RIAA Loses To Yahoo Over Webcasting Rates

from the finally dept

Fri, Aug 21st 2009 4:50pm — Mike Masnick

Well, finally. The RIAA has lost its case against Yahoo over what royalties the Launchcast service needed to pay. As per usual, the RIAA kept trying to add on additional fees. Rather than just webcasting fees, it also wanted an additional royalty for being an interactive service. This is a neat trick that the RIAA has been pulling a lot lately. In the past, every time some new technology comes along, the recording industry runs screaming and crying to Congress about how unfair it is, and how it needs a special new royalty for that new technology/service. But here, because Launchcast was online and combined elements of different services, the RIAA simply figured it could lump all the different royalties together and get Launchcast/Yahoo to pay multiple times for each use of a song. The entertainment industry sure does love trying to get everyone to pay multiple times for the same thing.

But, it appears the court was having none of that, saying that the service didn't provide enough user control to make it an interactive service that would require a different license (though, it still has to pay the basic webcasting fees). The ruling here did not take kindly to the RIAA's argument that being able to choose which station you wanted to listen to (or that you could skip songs) made it somehow interactive beyond regular radio:

"Launchcast listeners do not even enjoy the limited predictability that once graced the AM airwaves on weekends in America when 'special requests' represented love-struck adolescents' attempts to communicate their feelings to 'that special friend'."

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

Filed Under: music, royalties, webcasting
Companies: launchcast, riaa, yahoo

9 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Thomas (profile), 21 Aug 2009 @ 4:52pm

"Someone's trying to make our product more accessible?? We must tax that or stop it!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 21 Aug 2009 @ 5:03pm

RTFA
I love this quote from the article: 'The law at issue defines an interactive service as a service "that enables a member of the public to receive a transmission of a program specially created for the recipient, or on request, a transmission of a particular sound recording ... which is selected by or on behalf of the recipient."

In his 42-page opinion for the appeals court, Judge Richard Wesley said the U.S. Congress enacted the law because previous laws did not do enough to protect sound recording copyright holders from falling record sales.'

This is the mandate of our elected representatives? Taking away citizens' rights to prop up failing businesses? Glad I didn't pay attention in Civics class in high school. I'd be really conflicted ..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2009 @ 5:58pm

This is important:

"it appears the court was having none of that, saying that the service didn't provide enough user control to make it an interactive service that would require a different license"

It doesn't say that these double licenses are illegal or against anything, only that the service wasn't interactive enough to qualify.

I don't think it a win or a lose for the RIAA or Yahoo, yahoo still has to pay, and the RIAA hasn't had the idea of double dipping slammed by the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
..., 21 Aug 2009 @ 6:00pm

It is obviously the fault of the RIAA
they did not file in East Texass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2009 @ 6:01pm
  
  Re: It is obviously the fault of the RIAA
  That explains a lot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 21 Aug 2009 @ 6:08pm

@ #3
Good point. "You don't get to double dip this time, but just wait - Surely someone will innovate some new service that makes the crappy experience of streaming music slightly less crappy, and then we'll figure out a way that it violates the hokey law we made to protect your dying business model. Don't send those lawyers home just yet."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2009 @ 7:37pm
  
  Re: @ #3
  Yup, it may not be to anyone's liking, but the judge didn't rule anything on the concept of the double dip, just that the technology level here didn't merit it.
  
  In some weird way, this might actually be a semi-win for the RIAA on the issue, not to anyone's liking.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gr8oldies (profile), 22 Aug 2009 @ 8:45am

they'll find another way
this is just a minor setback for the RIAA they'll be back I can promise that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sad former launchcast user, 23 Sep 2009 @ 12:48am

The RIAA won this case a long time ago when Yahoo shut down the customized radio service that this case was all about. This is a ruling on a product that no longer exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]