Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Reversal On 'Work For Hire' Legislation
FatouDust writes: "Wired News reports that the RIAA has reversed its position on copyright law. Last November, the recording industry lobby quietly slipped a passage deep into the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, that classified sound recordings as work for hire -- effectively preventing copyright from reverting to the artist after 35 years. After protest from artists such as Sheryl Crow and Don Henley, and Congressional hearings in May, it looks like the RIAA is now ready to recommend to Congress that the revision be stricken from the books by the end of the year." I wonder what changed their minds.
maybe they wanted yet more cash?
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
now if they smarten up on online stuff, i might start paying for RIAA cds! :)
Stop the brainwash
Public relations.
--
----
Granted, there are a few exceptions, but all the money that will be made is most likely going to be made in the first 35 years. So, does this really mean much?
More like the whole conscious population. Anyhow, I bet they're trying to soften their image in front of the online swapping showdown. PR is a wonderful thing..
Stop the brainwash
Maybe stuff will start to be fair now... Ha. Right. Sorry, reality jsut kicked me.
I wish that the RIAA would actually state their intentions instead of just attacking the problem without telling people what they're doing. The RIAA is obviously trying to extend copyright on the music as long as possible. If they granted copyright to the artist, it would run out sooner then if the RIAA member companies kept it. They fear the music reverting to the anarchist public domain, and would like to keep the industry together (this is an industry organization, isn't it?). Is there anything so wrong with that?
Free BeOS, runs from a Linux partition
That means Metallica does not have the right to sue Napster; they don't currently own the music they're suing over.
I guess now the RIAA wants to appear to be looking out for the rights of the artists?
Too little, too late.
Coincidence is the Superstition of Science
What's that smell? Ah, that's my karma burning...
Who is apart of the RIAA? - the major record labels. And who just got themselves sued by the states for price fixing? RIAA is doing this more out of necessity then willingness.
Utter bullshit. Sorry, but please, don't make me gag.
Has it ever crossed your mind that they get royalties off radio, MTV, and VH1? That inclusion into soundtracks of movies is a profit meduim? That the government has already laid suit against them for price fixing?
Who's paying you off?
--
If you had Henley and Crow on your ass you'd change your mind too I bet!
If Crow was on my ass, I'd do whatever she asked.
If Henley was on my ass...I'd be dead.
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
The RIAA knows it's going to have to do something about the artists. The whole Napster issue is opening up some closets that the record executives would rather keep closed. The recording industry may have to be dragged kicking and scraming into a new economic model that does not screw the artist, but they know it will eventually happen.
This is nothing more than a diversionary tactic.
I wonder how long they can go before people really start to revolt. And I don't just mean flaunting your copies of "For Whom The Bell Tolls (Live)" on Napster.
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
Right.. However, I hardly think their business wisdom is very wise. If they concentrated locally, they would get lower marketing costs. If the artists really hit it big time, they go national with them. This is to some degree being done, but not enough. I'm not willing to accept that they're spending lotsa dollars on promoting Titney Spears and lotsa less known outfits. The entire entertainment industry is about greed. It's about artists were appreciated for their value, not their profitablity. Where's the love of music and movies? Gone! They need to down the ante, basically. All of them. And we need to stop buying what they tell us to. That Matchbox 20 can sell that many boring records, is beyond me...
Stop the brainwash
Hell, most people will give into blind madness and bitching, it's pretty hard when someone actually has a case against you and is throwing it at you, they responded with irrational hate and bitching initially, until they saw that they could be outdone by rational people.
Good for the rational people.
Eh...
I suspect the RIAA very much wants to maintain it's good PR image and it knows if it continues on its present course it will annhilate any good relations it might have had with the public. And once a reputation is built, it's hard to remove.
They'll still try for it - in a few years after the controversy has died down. But for now, it needs to get brownie points with the public and sedate the law makers so they don't level sanctions against them. They need to pull together and concentrate on which front they want to fight out first.
DIE RIAA DIE DIE-- Just kidding. If this isn't stricken from the books, it could be the end of the RIAA. Think about it. Artists get angry at the law, go to companies that aren't memebers of the RIAA, to protest the law. Smaller companies are more likely to give the rights to the artist. While it's a long shot, it could happen.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
It was probably Don Henley who mellowed them out.
RIAA never ceases to amaze. This is a stunning reversal to me, and for the first time in a while (outside of the whole Napster thing), I'm actually happy with RIAA. This is an incredible boon to musicians, who now only get screwed for 35 years, instead of forever.
Now, musicians must bind themselves together and get that 35 year threshhold lowered to, say, 10 years. Record companies deserve a little coin off of the work for they work they put into the the thing, but after a while, the artist does deserve the copyright. I've always thought that 35 years was waaaaaay too long . . . I'd be fine with much less.
But then, I am a wannabe recording artist . . .
--
<><
-- Geof F. Morris
You'd think 35 years would be enough time for Sheryl Crow and Don Henley to realize their music sucks.
The controversial lobbying efforts were aimed at allowing the RIAA to become a legal guardian of all musicans signed to member record labels. The resulting powers of attorney would have increased its profits by billions.
The RIAA stated in a press release that the measure "would only have been aimed at crappy boy bands. We were only trying to think of the children."
