RIAA Offers More Details Regarding Online Royalties 181
DorianGre writes "The following story in The Standard as well as this follow-on at Gigalaw announce RIAA's intention of controlling the royalties of all downloadeble music on the Internet. These are the same people suing Napster and MP3.com. Stand up now for true copyright protection as afforded under the U.S. constitution or risk giving it up forever to global monopolies such as this."
As they should. (Score:1)
Not all musicians are the money-grubbing, easy-living scoundrels the media makes them out to be. Most of them are trying to eke out a living touring 300+ days a year and hoping for the big break that will propel them into the bigtime.
I hope to see this succeed, because there are a lot of very hard-working musicians who are not getting paid when their works are being downloaded illegally on the Internet.
Re:Copyright protection? (Score:1)
The correct term is copyright infringement and while it is worng it is not the same thing as theft. When I steal something the original owner no longer has use of it. When I download an mp3 the artist still has the song, stealing a cd would not be theft of the music for the same reason, just the physical manifestation therein.
Re:The U.S. Constitution (Score:1)
Copying material around the globe without paying for it is a fact, it's reality, it can not be prevented, live with it.
Welcome to future shock. If your post is any indication, you may soon be on some very heavy medicaton, and living in a protected enclave where everyone carefully pretends it's still 1975.
Look to the Open Source movement for ways to make money off valuable information, in a world where information flows freely. Look to the Grateful Dead for a model of making money with music, in a world where recordings are traded freely.
And quit whining.
Re:RIAA Pimp Agency (Score:1)
Exactly. The thing that fucks me off most about the coverage of this issue is the way dumb-arse journalists parrot the RIAA line about "artist compensation" when anyone prepared to spend more than five minutes doing research would know that the only thing the RIAA likes to give artists comes without lube.
Re:Un Ask the Question (Score:1)
Mp3.com already has. The 18 year old who performs as "The Cynic Project" has made nearly $80,000 in payback earnings from MP3.com in the last year or so, and that doesn't count CD sales. Online selling of music can work, and growth of higher-bandwidth connections, MP3 players, etc. mean potential future profits are much higher.
Government Granted Monopolies Must End (Score:1)
It's been said that copyright law allows radio stations to broadcast any piece of music they want, as long as they pay. Therefore the government designates a particular agency to collect royalties. Why must there be a single collection agency? Why must government designate it? Instead, allow artists to register with the copyright office whatever collection agency they have designated. The collection agency could be the artists themselves. Those who don't register don't get paid. Think about it. The artists are happy because they get paid, and no company gets a monopoly over the collection of royalties.
Re:The U.S. Constitution (Score:1)
Not that the U.S., with the RIAA, MPOA, and DMCA is exactly innocent in the rape of the basic principals of copyright, but at least we have this document that was written 200+ years ago by people who were evidently a lot smarter and more honest than today's industry shills.
It would be great to be able to look to international law as a means of stregthening the great national constitutions of the world. Unfortunately, though, it mostly ends up strengthening police states and special interests.
Re:Copyright protection? (Score:1)
I'd suggest that yahoo.fr comply with the order. But there's nothing requiring yahoo.com to do so, and if french citizens access a foreign site then it's unreasonable to expect yahoo.com to adhere to the order.
Ummm.... the rest of the world? (Score:1)
Quick question: RIAA plan to control royalties for ALL copyrighted music on the Internet... exactly how do they think they're going to swing this by independent labels and other smaller record companies outside the United States ?
"Perfect copy" myth! (Score:1)
MP3 files are not perfect copies! They are degraded due to the compression, bitrate used, etc. They sound nearly indistinguishable to the common listener's ear - but this does not mean the are perfect copies. Furthermore, some aucustic qualities are noticably degraded when recorded digitally by just about anyone with decent hearing.
Copies of MP3's are perfect, assuming no data errors when writing the copy. This is, however, a non-issue since you are copying imperfect copies to begin with.
How can we possibly get this point out to the general public when the RIAA and friends are constantly spreading this falsehood?
Re:"Perfect copy" myth! (Score:1)
Mp3s are a phenomenen that _represent_ a new technology. They are not the only way of storing music. Perhaps using any compression will become unnecessary.
Example: a 100Gb hard drive can store ~200 uncompressed CDs.
Re:Copyright protection? (Score:1)
Re:Copyright protection? (Score:1)
"To turn this into a "us vs. shareholders" thing is not really the point. You're probably already a shareholder"
I don't think he was trying to imply that this is an "us vs shareholders" thing. I think his point in stating that was more general, that they are only interested in making money. Of course, there is nothing wrong with making money in itself, but I think he was suggesting (and it happens to be the case) that these companies rip off the people whose IP they are making money from, the artists. Also this is, as you suggest, essentially a monopolistic plan to extort money from consumers ..
Re:The U.S. Constitution (Score:1)
What many people seem to be forgetting is that the DMCA is actually just U.S. version of the *global* WIPO [wipo.org] (World Intellectual Property Organization) Copyright treaty, which was drafted and approved in even less public display and public scrutiny than the approval of the DMCA in the U.S. Congress.
The WIPO Copyright treaty [wipo.org] was drafted first in December of 1996, and then signed onto by the U.S. delegation and other international representatives. The DMCA passing Congress was really a ratification and implementation of this *global* treaty. Your sentiment is correct in that we need a new, more balanced international copyright law. However, we unfortunately already have a international copyright law in both the Berne convention on copyrights and its extension, the WIPO Copyright Treaty.
Unfortunately, the new international laws as defined by the WIPO Copyright Treaty were very poorly constructed, shifting power overwhelmingly to the "content providers" and corporations, against the general public and against even the original creators of content/intellectual property.
As an example, take compilations of data (databases). Besides extending existing copyrights into their digital equivalents, the WIPO Copyright Treaty also creates a new class of copyrightable material: the right to copyright databases (see Article 5). Companies may now copyright databases, even if that data is derived from content/data which is either public domain or that other people created and copyrighted.
Alas, this trend towards legalizing unlimited corporate greed has already extended past the MPAA and RIAA in the United States and into the global domain, taking away from the public good and the original rights of the artist.
Re:The RIAA really needs a choke collar... (Score:1)
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Re:To protect the rights to steal!? (Score:1)
You, in assuming that everyone is guilty, are one twisted fucker. I hope you get your wish and live in a prison without walls.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Corporate voice? Get real. (Score:1)
I'm currently living on the scale of "how on earth will I buy books next semester", not "how should I leverage this particular fat sack of CASH MONEY".
If I had enough money to throw around, I'd effect change in several ways, but I happen not to.
Remember, these corporations are very, very big. They are made of lots and lots of dollars. More dollars than a normal person has, much more. Your voice in the company is proportional to the stock you own. They are *not* *like* you or me. Well, at least, not like me.
Re:You poor, poor fool. (Score:1)
Socialism BAD!
In a truly free market, any entity that becomes large, slow and establishment-y is vulnerable to attack by a quicker, smarter version.
Recording companies are obsolete. Notice that they seek their protection from the savior you cite, the government, hoping to stave off the effects of the market.
grendel drago
Actors, but the same thing... (Score:1)
"So, what do you do?"
"I'm an actor/actress."
"Really? What restaurant?"
A reference to the fact that more than ninety percent of actors are out of work at any given time... I'm sure it's likewise for any but the most professional musicians.
grendel drago
Minor Point (Score:1)
The government doesn't get involved here until someone gets sued.
Corporations don't stand for democracy, they stand for making a quick buck, repeatedly. This works just fine, as long as everyone understands this, that the company is only concerned about its potential for profit.
grendel drago
Another minor point. (Score:1)
Socialism gives me the crawling horrors, anyway. Too many cautionary examples in this century of what happens when your government becomes too powerful.
grendel drago
How the hell are they going to enforce this? (Score:1)
The RIAA may be able to control the distribution of music in America and collect royalties from online music distribution in America, but who is to say that someone in Pango Pango won't create the next best thing for digital distribution online? The the RIAA will have to start all over once again.
Re:The U.S. Constitution (Score:1)
Yeah, there's a lot of good things in the US constitution about copyright. Unfortunately, the way copyright works in the US today is very far removed from that. US copyright law today is just as full of "rights" for publishers as is the Bern Convention.
Well, I don't think that's true - in fact, I think American (and British, French,
Well, that's certainly true - but I would say it's usually true of national laws as well.
well well well (Score:1)
A us band (I think it's Metallica ) did a cover of a Song called Antisociale The record went to sell a lot and then Trust got about 50$ for their efforts
Re:Copyright protection? (Score:1)
Such behavior is already illegal. So here's an interesting question---why isn't the RIAA going after all people who are swapping mp3's? Why is it going after Napster instead?
If the RIAA sued a bunch of individuals (if they even made prominent examples out of a few), they could probably intimidate a lot of people to the point where they would change their behavior. Suddenly a much lower percentage of the traffic on Napster (or whatever) would be in illegal mp3's. Suddenly it would be much clearer that peer-to-peer protocols can have "significant non-infringing uses", and their court cases against companies like Napster, like earlier court-cases against the VCR producers, would be on much shakier ground.
The RIAA would be better off in the long run if they could embed copy-protection controls in every internet protocol. But that doesn't mean they need to do such a thing to prevent "piracy".
Of course we should support our artists. But why does that mean we have to let the RIAA reshape the cyberspace in their image?
---J. Bruce Fields
Re:Why don't they understand? (Score:1)
It's probably impossible for a state to prevent people from driving without a legitimate license, to prevent credit-card fraud, or to stop all libel before it happens.
That doesn't mean that it's wrong to have a statute in place for dealing with those who DO act in such a fashion.
Re:More proof (Score:1)
You could offer equal-sized grants via a lottery system, but that's still massively abuseable by groups of people filling in bogus applications.
Re:Un Ask the Question (Score:1)
Not that I've used mp3.com lately, but I have not noticed a "mail us a check and we'll let you download some mp3's!". I have a friend who plays trombone for Broadway orchestras. He occaisionally gets recorded...and gets a royalty check. True, it's chump change, but he gets money nonetheless.
So now we have your typical net-artiste. Assuming this guy is doing it for the money, how does it (the money) get to him/her?!
You're talking to a guy who actually bought the retail counter-strike CD because he actually felt he owed it to the fine men and women who poured their lives into producing this great mod. In retrospect, I probably should have downloaded it for free and mailed 'em a $30 check in gratitude. But you see, it's the same problem. I want to support the people who make my quality of life better. I don't want them to disappear because I was too lazy or too forgetful to write a check.
How do we get the Web to support this?!?
Re:Copyright protection? (Score:1)
Re:Copyright protection? (Score:1)
Odd, i didn't know the french could declare another nation's constition void. Personally i don't know why yahoo is even in court. Their response to France should have been a big 'fuck you' and then completely ignore the idiots. It seems that France is becoming as Facist as the Nazis they so 'hated.' Too bad for them that Nazism isn't the only way to be facist.
