Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Music Media Technology Your Rights Online

Tension Between Record Labels And Digital Radio 329

An anonymous reader writes "Now that digtial radio devices are allowing recording of shows, you knew it wouldn't be long before music executives started raising a fuss. They're worried that users will prefer to record the high-quality audio (for free) to buying a download or CD." From the article: "For now, the Recording Industry Association of America is in negotiations with satellite radio companies and is opening discussions with radio broadcasters over specific products. But over the long term, the music industry says, Congress should find a way to regulate these new digital radio networks so labels can get paid when consumers keep copies of songs, as is the case with iTunes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tension Between Record Labels And Digital Radio

Comments Filter:
  • Fair use? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bananatree3 ( 872975 ) * on Sunday January 15, 2006 @05:35PM (#14477454)
    But over the long term, the music industry says, Congress should find a way to regulate these new digital radio networks so labels can get paid when consumers keep copies of songs

    Isn't it considered "fair use" to record a broadcast for personal use? This is exactly like someone recording a TV show with their VCR. Nor is it any different then hooking up a radio to a tape recorder and recording favorite music. I guess the RIAA bigwigs fear anything that makes it "convenient" to record a broadcast.

    In light of that, I sure hope they don't start pushing Congress to put DRM chips in every audio recording device out there like MPAA's anti-"analog hole" chip push. []

    • Re:Fair use? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Sunday January 15, 2006 @05:37PM (#14477472)
      "Isn't it considered "fair use" to record a broadcast for personal use? "

      "Fair use" is based on the ol' Supreme Court Betamax decision. Unless and until you're able to find a constitutional basis for "fair use," however, Congress can pass a law overturning the court decision. Basically, the court saying "It's not against the law" leaves the door open for Congress to change what the law says.
      • Re:Fair use? (Score:5, Informative)

        by denissmith ( 31123 ) * on Sunday January 15, 2006 @05:49PM (#14477561)
        All uses that are not explicitly covered by copyright law are "fair use" under the 9th Amendment. Wherein the rights NOT explicitly given to Congress or the President are reserved to the People themselves. No explicit grant is required.
        • Re:Fair use? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by kfg ( 145172 ) on Sunday January 15, 2006 @06:08PM (#14477660)
          And the founding fathers, particularly Jefferson, had a fair bit to say about the matter, making it explicit that copyright was an incursion against the rights of the people (as partially enumerated in the First Amendment) and to be tolerated only so far as that incursion actually contributed to the public good.

          The fly in the oinment is that the above required the power to grant copyright be included in the Constitution itself, using what are, perhaps, the most vauge terms in the entire document.

          Thus the court was recently given to the opinion that while it held certain sympathies with those who feel the term of copyright is now far in excess of what the founders would have found tolerable, nontheless the Constitution effectively gives Congress the right to set such term at anything less than forever, since it simply says "limited time."

          Welcome to the Brave New World of "limited" meaning "forever and all encompassing minus one."

          • One would think that the 1st Amemdment would trump whatever is in the constitution, since amendments are changes to the constitution and thus supercede whatever they changed.

            I wonder where our current creative interpretation that copyright trumps the 1st amendment came from?

            PS: The most vague and stretched term in the constitution + amendments would have to be the Elastic Clause. Copyright is a close contender though.
            • Re:Fair use? (Score:2, Insightful)

              by kfg ( 145172 )
              I wonder where our current creative interpretation that copyright trumps the 1st amendment came from?

              Follow the money.

            • Re:Fair use? (Score:3, Informative)

              by Guppy06 ( 410832 )
              "I wonder where our current creative interpretation that copyright trumps the 1st amendment came from?"

              Looking at the examples of other repealed content in the Constitution, the First would either have to rewrite the offending content entirely (as was done with the Eleventh Amendment, the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Seventeenth Amendment), or include explicit words like "is hereby repealed" (Twenty-First Amendment). Unless or until there's a new amendment that says something like "Th
            • Re:Fair use? (Score:3, Interesting)

              by sumdumass ( 711423 )
              What in the first amendment would trump copywrite law or vice versa??
              • Re:Fair use? (Score:3, Interesting)

                by Yartrebo ( 690383 )
                speech and expression are copyrightable and copyrights can impinge on free expression.

