Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Offers More Details Regarding Online Royalties
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."
I know not one of you wants to see any musicians starving. That's why I think this is a good idea. The RIAA is the one who pays the musicians for their hard work and all the effort they put in to entertaining us.
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.
But no theft has taken place. Legally it has not occured and since theft is a legal term then your use of it is a result ignorance, or blatant lying. I will assume the former for now.
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.
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.
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.
Can anyone come up with a system that will "eliminate the middle man" whilst allowing an artist to have a decent living?
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.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
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.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
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.
I wrote parts of this stuff
No, that wouldn't be good either. We don't want people ignoring the laws when possible, and France is a sovereign state.
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.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
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 ?
'sapientia potestas est'
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?
I AM, therefore I THINK!
"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 ..
What many people seem to be forgetting is that the DMCA is actually just U.S. version of the *global* WIPO (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 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.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
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.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
I suppose I could do that... if I had enough money to matter to these people.
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.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
No!
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
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
The old joke goes...
"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
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Err... socialism is an economic system where the *government* runs everything.
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
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Egg on me. Revise that to read 'where the government runs everything important.'
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
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
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.
wolf31o2 Developer, Gentoo Linux Games Team
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.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
I remember that Trust (a French Hard rock band) got seriously screwed by the RIAA somtime ago
/;-(
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
My drinking team has a Rugby problem
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
And?
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.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
And how, prithee tell, does one determine who is worthwhile?
You could offer equal-sized grants via a lottery system, but that's still massively abuseable by groups of people filling in bogus applications.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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?!?
"If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" --Voltaire
Thats part of the French lawsuit; they want the regular yahoo.com to withhold the Nazi auction items as well. Besides, i doubt that the .fr version is any different; obviously its in french, but for the most part its the same i'd say.
Well, thats one of the things that happen when you have freedom of speech. You have to right to say what you believe in, no matter how stupid. Taking that away is far more dangerous. I think you should spend some time in China as a citizen of that country and see what you'd be missing.
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.
Does it really surprise you that there are lazy people who call themselves musicians? I've met lazy people who make claims to all kinds of professions. There are people who work hard at music. Maybe there work isn't physically strenuous as digging a ditch, but it still can be hard work.
So your friend's a bum. Make some new friends. Lumping all the hard working musicians in with him is doing them a disservice.
This will hurt them because it will drive artists away from their members. Only a few artists make any real money from royalties-- most of their income comes from ticketing.
I've heard this statement many times, but I'm curious if anyone knows how much of the cost of a CD goes to the artists?
I'm guessing that your $16 CD probably costs the record store around $8. The distributer probably paid $4. A couple dolars goes to costs of manufacturing, packaging, paying the accountants and lawyers. Of the remainig $2 myabe half goes to the producers and the record companies who fronted the money to produce and advertise the album. That leaves about a buck for the actual artists. Maybe less if someone else wrote the song, and they have to pay them royalties as well.
If I'm close to the mark, I would guess that better known artists would make a higher percentage of that last $2, while little known names would make less. That would only make sense. There's less risk with better known names, and the volume would make the pruduction and advertising costs less per album.
Anyone know if I'm close?
very good point. don't waste your mod points on the dvd player that plays sega games plz.
The RIAA plans to demand ALL streamers pay them royalties, on the assumption that riaa artists' music will be played at some point. If you say "no, I won't play their music", they'll take you to court and you can try to defend yourself there. They ASSUME you are stealing from them until you PROVE you're innocent after they sue you. Man, didn't I hear something about a country where you were assumed innocent until proven guilty?
I also think they're arguing that the part of the song in your computer's buffer memory constitutes a physical copy being made, hence the royalties to the RIAA. BUT, you must still ALSO pay royalties to BMI and ASCAP to cover the performance royalties. So in essence they're saying that streaming music should have to pay physical royalties and performance royalties. Now how they can think that one thing equals two things (1 == 2? not in my calculator) I don't know. If it's a performance, it's not a physical copy sale. If it's a physical copy sale, it's not a performance.
RIAA is arguing that while ASCAP and BMI can collect royalties for the performance side of streamed media, the RIAA is entitled to royalties because THE PART OF THE SONG IN YOUR COMPUTER'S BUFFER MEMORY IS A PHYSICAL COPY OF THE SONG!
Yes, they're saying they can collect royalties because you have in effect bought a physical copy of the music. It's like an evaporating cd i guess.... Satan himself would be proud of the RIAA for this little idea.
Regulation: A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct.
I'd say that applies to Alex fairly well.
> If you use your "freedom to commit a crime," don't be suprised if you lose that freedom and many more.
Thank you. That was exactly my point.
Mike.