Entertainer Sheryl Crow, who had spearheaded the lobbying against the RIAA, was jubilant. "I'm jubilant," said Crow. "This means I don't have to get 'SANE' tattooed on my hand now."
Free Software Foundation Richard M. Stallman was contacted by email for comment, but only responded "Worst Post Ever."
Carousel is a lie!
The major record labels are greedy bastards, but I don't think they're especially stupid. Slow to come to grips with their own impending obsolescence, perhaps, but not stupid.
I wonder what changed their minds.
Could it be, could it possibly be, that they are cringing from the public exposure they are getting by alienating their own artists? Maybe when Courtney Love got up in front of God and Everybody and told people that the recording industry was nothing but a bunch of bloodsucking scumbags and decided to dump their promotional and distribution machine in favor of her own website that they actually went shopping for some very expensive guy with a ponytail who actually had a f***ing clue?
Honestly, I don't understand it. If I were the RIAA and I'd gotten away with getting such a completely disgusting abuse of copyright law passed, I'd wave it in everyone's face and scream: "look, the American People don't care anymore! they let me do whatever I want! I can steal and plunder and pretty soon I'm gonna move on to raping and pillaging!".
But some of their big time acts must have (somehow) gotten their message across. Some mentioned in the written statement are Don Henley and Sheryl Crow. Sounds like some really big cash cows were threatening to go the way of Ms. Love and defect. I'd like more information on the "Artists' Coalition" mentioned in the article. It's yet more proof that the RIAA is not to be confused with the interests of recording artists, nor their profits.
The best part is Hillary won't even admit she lost:
RIAA insisted that nothing had changed and, in a written statement, RIAA President Hilary Rosen reiterated that position.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
"We did not intend to change the law and have worked diligently to assure that the issue of work-for-hire is resolved without prejudice to anyone's position," she [RIAA President Hilary Rosen] said in the release.
So they lobied to get it in, except now it turns out they didn't??? I think the RIAA is having some PR problems they are trying to fix here...
---
Copyright schmopyright, the crux of the problem is right here:"...the RIAA is now ready to recommend to Congress that the revision be stricken from the books..."
Congress acting on the recommendation of the RIAA? The tail is wagging the dog here. Instead of faxing/emailing/calling/talking to politicians asking them to reverse this, overturn that, block the other, we should be telling them to stop listening to lobbyists, start thinking for yourselves.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Grumble... I was trying to come up with a +1 Funny way of saying this, but it's not happening, so I'll just put it straight:
Does it bother anyone that the RIAA (and the MPAA and the SPA and the AARP and the NAACP and the AFL/CIO and lots of other TLA's) are rewriting the laws of this country? I thought only elected representatives could do that.
MSK
I believe this new copyright legislation is great for artists, especially the more native ones that can be suckered in by the RIAA.
The problem is that these sharks can easily recognize fresh talent and use it with huge pecenages of profit going to them, as they did initially to Celine Dion and Elvis.
Therefore, I view this as a victory for startup-artists as a mean for them to retain ownership of their music, instead of it going to the bottom-less pit known as the Recording Company.
--
Kiro
The RIAA is just trying to extend copyright on the music for as long as they possibly can. If they granted copyright to the artist, it would run out in perhaps 5-10 years, but if the RIAA member companies kept it. The fucken RIAA just wants everyone's money; that's the bottom line. Fuck the music industry, let them bring their prices back to reality. If they were somewhat fair about prices, I would consider buying a cd more often that once every couple of years.
http://tomgould.com/
Well, what get me is that even if the cost of manufacturing a CD is much lower that for a cassette, the CD has always been a few dollars more. It's not new technology anymore!!!
Does anyone else find it odd that music copyright ownership provisions are placed in a bill titled, "Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999?" I know, this is US Law, and has nothing to do with justice. But in a courtroom, an attorney from one side can object if the attorney from the other side is engaging in irrelevancies.
We need the same for our laws.
Of course I'm from Vermont, and our state is the direct beneficiary of this practice, too. We have a thing called "The Northeast Dairy Compact" that is designed to help keep small and family dairy farms afloat in a corporatist (Take that, Katz!) industrialist megafarm environment. The Northeast Dairy Compact always seems to get killed on its own by the big money on the other side. It only makes it through as an unrelated rider. But it keeps our green hills green and our scenery scenic.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
From Hilary Rosen: "We did not intend to change the law and have worked diligently to assure that the issue of work-for-hire is resolved without prejudice to anyone's position," she said in the release.
It looks like that the RIAA wanted this to slip in and maybe nobody would notice for, oh, 35 years or so. Spin control is now saying that they were just trying to clarify what was already in place, not actually change anyone's copyrights. Sure, they were just looking out for the artists, you know, with all those evil Napsterites out there and all...
-------------
The truth is out th- oh, wait, here it is...
At least that still gives you Napster users 35 years of the "The record companies are ripping off the artists so it's OK for me to steal their music" excuse. Although after that, there's always "They should make their money selling T-shirts." and "If I could program, I'd write open source software so how dare they copyright their music?"
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Maybe I'm just cynical (all right, I'm DEFINATELY cynical), but I think this is less about the RIAA "doing the dight thing" and more about them choosing their battles.
