Slashdot Mirror
Compulsory Licensing for Online Music?
Mister Kurtz writes "The Washington Post is reporting that some lawmakers are taking notice of the music industry's extraordinary reticence towards distributing music online. Their solution? Take away some of their copyright privileges. In particular, it was suggested (by Orrin Hatch, no less) that the government create a compulsory license which would allow music to be sold online without the record label's permission. Of course, music executives are "vehemently opposed" to any such license. Check out the story here."
Dude, no it won't, you didn't read the article. It's not about demanding that people be allowed to give music away, it's about *selling* music on the internet. So you can go to CDNOW.com and pay whatever price for them to send the mp3'd album to you in an encrypted stream, so you have it in 20 minutes instead of 3 days.
That's all this is about!! Not taking music away from the artists and making it free! The term "compulsory license" just means there's a set fee for the medium of distribution (in this case, internet), instead of each individual company (eg, cdnow) negotiating with the RIAA seperately.
Hint to the rest of you: this has nothing to do with eliminating copyright, whether you're for or against that. Napster trading would be as illegal as it is today.
The military draft, for example, has been accepted as necessary to defend the freedom.
That strikes me as, at best, self-contradictory. As Heinlein said, any country that requires a draft to defend itself doesn't deserve to exist.
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
You're right. The American Dream has always been self-sufficiency and self-reliance. The lone "cowboy" living by the sweat of his own brow.
But in the 21st Century, and after decades of corporate brow-beating, the people are starting to realize that the same rights allowed the lone inventor in his garage struggling to make the next revolutionary step forward do not apply to multi-national, money-grubbing, customer-raping corporations whos only god is "The Bottom Line" and who have stated that in persuit of profit will gladly turn aside any moral obligations they may have to the Arts, Society, Humanity, and anything else.
Besides, I resent your implication that anything anti-corporate is un-American and shouldn't even be aired in this country. Regardless of what some over-stuffed bastards in any the state or national capital say, I still have the right to air my grevances in a public forum. And I will excercise that right!
There. I'm done troll-feeding for today.
Improvise, adapt, and overcome.
Why hasnt the US Government begun Anti-Trust suits against the entire RIAA? There are a collusive monopoly(oligopoly) - if they *werent* they wouldnt have to consider this 'copyright change' because the Internet is an *OPPORTUNITY* - but the RIAA is big enough that they are waiting out the public and internet in order to set terms to the marketplace.
The US Gov. should break up the RIAA and divide the big labels into smaller companies.
Getting government out of the picture would mean eliminating copyright. Which might be a very good idea - replace it with royalty rights on for-profit use, instead.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I think Orrin Hatch know very well what position copyright has - he has written, co-written or sponsored most recent additions and amendments to US copyright law. Remember he is the chairman of the Senate judiciary committee.
Hey! The reply #75 was N-O-T a joke ! If you click here you will see your password !!! Arrgh ! How does it work ?
Be careful with the stereotypes. There are lots of us out there who are agnostic, pro-choice, pro-environment individuals who find it ethically corrupt to support the 'redistribution' of weath, class warfare, big government, etc.
I agree with one thing: It has nothing to do with stodginess or age. Socialism is pretty old as well, and yet seems pretty fashionable to many of today's youth. This kind of stuff seems to come and go in waves.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- Jeff
I think it's tremendously unfair to blame Hatch for the DMCA. At its heart, the intent of the DMCA is good, it's the implementation that's bad. The DMCA was intended to stimulate online dissemination of content, while alleviating the content providers' fear of having it stolen when they did so. Hatch, however, was misled by the RIAA and the MPAA, who carefully crafted the language so as to allow them to maintain their respective oligopolies, and now he's trying to right that wrong. Did Hatch make a mistake? Yes. Is he now trying to correct it? Yes. And, in my opinion, that does make him the good guy.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
A lot of Republicans do care about the environment, they just don't want the government destroying capitalism in the name of the environment like the leftists want to do.
