RIAA Protests Digital Radio 255
prostoalex writes "Afraid that digital radio listeners might soon be able to cherry-pick certain songs and share them with others on the Internet, RIAA urged FCC to consider broadcast regulations that limit such copying. The National Association of Broadcasters is not too happy with RIAA's request, as more than three hundred broadcasters either have digital CD-quality radio, or are in the process of setting them up. Meanwhile, as MSNBC notes, products like The Bug from Pure Digital are already capable of recording digital radio."
And next up... (Score:5, Funny)
//sigh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And next up... (Score:5, Interesting)
But I remembered reading once about the RIAA or some recording studio not liking the idea of cellphone ringtones of popular music. This resulted in cellphone companies having to pay royalties for every ringtone that they sell. Imagine... ringtones (the old ones anyway) are just beeps in different notes! It seems that, technically, you're also not allowed to whistle anymore.
Just some lame and useless info for everyone.
Re:And next up... (Score:3, Funny)
...and niether will mine (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately I couldn't do that. Every time I now think about the RIAA and whatever approach they are currently trying to keep their grip on the fat cash they make screwing over the artist, customer, and anyone else who gets in the way I can only ever think of two words.
"Fuck Them"
So that's my post. Don't be too hard on me mods because I tried. Maybe I've seen one too many RIAA stories or something but those four letters just draw one response from me at this point and that was it.
Re:And next up... (Score:3, Insightful)
The lawyers have divided up the turf between themselves and singing isn't on the RIAAs turf.
KFG
Re:And next up... (Score:3)
Re:And next up... (Score:4, Interesting)
Pretty much half my stock in trade. Die Gadanken Sind Frei goes back perhaps a thousand years and is still, unfortunately, topical today.
Stephen Foster, Scot Joplin, Civil War songs. Lots of good public domain stuff out there.
Unfortunately Mississippi John Hurt didn't record until 1929 and that's when the copyright starts counting from, Robert Johnson later than that. The blues, a pure folk medium, is propriatary. Even given life of the author plus 50 years it will be some time before it becomes public domain, and many publishers are claiming that the clock starts at the time they copyrighted it, not at the time it was first protected by copyright, and if they can assert that legally the there's a 95 year clock on Hurt starting in 1963.
This isn't the first time Congress has fucked up royally.
KFG
When will it ever end?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:When will it ever end?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When will it ever end?? (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't want it to end, that is the plain answer. The RIAA lives of the customers who buy "legal" music (they never remember the Creative Commons license, isn't that curious?). They are not interested in the earnings of the artists, of course; they only stand for their own earnings. Take into account that a musician earns more money playing in concerts, than selling discs.
To sum up: money rules.
Muaaaaaaaaks
--
Re:When will it ever end?? (Score:2, Interesting)
Bands make their money selling CDs* and Official Merchandise. Think of the concerts as a comercial for the CD.
*They make money on volume sales. For a Major Label, the breakeven point for a band could be as high as 1.2 million; ie, they make dollar number on the 1.2 millionth +1 CD. Minor labels, the point could be as low as 100,000 CDs.
Re:When will it ever end?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, I strongly disagree with you. They make money selling CDs only if they sell a huge amount of them; that is, if they are a well-known band. But for those who are not as famous as them, it is better to have 100.000 "illegal" fans than 1.000 "legal" ones, because this way they will manage to get to more people, so more people will buy a ticket for their concerts. At least that's the way I see it.
Anyway, thank you for answering. I'll think of what you have just said.
Muaaaaaaaks
--
Re:When will it ever end?? (Score:4, Informative)
ummm, no, unless you are a major promotion company Bill Graham Presents, Clear Channel, etc. As a promoter you are luck to make a living wage.
As an example:
My girlfriend used to promote bands here in SF, one show she did sold approximately 1200 tickets, at $25 a ticket, she had $30,000 coming in. sounds good.
oops
band cost: 12,000
rider costs: 2,500 venue rental: 4,000
promotion: 2,000
equipment rental for night of show: 5,000
staff costs: 1,500
for a rough total of: 27,000
she worked her ass of for one month, and worked somewhat hard for another month. So let's call it $3,000 for working her ass off for one and a half months. $12.50 an hour. whoopee.