Right now, the music industry battling on a number of different fronts: The RIAA is going after Napster, while the major record labels are once again fighting price-fixing charges. Because of all this, the Work-for-Hire clause that they quietly slipped into a piece of Satellite legislation got the attention of the media.
By backing off on this issue for the moment, they can prevent the public hearings that congress had planned which basically would have featured lots of musicians speaking out against the RIAA, right when a number of other issues were at stake. (unlike Napster, I cannot imagine ANY musician speaking out in support of the work-for-hire clause - not even mean old Lars).
However, when the Napster thing has died down and the media has gotten bored with these sorts of issues... don't be supprised if the RIAA once again gets congress to slip work-for-hire into some obscure legislation.
The RIAA is rediculous. They constantly treat pull strings until people get so worked up at them that they have to change their stance on things. The unfortunate part is that some people may not be thinking "OK, the RIAA must have some sort of a conscience if they did this" and back off of them from the napster case. Fact is, that they push so hard, that when the let up a little, they expect everyone else to let up too. They are like the thugs of the music industry wating for people to get hooked on their music and not take any sort of ethical understanding into account. It's the same logic that the meat industry uses and the garment industry uses to push their products on a complacent America. Eventually, if groups like the RIAA aren't stopped, this will boil over into other aspects more than it already has. The ethical reprocussions of most products are never taken into consideration when they are bought, until it is you that is effected.
It's already in the computer industry; people just have not opened their eyes to it. When a programmer writes code, even if they happen to write the entire program, it is not the intellectual product of the programmer, but of the company that sells it. And who, dare i ask, is going to try and tell me that programs are not art and should not be protected in the same way that music should. There are so many ways to write any given program, just like there are so many ways to draw an apple. You have medium (language); you have a canvas (platform); you have art ( the program ).
It's not just the RIAA, but they are the ones leading this rebellion against intellectual property. All of the groups that support this kind of thinking should be stopped. It's reason that so many people feel like their work is nothing more than the product of the company. The worker/programmer/artist creates, but the company takes the credit.
-thinkpol
Story is here:0 810.html
http://abcnew s.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/napster_state00
--
Kiro
I've heard of state laws being overturned in state supreme courts because they violate a rule in the state's constitution that restricts bills to a single subject. There doesn't appear to be a similar rule at the federal level.
I'm a little confused here... it says to copy, RIGHT! If they didn't want me to do it, wouldn't Hillary and krue lobby to change it to copy-wrong?
the article is here
They own their content.
There's very few bands that have the luck they've got.
What I wanna know is:
Where are the (cons)piracy theorists now?
Told ya so assholes.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
'Course, it'll never happen because the politicos are too used to getting their way with pork-barrel projects.
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
Everyone should keep in mind that the RIAA changing it's position on the law is NOT the same thing as the law being changed! Changes in the law have to be enacted by Congress. Don't go on a CD buying spree, boycotters, until there is actually legislative action. And furthermore, it remains to be seen whether the RIAA will actually take action on its "change of heart."
I wonder what changed their minds.
They're catching major flak from the vary artists they're 'representing' and saw the handwriting on the wall: it's going to happen no matter what. So, when you see the crowd headed off in some direction, get in front of them so that you can 'lead'. That way, you can at least have some influence on the outcome. Otherwise, you'll end up with something really unpalatable. First rule of politics.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
"This is an incredible boon to musicians, who now only get screwed for 35 years, instead of forever."
A short time ago (before that satellite home viewer act of 1999 or whatever was passed) the rights to the music did revert to the artist after 35 years. The RIAA got it so that music recorded was classified as a 'work for hire' and _never_ reverted back. Don't think that the RIAA has done something good here, it has simply nullified one of its negative actions.
?????! Of Course Federal Laws can be overturned at a state level.
From Article III, Section 2 of the Constituion of the United States of America.
Power corrupts... absolute power is kinda neat!
there is an excellent transcription of a speech made by courtney love about this very topic i found here. i found it was very interesting reading, and made some points about intellectual property which also pertains to the DeCSS case . . . . just a thought.
We need the same for our laws.
We did... for a very brief period, we had the "Line Item Veto", which allowed the president to strike portions of laws, thus preventing congress from passing a bill that contained the meat of a law, while tacking on unrelated "pork barrel" projects to it that the president may not agree with.
Unfortunatley, when President Clinton used it, a lawsuit was filed by three senators claming that their constitutional authority had been usurped. The case went to the Supreme Court, and the plaintiffs complaint was upheld, and line item veto was declared unconstitutional.
So, it looks like the only way to get the Line Item Veto would be to have a constitutional amendment... and that's not very likeley right now. The last Line Item Veto amendment introduced to the house has been buried in the Judiciary subcomitee since 2/99.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
With more and more artists coming out not necessarily for Napster but decidedly against the RIAA and with the RIAA claiming in court that they are protecting the artists of the labels, one can see there is a fallacy in their argument. RIAA is realizing it is lacking allies in their widespread attacks. I kind of hope what we are seeing are death spasms, but I know that isn't the case.
Right now, the RIAA needs to be able to present a unified front of artists, even though it represents the record labels. But their lawyers know that in general the best way to get sympathy is by having the artist claim to be hurt. The one thing that seems to be genuinely true through this whole mess is each side wants to see the artist succeed. Well, then let's cut out the middleman, the record label, and let the artist do the business end. The artist can hire a marketing firm and such to get themselves known.
I believe it would reshape the industry, create more jobs, and strengthen the role of the artist in our society. It might also cure cancer, but I can't be sure of that.
Maybe, if anything good does come out of the Napster debacle, it will be the record labels and the artists come to some core agreements on compensation.
What I would really like to see is all the recording artists go on strike. But that isn't going to happen, too many artists seek fame and the joy of making the music over money.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
How many letters have you written your representatives lately? If the answer is 'none' then you have your answer as to the source of the problem. Absent input from us, of course they're going to sell out to corporations/unions/pressure groups. They give them money and/or voting blocs. Having worked for a politician in the past, I can tell you that one letter from a constituent, as long as its rational, carries a lot of weight. If you organize and get a group to write a bunch of letters, believe me, you get noticed. So, if you want to stick it to the RIAA or "The Man" in general, start writing. And better yet, gather together a group of like-minded individuals and put out a barrage. Griping on SlashDot, while possibly therapeutic, is just like flushing your opinions down the toilet.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
Fucking Slashdot weenie. The original article (I advise everyone to read it, as it is the only decent post on this article) made some extremely good points. Your debating skills are non-existent, and you don't even address anything the guy said, so why don't you just SHUT THE FUCK UP until you get a clue?
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
I mean, come on, they had the artists locked down good, why would they give this up? It's fairly obvious that most normal people absolutely hate the RIAA for one reason or another (higher CD prices, taking away Napster, not paying the artists enough,) so this could just be a scam to get some good PR. But why would the RIAA need good PR?
I think they just realised that the artists would start skipping them. Let's be realistic. Who needs them any more?
An artist can set up shop on the internet. Allow users to buy cds that the artist recorded. The cds could be in your regular music format and the cds could be in MP3 format. They could release their singles as free MP3, and they could design their web site to allow customers to design a CD ("designer CDs") putting all of their favorite song on it. Groups of artist could group together and allow "designer CDs" to be created taking songs from any artist in the group.
The boundaries are limitless. As userfriendly stated, the RIAA is obsolete! I hope some of the artists wake up and realise the potential. I woul dlove to design my own CD and buy it in both MP3 and regular flavors.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
IIRC, he owns the publishing rights for most of the Beatles' back catalog. I'm not sure of the way reprint rights go, but everytime you play their songs, I'm pretty sure he gets a few bucks.
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
What's the deal with classical music then? According to this copyright law, any copyright ownership would be in the hands of long dead artists. Is it legal to trade classical music online?
Fon2d2
At leas this rider has something remotely to do with entertainment unlike some recent stuff to come out of congress which attached some weird business reform to anti-spam bills.
Then again, a bill changing one sentence of USC would just be a waste of time, and in this case it would have been widely noticed before now.
"Maintaince and Continuation of RIAA Domination Over Congre^H^H^H^H^H^HRecordings Act of 1999" just doesn't have that 'we support artists' ring to it.
There are 1.1... kinds of people.
Consider this: If a song is a work for hire and they own it outright, then why would the band have to pay the expenses of marketing something they don't own? Chances are, this is them realizing that if they own it outright, they will end up loosing out profits now if it holds up. As such, they are again trying to screw the band by leaving them a token 35 years down the road in order to screw them now.
The labels are basically loan brokers who promote music to ensure returns. If I'm an artist, and i want to make a record, they give me noney, I make the record, then pay them back somehow.
Usually, the company also handles distribution, promotion, touring...you name it. This all costs money. So what they do is handle all the money, take what they payed for out of the artists profits plus their cut, and leave the scraps to the artist. So If they give me a $50 million dollar contract, I may still be making less than a janitor per year, while they get rich.
If the recording is a work for hire, then they need to hire and pay me to do it. They also need to hire me to perform it on tour. In this context, they would need to pay the artist a fixed, promised amount, and that's the end of it. They can't loan me money and take more than they give anymore. No more smoke and mirrors eating away at an artist's profits. Artists didn't see this oppurtunity to sue for back wages and profit, but the recording industry did and is trying to save it's ass.
In short then:
Artist: "You hired me to make a recording in exchange for $n, where's the money you promised, beotch...I'm calling my lawyer"
RIAA: "I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for them meddling kids!"
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
--
+&x
Of Course Federal Laws can be overturned at a state level.
They can be overturned by district federal courts that cover only a few states, but they can NOT be overturned by individual states. For those of you who don't remember your early American history, this was a major problem leading up to the Civil War -- individual states would attempt to "nullify," or declare null and void, federal laws. This of course was outside the boundaries of what they were allowed to do, which increased the interstate tension that led up to (among other things) the Civil War.
=================================
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
I wonder what changed their minds.
If they didn't change their minds, then they would probably lose any sympathy they are getting from artists at this point.
The extent to which the RIAA makes things better for the artists who sign with them is the extent to which the artists will agree with them.
Turn artists into wage-slaves, and kiss your coalition good-bye.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The "Line Item Veto" that became law was restricted to budget items only. It was not a full-feature version that some people want.
The idea that this might pass constitutionality was that congress has the power to create the budget, and if congress released part of that power of its own will (allowing the president more power over what goes into/out-of the budget), that would be ok. The Constitution declares otherwise.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Well, from the standpoint of a Massachusetts consumer of milk, I get screwed by the Northeast Dairy Compact. Aside from milk generally being expensive here because of it, it's responsible for some other odd quirks in the law. For example, milk is one of the few products (along with tobacco, alcohol, and lottery tickets) for which stores can't double coupons.
