Judge Lets RIAA Sue XM For Daring To Let People Record Music Off The Radio
from the you-have-got-to-be-kidding dept
Back in May, the RIAA sued XM for offering its users a device that would let people record songs off of their XM satellite radio. Recording songs off the radio for home use is legal fair use, but the RIAA had already convinced Sirius to pay an extra licensing fee (for no good reason) and now wanted XM to pay up as well. This happened even though, during an earlier lawsuit, the RIAA insisted they would never ever complain about private, non-commercial home recording devices. But, far be it from the RIAA to stick to their word. Unfortunately, though, the judge in this latest case was somehow convinced by the RIAA that XM's recording device is somehow different than recording songs off the radio, and therefore is allowing the case to continue. Once again, this is the recording industry demanding that consumer electronics firms get permission to innovate, to make sure that new technologies don't change their existing business model. While there's plenty of historical precedence for such things, it doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have Sirius and love it. The recording is not the best quality. I mainly record talk shows and occasional music, but if I hear a song I like I open iTunes and buy it. I have a feeling that I am not alone in this at all. I'm not against paying for music but I feel like everytime I DL a song they win a little more. Oh well what do you do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Instead of suing everyone under the sun, especially services that PROMOTE their industry, the RIAA needs to focus on improving the product and/or services they provide. But that would require the music companies to hand over some control to artists and customers and that is unlikely to happen easily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You CAN compete with free.
What is that proof? One word
Dasani.
Water is essentially free in the US, yet people pay amazing prices for bottled water.
It is the obvious proof is that not can you compete with free you can make a good buck doing it because there are a hundred companies making good money selling WATER.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You CAN compete with free.
Dasani (at least in the UK) is just filtered tap water - oddly enough sales fell after that was revealed
More disturbing is that apparently this is normal and 2 out of every 5 bottles of water sold are just tap water...http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0304-04.htm
Selling free? Now that's clever!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It must be said again.....make them drop that RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The RIAA have people convinced the are come sort of government agency. They are Not.
The RIAA ia simply another name for the record labels. Ultimately they don't even have any power at all. They just happen to have a lot of money behind them. (and of course that is all you really need to do whatever you want)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Boggles my mind really. I guess the 1700 a pop per lawsuit (or whatever it is) beats the $ they get per CD.
Talk about the need to look for honest work.
sheesh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Are They Out of Control?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
send away riaa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: send away riaa
Commuting to work, I would listen to the radio, hear what I like, Napster it (usually poor quality), then, asfter a few more listens would decide I wanted to own it. My cd purchases averaged about $1500 annually. The d/loaded music was a sampling that brought be in to buy the real deal.
Then the nonsense started. The aggressive bullying became apparent and I said "that's it! I'm done... no more." And I haven't downloaded any music since it was taken to court nor have I purchased any commercially produced recordings. I've bought cds from local artists directly, however.
I have a good memory for music, so I can "hear" what I want in my head whenever I want. But now I'm just waiting for the RIAA to go after memories and recollections next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just keep downloading...
For that matter, how could I buy a Sony product?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business Model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmm
Heres a good hypothetical
Everytime we download/record/listen to/hum a song, we are afraid that the RIAA is going to find us and slap us with a lawsuit. That sounds like the grounds for a nice mental anguish lawsuit to me. Hey, let's all get together and make it Class Action!!!
Just a thought.
(And for those of you who missed it, a joke)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Svengali
they are some how brain washed in to the idea that there can not be any good from free promotions of music
Why do you suppose that is?
Instead of suing everyone under the sun, especially services that PROMOTE their industry...
What if suing services that "promote their industry" is exactly what they intend to do?
The more you promote music the more people will consume it. XM and Sirius are promoting the consumption of music, not discouraging it. When will the RIAA get it.
Perhaps they get it. What if it's because "promoting the consumption of music" is exactly what they are trying to stop?
You see where I am going with this? You're all saying the same thing and assuming that the RIAA are incredibly dumb. I think they know what they are doing. If you give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they have motives that are rational to themselves, you can often see things that you completely miss if you just dismiss them as stupid. So, starting with that assumption, what rationale could possibly explain the desire of the record companies to inhibit the promotion of music?
We have three stories in a row here today and an obvious pattern. In each case a group that is providing free publicity and advertising is being attacked by the entity that directly benefits from that process. On the face of it, it makes no sense at all. You have to look deeper to find the sense.
It's all about control.
The record companies don't want you or I using our Zune devices to exchange and thus promote songs. The exchange (copying) part of it is irrelevant. The whole thing about piracy is a smokescreen. The MPAA/Hollywood have admited so much themselves by saying that DRM is not about preventing piracy.
It's all about control.
Belgian newspapers don't want Google indexing their site. Even though Google are bringing traffic to their advertisers. How could anybody possibly explain this apparent insanity? First you have to realise that money is not the primary factor in this equation...
It's all about control.
The M in DRM stands for "management". Management has nothing to do with copy protection or limiting piracy, it's about control.
And obviously there are people out there that want control very badly indeed. So badly in fact, that they are prepared to scupper multi-billion dollar industries just to keep hold of it.
"But surely", you say, "the market will sort this out. Money is the new God and the capitalists won't stand by and watch this bonfire of industry!"