The band, showed up, had a hotel room waiting, had all but their specialty lighting waiting, had half their instruments waiting. did a 45 minute sound check, played for an hour and 15 minutes, and made 12,000, minus 10% for management, and let's say another 20% for incidentals, they made 8,400 for one nights work. 3 people in the band, 2800 each, they played a city a night for something like 3 months, with a conservative 2 days off a week, each band member made about $150,000 in three months.
this is a relatively niche oriented band, with a consistent following, but they are making decent money at it.
promoters don't really start to make money until they own venues, and can negotiate multiple shows, etc.
I could go on and on, but as in anything music business related, the bigger you are the more you make. not much to do with talent, most the folks I know that are in the live music business are in it because they really like a certain style of music, or possibly they just love music, but you sure aren't in it for the money.
Re:When will it ever end?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Excellent comment. In fact, the part about the "legal" music is almost taken verbatim from their about us [riaa.com] page.
They are not interested in the earnings of the artists, of course; they only stand for their own earnings. Take into account that a musician earns more money playing in concerts, than selling discs.
This is what I've been thinking about lately. Who else is remotely similar to the RIAA or the MPAA? Technically, they are classified as an industry trade group [wikipedia.org]. And that industry trade groups are put together by a group of corporations that are in a common industry for the purpose of government legislation and public relations. Other industry trade groups are the American Plastics Council [americanpl...ouncil.org] and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association [beef.org].
These other two organizations I know of though their TV comercials where they have slogans like "Beef, Its whats for dinner", or the plastics ads where they show how our lives have been improved with the advent of plasic materials.
Now, lets think of my interaction with the RIAA and the MPAA. Its been on the news, and how they are pissed off that people are downloading files, then suing these people, etc.
The RIAA and MPAA do not have a product. They are not a corporation. They cannot ever loose money. They are given money from membership fees from thier members [riaa.com]. These fees are solely based on the market share and size of the corporation. They are like a voluntary tax!
Does this remind you of another organization that is purely based upon lawsuits and pres releases? You can find them by searching google for litigious bastards [google.com].
Dont worry about these guys. They will not be around too much more. SCO is almost out of amunition to prove thier existance, and being that the RIAA and MPAA have no more amunition than SCO, they too will just disipear.
Blunder (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Blunder (Score:4, Insightful)
The "people" want it ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Listening == advertising == money for the radio station.
Eventually someone would come along who *was* willing to play RIAA stuff, and he'd be rich, because he'd be able to sell advertising again, because people would be listening -- unlike the guys with the yodelling tapes.
Unfortunately the great masses of people
Re:Blunder (Score:2)
Or "excessively", as in, you are too concerned about grammar to post anything on /.
What would be cool... (Score:5, Interesting)
Or can digital radios already do this?
Re:What would be cool... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you see, that would be innovation. The RIAA isn't a company that comes out with products, it's an association of old-school record companies trying to protect their old-school business model.
Re:What would be cool... (Score:2)
Yeah but how long... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yeah but how long... (Score:3, Funny)
Now where's my screwdriver?
Re:What would be cool... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What would be cool... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What would be cool... (Score:4, Insightful)
That'd require some mega-DRM - the digital broadcast would have to be encrypted to prevent unauthorized radios from "pirating" songs. I don't really think we want the RIAA getting into the radio business, they've fucked up the CD business enough as it is.
Re:What would be cool... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What would be cool... (Score:5, Funny)
No, the RIAA's digital radio would automatically charge your credit card $18 per song which you would be able to replay as many times as you wanted* on that particular digital radio for a period of 24 hours.
* Note, does not include permission to play it to audiences greater than a single person. Everyone person must have their own $18/24hr license.
Re:What would be cool... (Score:3, Informative)
Massinova (Score:5, Informative)
And to thank them for their efforts, the RIAA sued and screwed em, and now that great Trance stream is no more.
Long live Massinova.
Re:Massinova (Score:5, Informative)
Ah, but it lives on at Massinova: Reborn -- http://massinova.db140.com/ [db140.com]. The stream itself is at http://66.135.33.226:8000/listen.pls [66.135.33.226]. The request system is gone, I'm afraid, but the tunes that made up the soundtrack of many late night coding sessions are still there. Enjoy!
Also, you might want to think about helping to keep Massinova and other Webcasts up -- check out PeerCast [peercast.org].
Recording mp3 streams -- Streamripper (Score:2)
Shocking!! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Shocking!! (Score:2)
I'm a member of a classical choir that specializes in a capella music... and we've got a couple of composers among our ranks, too.
Re:Shocking!! (Score:2)
People do this already! (Score:5, Insightful)
Git off ma fair use before aye shoot ya.
