RIAA loses court battle over royalties 49
Jeff Hyche wrote in to point us the latest RIAA
shenanigan. The record industry organization had been attempting to garner a larger amount of royalties from digital distribution - IE Internet, satellites and cable modems.
Clueless...totally clueless (Score:1)
Smug bastards tho - check out http://www.riaa.com/tech/tech_mp3.htm##_top
'specially that last line, "...Feel free to enjoy Millennium (RIAA 2000)(44.1KHz, Stereo), ambient drive-by Trip-Hop sounds by the Avatars of Dub -- yes it is MP3 -- but not for long."
(They'll get my MP3 player when they pry it from my cold, dead, hard drive)
canned music is for sheep (Score:1)
BOYCOTT RIAA (Score:3)
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
-----------------------------------------------
BMG Entertainment
1540 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
(212) 930-3999 / fax: (212) 930-4758
EMI Records
1290 Avenue of the Americas
39th Floor
New York, NY 10104
Sony Music Entertainment, Inc.
550 Madison Ave, Sixth Floor
New York, NY 10022
(212) 833-6105
Universal Music Group
100 Universal City Plaza
Universal City, CA 91608
(818) 777-8409
Warner Music Group
4000 Warner Blvd
Burbank, CA 91522
(818) 977-7900 / fax: (818) 977-3135
Rhino Records
10635 Santa Monica Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90025-8300
(310) 474-4778
fax: (310) 441-6580
Tommy Boy Records
902 Broadway 13th Floor
New York, NY 10010
(212) 388-8300 / fax: (212) 388-8400
La Face Records
One Capital City Plaza, Suite 1500
Atlanta, GA 30326
(212) 930-3999 / fax: (212) 930-4758
H.O.L.A. Recordings, Inc.
235 Park Avenue South 10 th Floor
New York City, NY 10003
(212) 777-5678
Depends (Score:3)
Profit *earned* shouldn't be in dispute.
Profit garnered thru dubious means should be questioned.
Re:Don't Buy Anything? (Score:1)
Of course, I'm not completely boycotting RIAA labels, just mostly. In the last year, I've bought around 40 CDs, of which 5 have been from labels who are members of the RIAA. The other 35 came from independent record labels.
Re:canned music is for sheep (Score:2)
There certainly isn't space in the back seat of my car for a rock band.
My bank would get upset with me *very* quickly if I tried to attend a concert every evening.
Yes, live music is great, but a purist attitude like that is unrealistic and pointless.
You ought to like the mp3 revolution, though - it can only *help* small-time musicians playing unusual, non-mainstream music.
-Mars
irrelevant (Score:4)
The difference is how the entity reacts to its changing environment. I get my stock updates from an automated web-based system, and execute trades online. My realtor (I bought another house last year) sent me digital images of houses she thought I'd like via email, and her brokerage ditched the controlling operational rules and allows its clients to browse MLS listings directly. But RIAA? RIAA has dug in its heels so hard against the changing technological environment that it has virtually guaranteed its own demise.
RIAA wants to stop the unencumbered flow of digital media by killing MP3? They might as well try to quell a revolution by driving firearms manufacturers out of business. People will fight against ethically corrupt entities even if it means taking a pitchfork against a tank. RIAA keeps fighting these little battles because it doesn't realize that it has already lost the war. And even this argument gets a little tiring, because there's no need for anyone to ever buy into RIAA's fossilized rules again. It's an entity that has only as much power as we voluntarily give it.
Listen to what you want, pay artists as directly as you can, support organizations that treat their artists well, and *poof* RIAA diappears into the grave it has already dug for itself.
Don't Buy Anything? (Score:4)
David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
Re:use netscape instead of i.e.! (Score:1)
nb: go ms (ie manuscript not microsoft)
Library of Congress and Copyright Office (Score:1)
An Anonymous Coward asked,
It does go through the Copyright Office. But the Copyright Office is part of the Library of Congress.
RIAA and royalties on digital broadcast of music (Score:1)
RIAA does not get any royalties directly. The royalties go to the recording company of a particular artist. It is the recording companies who are members of the RIAA, which is a trade association.
Congress got involved by passing the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995. The Library of Congress, through the Copyright Office, is federally authorized to set royalty rates for cable and satellite transmission of music. The RIAA immediately started squealing [riaa.com]. Evidently the LOC originally determined that 5% was a fair royalty, but the RIAA believed that digital subscription music services (like MUZAK, in its cable/satellite form) should pony up 40% or more, on the same model as cable television networks, who pay handsome royalties for the license to broadcast motion pictures.
The RIAA, BTW, does not mention this recent court decision on their web page. Imagine that.
Whoops! Correction (Score:2)
Oops, I was mistaken. I foolishly read the RIAA PR before reading the court decision. The RIAA is acting as the agent of recording companies and copyright holders here. They collect and distribute this new kind of performance royalty, even for non-members.
RIAA originally asked for 41.5%.
Prior to the 1995 Act, the copyright holders (composer, lyricist, publisher) were already entitled to royalties for the use of music. What the 1995 Act does is to give the recording companies a cut too, for a specialized sort of performance right.
IANAL, but from reading the court's decision, it does not seem to me that this royalty structure applies to all audio music transmitted via satellite or cable. The ruling seems to directly affect only commercial subscription services. Nothing says that this is completely irrelevant to other transmission of music, though, since the decision itself refers to an earlier ruling on jukeboxes.
What were they thinking? (Score:3)
Poll Idea (Score:1)
What's the most hated internet based interest/group/company/product/idea.
