Webcaster Alliance Threatens To Sue RIAA

detroitindustrial writes "The Washington Post reports that the Webcaster Alliance is threatening to sue the RIAA under the Sherman Antitrust Act. In their letter to the RIAA, the Webcaster Alliance alleges that the RIAA and the Voice of Webcasters negotiated in collusion and, 'were apparently intent on either eliminating their competitors and/or raising barriers to entry in the market for small commercial webcasting.' It goes on to say that the RIAA also wanted to eliminate smaller webcasters, who tend to play more independent material, in order to maintain their monopoly on music distribution."

Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

The next few years are really going to see a jump in self-expression and netbound A/V communications solutions. Anything that blasts the RIAA to prevent them from pulling some shit here is **a good thing**.

classic RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:
"...the RIAA negotiated with a group called Voice of Webcasters, which represented fewer than 15 Internet radio stations..."

This is classic RIAA. IT's funny becuase they wouldn't have so much trouble selling people on the idea of good behavior regarding the copying of music if they themselves were more honest brokers.

Commercial vs Non Commercial Radio Stations

[GillBates0]

Okay, I've been thinking about this for the last few weeks.

Do all radio stations have to pay royalties, or only commercial radio stations? I think it's the latter, since our college runs its own non-commercial radio station and they don't have to pay any royalties that I know of.

A majority of the online radio stations are non-commercial, as in, they don't run radio stations for money. Most are run by shoutcast and other hobbyists anyway. So, why should these radio stations have to pay royalties, if their real-world (pardon the expression) counterparts do nt have to?

May not turn out as planned

[Tha_Big_Guy23]

While their intentions are noble,(Read: It's about time someone went after the RIAA)I don't think that they'll have the money available to pull off an anti-trust lawsuit against the RIAA. The RIAA could probably throw enough money into the lawsuit to keep it in courts for ages. These independant webcasters are going to need some help if they have any chance of pulling this off. I may sound negative, but it's the truth.

Hobbyists should pay for their hobby

[Anonymous Coward]

However John Simson of the RIAA's collection arm, SoundExchange, argues that broadcasters should pay for their hobby.

"The average hunter spends around $1,800 per year on their hobby. How much do photographers spend?" he told us. "It's all well and good to run a hobby, but Kodak doesn't give out free film. It's only right to pay a reasonable fee," he said.

Hobbyists should pay for their hobbies; unless that hobby contributes something to society. A hunter hunts for himself, usually. A photographer takes pictures for his own enjoyment, usually. I am a Paid on Call Firefighter. That's my hobby. And I get 9 dollars an hour when I'm on call and 7 bucks per hour for training. The independent broadcasters contribute to society, too.

The RIAA should be subsidizing them.

Re:Bout Time

[mhore]

SomaFM forever!!

Amen. SomaFM rocks.

Re:Bout Time

[MrLint]

Can you substantiate this claim? It seems that it would be patently illegal to ask for payment to play music that the RIAA members dont have copyright on.

Re:Bout Time

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the point, it SHOULD be illegal, but because of bullshit laws, it isn't.

Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll get about as far as Kazaa did. The RIAA is a legal juggernaut. They have a bottomless pit of money to work with.

Re:Commercial vs Non Commercial Radio Stations

[wytcld]

Radio stations don't pay royalties at all. Broadcast of music is seen as working to advertise it, thus the musicians and distributors are compensated for the use of their work by the free advertising it receives through that use.

The Internet, for totally arbitrary reasons, isn't treated that way. However, in the RIAA scheme, a radio station that simulcasts over the Net will pay less than an outfit that only uses the Net, and not the airwaves at all. So existing radio stations receive an effective subsidy for Net broadcasts of their largely-monopolistic trash.

Re:and what exactly is stopping small labels?

[Elwood P Dowd]

The laws in place don't allow record labels to pick a price. There is a fixed price, which is far higher than small webcasters can afford. It doesn't matter if indie labels, or anyone else, feel like lowering the bar.

This law wasn't to benefit copyright holders, it was to benefit advertisers by bringing about market consolidation (forcing small webcasters out of business).

Re:I have some sympathy for the RIAA

[common_sence]

What inevitably happens is that people will record internet radio stations all day and then put all the CD quality songs up for download, thereby harming the music industry.

