• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

RIAA attacks internet radio

Perhaps someone can explain to me how this would be beneficial to the RIAA if they raise royalty rates and put all these internet radio stations out of business? If this ends up putting most stations out of business, won't that cut off the revenue from those stations, which even though they pay less in royalties, may make up for it in volume of stations that play their songs (more songs played=more royalties paid)?
 
I just got the first glimmer of the death of newspapers as well. Just got a notice from my paper that they now have the full version online for subscribers. I suppose they figure they can save production and printing costs if they can get so many people to read it only online.
 
alfaniner said:
I just got the first glimmer of the death of newspapers as well. Just got a notice from my paper that they now have the full version online for subscribers. I suppose they figure they can save production and printing costs if they can get so many people to read it only online.
Click to expand...

I haven't purchased a local paper since I found I can not only read all the stories online, but the comics, too, and all without ads. Plus (a big plus) I can respond/discuss/comment on any story I read. Plus I don't have newspaper all over my house. Plus they have more content online such as videos and pictures. Since I cancelled my subscription I'm not sure how they are making money off of me but more power to them.
 
RIAA = music nazi POSs. Some years back I downloaded a bunch of music and don't feel the slightest bit guilty. I wonder if they'll bust a little girl for downloading "Happy Birthday" again, what a smooth move that was :rollleyes:

PS newspapers and the postal system are 2 things I'm amazed are holding up as well as they are.
 
Walk The Line said:
Perhaps someone can explain to me how this would be beneficial to the RIAA if they raise royalty rates and put all these internet radio stations out of business? If this ends up putting most stations out of business, won't that cut off the revenue from those stations, which even though they pay less in royalties, may make up for it in volume of stations that play their songs (more songs played=more royalties paid)?
Click to expand...

I believe that this is a sort of personal vendetta between the RIAA and the Internet.

As for the RIAA in general, supply and demand is all well and good, but when your supply is 20$ per CD, people are going to look elsewhere, and more supply will arise. Learn to compete, please.
 
Morrigan said:
Quoted for truth.
Click to expand...

It isn't true though. For very solid legal reasons they have no problems with music that is produced independantly of the various companies they represent and don't care if those people make money off their music or not.

What they do have problems with is people useing the music of thier members without paying up (not quite true but the exceptions are pretty narrow).

If the radio stations feel that the royalty fees are too high they are free to get music from other sources. Say unsigned bands and pay them in studio time. Go the whole way and set up your own internet only record lable and set your own royalty rates.
 
Walk The Line said:
Perhaps someone can explain to me how this would be beneficial to the RIAA if they raise royalty rates and put all these internet radio stations out of business? If this ends up putting most stations out of business, won't that cut off the revenue from those stations, which even though they pay less in royalties, may make up for it in volume of stations that play their songs (more songs played=more royalties paid)?
Click to expand...

Posibilities are:

The RIAA thinks that most of the stations can afford it
The RIAA thinks without the stations people will buy from other sources
The RIAA thinks that the extra cash from those that are left will cover the cost of those lost
The RIAA thinks that sations will find new income streams to allow them to afford the new costs
The RIAA is clearing away the current companies in order to allow the record lables to start their own stations (ok I'm not sure that one is legal)
 
bigred said:
RIAA = music nazi POSs.
Click to expand...

No they have not tried to systematicaly get rid of all music by jews.


Some years back I downloaded a bunch of music and don't feel the slightest bit guilty.
Click to expand...

Fortunetly our legal system is not based around what people feel guity for doing.

I wonder if they'll bust a little girl for downloading "Happy Birthday" again, what a smooth move that was :rollleyes:
Click to expand...

Given the ammount Warner Music Group paid for the rights to "Happy Birthday To You" (about $5 million) it is not unreasonable for them to protect thier investment.

PS newspapers and the postal system are 2 things I'm amazed are holding up as well as they are.
Click to expand...

Not really. Junk mail will fund the postal system for a long time to come and newspapers are increaseing becomeing an expensive form of vanity publishing.
 
Glen.Nogami said:
I believe that this is a sort of personal vendetta between the RIAA and the Internet.