And I keep telling you. The capitalists are dying. We lost control. Those of us who are simple entrepreneurs and follow the logic of wealth creation through industry have been squeezed out. There are people who want control at any cost. Not so that they can make more money. Money is passe to them. Who needs money when you have complete unchallenged control? There is a term in psychology that explains this phenomenon. Those who seek power even at their own expense, at any cost, have a name. That name is "psychopath". Don't be fooled by the popular image of the psychopath as a knife weilding homocidal maniac. Although psychopaths are statistically more likely to be homicidal, on the whole they are intelligent people who never break the law. The particular breed of psychopath we are considering now are the svengali. (look that word up if you don't know what it means, the svengali are very similar in mentality to child molesters)
Music and films are very powerful things, they attract the svengali like moths to a lightbulb. Control culture and you control the hearts and minds of generations to come. Replace meaningful art with empty propaganda. Replace the poets and lyricists with vacuous fuck bags. Replace intelligent commentators with naive, vapid religious pawns. Replace television documentary and analysis with shallow reality TV. Replace empathic dialogue with hate speech and racists.
People don't choose this culture. Even the least intelligent and shallow people I know admit that they find modern media disturbingly below them, that they have hard time finding music they like or films that impress them. This is not an elitist rant on rose-tinted visions of a glorious age, contemporary culture really is abysmally poor in comparison to historic vaues. The special effects and computerised production tricks are impressive, but the content is meaningless.
So, understand the deeper psychology of the svengali. Money and business plans have nothing to do with it. They don't want you, or any DJ, or any Johnny-come-lately upstart search engine with hippy values about "evil" to be setting the agenda for what is culture.
They want to control the access. The last thing they want is you discovering new bands or independent films and passing them around amongst yourselves. How dare you peons, you weak little chattering classes, how dare you presume to know what is good or bad!? We decide that. And if MySpace and YouTube can't be brought under control then they will be destroyed.
[/tinfoil hat]
okay, even I admit it's a tad cynical. And for what it's worth, if there's any grain of truth in it it's that the svengalis days are numbered, they are cornered and starved by a growing real culture and doing what all psychopaths do when threatened - lash out at anything and everyboby like rabid dogs. But if you can come up with an explanation of why large parts of the business world are openly acting against centuries of established market wisdom then let's hear it please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Svengali
They have a good thing going and they know it.
Their "artists" make music and the record company makes most of the money, kind of like a pimp. You would think they provide the recording studios and production, but no, the "artists" have to pay for that themselves; it comes out of their profit. So in the end, most of them haven't made all that much money, except the really big acts. The bulk of the money goes to the record companies. And the record companies aren't about to lose their good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Svengali
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Svengali
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Svengali
Consider the marketplace. It consists of three basic elements: those who create the art; those who consume the art; and those in the middle who handle and purvey the art from creator to consumer.
Adam Smith’s metaphor is that an “invisible hand” guides the evolution of the marketplace. Each of us acting in our own self interest ultimately works toward the good of society. (See “invisible hand” in Wikipedia.) The recording industry initially offered the most efficient conveyance of art from creator to consumer. But in the modern marketplace the efficient conveyance of the Internet is gaining ascendance over the original mechanisms of the recording industry. Acting in my own self-interest, I seek the least-cost and most efficient method of acquiring art. Although the recording industry’s wealth will diminish, the invisible hand will steer the marketplace toward some greater good for society.
The revenue model of the recording industry is still more robust than the revenue model of the still-evolving modern technological methods of recording and distribution (if there is a “revenue model”). The wealth generated by the industry is a powerful factor. Government regulation is also a powerful factor. The current state of regulation is partly political, and partly influenced by the wealth of the industry. Despite wealth and power acting as the “visible hands” at work in the marketplace, it is the invisible hand that is steering the marketplace toward ever-greater efficiency, and ultimately greater good for all. Ethics and morality will play a role, but probably mostly on the side of the invisible hand.
Greater efficiency may produce less total wealth. Consider the most modern end of the spectrum: perhaps it could be a cell phone recording of a spontaneous anti-war jam by a group of friends at a party, uploaded to the Internet, and distributed enthusiastically by many people. There is no revenue model at all, just a pure distribution of art from creator to consumer. But somewhere in between the old and the new is where the bulk of the creation and consumption of art will occur.
In the old model, art is enhanced by professional recording studios, and experienced sound engineers and technicians. And the art reaches a huge market via efficient logistics, and clever promotion. That added value generates wealth for the industry. In the new model, a garage band can buy good recording equipment for a few hundred dollars, and upload their art to music fan web sites. The result is that the third element of the equation, the recording industry, is almost entirely eliminated. (“Disintermediation” – elimination of the middleman.)
Money is not inherently evil. Some people have evil motives. With a good new system to supplant the old system, the old recording industry may become irrelevant. The new system could generate wealth for the artists, as well as for anyone who adds value to the art. Value could be added by a proliferation of home recording studios, and “broker” web sites.
There would still be a place for the professional studios, but if the invisible hand gains ascendance over the visible hand, the professional studios will follow the revenue model of the grassroots studios. Instead of controlling the art all the way to the consumer’s ears, perhaps the artists would follow the “shareware” model, in which the art would be distributed freely. It would be left up to each consumer to find value in the art, and to decide whether or not to send money to the artists. (We would need a way to be confident that we are giving money directly to the artists.) Any value-added costs would be unbundled and handled in separate transactions, with the broker web sites, for example.
