RIAA, Music Unions Agree On Payments For Digital Play 119
Anonymous Brave Guy writes "BBC News is reporting that musicians and artists will now be paid directly for broadcasts of their work in the U.S., without the cash going to record company middle men, as a result of a deal struck between trade unions and industry representatives including the RIAA." Note the tidbit toward the end of the story mentioning the new European copyright directive, and saying "It gives copyright owners permission to use encryption to block the duplication of copyright-protected works." Permission?
Re:Why only digital play? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why a new organization? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why only digital play? (Score:1)
Correct. (Score:1)
Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:1)
1) Somebody makes a 1:1 copy of a CD/whatever and plays it as normal, because the key would be, presumably, be on the media.
-or-
2) Somebody records the decrypted sound (by monitoring data being passed to the output (ie. soundcard) or some similar mechanism), and releases an MP3/Ogg/whatever that's not encrypted at all.
Man, I love committees and politicians.
"Hey guys, I heard about this cool thing called encryption... let's start using it!"
"How's it work?"
"I dunno.. it just sounds cool, and we get to seem like we know a lot about technology."
"Wow... you're right. Let's go ahead with that."
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Frankly, I think that a work encrypted in order to deny access, and not as a simple side effect of an encoding technique (e.g. people cannot listen to CDDA bits w/o knowing what to do with them) should not be considered to have been published at all. But then, I'd also reserve statutory copyrights for published works as well.
Authors don't need encryption. They already have copyright law on their side. And while a counter argument might be made that burglary is illegal but people still have locks, remember that the _purpose_ of copyright is to encourage many people to read the works, and eventually change and incorporate them in new works -- which fundementally requires openness.
Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (Score:3, Informative)
remember that the _purpose_ of copyright is to encourage many people to read the works, and eventually change and incorporate them in new works
If individuals want to incorporate copyrighted works into new works without a lawsuit or royalties bankrupting them, they have to wait for the copyright to expire. Yeah, right. Not in my lifetime nor in yours. Copyrights already last 95 years [wikipedia.com], and you can bet that by 2020, Di$ney will have contributed another $6 million of soft money to the Republicratic Party in exchange for yet another term extension. How the courts consider 95 years as sufficiently "limited Times" designed "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" escapes me.
Boycott the estate of Sonny Bono, whose widow introduced and sponsored the bill. Boycott Cher, who has been quoted as favoring a term of "forever less a day." Boycott the Walt Disney Company, which bankrolled the bribes that got the bill passed. Boycott all color motion pictures produced by MPAA member studios, as the first commercial color film technology appeared in 1923, and all works created on or after January 1, 1923, are under an effective perpetual copyright [everything2.com] in the United States.
May Sonny Bono rot in he11.
copyright is a deal between society and creators (Score:3, Insightful)
Arguably, copyright holders who encrypt their works aren't living up to their side of the deal. If copyright holders don't live up to their side of the deal, why should society live up to its side of the deal?
I understand why the Europeans ultimately gave in to industry demands, and this is not a simple decision. But I think in the long run, this is a mistake. Content creators should choose between either free and open distribution coupled with legal protection, or technological protection. If you give them both, they will use technological protection to exclude both fair use and ultimately transition into the public domain. Less and less of what is protected by copyright today will make it into the public domain eventually, because of technological protections, and fair use is already greatly restricted.
Re:copyright is a deal between society and creator (Score:1)
I would argue further that claiming copyright on encrypted work is defrauding society and stealing valuable legal protection services.
The US DOJ should prosecute anyone who claims copyright on the following materials:
- DVDs with CSS.
- Computer software with registration keys.
- Video programs with automatic gain copy control.
They should warn first and give offenders a little time to disclaim illegal copyrights. Everyone has a natural right to produce encrypted work, it's just wrong to claim copyright on such.
The DOJ needs to drop any pending prosecutions for infringment of illegal copyrights, and Congress needs to shovel the unconstitutional slop [cornell.edu] out of US Code Title 17.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
The irony of all of this is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The irony of all of this is... (Score:1)
Interesting article at MSNBC (Score:5, Interesting)
MSNBC has this article [msnbc.com] which is a pretty description of the origins of copyright in the US and how the system is currently completely out of whack.