                One example I can think off right away is Disney's WWII propaganda films. They're illegal to copy due to copyright (WWII wasn't that long age) and Disney refuses to sell new copies, yet they're very important in the study of racism, US history, fascism, and corporate-government relationships - all quite relevant to today's political discourse.

                Another is that documentaries must get copyright clearance if so little as a TV i
                • Re:Fair use? (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Monday January 16, 2006 @01:19AM (#14479618) Journal
                  Well the disney movies and the news articles are trying to use someone elses speech. It isn't really your free speech.

                  The documentry issue as well as the others have an exception to the copyright clause in some cases. But as you stated it probably is a hassle to use those exceptions. Still i'm not seeing the link between your free speech rights and the use of someone elses materials or content.

                  I belive that educational use in copyright law allow for material to be used in an educational form. The study of racism, etc, should be covered by that if you can find an existing copy. I'm not sure if the first amendment would compell someone to copy somethign just so you could review it though. Of course this is my opinion from reading it directly and not taking into acount for any interpretations that may exist.
                  • Re:Fair use? (Score:3, Insightful)

                    by Yartrebo ( 690383 )
                    The Disney examples are relevant because they're perfect examples of the military-industrial complex. It's also why Disney hates people mentioning the films. The films are the primary sources. Not copying parts (or the whole) of the film is like writing a paper using only secondary sources. It's far less credible. It's like writing a paper about Soviet or Nazi propaganda without having the propaganda materials available to corroborate your claims.

                    Virtually noone watches those films for pleasure. Today, they
        • Wherein the rights NOT explicitly given to Congress or the President are reserved to the People themselves.

          That is not exactly what the 9th amendment says. To quote:

          The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

          In other words, just because the right isn't stated, it isn't necessarily denied. Many people confuse privileges and rights, and call their favourite privileges "rights". (Another wide tangent is to point out th

      • Re:Fair use? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Kosmatos ( 179297 ) on Sunday January 15, 2006 @06:00PM (#14477615)
        Fair use or not, the Slashdot article says:

        "They're worried that users will prefer to record the high-quality audio (for free) to buying a download or CD."

        And on Wikipedia, for XM satellite radio, the only one I checked, it says:

        "Due to lack of bandwidth and too many channels, the maximum bitrate XM broadcast from its satellite per music channel is limited to 64kbs."

        Therefore, this is all B.S. since 64 kbps is not generally considered to be high-quality.
        • 64 kbps sounds really nice if using WMA or MP3Pro codec. Obviously not as good as 128 kbps, but still nice. Should the audio be 64 kbps with the standard MP3 codec however, then the difference would noticable to most people with a good set of headphones.
        • Re:Fair use? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Raistlin77 ( 754120 )
          Don't forget to add that XM/Sirius is also not free. So like iTunes, we XM/Sirius subscribers are paying for this content.
      • Re:Fair use? (Score:4, Informative)

        by EvanED ( 569694 ) <> on Sunday January 15, 2006 @06:02PM (#14477626)
        Actually, "fair use" is based on the ol' First Amendment. It was first introduced in the early 1800s.

        The ruling that recording "broadcast" TV constitutes fair use however dates to Betamax.

        In other words, fair use isn't going anywhere, but the current statute defines it more broadly than the courts require under freedom of speech/press.
        • Scratch that, I think. After doing a little more reading, it looks like Fair Use was inherited from English common law, and not derived from the first amendment. That said, it's likely that the first amendment would provide some fair use protections, as in the case of criticism or parody.
      • Partially correct (Score:3, Informative)

        by abulafia ( 7826 )
        Fair Use has a historic common law component. It was formerly known as "fair abridgment", and grew over time from court cases after the Statute of Anne, which created something like the modern notion of copyright in England in the early 1700's, which in turn replaced the Company of Stationers, a printing monopoly.

        In modern, U.S. law, it didn't actually grow out of Betamax (you're thinking of the time-shifting finding) - it gained a statutory definition in the Copyright Act of 1976, and was recognized com

      • No, fair use [] is title 17, section 107 of US copyright law. Although it could be repealed, it is not something that is grandfathered in by English law, or the bill of rights, or a supreme court decision. Fair use is law.
    • im not sure i would say "fear" more than it presents another opportunity to generate a new revenue stream, even though they've tried it in the past with every format change or new delivery method that's come about...

      the difference between than and now is that our government representatives are, more than ever, reliant upon campaign contributions, what with the increased need for exposure which costs $$$, and seemingly more corruptable. therefore, they are more likely to enact legislation that goes against t
    • Re:Fair use? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by grimJester ( 890090 ) on Sunday January 15, 2006 @05:45PM (#14477539)
      From TFA: "Similarly, the right of consumers to tape songs off the radio has generally been held to be fair use."