Re:As they should. (Score:2)
Related tidbit (Score:2)
Re:Copyright protection? (Score:2)
If Metallica were starving, if the RIAA companies were going bankrupt, if CD sales were truly declining, if CD prices were going down, and sales not picking up, if the RIAA companies would provide a reasonable alternative to unrestricted MP3 trading, then I'd say a strick copyright protection scheme were warranted.
But none of that is happening. They're still making hugely unprecedented profits. The point is, MP3 trading does not threaten sales, only market dominance and control. MP3 trading is an inferior product to a physical CD copy. There is still great demand for that product, and many MP3 traders will tell you honestly that they buy more CDs because of their MP3 trading. The problem with this is that it relies on something called "the honor system". Yes, it's the same exact system by which Newspapers are sold throught the world, and have been sold for decades. You put a dime into a machine, and you pull out one newspaper - you could pull out a stack of em, and pass them out to your friends if you wanted, but who does that? The minority of dishonest people out there. Not enough to cause the Newspaper companies to get their panties in a bunch. So what's the percentage you think of MP3 traders who never buy CDs? Who "would have otherwise paid $20 for the CD"? Very low, and the numbers (RIAA members profits) prove it. So take your stiff nazi rhetoric (IT'S THEFT! YOU'RE EVIL! YOU MUST BE STOPPED NOW! MP3 TRADUNG IST VERBOTEN!), and shove it up your ass, because in America, the 1992 AHRA states that copyrighted material can be copied and shared freely for noncommercial purposes. That's FAIR USE, and there is NO language that says sharing a CD with your wife, is any different than ripping it and letting 2 million of your close friends download it. And that's the fact jack.
Re:Copyright protection? (Score:2)
No artist is being cheated by RIAA member companies. You get a contract, you read it, you sign it, you honor it. period. If a musician signs a bad contract, it's their fault for not reading it, or standing up for themselves. If they felt they're being screwed they had an alternative - don't sign the contract.
For many artists, this is the difference between making it big (buzillions of dollars, overnight success, the whole "star" deal), or not - continuing to play dives in college towns, or weddings and bar mitzvahs. Tough titties. The record companies are selling a commodity - access to the mass music market, by their oligopoly on distribution. It's probably not possible to become a "star" without help from a major music company. You young musicians out there, you have to think to yourselves, "why am I doing this?" Is it because you love music, or is it because you want to be a star? The talentless fucks out there (*cough* Courney "nobody would ever have known who I was if it wasn't for my dead hubby's rock stardom" Love *cough*) who've made it big because of the promotion machine of the RIAA, are now whining because they don't have access to the lion's share of the profits? Well, maybe they shouldn't. Maybe the unsigned bands out there with real talent who may still be playing bars, are setting the REAL value for the commodity that is "good music". A $5 cover charge. The pheonomenon that the RIAA creates, the hype, the promotion, is just a good illusion, that sets the value much higher, millions of CD's at $20 a pop. (coming to a PC near you, Pay-per-listen songs, MP3 quality, at $3 a pop.) Why MUST you have the latest Madonna album? Is she really a musical genius compared to say, Robert Fripp? Fuck no, but if you have a Madonna CD on your shelf when you have freinds over, you're FAR more likely to get those intangible "I belong to your social group" points than with Robert Fripp. Unless you have freinds who are music majors or something. Believe it or not, a whole buttload of people find this enormously valuable. This is why Backstreet Boyz is the most downloaded and pirated music on Napster. The attraction of the "social points" commodity - yeah, I got that on my Rio, let's load it on your PC and listen. I know about it, you know about it. It's not about "good music", it's about social connections - this is the commodity that the RIAA is really trying to control and sell. Culture. Which is inevitably tied to ubiquity, fame. Cake (another one hit wonder) played an interesting song a few years back; "How can you afford your Rock-n-Roll lifestyle?" Download that from Napster, listen to it, think about it.
So when an "artist" claims they're being cheated by the RIAA - don't buy that baloney. When a "star" claims that Napster is eating their lunch, they could be right - Metallica is NOT in the business of music for music's sake. They're in it for the $$. Something to think about.
The real issue here, and the only legitimate issue as far as I'm concerned, is access to music. I'll never download Backstreet Boyz from Napster. Don't worry about that. I may download Metallica, because, frankly, even though they are greedy primadonnas, I DO like a lot of their innovative earlier stuff. There's a lot of good music there. And I don't believe in paying RIAA-dictated prices for it. And I will not use Metallica as a tool to win "brownie points" with friends. Music listening is almost exclusively a private experience for me, so again, there's no reason for me to pay the RIAA "social brownie points" fee. If I want that, or if I would prefer the superior quality of a CD recording, I'll go to the record store and buy the CD. But for simple access to music, perhaps culture, the price is too much, and the law supports this: the status symbol, and the commoditized prices, of the luxury of OWNING copyrighted material is protected - but free access is also protected under fair use - as long as I'm not selling copies, not making a buck, not eating someone else's lunch, it's fair game. That's what the fair use clause is for, and I for one am fucking sick and tired of uninformed or dishonest people LYING, and telling others that this is illegal and that we should feel guilty for trading MP3's when it's protected by the 1992 American Home Recording Act.
Re:Un Ask the Question (Score:2)
The RIAA companies charge a HUGE markup on CD sales, compared to their costs for that artist. They literally bill us for the artists they promote that fail. But a new artist, who signs up to distribute his music directly on the internet will be in direct competition with the RIAA on price, because they'll have a much leaner distribution model, much lower costs, no expensive lawyers and executives, and the money will go directly to the artist, and the artist will simply pay the internet hosting company, and the credit card bill for the recording studio in his basement, and possibly the licensing fees to the company that wrote the music encoding method (assuming they're gonna use SDMI instead of MP3). What's left over is pure profit for the musician. If that's not enough, they can maybe hire a promotional agency to broaden their market. True music fans will be able to tell when a musician is popular from that kind of promotion, or popular because they're good. But True music fans are few and far between. But in the end all music consumers will pay a lower price, because the competition will eliminate the costlier vendors (Traditional Record Companies) - who will likely have to trim their staff, and resort to more honest accounting practices, (more likely, they'll just buy laws to protect their monopoly).
