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."
Actually, i prefer my artists poor and/or angst-ridden. It gives them something to sing about that isn't some banal dreck that was written by someone without an ounce of real emotion.
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.
There's a good reason for losing that freedom if you abuse it
If you abuse it. That's a big if, and one the RIAA would like very much to bypass.
If a cop sees you reading a book, should he be able to demand to see the receipt from your bookshop, and arrest you for stealing books if you don't have a receipt?
Most people (myself included) resent being called criminals, and be taking away a person's ability to break the law before he has broken any laws is precisely that. By demanding the ablity to track and collect royalty on all digital music transfers, the RIAA is calling everyone with a net connection a criminal.
0 1 - just my two bits
Yes and no. He's technically wrong, but his point is correct. MP3 is lossy, but that loss only occurs in the first generation of copying. After that, all copies of an MP3 file are identical. Thus, it is different than is the case with photocopiers.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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.
Arts like opera are partially funded by the government in the UK, and the fuss about that in the tabloids was incredible - 'why should we have to subsidise snobs' etc. etc. I can't see them being too happy about having to cough up for greebos singing about Satan or large, gold-wearing black men rapping about guns and bitches.
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
You negelect two items:
1. The superstars fit my [admittedly moderately broad] generalization very well.
2. It is 99% superstar music being traded on Napster.
I feel some pity for the mid sizers out there, but when you sell your soul to Satan, expect to be burnt.
-={(Astynax)}=-
-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"
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!"
These artists wouldn't have to be on the road so damn much if RIAA would pay them what they're worth and stop lining their own pockets instead. Artists of all types are always "trying to make it big" even if it's Painting, sculpting, etc. Hell, all of us are all trying to make it big. Art is a perception. Code is art I think. So does that mean we need someone to approve our code before we release it to the world? Does that mean we need a governing body like CIAA, Coding Industry Artists Association. Right and let them take royalties for all the code we right, even though it doesn't belong to them. The real point here is even though the CIAA doesn't exist, the RIAA does and they are NOT a good faction to be part of. They are NOT looking out for the artists. They have become a self serving group whose interests lie in making themselves fat off the sweat of good people like TRUE artists. This is the reality of things, not what is supposed to be. Sorry to burst any bubble you may have, but the truth hurts! - SB -
--SuperBug
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.
----
----
"I used to listen to Null Device before they sold out."
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.