In what at first glance appears to be a David
vs. Goliath story, the Recording Industry Association of America launched an
assault against websites that stream music, including those that are not music
sites at all.
ReelRadio.Com, a site in existence since 1996 --
and as a lover of radio’s rich history, THE reason I wanted a faster modem in
those early days of the commercial internet -- received an ominous-sounding
letter June 7. In it the RIAA stated that:
• The service fails to comply with certain
requirements
• In order to continue operating under its
statutory license, the site must remedy the violations.
Now keep in mind that ReelRadio is most
certainly not a music service. No one in their right mind would use the site as
a way to download music ... most of the recordings are made on old cassettes or
reels taping an hour or so of old AM top-40 stations ... low-fidelity with DJs
talking over the start and the end of a song.
ReelRadio is a living library. A place for radio
geeks like me to hear historical recordings on demand. There is absolutely no
way for sites such as this to follow what the RIAA requires and be beneficial in
any way to the public. In essence, following the requirements means that the
site is unusable for the vast majority of people.
What rules? Such as the requirement for
“archived recordings” to be over five hours in length and available for no more
than two weeks. Or having a service that displays text information on the song
title, album and artist for each song played, as it plays. ReelRadio files are
generally less than an hour, and they chose RealAudio as the file system because
of its ease of use in the early days and the difficulty in copying
files.
And yes, ReelRadio has been paying the required
fees for streaming music for as long as I can remember.
Obviously the RIAA doesn’t get it ... that
ReelRadio and similar sites are not music sites at all. Ironically, I’ve
probably spent quite a bit on music heard on these recordings ... songs I hadn’t
heard on today’s radio in years. To require that the recordings be available as
the RIAA desires would be the equivalent of going to an art museum and not being
able to see most of the paintings ... just a few that the curator is able to
show, for a limited time only.
Clearly, the action of the RIAA, as spelled out
in that letter, denies the public a chance to hear an audio art form, and denies
the chance to hear and important part of broadcast history.
Or maybe not. I contacted Jonathan Lamy, RIAA
executive VP in charge of communications to essentially tear his head off for
this action. In my mind I was ready to write a column blasting the RIAA and
imploring everyone to stop buying any music. To his credit, Lamy responded --
calmly -- that the intent of the RIAA is not exactly as was
imagined.
“We’re trying to offer consumers a guide to
licensed services,” Lamy told me. “We want to list all services that have
licenses. That’s good for everyone right? It shows they are legit.”
Lamy says that the original letter was not a
legal threat. “We’re trying to offer consumers a guide to licensed services. We
want to list all services that have licenses.” That listing references a website
at WhyMusicMatters.com. “We aren’t trying to
stop Reel from offering unscoped airchecks,” he insists. He sent me a copy of a
followup email as proof.
I’m not sure I believe him yet, but I’m willing
-- for now -- to give the benefit of the doubt. I’ve read the original letter,
though, and it does sound like a real threat. Whether the RIAA intended to scare
or not, WhyMusicMatters.com was not listed on that
letter, so I understand the fear on the part of ReelRadio to continue as usual
... even though I can state unequivocally that members of Reelradio like me
would detest the way the site would have to work to gain
compliance.
If I take Lamy at his word, though, it would
appear that things can and should be worked out. I am hoping that cool heads
prevail, that common sense and reasoning come through, and sites like ReelRadio
will be able to continue to exist as they were.
It’s a win-win for all ... the sites, the
public, and the RIAA and associated artists who gain from exposure to music that
may not have been heard on the radio -- if at all -- in decades.
And if an agreement can’t be reached? I’ll certainly
have a scathing followup ...
No comments:
Post a Comment