Capitalism is one of the main reasons the environment is being destroyed. If the effects of the destruction aren't going to negatively impact the next quarterly report, they're irrelevant. If I had to choose between the two, I think I'd choose the environment over capitalism.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If you're a musician, don't sign with a record label, sign with Napster . Now that they're going to be a pay service, they can pay you instead of the fat, oily jerk with the cigar. And since he's not taking his industrial size cut, they can offer you more money while selling your songs for a fraction of their Label price. You win, Napster wins, the fans win.
You say Napster doesn't develop and promote? Well, shoot. They'll just have to open an A&R office.
--Blair
"Business is the art of doing everything you can get away with. For money."
Totally irrelevant aside, but Postscript fonts could most certainly be considered programs.
(jfb)
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
Damn good point. As a musician, I loathe the thought of not being the "owner" of my own work. That sucks, plain and simple. It is also probaly one of the reasons why I refuse to shop my songs to any record labels. Perhaps I'll never be a "superstar", but at least I'll have respect for myself.
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
Sigh.. maybe I'm getting too cynical, but I just see this as the politicians way of making sure the entertainment industry pays their share of political contributions. I like the idea of campaign finance reform, but don't know if it will just push the money through different channels. I've been thinking that increased transparency as to who donates might help.
Suggesting that one race is somehow inferior to another is also just a thought but it is dangerous and reprehensible. This falls into the same category.
Point taken, point well argued. But consider this: What is more reprehensible? Thinking thoughts such as the one you present, or forbidding someone to even think such thoughts?
I personally think that there is no racial inferiority, but I'll be damned if I'll tell someone else not to think that way. At most, I'll attempt to convince this person to look at the other sides. And that is the key point. All the arguing in the world will not change someone's mind, but even if there's a sliver of a chance of successfully convincing someone to see things from a different perspective, the attempt should be made.
To (very badly) paraphrase: "I may not agree with what you are thinking, but I'll go to the grave defending your right to think that way."
-- Count Spatula: The Culinary Vampire "...because my cooking sucks."
You are advocating one form of compulsion for another, implying that copyright protection is some kind of universal constant that is inalienable. Copyrights are a compromise to cut out a piece of commercial territory to creative people (or to the companies they've signed away and thus loaned their territory) in exchange for a restraint on random people from doing whatever they want with what they see and hear. Like it or not, the history of the arts carries a significant legacy of derivation and straight-up ripping off. This is how we got to where we are today (why don't similar sounding bands sue each other?) and copyrights are used to control that tendency. The license created in contracts between labels and musicians (or other artists and their promotional designees) typically separate Mechanical rights and Performance rights. Mechanical rights govern the manufacturing of physical media, and Performance rights determine radio play, licensing for commercials, etc. The RIAA and related interests are trying to include Internet rights under existing contracts that don't include Internet-anything, and what I think Sen. Hatch is (perhaps unknowingly) inching toward is a new facet of copyright for nonphysical and nonbroadcast reproduction. Media conglomerates sure aren't going to want to renegotiate every contract they have to include Internet rights, so I think we can look forward to a lot of sick shit from them.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
Basically, the Hatch proposal doesn't affect folks that want to get revenue on this work--it limits the degree to which congress will enforce _non-monetarily_ motivated control over a work. Congress according to the constitution is not _obligated_ to provide these rights-it simply is _authoirized_ to decide what rights to protect here in line with its view of what promotes the arts and sciences.
Now, given that today, the copyright/patent law is mainly a means for corporate elites to play games, I have little problem with redoing the rights accorded here. The Hatch proposal seems a good first step.
From the article-
"Entertainment industry executives are vehemently opposed to such a license, saying the government should not have role in setting the prices paid for music."
Who said anything about setting prices? The government is just trying to prevent the RIAA from expanding its monopolistic dominance of physical album sales into the computer world.
Actually it has happened before. Way back when Player Pianos were the big thing, one company controlled all player piano music through copyrights. The practice of a compulsory license was established. This allows other artists/manufacturers/etc to create copies of works for player pianos
The Law specified the royalties that had to be be paid to the original copyright holder. In fact it the legal basis for all of the remakes of old songs that new groups are doing all of the time.
