Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There must be more to your story.

The RIAA generally doesn't have any involvement in video games, other than where its members license music to games (i.e., GTA), and they generally wouldn't have any grounds for being part of the proceedings you've described if their involvement was just the music licensing.

I can see the ESA being a huge dick in these proceedings, because it's their job to do that, but the RIAA literally wouldn't care as long as somebody paid the music licensing fee (for that low volume of users the licensing fee would generally be less than $100 annually, all inclusive).

I've been on the other side of an RIAA negotiation, and they were very easy to work with. We theoretically owed them millions of dollars for several years of unlicensed music streaming, and they waived the statutory penalties they were legally entitled to in exchange for us agreeing to pay a few hundred dollars of royalties a year to stream their members' music. All told, we paid less than $2500/year for streaming licenses for all of the Big 3 labels and a dozen or more smaller labels.



Transcripts of these hearings are publicly available. This seems to be the hearing GP was referring to (it's proposed class 23 in this hearing): https://cdn.loc.gov/copyright/1201/2015/hearing-transcripts/...

Appears the same lawyer was representing ESA/RIAA/MPAA.

I briefly started reading some of them a while back and they're, uh, frustrating to read.


Lot of interesting info in there, thanks for the link.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: