of times a work is played.
No, these royalties do not go to the artist. They go to the songwriter. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes not.
k.
Yes, but (Score:1)
Re:Does Regular Radio Pay? (Score:3, Insightful)
They pay BMI, ASCAP an SESAC... which are the organizations that collect payments for "performance" of music.
RIAA, was supposed to receive payment for "recording" of music.
Radio stations do not need to pay RIAA. But for some reason webcasts now have too.
All in all in order to play songs on the air and through a webcast you in fact must pay 4 organizations royalty fees for the artists.
Now most of these fees never get to the artist.
Even less will get to the artists you actually play. I do a weekly show focusing on christian alternative music, rap, rock, industrial, dance, techno, etc.
They look and say well, these are the top 500 bands, so they get the majority of all the royalty funds. Now it does not matter that I didn't play a single song by any of those bands. They still get my money, instead of the artists I am trying to support.
It's bumm, it's overpriced, it doesn't go where it should, and you are charged repeatedly.
So I have to pay an annual license to BMI, an annual license to ASCAP, an annual license to SESAC. Now I must pay royalties to RIAA. I still have to buy the CD at a list price of $10-$18. I am told that this is not overpriced. (Even though I can produce a CD with jewel case for under a $1 or $2, ship it for for under $2. So here I can produce at my own inefficient non-mass producing home production center a CD and ship it for under $4. Now they say there is added cost. Promotions take up tons of money?
Well, wait a minute. They're only promoting they're top acts. Go figure...
It's all crap..
How On Earth is that a Troll?! (Score:2, Troll)
But someone please tell me how that was a troll.
Because I asked a question?
Because people responded and some discussion ensued?
Maybe it was because I said it doesn't take a lot of talent to create what passes for music lately. That's not a troll, that's a fact.
Anyone read yesterday's post about the pitch correcting Karaoke machine and how many 'artists' use similar equipment to improve how they sound?
Is using a machine to sing, and play your music talent?
That was my honest question that generated some honest responses, that I appreciated. So I get modded down by some idiot.
Very nice.
.
choice quote. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd look up the word "royalties" right about now. I'd look at that definition long and hard.
Re:choice quote. (Score:2)
A share paid to a writer or composer out of the proceeds resulting from the sale or performance of his or her work.
or
A share in the proceeds paid to an inventor or a proprietor for the right to use his or her invention or services.
Didn't you know? The RIAA invented music! It's only fair that they get half the royalties.
Re:choice quote. (Score:2)
Crazy! (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me that webcasters should simply have to pay the licensing fees to ASCAP, BMI, and the other organization I can't think of just as FM broadcasters do. IIRC, these fees are based on listenership, so the fees probably wouldn't be that high for most webcasters.
I just don't see why the RIAA cannot treat them equally!
Re:Crazy! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is incorrect. In the old days, if I wanted to record a song of the radio, I had to go buy a 90min tape and sit by the radio, pressing record when something good comes on. Today, I just point Streamripper [sourceforge.net] at a mp3 steam and let it go all night long. It seperates the songs for me and I can trash the unwanted songs. Not only do I have a few hours worth of music (it's how I get my old wave), but it will never degrade like tapes. Sure its not CD quality, but I never owned a stereo system capable of discerning much of a difference between a CD and a 160mp3.
To a certain extent these guys are right, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for them. They take the copyright from the artist and make the artist pay their way out of their "royalities". Granted I still buy about 1-2CDs per week, thats because most of the music I actually like is done by smaller bands (Fugazi, Pennywise, et al.) who actally earn a living producing music on labels that don't out right rape them (though still take away copyrights). I think in a world where the artist controlled the music I would have no problem paying a few dollars a month for a cache of stream subscriptions (sans advertising), as long as a majority of the money went straight to the artists whose music was actually played. Until then the RIAA can go fuck itself, and I'll keep pointing streamripper at old wave streams until my collection of the one hit wonders is totally complete (damn near already)
The reason is historical (Score:2)
When someone plays a recording of Happy Birthday on the air, the (c) copyright holder gets money, but the record company that paid to make the recording does not. On the other hand, when Jimi's "Star Spangled Banner" gets played on the air, no one gets a royalty since the song is public domain (and a copyrighted recorded master doesn't get compensation for play on radio).