      Yet, "XM Satellite Radio pulled a PC-based radio receiver from the market last year over music-copying concerns, and the company says none of its devices can now be used to transfer and store content on a computer. XM says it is happy to continue talking to the record industry about its products."

      I don't get this; how can the RIAA prevent companies from selling recording devices if these devices are fully legal? Are people getting so accustomed to the recording industry buying legislation that it's safest to do what the RIAA says, or the risk is too great that it will become illegal before you've made enough money to recoup your investment?
    • Not only that, but you have to pay for satellite radio. Users are already coughing up dough for that music. Why should they have to pay even more? The RIAA are mobsters. Don't buy CDs. []
    • Isn't it considered "fair use" to record a broadcast for personal use? This is exactly like someone recording a TV show with their VCR.

      Sure it is, as long as the broadcaster is paying an analogous amount to the copyright holder for the right to broadcast the material in each case. I don't know if that's true here or not, but it seems to me that this is exactly what copyright is for: the copyright holder can force the broadcaster to pay them an amount commensurate with what they think they'll lose in ind

    • by scoove ( 71173 ) on Sunday January 15, 2006 @09:36PM (#14478696)
      I guess the RIAA bigwigs fear anything that makes it "convenient" to record a broadcast.

      You know, we need to take a step back. The parties the RIAA represents are distributors. Many industries have distributors - people that help match buyers with sellers and add expense to the process. Distribution as a viable business often emerges when it is difficult to put the buyer and seller directly together. It dies when new technologies develop that make this easy.

      Consider Geico. They sell insurance directly to consumers, bypassing agents. Their model is to cut out the middleman and save the 15-20% overhead associated with distribution, keeping much of that and giving enough of that savings to the consumer to have a competitive advantage.

      Should an angry army of insurance agents band, form a trade association, restrain trade, intimidate consumers and fight progress? That'd be absurd. A good friend of mine owns an insurance agency and he's found the way to compete is not suing his customers, but rather proving higher levels of service. He actually saved me 15% off of Geico which I was previously with, and provides me with a lot of expertise and attention in my insurance policies I never got with the direct model. Insurance is actually a market where knowledge is valuable and many consumers will pay a bit more to benefit from it.

      Dell has cut out the middleman too. Do you see Best Buy suing all of us for going direct? Of course not. Compete or die. Countless other industries have gone between the flux of direct and distribution. The science comes down to this: When you add value to the consumer that exceeds the additional cost through the distribution process, the consumer will naturally buy through distribution. If you don't add more value than cost, they will bypass you.

      The recording industry is cranking out tired artists, relying on a model of selecting a limited set of musicians and "putting lipstick on the pig" through aggressive marketing to sell the stuff. Worse yet, their distribution adds exceptional cost - more than double the original cost that goes to the artist (most of the cost to the consumer is to the distributor - this is a hint that the process is out of control), yet their product is less convenient to the consumer than the direct option. They're adding cost and inconvenience, not any added service. Unfortunately the distribution/direct paradigm has shifted due to technology and they're adding cost with no value. Excluding anticompetitive practices, litigation and legislation based on gifts to corrupt politicians, they will die... unless they can provide value once again that exceeds the cost they add to the product.

  • by Beuno ( 740018 ) <> on Sunday January 15, 2006 @05:36PM (#14477466) Homepage
    I think they should stop fighting technology and start using it as a buisness model...
    • by name773 ( 696972 ) on Sunday January 15, 2006 @05:39PM (#14477492)
      well, you got half your wish. they're fighting to use this technology as a business model.
      • Given the number of lawsuits over the past few >years, and the blatant extortion from companies like Napster Inc., I'd say that fighting technology is their business model.
      • While pointing out half arguments, I think the article has this conflict wrong. I would think that the digital broadcasters would be united with the recording artists in their desire not to have their broadcasts recorded and remixed by music enthusiasts. The broadcast model depends on a regular audience that tunes in and gets the current commercials along with the tunes.