Totally unbalanced article (Score:4, Insightful)
For one, the nature of digital media enables people to pirate goods in a way that is totally unprecedented. No time before could a work of art, say a book, have been distributed by one lone pirate. It would have required transcription, printing presses, distribution networks, and so on. Even his concept of the so-called "fair use" as it is viewed today is extremely different from the "fair use" of 200 some years ago. When a professor today wants to do a lesson he can merely (many actually do this) photocopy whole chapter(s) and give them to his students, there was no equivelent of this in Jefferson's time. In other words, technology shifts the balance of power drastically into the pirates court. The same work that would have recieved balanced protection in Jefferson's time could be easily ripped off wholesale today.
Second, the author fails to consider the changing nature of the works produced and the markets that they are sold into. For instance, he mentions database producers recieving protection, yet he neglects that they are serving a unique function, a function unparalleled in Jefferson's time, that adds substantial value to the consumer, which is, in fact, very necessary in the digital world. There is little comparison between the levels and kinds of publications in Jefferson's days and that of today. The rate of creation, the shelf life, the specificity of published works, the amount of resources poored into development, and many other things have changed DRASTICALLY.
In short, the author takes means that were sufficient and proper in Jefferson's times to be a universal statement of what is right for all of time. Laws change for a reason. While I take issue with parts of the DCMA, it's simply ignorant to ignore the reasoning behind it. What's more, I disagree with the assertion that Jefferson would have supported the likes of Napster; Jefferson was a reasonable and intelligent individual, not an absolutist.
Astonishing (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA's large-scale actions of recent years -- first and foremost the DMCA! -- have been designed not so much with an eye to profit as an eye to control. They are a very powerful cartel, and they'd like to keep it that way -- even at the expense of immediate profits.
So what's the catch here? Could it be that they're suddenly worried about anti-trust action? Were the two artists' unions involved actually that effective?
If the unions were effective, it might be worthwhile to start making the anti-DMCA case to them. The kinds of controls on copyright the DMCA creates are ultimately to the benefit only of the copyright holder -- which, in the case of most recordings, is the record company and not the artist. Although it appears to benefit artists by protecting their work, the DMCA actually takes music out of the hands of musicians.
It would be a long, difficult, argument, but perhaps it's time to start making it. I'm a musician, and I'm convinced; I think others could be as well. If the artists' unions can pull off a deal like that, they might also be able to pull the rug out from under the **AA's run on the constitution.
Re:Astonishing (Score:1)
now seems as good a time as ever to propose changes to the DMCA, before its implications become accepted by most of society. similarly, while it is generally viewed that the SSSCA will not pass in its current form, it is also believed by many (and probably rightly so) that a future variation of it will surface again. this is unacceptable. something needs to be done to protect the right to develop software, to write and release music and books, and to distribute artwork, or there will be little free speech left in the US save what is officially sanctioned, and essentially censored.
nearly 3 full albums of free music, downloadable without registration, advertisement free, and RIAA untouched... complete with print resolution artwork -- homepage at www.earth2willi.com [sejus.com]
Re:Astonishing (Score:2, Funny)
Heheh. I'm sure they're shaking after seeing what the DoJ did to Microsoft...
-kscd
Re:Astonishing (Score:1)
Too good to be true (Score:1)
I say that there's more going on here than meets the eye.
Reminds me of this "classic" prose... (Score:3, Funny)
RIAA officials will be sending groups of up to 2,000 teenagers to any house party, block event, or apartment get-together where so-called "DJs" (i.e., pirates) are illegally performing protected works. By filling the space with RIAA agents, the hackers and pirates can't get in, thus protecting the vital intellectual property from misuse.
Also, the RIAA and MPAA are continuing their plans to merge and become the fourth branch of US government, overseeing the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Especially the judicial branch. Look for the RIAA seal in a courtroom near you! You PIRATE!
that looks familiar (Score:3, Informative)
Re:that looks familiar (Score:1)
Then he wouldn't have gotten karma for your funny. Duh.
