RIAA to feds: Make XM-Sirius pay more, restrict listeners' recording
The Recording Industry Association of America has already mounted a court challenge against XM Satellite Radio over gadgets like the Pioneer Inno that allow consumers to trap individual songs originally played on air in alleged violation of copyright.
Now the industry group is urging that issue to be one of the deciding factors for federal regulators weighing the proposed multibillion-dollar union of XM and its sole competitor, Sirius Satellite radio.
In comments filed with the Federal Communications Commission on Monday, the RIAA urged the agency to "make clear that its approval of a merger is conditioned upon the continued protection of sound recordings from unlawful infringement."
Under copyright law, separate licenses exist for the "performance" of a song and for the recording or "distribution" of it. Satellite and Internet radio broadcasters (unlike traditional radio) are already required to pay performance-based royalties.
But the RIAA said it's concerned that both satellite radio companies have invested in technologies that allow them to shortchange artists on the distribution side "by giving users the ability to download copyrighted sound recordings to portable devices, effectively transforming a radio-like service into a digital distribution subscription service like Rhapsody or Napster."
A merger could bolster those investments and "seriously threaten the viability of the music industry as a whole," the RIAA wrote. The group also called on the FCC to require the merged companies to pay higher royalty rates in general to the record industry, arguing the firms are "no longer new, struggling companies" that can get away with paying what it called "below-market rates."
The RIAA has already earned some U.S. senators' blessings this year for a bill that would impose new limits on the broadcasters, including a requirement that they cloak their streams with copy-protection technology, but the proposal hasn't gone anywhere yet.
XM and consumer advocacy groups that have come to its defense insist that the devices in question don't violate copyright law because they operate within a listener's home recording and fair use rights.
The RIAA's comments came on the final day for submitting comments about the public-interest implications of the XM-Sirius deal in general. As of this blog post, more than 5,000 comments had been posted to the FCC's online database. According to a press release distributed Monday afternoon by a firm representing the radio companies, more than 3,500 of those comments came from individuals supporting the deal.
The FCC is still accepting comments for at least another month on a more specific question: whether, if it finds the XM-Sirius deal is hunky-dory for the public, it should waive a decade-old rule prohibiting a single operator from controlling all of the satellite radio spectrum.
back. Download, copy, and distribute all the music you can. It is
the only moral thing to do. No one should buy music. When the
pigs of the RIAA all go bankrupt we can start a much better system
for both artist and listeners.
often just like to listen to silence. Maybe I should just stop
listening, as that will have the same effect as you advocate. Or,
maybe I should make a recording of a whole hour of blessed
silence, publish it, and get the RIAA to sue the daylights out of
anybody caught listening to silence!
You are eroding our privacy and freedoms -- impeding innovation("As in this case, as many have said this was never a issue with FM radio in the 70s and 80s -- why do you think it is a issue now? Cause and effect anyone?") by being a fool and abusing technology for illegal purposes.
People can preach about how it is for the good of the public or the industry but they can't own up to the fact that in reality this is not the way to solve the problem.
People with this type of attitude are only adding fuel to the preverbal fire.
Tell us, what good does piracy do or what good has it done in the past couple years in the spot light?
You can argue or debate it for as long as you like but the reality is the public loses more rights than it gains in this so called effort for change -- ignorance is bliss.
Plus...as long as you plug your XM/Sirius head unit into the Line In plug on your audio card...no amount of encryption or companies pulling blackmail against their users will ever work. For some reason...just because some corporate type or company says not to do something...does that mean to give up your rights? Guess paying those fees every month means absolutely nothing at all. Know I'm not the one getting rich from either of these services.
Give me a break! These bastards never quite. Pretty soon anybody with a set of ears will be liable for copyright infringement because they intentionaly listen to music. If the RIAA had their way we'd all be paying for music but never actually listening to it. God forbid you should actually record a couple of songs to listen more then once! I just don't see how those poor multibillion dollar record companies stay in business!
The latter was considered fair use, but the former isn't?!
I'm tired of the music industry's heavy handed tactics and I had already stopped buying CDs and listening to any Terrestrial Radio other than NPR (more thanks to Clear Channel then RIAA), and they have effectively killed online streaming (at least in the US), so why not kill off another distribution channel in the name of piracy and greed.
Guess no one ever read them the fable of the goose and the golden egg.
music off of FM stations with a cassette recorder or reel-to-reel
hooked up to your receiver...(which was 'top of the line' recording
equipment at the time)...so why such a stink about it NOW?
Recording programs or music off of broadcast stations has been
going on for DECADES!
Your ultimate best bet to get rid of these jokers would be to urge all radio broadcasters to start charging the record labels a per performance fee that equals or exceeds the cost of the per performance fee that the RIAA collects.
So, if the RIAA wants .007 per song, the radio stations should charge the record labels .0014. One of two things are going to happen; either the record labels will begin paying their own performance fees or their will be silence on the airwaves until a more fair system is in place.
XM & Sirius are both in trouble because they cannot get enough customers so, of course, raising their rates and reducing the value of their product is the answer.
I wonder if their will ever learn that attacking your customers isn't good business?
Just recently I learned that the RIAA's tactic for cracking down on file sharing on college campuses has resulted in a lot the peer to peer traffic moving to private encrypted wireless networks - run by students.
Where there is a will, there is a way.
I wonder how much money RIAA rakes in with this stupid scam actually goes to the artists? Probably little or nothing. Most goes to the executives of RIAA, especially its boss Cary Sherman who probably is a billionaire many times over.
RIAA continually promotes this false business premise of $$$ lost to music piracy soley on the premise that people who 'steal' music would have purchased if piracy was not an option.
Unfortunately, the general public has a perverse sense of apathy for loss of rights and freedoms that are being stripped away bit by bit.
Until the public chooses to elect intelligent politicians that are both aware of what and how technology actually works and free from corruption, you, the Americans will continue to be lost in a series of tubes - along with Senator Ted Stevens email.
- restriction fiction - just another cash cow
- by brunocyclo November 30, 2007 10:54 AM PST
- no merger yet and RIAA already has a plan on how to milk this dynamic duo. i am eager for the merger to happen and look forward to all the wonderful channels under one big happy family. i didn't even worry about buying a stiletto 2 at http://www.sirius.com/freeradio because i know that will just give me more options when the merger happens. as for recording, well, the consumer will always find a loophole if we want it bad enough. there's really no point in restricting recording, rather, a better idea would be to monitor recording - that way, they can reroute efforts to channels/content that has more attention; and make money out of that. go with the flow, not against it.
- Reply to this comment
-
(14 Comments)