1. RIAA
2. DIVX
3. US CRYPTO Export laws.
4. Software Patents
5. Farunfsck (cant spell) German MP3 codec makers.
6. Anti-Emulator Companies..
Ofcourse, Microsoft would be left out.. since it wont be fare.. if it was in this poll
--
Re:use netscape instead of i.e.! (Score:1)
Re:canned music is for sheep (Score:1)
And pay TicketMaster's outrageouse fees instead of the RIAA's. The Man has music listeners at every turn, it seems... For those of you lucky enough to live in countries where venue owners sell their own tickets, the TicketMaster scam goes something like this. TicketMaster strong-arms owners of entertainment venues (stadiums, concert halls, etc) into selling tickets through TicketMaster. TM then sells the tickets for their usual price, plus a 25% "handling fee". The ticket price goes to the venue owners, and TM makes a 25% profit for taking the ticket out of the printer and passing it across the counter to the fan. The moral is, live music is no better in terms of leeching middlemen sucking profits out of the system.
Re:why this post was moderated down? (Score:1)
find most of Ellis-D's posts are 0 or -1. He's
just been moderated down often enough to have
been bitten by the auto-moderation scoring that
has some people starting with scores of 2 and 3
every time they post, just the other way around.
Given the score this has risen to, maybe he'll be
able to post at 1 again now. I dunno how the formula works.
--Parity
Re:BOYCOTT RIAA (Score:1)
One Capital City Plaza, Suite 1500
Atlanta, GA 30326
(212) 930-3999 / fax: (212) 930-4758
What's the deal with the phone numbers? These are not Atlanta phone numbers, they are New York phone numbers...
Damn the man! Save the Empire! (Score:3)
They get a cut of _all_ music? (Score:1)
I know this is going to sound naive, but it isn't mentioned explicitly in the article. Is RIAA getting 6.5% royalty of all music transmitted through the net/satellite/cable, or just 6.5% of the music belonging to their members?
If it's just a member thing, then I don't see how congress ever got involved to begin with; it's none of their business. If it's not just members, then I don't understand why the congress people who originally voted for the 6.5% aren't already in jail for corruption. Am I not seeing something?
What the ruling is about now, but what if...? (Score:1)
But what intrigues me is this comment: "The fight is a product of a 1995 law that for the first time let recording companies collect royalties for performances of digital music. Until then, only the copyright owners for the lyrics or notes could demand payments."
What law is that? How does it affect certain types of music, for example, something I write and record myself, and distribute myself? Would I have to pay RIAA royalties on something they haven't touched?
That's easy for you to say. (Score:1)
Give 'em an inch (Score:4)
The RIAA is trying to become a horizontally and vertically integrated company that's the only game in town. They can't do this in the marketplace, so they're trying to do it in the courts. They can't do it with present law, so they're trying to legislate and get rulings on future law. Law which helps no one but themselves, and harms many.
Not surprised. (Score:1)
As a musician... (Score:4)
I will not let myself join RIAA due their "stupidity". As I have mentioned before, I own my own record label and the label goes against the RIAA's beliefs. Our artists are the one's making the money, becuase we charge for the materials needed (which comes out our pocket) + $1 additional which is sent to the artist. So if we round out the prices of tapes and paper w/ print, we may score $.02 from each tape..... Not much at all, when the artist is paid $1 per tape. They are the ones that do all the work in all actuallality.
"Windows 98 Second Edition works and players better than ever." -Microsoft's Home page on Win98SE.
Re:Let's try to think clearly here for a change. (Score:2)
Court Case (Score:2)
for those of you who are interested.. havn't finished reading it yet.. will give my opinion then
use netscape instead of i.e.! (Score:2)
Re:Don't mind my grammer/spelling.. (Score:1)
Then RIAA however represents the record companies (RC) and artists themselves attempting to make sure the RC and the Artists get their cut. Last months DJ Times had a great interview with one of the head dudes. I feel the RIAA needs a top down change, they need people in there who understand digital distribution and advertisng, right now the RIAA is so old and moldy it serves only to police and not to advance as was the original goal. The current assualt on digital music is proof enough that change is needed, they claim the companies lose money from MP3 when CD sales have been on a steady rise since MP3 became so widely available.
But I will sopt b4 I get too far off topic.
_________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
Re:THE HIPPOKRAZEE OF SLASHDOT (Score:1)
Ok moderators, I am ready for the -1, go ahead quick......
____________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
Let's try to think clearly here for a change. (Score:5)
This seems to be a common train of thought with Slashdot readers, and it's one I take issue with.
Let's stop focussing on how much money anyone makes, Bill Gates, the RIAA, or whomever. It's just NOT relevant to anything. I would love for EVERYONE to make a ton of money at what they do.
I think the REAL issue we have is that the RIAA continually tries to impede on other people's rights, just like the REAL complaint we have with Microsoft/Bill Gates is the quality of the product, and industry domination that Microsoft imposes.
Linux advocates definitely have an anti-profit reputation. Let's keep our agenda's striaght and stop fixating on what other people make. It just shows jealousy, not a desire to make things better.
My $.03
Re:Invalid use of i.e. (Score:1)
Mabye not a boycott, but... (Score:1)
I would, however, like to suggest that you check out your local indie label/band/whatever. I'm sure you'll find more diversity, good music, and talented musicians in your area than in a whole stable of big money stars.
And you can feel good about yourself, too, having taken the moral high ground... or something.