As to all art dissappearing - Yeah right
People will continue to create - just look at the amount of bad fan fiction available for free on the net. Media companies will continue to prosper - because someone has to wade through all of the crap to find the good stuff. People will pay for that service. I personnally don't have the time to find that 1 song in 10 worth listening to.
But the business will change. Does Capitol records still need all of their promo guys to get CD's in the hands of Radio DJs ? Just think how much their bottom line will improve when they are no longer expensing the cocaine and hookers for everybody assocaited with the industry
Orin Hatch is just admitting that copyright law needs to change. About bloody time IMHO.
Truth: If it's not one thing, it's another
I've been thinking about this very option for a couple of days now.
Essentially, you preserve copyright, but you legally render it non-transferrable, non-assignable. This would allow the artist to preserve and control ownership and distribution rights while tearing down the media monopolies and their governmentally corruptive influnces.
Furthermore, the internet's destructive effect on content control forces the artist to trade on their celebrity and not their work product, which is of course an already proven economic model and rewards excellence where deserved.
Are we genuises, or what?
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
This is a country which has built itself up on the image of the man alone and unhampered, the cowboy, going out to stake his claim on territory and land.
Get yourself out of the hole. Anyone spouting this "American Dream" nonsense needs to be wacked over the head with a cluestick.
That being that the artist is allowed to stake a claim on an intellectual area, that he has created, in this case music, and then sell the rights as he sees fit.
Which would be a relevent thing to say if the artist somehow had control over the music. They don't. Big Evil Co. does. Big Evil Co. gets the cash while the artists gets squat. It's copyright laws that are creating this situation.
------
Not a typewriter
But they already do just that. They tell copyright owners that their creations will enter the public domain after a fixed amount of time (fixed is here used loosely, and means until Congress decides to stop extending copyrights). The government also tells copyright owners that they must accept fair use. They also tell copyright owners that the only reason we have copyright is for the benefit of the public (you might want to read a little document know as the Constitution of the United States of America, colloquially known as, simply, "the Constitution").
In short, The government has already told copyright owners that they are part of society, and have an obligation to give back to the society which feeds them, houses them, protects them, etc. And copyright owners are saying that this isn't enough, that they shouldn;t have to give back, ever (witness: Digital Millenium Copyright Act and CSS/DeCSS). I normally am totally against government regulation. This time, though, I have to believe the government might have the right idea: Since copyright owners won't give back to society fairly, make it a legal requirement of doing business.
And, before you say it, I don't use Napster, I don't use Gnutella, I don't use Scour. While I do use mp3.com, those are completely legal mp3's to download. Furthermore, I rip my own CDs to make my mp3 collection. I also don't use MS anything, ever (not even at work). In short, I'm not a pirate, I'm not stealing, and I want to stay legal. I also would like online music to pay the musicians. This would allow that to happen.
GPL made simple: What was my stuff is now our stuff. If you improve our stuff, please keep it our stuff.
Note that some companies still make it very difficult to stat license a song, wanting to have control over it as you suggest. In this case the prospective licensee must apply with the US copyright office for a stat license, which is difficult, annoying and takes months to get through. This is not that bad when you consider that the average mechanical license in the use is granted 9 months after the release date of the album.
that if the ARTISTS had any say in this, they'd vote overwhelmingly to have the profits from downloaded music go directly to them. Hey, maybe they could even burn their own CDs, have the liner notes printed and sell their work online, without any help from the labels. Wouldn't it be great if the end result of all this was that the record industry died and the artists distributed their own work over the internet! :-)
TechLawyer said: "Otherwise, I can't for the life of me figure out what possible interest Hatch could have in this issue, one way or another."
Well, it turns out that Orrin Hatch is a musician himself. He's produced at least 7 CDs. He already knows about how the recording industry screws artists. He also realizes that laws like the DMCA is being abused by the RIAA and the MPAA, and that fair use rights are being harmed. In short, he's out to protect his constituents.
Remember that just because Hatch is socially conservative and Republican (and, IMO, wrong about many social issues), doesn't mean that he's a corporate stooge. In fact, Democrats tend to support strong copyrights at least as much as Republicans, because Democrats are the party of the media - this is a hold over from a time when they actually believed in Freedom of Speech.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Comparing the industry-crafted dreck at the top of the charts
Industry crafted dreck...
