Copyright Royalty Board Ruling (2)
I received a reply to my previous comment on the recent copyright royalty ruling, and I responded with this:
I don’t have a problem with the RIAA lobbying this government board because they are lobbying for their own property.
The little secret that the anti-RIAA side won’t tell is that webcasters depend on government intervention to keep royalty rates low enough to allow them to broadcast their stations. If this issue was left to the free market where the content owners were allowed to set their own rates, the RIAA would probably set high rates similar to what we saw the government board set. That’s why webcasters are urging their listeners to contact legislators to try to make the government set a low rate rather than try to get the government out of the business all-together.
I know that some artists have come out against the rate increase, and they’re paraded as examples of how webcasters are siding with interests of content owners. However, so long as those artists have signed with labels that are members of organizations such as the RIAA, they’ve voluntarily give up their say in what happens with their music. It’s part of what goes with the paychecks they receive. They traded their music for money from someone that wants to sell their works. Once the property rights over that music have been transferred to another party, that second party has the same rights over that music that the content creator had. So, I really disagree with this idea that the RIAA is somehow taking artists’ music or getting in the way.
I don’t want to take Gus’ comment list, but there is one more thing I’d like to address while I’m writing about this: Webcasters bemoan the fact that the internet rates are so much higher than AM/FM radio rates, and claim that they are unfair. I have two responses to that statement. First, and most importantly, content owners decide what is “fair” when it comes to their property. It would be more fair if the RIAA charged $100 per song per listener than if the government set the rate to a level webcasters could afford. Second, broadcasting music over the internet brings has problems that don’t exist when broadcasts over the airwaves. The first problem that comes to my mind is the fact that internet broadcasts can be ripped easily, turning some stations into a real-time music file-sharing system. I believe that the majority of webcasters are honest and that the bitrates the music is streamed on probably stops most people from trying to steal music in this manner. However, there is an increased risk for the RIAA here, and I can understand why they would want to try to better secure their property. It’s the same reason much of the music purchased online has DRM built-in. I think it’s perfectly fine to debate whether the RIAA is following a good business model when it comes to online distribution (personally, I won’t buy any more of their DRM’d music, it’s too much of a hassle), but what should not be up for debate is the RIAA’s right to their property.
Sid said:
“The alternative method — negotiate with content owners — is, quite frankly, impractical.”
It’s statements like this that make it easier to understand what the RIAA is up against. This is not an issue of how much should be charged for internet broadcasting, it’s for who actually controls the content to be broadcast. I believe that all personal property, whether material or intellectual, should be respected.
Tags: [copyright, government regulation, intellectual property, internet radio, royalty rates]Comments
Leave a Reply