RIAA CA, possibly. (Score:4, Interesting)
My guess: artists will be issued certificates from RIAA authority. (CA)
Yes, I understand that keys is is all they need to encrypt their music and not actual certificates, but hey, maybe I want "certified" music. heh. Anyways, this is one way for RIAA to stay in the picture.
prediction: next they'll wanna sell their music to me encrypted with my own key.
I never used Napster... was this a feature?
Maybe they are confused (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Maybe they are confused (Score:2, Insightful)
Given that, every grant of copyright is a "permission".
The line from the article is misleading, however: the author may understand the constitutional issue but misunderstand what the specific American law says.
Re:Maybe they are confused (Score:1)
That part of the article is talking about a European Union directive, it isn't about an American law at all. I agree it's misleading and confused though.
Fox is still in the henhouse... (Score:1)
I'm surprised a RIAA spokesdroi^H^H^H^person did not say "In the words of Bill Gates, 'It was a fair agreement'..."
Translation: The fat lady ain't never going to sing because that song is copyrighted on a protected disk. And no, you can't have the mp3 version!
Heh, Microsoft can "take their ball and go home", as it were.
the MP|RI AA can take the ball, the bat, the bases, the field, the speakers, announcers, the concessions et al.
I'd sing the National Anthem right now, but I can't be sure if I'll get sued or not, seeing as my brain is an anti-circumvention device.
(at least it is good for something this weekend).
Yeah, I'm thrilled. Can't you tell?
artists, etc. (Score:2)
a famous example behind how music companies work is the example of Prince, the artist formerly known as Prince, etc. The story behind all that was that the name Prince was owned lock stock and barrel by (I think) WB , or had it by exclusive license, or something, and the artist could not use it in any way without money going to the record label, until the deal ran out.
He went with the abstract symbol, so that he could retain control on his work instead of being a slave for art.
So the RIAA only gives up what they have to, in order to keep control elsewhere.
Re:artists, etc. (Score:5, Interesting)
They did not ask my permission. They did not pay for the use of my copyrighted work (this particular photo has been sold for publication several times).
Needless to say we'll be talking (they've already made an offer to another photographer in the same situation).
In all fairness, it's the web design firm's that at fault, but I find the irony quite humorous.
Re:artists, etc. (Score:1)
Re:artists, etc. (Score:1)
Is it the burrowing owl? Their owl looks very similar to yours...though they look different enough that I'm tempted to say that it's a coincidence...but I could have found totally the wrong picture, and if so, sorry...
Harry Potter's Owl (Hedwig?) [warnerbros.com]
Don's Owl [photo.net]
Re:artists, etc. (Score:2)
p.s. hairy potter site crashed konq. (well, didnt close any windows, just said "its crashed", and didnt let me in to see the warnerbros copy.
More and more sites are turning IE/old versions of netscape only. soon it'll be IE only. good thing that when a site I use turns I can do the old usre_agent trick.
Re:artists, etc. (Score:2)
Let's hope they never sign "John Doe" to a recording contract....
JMan
Re:artists, etc. (Score:1)
Oh waitaminute..... Nevermind.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:artists, etc. (Score:2)
Furthermore, it is very common that successful artists will renegotiate the terms of their contracts. Prince ("The Artist") lived up to the obligations of his contract, but did not have to like it, and certainly didn't have to say he liked it.
Bryguy
Re: John Doe (Score:1)
Re:artists, etc. (Score:1)
Too late. John Doe's band, X [thejohndoething.com] was on Elektra, part of the old Warner/Elektra/Asylum, as far back as 1982.
These young punks don't know nothing about the old punks. *grumble* *grumble* *creak*
Letting them choose (Score:2, Interesting)
Giving the artist the right to choose may hopefully open a few doors and open the eyes of other artist that choose to encrypt their work; making them aware that restricting their music is NOT the answer.
I still strongly believe that peer to peer software such as Napster increased record sales (and I believe I remember reading articles that backed up those theories).
