I See What Fark Did There: RIAA Emulates Onion Parody

Back in 2002, The Onion suggested that the RIAA (the trade organization for the music recording industry) might take their money-grubbing ways to the extreme, and try to hit up radio stations for royalties they've never legally been able to collect.  

(Why is it such an outrageous idea that the Onion ran with it as satire? Because it's the logical equivalent of Volkswagen charging ABC to air its commercials.  Airplay generates sales, which is why so many RIAA members and radio stations got their hands caught in the cookie jar in the most recent round of payola scandals.)

Oddly, Fark.com ran a link to The Onion's article earlier today, and I suspected they had a reason...and indeed they did.  (More after the break.)

The followup showed up later in the day...

The RIAA actually wants to do what The Onion said they'd do: charge radio stations to play their music.  Remember, this isn't the songwriting royalty that compensates songwriters for the use of their work, which radio and webcasters pay today; this is the one for the recording, and it's a royalty that goes straight to the owner of the recorded work - that is, the record companies.  Who already make money from the sales of said work....sales that are driven by airplay.

Unfortunately, it's one of our own wrapped up in this: Rep. Howard Berman, who seems utterly beholden to media companies' interests in the areas of copyright and intellectual property law; the Peer-To-Peer Piracy prevention Act is his baby, and though his summary calls it benign, Wired.com appears to have some problems with it.

My bias here is that I'm a webcaster already smarting under the fees the RIAA's trying to ram through (even to the point of collecting these royalties for artists they have no association with.)  While I get the sneaking suspicion that over-the-air radio will somehow have to "pay" fees such that they wind up paying far less than I do, and might even be a willing victim here because the fees they'll have to pay will be minor for a commercial cooperation (as opposed to the death sentence they represent for most Internet radio stations) I still have common cause with them here.  I would suggest that the way things work today is the way they should work going forward - no fees for what is essentially free advertising.

So, a few things: firstly, I'm tired of any politician who puts the interests of any industry over the interests of the general populace.  I suspect Berman feels that what's good for Big Media is good for his district (since it is, of course, L.A.)  But Big Media's record in terms of the general public's rights is not good, and I wish Berman could come to terms with that.  He might be driven by pure altruism here, but I suspect we here at DKos know we can't trust big media, so I'm honestly interested in hearing what any primary challenger that comes up against him has to say on this subject.

Secondly, someone, somewhere, soon, needs to make the RIAA and their cronies in Big Media stop now.  While I don't think it'll get quite to the point where you'll have to toss a nickel in a convenient receptacle every time you hum a tune, I don't for a second believe someone at the RIAA hasn't though up a business case for such a thing.

•  So Now What?

  Are we committed to progressive intellectual property handling too, or should we just hand the fees over to Big Media as soon as they whine loudly enough?

  by hubcity on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:49:50 PM PDT

•  In most cases it's best to spell out acronyms

  once before using them.  I have no idea what RIAA is.

  by Compound F on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:50:43 PM PDT

  •  The Recording Industry Association of America.

    Basically a pack of lawyers who extort fees in the name of the corporations they represent.

    by Diaries on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:53:57 PM PDT

  •  It's All About The Recording Industry...

    Changed the post to add a reference...sometimes you're so close to a problem that you assume everyone else is already familiar with it, so thanks for the reality check.

    by hubcity on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:56:03 PM PDT

•  When I want to "steal" music

  I always download the album via a bittorrent client--I never rip radio streams. And I imagine most people do the same or similar; I don't know anyone who rips streams and compiles discs from them. Sure, it's technically feasible, but why would you when you can grab entire discographies via one of the search engines like scrapetorrent.com?

  by moodyx on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:53:18 PM PDT

  •  Well, Hm.

    On the one hand, I'm not promoting stealing - in fact, I'm very much in support of reasonable fees fairly owed to those to who they're due.  But if I have an audience, that audience stands to learn from me (especially considering I'm really trying to expose my audience to new music.)  And if I don't have an audience, where's the basis for any fee to begin with?

    This argument is well-settled for over the air stations; there is no royalty.  But since the RIAA argued for, and got, a royalty based on web airplay being equivalent to the distribution of perfect copies of the songs I air (which, by the way, they aren't) I suspected they'd try to use this leverage on broadcast radio.

    Honestly, though, I think radio's in a position to say to the RIAA, "We're doing better with talk radio anyway, so ta-ta for now."

    Which reminds me: how's that renewed fairness doctrine coming along?

    by hubcity on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:03:21 PM PDT

    •  I don't see it as theft

      Hence the quotes. Mind you, I'll still spend the same amount (proportional to my income) on entertainment.

      I just don't see any advantage for anybody in restricting access to only that small subset of media which a single individual can afford to buy. In our society, we start with the assumption that everyone is more or less crooked, and we need laws to enforce good, socially responsible behavior. Fuck that. I buy can, but I'll take the rest because it hurts no one.

      If art has any value, then the law is worthless. What about those who can't afford art/movies/music? I guess it's ok to discount them, because we're doing it in on principle.

      by moodyx on Tue May 22, 2007 at 03:19:12 PM PDT

  •  That's not really

    the point.