When I love a piece of art, I feel happy and grateful and generous, and would gladly give money to the artist. My favorite band, whose lead guitarist passed away in 1995, has an online store that enables me to buy concert recordings from 30 years ago. I believe the money goes more-or-less directly to the band’s company, and I find that I am still happy to pay for their music.
After I read your Svengali piece, the first thing I wrote was that unless we run afoul of them, it isn’t worth railing against the riaa, because they are becoming increasingly irrelevant. What is most interesting, and what deserves our attention and thinking, is the emergence of new methods of getting art from creator to consumer. A few years hence, will there be a band whose name becomes a household word all across the planet, who were made wealthy by a song recorded on a cell phone and uploaded to their own initially obscure web site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Svengali
I once read a brilliant analysis by an unknown anonymous blogger who dealt with the role of the middleman in technology. I often attempt to paraphrase his/her thoughts, so these ideas are far from my own original musings, but in a nutshell it concluded that any intermediate role was necessarily fragile and transient, that a salesman or broker must always be ready to move turf and seek new things to sell, new ways to fit into the gap between producer and consumer.
The old industry certainly did create a lot of wealth. The glory days of the film and recording business 1940s through 1990s employed millions with diverse job specialisations and attendant support industries. And technology came and changed everything. As you suggest, technology is always a mixed blessing in this regard, new efficiencies shrink the industry. Technology does put people out of work, and in the same stroke it creates new employment opportunities. A great saying I once heard from a genius programmer is that the job of a programmer is always to replace himself with a small piece of code. In other words, to cut his own throat, put himself out of work so that others do not need to tread that path again. It is enshrined on the T-shirt slogan "I wrote code so you don't have to", a parody of a wartime poster. I think many times in my career I have been "disintermediated" by my own hand, something to be proud of rather than a foolish mistake. There are always fresh challenges on the horizon and I think it's the worst kind of coward who deliberately creates and perpetuates a status quo requiring their employment. Douglas Adams nails this down so eloquently with the "Philosophers Union" who demand Deep-Thought be switched off lest it actually discover the answer to "life the universe and everything".
There is the same weak minded conservatism in the RIAA, evident by way it has manipulated its own image to remain relevant. The original mandate of the RIAA was technical. To standardise the grooves, needles and filters used in the vinyl disc cutting process, but it has transformed into a monster. Its fearful position is terrorised by every new development threatening change and obsolescence. It is graceless and ugly, like a 150 year old man kept alive by tubes and machines in a hospital bed. Nature implores it to die, but it will not step through the door.
The new system could generate wealth for the artists, as well as for anyone who adds value to the art. Value could be added by a proliferation of home recording studios, and “broker” web sites.
That value is the process of selection and quality control. Nobody has time to listen to every band on the internet that offers a website. The vast majority of them are very poor. At the peak of the recording industry it served this well. There were A&R men who were themselves trained and accomplished musicians trawling the clubs looking for exceptional talent. An important step in the demise of the music establishment was removing those foot-soldiers, relying instead on a marketing model. They moved from a pull (demand driven) mode to a push operation in which they saved money by reducing the number and diversity of acts and creating/forcing a market though hype and image manufacture (1970s - 1980s). Stepping into this void came the DJs who led the post 90s dance movement. They took over role of filtering, quality control and aggregation of the underground. But they remained under the control of the MAFIAA who merely used them as outsourced/contracted A&R people while keeping a stranglehold on the deals (contracts) and hence intellectual property. Another way they once added value was artist development. By providing education and training, mentoring, singing lessons and so forth they allowed their acts to blossom. Unfortunately (1980s - 1990s) for them, accompanying the availability of cheap recording technology they also over-developed them into independent actors who usually broke with their company after the second album and started their own solo career, for example George Michael. They needed to keep the artists hooked on the drug, so that had to stop. Nail number two in the MAFIAA coffin. This came about during the period in which the small and medium sized independent recording studios were also squeezed out by technology advances and a diminishing pool of potential clients as the industry underwent its next fragmentation into a small set of carefully managed and manufactured "superstar" fake artists (Spice Girls, Beyonce etc) and an underground scene. This remains the current state of the MAFIAA music conglomerates. Huge scale marketing operations that require absolute conrol over the channels of dissemination. The traditional "band" has been replaced by manufactured acts comprising compliant wannabes recruited from TV talent shows. But the underground continues unperturbed and as you say, small home studios and broker websites now form the infrastructure of the next wave waiting in the shadows. This is your invisible hand. Nobody really wants the dull and lacklustre manufactured acts foisted upon us. Right now the only thing that keeps the machine running is the illusion of the "deal", the wannabes holy grail. Once the artists wake up to the evils of record companies (that the deals actually designed to silence them and focus the artificial market) we will see change.
"A few years hence, will there be a band whose name becomes a household word all across the planet, who were made wealthy by a song recorded on a cell phone and uploaded to their own initially obscure web site?