        People recording the broadcasts undermine the broadcasters as well as the recording artists. There really is not a conflict between recor
    • The problem is that, aside from marketing an artist, technology has made them obsolete.

      Recording equiptment and mixing software is cheap enough (some is completely free) that actually producing a good recording doesn't have to cost what used to, and an artist can sell music directly to their fans now, without even the need for a retail presence.

      So basically the problem is that, if they did use the technology in the way that in inevitably will be used, it essentially makes their business cease to exist.

  • Internet broadcasts have been going on for a pretty long time now, and knowledgeable people have been using stream-capture programs to record them. The RIAA can bitch all they want, but there isn't a way to stop this without completely stopping the Internet broadcasts or implementing TC on an incredibly wide scale (to the extent it can block something like "redirect audio output to this location").
    • by THESuperShawn ( 764971 ) on Sunday January 15, 2006 @05:45PM (#14477535)
      But this is not about Internet broadcasts. This is about satellite broadcasts that the user has already purchased the right to listen to. Who is to say the he/she cannot timeshift that music to listen to it an a more appropriate time. I pay a monthly (yearly in my case) fee to listen to premium satellite content. I will NOT pay an additional fee to be "allowed" to listen to it again or record it.
      • ......But this is not about Internet broadcasts......

        I subscribe to XM radio to be able to listen to commercial free music in my car and also now over our Direc TV system. Any XM subscriber can also listen via the Internet for nothing extra. Radio has been recordable for decades. So why should the recording companies suddenly worry now? When I hear a new song or exceptional performance over XM, I make a note of that and then look for a CD on Amazon that has that piece. If there are other selection on that
  • by linuxpng ( 314861 ) on Sunday January 15, 2006 @05:38PM (#14477484)
    When you subscribe to XM or Sirius?
  • ...because someone needs to contain the crying. Can someone please change the diapers. Fuck it, just call a Waaaaammbulance.

    RIAA, you've lost control. Get over this fact of life.
  • The entry of satellite and digital radio into the technological mainstream is increasing tension with the record industry, which wants new rules governing how consumers can make digital copies of songs from the airwaves.

    Ok, I'm no expert on this but I think internet radio has been around for a while. A long while. This isn't some new thing that's suddenly hitting the nation. Satellite radio has also been around for years but, yes, not until now has it become mainstream.

    Color me a flamer but I think

  • by Anonymous Coward
    i test-drove XM radio in a shiny new rental car. the compression artifacting hurts my head, and makes most of the content unlistenable. imho, there's no issue here: if i want quality audio, i'll purchase a cd, or download some FLAC, or even record an FM station.
    • Surely an audiophile such as yourself would demand nothing less than vinyl!
    • Did you make sure that the settings (bass and treble and so forth) were reasonable? I was test driving a new truck recently, and the radio sounded like absolute shit until I turned the bass down.

      Also, are you sure that the weakness is in XM and not the sound system itself?
      • Like others, I got a free trial of XM with my 2005 car. The "digital quality" adverts that XM makes are a joke. I don't know about Sirius, but the compression seems extremely lossy. It often sounds like a badly encoded MP3 - regardless of equalizer settings, location, or vehicle speed (stopped). You don't notice it as much with the talk channels, but most of the music channels I've listened to are quite poor. The local FM stations have, imho, far superior sound quality. Hell, I'd even argue that the A
    • I haven't listened to XM much, but I can confirm the general problem. Sirius has quite low sound quality, just barely on the edge of acceptable. I did a pretty extensive test of Sirius via FM modulator in the car, via direct input in the car, direct input at home, and the Internet streaming audio. While there were obvious differences in the different methods, none of them approach even iTunes quality, much less CD. There's a sort of hollow metallic reverb in *all* delivery methods. After going round and rou
  • Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Sunday January 15, 2006 @05:40PM (#14477505)
    "But over the long term, the music industry says, Congress should find a way to regulate these new digital radio networks so labels can get paid when consumers keep copies of songs, as is the case with iTunes."

    So they want to be paid by both the broadcasters and the listeners? Paid twice for the same product? If that's the case, will the RIAA be charging broadcasters less money for broadcasting songs with the metaphorical broadcast flag set, or will the prices continue to remain as high as they are even though they'll also be seeing money from recorders?

    The US has the best legislature money can buy!
    • "So they want to be paid by both the broadcasters and the listeners? Paid twice for the same product?"