Tales from behind the Lagom Curtain
Regulation: A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct.
I'd say that applies to Alex fairly well.
Yeah, but that's a huge generalization. Alex was hit with torturous drug therapy - physically and mentally abused to force him into submission. Regulation also means laws saying that if you murder someone or steal, you will be punished for it, and there's nothing wrong with that.
> If you use your "freedom to commit a crime," don't be suprised if you lose that freedom and many more.
Thank you. That was exactly my point.
Nice half-quote. There's a good reason for losing that freedom if you abuse it - you took away the freedoms of others.
-
Addlepated - punk & metal
I think you missed something in A Clockwork Orange... It's more about mind control techniques being used to turn criminals than regulation. Regulation is a rather necessary thing - otherwise you have anarchy.
BTW... If you use your "freedom to commit a crime," don't be suprised if you lose that freedom and many more. Every time you use such a freedom you take away some freedom of someone else's, and should be punished accordingly.
Oh, and for those of us in the US - make sure you get the full book before you read it (the 21st chapter was cut out when it originally went to press here in the US). The last chapter is where the most powerful statements are made. And since Hollywood is in the US, the movie is also missing that last chapter.
-
Addlepated - punk & metal
Work for a few days of their lives? Have you ever known anyone in a band? Most bands never get paid anywhere near as much as the average worker, and those that do (with exceptions of people who are extremely popular and have been for a long time) are out there playing concerts (a very draining experience for those of you who have never done it) and traveling around the world on a nearly daily basis when they aren't recording their next album. Yeah, they might get a little more vacation time than the rest of us, but they also work 6 or 7 nights a week when on tour, and don't get to go home between those nights.
Without royalties most mid-sized bands wouldn't be able to earn a living. Smaller bands will have to work a day job anyways, but to be a mid-sized band you don't have time for a day job. That covers all but the superstars. Dont over-generalize.
-
Addlepated - punk & metal
RIAA's intention of controlling the royalties of all downloadeble music on the Internet
Now how is this going to work. I don't understand how they can control ALL music on the internet. For starters, I'm in canada. How could the RIAA get juristiction over canada. Secondly, If I write a song myself, me not being a member of the RIAA have sole rights to that music and how and where I choose to sell it.
I really don't understand what they are trying to pull. Either this article is just bullshit, or they actually think they can pull this kind of a stunt off. I think the reason for all this crap from the RIAA in the first place is cause they want to make money.
The pirateing of music have been around ever since there was a method of recording music. It was all over the place when cassettes came out. The difference with digital format is that they feel they can easily regulate it, which they can't.
They know people will still pirate music, they just want a bigger cut of the action. Selling mp3s for the price of a CD would only allow them to make more profit not haveing the cost of production. (even though it is fairly low). It seems like a great plan. Get other people to create mp3s that you say they can sell, then you make money from doing absolutely nothing.
Is there nothing in our society that isn't driven by the lust for money anymore? Aparently not.
just wondering, does this include music that people composed for the heck of it and then put on their websites to say "here if you want, listen to some of my music"?
"The company's service allowed users who had legitimately purchased CD recordings of music to store their CDs on the Internet as MP3 files to be played later, either on the computer or on devices like the Rio player. The plaintiffs alleged that the conversion of the music into MP3 files was illegal copying that violated their rights, under copyright law, to copy and distribute the musical work."
Did this guy even read the ruling?
you can't believe that such power can be handed over to entities that have proven themselves so rapacious in the past (RIAA, MPAA) with no consequences for the average *non*-criminal.
I posted DeCSS on my site way back when all of this was beginning, only to voluntarily remove it a week later; I figured that my sysadmin was catching enough grief over my page from angry cops and didn't need the added pressure of MPAA lawyers. Last night (what is it, a year later?) I got email from mpaa23@pacbell.net threatening legal action, etc. etc., which was CCd to my ISP's lawyer. Apparently a good way to waste their time and hopefully cost them some money is to poison lists of DeCSS sites.
Also, due to the MPAA's stupidity, I'm going to put up a link to a google search on decss.zip. They'll have to drag me to court to prevent it (links to the program have been prevented by the court, but they're going to have to get another ruling altogether on linking to a program search). Isn't this fun?
On the plus side of their email is the fact that they list all MPAA member organizations to remind me which companies to avoid. How thoughtful.
-Legion
And how much of the pirated music on Napster was created in the United States?
Oh well :)
The main problem with a band promoting itself on the web and handing out mp3s and stuff is that they need money to start out with. For good studio recordings, and if they want to make it big, a lot of promotion. Yes, there are bands that make a decent living only based on live performances, but they're really rare. You need radio play, and a lot of exposure. That costs a lot of money, but there are thousands of bands like you, you have no choice.