Re:I hate to be bitter but.... (Score:2)
Re:Copyright protection? (Score:2)
uh, yes. (Score:2)
Yes, in most states.
Huh? Am I reading this correctly? (Score:2)
--
Re:A Clockwork Orange (Score:2)
If you abuse it. That's a big if, and one the RIAA would like very much to bypass.
If a cop sees you reading a book, should he be able to demand to see the receipt from your bookshop, and arrest you for stealing books if you don't have a receipt?
Most people (myself included) resent being called criminals, and be taking away a person's ability to break the law before he has broken any laws is precisely that. By demanding the ablity to track and collect royalty on all digital music transfers, the RIAA is calling everyone with a net connection a criminal.
Re:Factual error in second article... (Score:2)
Yes and no. He's technically wrong, but his point is correct. MP3 is lossy, but that loss only occurs in the first generation of copying. After that, all copies of an MP3 file are identical. Thus, it is different than is the case with photocopiers.
---
Wild inaccuracy (Score:2)
Bullshit. That case had absolutely nothing to do with MP3 files, and everything to do with the distribution of someone else's copyrighted materials without permission.
The only legal issues that exist with MP3 files are issues concerning the Fraunhofer patent. Other than that, MP3 isn't any different than any other digital audio file format.
---
Sole agent (Score:2)
I don't have a problem with copyright owners seeking to get compensation for the distribution of their works. But, that said...
The RIAA has been getting away with this same type of shit for too long. Who are they bribing, in the government, that is allowing this stuff to take effect?
Being designated by the copyright office as the sole agent is blatantly unfair, because RIAA does not represent everyone who might have their music broadcast. In fact, if they did represent everyone, then it would be strong evidence of an anti-trust violation.
RIAA has no right to collect royalties on behalf of everyone, just as they have no right to collect media tax on behalf of everyone. This is blatant out-in-the-open corruption, and I really wish someone would put the copyright office person who agreed to this, in front of a "60 Minutes" camera so they can explain to everyone why this isn't graft and/or corporate welfare.
---
Re:Copyright protection? (Score:2)
BF2k, I think the issue you missed is that RIAA is trying to (re)create a monopoly. They want to collect money that they don't deserve, in the form of royalties that are owed to musicians that they may not actually represent. It's like the blank media tax.
That is an issue for the copyright holders to address. It isn't any more fair for RIAA to collect royalties on some german speed metal band that I listen to over the net, than it would be for you or Microsoft to.
Gee, maybe I should go to Washington and grease a few palms and buy a few hookers for the right people, and then I could be designated the sole agent for something.
---
Measures to take.... (Score:2)
Support the bill to make legalise copying of music into electronic format for personal use.
Any others...
More Important: How do we influence the USCO? (Score:2)
More importantly, how do WE exert OUR influence on the US Copyright office to make sure this is done right?
The only contacts list I can find is http://www.loc.gov/copyright/about.html#contact [loc.gov].
I think we need to write supporting some of the following ideas:
1) The RIAA should:
a) only be able to collect royalties for works members of their organization hold copyright too.
b) _freely_ provide access and administrative rights to non-RIAA affiliated artists who wish to use their system to collect.
2) The RIAA may not collect royalties where other parties are collecting them from the same download/broadcast (read: ASCAP, or any other society) for the same copyright.
With these stipulations, use of their system would probably be fine...
Re:Copyright protection? (Score:2)
If only you were right... I think you'll find what Steve Albini [negativland.com] has to say on the matter is qute revealing. Need I mention that he's experienced the record industry first-hand?
The fact is if you don't sell enough records, you don't get paid, regardless of your talent. It's exactly like the bakery owner not paying the bakers unless his store sells 10,000 loaves of bread, and then paying them a few percent of the profit from each loaf of bread afterwards. If you don't see a problem with that, you're an idiot. Artists are basically slaves until their records recoup.
Also, if so many record companies are struggling, what does that say about the artists signed to them?
We have no right to steal from the artists, but neither do the record companies.
Re:Copyright protection? (Score:2)
Re:Copyright protection? (Score:2)
No, as in it's my work and *I*, not *you* will decide the terms of the copyright.
Re:Even if they get paid, this is NOT a good thing (Score:2)
Re:Copyright protection? (Score:2)
The only reason I can do that is because someone else was willing to share it. To contribute (since they arent getting paid) their time and resources to a further appreciation of an artist. The people who have the biggest problem with this arrangement are the ones who have to be paid to perform a similar function. [riaa.com]
People seem to think that they are big corporate entities that just rip people off.
Re-writing copyright law so that an entity recieves 50% of ALL streaming revenues is a great example of this.
--
Re:Copyright protection? -nitpick (Score:2)
I agree with most of what you've said, and I think you've said it quite well, but I have a tiny nitpick with the Dave Matthews Band example you used... The 40 gigs of DMB are probably almost all legal, because they're probably mostly all live recordings of his concerts that fans are authorized to reproduce and distribute, as long as they don't charge for them or tie them to some commercial offering (e.g. creating a download page that has banner ads).
Of course, this only reinforces your argument, by showing that there are cases where P2P networks are being put to legitimate, non-commercial use by a large number of people.Re:I hate to be bitter but.... (Score:2)
Here's a widely unknown hint: Even if you have Cable (or better) connection, and download mp3 albums every night from some FTP/Newsgroup/IRC/Etc source, it doesn't even come CLOSE to the amount of mp3's you can get by trading via snail mail. Much less work too.
Rader
Re:RIAA Pimp Agency (Score:2)
That's a bit high!
I've heard $1/album is used sometimes. Let's see $1/$16 is 6.125%
Let's try Toni Braxton?(Whitney?) rate that made her file bankrupt. $.07 / $16 = 0.4 %
Rader
You poor, poor fool. (Score:2)
"Hi, we're the artists."
"We are RIAA of Borg."
"Okay, we can tour about four months out of the year, and we want half of the profits from everything sold in our name."
"Bwa ha ha! You will tour eleven months to put food in your belly, and see pennies from the merchandise we grow fat on, slave!"
"Why, we don't have to stand for this!"
"Yes you do."
"No, I think we'll take our business elsewhere!"
"Go ahead -- throw your talent away in some backwater local scene, and wish for 'the big time' -- 'cause there ain't no recording cartel -- uh, industry -- but ours, kid."
"Well, you appear to have us by the collective hairy sack. I believe we'll have to capitulate to your unreasonable terms, since we have no bargaining power, and this is where The One True Road Of Musicianship has lead us."
"Good boy. Now shine my shoes."
You get the idea.
grendel drago
Re:Need to speak with someone w/RIAA (Score:2)
Re:Need to speak with someone w/RIAA (Score:2)
//rdj
Un Ask the Question (Score:2)
First of all, a nit: it's not *all* music on the internet, it's just the music *"they" hold a copyright* on. Unless i mis-read The Standard article. All music != copyrighted music, and Good Journalism != Sensational Journalism
Second of all, who says artists have to go with a recording company to distribute in this Era of the Internet? This begs the question: "Can anyone come up with a system that will "eliminate the middle man" whilst allowing an artist to have a decent living?" I don't have an answer to that one, kids, but I agree that the current system (all money to the suits, the crumbs to the artists) stinks.
I hate your guts, and here's why..... (Score:2)
WTF? And you support them. I only want the right to control my own music. And in 'the interest of the artists' the RIAA is going to sue me. Your post was ass-backwards. I WANT the right to say how my music can be distributed, but the RIAA will NOT allow me to exercise that right. Really. When I buy cds to burn MY music I pay a fee to them because they assume I'm going to copy some Blink 182 or something. Again, guilty by default. Why should I have to support my biggest competitor when I buy the tools I need to compete with them? Does that system look rigged to anyone else? The RIAA is the one with, as you say *NO FSCHING RIGHTS* (sic) to do what they've been doing.
By the way loudmouth, copyright infringement is not theft, it's copyright infringement. Which is not piracy, piracy involves ships and parrots and violence. Copyright infringement is, legally, about the same as jaywalking - except that jaywalking can actually put people in danger, and copyright infringement can only have the minor effect of denying a corporation money.
Re:Copyright protection? (Score:2)
As in the true copyright protection that lets billions of stolen mp3s get downloaded each day?
No, as in true copyright protection with reasonable limits to the terms of the copyright.
As in the copyright protection that cheats artists out of the fruits of their labors? Again, no. Here you should replace "copyright protection" with "record labels" -- that is what cheats the artists otu of the fruits of their labors.
As in the copyright protection of p2p tools, which are essentially tools of theft, analagous to slim jims or other criminal tools.
And what are guns used for?
Re:RIAA Pimp Agency (Score:2)
But it makes you realize that timing really is everything. I suppose the RIAA thinks that all the other lawyers are SOOOO busy in Florida that they can pull a fast one on us, if they act quickly.
Finally, for the ultimate reference, go to that one sentence in the US Constitution, where it references rights for a 'limited time' for 'artists and inventors'. It says nothing about unlimiting that time, or their heirs and assignees, or middlemen, publishers, and distributers. IMHO, wait for the right case, and a VERY interesting Constitutional Case could be made of the whole copyright/patent mess.
Re:More proof (Score:2)
Re:As they should? Which ones you got stock in? (Score:2)
"50% of the royalties go to the copyright holders, MOST OFTEN THE RECORD LABELS. " (emphasis mine)
"The rest would be divvied up amongst the artists."
These are near-quotes from The Standard's article.
What this means is that the record labels get a hellova large chunk of that royalty money. They may get as much as 100% in situations where the artist got an advance prior to release.
The music industry is in the process of locking down holes instead of redefinition of themselves. They could see themselves as media distributors, or they could see themselves as record makers. This is another step backwards, and another reason a Sealand server seems more and more attractive.
What is this? (Score:2)
I work at a radio station. Now, before you all blame me for the crap you have to hear on your radio - it's a public, non-programmed station. I.E. DJs play what they want to play.
We don't pay the RIAA a dime for broadcast rights.
Wait, let me say that again. The RIAA doesn't get a dime from us.
We pay ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC money. Why? Because *they* control the broadcast rights, not the RIAA. The RIAA only has jurisdiction on *copies of recorded music*.
So, whether or not you support copyright, Napster, etc. - ask yourself this.
Why is the RIAA getting control over webcast rights? Why aren't the performance unions (BMI, ASCAP, SESAC) getting control over this?
The people who killed DAT as a consumer format, DCC (anyone remember that??) entirely, approximtely doubled-tripled the cost for Audio CDRs, etc. are trying to take control of web broadcast rights.
It's not their jurisdiction, and they will do a bad job of it.