(sarcasm)Yea, all the streaming audio I hear is CD quality.(/sarcasm)

For the vast majority of Internet users, listening to streaming audio is only a substitution when it isn't possible to hear it on a real radio.

Of course, there is another way to hurt them. STOP BUYING THEIR CRAP! Get involved with the local music scene, or anything to promote indie labels, indie bands, etc. When ppl stop buying their products, they'll be forced to take notice.

Buncha greedy pigs...

Re:Hobbyists should pay for their hobby

[Anonymous Coward]

Kodak doesn't give out free film

I don't think anybody is giving these webcasters free bandwidth either. But photographers don't have to pay a fee simply for the right to take pictures. They just have to buy their hardware.

The Endgame

[felonious]

When will everyone wake up and realize that when they buy cd's, tapes, etc. that they are indirectly supporting the RIAA? Yes we all love music but we risk our musical freedom buying the products the RIAA sells. I have almost 1000 store bought cd's but I can no longer buy them from such a monopolistic, evil diety as the RIAA.

They want to dictate who, what, when, where, why and how I buy and listen to my music. It's my fucking choice and they have forced me to boycott all they sell. I can get anything I want free so I'll go back to that method.

Sueing your customers into a lifelong debt is unjustified and narrowminded bullshit in it's basis. By setting examples in ruining the avergae person's financial life is completely uncalled for and I will not have any part in supporting these fucks in buying their products.

If anyone has any self-respect or ethics then they'll also refuse to support this ridiculous entity called the RIAA. We stop buying they start to get the message.

Fuck the RIAA...you can't shit where you eat...unless you're Hilary Rosen:)

I was following you until...

[lpret]

I was following you until you said: " they see the RIAA as the master of the market, and lawsuits like these only perpeptuate that control."

I don't see how a lawsuit against them will help them. If you mean that it acknowledges that they are indeed the top dog, that has already been conceded by all parties.

But I will say that after listening to internet radio, not only has my musical taste become more mature, but I have bought more CDs since these groups cannot be found on P2P. Indie groups are the future of music -- and the RIAA is scared of the future because it will trump their pop music.

Re:Webcasters continue to sell out freedom, film a

[edrugtrader]

they are not lobbying for the rights to play the RIAA's product... they are demanding that they not pay the "RIAA webcaster surcharge fee" if they don't play RIAA music. they are doing exactlly what you are bitching about them to do. the RIAA basically got the government to believe that if you are playing music over the airwaves, it must be the RIAA's music and thus they deserve a cut of the fees. with airwaves that is easy, the FCC charges you to broadcast and gives some to the RIAA. with the internet there is no FCC getting paid so the RIAA wants the same money from the web caster even if they aren't playing RIAA music.

The college stations don't have to pay because colleges are a state protected institution.

Re: "independent broadcasters" vs webcasters

[cait56]

I am fully in favor of music creators being able to collect payment for their work. However, there needs to be some fairness between over-the- air broadcasters and over-the-net webcasters.

I fail to see any reason why the artist or label is entitled to more payment because the "broadcaster" is using the Internet to deliver the music.

The Anti-trust act may be fully applicable if the real point is that the RIAA and record labels prefer the over-the-air broadcasters (with heavily concentrated ownership) to the truly independent webcasters.

And anyone who believes that radio broadcasters exercise "independent" judgement in their selection of music obviously never listens to the radio.

Fat chance

[CausticWindow]

I'm studying business law, and stuff like this is what I know best. These guys have as much chance as a snowball in hell.

I wish it were otherwise, but the odds are against them.

Re:The Endgame

[angle_slam]

We stop buying they start to get the message.

Not that simple. Sales are down and RIAA members are using it as proof of P2P's effect on sales.

Re:I have some sympathy for the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortuantly they dont notice. They blame 'pirates' instead.

Recession, gosh golly gee wilikers, CANT be that. People must be stealing our music! Yes thats it, people have decided to stop buying it because they can get it for free.