That would be Limp Bizcut, right?
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
>When Sonny Bono died, musicians lost a friend in Congress.
Yeah but he caused more trouble than he was worth, and now that he is dead all the slashdot users can't have a chance to call him up and tell him what a bonehead he is for pushing the copyright extension.
I hope his relatives enjoy that large Disney payoff he got.
Steven V.
I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
"vehemently opposed"
Well I'm convinced.
It might be helpful to post Sen. Hatch's music site here: http://www.hatchmusic.com/
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Hello? He is a songwriter himself. He is also the chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, and has written, co-written or sponsored most of the changes to copright law in recent years. If anything, this is at the very core of his field of interests.
Here's an interesting question -- how could open source be outlawed? If MS were allowed to write such a law, how would it be crafted? Essentially, open source consists of people volunteering their labor and sharing the results. Short of extralegal gestapo tactics, how, even in theory, could one design a law to make voluntary sharing illegal?
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
remember that the "artists" themselves (those who specifically write and create the music) are not the ones who hold the copyright, the RIAA does. The RIAA gives the artists a cut of what they make, but the RIAA holds copyright on each and every article of music made that they distribute and give the artists license to perform THEIR OWN material.
if you wonder why people would continue to make music if online copyright was taken away, i often ask myself whymany artists continue to make music now when they don't own the copyright as it is: save for the love of what they do.
http://www.nakedandfree.com
They're considering legislation we might like? When did they turn that cooling laser a few articles back towards Hell?
Yep. Napster sure made MP3.com's life hard. Oh, wait... wasn't that you?
Reeeeeeet! Gots any pr0n ? Lets mojo to the dojo!
Of course, the argument is BS. Even when copying from CD to hard drive, errors can occur, and when going to CDR, yet more errors do occur. Same for going to tape.
If you can't beat them, embrace and extend them.
RPGs are treason freind citizen. Gates posesses traitorous knowledge and is a traitor to the Computer. (Probably Shadowrun. That pledge doesn't make much sense in Alpha Complex.)
--
"I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
--
"I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
sadly, I have done that and got BURNED. I wish there had been a better contract put in place so I could go after the previous owners and hold them liable for all the crap they pulled inside the house. Had I known then what I know now, I'd have bouth the house for about $10,000 less, or had them fix all the crap we've found.
How does this relate: we don't know the conditions a recording contract - but when it comes to artistic license, why is it that the label should have the "authority" to decide what the public may or may not like/buy. There are a lot of Chicago fans... they would have loved the album - it kinda reflected on the early days of high creativity and social awareness. But the label felt that it just wouldn't produce the "hits"... seems to me that most of the really memorable, long lasting songs were not number ones. A lot of the most critically acclaimed music never charted at all.
Perhaps its just my attitude towards it, but this seems like a sad battle between aesthetics and economics - and there seems to be little room for compromise.
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
so, the copyright isn't, but the GPL/GNU license is?? They are both the same.
I saw that after I read your comment. It was under the "here" link. I clicked "washington post" first and had to sift though the page to find the related article. I goofed, should have read the post better. Thanks for pointing that out.
A Penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
But isn't this the problem? - in reality, artists that don't sell millions of albums have their albums selling at a premium in the long term, and without the benefit of a marketing-driven "price boost" at the release date, because they need to make their returns off a smaller base of (usually) more loyal followers, and they don't have the mindless lemmings that buy into the marketing and think Britney is fantastic.
No system set in place by Congress is ever going to be able to match a price-setting mechanism that adapts to demand and responds to the popularity of each individual album/single. Despite the flaws inherent in the current system, it's a far better solution than any blanket price (or margin) imposed.
Furthermore, this is Congress potentially legislating over what a European should pay for a European song published by a European company, just because a US website decided to sell it - ahem... I have lots of respect for the US government (on friday nights at the end of a number of beers) but it can keep its grubby hands out of European (or other) pricing mechanisms, thank you very much; we can do without the guidance of those elected by individuals incapable of reading a ballot form...
Salocin.com
I can't say I like this particular suggested legislation. Basically, I've spent the last several months reading on Slashdot "the internet deserves to be treated like any other medium." This is a complete contradiction to that spirit. Even if it makes things more open on the internet than elsewhere, it's still bad to separate the internet from other media.
---
I think the fact that Clinton lied to the country is pretty bad, but Orrin's contemptuous holier-than-thou moral stand on the issue made me sick to my stomach.
---
Lots of people have affairs.
But when the person in question:
A) is the President of The United States.
B) lies about it repeatedly in front of Congress and the American people.
...don't you think something should have been done (beyond censure, aka. a slap on the hand)? What point is there to having high expectations of the President if we don't hold him/her to them?
Not to say that Republicans wouldn't do the same thing - some of them probably would. But the assorted crap Clinton was involved in was no better than Nixon, and he should have been dealt the same fate.
And to be honest, while I probably wouldn't vote for him, Hatch doesn't strike me as being Clintonian, so I don't think there's a case of hypocrisy going on here.
(-1, offtopic)
- Jeff A. Campbell
- Jeff
I second the nomination.
Arghhh.... must resist bait... arrhgggh...
.30-06 shells.
Aw heck. CHOMP!
Compare the environmental conditions in east and west Germany at the fall of the Berlin wall for a nice little data point on the environmental impact of communisim versus capitolism.
When are people going to dump toxic waste in the back yard of the house I own? When they dig my overheated M1-Garand out from under a small mountain of spent and smoking
When is a government owned truck going to dump toxic waste on government owned plot? Hell if I know, or could even find out, or would be willing to risk my life to stop it.
Many Republicians feel that a large and powerfull government will be the absolute WORST environmental steward, and they have quite a bit of history to back them up.
Bill
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
Yes, the majority of pop music is produced with an eye to the bottom line. That's why it sucks.
Good music is written for the joy of it. Of course, if we want more good music, we have to let those with talent get paid for it, so that they can afford guitars and amps and minidisc recorders, and have more time for music and have to spend less time at day jobs. However, that doesn't mean that a state-enforced pay-per-copy scheme is practical, moral, or on sound legal footing.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Slight correction. It's Mrs. Rosen.
------
Not a typewriter
It's a damn shame that Congress didn't do something to protect the Pony Express from the unfair onslaught of the Telegraph.
The Pony Express had a huge investment in infrastructure and the jobs of many hard working common people were lost when the Telegraph came along.
We can only pray that they learn from their past mistakes and protect the poor RIAA (and MPAA and MS) from the modern day telegraph-like menace: the Internet.
And don't get me started on all those damn freelance truckers hauling loads anywhere they wanted that crippled our poor railroad monopolies.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Actually it wasn't Hatch that led the impeachment, especially considering that as a Senator he has no authority to initiate or lead an impeachment inquiry (you're confusing impeachment with conviction trial). Rather, Bob Barr of the Judiciary Committee and others launched the process (even before the Lewinsky scandal). Hatch is a consumate professional politican. Agree or disagree with his politics, please explain to me how he is supposed to gain the support of his constituents without being 'contemputous holier-than-thou?' Remember, Utah is a staunchly conservative state, possibly the most in the Union.
I especially like this little goodie: This is the sort of thing that might work in France or Britain, where working for the common good is a popular concept, but here in America we have a different set of ideals...
It makes me feel warm and tingly all over to know that I live in a country where the common good isn't popular.
Frogs are primitive animals - so the occasional extra toe is not that unusual. But this is very unusual.
The cover art she drew herself.
Next time, read the post before replying.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
You're absolutely right about that. Some people on Slashdot get hung up on the black and white of politics and forget that it doesn't always work that way. Just because a politician has views that you disagree with (i.e. Hatch is pro-life, and I'm not) doesn't mean that some shady corporation is paying him to have those views, any more than pro-choice politicians are the helpless pawns of the NOW. When or not you agree with him on everything, Hatch is a very honest man who does not compromise himself. You don't have to agree with a person to respect him.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
Well hey, if they can use legislation to get what they want...why the hell can't we?
Stevne V.
I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
OK, I just read the article.