Here's an interesting article about artists cutting the middle-man, selling directly to fans, and making dollar$$$.
.
"Making money in a 'copyright-free' world"
cpeterso
We did... for a very brief period, we had the "Line Item Veto", which allowed the president to strike portions of laws, thus preventing congress from passing a bill that contained the meat of a law, while tacking on unrelated "pork barrel" projects to it that the president may not agree with.
I happen to agree with the Republicans that challenged the Line Iten Veto (and won) as well as the democrats in congress who (successfully) buried the attempt to amend our constitution to allow the Line Item Veto.
What we need is a constitutional amendment disallowing unrelated riders from being attached to legislation. This would put the power to nullify inappropriate portions of the law where it belongs, in the judiciary .
The Line Item Veto IMHO puts far too much power in the hands of the president, be he Republican or Democrat.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Also, companies and organizations like RIAA which represent them do not do what is inherently evil because it is evil. They do evil, or they do good, depending on what is profitable and on what those controlling them want. Changing times, changing pressures, and changing markets lead to changing positions and eventually changing laws.
What happens ultimately remains to see.
Be happy with our victories, work to recover from our defeats, and keep fighting on.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Probably after pressure from the RIAA...
This of course sucks because that search had those nice 'Upload to Myplay' buttons which allowed you to fill up your locker without having to download the files first..
Oh well.
Unless I'm mistaken, that was copied and pasted from somewhere; I'm almost positive I've read it before. From the RIAA's Web site maybe?
Anybody else recognize it, and less lazy than I?
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Perhaps I should inform RIAA of this copyright infringement. ;)
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Maybe they can't have their artists walk at this juncture. Maybe in a few years, when they have good solid control of the distribution format and players they'll reinstate this. If any major artstists start exploring other means of digital distribution before they're ready, they'll lose everything. In a few years no one will be able to publish a song without their consent and it won't matter anymore.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
AFAIK, only Illinois has a constitutional provision prohibiting the combining of separate matters into one legislative bill. There is certainly no federal equivalent, as suggested by the most cursorary glance at C-SPAN.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
What people feel about an issue, isn't the issue. What they will change their vote based on is.
As for lobbying and election money, if we stop voting for the politician who manages to bombard us with the most ads, and vote on the issues, we will help fix things. They want money, but if they lose the election because we actually care that they voted to hurt us, it's all over for them. Their gravy train derails right then and there.
We may not be able to change things with our votes, but we may. Let's hope we can, it beats totalitarianism and revolution both hands down.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
"... it looks like the RIAA is now ready to recommend to Congress that the revision be stricken from the books by the end of the year."
Isn't anyone bothered by the fact that the RIAA is in a position to recommend such things to Congress? It makes the government look like a corporatist puppet without a mind of its own and without any pretence of representing the wishes of non-corporate citizens. Are things really that bad?
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
I'm a little hazy on what exactly a trade group is (legally, that is). If it were analogous to a corporation, we could work towards gettting their charter revoked...
A sobering view of the power of corporations can be found here.
Steve Albini (he produced Nevermind) did an article entitled "some of your friends are already this f*cked" , which was what Love pretty much quoted. Great speech, don't get me wrong, but read Albini.
here's one of many mirrors: http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/ problemwithmusic.html
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
Yes, but still, it's apparently sketchy as to whether you'll be sued for singing it, which is why those damned waitresses at Uno's sing that stupid 'hey hey it's your birthday' drek while I'm trying to eat... :-)
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
IIRC, they originally got this added to the bill *after* it was passed, which tends to indicate that congress actually wanted not to have this in there (otherwise they would have gotten actual congressmen to insert it). Once it become obvious how it got there and the government was taking notice of them, the RIAA probably felt that congress was likely to repeal that provision, and possibly do something nasty to them in retribution, and so they should try to get rid of the evidence.
After all, having congress know you've defrauded them and stand by your actions is probably not a good way to ensure your future existence.
From the article:
;-)
Apparently the problem reached crisis proportions when one lone employee sent such a massive MP3 file from his home computer to his State Department computer that, in the words of one official, "it created a bottleneck" and blocked multiple users trying to access their computers.
Now that's quite the massive mp3!
--------------------- PeaceLoveUnityRespect ---------------------
Of all the slashdot editors, I enjoy reading your posts the most. They tend to be the most thoughtful, and have the fewest spelling mistakes. Frankly, I'm *amazed* at the number of Slash editorial posts that have typos, wordos, thinkos, etc. in them. Better add a preview button to the the story submit queue.
But I digress. Timothy, whoever you are, keep it up.