IMHO giving the individual artist this 'permission to choose' make actually turn into the metaphoric light at the end of the tunnel. Just my 2 pennies! - HSJ
Fair use (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, here in Europe, artists 'have permission' to place 'copy prevention' techniques on media. This is not to say they will or if they do, how easy it is to crack such crackpot ideas. It also keeps it legal to crack copy prevention: --NO DCMA in EUROPE!--
In a sence, us geeks might actually buy a 'protected' CD just for the sport of it. We all know it is __absolutely impossible __ to protect anything with a key everyone has. This is called the "Broadcast delima" in the accademic circles. I
think players that refuse to play until a certain release time are quite a joke. Ofcourse it is easy to 'spoof' GPS with super-low-power devices and bypass the system. Fortunatey one doesn't have to even bother with a method that may interferre with navigation as the "Broadcast delima" makes for a simpler crack.
I am proud to be in a society that allows the personal freedom to both allow someone a lame way to "protect" their IP and at the same time makes it totally legal to 'crack and tell'. It is **ILLEGAL** in Europe to deny the user a backup. There is nothing in the law that says the 'backup' must be in the clear. (There is a "copy prevention" method that will not work on Windoze and/or IDE drives. It can be shown that it can be easily defeated with SCSI and UNIX systems, using the most popular tools.)
Perhaps it will be mandatory to state it will not work (or copy) from an IDE/Windoze box and perhaps, if they are with it, will require a disclaimer that the latest 'copy prevention' techniques require professional copying. INAL, but in a twisted way, if Windoze cannot cut it, but Unix can, it must be technically legal, as nobody is telling you that you have to use Windoze here!
Re:Fair use (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, right. Such an evil directive has already been accepted by the council: http://eurorights.org/eudmca/ . It will just take some time before it becomes a law in the member states.
See also http://eurorights.org/twiki/bin/view/Eurorights/W
Re:Fair use (Score:1)
Two things. (Score:1)
Two: "Musicians and artists will now be paid directly for broadcasts of their work in the US on cable, satellite and the internet..."
What "member states" are they talking about?
What if it is a US company using European hardware to broadcast on the internet? Where does that fall under? Or is it based on where the music is listened to?
Trading copyrighted material is wrong. (Score:1)
That being said, the software is not at fault. The RIAA may argue that it's an enabling the behaviour, but this bad behaviour can, and does occur through other means. There are entire mailing lists [solorb.com] devoted to the trading of copyrighted materials via the USPS. This does not mean that the USPS should be outlawed.
Everybody should write your governmental representatives now, preferably with checks enclosed, to make sure that morpheus and the alike are not wrongly persecuted and prosecuted for behaviour that's beyond the author's control
.
Re:Trading copyrighted material is wrong. (Score:1)
Now, I copy MP3s. I get something, and the RIAA gets nothing. This latest news is even better--now the artists will actually get something, while the RIAA continues to get nothing. I think it's a more than fair balance. The RIAA has been screwing honest customers for years. Is it any wonder some of those previously honest customers have decided to get even?
Incidentally, "near-perfect," even if it actually were (MP3s are rotten for the most part) has nothing to do with it; the fair use laws don't address it at all, and the RIAA can't rewrite laws to their liking. That's for the courts to decide. Your point about sharing with the whole world was well-taken, though.
-Legion
Record Companies? (Score:1)
Take someone who on their own would be a worthless pile of crap -> make them into a star and get everyone to buy their music
kind of like what Microsoft does to grad students?
The annoucement is a little misleading.. (Score:1)
This still doesn't address the fact that the RIAA and SoundExchange are NOT paying the webcasting royalties this year, even though they were due to be paid in July. This they announced in May [boycott-riaa.com]. CNet ran an article [cnet.com]
According to Webnoize [webnoize.com] (subscription required) article, The $5.2 Million payment they made on October 15 represents only income from the cable, satellite and Muzak licenses collected from Feb 1996 to March 2000. They do not include any payment for webcasting that they have collected since 1999. Ina ddition their administrative fee is 20% meaning the RIAA collected $1.3 Million for that distribution.
Its a step in the right direction, but its only a baby step. One interesting side note: the payment directly to artists is one thing that is contained in the Music Online Competition Act (MOCA [house.gov]) introduced on Aug 3rd by Rick Boucher and Chris Cannon, that the RIAA has condemned in no uncertain terms.