Never mind MOST of the people that download 5 gig of music would never even come close to buying that much. They wouldnt bother, most of it is not even worth money...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

A new revenue model

[lavaface]

Don't forget, the record industry is getting hit on TWO fronts-production and distribution. As the prices for audio software and hardware falls (~$1500 for a starter studio rig), almost anyone can produce music if they know how or have a friend who does. With the internet, you have worldwide distribution (if you can get people to listen) Filtering mechanisms like blogs can be used to establish "music cooperatives." These cooperatives could actively promote music for AND raise money for contributing artists by selling records/songs directly. The record company's are the ultimate middlemen. They DO provide promotion services and front tour money. However,more often than not, this money comes out of the artist's royalty earnings. I trust the collective judgement of millions of musiclovers to sort the cream from the crap(to mix some metaphors) For artists', the best way to make money is consistently put on a great show and deliver music that defines a scene. The open source community should work on tools to further both the production, distribution, AND COMPENSATION aspects of music.

Re:"Independent broadcasters" Are Illusory

[cait56]

The objective of every broadcaster, commercial and non-commercial, is to attract and keep an audience. If the station puts being independent ahead of playing something the audience likes, it will flounder.

Great idea. It would even work if every radio station were independently owned and operated, trying to maximize its revenue in honest competition.

You need to review some recent FCC "rulings" (i.e. adminstrative acts of sabotage against the spirit of the law that they are supposed to be enforcing).

Re:The grand plan

[Anonymous Coward]

I was walking downtown a few days ago and from A&Fitch's store came a blast of disco-like dance. A few years ago I would have stopped and listened because it's a type of music that I would never be exposed to other than a random encounter.
But this time I just got annoyed. It occured to me that this wasn't 'music', it was product. As it was product that was specifically designed and engineered by music technicians in RIAA music studios for the purpose of destroying us.
It used to be that music was a shared human experience that created joy in our lives. Now it is a product designed to put us in the position where the RIAA is poised to take away our freedom and life savings.
The prison industry needs a whole new classification of 'criminals' to keep a steady stream of new product flowing into the American Gulag. By making everyone who has ever made or downloaded an MP3 file into a criminal, they have enough new 'raw material' to double or triple the American prison population. The coming MP3-war will be for the 2010's what the Drug-war was to the 1990's: a way for private prison corporations to get rich by put millions of young people behind
bars for imaginary crimes. Lawyers will love it because they will make millions keeping wealthy young people out of prison on technicalities, the way that they do now make millions from legal fees keeping wealthy teen-agers out of prison for pissant marijuana and beer arrests. Judges will love it because they get valuable stock options from the private prison corporations, like CCA and Wackenhut. Politicans get large campaign contibutions from private prison corporations and will continue to come up with new laws to criminalize the ordinary behavior of the young.
I don't honestly believe that the RIAA realizes that they are being set-up to be the people that will be seen as responsible for the future inprisonment of a whole new generation of young people within a decade. Wackehut gets all the profits, and the RIAA gets all of the blame. Once they create a legal framework for putting young people in prison for listening to music, they won't be able to stop this massive enlargment of the gulag regardless of the agreements that they may eventually reach with the file sharers.

Re:Bulshit

[recursiv]

Do you think a major label would turn down a chance to sign another Moby?
Hell fucking yes they would turn down a chance to sign "another Moby". They don't need another Moby. Moby is nothing special. They can create an artist out of nothing who has no talent that sells twice as much as Moby. They do it all the time.

Go to Detroit and you can find, in just about any record collector store, early singles and EPs from Seger, Nugent, Romantics, MC5 - music that wasn't on a major label. Sure didn't stop those guys from becoming arms of the machine.
Yes, but you have to go to a record collector store to get those. Those certainly aren't being sold at Best Buy. I'll bet those albums didn't sell very well compared to their later sales figures either.

My position is actually that the RIAA exists because there is actually a demand for the service it provides. People don't know what music to like. The service the RIAA provides is to tell them. I'd wager that if the RIAA was abolished, a similar organization would form to take its place.

There is no doubt that music exists outside the RIAA. People who actually like music already know this. They already know how to get music they like. But the majority of people don't really care about music that much. Certainly not enough to spend time researching different genres and artists. It's much easier just to be told what to like. And there's money to made doing the telling, so it's only natural that the RIAA is so big.