Re:People do this already! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:People do this already! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:People do this already! (Score:5, Informative)
My understanding is that recording from radio is perfectly legal, and I wish it to remain legal and not encumbered by copy prohibitions.
Where people go wrong is that it is just as illegal as it ever was to redistribute the content without permission, the only thing changing is that it is easier. Being easy to do doesn't make an argument for legalization - there were almost always things that are easy to do yet were still illegal.
Re:People do this already! (Score:5, Interesting)
The RIAA has spent all this effort and garnered all this bad publicity over P2P, but there's this alternative to P2P that leads to precisely the same result and it is clearly legal.
And it's not just P2P. The whole notion of the PVR is almost identical to time shifting digital radio. The end result of using time shifting technology on digital radio and HDTV is identical to using P2P. The user ends up with a hard drive full of MP3s and MPEGs. But this is hardly an argument in their favor, this is daming evidence against their earlier quixotic foibles.
The conclusion that digital radio and PVR technology brings to center stage is what everyone has said all along --they were wrong. P2P was legit all along and this is the best evidence. The identical result of P2P still arises even without P2P. The simple fact is that this has never been a moral issue, it has been a technical issue that they have tried to simply run from because they procrastincated too long on innovating.
The digital radio issue isn't the **AA's next victim, it's the last straw.
Re:People do this already! (Score:4, Interesting)
It is an argument for legalization. Copyright was concieved of as a balance. Since copying is now so easy, the cost to society of restricting it is much higher.
One way to look at constitutional protections is to see them as a set of restrictions that are designed to prevent the government from being able to pass, or enforce laws that are obnoxious burdens on freedom.
It's very telling that drug laws require serious weakening of the 4th ammendment to enforce. It's now to the point where enforcement of copyright law will require even more obnoxious violations of the 4th ammendment, by some interpretations, the 3rd ammendment, and by some interpretations, the 5th ammendment.
Re:People do this already! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:People do this already! (Score:4, Interesting)
Not entirely true... Up until (I believe) 1976, copyright law regulated the right to "publish," not "copy" -- there is a subtle but huge difference between the two.
Re:People do this already! (Score:2)
Re:People do this already! (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with tape recorders in cars - at least when I had mine - was vibration. I couldn't record anything really without a lot of engine/road noise as well as wow and flutter in the tape when played back.
Meh (Score:3, Insightful)
There are other ways to get around this (casettes, radio to line-in, etc - and watch out, they'll want to ban obsolete hardware next) and the RIAA can really do little to stop it...Another RIAA attempt to stifle pirates, terrorists, and baby-killers, and innovation as well, all in the name of saving their bottom line
Future of digital radio (Score:2, Informative)
Posted without a karma bonus so I'm not accused of karma.... well you know. I would have posted anonymously but I've alrealy posted anon 10 jokes today
Howard Stern Gone.. Internet Radio Gone... (Score:5, Interesting)
Second, I was always a subtle Howard Stern fan, but now with what is going on with clear channel, his broadcasts are more entertaining then just the stupid fart jokes. He really is going through a struggle, and the FCC/RIAA are seeing great times to strike out with the election.
Let's stop going back in the time machine...
Thanks,
Aj
GroupShares.com [groupshares.com] - Free Stock Logs/Commentary
Re:Howard Stern Gone.. Internet Radio Gone... (Score:2)
Well, this was only a matter of time. Most people I know listen to Internet Radio more then their own libraries anymore especially on iTunes.
Please correct me if i'm wrong, but I don't think this current battle is about internet radio (yet), but more satellite radio and radio stations that send out digital versions of their normal broadcasts.
Re:Howard Stern Gone.. Internet Radio Gone... (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, you mention that he's gone, but he's still got an audience of millions. Clear Channel was not the only network
Re:Howard Stern Gone.. Internet Radio Gone... (Score:2)
My understanding was that Clear Channel only removed his show from a few target markets, not from all of their affiliate stations.
Re:Howard Stern Gone.. Internet Radio Gone... (Score:4, Informative)
No, Clear Channel removed him from all their stations, but he was only on a handful of them. Stern's primary network is through Infinity owned stations.
Re:Howard Stern Gone.. Internet Radio Gone... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, ClearChannel *wants* Stern off the radio. CC only had him in 6 markets... and competed against him in the others. Actually, they competed against him in those markets also - they have sister stations (with competing morning shows) in all of them.