In the view of the record industry (meaning the owners of huge back catalogs of recorded music) the fact that only the (c) copyright holder (i.e. the composer/songwriter/publisher ) gets paid money is a huge missed opportunity - it's something they missed back when radio was new & when no politician wanted to peeve the radio station owners. This has been a thorn in the record industry's side ever since.
In my view, a lot of what is happening is an attempt to change copyright law using the progress of technology as an excuse. If you can say it's not radio, then you can ask for more money - which is what they've wanted all along. And if radio as we know it goes away, they can then collect a new revenue stream beyond sales (which they see rapidly slipping away.)
The long range result - people get their music for free, advertisers pick up the tab, and music gets worse as commercial potential of a record is determined by how willing advertisers are to stomach it - this is largely why commercial radio is so middle of the road awful.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Internet Radio gone? That's a good thing.. (Score:2, Redundant)
You know what this means?
a.) The RIAA can have all the copy protection they want. Assuming the indie artists don't follow suit (and I doubt they will), then it won't affect us.
b.) No more being bombarded by the RIAA's flavor of the week. BYE BYE BOY BANDS!!
c.) It is a LOT easier to get your indie song played to an audience. I don't think I could create a song that'd make it on anybody but a hobbyist station. But if they have to go with indies anyway, then it seems like anybody could sign up.
Suddenly, programs like Kazaa become a powerful marketing tool.
Pay per view (Score:3, Interesting)
The real pay-per-view experience of renting a movie is fundamentally different experience from listening to a CD. How many times have you listened to your favorite CD? How many times have you seen your favorite movie?
If the former does not exceed the latter by an order of magnitude, you're probably one of those Rocky Horror Show freaks..
I have to wonder how much of the new revenue from digital media will end up fueling lobbying to outlaw DRM-free hard disk drives etc.
Does this include? (Score:4, Insightful)
50 % bs. (Score:1)
The transaction fee is still too high. Micropayments are a pipe dream, and this too me seems like a form of micropayments. The cost of the protocol is greater then the benefit gained by using the service, and this will be true for awhile. This seems like a way for the RIAA to say that they are doing the 'right thing' when in fact they are just killing all the internet radio stations.
RIAA Cronies and their lawyers (Score:2, Funny)
This sickens me.
Mod me down, but I had to get it out of my system.
Info for those who *aren't* artists... (Score:5, Insightful)
Herein lies the double edged sword: The Industry has all the $$$. They'll let you have some for awhile, but they will get it back in fucking spades. If anyone thinks the Industry gives one rat's ass about their artists, take note: Where is Hootie now? (not that I care ;)
Anytime you add a middleman, prepare to be screwed.
Where's Hootie now? (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, since you asked...
He's holding some kind of celebrity golf tournament out on Kiawah Island (South Carolina)for charity. I'm not sure of the exact date, but it's sometime soon, I think, because I just heard about it on the radio.
This is what you get for living in Charleston, SC. Too frigging many churches, and Hootie and the Blowfish living in your town.
Nice explanation (Score:3, Informative)
I hope that if this does go into effect, there is a large backlash. Remember that this is an election year. Votes still matter and politicians still care about getting them.
Re:Nice explanation (Score:2)
jwz's explanation is very imformative; I highly recommend it to everyone.
But here's where I have a problem:
Why do people feel they somehow have the right to broadcast someone else's stuff without even having to negotiate for it? RIAA (or their heavily-influenced stooges at the copyright office) are doing you a favor by having compulsory licenses at all.If all the licenses were individually negotiated, yes, it would be a pain in the ass. But it would be fair.
You can download Linux and use it and exercise fair use rights, without ever agreeing to the GPL, just like you can (in the pre-SSSCA and DMCA world) buy a music CD and listen to it all you want. You can agree to the GPL and then you get to distribute copies of the software, just as you can webcast RIAA products under the terms of the compulsory licenses. Or you can work out some other terms with Linus, just as you can negotiate some other terms with RIAA.