Re:Lawsuits

[Lord_Dweomer]

" legal profession seems very appealing compared to IT and so far it hasn't been affected by outsourcing either !!"

Law likely won't be outsourced. Last I checked you needed to be in the courtroom to argue a case. But you're right, America is being reduced to a country which consists solely of service professions, law, medicine, marketing, entertainment, and food. Welcome to America.

Re:May not turn out as planned

[appcoal]

This could be an attractive case for a contingency fee. The Alliance represents a significant number of webcasters. The damage per webcaster can be determined pursuant to a formula (e.g., songs played * overcharge per song), which means that the case could be tried as a class action. Any damages verdict would then be tripled under the Sherman Act. I'd say, if the case has merits, there should be no shortage of enterpreneurial lawyers to take it on. But what about the merits? I don't know enough about the market to have a feel for the second argument in the letter (monopolization of the sound recording market), but as a general matter, it is tough for a plaintiff to sue for a rate adjustment under the antitrust laws (e.g., based on an essential facilities theory), in particular if the industry is regulated by a rate-setting body. The first argument, "elimination of competition in the small webcasting market," may be a winner, if the Alliance has proof. There is probably no monopolization claim (Section 2 of the Sherman Act) because neither the RIAA/its members nor the VOW webcasters have sufficient market power (70% or more) in that market. (The Alliance concedes that barriers to entry are low.) Thus, the only option that's left is a conspiracy claim under Section 1, e.g., a group boycott (of the VOW members), together with an upstream supplier (the RIAA/members) to deny lower input prices to the VOW/members' competitors in order to drive them from the market. Sounds good, however success depends entirely on whether the Alliance plaintiffs will be able to prove a conspiracy (i.e., an agreement to restrain competition among the VOW members and the Alliance/members). If the Alliance has gotten its hands on smoking gun documents, the RIAA will settle this case in a heartbeat. If it didn't (and if the RIAA is confident that there are no discoverable "bad docs"), the RIAA will fight and the Alliance will have a very hard time getting past summary judgment.

Re:The Endgame

[Anonymous Coward]

They want to dictate who, what, when, where, why and how I buy and listen to my music.

This is exactly right, as I see it. The RIAA's war on MP3s has never really been about theft, since they've gotten used to it over the years as verdict after verdict has held that music consumers do have some rights to copy and transform bought music into lesser-quality formats like mp3s and cassettes. However, what really gives them the shits is this transformation in distribution which they don't control. This is their sole source of gravy (BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, Harry Fox, etc. handle the money side of all of this). What we have these days is a way for people to find music on their own. This increases the chances that the cabal behind the RIAA will lose their stranglehold on your ears, which until this point was handled rather tidily by radio and MTV.

Remember when you first heard college radio? Well, they hate you for discovering it. Anything like college or independent radio is only tolerated, but if more people (say, the Britney Bizkit crowd) start hearing non-RIAA music, or RIAA music that their backers aren't prepared to market aggressively. But imagine if mainstreamers had the ear-opening experience you did when you figured out there was a whole 'nother world of music out there, one that was similar to what you had before, but BETTER.

I don't think the RIAA is against P2P, I'm sure they love the medium as a low-cost high-margin distribution channel, but only as long as it's DRMed and PRO'ed to their satisfaction. Read: as long as they control the supply. It's a classic power-building strategy and was a turningpoint in human development when someone figured out how to charge people for water. Control the water supply. Control the music selection. There's no profit in freedom and this is why unrestricted MP3s in America will lose, because it's money vs. no-money and we all know how that game goes in the USA.

I'm not even against major label music. There's just some music that sounds better when a lot of money is spent on it (orchestra, session players, overdubs, and/or so on). No, this is about ignoring the studies that say that people who download a lot of music also buy a lot of music. Which one of those conditions makes them money? They'd like it to be both. I really don't think all ofthis is as complicated as it's portrayed. RIAA will sanction p2p when they make money off of it. They'll say it's the best thing ever in the history of man as soon as that happens.

im glad.

[Mark19960]

someone needs to stop the RIAA from becoming a micro$oft.
besides, they put out crap anyhow, what happened to being original and innovative?
seems like these days the new thing is to suppress innovation, or anything new. unless you control the purse strings, of course.