--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
So you're saying that *I* have to pay for *them* to sell *me* the cd? If I want to buy a cd, I'm buying it MOSTLY for my benefit. I do also buy it to support the artist, and the people that it takes to produce the MUSIC. I don't expect to pay for their appearances on Total Request Live, or their concerts(don't I friggin' pay for the ticket already?) or their billboards. I'm paying for: a) to pay the artist for their work, b) to help pay for production costs, and c)the physical media (ok that includes the cd and the case and some for the art on the case (because case art IS part of the package, though sometimes I wish it were optional)). Lets see. Where does most of the money go? Surely not the artist. The fact that tapes cost less than cds proves that the prices are at least a LITTLE fixed... I'm not bitching so much about the cost ($16 is steep, but come on, you can get used cds, and new releases (insert moans here) you can get for $13 usually) but where that money goes. If I knew it was going to the people that made what I'M BUYING (not the concert, not the billboards, not the music videos) I would have a much easier time plunking my HardEarnedMoney© down on some cds.
That steaming pile of hypocrisy wouldn't have escaped even the most apathetic music listener and certainly would have been an arsenal for those artists speaking out against the abuses of the record companies.
It's hard to parade the artists around, saying they're looking out for their interests when the knife is clearly sticking out of their backs...
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
If a publisher pays for creation of music, they own it. If not (purchasing rights to publish music), they don't. If either side doesn't like it, they should put the appropriate clauses in their contracts.
When I get paid to write a program, I don't get the rights to it after 35 years. Why should music industry be so different?
m
mmmmmm..... pork.
it's a senator's best friend. maybe that's why they call it "the other white meat.
Father figure and the other songs on that album, as well as the next album were pretty good IMO. I used to have the cd around somewhere, think I may have sold it back when I was a starving teenager. This coming from a person who doesn't mind listening to Andy Williams one minute, and The Doors the next. =)
Any decent campaign finance reform will probably be found unconstitutional. But its still the only chance we have of reforming our system. Most politicians have one primary objective: re-election. They're not in it for the money, they're in it for the power. And money is the surest way to get re-elected. People writing in on issues like these won't change squat. The congressman can piss of a few people who realize what a bad idea this is, or piss of the RIAA. What do you think is going to happen?
>Campaign money is a force of nature and will always find a path to the candidate.
Its this kind of fatalism that is more foolish than simply not writing to your congressman. If you need to, pass a constitutional amendment to reform campaign finance. But until the day it happens, our government will be essentaially run by business. Of course, they're the occassional outcry against ridiculous laws- and sometimes something actually gets done. But that is the exception rather than the rule.
It's *slightly* related. I'm told that artists like Henley have quit doing movie soundtracks because they lose (half? all?) the publishing rights.
--
You are confused on several fronts here; let's see if I can help you out.
Firstly, let me point out that this copyright law only covers US artists. Secondly, since the rewriting of the Copyright Act in 1976, the US has *not* been in compliance with the Berne Convention regarding international copyright: copyright terms are far too long. Thirdly, you are actually talking about *2* different kinds of copyright: artist's copyright and performer's copyright.
Copyright was originally established as a government-granted monopoly of *limited* duration (28 years + one-time renewal of same for another 28 years). The idea was that, after a period of time for the author to gain monies from the sale of the copyrighted material, it would go into the public domain and anyone could then freely make a copy, sell it, etc.
Up until 1976, this was the case and the US was in compliance with the Berne Convention, which assured conformity with copyright law around the world. So, regarding pre-twentieth classical composers, you are, in a certain sense, correct. Those composers have now lost their copyright -- as artists. You could sit down, play on your keyboard your own version of, say, the 1812 Overture, rip it into a MP3, and sell it over the net.
BUT: a recording from, say 1964, of Leonard Bernstein conducting the New York Philharmonic playing that same piece is still protected by *performer's copyright*. You could not, for example, take a CD of that work, rip it, and post it for sale without inccurring the wrath of the copyright gods.
Now, in 1976, things changed. The Disney corporation realized that Mickey Mouse was about to go out of copyright (I am not making this up) and pressured the House of Representatives to rewrite the copyright laws so as to extend the term limit, to the term of creator's life plus 50 years. Since Walt Disney died in 1968, Mickey Mouse was now safe until 2018. Besides badly abusing the original intent of copyright laws, the US fell out of compliance with the Berne Convention, causing a rift with Europe.
Things actually got worse in 1996, when the Copyright laws were again rewritten. Besides extending copyrights to life of creator plus *75* years (MM safe until 2043), the law tightened up the "fair use" provision. ("Fair use" enabled, for example, reviewers to quote part of a work without being prosecuted under copyright laws.) Another thing that the rewrite did was to *illegalize* reverse engineering -- a common software practice. Plus it tilted the playing field in the direction of copyright owners in a number of other ways.
The bottom line, from your perspective is this: It's probably OK to trade classical music that was *recorded* before about 1920 -- that's out of both artists' and performer's copyright. Anything *since* then, however, *might* still be in performer's copyright, or had its copyright extended. Up to about 1950, there is probably a fair amount of music that *did not* have its copyright renewed. You're probably OK with that, but tread carefully. After 1950, your safest course, if you're not sure, is *don't*.
There are clearinghouses -- ASCAP and BMI come to mind -- whose sole job it is to collect royalties on recorded music. They would be able to tell you if a given piece by a given artist is still within copyright or not. You might also check with the Library of Congress, which is the official copyright depository for the United States.
Good luck!
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
"Standing up to an evil system is exhilarating." --Richard Stallman (hyperlink by me)
/~jcastro/decss/ was not found on this server.
Yes... well, your hyperlink returns:
The requested URL
Did you submit to a 'request for removal'?