What you can't do (without being called naughty) is say "Fuck the GPL" and sell copies of Linux binaries without Linus's permission. Most Slashdotters think that's ok, and it is Linus' right to set the terms. But when it comes to music and RIAA is doing the exact same thing, somehow it's wrong.
Imagine this scenario: Someone wants to distribute binaries for some GPLed program (they don't like the terms of the "compulsory license") but then they whine that it's "prohibitively complicated" to contact the author(s) and negotiate for permission. Most Slashdotters would tell 'em: "Tough shit. Do the legwork or comply with the GPL."
[broken record mode on] What's really sickening about this whole thing, is that the people doing the complaining are RIAA product promoters. These people are part of the problem. If they were part of the solution, they would easily have negotiated licenses from their local underground bands, really cheap or even free.
Media cartels (Score:4, Insightful)
Musicians and songwriters get a very small portion of the profits from CDs, royalties etc. They go on tour and push t-shirts and other merchandise because those aren't controlled by the RIAA, and they can make some money that way. Likewise, writers get pennies for each of their books that sells. Big-name actors and actresses do very well (as they have leverage), but other people (perhaps even more important to the film process) like writers make squat. Virtually all the major news outlets in the country are controlled by just a handful of companies. The list goes on...
Of course, these cartels aren't all bad. A writer can't publish a book without a publishing company to edit, revise, print, promote and distribute the book. A new music group wouldn't be able to publish, promote and distribute a CD - they don't have the capital. The record company does take some risk on when signing a new artist, and deserves to be compensated for the service they provide.
However, these companies have unfair leverage because of collusion and lack of traditional competition between cartel members. They take the lion's share of the profits, control and censor what gets distributed to the public and charge as much as they want.
When was the last time you went to the movie's and got to see one cheaper because Tri-star was having a sale to compete with Paramount? This never happens because most movies are produced by one monopolistic entity known as "Hollywood". There is no risk involved for the movie studios because they hardly ever lose money, even on bad movies. As a result, we get crap like Battlefield Earth.
Likewise, the diversity and quality of music has gone way downhill (espescially in recent years). The RIAA controls virtually everything we hear. New acts and new sounds have a very hard time breaking in because the RIAA has a vested interest in keeping up the status quo. I mean, if I hear that damn Linkin' Park song one more time I'm going to spontaneously self-immolate.
They also leverage their monopolistic control over their "intellectual property" to extort profits from everyone they can. It can be argued that radio stations ought to get paid for promoting their products, but instead, they usually end up paying royalties. The arrangement benefits both sides - the profits shouldn't be so one sided.
Both the consumer and the artist would benefit from the breakup of these cartels. Competition would force record companies to compete on prices, and compete for acts (e.g. fair contracts). They would sometimes be willing to take on a risky new act on the chance that it could be big. Different companies would try to establish themselves in various market niches, creating diversity. Record companies would look to take advantage of new technologies to compete against others, rather than try to ban them (as they are competition from outside they cartel). News products, movies, books, etc. would also be cheaper, more interesting and more diverse.
Anyhow, that's my take.
Re:Media cartels (Score:2)
So are you saying its the RIAA who keeps calling my local radio station requesting Skynyrd all the time? Those bastards!
I'm sorry but I think the market controls more of what we hear than the RIAA does. I might have a pretty strong opinion of what music I think sucks but there are millions of teenagers who disagree with me and keep buying N'Sync. The RIAA isn't forcing them to buy this crap. The industry might have created these guys but its the kids who are keeping them popular.
As for Linkin Park, there's a reason why you hear that one song all the time. Call your radio station and ask them why. Its not a conspiracy.
Excuse me? (Score:3, Interesting)
You're kidding, right? People do indeed publish their own books all the time, either because the intended audience is too small, the subject matter is too controversial, or because they have a burning desire to publish something that the media cartels won't touch for whatever reason.