No, you didn't. Or at least you weren't paying attention. Hatch is talking about instituting a compulsory license for on-line music that would exist alongside the copyright holder's other licensing options. The compulsory license is a long standing mechanism. How do you think that an artist gets permission to cover another's song, for instance? They can negotiate with the copyright holder, or just go ahead and do it, in which case they are subject to the terms of the compulsory license.
Hatch's idea is an interesting one; it wouldn't allow "free" music sharing, but rather would open the door for anybody to get in on distribution of copyrighted works. It would enable, as you say, people willingly to pay a reasonable price of their use of music.
Whether the record industry should continue to operate in their savagely atavistic thuggish manner is a different kettle of fish food, of course.
(jfb)
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
yr argument is ideological in nature. in a Free Society, this would be true; ergo this is what we should do. like most ideological, didactic arguments, it totally fails to notice relevant facts:
The United States government has no business telling a creator what they must do with their copyrighted work.
I agree with that, but if you drop the Libertarian dogma for a second, you might notice that the real restrictions of freedom in 2001 come from corporations, not government -- at least in the USA. The RIAA has no business telling me what I can or can't do with music I've paid for and bought. Once I've paid for it, it's mine.
Or don't you believe in property rights?
Unfortunately, the artists no longer have any rights in regards to their music. All works produced while under a contract with the record company become the work of the record company, forever. Unless they sell the rights.
I remember when CDs first came out and the record companies were saying how CDs would lower prices because it costs much less to physically produce CDs than cassettes. If this is true, why are all those music compilations I see on TV more expensive on CD? $$$$$
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
This is one of the best posts I've seen in a long time. Too bad we have the +5 cap.
sulli
RTFJ.
I just think it's a hoot that someone is calling anything Orrin Hatch does "left-wing". It amuses me to picture the Senator's reaction.
the result will be that there is no art/music at all,
Bollocks. Distribution and payment will surely change, and perhaps scale down, but the idea that there will be no more art or music is such obvious paranoid raving that I'm convinced this post was a troll...
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
Oh, and BTW, before someone says something about it:
My beef with Clinton had nothing to do with his affairs. That was between him and Hillary. My beef had to do with the perjury.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- Jeff
I appreciate your informative post. This is useful information that I did not know.
I wonder why he doesn't push for a repeal of the DMCA. I believe in strong copyright protection & still think the DMCA is bad.
--
-- SIGFPE
The error is not that corporations are big, or faceless, or under-regulated - hell, it's the opposite. It's that the government has the political option to perfectly constitutionally stomp all over your natural rights.
Politicians will always be able to be bought, or persuaded to stand as the figurehead for whatever mob has the current limelight. The constitution is there to limit how much mess they can make. Unfortunately the constitution was written before the theory of rational rights and their difference from spurious entitlements was fully worked out, hence there are holes in it you could fly a medium sized gas-giant planet through.
The proper derivation of rights is: rights are those minimal restrictions that turn unstable anarchy into stable freedom.
- You have the right to not be forced, or threatened, or defrauded, or stolen from.
- You have a right to enter into mutually binding contracts.
- You have the right to unequivocally own property, including yourself, and do with it as you will provided no-one else's rights are infringed.
- You have no other rights or entitlements, period. Anything else is either a corollary of the above, or spurious.
Rights always involve protection, by force if necessary. The sole proper function of government is to protect rights by acting as an arbiter of force. That means courts, police, army - or perhaps even only the rules bounding the proper behavior of the above. When the government does anything more than this ever, it must break rights to do so.In particular in this case, the government has set itself up as a provider of coercive monopolies - "intellectual property", a restriction on how you can use your real physical property. How? Because the constitution lets it.
And what about the corporations who're egging this on? They aren't capitalists. They're cronies. But in a system which allows cronies to rig the rules and turn the law into their enforcer, that's the only way to survive. If they'd taken a principled stand against monopolies, someone else would have patented their market out from under them.
In other words: when fighting crony capitalism, realize that the error is the "crony" not the "capitalism". Work to limit the lawmakers' rights-breaking, instead of letting them pass the buck to the businessfolk they exploit.