Currently, record companies supply that money, a lot of bands still fail, but record companies cash in big time on the ones that win.
"Bands" like Five et cetera are not even bands, in my opinion, they are business models. These bands shouldn't be saved, but then, they'll just go on selling their stuff to their 13-year old market. Teenage girls don't buy for the music they could download, they buy for the cool CD by their heroes. These are unaffected.
The real good bands? What should they do? There are thousands and only some can make a living out of it. Well, they just got to work real hard, do a lot of gigs, and hope for the best. That's what they do now, anyway...
Once an artists makes it to loads and loads of Napster downloads, he's already famous. He'll not have a problem. But the record company won't be able to cash in all that big anymore, so they'll focus on the pure fantasy business model "bands" we see all the time.
Actually, the more I think about it, most artists don't make a decent living now. The ones that make it to a record deal *and* have success are a minority. All the other thousands of bands do lots of gigs, work hard, and have a job for a few days. That doesn't seem to stop them though.
Too bad for that small minority of real bands who do make it to wealth nowadays, but for the rest of the industry it's business as usual...
(Just brainstorming along, this is hardly an answer to the question nor a cohesive story...)
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Yes, but on the other hand - think of America before the revolution. Are you still better off than then? Isn't it time for another one?
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
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.
How about using Fairtunes rather than mail? It's a lot more convenient for both the listener and the artist.
--
--
Things are only impossible until they are not.
Nor does the article say anything about ending file-swapping services like the payment-based Napster, IM file transfers, or FTP. They will still exist; RIAA's attempts to sue them into oblivion are a separate issue.
Basically, this isn't a world conspiracy, its just a new mechanism that many of us will dislike simply because it won't facilitate getting free music. A mechanism in addition to what we already have, with the support of the copyright office for handling royalties.
Oh, and are copyrights established in the Constitution? I thought it was a legislative action, or at least that the details (such as "fair use") were.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
"Fifty percent of the royalties will be distributed to the copyright holders - usually, the record labels. The balance will be divvied up among the artists."
this is part of the problem, the musicians/writers don't hold their own copyrights. If they did, i'm sure most would want the added publicity of having music available on the internet. The majority of music isn't top 40 you know. In general it's a really bad idea to sign your rights over to any company. Musicians should always work under a QUALIFIED MANAGER, and have a QUALIFIED LAWYER review any contracts.
Also, what's with the RIAA trying to collect royalties? Traditionally ASCAP, BMI and SESAC have handled this in most performances(broadcast, and live) and the Harry Fox Agency has collected mechanical royalties.
The worst part of this is the lable's only get 50%!!! Really, so the apparently the RIAA get's the rest, who's the real criminal. ASCAP and BMI only retain 17-19% and are NON-PROFIT organizations. It's time musicains and composers start sueing the RIAA... Being a Musician and Music Industry Major I plan on boycotting their overly corrupt organization which exists soley for the welfare of their pockets at the expense of musicians and writers. Hopefully I will have to deal with them as little as possible.
"I suppose this is better than the estimated 15% artists currently get from CD sales, but still seems quite rediculous"
yeah, it's funny, according to the SGA's suggested contract, artist should get 75% of Mechanical Royalties(cd/record sales)
This is very true, Moderaters, he makes a very important point, maybe this should be modded up? Traditionally ASCAP BMI and SESAC have collected broadcast royalties, and the Harry Fox Agency has collected mechanical royalties (album sales). Why are they allowing the RIAA to try to take this, streaming broadcast would be ASCAP/BMI's arena, and actual downloadable files would be the Harry Fox Agency's arena.
If you aren't a member then they should have nothing to do with you. They just want money, and if they are collecting royalties you should sue them :)
There is no real need for the record industry anymore. Support good artists by going to concerts and buying tee-shirts and CDs
I thought slashdot had outgrown moderating weird metaphors for RIAA 5uX0R5!!! |\/|p3 RU13Z up
nobody
At least Bush will preserve our ability to take up arms against him.
No, as in true copyright protection with reasonable limits to the terms of the copyright.
I'd believe this (I'd like copyright terms to revert back to reasonable time limits), but the people using Napster wouldn't respect those limits either. Just look at the selection of songs available on Napster -- how many of those are more than 14 years old? (I believe that was the original term, though I probably got my info from slashdot, so I can't be sure.) Would the availability of older music reduce the demand for the current top 40 songs? Maybe, but I tend to doubt it.
We should be trying to get copyright terms reduced, but support for Napster is, IMO, counterproductive, or at least not useful. If you really believe in the principles of music that is freely available, then support it not by this pseudo-rebellion against the RIAA, but by actually listening to music that is freely released, giving money to unknown bands that you like, so on and so forth.