Obviously in those markets, their morning drive takes a bath going up against him. Where I live, Stern fluctuates between a 38 to a 45 share, and peaked in one book at a 53 share... imagine driving to work, and *every-other car on the road* is listening to him (every-other as in "even-odd"). Half. Freakin HALF. This leaves the other 12 stations in my area competing for scraps - 12 stations competing for 48%. Right off the bat, their numbers are starting at half. Stern cornered a 53% share. 2nd place came in with a 7.3 share (prior to Stern, they averaged 15-17). 3rd came in with a 6.2. 4th... rofl... 3.1. The rest were all 1s and 2s, and most dropped their morning shows and simply play music. Doomed.
Six stations is all CC had him on, and he kind of slaughters their morning drives in all markets where he competes against them. Business decision - if he's in your market, none of your stations will make any money in Morning Drive, the most important day-part in Radio. Even if you have him on one of your stations - your others in that market are still screwed. What do you do?
It kind of explains why CC won't buy out his contract - depending on how it works, one possibility is that upon termination, the exclusivity goes away - any other station in those six markets would be free to pick him up. They'd be right back at square one, where none of their morning day-parts would make money. They'd need to delay the "ending" of that contract for as long as possible. It also explains why their lobby "donations" have gone up a bit as of late.
So, Stern isn't gone - what we're seeing is yet another almost-monopoly trying to maintain itself. If there's big money behind getting Stern thrown off the air, it's from ClearChannel...
Re:Howard Stern Gone.. Internet Radio Gone... (Score:3, Insightful)
OT but Howard Stern gets dropped from Clear Channel because he is critical of Bush's War on Iraq. Clear Channel happens to like Bush. So they drop Stern from all stations that carry him, which was six.
This is not a first amendment issue. The bill of rights protects you from the government, not your asshat employeer. And office politics is a major issue that you have to juggle in a career.
In short, this isn't government censorship. Clear Channel didn't like what Stern was saying so he gets dropped.
What's next? (Score:5, Funny)
An RIAA spokesman, I. M. Prick, has indicated "That people pose a very serious threat to our industry because they are able to reproduce music by vocalization. It appears that if other people hear individuals hear others singing songs illegaly, then they might remember the lyrics, tune and beat and thereby infringe on our copyrights."
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Interesting)
Around 1800 there was an old and incredibly beautiful choral piece that a particular monastery/order/whatever wanted to, in effect, keep a monopoly on. They'd perform the thing as part of the Mass, but wouldn't share the score with any who weren't in the order and performing themselves. This had been the situation for around two hundred years.
Well, around 1800 a smart-aleck goes to one of the Masses, hears the piece, comes home, and writes down all the notes from memory. (Anyone familiar with Renaissance motets knows what a feat this is.)
That smart-aleck? Mozart.
(Dr. Sanders, forgive me if I got a few details wrong.)
Re:What's next? (Score:3, Funny)
I wouldn't be shocked if they weren't to blame for his death. Pro-copyright zealots have always been willing to go to any extreme....
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Informative)
why does the RIAA still exist? (Score:2)
Other ways to make copying undesirable. (Score:5, Interesting)
That makes every piece annoying enough that I doubt many people are going to want to record anything other than maybe entire programs.
Re:Other ways to make copying undesirable. (Score:2)
Dead air (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dead air (Score:3)
CD-quality... NOT. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:CD-quality... NOT. (Score:2)
Can understand why the broadcasters are pissed (Score:2, Insightful)
Why are the RIAA kicking up about this now? Wouldn't it have caused alot less hassle if they had mentioned their concerns to the FCC before the broadcasters spent wads of cash implementing digital radio schemes?
Seems to me like they are just trying to make enemies of everyone. But then again, this comes from the industry that has spent the last couple decades screwing over its customers, i
Tired of them (Score:5, Interesting)
I am confident that if we can all band together, we can overcome. I am talking about a distribution system that is based on open standards that allows payment to go directly to artist with minimal (if any) overhead.
Here is what I propose:
-A non-profit organization comprised of volunteers
-Create a website to serve as a repository of songs to be distributed via bittorrent
-Payment taken in the form of Paypal donations
-Payment is artist AND song specific based completely on an honor system
-To encourage reasonable sized payments, offer bonuses for tiered donations
-For example, after $100 is donated to band X, the customer becomes eligble for free concert tickets or something
-Payment is dispursed to artists in entirety
-Artists are encouraged to donate back a portion of their payments to cover costs of bandwidth, etc.
