RIAA Loses To Yahoo Over Webcasting Rates

from the finally dept

Well, finally. The RIAA has lost its case against Yahoo over what royalties the Launchcast service needed to pay. As per usual, the RIAA kept trying to add on additional fees. Rather than just webcasting fees, it also wanted an additional royalty for being an interactive service. This is a neat trick that the RIAA has been pulling a lot lately. In the past, every time some new technology comes along, the recording industry runs screaming and crying to Congress about how unfair it is, and how it needs a special new royalty for that new technology/service. But here, because Launchcast was online and combined elements of different services, the RIAA simply figured it could lump all the different royalties together and get Launchcast/Yahoo to pay multiple times for each use of a song. The entertainment industry sure does love trying to get everyone to pay multiple times for the same thing.

But, it appears the court was having none of that, saying that the service didn't provide enough user control to make it an interactive service that would require a different license (though, it still has to pay the basic webcasting fees). The ruling here did not take kindly to the RIAA's argument that being able to choose which station you wanted to listen to (or that you could skip songs) made it somehow interactive beyond regular radio:
"Launchcast listeners do not even enjoy the limited predictability that once graced the AM airwaves on weekends in America when 'special requests' represented love-struck adolescents' attempts to communicate their feelings to 'that special friend'."


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), Aug 21st, 2009 @ 4:52pm

    "Someone's trying to make our product more accessible?? We must tax that or stop it!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), Aug 21st, 2009 @ 5:03pm

    RTFA

    I love this quote from the article: 'The law at issue defines an interactive service as a service "that enables a member of the public to receive a transmission of a program specially created for the recipient, or on request, a transmission of a particular sound recording ... which is selected by or on behalf of the recipient."

    In his 42-page opinion for the appeals court, Judge Richard Wesley said the U.S. Congress enacted the law because previous laws did not do enough to protect sound recording copyright holders from falling record sales.'

    This is the mandate of our elected representatives? Taking away citizens' rights to prop up failing businesses? Glad I didn't pay attention in Civics class in high school. I'd be really conflicted ..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 21st, 2009 @ 5:58pm

    This is important:

    "it appears the court was having none of that, saying that the service didn't provide enough user control to make it an interactive service that would require a different license"

    It doesn't say that these double licenses are illegal or against anything, only that the service wasn't interactive enough to qualify.

    I don't think it a win or a lose for the RIAA or Yahoo, yahoo still has to pay, and the RIAA hasn't had the idea of double dipping slammed by the courts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    ..., Aug 21st, 2009 @ 6:00pm

    It is obviously the fault of the RIAA

    they did not file in East Texass

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 21st, 2009 @ 6:01pm

    Re: It is obviously the fault of the RIAA

    That explains a lot.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), Aug 21st, 2009 @ 6:08pm

    @ #3

    Good point. "You don't get to double dip this time, but just wait - Surely someone will innovate some new service that makes the crappy experience of streaming music slightly less crappy, and then we'll figure out a way that it violates the hokey law we made to protect your dying business model. Don't send those lawyers home just yet."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 21st, 2009 @ 7:37pm

    Re: @ #3

    Yup, it may not be to anyone's liking, but the judge didn't rule anything on the concept of the double dip, just that the technology level here didn't merit it.

    In some weird way, this might actually be a semi-win for the RIAA on the issue, not to anyone's liking.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    gr8oldies (profile), Aug 22nd, 2009 @ 8:45am

    they'll find another way

    this is just a minor setback for the RIAA they'll be back I can promise that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    sad former launchcast user, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 12:48am

    The RIAA won this case a long time ago when Yahoo shut down the customized radio service that this case was all about. This is a ruling on a product that no longer exists.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This