Thoreau published some of his own works. So did Robert Ringer of "Winning Through Intimidation" fame and Henry Martyn Robert of "Robert's Rules of Order". So did Mark Twain, Zane Grey, Upton Sinclair, Carl Sandburg, James Joyce, D.H. Lawrence, Edgar Rice Burroughs, George Bernard Shaw, Thomas Gray, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Alexander Pope, Lord Byron, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Edward Fitzgerald, Leo Tolstoy, Stephen Crane, Willa Cather, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Edgar Allan Poe, Thomas Hardy, James M. Barrie, Walt Whitman, Vachel Lindsay, Francois Mauriac, Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, Richard Bolles, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Rudyard Kipling, A.E. Houseman, Marcel Proust, and Rod McKuen, among other names you would and wouldn't have heard of.
It is indeed possible to break through the cartel wall and be recognized if you have an audience waiting, although it isn't easy. For every name above there are 500 people who printed a thousand copies of "Aunt Wilma McGillicuddy, A Nebraska Life" and sold four. The Internet is probably the best facilitator for self-publishing and letting talent be discovered there's ever been, which is why it's so important the media moguls not be allowed to cut off its air supply.
Re:Media cartels (Score:2)
1) Dillution: the more bad movies that come out, the less movies people will 'risk' seeing. So sure, there is a risk to releasing bad movies, because the more bad movies there are, the more people will likely opt to spend the night bowling instead of braving the latest release.
2) A movie can be so bad, it can lose money. Yes, it happens. (I can't say how often/rarely).
That being said, the risk is nearly irrelevant these days for three reasons I can think of:
1) Many movies are produced in a different way than they used to. When going forward with a movie project, extensive market research is conducted. Many, MANY movies now adays are based off of brands ("Spacejam" was the Jordan brand. Toy Story 2 was the Toy Story brand. Etc, etc.)
2) Since the revenues in movies rely heavily on advertising, more so than they used to, X% (where X% is more than ever before from my understanding) of the costs of movies are recouped before they even hit the theatre.
3) Most movies can afford to to TERRIBLY in theatres. Rentals and DVD market sales generally result in breaking even, even on the movies that were in and out of theatres in a matter of days/weeks.
I dont think you can say that there is 'no risk at all', but due to the nature of brands co-opting cultural space these days, and revenues linked to in-movie adverterising, I believe those risks are at an all time low, or do not have the same weight in determining whether or not to go forward with projects as they used to.
As an example of this in action, and in reference to the parent post:
http://www.battlefieldearth.com/news/dvdtops.ht
Battlefield Earth has made 72 mill against a 55 mill budget, including DVD sales. As a movie that was critiqued as one of the worst movies ever made (and I was outside the theatre on sneak prev. night for this movie when everyone got to see it for free, and EVERY SINGLE PERSON coming out of that movie wanted those 2 hours from their life back. EVERY SINGLE PERSON, out of maybe 250 people.)
Constitutional challenge (Score:2, Insightful)
Is this have basis of being a valid argument, Lawyers speak up!!
jwz has the best comment on web radio on his site (Score:2)
"Someone on IRC said, 'how do they expect the little guys to survive?' I replied, 'No Mister Bond, I expect you to die.'"
Steve Marks must also share advice with Microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)
Most webcasters pay huge sums of money -- many times their revenues -- for bandwidth, marketing, hardware, software and other things necessary for their business. If they can pay for all these things, they surely can pay for the single most important asset they have -- the recordings that labels and artists created at great risk and expense.
--Steve Marks, senior vice president for business and legal affairs, RIAA, from his letter [salon.com]
Oh sure, ALL webcasters are rich SOB's who should be responsible to donate even more money to people like Marks and the RIAA. [drooling sarcasm]
Other webcasters met us with a much more aggressive tactic. They, their lawyers, and their trade association, DiMA, exhorted webcasters not to do deals with us. Instead, they signed up expensive lawyers and economists who they said were skilled in getting low rates in an arbitration,promising webcasters everywhere that the arbitration would be to their benefit. The result was a multimillion dollar arbitration exercise that webcasters are now complaining about -- even though the final rate was almost twice as close to their proposal than to the proposal of the labels and the artists.