As for the RIAA in general, supply and demand is all well and good, but when your supply is 20$ per CD, people are going to look elsewhere, and more supply will arise. Learn to compete, please.
Click to expand...
I think they have, somewhat (if only grudgingly). Last I checked, CD prices were down.
 
geni said:
It isn't true though.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Like hell it's not.
Technological advances are making their business model irrelevant. They're grasping at straws because they are only interested in milking out as much money as they can, not because they are concerned about their "artists". Their claims that free music has harmed the careers of their "artists" has been shown to be complete bunk (filesharing does not reduce CD sales), but that's not stopping them because most of the money goes in THEIR pockets, not the artists'. For ◊◊◊◊'s sake, they claim that backing up your own CDs is not fair use! :rolleyes:
 
bigred said:
PS newspapers and the postal system are 2 things I'm amazed are holding up as well as they are.
Click to expand...

I think eBay and online purchasing will keep the post office going for a while with just package delivery. But unless they do something to equal Fed Ex Ground or UPS even that is in question.

The RIAA needs to realize you don't need a physical medium to move music anymore. One of the problems is an "album" usually has one or two songs you love, a couple that are okay, and one or two you will never listen to or simply dislike. Downloading means you get exactly what you want with no wasted space. Single song downloads on a pay site is the way to go, at least I think they are starting to see that. As far as stopping the free sharing, that will be a harder issue to solve.

I think in the future an artist won't make the big bucks on selling songs, it will be in the shows and live concerts. They will still get royalties from radio stations (who in turn "advertise" the song for them in exchange for selling other ads to air around playing the songs) and TV (see: radio stations only with videos) and if the people like the songs then they will come to the concerts. If an artist is good, more airplay, more royalties, more people come to the concert and anything made off of actual song sales to the masses is just extra, otherwise just expect it to circulate.

Personally, I think it's a dilemma only for the mega rich. "I only made 24.4 Million dollars on my last album instead of 24.6 Million. Damn free file sharing!"
 
Morrigan said:
:rolleyes: Like hell it's not.
Technological advances are making their business model irrelevant. They're grasping at straws because they are only interested in milking out as much money as they can, not because they are concerned about their "artists". Their claims that free music has harmed the careers of their "artists" has been shown to be complete bunk (filesharing does not reduce CD sales), but that's not stopping them because most of the money goes in THEIR pockets, not the artists'. For ◊◊◊◊'s sake, they claim that backing up your own CDs is not fair use! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Wow somebody else gets it. Thanks.
 
Not to digress too much, but the saddest thing is all this is that music to a larger and larger extent has become about the "packaging" and the "show," not the music itself. Tragic.
 
Just move the servers outside of the US and boardcast elsewhere, is my answer. If the station is at all profitable it would be worth the trouble.
 
When your business is to use the RIAA's product, you have to live by the RIAA's rules. The RIAA does not own all of the music in the world.

These Internet radio stations are more than welcome to broadcast non-RIAA music for lower royalty rates. The RIAA is well within their rights to charge $1,000,000 in royalty fees per song if they choose to.

I say give the RIAA as much rope as possible. Let's see what happens to them in the long run.
 
geni said:
Given the ammount Warner Music Group paid for the rights to "Happy Birthday To You" (about $5 million) it is not unreasonable for them to protect thier investment.
Click to expand...

You are one of those individuals who will support anything that have the label "legal" on it. Say it becomes legal to have slaves again. You would have zero problems tolerating it... because its not unreasonable to protect your rights to have them.

This is, of course, if you are not the slaved one.

And seriously, the world is more than what laws account for. Laws are made by minorities in power, but in the end they are merely opinions. Its just a matter of time for RIAA to become obsolete.
 
Morrigan said:
:rolleyes: Like hell it's not.
Click to expand...

Make some music indepent of the RIAA. Note the lack of court injunctions filed against you.

Technological advances are making their business model irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Given the number of different models employed by RIAA memebers that seems unlikely.

They're grasping at straws because they are only interested in milking out as much money as they can, not because they are concerned about their "artists".
Click to expand...

The RIAA have no dealings with artists. The RIAA deals with record lables and their shareholders. PLCs have a legal duty to maximise profits.

Their claims that free music has harmed the careers of their "artists" has been shown to be complete bunk (filesharing does not reduce CD sales),
Click to expand...

It is imposible to prove that either way.

but that's not stopping them because most of the money goes in THEIR pockets, not the artists'. For ◊◊◊◊'s sake, they claim that backing up your own CDs is not fair use! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They may well have a point. Fair use wasn't really built around the idea of use by individuals. Fair dealing was to a degree (uk version anyway indian version less so) so you get different results depending on the legal system. The Gowers review in should clear the issue up in the UK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom