Slashdot Mirror
Music Owners' Listening Rights Act
slashdoter writes: "EFF has some info on a new bill before Congress. The
Music Owners' Listening Rights Act of 2000
says that you can use the internet to move music as long as you own the CD. You can
read the story
at the EFF website." The
360-word bill
would have cut the my.mp3.com lawsuit off at the knees, so naturally
mp3.com likes it;
if it passes, mp3.com might even discover its
missing backbone.
So check to see whether your Congressperson is
on the House Judiciary Committee; if so, since that's where the bill is, your opinion can have some real leverage.
Send email!
slashdoter continues: "And on a side note, I just received my welcome letter from the EFF and was angered to find I was only member #11420. After 10 years that's all they have. Come on, as a student it only cost me $20(US). Words are nice but money speaks."
On another side note: civil-rights-wise, it's ironic that this bill's author also introduced H.R. 1081, a silly thing that died in committee. A hate-crime law with stiff penalties for flag-bashing.
Snail mail doesn't go far enough -- any idiot can write a letter and mail it. If you really want to make an impact in today's jaded DC politics, you have to think big. Unless it's staring them down from the heavens, they'll just ignore it. Hire skywriters.
-- Anne Marie
Yes, you already have the right to listen to your music, make mp3s, send it to yourself over the 'Net, etc. But...
That part is a completely new right which does not currently exist. This basically closes the technicality whereby RIAA kicked mp3.com's ass.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Wow, it's nice to see that someone else realizes this. It doesn't take much to see that the entire presidential campaign (and, indeed, many other political canidates) is full of complete idiots. I don't particularily like Bush, but the Republican platform most accurately describes my views, so there you go. Whatever your political stance is, people, remember that the canidates will generally toe the party line; vote based on platforms rather than the mindless mudslinging.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
How long until 360,000 words in riders about such relevant things as immigration, smoking advertising, and of course video game violence are added in? Doomed to failure =). Seriously, it is nice to see something so succinct come from a politician.
--
--
The gravitational constant of protein has changed. - Turbine
It's a little vague. There's that whole bit about is received only by a recipient who has provided to the transmitting organization proof that the recipient lawfully possesses a phonorecord of such sound recording. The obvious question, of course, is what constitutes "proof." Although the post says that this would have invalidated the mp3.com lawsuit, I don't know if that's wholly true: the RIAA could have harped, instead, upon the strength of "proof" checks... dollars to donuts that BeamIt wouldn't have passed corporate muster.
I have a sad feeling that if this makes it to law (and I'm going to snail-mail my congressman) that it'll be twisted such that only the proprietary systems of the RIAA will be considered "proof." Meaning woe to those who buy CDs and don't get the keycode or something similarly (inappropriately) lowtech that gets shipped with it...
or, worse, unique identifiers per CD, to defeat those who would buy, BeamIt, and then return the CD... said CD is back off the market, there go Joe User's priveleges. Ok, maybe that's a valid use, but how in god's name can you say they wouldn't then use it to do some serious tracking.... don't play Bobby's CD in Judy's CD player, or the authorities will be notified!
Paranoia is fun. Eep.
AHHHHHHH! I'm burning with goodness again!
- Reakk, Sluggy Freelance
Wow, it's nice to see that someone else realizes this.
I know, and we're in the minority. Unfortunately, it's very counter-intuitive to a lot of people, who primarily look at personalities. Not to say that the man doesn't matter at all (Clinton has made the Presidency a laughingstock), but most people don't realize that Congress has far, far more power than the President. Even if you got some 3rd party fool in the White House, all that means is that nothing would happen for four years.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Read Calder v. Bull, a decision rendered back at the end of the 18th century or so. The ex-post-facto clause has long been held to apply only to criminal sanctions, not civil ones. In that case in particular, the Connecticut legislature (sitting in its preconsitutional capacity as high court) revised someone's will, having the effect of "punishing" one party but only in a civil capacity. Several tresspass cases from the Jim Crow south in this century have upheld that reasoning.
And even if it did apply to criminal sanctions, your example is still wrong. There's nothing constitutionally"ex-post-facto" about making something legal which was previously illegal. It's strictly a negative restriction.
-- Anne Marie
Don't you think it's a little strange that he couldn't get at least one other Democrat to support it? Don't you think he would rather have a 2/2 balance?
I'll give him credit for sponsoring it; not all Democrats are anti-freedom. But more often than not, Republicans vote to give more freedom and take away government power, and Democrats vote to consolidate power and take away freedom.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
There's a basic truth about this:
An email is worth 1/20th a printed letter or printed postcard.
A printed letter or postcard is worth 1/5th the value of a handwritten letter or handwritten postcard.
[rule of political communication - I've been lobbying as a citizen activist for decades]
So, go to the nearest coffee shop or restaurant, get some of those free postcards, slap on 20 cent stamps, and handwrite to your congressmember and senator a short polite postcard about why you want this bill (give number and title) to pass. Then sign it, give your name, phone and address, and send it in the mail. Choose a cool postcard - they love those.
If you do this, you have the best chance of affecting them. The only thing better is a visit in person.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Congress people still tend to only respond to faxes, phone calls, in-person visits, and most of all, postal mail ("snail mail"). E-mail is typically ignored.
However, if you feel you absolutely cannot bring yourself to go Herculean task of printing out your message and putting it in an envelope, then at least include your mailing address at the bottom of your e-mail. Otherwise, your Congressional representative will have no way of verifying that you actually live in their district, and will definitely ignore your message. They will probably ignore it anyway, so send snail mail. It is much more effective.
Free Hans!
And above all, SEND REAL MAIL! This point is repeated in every article about contacting our reps, but it's worth repeating again...
REAL MAIL IS THE BEST WAY TO SHOW THEM YOU CARE
If 1/10th of us write a letter, and we get our girlfriends/boyfriends to write letters, and they get one friend of theirs to write a letter, that's worth more than every one of us sending 10 emails from our various email accounts.
GAIN EVERLASTING LIFE
Musicals (like a performance of Jesus Christ Superstar) are INSANELY regulated, I can tell you. Having stage managed said show, I had to read the contracts, and the amount they bind you, restrict you, and charge you per use (even for things as small as logos and scores) is ridiculous. I think because any recording of a dramatical work would be classified as a "performance," the owners (like MTI, Music Theatre International) would pitch a fit. Just my guess.
AHHHHHHH! I'm burning with goodness again!
- Reakk, Sluggy Freelance
It's still not out of the legal woods - there is a civil lawsuit from teh shareholders who argue that because mp3.com knew what they were doing was illegal when they started Beam-It (bearing in mind that myplay.com was already operating a similar service *legally*) they are responsible for the financial losses as a result of plummeting share prices.
Add into that the completely unprofitable terms they agreesd with the publishers and labels there's no way they can demonstrate a business plan which will let them survive.
So... if they go into hibernation and hope that bill succeeds then they might survive, but that's assuming they can survuve the rest of the lawsuits. Instead - if they launch Beam-It again it'll drain their funding anyway but keep their users.... until they can no longer afford the per track fees.
The thing is - mp3.com have now set the goign rate for licensing fees - so they've probably screwed up companies like Musicbank who were relying on acquiring these licenses, and I guess they've stopped myplay.com from trying to do the Beam-It thing also - at least until the bill comes through.
Fun Fun Fun....
I'm not trying to be a wet blanket, but frequently, bills like this are used as 'incentivizers'. That is, they'll be advanced in order to get some well-heeled lobby group to part with some campaign cash. Once sufficient tribute has been extracted, it's quietly strangled in committee. In this case, it might be that the Republicans think the record industry can be shaken down. I don't know whether this is really the case (sometimes a bill is really a bill), but try not to be too disappointed if what seemed to be a sensible idea never sees the light of day.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
if this law is passed and MP3.com already has to pay a few cents to record companies for my.mp3.com, will mp3.com be able to stop paying the companies, or since the settlements were made before this law would they stil have to pay
They will probably have to continue paying. The settlement between mp3.com and the RIAA labels is a private contract. If it turns out that mp3.com bought something useless (rights to broadcast music that are free), so be it.
What makes it even more sick is that if mp3.com just says, "screw it, we won't pay the RIAA, because the contract is worthless", they can be sued for breach of contract, and they'll probably lose. Unless there's some sort of escape clause already in the contracts, I dunno.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
It's not a coincidence that there are three Republicans and only one Democrat on this bill. Don't get all your information from the media (including Slashdot), look at reality. And this not rare, it's typical. Please vote accordingly.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.