Absolutely. I believe it's already happening and will become an irresistable force. I believe interesting things are afoot. We will see amazing stories of bizzare things happening, like a band who one day say "Whoa! stop sending us money now, we made millions thankyou very much, now give your money to other bands or we will just donate the rest to charity." (The problem being that until you "make it" you get no money worth mentioning, and when you
do you quickly accumulate more than you know what to do with). Finding a balance that allows a large number of fairly good acts to make a reasonable amount of money (as opposed to a tiny minority of very wealthy acts) is a challenge that will face the new music industry.
"When I love a piece of art, I feel happy and grateful and generous, and would gladly give money to the artist. My favorite band, whose lead guitarist passed away in 1995, has an online store that enables me to buy concert recordings from 30 years ago."
Precisely, I agree, and we are not alone. When I find artists who I truly appreciate I am moved to pay back in some way. I think this is universal and I have some optimism that human nature can make a new model possible.
"...perhaps it could be a cell phone recording of a spontaneous anti-war jam by a group of friends at a party, uploaded to the Internet, and distributed enthusiastically by many people. There is no revenue model at all, just a pure distribution of art from creator to consumer. But somewhere in between the old and the new is where the bulk of the creation and consumption of art will occur."
This already happens. Think of Weebles cartoons and famous YouTube videos like the "Star Wars Kid". But that is not industry, it is real culture (with potential secondary effects). The proponents either make capital by gaining recognition and employment, or in the latter case they even find the attention overwhelming and unwelcome.
Government regulation is also a powerful factor.
This is where I put on my tinfoil hat again. Call me a loon if you like, but I seriously believe there are ultra-conservative forces who seek to manipulate culture for purely political reasons. Music and film can be dangerous. Right now the MAFIAA serve those interests very nicely. Look at the way the Dixie Chicks were chastised and pilloried for speaking out on the Iraq war. Since then their careers have been actively sabotaged.
Adam Smith’s metaphor is that an “invisible hand” guides the evolution of the marketplace.
Thanks for a positive and optimistic response. I am aware of Smith's work, though the role of the "invisible hand" is wisdom I had forgotten. You are right, we should focus always on the future and best way to hasten the death of the MAFIAA is to ignore them away. Though the Svengali, the culture-conservatives and the Philosophers Union are disgusting and sad people whos minority interests have destroyed much valuable culture, remember the words of another great mind who said, "The arc of history tends towards justice".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Svengali
Why do the Dixie Chicks have a right to free speech - but not those that disagree with them?
If the Dixie Chicks can't separate their politics from their music, then why should I try to separate the two?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Svengali
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Svengali
However, since the dawn of both parents having to work, or one work two jobs, name any combo, kids being left to be raised by Hollywood, a generation of spoils, I have an ipod, to hell with society sort of thinking, not only has the RIAA got their pie, so has our government. We are seeing a generation of people coming up that needs to have sex with everything in sight, everything is only about "ME" , and materialistic tendencies beyond any generation out there. The whole thought process of common sense is becoming a thing of the past, just look into the eyes of many teens, kids, or upcoming adults and there is a blank , glossy , no one home stare to many of them. I only say this as a parent, I am raising my kids with morals and respect for others and themselves and it's freakin' hard to do. I can't go into everything i've seen with parentskids, to keep it short, I wonder how many parents give a damn. I am not stating a minor difference in the way a child is raised here, they are purposely being brought up selfish and to look at others as the equivelent of non important fodder. My point being , control isn't so hard anymore. If anyone wonders WHY things are getting this way, people, many of us are to blame. There is no unity, there is only "I" ,"ME" "Mine" . We don't hold to any morals or stand up for our rights in the way that is most important. This generation is fooled into thinking their freedom lies within having sex with anyone they want, nudity on every camera lense, showing what they own or judging everyone with $$. This is an absolute false sense of freedom. The real freedoms are in danger every day and while only a handful of minor ones have been attacked, wait, the day will get here when you are being told WHEN you can piss.
This is why something like the RIAA can get away with what they want. A generation who will buy music just because they can. Many don't care about the outcome or the WHY or the effect this is having on our country. It's all about money and greed and control. This will continue until our children and children's children are once again raised with common sense, respect, morals , and a value for human life over materal.
Don't get me wrong, I know there are a lot of good people, good kids, and I don't judge other's morals but some are obviously WAY beyond what is taste and what is waste. I simply see a society going further and further down. I feel sorry for many parents these days who are condemned to work 3 jobs each to make a living and don't blame them as it's not easy. See how our society works? In my personal numbered process this is my opinion on how I see it...
1. Keep prices so high, parents have to work their living asses off to keep a home, while away from their children.
2. Children get prone to more TV, Movies, Computers, etc...and this becomes their world.
3. Large corporations, government, put all sorts of crap out to these kids who soak it in like a sponge.
4. These kids now think on a material level, I want, I want, suing is a way of life, and places like the RIAA have them hook , line and sinker. Feeding them like starving animals.
5. More easily controlled kids , easier controlled generation, they can now be fooled into thinking they are free with false freedoms, money is everything, while large corporations and government can do whatever they want and no one will be there to prevent this.
Ok, this may be a dim view but to lead up to a world where a RECORDING industry , not only takes our country by storm but rattles Canada and others, people, there is something VERY wrong here. Every day I try to stand up for my rights, morals, and my children's and I feel i'm fighting a losing battle. Our government and the mini-me >RIAA is running up and down our rear ends.