Re:Copyright protection? (Score:2)
This isn't really a regulatory solution. It sounds more like it's based on contract law, like the way ASCAP, BMI, and the Harry Fox Agency work. Musicians who sign contracts with big record companies will be signing an industry-standard clause agreeing to this royalty-collection scheme. Musicians whose goal is to create music as free information and copyleft it will be able to do that too. What's the problem? I guess the problem is that it gives musicians a choice about whether to give their music away for free. How dare they expect to make a living by practicing their trade!
p2p tools, which are essentially tools of theft, analagous to slim jims or other criminal tools
Huh? Nobody's proposing outlawing p2p.
--
Question (Score:2)
If I want to make a backup copy of a song, I can simply rip the one song to my hard drive, or copy the song from one part of my hard drive to another part. There is nothing in the royality article that states this would be against the law.
All they're trying to do is prevent a user from transferring one digital copy of a song to another user on another computer. I can buy that.
Some musicians, and writers, and artists may choose to want their music roaming the net, but if others don't they shouldn't be penalized for trying to put bread on the table.
Smashing Pumpkins are fighting music companies... (Score:2)
"MACHINA II/the Friends & Enemies of Modern Music" is the pumpkins' final album, the followup to "MACHINA/the Machines of God". It is a limited pressing of only 25 (twenty-five) copies on hand-cut, hand-numbered, non-lacquered acetate (aka vinyl, aka records), consisting of 3 10" EPs and a double 12" LP, 5 discs & 25 songs total. The 25 copies were given to close friends of the band, a few of whom happen to be online, and whom were instructed to circulate the new material as quickly as possible, since the band plans on playing some of the new material on the European tour.
For more detailed info, see: SPFC [spfc.org]
Since there were only 25 copies on vinyl, unless you were one of the lucky 25, you can't get the original pressing. But since the band instructed some of the recipients to circulate and distribute the material, you will be able to get copies of it- consider it an "official bootleg". Currently, the only source available is mp3. Since none of the 3 known online recipients had access to an ultra-high-end audiophile turntable (the tube kind that cost thousands), one of them used what they had and made mp3s so that the new songs could be distributed immediately. There are plenty of web/ftp sites and mirrors hosting the new songs, as well as people sharing files via napster, AIM, etc. Look around a bit, the info has been posted in many places many times.
Virgin was not interested in releasing a followup to Machina, so rather than pack up their gear and go home, they recorded and released it themselves. It will not and cannot be officially released on CD, as their contract with Virgin includes a non-compete clause, which prevents them from releasing anything Virgin holds rights to under another label for 1 year. Since the material was partially recorded while still under the Virgin contract, they are legally prohibited from releasing it on another label or in any other way.
To download, or for more information, go to Machina2 [cjb.net]
Re:The U.S. Constitution (Score:2)
Geography? Language? (Score:2)
Or maybe this is the RIAA's big international play, looking for international jurisdiction.
Also, the language refers to 'Webcasting', not 'Downloads'. Will that limit the scope? How would things on-the-internet-but-not-neccesarily-the-web (like Napster...FTP, etc) work? Unless webcasting has a really broad definition, they don't seem covered.
questions, questions....
-Ross
Re:Irony (Score:2)
1. The superstars fit my [admittedly moderately broad] generalization very well.
2. It is 99% superstar music being traded on Napster.
I feel some pity for the mid sizers out there, but when you sell your soul to Satan, expect to be burnt.
-={(Astynax)}=-
Reward for the artists? (Score:2)
The quote was said to continue as follows:
"...rewarded for the performance of their works online in the same way artists are rewarded for the performance of their works offline. That is to say, after the RIAA takes their massive cut, the artist will be lucky to get a nickle. But if they work really, really hard on their next album, they might get more. Maybe. After promotional expenses."
________________
Copyright protection? (Score:2)
Sorry? True copyright protection?
As in the true copyright protection that lets billions of stolen mp3s get downloaded each day?
As in the copyright protection that cheats artists out of the fruits of their labors?
As in the copyright protection of p2p tools, which are essentially tools of theft, analagous to slim jims or other criminal tools.
This stuff about the constitution is a lot of bull. Most people don't really care about this - as witnessed by the fact they don't do anything about real oppression under true fascist regimes - they're only concerned about their 'rights' regarding the theft of music.
Re:Copyright protection? (Score:2)
You're absolutely right. Example: one of my colleagues was going to buy the Nirvana singles box set because it had some rare tracks on it.
But because of Napster he didn't because he stole it for free.
But in any case, even if it didn't result in loss of sales CDs, it would still be theft - for one thing there is lost sales from legal mp3s - this is just the same as vinyl->cd, and the market is currently nonexistent event though by rights their should be a market.
And don't think that it's just a ripoff of the consumer selling new versions of what you've already got. It isn't.
Artists are paid for record and mp3 sales - therefore you are cheating them by stealing music.
Record companies are not evil. People seem to think that they are big corporate entities that just rip people off.
This is not true. The people working for them are being paid, just the same as you are, and they have a right to make money - after all, you wouldn't suggest that the man running the local bakery has no right to make a profit out of his wares.
Everything here is consensual:
you don't have to buy the music
the artists don't have to sign the contracts. But they do. Why? Because it's a damn good deal for them. Relatively talentless musicians make millions of dollars.
This isn't exploitation. In fact, many record companies have gone bust or are struggling.
In fact, the only non-consensual thing is the theft of the music, which you seem to think you have the right to do. And the only reason that is because you can get away with it.
The true test of whether someone is moral is not whether they don't steal physical things like cars - that has getting caught has a deterrent so morality is secondary.
It is that they do not steal where they cannot get caught. Those who do steal are immoral.