If you want to use Napster to grab the latest music, that's fine by me, as long as you don't hide behind the pretense that you're part of some 'revolution.' Not wanting to pay for something is hardly revolutionary -- consumers have wanted to keep their money for thousands of years. It's simply being cheap. (Or thrifty, if you like.)
Although I tend to think that RMS is a nut, I like some of what he advocates -- not that people start simply taking all their software (and other IP) without paying for it, but that we should encourage authors to release it for free. We should be following the same premise with music. Honor the requests of those who create the music, but encourage artists to create music under our terms.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
...get the new version of winamp. It supports id3v2, which allows you to stick as many characters as you damn well want into any of the fields.
:P
Then get cracking, you'll be done in a century
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Ahh... that's right. I didn't think of it from that angle...
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
As to the piracy question, the issue rests in part on analogies with other technological innovations that posed a threat to traditional distributors of information. The MP3 technology could be analogized to the photocopier, which allowed individuals to make and sell copies of books, undercutting the market for the original publication. The clear distinction is that photocopiers resulted in degraded copies; MP3 permits the creation of exact replicas of the original. Umm... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't MP3 lossy compression? This guy needs to get a clue, or at least a nice e-mail explaining his mistake...
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
No, I can't. It's too predictable and distasteful. Wait, this is Slashdot, what the heck...
N'Sync Greatest Hits Album: "You Wanna Put It Where?"
It's impossible to control copywrited material in the way they envision. Who is advising these people?
Use Fairtunes and have 96% go to the artist. It's a voluntary system where the fans control the amounts not the record labels.
Matt
N'Sync is that a band? I thought it was a game like http://www.gamerfreaks.com/killnsync.htm
Maybe it should be "... the band will continue to play, but will make even less since the record companies are taking more of the pie." Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Meatspace doesn't ALL of the money radio stations, et al have to pay go to BMI, ASCAP for distribution back to artists and NONE of the money go to the record companies themselves? Looks like now they're trying to muscle their way into that revenue stream as well.
After looking at how they structure their contracts with artists I would be very wary of letting them handle this as well.
Nathan
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
To turn this into a "us vs. shareholders" thing is not really the point. You're probably already a shareholder.
It's not us v the shareholder. It's us v the BIG shareholders - the few huge financial houses that control almost all of the share trading. It's these big investors that cause the problems. They don't care about the success of the companies that they are investing in. They only care about the money that can be made out of them. If that coincides with helping the company succeed, then fine. But if it involves sacking half the workforce, or (to keep this vaguely on topic) dropping the artists then the large shareholders will be just as happy.
Sure. You probably ARE a shareholder through you pension scheme, but I suspect that you don't know who the shares are with, or even if you do, that the companies would listen to you if you begged them not to drop your favourite singer.
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.
Technically it may be theft. But just because it's law doesn't mean that the law is correct. I'm not claiming that theft is good, I'm saying that this isn't what theft law was meant to be about.
Theft law was created in a time when to take something that wasn't yours automatically removed the rightful owner of the item. The rightful owner was obviously harmed by this. Yo apply it to your baker, if I walk into a baker's and take a loaf of bread without paying for it, then the baker has lost the ability to sell this loaf of bread to anyone else. He has clearly lost something. If I take a copy of a track on Napster, then if I was not planning on buying it anyway, who is harmed by this? I am not taking anything away from the original owner. They still have the tracks and the ability to sell it to someone else. I am not taking away their ability to sell to me, because I wasn't going to buy it anyway. And if I download a track off of an album that I wasn't planning on buying, but I like it and go and buy the album, who is harmed by this?
In my younger days, I had hundreds of pirated computer games, but every single one that I played for more than a couple of hours, I went out and bought, including many that I would not have bought otherwise. I treated the pirate games in the same way that I treat demos that I get on the front of mags or off the internet these days - a chance to try before I buy. The games industry definitely got more money out of me than it would have if I hadn't pirated games.
I'm not attempting to claim that everyone who downloads music from Napster treats it this way. I am reasonably certain that there are plenty of people out there who are downloading albums that they would have otherwise bought. They are, in the spirit of the law, stealing that sale from the record company as they are depriving them of something, but plenty of people aren't depriving them of anything, and so even if technically they aren't stealing, morally they aren't doing anything wrong.
Don't just look at the law, look at the reason for it, and what it is there to protect.
I have found that the best music in the world is found only in people's basements/bedrooms and smoke filled crappy bars. If you think the radio plays "good" music, you really need to get out more.