I won't pretend to have answers, and I refuse to judge everyone based on one standard, I am in no position to judge anyone but as my opinion mainly says in the above, I don't like what I see and I am simply sharing what I see whether right or wrong.
Comicfan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Class Action?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA = MOB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Svengali
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Svengali
i also slightly disagree with you on that point as well. contemporary western culture is abysmally poor. i think it's why you find more and more westerners drawn to anime and other types of eastern based productions. hell, the majority of music you'll find on my mp3 player are studio productions of video games music (final fantasy themes, zelda themes, etc.).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Svengali
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Svengali
I'm sure a lot of people want they to loose, but that doesn't mean they are loosing.
I remember reading somewhere last year that psychopathic traits are becoming more and more prevalent in business managers, can't remember where I read it though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
f the riaa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: f the riaa
The artists who sign with the RIAA apparently like it, or they wouldnt sign with it. They do not have to sign with it, but it is in their best interests to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: f the riaa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Svengali
Thanks PG, that's interesting and I will check it out. Yep, I'm an old fashioned bugger. I think it would be wrong to use either label in a "clinical" sense, rather that sociopathic/psychopathic behaviour has become acceptable, even celebrated within organisations like Sony and the RIAA. It is collective sociopathy for sure, so I wonder how far traditional psychology of ego-superego that you mention is applicable in a company structure. To some extent each individual within such an organisation must take part of the collective responsibility when a corporation acts against the interests of society. But there are also clearly *individuals* within that display sickness. These come out through public relations statements, but they must originate with specific minds. Examples are possibly the spectacular RIAA PR blunder of saying that it's okay to sue school kids into bankruptcy, and of course their ridiculously disproportionate practice of employing mercenary armed force against trivial civil tort infringers. To me, these are the symptoms that people within these organisations are not firing all cylinders.
your little epilogue is spot on
:) A methodology of mine, to go off on a ranting and provocative train of thought, see what falls out, and then moderate myself. Always take what I say with a pinch of salt> I'm mad as a box of frogs you know ;)
Mr. Lucas Brice: "It's not about *control*. It is and it always has been about *money*."
I'm very glad to hear you say that Lucas. Yes, it's the sensible interpretation, and the one that I want to believe in my heart. It makes everything so much clearer. But I do think one should be wary of the idea that in all cases money is the primary objective. That is to say, if you have control then leveraging that to obtain money is kinda given implicitly. You can always use power to make money later on, but money won't necessarily obtain you the power. In other words it's a more valuable currency.
AC#20: This is important to company owners and investors.
Agree. Stability is a very desirable quality in any business. It should fall out of your confidence in your abilities in the market though. Sure, culture is a very fickle thing, but the very business of the "music/film industry" is guaging and predicting those tides. The line must be drawn where that becomes shameless and dirty manipulation, which is what I see happening now.
I believe RIAA is afraid of a world where the next hit could come from anywhere or anybody and they will be unable to capitalize on the phenomenon.
Yes, but look at how sad that is. It's nothing but petulant, bitter jealousy. It's the spoiled kid at the party who wants all the cake and will choke it down to make sure nobody else gets a slice. Good businessmen know the value of a healthy competition, competition that enriches the overall market.
I still maintain there are loonies at large in todays corporations and it would be unwise to ignore that for a narrow, purely fiscal interpretation. Business is not supposed to be "nice". But we need to widen our vocabulary and start calling certain behaviours for what they are. Svengalis have always been associated with the entertainment business and putting it all down to "just money" effectively gives them an excuse to hide behind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
F the RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not for the musicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not for the musicians
Why dont you get together with your friends and pull together $50 mil. Then start promoting bands that sound good. I am sure you will do whatever it takes to get your $50 mil investment back and make some money on it. Of course the bottom line for the RIAA is MONEY. Guess what, many and probably most artists are in it for the sake of money as well, and not the sake of music.
I am not saying that the RIAA is brilliant. It makes many poor decisions. All I am saying is that your logic is wrong.
The artists sign with the RIAA for a reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
xm vs. riaa
XM is really getting the shaft. I wouldnt be an XM subscriber without the ability to record my fav. stations like TIVO. It allows me to listen and customize my experience. I am my own DJ.
I am not able to hand pick an album and say "Record this album". I still am using the internet for that.
My name is michael and I havent bought music since 2000.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Off to the store
I tried to be nice and pay for my stuff but you are making it too hard for me to be legit.
The more hoops I have to jump through and the more likely I am to tell you where to stick said hoops and just do what I want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Home Recordings
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just to spite them.
everytime they sue someone, i feel obligated to download more songs and never listen to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
at least I am.
Hence the 1000 songs-pirated-mark I just reached.
Long live free music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Post 12
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The reason for the RIAA
Step in the people that help. Investors give me the money for the studio and advertising. Managers take that money and put it towards advertising, setting up gigs, and putting my album out there.
The RIAA put both together. A convenient place to find someone that will help you get your music to the public. The problem with that is they have forgotten there place. The only purpose for them is to help the artiest, not to take what was made and the money like its there own. If they would realise that this wouldn't be a problem.
Managers, who put the music out there and set up gigs, make 10%. The artist keeps the rest. Investors get out of a project the same percentage as they put in. If they only put in money and the artist put there music and sole out on the line, the artiest gets most of the benefit. How much money do artists get from the RIAA?
There is a place for the record industry but the RIAA is nowhere near it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The reason for the RIAA
"Say I have a band that is good.
So, you rely on the talent of group of other people and you think you're good. Welcome to a world of a million others just like you.
All my friends say that I'm good.
Of course they do. Sycophants are ten a penny. If you had any real friends they would be the one telling you where your music needs improvement.
I want to expand and get my music out the the masses.
You have a bad attitude to your audience (masses)
(and make a lot of money at it).
In my experience you already don't have what it takes and you'll probably never produce a piece that is above mediocre.
I don't have the recording studio to record my own music. I don't have the money to rent one for a day."
So, you have nothing but a dream and no resources to make it happen.
Even if I did I don't have the money to put my music out there to the masses and advertise it so everyone knows about it. Putting it on a web site has no purpose if no one knows its there.
And you're lazy and haven't the first clue about promotion. Why don't you go and get some cheap (or free) web hosting? Why don't you get out onto the forums, boards and lists that deal with your genre of music? Get some gigs that pay money to do this on the local circuit (after all your band is *good* right).
Step in the people that help. Investors give me the money for the studio and advertising. Managers take that money and put it towards advertising, setting up gigs, and putting my album out there.
Did you just fall through a wormhole from the 1970s ? I can't begin with how out of date your dream is. Nobody but a fool is going to "invest" in an unheard of band. How are you going to pay this manager (to do all the stuff that you should be doing anyway, because until you are doing 5 gigs a week and don't have the time to go to the toilet you don't need a "manager")
The RIAA put both together.
No they don't. They are an association of record labels. You need a record label. Good luck finding one that will advance an unknown band enough to pay for a full time manager, marketing, recording studio hire etc. It's just not like that anymore.
The problem with that is they have forgotten there place. The only purpose for them is to help the artiest, not to take what was made and the money like its there own. If they would realise that this wouldn't be a problem.
No you're wrong. You owe them that money. You signed it away to get your 15 minutes of fame. Remember the studio hire at $5000/day? And the managers salary, $20,000? And the marketing budget of $100,000, and .... guess what? Yep, even after all your sales you still owe them $500,000.
So now you have an album that is falling rapidly out of the charts after just two weeks, you have no new material, you're half a million in the red, you spent your advance, and you signed a contract for 5 years and 5 albums.
You're fucked. Kiss your dream goodbye. Also welcome to the world of "intellectual" property. You'll be hearing your music on adverts for baby wipes and toilet rolls for the duration of your life, and knowing that you won't see a dime of it. People will come up to you in the pub and say "Hey you're that bloke who was..." , and then sing your song with the crucial lyric replaced by a product name. And you will cringe and want a hole to appear in the ground so you can jump in it and die. And don't even think about writing any more music or starting another band because you're still under contract for 5 more albums worth of material.
Stop living in a 20th Century fairy tale man. The record labels are all useless twunts who just want to take you for a ride. Get off your fat lazy ass and stop waiting for the world to bring you a living on a silver plate. Investors, my ass!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The reason for the RIAA
If you just want to play then just play, but we aren't talking about that now are we? No, the RIAA dosn't work with them.
The manager gets 10% of the money earned. How do you owe them? You have to convince investors to invest. They only get money if you make it. Pay attention to the stock market.
And that brings me to my point. The RIAA should only make money if the artist douse, and not make them pay for it for years after. It's a risk I know, but that's the life of an investor.
To get a little back on topic, investors need to grow and change with the times or there going to crash. They need to see that this new distribution method is the next step and if they don't take it they will fall. If they are smart, or not intentionally sabotaging, they would understand that they need to use this to sell the additional stuff like a hard copy. It has already been posted that people will still pay to have a hard copy if it's worth it.
How do businesses compete? They offer something that no one else can. A hard copy, extra stuff in the case, good quality from a real studio and people who know how to run the machines for example.
Please try to understand my hypothetical post before responding. I don't have a band, but I do know about businesses. I know that If you want to make money you need to act like one. This isn't some Utopian environment that you can put something out there and every one will find it. You need to work for it. And, unless you are already rich, you will need help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The reason for the RIAA
Yeah, I know that Chronos! :) I'm just raggin you with some home truths man. Seriously, I don't dispute your business acumen in any way at all. In any other domain raising capital and bringing in outside assistance with planning would be correct and sensible. But not with music (and possibly with film within the next decade). The wisdom you give really would have been spot on in 1980, but it's more than 20 years out of date.
For example:
good quality from a real studio and people who know how to run the machines for example.
The "machines" don't really exist anymore. Top flight studios are really a curiosity these days. They exist mainly so that when somebody has to show the hot-shot director around the building he has some assets with flashing lights to see. The real stuff is software now, and it's available for negligable cost. The return a band would see on their first month of gigging would buy a digital multitrack, and still leave plenty over for a decent set of microphones. With 6-12 months of experimentation and self-tuition most smart people can produce a product that equals or betters the output of a "major studio".
This isn't some Utopian environment that you can put something out there and every one will find it.