The Genie is out of the bottle (Score:2)
Don't weep for the musician. If they care, they want their music to reach as many people as possible, royalties be damned.
Record companies operate a lot like software companies. The talent always gets screwed. I don't hear anyone standing up for the rights of coders WRT software piracy...
Hell, Gortician still manages to make money from mp3.com downloads, CD sales, t-shirts, gigs, etc. Where else would we get so many Indonesian fans but from "illegal" music piracy? Don't bother defending my rights. We *want* to give it away. A lot of other artists feel this way about Napster. We don't want anyone speaking for us, especially conCerning the intentions of releasing our music to the public.
Record labels are gay, anyway.
Re: My Proposal (Score:2)
Setup a website, completely independent from their label's.
Sell their future releases MP3.com style (burnt on demand).
Sell downloadable songs for those who prefer the digital format. Hell, make it a "donation" (with a minimum amount) and they could get the same tax breaks churches get.
Granted, due to the needed exposure, this would only work for artists who have been promoted by the big labels and are sick of getting shafted by their label. When enough make the transition, they could form a "union" and cross promote each other.
I could see Hole or Smashing Pumpkins trying this, after seeing their success with it, the groups who aren't as ballsy would surely follow.
Minor point (Score:2)
Hmmm, the US Copyright office. And how on earth are these people supposed to exert their influence to the rest of the world? Seems there's going to be yet another reason for some of the smaller Net corps to start doing business in the "less developed" parts of the world. Guess my FTP server will have to move to the Rainforest.
Small question on the side, how about international waters? A ship with a bunch of servers on it and a satellite uplink maybe?
Re:Sole agent (Score:3)
> copyright office person who agreed to this, in
> front of a "60 Minutes" camera so they can
> explain to everyone why
> this isn't graft and/or corporate welfare.
So, did you write to Mike Wallace, or did you write to slashdot?
Re:Copyright protection? (Score:3)
> As in the copyright protection that cheats artists out of the fruits of their labors?
> As in the copyright protection of p2p tools, which are essentially tools of theft, analagous to slim jims or other criminal tools.
Yes - exactly those freedoms. The freedom to have a choice: to commit a crime, or not, that is an important freedom.
Regulation isn't the way to turn the criminals into good citizens. Go read A Clockwork Orange.
Mike.
The *real* issue (Score:3)
I don't think this fight is about royalties. Sure, it's incredibly corrupt and wrong for RIAA to collect 50% of all royalties. Sure I think it's evil and wrong to infringe on what amounts to fair use (personal copying of works and re-distributing them freely to friends). But then, there's a larger issue here: the RIAA's maniacal control over the "talent" pipeline.
Think about it: who controls which artists are available for purchase, which artists show up on the radio and MTV? RIAA does. They have the power to dictate tastes and preferences to a very large sector of music consumers. Under non-digital distribution channels, it takes a huge amount of money (for lawyers, packaging, marketing, pay-ola, etc) to promote and distribute a work of art. Digital music distribution, especially Napster, threatens that control because artists now have affordable self-promotion tools at their disposal. That is the reason RIAA wants to either destroy or control Napster, mp3.com, and any other digital music distribution channel.
Ask yourself: if you were an artist, would you trust the organization that so readily caved in to the Tipper Gore/PMRC censorship demands (see the Frank Zappa PMRC Hearing testimony [descendents.com] for an interesting take on this) to represent your interests?
Endangered Industry - goodbye RIAA (Score:3)
There is no real need for the record industry anymore. Support good artists by going to concerts and buying tee-shirts and CDs (or go to paylars.com [paylars.com]).
Even if they get paid, this is NOT a good thing! (Score:3)
This isn't about the usual RIAA tactics, it is about them being legally declared the only way to get royalties for "webcasted music"(Whatever that is).
So go ahead and post you MP3s on your website,just don't expect to be paid for them unless you bend over for Hillary Rosen and co.
That's like VISA being the only way to get paid for stuff you sell online.
"Sure you can run an online business, but you'll need our card 'cause the only legal way to pay people is to credit their VISA balance. If you want to use MC or Amex, not only will you not get paid, but you're a dirty,filthy, stealing-bread-from-the-mouths-of-our-children criminal! How *DARE* you even THINK of getting paid some other way!"
Re:As they should. (Score:3)
The RIAA really needs a choke collar... (Score:3)
Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. It seems that everyone's forgotten about the French Revolution, and now it's happening all over again. Right now, the wealthiest 10% have more money per capita than the entirety of the remainder of the people. Gee, sounds a lot like the late 18th century French aristocracy. Maybe it's time for another revolution.
Contact the US Copyright Office (Score:3)
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/about.html#contact
They don't have an email address listed, but they do have fax/snailmail.
I think the important thing is that the RIAA be only allowed to collect for music that their members hold copyright to -- and that they be required to demonstrate you're playing such music before they can take any action to collect.
RIAA Pimp Agency (Score:4)
There is no packaging costs, no distribution costs, and the sites offering the music will be the ones doing all the work supplying and maintaining the digital databases, yet the RIAA stll wants its 50% cut of the revenue.
I suppose this is better than the estimated 15% artists currently get from CD sales, but still seems quite rediculous.
Time shifting (Score:4)
Interesting. The above differs from reality. The use of video recorders also permits more than time shifting. It allows the playing of whole video tapes repeatedly, and the compilation of a whole medley of vids (which could be illegally redistributed or publicly performed). Thus, there's no real difference between the capabilities of MP3s and video recordings.
The implication is that the legalization of video recorders was intended to allow time shifting only. This means you're not supposed to, for example, tape every episode of Babylon 5 and keep your tapes long-term, watching them over and over. That's news to me.
