[picapp align="none" wrap="false" link="term=points+finger&iid=3077080" src="http://view1.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/3077080/bud-and-lou/bud-and-lou.jpg?size=500&imageId=3077080" width="380" height="297" /]
You WILL buy that FM transmitter. And you will like it!!
This is probably something you have not heard about. I mean, why would you. This isn't something that you really need to concern yourself about.
The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has gone out and done something just for you. They are fighting on your behalf to assure you full and unfettered access to the media and artists you dream of.
Yeah, I couldn't keep from spewing even as I wrote that. Click on to find out the truth of their anti-consumer actions.
As we all know, the RIAA is not about providing full and easy access to the media and devices you want. The RIAA is all about greed, monopolies and intimidation. Now, they want your cell phone.
The music industry is looking for a way to save broadcast radio, and may have found it: a legislative mandate to carry FM radio in personal electronics. Like the net neutrality debate, this idea was born out of two sides disagreeing and attempting to come to a compromise.
I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that the RIAA is out to do what it takes to save broadcast radio. Do you? With all the fees that artist's associations and unions are charging, they are killing broadcasters. And, anytime you bring up Net Neutrality, you automatically make me nervous. Since we know that Net Neutrality is nothing at all about being neutral.
But, thanks to the RIAA we now could have the socialists in Congress MANDATING what devices we have in our media players and cell phones. Wait, aren't we missing someone here?
RIAA and broadcasters are at odds over the payment for the right to play songs on the radio. While satellite and Internet broadcasts must pay this fee, radio is exempt under current copyright law. The labels want this changed, obviously the broadcasters do not.
I have always had a problem with this. Why should broadcasters, no matter the medium, pay a fee to play the artist's music? Seems to me, the artists should be paying the radio stations and broadcasters to play their music. This is how the public gets to know the artist and forces young girls to go crazy and buy all the artist's memorabilia. This is how the artists make all their millions and millions. Yet, they need broadcasters to pay them a fee to advertise their music?
Isn't this like a furniture company demanding the local tv station pay them a fee to advertise the furniture company's commercials?
Yet, this is nothing about creating and saving the RIAA monopoly and demanding payment.
While FM radio would need to pay about $100 million a year, it would gain a whole new potential listener base by mandated FM chips in personal electronics. The broadcasters defend this idea by saying it increases "consumer choice."
So, over-the-air broadcasters have agreed to pay royalties then? Or, were they threatened? And in order to pass on those fees to the consumer, they want to force portable media device makers to purchaselease FM transmitter chips. And that will be mandatory. Oh, of course, those fees would necessarily increase the costs of those portable media devices like cell phones and MP3MP4 players. (wow, that sounds familiar....)
What kind of consumer choice is that? When something is forced upon you, that limits your choice. And notice that it is the media device producers that are missing in this agreement.
This has the electronics makers up in arms. "The backroom scheme of [broadcasters] and RIAA to have Congress mandate broadcast radios in portable devices, including mobile phones, is the height of absurdity," Consumer Electronics Association president Gary Shapiro told Ars Technica.
This is nothing but monopolistic blackmail.
Legislation has already moved out of committee, called the Performance Rights Act. That bill, which would force terrestrial broadcasters to pay the same fees as satellite and Internet, has been moving through Congress for the past two years.
In any case, it does appear that the industry will try hard to lobby legislators to amend the bill, and bring it to a vote as soon as possible.
Performance Rights?!?! My ass!! They don't have ANY right to force us to pay their fees, to force us to listen to them, and to force a non-negotiating third party to change their product.
This is nothing more than more of the same hardball blackmail from RIAA.
[UPDATE] Meanwhile, the Movie Industry isn't resting on their laurels either. They want more money and control as well. If you don't have internet and a fee-based subscription to their service, then your ability to watch that new movie is near nil.