RIAA Sues Radio Stations For Giving Away Free Music (1 Viewer)

[mike_decock]

RIAA Sues Radio Stations For Giving Away Free Music .
-Mike...

 

[Joel Mack]

You're aware The Onion isn't real, right?

Can't tell from your post...

 

[Paul_Medenwaldt]

Well i know this isn't true...
The Onion sure can come up with some good ones!

Paul

 

[mike_decock]

You're aware The Onion isn't real, right?

Yeah, but I do like the point they are making.

-Mike...

 

[RaulR]

The Onion's brand of satire is terrific because it cuts very close to the truth. I wouldn't put it past the clowns in the RIAA to have actually considered doing this.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Well, if the satirist knew anything about the music industry, he would know that radio stations license and pay royalties for the music they play, which would preclude any such action on that basis by the RIAA, especially since the RIAA has nothing to do with performance licensing. Every radio station is required by law to log every song they play, so that appropriate royalties can be paid to the authors, composers and publishing companies by their respective performing rights organisations.

All this article does is provide yet another groundless argument for file traders to try to draw a parallel to their activities, which of course, it doesn't.

 

[Rachael B]

Jeff, I bet you never believed in Santa Claus!

 

[Benson R]

Jeff I'm surprised you always bother posting in these threads since you always get little support. I understand your anger since you believe these freeloaders are costing you money but most people here probably would side with me when I say that it is not true.

My position and many others here is that there is nothing illegal about downloading but that the record companies don't have to make it easy to do and that nobody has right to make money off of it without paying royalties.

Perhaps your from overseas? I understand that the sale of bootlegs, be it entertainment media or computer software, is a much bigger problem in other countries even many Western European ones.

I also think in your haste you also missed the point of the onion article. People can hear music for free its nothing new. I think royalties from radio are more about keeping track of what is being played then about profit. When you consider the size of the audience that hears music on the radio and the fact that anyone can record it the cost per listener is very very low.

 

[Benson R]

People say there is no parallel between recording broadcasts and copying store bought music(without intent to resell).

I tended to agree with this for awhile but then I started thinking. Initially when recordable consumer devices became available media companies sued to block them. They argued they licensed their properties out for broadcast and no one was allowed to record them.

Well when someone buys a cd is there really any law that says they can't make a copy on tape for their friend? Sure if they tried to sell a copy they would be in violation but I don't remember signing a license agreement to listen to that cd. I just remembered purchasing it.

DVDs have FBI warnings but you didn't sign a contract on your receipt. Copying those however would be illegal because there are laws against circumventing the copyright protection (the constitutionality of that can be argued at another time). But there is no copy protection to circumvent on most cds.

So I think without new laws there is nothing illegal about downloading mp3s unless the person who copied them had to circumvent a copyright protection. Profiting by creating a distribution system would still be illegal but if the creator truly made no money and did not even recoup their investment in it then even that would not be illegal.

Oh and before anyone gets on my case I spend more on entertainment media than anything else. I have hundreds of movies and cds. The only mp3s I keep on my computer are concert bootlegs of bands for which I already own their entire catalog along with anything else they put out.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Benson, the ist of the article is to make radio appear the same in nature as sharing MP3s. It isn't. Radio pays for their use of music, and I can tell you the royalties paid aren't nickles and dimes, it is a multibillion dollar revenue stream. However, these are also performance royalties, which fall into a completely different category than distribution royalties (mechanicals).

I bother posting to these threads in an effort to combat the rampant misinformation that plagues forums like this in the hopes that if even one person gets the message I have done them a service.

For the record, I am not angry about file sharing, even though it does cost me money. What bothers me more is knowing how many great bands will never have a chance at a career because they simply can't earn a living making music.

 

[Benson R]

From what I understand most musicians will never make a living off royalties, even successful ones.

I realize we will never come to an agreement on this. I think your wrong and the forum here is not uninformed about this. I think you are right that a lot of freeloaders on most Internet discussion forms are not seriously discussing this issue.

However I feel the htforum has a much more sophisticated readership so I feel the fact that the consensus is the same here says something.

I truly believe the explosion of file sharing has had no impact on cd sales or radio royalties. It only costs the industry money if it costs a sale.

I think it only becomes illegal when someone tries to make money off of it. Most of the file sharing programs are illegal because they take in advertising revenue.

I would like to hear you debate the specific legal issues I brought up in my post and would like to hear where your from. I know bootlegging is much more prevalent overseas so maybe that's why you feel this costs you money.

And my opinion on bootlegging is that it is illegal and offenders should be prosecuted. But this is not something new from the digital age so it is not costing the recording industry more than it was before.

 

[Benson R]

Oh before I call it a night has anyone seen this new ad campaign about downloading? I had a good laugh at 'Downloading makes Britney cry.' I know thats not a quote but it should have been. They should try to bring out more longterm artists that still have future recording careers.

If a hardworking established band says that they have seen their catalog sales drop in the last few years and can tie that to filesharing I might express some sympathy.