---
cutting out the middlepimp (Score:4)
The only significant difference in this case is that, unlike department stores, the RIAA has some legal leverage to use to protect its own middleman status. Even so, I wonder how long they'll be able to last.
A big way to kick some RIAA ass... (Score:4)
1) Download all the mp3s you can.
2) For each mp3 that you download, send $0.50 or $1.00 to the artist (via mail) for the mp3.
This, of course, would be exceedingly inconvenient to the artist, but hell, it would prove a point and show those bastards at the RIAA that we will not stand for the high CD prices, very little of which goes to the artist. Quite frankly I want to reward talent, not administrative beaurocracy.
v
Re:RIAA Pimp Agency (Score:4)
It'd also be interesting to see who "the artists" are in RIAA-speak.
Under the RIAA-pushed laws that require payment of royalties on the purchase of DAT machines and DAT audio media, consumers have to pay the RIAA-approved "artists" even if the DAT machine and media are being used only for the creation of new works. If I'm an artist, using a DAT machine in my home studio to create new works to which I hold copyright, I still have to give money to the RIAA.
Based on past performances, I've concluded that one of the RIAA's main goals is to keep new artists from taking advantage of new technologies to compete against the established recording industry. Or more accurately, the RIAA wants to ensure that, as new artists increasingly take advantage of technologies that allow them more easily to work outside the established recording industry, the RIAA is somehow still able to get a cut of this activity, from which they would otherwise be excluded.
The U.S. Constitution (Score:4)
Oh yeah, we can't possibily live on a planet that isn't entirely governed by the U.S. constitution. After all, less than 10% of the population live in America, so why shouldn't we all be governed by their laws?
Frankly, a global law on copyright is the only way to protect the interests of the artists. One that everyone agrees to, one that is enforced, one that is fair regardless of creed, colour or country. Copying material around the globe without paying for it is not 'free speech', nor is it 'free expression'. Its ripping people off.
Re:I hate to be bitter but.... (Score:4)
Of course it doesn't. the RIAA represents what the money thinks. And as we all know, money talks as well. In this case, quite a lot.
Re:Copyright protection? (Score:5)
Err....a few things here.
First, there's nothing preventing you from buying shares of sony, time warner, etc. They're listed on the US stock exchanges, and also on the exchanges where the company is based (Tokyo, Toronto, etc.).
Second, anyone with a retirement account (401(k), IRA, and so on) may own shares in these companies already.
To turn this into a "us vs. shareholders" thing is not really the point. You're probably already a shareholder.
So now what?
If you're a direct shareholder, contact investor relations. Find some financial why maintaining their relationship with the RIAA will hurt the company and its share price.
If you're indirect (401(k)) contact the investor relations of the mutual fund company that you're going through. Do the same thing.
With stock prices being real crappy these days, some solid reasons why a particular company's plan to extort money from consumers will backfire could be of help.
Re:RIAA Pimp Agency (Score:5)
The theme of the movie is "why does a ho need a pimp?"
One of the first things you learn is that ho's NEVER get a percentage. Not 10%, not 5%, not even 1%. Every single pimp says the same thing. 0%. Then they go on to talk at length about why a ho needs a pimp - after a ton of hand waving, you realize it is all about MIND share. Its about convincing the HOs they need a pimp, not convincing the johns that hos need a pimp.
Of course, the most striking similarity between Hilary Rosen, Jack Valenti, and pimps is in the "get me my motherfucking money" segment. In it, a pimp explains that a ho doesn't EARN him his money. The ho goes and GETS his motherfucking money from the John. It is already assumed the John HAS his motherfucking money, and it is up to the ho to get it for the pimp.
In any case, if you want to learn why the RIAA and MPAA make so much damn money, and work so hard to "get their motherfucking money" from you, go rent American Pimp. 5 stars.
Re:Copyright protection? (Score:5)
p2p tools are *not* instruments of theft, it's just terribly popular to use them as such. They're like crowbars... powerful, with a legitimate purpose, but subject to the goodness or evilness of their operator.
Remember, if draconian access controls are allowed, and *enforced*, it certainly won't stop with the college kids with forty gig of DMB. Witness DeCSS: "But only *pirates* use it!" "Oh, okay, let's make reverse engineering a crime." Do you really believe that taking power out of the hands of the hacker/common man/scr1pt k1dd13 and giving it to these companies (who have their stockholders' interests in mind, *and no one else's*, not you, not me, certainly not the artists who they hide behind) will solve anything?
Perhaps 'copyright protection' is the wrong phrase. But believe me, it's not about the pirates; they don't cost the companies an appreciable sum, they never have.
About the 'right' to the Nappy... I won't argue there. I still can't believe what I hear when my roommates complain that the school blocked Napster.
Why do ASCAP and BMI remain silent? (Score:5)
Excuse me? Everything?? (Score:5)
I think royalties for signed artists is fine - they know what they are getting into when they sign - but us *truely* independant artists don't owe the RIAA anything!
Re:Endangered Industry - goodbye RIAA (Score:5)
Another option would be Fairtunes [fairtunes.com] which lets you send money directly to the artist, which bypasses the blood sucking RIAA. And unlike Paylars we've actually mailed thousands of dollars worth of cheques to artists who have in turn cashed them. (Metallica cashed their cheque this Tuesday).
Matt.
Re:As they should. (Score:5)
----
Re:Need to speak with someone w/RIAA (Score:5)
nsync is one of the things i think the riaa should have to pay *us* for.
Need to speak with someone w/RIAA (Score:5)
I guess I've now played the song in my head atleast 40 times by now and wanted to know how much I owe you.
Sincerely,