      Not just twice, they want to be paid by the broadcasters and then the listeners for the "privlage" of recording their content and then paid for every time the listener replays it. And paid by the maunfacturer of the recorder and have a "listening tax"/blank media tax just like the one our friends up in America Jr have to deal with added to the purchase price of the recorder and 99% of the digital and/or sat
  • by vijayiyer ( 728590 ) on Sunday January 15, 2006 @05:43PM (#14477518)
    The recording industry chooses to allow satellite radio broadcasts. They can choose not to, if they feel it helps their business. But there is no need for federal regulation just because the recording industry can't figure out how to run their business effectively.
  • Uh... (Score:5, Informative)

    by doormat ( 63648 ) on Sunday January 15, 2006 @05:43PM (#14477521) Homepage Journal
    Congress should find a way to regulate these new digital radio networks so labels can get paid when consumers keep copies of songs, as is the case with iTunes.

    Last I checked it was legal to record off the radio. The AHRA covers this...

    The act failed to define "noncommercial use by a consumer" however " In short, the reported legislation [Section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use." (House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992) [].

    Although now that I think about it, technically the music industry is getting around this part of the legislation by not going after consumers recording digital media off the radio, but in fact threating to pull out of agreements with digital radio broadcasters if they don't implement this system. This is the kind of shit that gets them investigated by Elliot Spitzer.
  • .. I tried saving the RIAA webpage, but its disabled, even the screenshot!
    • I tried to respond to your post, but when I tried copying and pasting the text of your post to quote it, a copyright notice popped up, and an RIAA man knocked on my door and confiscated my computer and threatened to sue me for sharing your post with 65000 downloaders at US$10 per shot!
  • by Logic Bomb ( 122875 ) on Sunday January 15, 2006 @05:43PM (#14477523)
    I guess it's important for Slashdot to keep posting these stories. Someone needs to keep an eye on the RIAA And Friends. But whenever yet another initiative like this comes up, the answer is always the same. If you can't handle people being able to record and archive your "content", get out of the content business. There's really nothing else to be said.
    • unimportant (Score:3, Interesting)

      by nurb432 ( 527695 )
      It's not that important for *slashdot* to post this stuff. its like preaching to a really small choir.

      What needs to be done is the mainstream media to post..
  • That's not all (Score:3, Informative)

    by Trip Ericson ( 864747 ) on Sunday January 15, 2006 @05:51PM (#14477567) Homepage
    Up and coming is "HD Radio" which is the next big disaster coming. It uses the so-called "IBOC" (In-Band On-Channel) technology to jam digital carriers on either side of the AM or FM audio signal. It's known to decrease station coverage and cause background noise on the station itself.

    It doesn't actually accomplish anything, seeing as there's hardly enough of a bit rate for one subchannel besides the main one (as far as music), let alone more than that.

    But the reason I bring it up is that people say, "well I can just record it off my FM radio," without realizing that this is coming. The RIAA has already been talking about controls on digital radio to prevent people from doing that stuff there too.

    Don't take your FM for granted, the government wants to take that too.
  • Stop using music from RIAA members. For the smaller stations, that may be suicide, but can you imagine if Clearwire instituted this policy? Or XM radio?
  • Their chunk (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rbrugman ( 711229 )
    The recording industry wants a piece of everyone's pie. It won't be long before they send in lawyers for singing their music in the shower.
  • by ^Z ( 86325 ) on Sunday January 15, 2006 @05:55PM (#14477594) Homepage Journal
    Radio stations pay to RIAA and suchlike for broadcasing rights already. This is where the music is sold. If RIAA thinks it is underpaid, it could try to raise the price for the stations.
    Why add another piece of legislature?
  • by putko ( 753330 ) on Sunday January 15, 2006 @05:56PM (#14477601) Homepage Journal
    It looks like Congress has made some legal distinction based on how you get the information. E.g. the information in a terrestrial radio broadcast is in a different legal category than satellite radio or an internet download.

    This is ridiculous -- e.g. if I ran IP over a radio frequency, then what? What category am I in?


    "Congress has historically come down on the side of the broadcasters in this debate, saying that radio stations can play whatever music they want while paying only a relatively small amount of money to songwriters and publishers for the right to "perform" the song on-air--and not paying record companies at all.