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
I know that this is -1, Offtopic, but, why the hell did this ever get tossed into a satellite TV bill in the first place? I mean, I know that riders on unrelated bills are common, but with all the work people in the US are doing to try and stop the corruption in Washington, why do things like this keep getting by?
Has anyone ever looked into how many BS laws get through this way? Hell, it might be worth giving up on fighting for certain causes that should be protected by common sense if more people just worked to stop shady politicians from tossing out these insane riders left and right!
I might be mistaken, but I thought they created their own label. Does anybody has more information?
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
As other people have pointed out, the Line Item Veto only applies to spending bills - not law bills, and I think not to tax bills (my wife used to be a tax preparer - it's amazing the things you'll find hidden in the Obfuscated IRS Code Contest that are clearly gifts to one special interest or another.)
Also, we've got a good campaign finance law - it's called the "First Amendment". If you don't like politicians who abuse it, vote for someone else. (And if you don't like the other people running, start another political party or run as an independent.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Users have no need to switch from CDs because the 16-bit 44.1 KHz waveforms stored on a CD are (to human ears) 100% noiseless. Dogs OTOH...
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
The response isn't quite correct - successful artists do get huge quantities of money extracted from them that pays for all the costs, and often far more. But lots of records don't become successful, and don't generate enough gross receipts to pay for the costs, much less enough to pay for the costs by ripping off artists' royalties. And the record labels end up risking a lot of their money that gets lost on unsuccessful albums in return for the big payoffs on a huge-selling album and the medium payoffs on the medium-selling album where they get to rip off the bands' royalties.
The software industry has a lot of similarities - in some sense we're the Hollywood or rock star business of the 90s/00s, with a certain amount more solid real-world business but a lot of flash and entertainment and popular new waves followed by newer waves or retro version of older waves. And some folks get to be Mozillionares while other folks are just banging away in their garages, hopefully having fun in the process.
VCs put up a lot of risk money in return for large chunks of the startups they support, though the balance of power is different and even an unsuccessful startup usually pays its people a decent day-job wage before it tanks, unlike an unsuccessful record album.
I've recently been reading some biographies and histories of the late-60s San Francisco-area psychedelic bands - Jefferson Airplane/**, Grateful Dead, Janis Joplin. One mistake that happened with several bands is that after early successful records, their labels told them they could have unlimited studio time to work on their next project, and the bands took them up on it. This may be ok for speed metal bands or edgy punk types who want to get done quickly so they can go back to loud crowded clubs consuming aggressive drugs, but it's a bad idea for acidheads ("We were trying to get a perfect recording of the sound of thick air, so the percussionists could alternate it with the sound of thin air that we got last week, which would be a really cool effect, sort of a John Cage thing .") Analogies to followon software projects by highly creative people are left as an exercise for the reader :-)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
It does, if it's not "work for hire". Since "work for hire" normally covers things created by employees in the normal course of their employment, not a lot of old code is going to be revertable, possibly excepting transfers made from one company to another and code written by consultants where the contract didn't have an explicit "work for hire" provision (which is required to make work by non-employees a "work for hire").
I think we shouldn't carve out special interest niches in copyright law for writers, artists, or other folks, we should fix copyright law as a whole and bring copyright terms back to something reasonable.
Just because an album didn't sell doesn't mean the band is free. Termination of a contract generally terminates the band. If a solo artist, he's pretty much out of the industry, unless some other label thinks they can do better and buys him out of his contract and debts (again, taking the money out of future royalties). With a band, either the same happens, or the band breaks up, and each member negotiates separately with the label's lawyers on how much they individually "cost" to buy out their subset of the contract.
Most just leave the industry alltogether, and hope they don't have too much of a permanent debt on their hands (after liquidating as much of their equipment as they think they can bare to live without) and get on with their lives, musical or otherwise. Yes, labels lose some on non-selling artists, but they do everything they can to minimize those losses and keeping the burden on 1) the artist, 2) the distributor, or 3) the retailers.
In a failed release, the label can say we "own" the album as colateral until the debt of the advance is paid off. But it ain't the labels' by default.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
But that was early days. What did we know then.
Thad
Thad
Here's a brief history:
About two years ago, Dish Network began offering its customers the ability to recieve their local channels via their satellite. The local networks complained that the satellite companies broke the copyright laws in doing this because the satellite companies were not required to compensate the local networks for this. At the same time, DirecTV was offering distant networks to any subscriber who could answer three questions correctly. Again, the local networks (via the National Association of Broadcasters) bitched that they were A) violating their copyright and B) taking away from their viewership, causing them to lose advertising money. The bill gives the satellite companies the right to rebroadcast the local networks signals to customers in its local market, providing said satellite companies pay the local networks a copyright fee.
So really, the SHVIA is a copyright law, so something of that matter would be (somewhat) fitting into the bill, although it didn't have to do with satellite at all. My only assumption on why it was put it was because the RIAA wanted something like that on the books, but there were no other copyright-based laws going through at the time. Of course, I don't know this for sure and am really just talking out my ass on this. But thats my take on things.
I could talk about the SHVIA all day in regards to the satellite side, as I work (in a sense) for DirecTV and have for about 3 years. I've been through it all with the SHVIA (and its predessor, the Satellite Home Viewers Act of 1986 (I think thats the year).