Good luck to you in your musical endeavours. My story is similar to yours. I too still write/perform and such, and have come up with other ways to "circulate" my music. I won't be famous, but at least I'll get to do what I do.;-)
Bite my yammer.
Stop reading Slashdot, Mark, and get back to work!
FP.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
I'm amazed, buttfucker2000. I normally disagree with you, but with this I have to agree with you.
I personally have used MP3.com to give money to the artists themselves, so I don't like you bundling the "uncontrolled distribution" of Napster with the "controlled distribution" of MP3.com. However your sentiments about _most_ users simply wanting these things for their own gain is I think right on.
Say it like it is!
FP.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
1. Bands don't pay royalties. The venues they perform in do.
2. Either all the other reporters were wrong or he didn't undertand the mp3.com case: The only thing ruled as copyright infringement was MP3.com's initial loading of the database. If they had uploaded the MP3's as the user's registered then, it would have been fair use.
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
Sue the fuckers if they do this. They are clearly interfering with your rights. Not to flame the RIAA or anything...
sulli
RTFJ.
I do not want the RIAA interfering with what is out of thier juristiction. For refrence, I am an Otaku, a geek that obsesses over Japanese Animation, music, and culture in general. Anyway, I don't like American music. I don't know why, but I just don't. Anyway, the quesiton i'm asking here is why do I have to pay the RIAA for something they're not providing or artists they're not protecting? ( I'm sure the RIAA isn't protecting Gackt, Glay, X Japan or even Two Mix.) The RIAA needs to get it's head out of it's ass and realize it's not loosing jack shit. CD sales have been UP for the last few quarters and that the only place CD sales have seen a major impact is near college campuses and that's because most students could use that 20 bucks for Snoop Dogg's latest CD on food, or books, or clothing. As well, there's more to music than what they "Protect." There are plenty of decent bands out there in other countries that could easily rival the talentless drivel here in the states. ( Not like Japan, Russia and several other countries don't see talentless drivel, but in Japan unlike America, talentless drivel usually filters out within 6 months, unlike, say, Metallica.)
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Consider this: A salesperson wants to sell you a PC but he will only inform you about the processor and the hardrive. If you want to know the rest, you have to purchase the whole system and find out yourself. Now, does this seem fair? I think all consumers can agree that you want to know what you are buying, before you buy it.
As far as the high cost of CD's, i want to share with you and other posters that I read alot of arguements over this. People complain that CD's are expensive where they live. One person in particular stated: "I paid $18.00 for a cd, this is rediculous!" There are many places (online especially) that you can find good deals on CDs, CDNOW has quite a few in the 11-13 Dollar range. And this to me seems fair. And there are places where you can find used CDs, the best one I ever found was www.secondspin.com.
So In my humble opinion, the cost of a cd is relitive. You can find the fair prices if your willing to look. However, I think the major gripe is about getting shafted with an album with only 1-2-3 good songs
This is a problem that needs to be addressed, and it has to some extent via pay per song that emusic and others do. it would be nice if they carried this over into the record stores. Although I don't know personally how that could be achieved, but it would cater to the problem I described.
Overall I agree that artists should get paid, the RIAA is underrated, and people need to be paid for their services. But lets not forget what made this problem exist in the first place. The consumers are talking, but the question is, will the business listen?
"Don't blame me, this is my first time posting" - NetGyver
A Penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
A Penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
Just wait for the Internet 2 and the wonderful tools it provides for the corporations to track and control the flow of information...
It's not a matter of us vs stockholders. It's the simple fact that the main concern is making money for those stockholders. Above all else
The abuse is that these "global monopolies" are attempting to use a combination of technological controls (DVD CSS, SDMI) and laws (DMCA, UCITA, Sunny Bono Copyright Act) to extend their control over content they did not create and in perpetuity. (In fact, even if copyrights are not extended indefinitely, you will still not be able to use decss to view or make a copy of your old 20th century DVDs, because the program which could do so will violate the DMCA, even if it has some uses which are legitimate)
The concept of fair use may not be found in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights, but does have a long history in the American legal system, as well as in other countries the world over. It is legal to excerpt images and audio clips under certain situations (for instance, in a review, or for purposes of satire or parody) Again, between technological controls like SDMI and CSS and laws such as DMCA, it may be legal to excerpt images or audio clips from a DVD or a watermarked digital audio file, but creation or ownership of software to do so will be illegal under the DMCA.
In other words, content covered by the DMCA plus a system access controls remove both your constitutional right to eventually use the work when it has passed into the public domain, as well as to make use of it under the fair use provisions of US Federal law while it is still under copyright.
I am not against globalization, but I am against any law which erodes both my constitutional rights as well as rights that have been traditionally afforded under the laws of the United States, even if they come under the guise of being necessary for "global business".