I"VE GOT TEH SOLUTOIN 2 PIRACYY PROBLEMS!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Okay listen guys this is good. Why is MP3 piracy a problem?? Because really when you get down to it, songs are just data, numbers on a disk, and nothing keeps you from copying a bunch of numbers, right??
SO HERE'S WHAT YOU DO (if you're an artist, otherwise don't do this because the FBI can't tap your phone).
ENCRYPT your music files!! But wait I hear you saying.. how can anybody listen to TEH BOOTY BEATZ if they are encrypted??????????
Well you have a secret key, and only the people with the key can lsiten to the music!!! So instead of worrying about people copying your files, you don't care any more, because only the people with the secret key can listen.
PROBLEM SOLVED!! Let the money roll in, bling bling.
cause see, you can just sell the keys, over the internet, or on CDs, or in music players, or computers, because they're just data, a bunch of numbe......OH SHIT.
Fuck. forget it.
Re:I"VE GOT TEH SOLUTOIN 2 PIRACYY PROBLEMS!!! (Score:2, Funny)
SO HERE'S WHAT YOU DO (if you're an artist, otherwise don't do this because the FBI can't tap your phone).
ENCRYPT your music files!!
So if I really want to transport secret data without having to fear the FBI, I'll pack it into a MP3 file and encrypt it... they couldn't get after me because I'd call myself an artist and pretend it being a special kind of art.
Re:I"VE GOT TEH SOLUTOIN 2 PIRACYY PROBLEMS!!! (Score:1)
Use the DMCA against the RIAA (Score:2, Interesting)
The sender would have a open key (in a PGP way), the receiver would have an open key, the sums of those keys gives a unique file ID number for transmitting purposes.
The reason for open obfuscation is that the DMCA forbids the decryption for proof of file sharing (making it illegal for the RIAA to whine). The encryption is open so that the end user isn't hindered too much and each file transmitted is unique (while encrypted)and encrypted (thusly protected by the DMCA).
Sorry if this seems cold and just another manner to inflame the copyright hubbaloo, but frankly the RIAA is a bunch of unimportant self-righteous self-important thieves that I don't care. This whole issue tires me beyond measure as it has gone beyond any level of rational human behavior on the supply / demand curve. The RIAA knows that lowering CD prices will end this issue, but are too greedy and self-destructive to take the correct action. The consumer knows that if they screw the music talent there will be little high-quality music in the future. The people that hold the money decide the fate of the market for the product. That is not the RIAA. The market has decided and will not budge the RIAA can only destroy themselves on this path until CD prices are reduced to a realistic level.
Re:Use the DMCA against the RIAA (Score:2)
Re:New Method of Music Distribution (Score:1)
They can, but it's a fair bit of work, and most of them delegate to a record company. Still, perhaps they could have a manager as an extra band member to take care of business affairs.
so why not change to the system to undercut all these middle men and make more MONEY.? Answer: Contracts.
Well, they could simply choose not sign! If your proposed business model is so great, more people would try it. It's plausible that more people will try a more direct distribution method. It does seem to have its advantages, and it has worked for some companies (Dell is a good example) I don't think ther's a sinister conspiracy at work, more like a slow embrace of technology.
Detrimental (Score:3, Insightful)
What about copyright? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's cool, but... (Score:2)
Enough honest people who would like to pay (Score:1)
- record companies are be obliged to put digital ID tags on their CD's. New CD's have no claim on digital copyright when they don't carry this kind of ID.
- the RIAA is forced to offer a kind of Gracenote like service. Music not covered under this service is free of digital copyright.
The RIAA or some other organisation starts a digital service where you can register the mp3's and other music you download or burn on a CD. This is then charged on a monthly bill.
We get software to register our mp3s. Both when we only download them and when we burn them on a CD. Of course such software is optional. You don't want to pay for bad downloads or for CDs that have to be reburned because the first version was not good enough.
Now honest people have a workable system with which they can pay their copyright.
Let's do this first and lets see what happens. Dealing with dishonest people can always be done at a later time...