    "Similarly, the right of consumers to tape songs off the radio has generally been held to be fair use.

    "However, when Congress set the rules for Internet and other digital broadcasts in 1998, it gave record companies the right to royalties from Internet and satellite radio broadcasts. That's set up a patchwork of different rules for different new media companies, even as technology has brought the way consumers use their services more closely together."
  • by Tsar ( 536185 ) on Sunday January 15, 2006 @05:57PM (#14477603) Homepage Journal
    Let's establish a rule of conduct: If you make it a point to attack and publicly castigate developers who don't follow the GNU license, you should NOT attack RIAA for protecting their own IP rights, or for publicly discussing options for doing so. If in doing so they use some tactic that you think is wrong (Sony's rootkit disaster for example), go after that behavior, don't deny their right to defend their own intellectual property.

    So you don't think RIAA should have a stranglehold on music distribution? Don't give it to them then! Support local artists, independent songwriters, open-source music! Stop taking the easy way out and expecting others to pay for it.

    If all the hype about Ashlee Simpson makes you want her music, you should expect to pay more for it, because hype costs money. If you're sick of the hype, well, don't patronize it. Don't steal RIAA's stuff and fool yourself into thinking that you're taking a moral stand by doing so.

    Does this really seem like rocket science to anyone?
  • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Sunday January 15, 2006 @06:01PM (#14477620) Homepage
    Sorry but XM is far from CD quality. It's more like a low quality 128kbps mp3.
    Yes it sounds better than FM because of greater dynamic range and no compression (ok many channels have compression now so that is no longer a good point) but it certianly does not sound as good as a CD.

    Anyone choosing to record their music from XM or sirius instead of buying the CD to rip or getting a torrent of the whole album recorded as 256kbps VBR mp3's is a nutjob with lots of time to waste as it has to go in realtime.

    Now, recording the upcoming howard stern into an mp3 so they can listen to it later, yeah. I can see that and other shows you want to time shift.

    But their reasoning as described in the article? that is purely retarted concerns from executives that dont even have the foggiest idea as to what they are talking about.
  • by clambake ( 37702 ) on Sunday January 15, 2006 @06:08PM (#14477658) Homepage
    Congress should find a way to regulate these new digital radio networks so labels can get paid when consumers keep copies of songs

    While they are at it, how about passing a law so that MUSCIANS can get paid when then labels sell their music?
    • While they are at it, how about passing a law so that MUSCIANS can get paid when then labels sell their music?

      No law needed. All this is covered in the contract between the label and the artist. Both sides agreed to the terms. If the artists should negotiate the best terms the market allows, and be prepared to shop for bids among different labeles.

  • It should be something like that "Mafi...errrr, record cartel feels left out in the cold, threats collect their IP and go home". Ok, that was childish atempt of joke.

    From my point of view, it feels so terribly wrong that I even start to doubt claim that greed is that force which moves civilization forward. I would say it is totally oposite - money gives you power and if you use it to do things - that moves us forward. Greed without any borders and reasoning (hint: Microsoft (not Bill personally), **AA, drug
  • Fuck it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HalAtWork ( 926717 ) on Sunday January 15, 2006 @06:15PM (#14477701)
    Fuck it. With the huge steaming crock of garbage being the radio as-is, I don't even want to listen to it. Commercials everywhere, songs fading into each other or DJs talking over the song, or even just the song being cut off early. I don't want to listen to partial songs, I don't want to listen to annoying nagging people in between songs or overlapping songs. I don't want to listen to the shitty selection most stations play, especially considering that they only play singles and never any of the other tracks on an album. There are some great tracks that have never even been aired, probably, or at least 1% of the time when they're not recycling singles. But that's AM/FM radio.

    So now, I have to pay for radio so I can hear it the way it's meant to be. But I can't even record some songs I like so I can hear them again? What about fair play?

    See, it's just not even worth it. You might as well just be buying CDs because you actually get to control some of what you pay for. Control is key because then you can enjoy it when the mood strikes you and not have to work around something just to get your way. I don't care about the difference between buying something and licensing it. If I pay money, I expect SOMEthing to go my way. Anytime the distributors get involved with anything, they want to control it and get me to pay more than I would have for what I thought was fair and enjoy it on my terms. But somehow the distributors get uptight whenever things aren't on their terms. Is that what the artists want? Do they even care?