I also think it's a great pity that it's a case like Napster which is getting all the public's attention. I view this as a big victory for the RIAA and MPAA, because I would much rather see publicity about the way DMCA+access controls make it impossible to make fair use of the content on DVDs, or to make free use of the content once it passes into the public domain.
Hate stupid software on freshmeat? Laugh at
I see this as a good thing for the online music community. Let's face it, we're not going to beat the RIAA anytime soon. Up until now, it hasn't been incredibly common to find some of the bigger name artists distributing their music online, because their labels are RIAA-controlled. With this in place, record labels will be more willing/comfortable distributing music online. Only like one song off an album? You won't need to buy the whole friggin thing anymore, just the songs that you like. It's not going to stop napster, gnutella, or any of those other p2p things. The CD didn't stop people making tapes did it? This is just increasing the legal value of the mp3. the way I see it. But hey, I could be completely wrong too.
"Please, how about a little less love and a little more common decency?" - Kurt Vonnegut jr.
The user's nick and the business model he seems to advocate both imply the same activity... making consumers bend over and accept anal violation in the name of bloated profits.
As a response to the direct statement: the RIAA cheats the artists more then we the people ever could. Also, the concept of royalties is disgusting to begin with. You and I and most folks must work, day to day, to live, even though many like us just as talented at what we do for a living as most modern musicians. So, why should someone with a pretty voice or agile fingers get to work for a few days of their life and use that to live forever? Pay per performance is the only way IMHO.
-={(Astynax)}=-
-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"
And about once a month, he gets a gig at Starbucks for tip money.
He calls this being a musician, I call it being a pot smoking bum.
Are you seriously telling me these stole from musicians are working as hard and as long as a ditch digger, or even an SA? Or are they just getting high, partying, having sex with underage girls and trying to make the big score.
My words of wisdom for anyone hoping to be a rock star or actor/actress, get a good fallback career or learn to starve, the competition is immense, and don't expect anything sympathy if you're in it for the lifestyle.
The washington post did an article about 2-3 years ago, the entire group/artist gets about $1 for every CD sold.
That's where ASCAP and BMI, who license virtually all public performances of recordings, get their clout (and, I'm surprised they're not going after the on-line franchise -- presumably RIAA is trying to do an end run). There's another agency that has the licensing rights for virtually every piece of sheet music published (you have to go there to get permission to record a song, as opposed to playing a recording), and yet another that handles the right to include music in movies and TV. Finally, there's something called the Copyright Clearance Center that attempts to collect fees from businesses and others for photocopies made from books and journals.
Fifty percent of the royalties will be distributed to the copyright holders - usually, the record labels. The balance will be divvied up among the artists.
This means that 50% goes to "the artists", and 50% goes to the copyright holders. The copyright holders may be the record companies or it may be the song writer. It isn't the RIAA.
I say this in all seriousness because I think that the internet is a wonderful thing-- it is the ultimate tool for personal empowerment for artists (including coders-- see Linux). Having read their press releases, I believe that:
I think that nothing can stop the revolution because it is technological and technological progress neither can nor should be stopped.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Read The Mass Psychology of Fascism by Willhelm Reich and you will understand the necessity ofprotecting free speach as a defence against all forms of Fascism. Note that the author had actually watched the Nazi's come to power.
Copyright law (in the US) does not exist for the purpose of making companies or individuals as much money as possible. They exist for the purpose of encouraging expression and art. You can find this in almost any court document relating to copyright law. That congress has been slowly expanding copyright terms has, presumably, gone well beyond its original intent. Also large copyright driven companies (like RIAAs members) tend to over-extend any interpretation of the law because it is profitable. How many times are we told "it is illegal to reverse engineer software" when in fact courts have ruled that reverse engineering is "fair use" when there are no other means which are less intrusive as copyright protects only the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves (I can paraphrase a book, but I cannot quote it without permission).
As for the French gov't, they are still under the delusion that censorship prevents fascism while in reality it is that very censorship which creates the very monster they seek to destroy...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Does that mean I can leagally own lockpicking tools?
You certainly can! I took lockpicking up as a hobby a while ago. I ordered a book from Amazon and a pick set from J&L Self Defence Products. It's damn hard to do actually, and takes great skill, but I managed to get the basics down.
JoshuaTerradot
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
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.