    Airplay provides promotional exposure for artists.

    This isn't really about making money, it's about closing down the indepedent small record labels, which rely on stations like Soma FM to generate interest in the music. Web-radio play also provide a small revenue stream which gives non-mainstream artists an incentive to make music.

    The music business has turned into a monoculture, where it's impossible for musicians outside of the mainstream to make any kind of living at all. This isn't just bad news for musicians, it's also bad news culturally, because corporate rock and pop have converged on the kind of blandness and predictability that make really exciting and new music impossible.

    From the 50s onwards, radio play has driven most of the musical innovation in the US and Europe. Now that radio play has been homogenised, innovation has stopped.

    Previously from the 50s onwards, every decade has seen some kind of completely new musical style appear. But so far in the 00s there's been nothing new at all.

    by ThatBritGuy on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:06:57 PM PDT

  •  ah, but the mp3

    you download is really 'lossy"  no high end, no warmth because of the 44.1 freq. cutoff. CD quality... sucks

    give me DVD-Audio or give me vinyl and some shiny needles and a top of the line sound system. I want that FULL sound specturm.

    by theRoaringGirl on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:11:07 PM PDT

    •  FLAC

      is the answer

      by fugue on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:36:14 PM PDT

      •  First I've heard of that.

        Thanks!

        by carpunder on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:57:08 PM PDT

        •  well

          It is a lossless compression. so it takes a bit more space. So at practical level this is only usefull for when you want a) very high fidelity on portable device or b) full fidelity in desktop Hardrive.

          you can search the net for all in one "transcoder"
          so you can quickly convert "Flac" archive to mp3 when you don't need full fidelity in your digital player. (space being limited and all)

          You can hack iPod to play FLAC. But most Korean players can play FLAC.

          by fugue on Mon May 21, 2007 at 09:39:27 PM PDT

      •  FLAC, while not lossy

        can only encode what is there. If it's a CD, then it's 44.1 kHz if it's vinyl or tape, then the rate should be higher - like 96 - 192kHz for the full spectrum.

        by theRoaringGirl on Mon May 21, 2007 at 09:49:33 PM PDT

        •  yeah yeah

          how many people needs to seperate sound texture above 12Khz? seriously... only electronica and some avant jazz does that. The rest can't even plug guitar right nevermind controling harmonic distortion at that frequency.

          by fugue on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:54:36 PM PDT

          •  Ever wonder why a Barry White CD

            FEELS different from the cassette or thevinyl recording? Those frequencies that are considered "unnecessary" above 44.1kHz, have been found to be necessary to give music it's warmth. It's why digital audio is moving into the 96khz and above and using DVD-audio.

            . H. Yamada
               On a Factor of Pleasantness in Music Appreciation (Japanese)

               ABSTRACT
               Oohashi et al. have experimentally shown that inaudible high-frequency components in music nevertheless constitute a contributory factor to the pleasure in listening. Based on their findings and some certain facts from auditory physiology and brain science, we critically examine some aspects of musical qualities of analog LP and digital CD records...

            this is all of the abstract in english I could locate. source: http://www.nii.ac.jp/...

            by theRoaringGirl on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:26:28 AM PDT

            •  berry effing white?

              there is your problem there.

              by fugue on Tue May 22, 2007 at 06:22:11 AM PDT

              •  I was using White as an example

                If you still own a turntable, put on your favorite record. and listen. Next, put on the same recording, but in it's CD format. I can guarantee, you won't feel the same warmth that you would feel with vinyl or analog tape. Unless of course you're into Death Metal, then  44.1kHZ is perfectly adequate. But for classical, jazz, and other full spectrum sounds, it's killing your ears.

                by theRoaringGirl on Tue May 22, 2007 at 07:25:16 AM PDT

                •  dude.

                  berry white was recorded pre-digital. No mic or mechanical reproduction can transmit whatever frequency you are blathering about. You makes stuff up.

                  by fugue on Tue May 22, 2007 at 10:38:17 AM PDT

                  •  Baloney.

                    http://arts.ucsc.edu/...

                    http://aroundcny.com/...
                    Typically, a very good phonograph record can contain ultra-high frequencies ranging from 21,000 Hz to 25,000 Hz (cycles per second) or even higher, while a compact disc will not have any musical frequency above about 19,000 Hz.

                    Perhaps more significantly, the MP3 revolution may be leading to a generation that has no concept of distortion. At the Winter NAMM Show this past January, an engineering acquaintance related how he had to sit his son down and explain distortion to him. At the risk of sounding like an old fuddy-duddy, kids today are used to hearing "crunchy" audio. Young people who have only lived during this digital era are largely unaware of 'good' distortion, the acceptable harmonic distortion of analogue audio.

                    To them, what we consider bad digital distortion is simply a part of the music that they listen to daily. Trading poorly "ripped" MP3s (regardless of legality), they have become so used to the crunchy sound quality of the format that, as some readers who have discussed the matter with their own children may attest, they may find it not only acceptable but even preferable to CDs.