I swear, this guy must work for microsoft. In the same way MS blames the users for THEIR crappy programming and shoddy security, the RIAA blames webcasters for spending all this money in seeking lawyers to what? defend themselves and their domain because
Marks even says it himself:
Believe it or not, the law gives them the right to do this.Webcasters don't have to pay until an industry-wide rate is set.
geesh. What did he expect, a surrender?
David Lawrence's numbers (Score:2)
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
Playing with the big boys (Score:2)
Since the kind of people who want to do small scale broadcasting will never have the business infrastructure to fight them directly, they might get more results by sic'ing the feds on em. With some decent investigation, and with the kind participation of artists, I'd guess (IANAL or a securities expert) that there's plenty of material for an SEC investigation, and the right public mood for this kind of thing. If the RIAA and media conglomerates are really on the level, this audit should go just fine, with a PR golden egg at the end.
What kind of info-gathering does it take to get an SEC investigation started?
Distribution is NOT compensation (Score:2)
Believe this - record companies making promises about taking care of artists is pure bullshit. It is a puff of smoke blowing up your ass like puppies and apple pie and Jesus and smiling dirty blonde children. You don't hate children and puppies and Jesus, do you? How can you hate this or think we'll not compensate artists??? Are you a communist ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Congress is interested, contact them, here is how (Score:2, Informative)
March 11, 2002
To all parties interested in the application of copyright law to the digital environment:
The growth of the Internet has raised complex and controversial issues over the application of copyright law to the digital environment. Examination of these issues is increasingly important in light of growing digital music piracy, expanding public demand for online music services and the willingness and ability of many entities to meet that demand.
The Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property has held a series of oversight hearings on digital music issues, culminating in a December 2001 hearing on the
recommendations made by the U.S. Copyright Office in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 104 Report. Legislation (H.R. 2724) addressing online music issues has also been introduced in the House of Representatives.
Given the topical nature of this subject matter, we are initiating a process to review relevant digital music issues and related proposals to amend the Copyright Act that have been brought or will be brought to our attention.
All interested parties are encouraged to submit written views on the merits of relevant digital music issues and related proposed amendments to the Copyright Act. The Subcommittee deadline for receipt of comments is 5:00 p.m. on April 8, 2002. The merits of the proposals will be evaluated in light of the views received and input from other Members of the Subcommittee, with the goal of discerning whether consensus exists on meaningful solutions to address identifiable harms. Subsequently, at a date and time to be determined, we will schedule a general meeting with all interested parties to share our findings.
We thank you in advance for your participation in this process. We believe it will produce valuable discourse on these very important issues and hope it will result in meaningful solutions to some of the problems and controversies surrounding the application of copyright law to the digital environment.
Sincerely,
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR
JOHN CONYERS, JR.
HOWARD COBLE
HOWARD L. BERMAN
CHRIS CANNON
RICK BOUCHER
Re:Congress is interested, contact them, here is h (Score:2, Informative)
Uhh, that's interesting. Do you have any actual information on how and where to submit comments? Is there an online form or should comments be submitted via snail mail? Do you have an address for either?
"When the mode of the music changes ... (Score:2)
- Ed Sanders quoting Plato.
Fortunately there hasn't been any major influx of subversive music into the larger culture since that grungy NW stuff came out of KCMU, Seattle and KAOS, Olympia, back when rents were still cheap enough in the NW that musicians still woodsheded there.
It's taken two score years to heal the damage done to Western Civilization by Elvis. Thank Jesus our corporations are ahead of the creative urges today, and may the government preserve them there.
____
Depending on your moral code... (Score:3, Interesting)
Heck, $0.50 per song would still be ten times what the artists get now.
Re:there are problems... (Score:2)
Absent superior methods of fair distribution, I would either mail the money to one of the band members and hope s/he distributed it fairly, or address the check to the band and mail it to the band, rather than to one of the group members.
As far as anonymity and proof of purchase... yeah, those would be nice as well, although I don't know if we will need to worry about such things until the RIAA actually CAN storm your house and search for "illegal" recordings. With any luck, if that starts happening, the public backlash will vaporize the RIAA into its constituent molecules.
Re:Insert standard RIAA denunciation here (Score:2)
Re:IANAL but my girlfriend is (Score:2)
If she's a lawyer, more like a snake. No offense.