Of course not. Like I said, you have to work like a dog to get it. But that is in your hands. You start small and build a fanbase on the merits of your work. That is sustainable growth. Nobody else can offer you real sustainable growth, money won't buy it, so even if you're rich money won't help. The number of wealthy people who have blown a fortune on "vanity projects" in the music business is frightening. The whole music-tech sector practically relies on it.
You make it sound like no mater what I do, if I don't have the money to do it myself I'm "Fucked",as you say.
No, you misunderstand. It's worse than that. That's what I am saying, your entire premise is wrong. Money alone, whether it be from long term investors, angels and rich sugar daddies, or even lucky lump returns on an early success doesn't help you. Money is right down the list of ingredients for a successful entertainment business. Even if you start with an enviable amount of raw talent, time and experience still come way above capital investment.
The break point is probably the third album, somewhere about 5 years in. By that time you have all the momentum and cashflow you'll ever need.
Let me put it this way. Knowing what I do about the media business from my side, if I were to step into the shoes of a very wealthy person looking to invest, then a music act would be the last place on Earth I would go. Even the tech sector is more predictable :) Hell, even gambling it on the horses is better!
Art and business just don't mix in that way, they never really have and it's only getting worse. The only way to make it fly on the big scale is to absolutely murder the few successful acts to pay for the majority of complete failures. It's really a lose- lose scenario for all parties, which is why a smart band would never sign to a label. And it's also why the RIAA/labels are such ghastly monsters. Can you think of any other industry that needs to protect obsolete IP from 75 years ago? What does that say about their medium and short term model?
Once an act is already quite successful, then yes, getting some extra cash for a surge forwards might be useful. Obviously that puts you in a much stronger bargaining position, you can get non-exclusive deals with limited territories and keep your own IP rights too. But again, for all the reasons I've already mentioned, an RIAA affiliated record label with all its historic baggage is the last people you would go to these days.
btw, check out this. Negativeland are very experienced players in the media game, so you should take this seriously. And it's already very out of date.
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's it!
I am sick and tired of RIAA's lack of respect for me as a consumer of their product. And you know what? 99% of their product is not even worth recording anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pirate music, share cds, and the RIAA will feel it. People that bitch about something the RIAA does, then gives them money is not "all there".
Contact your congressman with letters (and convince your peers to do the same) about how you dislike the RIAA. Use good grammar and plan out your letters of course.
Point out that the RIAA has breached our rights. It is fair use to record, now the RIAA is saying that it isn't. In the states we can legally make a backup of any media we purchased, the RIAA is doing their best to prevent this.
The RIAA is not a governmental agency, they need not have similar powers, and unless people speak up about it(typing in some gamer forums or news blogs does not equal speaking up) they will continue to grow in power.
DDOS them, do something, don't just sit back and bitch then fork over money to them....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
don' t buy
RIAA obviously doesn't want any new innovation - they just want business as usual. wel so do I - music without DRM -
music I buy gets ripped to ogg format - I think it sounds better and my mobile player plays ogg format.
how many times do we have to pay for the mp3 and other patents?
you buy a device that plays it - you pay for it there
you buy music in the format of it - you pay for it there.
you buy a software program for your computer that plays it - you pay for it there
you buy a computer that plays it - you pay for it there
someone tell me how times we have to pay for it just to listen to stupid music.
just use ogg format it is better anyway.
to me ogg is the open standard just like ODF Open Document Format that was meant for the people. I am sick of paying for shat just so some guy in a suit in california can buy another boat or another lawyer or another politician.
when will the insanity stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA vs. the world
If not, I'm betting they will sometime in the near future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
riff: The year is 2010. The MAFIAA has persuaded manufacturers to incorporate Digital Rights Management hardware technologies into all types of consumer electronic equipment capable of playing or recording protected content.
The DRM (Downloaders’ Resistance Movement) turns to ANALOG. Analog recording on home equipment becomes (once again) an art form. Those old flash drives and CD players and burners that we saved in our junk boxes suddenly become precious, and begin to fetch high prices in the underground economy. While they can’t record new releases, they do a nice job of recording “first generation” analog recordings of protected media.
The MAFIAA gets more aggressive politically and initiates campaigns to get laws enacted that would allow police departments to search your vehicle during a traffic stop to see if you have music stored onboard. They could require you to produce authentic proof of purchase documentation for every track they find.
The DRM responds by producing “panic button” technology that does a “file wipe” on every track in the onboard collection that is not digitally signed.
A leaked MAFIAA memo talks about a plan to require royalties to be paid by people who whistle or hum protected music.
etcetera
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not so far fetched Hewitt. You're closer to the truth than you realise. In the UK there is a buzz stirring over vinyl pressing equipment and turntables. It isn't just the old-school DJs making a fuss about how "vinyl was better." Lathes that were effectively scrap five years ago are being dusted off. I've heard on the vine from 3-phase electrical engineers who've been finding a lot of work lately. Good turntables like Technics have doubled in price... go figure. Maybe the MAFIAA have already pushed too far and left it too late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I believe the MAFIAA position on digital rights is merely politically expedient. They remain concerned about Intellectual Property across the spectrum, and will pursue what they perceive as violations, even in the analog domain.
My wife wonders why I keep all my old equipment. I still have two high-quality TEAC reel-to-reel tape recorders that I purchased in 1970. I doubt they still work -- but I tell myself they may be worth something some day.