-No DRM to be used and only open formats for music.
-Songs should be available in varying qualities.
Maybe this exact model has already been proposed, I don't know. Comments and suggestions welcome. I have issued the challenge, will anyone answer?
Won't work (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Won't work (Score:2)
I think you would be surprised at how well the majority can and will behave if faced with the opportunity to do so with minimal effort.
Re:Tired of them (Score:2)
If we can get as much unity as possible then I don't worry about competing entities. What steps do you think should be taken to prevent splintering?
Re:Tired of them (Score:2)
Re:Tired of them (Score:2)
As for bittorrent, it works great on my broadband firewall with no additional configuration necessary. Maybe there are some it wouldn't work.
As for killing surfing, isn't there a way to limit the rates of download and upload?
The point of a non-profit is to encourage donations especially if they are tax deductible. Which is also why bittorrent is so attractive. It diestributes bandwidth requirements for downloading music to everyone in a manner that seems to work
It was only a matter of time... (Score:2)
Just a warning... (Score:4, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Time for DeCSS Gallery v2 (Score:5, Interesting)
Fine - I'll download from Allofmp3.com (Score:3, Informative)
Same thing can be said about.. (Score:2, Interesting)
honestly who runs the legal show for the RIAA? wait.. don't answer that..(a thousand monkeys on typewriters is what I'm abut to hear)
Talk to your friends (Score:5, Interesting)
Whining on Slashdot won't get much accomplished. Convincing people that they won't be able to enjoy music how they like it in the near future will make a difference.
Just last night I carefully explained to a friend who enjoys listening to Cold exactly why she should take a look at which record labels publish those CDs. It's pretty simple--sure, you may be able to buy the CD now, but the next one might be copy protected. If you buy stuff that is put out by those who aren't part of this major media conglomerate, then you won't be encouraging such business tactics.
I don't know how much of my message was actually heard and how much was just glossed over, but by the time I finished talking she seemed to be at least a little more aware that there should be more to CD purchasing than just finding what you like.
For me, it is COMPLETELY about the record label. I use the RIAA Radar [magnetbox.com] like nobody's business, and I try my absolute hardest only to buy CDs that come up clean when checked there. There are several highly-desirable purchases I refuse to make because I would be supporting the RIAA. It's a sacrifice I'm willing to make because I understand the implications of giving in.
Fortunately, my music tastes lean towards electronic ("techno"), which is quite predisposed towards free sharing and downloading. Right now I can give you URLs to four [epitonic.com] artists' [trancedomain.com] music [nyte.us] sites [badseedcreations.com] that allow you to download 128kbps or better mp3s of those artists songs without any DRM. There are plenty of indie labels and pro-P2P/sharing musicians out there in other genres, but it appears to me that my favorite type of music has the largest percentage.
CD Quality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:CD Quality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people call them "Compressors". Anyways, yes, they compress the dynamic range of the audio. However, most pop albums today do that anyways, prior to going through our processing. Garbage in, garbage out.
If they will not broadcast a clean FM signal, why should we expect them to broadcast a clean digital signal?
Because modulation doesn't matter so much for a digital signal. The technical requirements are drastically different.
With an FM (or AM) analog signal, more modulation=more power=less noise=farther range=more listeners. Also, more modulation=louder, which many market studies have shown makes people more likely to listen to a station.
With a digital signal, the modulation is determined by a matrix as the digital bits are divided across multiple carriers and set by phase and amplitude. To get more modulation, you'd need more 1s (not really, since the bits are not linear that way, but anyways) - and that's not audio, that's DC.
So, there is no longer the technical requirement pushing for compressed audio sources. Both the NAB and the AES are currently discussing processing for digital audio, and in all likelihood, much will change in the way it's done.
-T
What else are we as a nation willing to discard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at what the DMCA is doing to reverse engineering.
Look at what's being discussed to close the 'analog hole'.
Our nation is sacrificing it's technological competitiveness in the name of the entertainment industries. We have already sacrificed a LOT, though it's still reversible.
One of my Senators is Patrick Leahy, and maybe it's time for me to become a single-issue voter. His response to my last letter on this was not satisfactory, I need to try again - well before November.
Remarkably forthright, coming from them. (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA vs Clearchannel? (Score:2)
On the other we have companies like Clearchannel, who benefit from advertising revenues the more listeners they get.
Clearchannel are sucked up to by record labels who want to get their output out there and promoted.
