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."
> 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.
So, did you write to Mike Wallace, or did you write to slashdot?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
> 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.
Yes - exactly those freedoms. The freedom to have a choice: to commit a crime, or not, that is an important freedom.
Regulation isn't the way to turn the criminals into good citizens. Go read A Clockwork Orange.
Mike.
Tales from behind the Lagom Curtain
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.
>these companies (who have their stockholders' interests in mind, *and no one else's*, not you, not me, certainly not the artists who they hide behind)
Err....a few things here.
First, there's nothing preventing you from buying shares of sony, time warner, etc. They're listed on the US stock exchanges, and also on the exchanges where the company is based (Tokyo, Toronto, etc.).
Second, anyone with a retirement account (401(k), IRA, and so on) may own shares in these companies already.
To turn this into a "us vs. shareholders" thing is not really the point. You're probably already a shareholder.
So now what?
If you're a direct shareholder, contact investor relations. Find some financial why maintaining their relationship with the RIAA will hurt the company and its share price.
If you're indirect (401(k)) contact the investor relations of the mutual fund company that you're going through. Do the same thing.
With stock prices being real crappy these days, some solid reasons why a particular company's plan to extort money from consumers will backfire could be of help.
True, but 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.
p2p tools are *not* instruments of theft, it's just terribly popular to use them as such. They're like crowbars... powerful, with a legitimate purpose, but subject to the goodness or evilness of their operator.
Remember, if draconian access controls are allowed, and *enforced*, it certainly won't stop with the college kids with forty gig of DMB. Witness DeCSS: "But only *pirates* use it!" "Oh, okay, let's make reverse engineering a crime." Do you really believe that taking power out of the hands of the hacker/common man/scr1pt k1dd13 and giving it to these companies (who have their stockholders' interests in mind, *and no one else's*, not you, not me, certainly not the artists who they hide behind) will solve anything?
Perhaps 'copyright protection' is the wrong phrase. But believe me, it's not about the pirates; they don't cost the companies an appreciable sum, they never have.
About the 'right' to the Nappy... I won't argue there. I still can't believe what I hear when my roommates complain that the school blocked Napster.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
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.