RIAA MAKE LAND GRAB

As the US prepares to get geared up for Digital Audio Broadcasting, the RIAA is attempting to use the confusion and noise around the format to call for Congress to insist on broadcasters being forced to copy-protect their output:

The FCC is considering final adoption of a digital radio standard that is a proprietary technology developed by a private company, iBiquity. While the recording industry is excited about the rollout of digital radio (“HD Radio”) as a new way for fans to listen to music, it is concerned that the iBiquity standard does not protect the music even though safeguards could easily be implemented without unsettling consumers’ expectations of how they listen to radio. Without such content protection, users could redistribute and copy recordings. The result could be widespread piracy, similar to or greater than that from illicit file sharing on peer-to-peer systems, especially given the ubiquity of radios and the use of radios by all parts of the American public.

As Goodwin's Law discusses, the RIAA is seizing on the choice to market DAB as HD Radio in the US. This choice was supposed to tempt consumers into seeing DAB as being a step up in the way HD TV is an improvement over standard television; the RIAA is hinting that it means better-than-CD quality (which, of course, it doesn't).

More alarmingly, the RIAA is trying to suggest that hobbling music on the radio won't actually change the way people relate to their radio. But of course, right now, you're free to tape shows to listen to later - something the RIAA is trying to stop now.

The RIAA is keen to build up the panic:

Automatically copy particular recordings of the user’s choice, thereby transforming a passive listening experience into a personal music library often without even listening to the original broadcast;

... although quite why people would want to store music in a personal library and not listen to it seems to have dropped off the leaflet. And how does that harm the music industry anyway? Are they saying that people would buy records without knowing what they'd sound like instead?

The RIAA warn of the dire consequences:

If HD Radio does not include content protection, economic damage may be severe:

Note the use of "may"...

Record companies, artists, songwriters and music publishers will suffer from a decline in sales;

... which has now become a "will" - they've not been able to demonstrate that internet sharing does force out sales so far, so it's interesting they seem to have found some evidence now. Perhaps they might share it with us?

Broadcasters and retailers will lose the opportunity to provide “buy buttons” to satisfy impulse purchases;

Why? Why would not having copy protection remove the ability to put "buy buttons" on anything?

Broadcasters will experience a decline in audience, and therefore advertising revenue, as listeners substitute their free music library for radio

Aha! It's not the music industry they're worried about, it's the poor radio industry they're thinking of. What does puzzle us, though, is if digital radio is covered with buy buttons, and people build up a legitimate music library, why won't that cause a decline in radio audience? How come only 'free' music would cause that to happen?

Advertisers will find diminishing returns from advertising on radio;

Well, if it's going to harm advertising...

On-demand download music services such as iTunes and Rhapsody will suffer. Why pay 99 cents for something you can get for free?

... but haven't the music industry spent the last couple of years suggesting that the existence of legal services is part of the solution to illegal filesharing? So... surely the existence of people paying 99 cents for things they can get for free already suggests that it's not really a concern.

music radio DAB hd radio riaa