So now we have this problem... do the labels want to be represented by the views of the RIAA, when those views will cause one of the greatest ways of promoting music t
Has anyone noticed? (Score:2, Interesting)
Preaching to the choir... (Score:2, Insightful)
You know that, I know that, Cowboyneal knows it, and pretty much everyone who frequents this site knows it. It's plain and simple, they are out to defend an old Cartel-like system, only because it continues to line their pockets with billions of dollars each year.
Unfortunetly, we are still sitting here reading yet another article of hundreds on how the RIAA sucks, and everyone is saying how outrageous it is, "their just going to destroy all music next!" is a common thread. I'm sure most
A giant sharing network? (Score:5, Interesting)
So the RIAA doesn't want radio to become a giant sharing network?
You're the ones broadcasting your signal into our airspace. You don't want to share? Turn off the transmitter.
Commercial interests clashing could be good (Score:4, Insightful)
While the NAB doesn't exactly have the best interests of you and me in mind, the RIAA's desire to regulate every single intersection of music and commerce might cause the NAB to recognize that if they espouse the cause of less restrictive copyright, they could gain tremendous political and economic benefit.
Then again, the NAB might simply form some kind of cooperative scheme with the RIAA. But I don't think that's a foregone conclusion. Look at the good will IBM has generated by fighting SCO. Sure, IBM was forced into it by a suicidal Darl McBride, but others are likely watching how much goodwill IBM is garnering by their actions in the SCO/Linux struggle.
I know, profits are more powerful than goodwill, but goodwill can lead to profits. Maybe the NAB will grok this and take the fight to the RIAA.
News Flash: RIAA Protests Ears (Score:2)
Eventually they will get a clue, but in the meantime, everyone that likes music will have to suffer.
If I can hear it, I can copy it. (Score:3, Insightful)
hmmmm (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm slightly confused. As far as I can work out, the RIAA wants to make it illegal to record (or spread) digital (/internet) radio.. well, since when has making something illegal stopped people doing it?
If someone wants a song, whether it be a download from irc or a rip from a radio station, they're generally just gonna get it, unless they're scared off by the gestapo tactics of these organisations.
The other thing is radio is public, so how can they
Sig Heil! Miene furher! (Score:4, Funny)
Reminds me of... (Score:3, Interesting)
Fortunately the Chiefs were wise in those days.
Why is the RIAA so worried when... (Score:2)
.
.
.
.
* Total Crap As Content.
Aren't they jumping to conclusions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not once have I thought of recording anything from XM. Since most XM radios have line outputs for amplifiers, it would be easy to plug in a laptop and record to wav or even mp3 with no problem. This article put the idea in my head, courtesy of the RIAA. Good job guys.
I've bought quite a few CD's from "new" artists that I actually had a chance to hear on XM. XM definately helps the labels sell more CD's since Clearchanel doesn't play what the public wants to hear anymore.
The few decent artists that are played to death on broadcast radio don't seem worth the $15 to buy. Hell, I could hear the same song every time I turn on the radio anyway. But the ones that I hear on XM are new and aren't jammed down my throat. I WANT to buy the CD's. Nobody feels good ripping off the underdog artists, but we all write off the radio artists as the enemy, thus they are exploitable.
The RIAA seems to want control over which artists are popular more than they want money from listeners. In any other business, the stockholders would have voted out anyone who repeatedly made such bad decisions. It just makes no sense.
Why are you all so concerned? (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA can try this all they like, but if they succeed in getting the restrictions they want, we'll break them, we'll show others how to break them and we'll pirate the content out over the web just to make sure they learn that if they fuck with us they'll get hurt.
There's a lesson pending for the RIAA, and its this. Our rights as consumers are not up for renegotiation, and we don't want our rights to be protected (enforced) by expensive and unreliable DRM. RIAA, you can accept this, or you can pay up for the technology only to see us painlessely circumvent it. We will not be governed by you. That's not the way it works
"Let them play wax!" RIAA admits mistakes (Score:4, Funny)
When asked for any additional comments, he would only say "Let them play wax - we'll show the customer who is king."
Tightening the noose... (Score:3, Informative)
The RIAA is afraid of us recording 96 (or likely, 64) kbps (highly compressed) audio. With a good signal at a stationary location, some would argue that current FM sounds as good (if not better) than the compressed version. (At the end of the day, it's a subjective issue.) It would seem the RIAA is attempting to make radio more restrictive than it currently is.
Re:Yes, I can see how it would work.. (Score:2)