And I no longer have a turntable, but I still have part of my old collection on vinyl. I've been thinking about looking for a good turntable.
IP is IP, and they'll go after all violations, analog or digital. But for my own use, if they turn the screws and make it inconvenient for me to dupe my stuff digitally, I can take comfort in knowing that it will be next to impossible to stop me in the analog world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Check out his mocking of the RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The RIAA still does not get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The RIAA still does not get it.
Well the government worked with them to illegally tax us every time we bought a blank tape. That tax goes to the RIAA. Basically, by buying a blank tape, you were paying for the right to pirate music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paladium
Trusted Computing is now included in everything but Computers. TCP should actually be Trusted Media Playback, headed by Rights Managements Groups = RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft.
Microsoft has been great in getting TCP into all consumer electronics devices before we get them into your computer...
"They already decided not to trust us.
If they don't trust us. Why should we trust them?"
http://www.lafkon.net/tc/
http://youtube.com/watch?v=U0FAaah8jgY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
XM prolly doesn't have DRM. I bet that once XM comes out with a new Windows Media Enhanced streaming system, the lawsuits will go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.eff.org/share/petition/
Not all of them are paid off, it doesnt take a 100% vote. It takes 20k more signatures to get the 60-70% of votes to take them down. Its like voting for the president, if you didn't vote, who are you to bitch. You let it happen, you must be okay with it, right?
allofmp3 for life.
(btw look at how much money they are making. If allofmp3 was thought of as legal their fanbase would explode. Why isnt there a cheaper alternative to the DRM infested, expen$ive crap music- LIKE ALLOFMP3!?)
.99c per song WITH DRM!? Who can possibly refuse!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM
I would go as far as to say people are forced to hack DRM just to have the ability to play their media on multiple devices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be honest...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AllofMP3
AllofMP3 are pirates. NONE of the money they make off of the IP goes to the musicians. At least when you buy an album from a legitamate place, money will get reinvested into the musicians. When you buy at AllofMP3, you are allowing others to profit off of an artists hard work. Sites like AllofMP3 actually hurt the art.
I can understand your frustration with the industry, but paying money to pirates only makes things worse. If you absolutely must have pirated music, get it for free. Dont put money in a scumbags pockets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair use, get over it!
But to COPY off the air is legal, end of story.
The RACKETEERING MUST STOP NOW !
I, personally, do not buy any more music. sorry musicians, It is the fault of the racketeers (RIAA MPAA) that I do my best to avoid EVERY paying them any money. and by that, yeah I still watch a movie or two in the theaters because I didn't want to wait for the FREE TV release, or BORROW it from a friend (That *IS* still LEGAL, right? -- Borrowing a movie from a friend? or is that, too, PIRATING?!?!)
As Siskel and Ebert (sp) would have once said, "Two thumbs DOWN!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA then sued AllOfMP3 for $1.3 Trillion? For crying out loud. That's 9.6-times more than the cost of the entire Apolo Space Program. Lance Bass couldn't get to space, so why don't we send him, and setup eight other trips to the moon for the musical elite.
http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2006/12/allofmp3com_fig.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
controlling access
Why do you think that huge broadcast ownership corp (forget the name) owns such a large chunk of XM, a direct competitor to broadcast? Because they dont want the broadcast model threatened! Listen to the basic flow of XM...
song, song, jingle, song, talk, promo, talk, song, song, promo, song..
this is the model on which XM's supposedly commercial free channels is based, exactly the same as the very thing they are trying to replace.
When was the last time you heard someone recording music off broadcast radio? Or that this was an issue to the RIAA?
Look at XM as the music service on DirecTV. It replaced a superior service, that is called Music Choice, which did run the "banned format" which was non-stop uninterrputed music. That is a delivery format that is a direct threat to the music industry and broadcast as well. That is the format that XM pretends to deliver but does not.
Ever wonder why the Superbowl is never allowed on the NFL Channel? The reason is to increase/maintain it's market value thru limiting access. The less people have access the better for the broadcaster/advertiser. I realize it seems contrary to common sense, but it is the model on which the entertainment industry is based.
Based on the restricted access model, we now have a populace that thinks it's normal and okay and is willing to pay to hear/watch commercials. Eventually the free to air broadcast of TV and radio will turn into a promo for subscription services, the end of free broadcast as we know it today is coming.
"L"
p.s. don't think for one minute that HD Radio has anything to do with sound quality!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
XM
Fair or unfair, copywrite infringement is here to stay also.
Rather than hiding in a cave, the RIAA needs to find a way to work with XM, Itunes, the phone manufacturer, etc. to ensure their artists are paid reasonably for their work. I must admit it bugs me when I see artists wearing/driving a million dollars worth of stuff, and I have never heard of them.
Virtually every industry who has tried to maintain a near monopoly throughthe courts, rather than throgh the market, has eventually lost. While CEO pay packages ensure they are out for short term gain, long term nobody profits from protectionist behavior. Wake up RIAA. When music costs a reasonable amount, is good quality and convienent, people will willingly pay for it. When you nickle and dime them to death, charge too much, and make the news daily fighting with someone, people won't play by the rules.
I don't understand the difference between recording music off the radio and what XM is doing. Apparently RIAA doesn't either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]