However if the RIAA wants us to believe that Britney's underperforming album is the result of anything but her audience's lack of desire to continue listening to her in their adult years then they have no respect for the intellect of their audience.

 

[James Q Jenkins]

Benson, pick up any CD you have and read the back. There's no stipulation about whether you profit or not on it, there is a very clear prohibition on all unauthorized copying. You are wrong.

 

[Brian Perry]

Well when someone buys a cd is there really any law that says they can't make a copy on tape for their friend?

Absolutely.
If my friend and I are fans of Rush and I purchase their new CD and make a copy for my friend--who would have also bought it if a copy couldn't be made--don't you see anything wrong with that?
The general argument is that making a copy or downloading a file increases a band's exposure and helps sell more. That is certainly a debatable point. But in my very specific example above, there is no possible justification, legally or morally, for making that copy.
By the way, your position with respect to bootlegs seems to be contradictory. In my eyes, bootleg sales do not hurt anybody financially, as the product is not for sale anyway. The moral issue is whether it is right to obtain material that the band might not want to be public.

 

[Mike Broadman]

If a hardworking established band says that they have seen their catalog sales drop in the last few years and can tie that to filesharing I might express some sympathy.

Metallica?

I would hope that fans of a band or artist would respect that musicians' wishes on things like this. For example, as a fan of Crimson / Fripp, I would never bring a tape recorder or a camera to one of their concerts because Fripp has made it quite clear how much he is against it. However, Chuck D of Public Enemy has vocally supported file sharing, so I would have no problem downloading Public Enemy, even if it does violate some sort of copyright mumbo-jumbo. The fact that artists don't own their own music is a bigger crime than any file sharing.

NP: Todd Rundgren, A Wizard, A True Star
(Who I believe is another file-sharing supporter)

 

[Seth_L]

Benson, pick up any CD you have and read the back. There's no stipulation about whether you profit or not on it, there is a very clear prohibition on all unauthorized copying. You are wrong.

This is so very wrong. Just because someone puts it in writing doesn't mean it's true. I can put a warning label on my car that says I'm not responsible for any damage I do with it. Does that actually free me of the responsibility? No.

The warnings that are on movies and cds are not legally binding they're just scare tactics by the respective industries. Until you start selling copies and making money, or the **AA can sucessfully prove in court that you are making from their copyrighted works you have not violated copyright law.

Seth

 

[Seth_L]

Absolutely.
If my friend and I are fans of Rush and I purchase their new CD and make a copy for my friend--who would have also bought it if a copy couldn't be made--don't you see anything wrong with that?
The general argument is that making a copy or downloading a file increases a band's exposure and helps sell more. That is certainly a debatable point. But in my very specific example above, there is no possible justification, legally or morally, for making that copy.
By the way, your position with respect to bootlegs seems to be contradictory. In my eyes, bootleg sales do not hurt anybody financially, as the product is not for sale anyway. The moral issue is whether it is right to obtain material that the band might not want to be public.

Absolutely not. You're wrong. In fact not only is there no law that makes it illegal. There is a law that makes it explicitly legal. You can copy your friends CDs to audio tapes until you are blue in the face, or copy your CDs to audio tapes and give them to other people until you pass out of exhaustion and there isn't one thing that the recording industry can do about it.
Why you ask... The Home Recording Act of 1992 specifically states that, "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings." Guess what that means? If there's no money changing hands it's not illegal. Why? becuase of the "Theif Tax" that's built into the price of blank audio tapes and blank audio CDs, DAT tapes, Minidisc Blanks, etc. I pay the "tax" when I buy the discs, I can copy till I'm bored.
Seth

 

[mike_decock]

Personally, I think the point the article was making was that MP3 Filesharing is a PROMOTIONAL tool.
You can also argue that downloads are actually increasing CD sales.
-Mike...

 

[Brian Perry]

Seth,
Do you personally see anything morally wrong with making a copy of a CD for a friend who more than likely would buy the CD if CD burners didn't exist? I'm not talking about making a copy of a CD to introduce a friend to a band he hasn't heard of before.
As far as a tax being built in to recordable media, I believe that applies only to cassette tapes and possibly minidiscs. When I can buy 100 blank CD-Rs for $8, I have a hard time believing there is any tax in there.

 

[Jeremy Stockwell]

I think part of the problem here is that there is a difference between what is immoral and what is illegal. Sometimes there are things that "feel" wrong even though they are perfectly legal. Other times, you "feel" like you are doing the right (moral) thing, but the law indicates otherwise. That's why we have laws. They set a firm standard in a society where people differ about what "feels" right or wrong.
Seth is correct about the AHRA.
Brian, if you want to hold yourself to a higher standard than what our laws require, go for it. I commend you for it! But, you'd better get used to dissappointment if you expect everyone else to do the same (I've had a hard time learning this, myself - still working on it).
The path of this thread quickly went from "What is legal?" (which Seth answered) to "What is moral?" which could not be answered here, even if the Mods let us try.
JKS