                    FROM PROSOUNDWEB:
                    The crunch of digital distortion, which is not limited to MP3s, of course, but can just as easily find its way into the digital recording process and onto disc or into the live sound arena, is unpleasant. The pops, clicks, and surface noises of the vinyl beloved of audiophiles pale by comparison to the harsh distortion of digital audio, compressed or uncompressed...Is wrong always wrong? Analogue distortion can even be a major component of a sound, such as an electric guitar, and therefore desirable. If you run audio through a tube device, you are doing it to add flavor, not to reproduce something exactly or realistically. In such cases, the audio process may not be accurately recreating the original source, but it is at least adding partials that are music-related, and therefore relatively harmonious.

                    There's a reason why old mixing consoles, such as those designed and built by Rupert Neve, for example, are so sought after. The "warmth" controls on Mr. Neve's contemporary updates of his old designs actually introduce a modicum of distortion. That was something that was inherent in many of his original designs, albeit at low levels, yet which could impart an emotional response to the music produced through the equipment that made it attractive to the listener.

                    In the analog world, distortion is usually related to the original sound. The transistors, op amps, resistors, capacitors, and inductors can add even or odd harmonics. These unwanted extra harmonics are related to the original sounds in evenly spaced octaves.

                    by theRoaringGirl on Tue May 22, 2007 at 02:03:51 PM PDT

                    •  LP

                      cannot reproduce in the frequency you mention 20khz+. Unless you break law of physic regarding heat vibration on needle.

                      can we quit the BS and pass the physic 101 first please. thanks.

                      by fugue on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:26:01 AM PDT

•  Let me ask you this...

  If radio stations end up paying, would this create an incentive for the stations to play more local music, which I'm guessing would still be free?

  (No snark intended; I'm genuinely curious.)

  by VetGrl on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:07:49 PM PDT

  •  Yes And No.

    You'd think that would be the case; radio could just say, "fine, we're only playing people for whom we won't owe these fees."

    In the already-existing Internet Radio arrangement, though, you'd better believe the recording industry has it covered: broadcasters pay their fees to SoundExchange, the RIAA's proxy for recording royalties, whether or not the artists being played are represented by them.

    The local/indie bands that are played can then apply to SoundExchange to get their payment.  (And yes, they have to pay a fee to do that.)

    by hubcity on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:13:02 PM PDT

•  I think the RIAA is collapsing in on itself

  I mean, this is event-horizon type behavior.  If they start charging fees to radio stations to get their shit played (as opposed to bribing them as they have in the past) the radio stations will simply stop doing it, right?

  Who needs radio stations when you've got YouTube, anyway?

  by slippytoad on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:11:34 PM PDT

  •  Well, it helps when the people who own the radio

    stations (Clearchannel) are close friends with the people who pay-for play (Columbia, Sony, Warner, etc), and are eagerly represented by the people who sue grandmothers (RIAA).

    Monopolies can be fun!

    by Diaries on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:20:02 PM PDT

•  How about...

  Let's say you have bands that play live, in studio, or who allow people to record at their shows.  

  Do you suppose the RIAA could collect on that?

  by otto on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:18:49 PM PDT

•  Been boycotting the RIAA for years.

  They don't seem to notice, but I don't notice their absence in my life either.

  by Jack the R on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:28:01 PM PDT

•  Howard Berman is my congresscritter.

  He is thoroughly owned by the RIAA/MPAA/MAFIAA.

  He often votes really well. But his carrying of water for these corrupt organizations makes me fsckn sick. I have pondered the idea of a primary challenge as a "Geek Power Democrat." If he continues with this garbage I just might.

  by Snakes on a White House on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:34:27 PM PDT

•  I knew from the title

  that Berman would somehow be involved.

  I moved last year from Linda Sanchez' district to Howard Berman's.  I looked him up on the internets to see what he was about, and have to say, he seems bought and paid for by the RIAA.
  By his wiki entry, you can see a little where he stands.

  Here is a Cnet article from 2002:

  The bill, sponsored by Reps. Howard Berman, D-Calif., and Howard Coble, R-N.C., would immunize groups such as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) from all state and federal laws if they disable, block or otherwise impair a "publicly accessible peer-to-peer file-trading network."

  Nice.
  

  I doubt I will get a new congressman until I move.  It is a generally liberal area, so I do not see him going unless he loses a primary challenge from another dem, or he leaves for that lucrative RIAA lobby job I just know is waiting for him.

  A bunch of my friends live in Henry Waxman's district, but I pay about $400 less a month in rent than they do, so must suffer.

  by EvilPaula on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:54:49 PM PDT

  •  Not suffer - opportunity

    A bunch of my friends live in Henry Waxman's district, but I pay about $400 less a month in rent than they do, so must suffer.

    But then, you actually get to vote in the primary against him. They don't.

    That's why I actually like living in Darrell Issa's district.

    by sdgeek on Tue May 22, 2007 at 02:32:46 AM PDT