No, I disagree thoroughly. The last thing we need is more laws that we can't enforce. The point is that you can't enforce copyright on the internet! There simply isn't a way! If I can play it, I can record it and copy it to a friend, or to everyone on the planet. The business models under which music is created will have to change to acomodate that fact. Artists, IMHO, don't have some god-given right to get paid indefinetly (or even for a long time) for something they did. There are lots of artists who will not be hurt by the disapearance of copyright, and those will be the best artists anyway. Certainly, Britney Spears and S Club 7 will suffer from this, but Phish and DMB won't much be affected, infact, I think it'll improve that quality of music that this wee rock produces. Copying music is not ripping anyone off, you can't own data. JoshuaTerradot
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
And what are guns used for?
To defend one's self.
JoshuaTerradot
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
You are so st0n3d. St0n3d and 0wn3d.
Or is that me?
Get my free Hitchhiker's Guide Tribute Novella:
I do run my own website using software I wrote. The Machine, community. Anyways, posting misleading things underneath supposed "news" headlines makes slashdot the national enquirer of technews websites at best and shows the sheer irresponsibility of its makers. Slashdot puts up a facade of journalism, but I dont think any respectable journalist would touch /. with a 20 foot pole. Slashdot could be a great phenonmenon, just like linux, but inevitibly the childish zealot people running the show screw it all up.
-
Anyways, judging from the article i dont see any reason why this particular company would *have* to be the sole royalty collector. The article states that 208 companies have signed on with it, thus making it EFFECTIVELY the sole collector (which from a business perspective, that makes sense). Also, this division of the company only covers webcasting of music, not transmitting mp3's as some mislead by this headline might think. This includes services such as radio.sonicnet.com that serve streaming audio I would imagine. Just like the RIAA has a sole division for getting royalties from mtv, radio and so on..this is just another logical extension of the system.
-
I really don't know the answer myself, but I'll toss in some thoughts. Consider for example, some sort of pool of money collected from the distribution of media. As you buy the media, you acquire a certian licence to hold a volume of MP3s. Artists would be paid some sort of royalty based on much the same way as radio royalties, with some additional basis for the `underground' stations.
I know it may hurt, but I'm afraid that if the copy process can not be trusted, then that's the way things are going to head.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
Not to mention the creation of a huge new freelancing market....
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
Now if they titled it, "Sign Where and Where?" they may have been on to something...
-p4
(c) All Rights Released.
I run a independent label and although we press origial work on CD, I am of the opinion that this technology is becoming obsolete. I am not willing to concede that mp3 quality has surpassed that of a CD but there will come a time in the relatively near future in which network bandwidth will allow the sharing of CD quality (uncompressed) files. At this point, will this conversation become irrelevent. Artists will have the ability to distribute their music directly, cutting out the middleman all together (unless you consider their ISPs/Webmasters middlemen), but are they willing to live a lifestyle that is not as comfortable for the sake of their artistic integrity? Perhaps, if this new model of music distribution becomes popular, we will only create new monster companies and monopolies and we will be discussing something different but also the same.
Does anybody know how the current mp3 only lables (ie http://www.notype.com) have managed to pan out a living? Is this model sucessful?
This is just more proof that we must nationalize the music industry and return the arts to the people. It's obvious corporate greed of these people knows no bounds.
All art should be publically subsidized, and all ownership should be public domain by law. Everyone should be able to freely copy any work they desire. Only then can we kill the corporatism of the arts.
We must take back all the money stolen from consumers over the years (from BOTH the corporatists AND the musicians who have made sickeningly too much money), and redistribute it to the worthwhile artists who have not been willing to sell themselves to the music industry.
--
--
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
How about this approach: Instead of people bitching about it, actually do something about it. Revolutions aren't the answer anymore. People with more money and more weapons will always win.
Go to China and then come back. You'll see how good 'we' have it here in the United States.
One way to solve this whole problem would be to eliminate music copyrights entirely. Most musicians would be unaffected by this change. They would continue to get paid to perform live, as they have done for thousands of years, and as the vast majority of musicians still do, ignored by the recording industry. The impact of eliminating the whole concept of copyrighted music would be limited to the recording industry itself, and the small percentage of artists they have selected to use as farm animals.
While I didn't think it was deemed worth posting as a story, there was a piece on NPR Weds (11/28) on The Changing Face of America, talking with the band Jim's Big Ego, which distributes their music mostly through mp3.com, and some of their decision thought process when trying to decide between a big contract or full control of their music.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
How 'bout, FAIR USE. And the HONOR SYSTEM.
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.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
among all of the red-herrings in this whole mess, this is about the most annoying one.
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.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Well, there's a difference between "eliminating the middle man" of the RIAA, and other, potential new forms of distribution (mp3.com?).
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).
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
cool. Another great benefit would be, few people would bother to set up a CD-snail-mail trading link with someone, if they were going to put tracks on the CD that were poorly ripped, bad bitrate, incorrect title, or corrupted - which you find a LOT of on Napster. (I think people put garbage up so they don't appear to be leeches).