    In the future, will there be such a thing as a commercial format with wide distribution that doesn't restrict the user in some way, preventing them from enjoying it on their terms? It seems to me that there won't, because if a user enjoys something on their terms, distributors can't start charging you when you want to do something else with it that you hadn't intended on at the point of purchase. Say you bought CDs, and after that you bought a portable digital audio jukebox. Naturally you want to put your fucking music on there and carry it around with you, but that won't be possible. This is garbage.

    Just preview tracks online, through P2P or whatever, and then buy what you like. Am I really insane for doing this? Fuck the distributors. They're insane.

    • Re:Fuck it (Score:3, Insightful)

      by evilviper ( 135110 )
      I don't want to listen to the shitty selection most stations play, especially considering that they only play singles and never any of the other tracks on an album.

      You've been listening to Clear Channel stations far too much... Find an independant radio station on the dial, and you'll find they don't have some automated list of the lowest-common-denominator songs, repeated 15 times every single day.
  • Don't you guys think it's funny that all seven of the 'latest news' section from [] relates to Lawsuits and Music Piracy. Funny, but not surprising.
  • Well they missed their chance with fm radio. But I guess its alot easier to buy politicians (legally) these day and so looks certain that yet more of our rights are being 'tuned out'.

    Seriously, I don't see why media companies should be allowed to stop me recording radio transmissions. Sure they have to make money (and my god they make a lot) but I often record radio shows so I can listen to them later. Whats wrong with that?

  • by Dr. Zowie ( 109983 ) <slashdot&deforest,org> on Sunday January 15, 2006 @06:33PM (#14477809)
    There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.
    --RAH, Life Line, 1939
  • Unless digital radio plays an entire album (which seems unlikely, since every station on FM plays maybe 2-3 tracks from any given album), I doubt we're going to see pirates selling 3 song CDs on the black market. Unless someone is willing to sell a 3 track CD for the same price the recording industry cabal charges for 3 good tracks + 9 asslike quality track CDs.

    I seriously doubt the music industry is losing penny one on this, since their bulk profits per CD amount to the crap nobody wants to play on the rad
  • by caldaean ( 901094 ) on Sunday January 15, 2006 @06:52PM (#14477911)
    So, what they are saying are that they want to get paid for music already paid for (by the radio station), because someone records it and listens to it later? How is that different from getting paid for music already paid for (by buying an album) and listening to it later? Of course, that would be the next logical step for them to take. Have everybody insert an implant which will register every time you hear a song, and charge you for it. The way the music industry is acting nowadays, it's not strange that people don't like them.
  • The content industry is already getting its pound of flesh, courtesy of the Audio Home Recording Act. [] I guess now they want to have their flesh and eat it too.

  • by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Sunday January 15, 2006 @07:06PM (#14477994) Homepage
    Wait - I thought it was all about the poor starving artists. Now I'm all CONFUDDLED.
  • by tkrotchko ( 124118 ) * on Sunday January 15, 2006 @07:30PM (#14478105) Homepage
    First of all, and this is important:

        Neither Sirius nor XM broadcast in anything approaching CD quality. At best, some of the stations are broadcast in what is equal to 128kb/s mp3 or aac. Most channels are roughly FM quality.

        Second, the fact that this is broadcast digitally is irrelevant; there is no access to the digital stream, so by the time you can record the music, it's already analog. Therefore, this is really nothing more than recording radio.

        Can you make digital copies of this analog stream (re-read my last paragraph)? Yes. But then, you can do that with FM radio as well.


    The RIAA appears to be using the words "digital" in a way to evoke fear of piracy. It's so transparent that you'd have to be really naive to believe anything about the RIAA's position.
  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Sunday January 15, 2006 @11:07PM (#14479124) Homepage
    There's this little box in your car. It starts out empty. It listens to satellite radio. All the channels. It keeps a copy of each new song, discarding duplicates. Soon, you have a big music library.

    Soon, there's this little box on your belt....

    This is completely legal under the Audio Home Recording Act. The RIAA gets nothing for it. They can't even stop radio stations from broadcasting the music. Not even with DRM; broadcast radio stations have the right to crack DRM. (That's actually in the DMCA.)

    That's what scares the RIAA.

"The Avis WIZARD decides if you get to drive a car. Your head won't touch the pillow of a Sheraton unless their computer says it's okay." -- Arthur Miller