The following remarks are those of mine, and not of my employer nor their client, which happens to be DirecTV, a company greatly affected by the SHVIA.
SYSOP ('sih-sop) n.: the guy laughing at your typing.
Hi,
You're mistaken, and apparently those with moderator points are getting confused as well.... this article is about getting the "Work for hire" situation OUT of the picture. When a work is deemed a work for hire, then the individual or company that hired the work done owns the copyright to the results of said work.
This is clearly an injustice, as artists (the good ones anyway) have had their music bouncing around in their very being for years and just because some company offers to front them money so they can get their music to the public doesn't mean the company hired the actual creative process employed by the artist.
Well, that's my 2 cents anyway.
--
NeoMail - Webmail that doesn't suck... as much.
Too bad this post was late in the discussion. I found it rather, "Informative".
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
And I thought my milk in Vermont was expensive because it usually gets jugged in Massachesetts. Why it has to go from the cow down there and back before I can drink it annoys me, and IMHO can only happen when transportation (and fuel) is severely undervalued.
On a more related note, I thought the Dairy Compact didn't lift any prices. I thought it merely kept a price floor for the farmer, so that his price for milk won't fall below $15/100lb. So that shouldn't raise any prices, just keep them from falling too far. I did get a "$0.50 Diary Compact Surcharge" on my pizza once, but I take that more as strongarm tactics by Big Dairy than any real reflection on reality.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Well, let's not all go home *just* yet. I don't think this really fixes anything. They fundamental system is *still* backwards. Artists may get their copyright back in 35 years. How *generous*. I don't see artists as 8 to 5 employees clocking in and out. IMO artists create, and own, their music and they should be in control of it. They should be using the *services* the recording industry provides. Not the other way around: the recording industry exploiting the "services" of a labor group of artists. Labels provide a service to artists: studio stuff, equipment, marketing, distribution. At least two of those can happen online or done individually. Labels should now be competing on terms of their service, not artists competing with each other to see who gets to be exploited.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
It'd have to be some weird sci-fi cyberpunk future Congress. You know, in a country where some sort of visual device had the populace cowed into submission. We sure are lucky modern folks are so vigilant about protecting their rights, aren't we?
-jpowers
-jpowers
When did CD prices go up again? The cost of living here in Boston is one of the highest in the world, and I shop at a store located in one of the most expensive parts of the city, and I still only pay $11.88 for CDs. WTF is wrong with your local record stores?
-jpowers
-jpowers
Adult Contemporary Rock...sort of southwest country flavor...Popularity due to this cool thing she did with her lip in her first video...Something of a "pioneer" for other useless singer/songwriters like Jewel. Ultimately, she and Alanna Myles made Faith Hill and last year's heavy chested country singer palatable for the mainstream. If you use Napster (I don't), look for her first album "Tuesday Night Music Club" and the song "All I Wanna Do."
PS if you like the style but miss the substance (80s Bubblegum? I guess maybe not...) try Spinanes, Beth Orton, or Cat Power.
-jpowers
-jpowers
Rule 2: and furthermore, the judicial system in this country was not designed for prevention or protection, but reaction, making prevention and protection not only immoral because of their indirect results, but immoral because of the impossibility of them ever functioning.
Parmenides kicks ass.
-jpowers
-jpowers
Their server is temporarily (I hope) kablooie. Sorry for the inconvenience. No, RIAA was not involved in this. ;-P
I wonder what changed their minds.
Now that the issue of record companies stealing the rights of musicians in perpetuity have received such a public airing, perhaps new talent has been avoiding signing with RIAA companies - insisting on contract modifications or going with self-publishing (especially via online techniques).
Calling for a reversal is a freebie for RIAA anyhow. The law is in place, so the call for reversing it (especially if they DON'T fund their lobbiests to pushe it the way they did the original change) is just noise.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
True, but the problem is that the record companies have for years placed a standard clause in all artist contracts stating that the artists are producing works for hire.
The artists' lawyers told them that that didn't matter, because it was unenforcable -- copyright law specifically lists the types of works that CAN BE works made for hire, and sound recordings weren't one of them.
By slipping in this little change to the copyright law, the RIAA would, in effect, be snatching every piece of music by every one of it's artists with a contract.
Fucking dickhead moderators. The post I was replying to was -1: Flamebait. This was -1: Flame. Get a fucking clue or don't fucking moderate.
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
This is good info. Do you know of a good book that reviews the basic history of copyright and talks about the current laws? These may be divergent topics, but it would be nice to have the contrast in one text.
Copyright is/was 14 years, renewable for another 14 years..
A 3 minute search on google gives this library of congress URL on the history of copyright.
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/docs/circ1a.html
(Or see my posts from a couple weeks ago.)
...features the song White Room by Cream, (c) 1967 (+/- 1 year) being played while the camera runs itself all around the new white iMac.
I'm pretty sure Eric Clapton is thinking..."two more years, and I won't have to hear my song being associated with a fishtank..."
DrQu+xum: Proof that the lameness filter doesn't work.
*splutter* $12.75???
Perhaps the RIAA would like to explain to me why, despite the exact same principles applying, the average retail price of a CD in Britain is closer to $23.
Corporate asswipes.
--
--
Wait a minute, this sounds like rock and/or roll. - Rev. Lovejoy