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Yes, copyright protection. Not the one-sided "We'll guarantee our rights by stripping you of yours" approach of the DVD-CCA and SDMI organisations. Copyright is a bargain between creator and user, it's effectively a list of things that the public are not allowed to do, and things that they are allowed to do. What CSS does is to forbid everything, including the things that users are specifically allowed to do under both American law and international copyright treaties. In my opinion, if a company wants to deny me my rights under copyright law regarding a work, then they are effectively saying that copyright law does not apply to their product. Fine by me, where's that DeCSS code gone? Unfortunately, the DMCA makes it illegal to play the same game as the corporations in the US.
Yes, in most states.
DNA just wants to be free...
The Standard article makes it sound like the copyright office is granting the RIAA quasi-governmental status as the sole gateway for digital distribution of music. Am I getting that right? That certainly sounds bizarre, even for a corporate lapdog like the US government.
--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
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.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Relocate your web server to somewhere more legislation friendly.
Support the bill to make legalise copying of music into electronic format for personal use.
Any others...
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Hmmm, the US Copyright office. And how on earth are these people supposed to exert their influence to the rest of the world?
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.
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...
Tweet, tweet.
If only you were right... I think you'll find what Steve Albini 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.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
That's fine, as the US Constitution doesn't apply to me anyway. All new published works would enter the public domain, but there would definitely be a lot fewer thereof.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
No, as in it's my work and *I*, not *you* will decide the terms of the copyright.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
What - like the Sydney Olympics, where you could only pay for tickets by Visa (if you were using CC) and all games affiliated merchandising/food/etc outlets were only allowed to accept Visa as their CC?
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
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 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.
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.
--
+&x
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.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
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
Savvy in negotiating?!
"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
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Or maybe: "Jump? How high?"
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
check out the 'puppets of pop' link on fadetoblack.com, a slightly scientific look at nsync and britney :)
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
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.
"If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" --Voltaire
If i set my computer up as a shoutcast server and stream music that I created myself using public domain and personally created loops, that i am the copyright holder of.... guess what will happen to me? The RIAA will ask for royalties, on the ASSUMPTION that every web streamer is going to stream some music they own rights to. I will refuse, and then they can take me to court.
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.
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?
The first thing that hit me about the 50% number was. "That much!", and the second thing was, "That little!" The third take was that aren't most of these people 'workers for hire' instead of 'artists'? In that case, there's no need to pay any 'artist', because there was none. I know there was some recent talk on legislation of this issue, but don't remember where it went.
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.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Perhaps you should read the article.
"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.
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
Well, here's something most of you might not realize.
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.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
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.
--
Find free books.
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.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
"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
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
Yes, lots of people are doing it. Millions of them. But, as Ghandi said, 'Even if you're in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.' Millions doing it doesn't make it any less wrong.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
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
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."
________________
________________
Private Essayist
> 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
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.
Free Anne Tomlinson!!
Music fans won about 3 years ago.
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.
Get my free Hitchhiker's Guide Tribute Novella:
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.
-p4
(c) All Rights Released.
It is awaiting approval from the U.S. Copyright Office to become the sole agent for collecting and distributing royalties for music broadcast online.
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?
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
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 for an interesting take on this) to represent your interests?
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
The record industry is an endangered industry. They are big and powerful -- like a bronco. The MP3 format is an indestructable format that can crumble an empire -- like a shotgun. Musicians are beginning to realize that they don't need to be rodeo clowns, running with the bronco, fearing for their lives. They can just shoot the bronco.
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).
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
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!"
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.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Contact the US Copyright Office with your cogent, well thought out protest and discussion of alternatives:
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.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
It's interesting to note in the article that only 50% of the royalties will go to the artists.
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.
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.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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.
Do domain names matter?
I'm not sure if this has ever been posted before, but if we all really want to kick some RIAA ass while making sure that our favorite artists don't lose out on the process, perhaps this is what we should do:
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
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.
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.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Do we really think the RIAA represents what most artists think?
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.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
My understanding is that ASCAP and BMI retain the performance rights administration, and that what the RIAA is attempting is a unilateral power grab to take more power back from the artists and give it to the record companies. ASCAP and BMI seem to have remained curiously silent on these issues.
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
I'm an artist on mp3.com and luckily enough I've made more than a few dollars there. I don't know how the RIAA can expect to be involved with MY music whatsoever. Not only am I not a member of any music organisation/union so I can't in any way be a RIAA member, but I am not even an American!
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!
I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.
gosh... i'm sorry.
nsync is one of the things i think the riaa should have to pay *us* for.
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,
-p4
(c) All Rights Released.