RIAA wants more money, world is unsurprised

A conference is being held in Washington DC that is discussing copyrights and how they are affected by technology and the internet. The copyright group, namely the RIAA, wants Congress to make the law definition more defined.

What the RIAA would like to see happen is legislation pass that allows them to receive royalties for online videos from YouTube.

"While the public interest group Public Knowledge disputed the meaning of Net neutrality with the Recording Industry Association of America, the Songwriters Guild of America butted heads with YouTube over how to ensure that songwriters receive royalties for online videos"

Google does go on to say that they would like to pay for the rights but doesn't know who to pay. Reading between the lines you can understand that Google will pay when it is forced too but not until then. The idea of revamping copyrights is a huge issue and it's insanely complex. The idea of what is considered copyright infringement is a gray area that Congress doesn't want to address.

"Congress rarely steps in and fixes anything" related to intellectual property, Carson said. "The Pro-IP Act was tinkering around the edges--there was nothing really in there. Legislation just doesn't seem to be the way to make progress, no matter what your definition of progress is."

The conference continues with the constant idea that content management on the network side is not an option because "copyright filtering is not network management, it's content management" and the costs to implement this technology would not be worth the return on investment.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

US and Russian satellites smash into each other

Next Story

Windows 7 upgrade details leak out

55 Comments

View more comments

**** the RIAA, kiss my ass *******, and yes I'm legit in buying my music but they are going to far. Rot in hell.

Assuming this happens, and they get the royalties from Youtube for music. How would they collect at that point?

Force the video uploader to provide credit card, paypal or other form of payment prior to uploading to extract funds from said account for the song(s)? Or a monthly subscription to cover costs?

Such strong feelings people have against these organizations...
...
...and rightfully so.

They may take our property, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!!!

THIS! IS! SPARTA!!!

:)

RIAA, here's a clue. Stop paying these so-called artists up front for crappy music. Start paying them a percentage of total album/song sales.

I wonder when the MPAA will start to really scream out loud utill it becomes a real part of the enforcements against piracy.

Maybe in 5 years or less we will see Hollywood lobby from actors to everyone else in the industry against illegal downloads. Just wait for their profits start to hit hard and TV-computer sets get more popular. Windows 7 codecs for these formats will give it a huge kick. I bet.

Lots of mature, well-thought out responses... as usual... to an RIAA article. Bravo!

I don't agree with the RIAA (and I can do so without censoring every other word of my comment) but the question I ask is, what is the alternative? Stealing is wrong, few people would deny that. Illegal downloading is wrong, whether people admit it or not. (Yes, Canada, even here it is illegal... just because we can't get caught. Don't kid yourselves) So, what is the solution? P2P/Bit Torrent throttling? Taxing heavy downloaders? Levy on blank media? (oops, already did that) Monitor all Internet traffic?

The RIAA's approach is completely wrong, illogical, greedy, and ultimately hurtful to the artists. But if the RIAA isn't the answer then what is? How can we limit and prevent all this illegal activity?

By listening to what the fans want. Look, when Napster first came about it was an incredible revelation. Sure, before then we were able to listen to the radio and even make tapes of our favorite songs. If we were really snazzy we could even digitize those tapes. Nobody cared about the quality much, what they cared about was that they could listen to the music that they wanted, when they wanted, and - here's the big point - they didn't have to buy 13 crappy songs that they'd never listen to in order to get that one song that was stuck in their head.

What the RIAA should have done would have been to create a system similar to Napster but that incorporated payment. Everyone at the time said so, but all that the RIAA did was shut them down and leave it at that. Many Napster replacements sprung up rather quickly afterward. File sharing wasn't becoming popular simply because it was free, it was becoming popular because it was convenient. Your music, when and how you wanted it.

Apple realized this in a big way. While their iPods are arguably nothing special compared with many other MP3 players that exist, the iTunes Music Store was nothing short of revolutionary. Suddenly people could buy that one song, and it didn't cost the price of a can of soda (which is roughly how much I remember "singles" put out on CDs cost back then, if they weren't a bit more). The iPod was essentially Apple's way of allowing customers to bring the music with them and listen to it whenever they wanted.

Clearly it was what the vast majority of consumers wanted, because not only did iPods take off in popularity but last I'd heard the iTunes Music Store is still the #1 digital music store, and has been practically since it was conceived. It is also important to note that the iTMS was not the first digital music store, but it was the first one to allow you to buy (not "rent via subscription" ala RealNetwork's Rhapsody) and buy singles at a low price.

I think that people really do want to support the artists, and they perceive that they do that by buying the music. The cat's out of the bag on P2P and free music, yet iTMS and newer services like Amazon's music store are received quite a bit of business. Why? How does that make sense?

It doesn't make sense, but it's the current trend. The RIAA would do well to pick up on this new business model and run with it before it's too late and public opinion turns against them in a big way. Some piracy will always exist, no matter what new laws you create or what new technologies you deploy. I think they'd be better served to ignore that and focus on giving the customers what they want. If they can do that successfully, piracy will become a fringe element and their customer base will grow even more. However, I've only seen them fight with Apple over iTMS pricing, and they've been fighting with other outlets that feed their business. They instead seem to put a lot of time and resources into fighting against pirates, all while claiming that they're losing tons of money as a result. It's completely and utterly backward, in my opinion.

Yep,
I've been saying that all along. If the bimbos at the RIAA would've learned from Napster, instead of feeling so smug about them selves for taking it down, very little would've ever become of this.

Nope,
Wouldn't shed a tear either!!

Thanks for the reply Ledgem, great post. I think piracy is a battle worth fighting but aside from that, I agree with all of your insights.

now i'm not saying i'm for this particular proposal. however, i do understand the need for clarity in coming up with sound IP law that protects content owners from others stealing/reselling their works without their expressed permission. how is this resolved on a worldwide basis so that artists are paid per item sold? i'm open to suggestions.

The music 'industry', as the RIAA knows it, is dead.

If they want more money now, they had better get into the drugs business.

Commenting is disabled on this article.