Sorry for any ambiguity.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
In the case of EULAs, companies should be able to mandate whatever they want? Or should there be government required restrictions what EULAs can require? (eg. consumers get compulsory EULA liscence sections).
--
And this system exists for a reason -- up until the 1960s, most pop music was not original compositions, but just reinterpretations of the same standard songs. People wanted to go to the local nightclub and hear their local crooner sing "Satin Doll"; people wanted to hear every member of the Rat Pack sing "I Get A Kick Out Of You".
So Congress instituted a standard royalty system. The benefit was that songwriters would actually get paid for their work and not just ripped off, and record companys didn't have to create original product for every record, and everyone was happy for about 50 years.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
IIRC, Italy has a compulsory licenses for recordings of live music. Any Italian bootleg you buy is technically legit, since for every sale they put a certain amount in a bank account for the musician. It doesn't matter if the label/band objects, since it's a compulsory license. The Italian government has said, essentially, "pay and you have a legal license".
The fun part is that bank account. The labels/bands can't take the money, since that would legitimize the bootleg! So there's a ton of money gaining interest in all these accounts. Wow.
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
And so are Patents.
Both are being abused. The record companies hold the copyrights of almost all their artists. Not only that, but they have SUCCESFULLY ammended their rights to allow them to keep the copyright, even after the artist dies. Thus, family members have nothing to call their own. No inheritence, no credit, nothing. Just another 'golden oldies/best of' cd to publish to squeeze some more $$ out of the masses.
Rader
Of course, you're still wrong.
Let's go over this. It's called compulsory licensing because the *copyright holder* (your friend, I assume) receives *compulsory* (also known as mandatory) payments.
So, let's go over this. Your friend's CD that she made, she releases. She makes all the money, but pays all the costs. Then somebody else decides to include her song on a pay website. Every time somebody downloads this song, she gets paid. No infrastructural costs. Just, in effect, a royalty.
What's she complaining about?
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
mod this guy up as infomative, unless someone else has a link to the history of what he's talking about.
Many artists (particularly those with actual artistic ambition) don't end up on MTV. MTV is simply a place to promote corporate-backed 'bands' to a clearly defined target market, not display musicians of artistic merit.
Which is fine, I suppose, but it'd be nice if real musicians could get paid well too without having to get lucky and sacrifice their artistic freedom.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- Jeff
copyright exists and is a Good Thing
Why? Stating a human concept as some kind of logic natural law always baffles me.
What if copyright, ownership of ideas and thoughts, were a Bad Thing?
How would the world be like then?
Bjare
No, buying a DVD copy does not entitle me to a VHS/laserdisc/etc. copy of the film
Well, actually, it does, there are laws protecting archival copies.
For some reason that continues to escape me, these rights are never mentioned in all of this copyright/encryption hooha.
Yes, that's right, HOOHA.
Anyway, this right is being trampled over left and right, but noone ever says a damn word about it.
The RIAA and others are scared of digital media.
It violates the laws of economics, of supply and
demand they're used to dealing with.
They can't artificially alter the supply of an
unlimited resource to jack up the price.
Some artists like Metallica fear the same thing.
If the RIAA gets trampled on digital music, and
we do the same thing next for the MPAA, I forsee
a great revival of live shows and theater.
A cultural reawakening, as artists actually have
to perform to get paid, not just to boost record
sales, where actors actually have to be able to
act, not just look pretty for the screen. Where
human interaction and a real connection with fans
is necessary for success, where musicians and
other performers are brought back down from the
level of stardom and inflated ego'd godhood to the
level of people like everyone else. What a
wonderful world it would be.
There's not much point in saying "information wants to be free." The hard-ass practical truth is that it's going to be. Copyright is going to be fundamentally changed and society will adjust, and move on. People will still make a living from their minds, and from their skills. It will just be damn hard to do something once and keep making a living off that forever. Not like working for a living is going to kill anyone.
You can disagree with me, but the fundamental effect of technology on copyright - once you realize what it takes to make protection shcemes really work - means there is only one choice, and that is complete and utter control of the citizenry. And you know what? It won't work. People just won't buy it.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
- are anti-abortion
- don't care about the environment
- are pissed about how high taxes are
- think everyone should be a conservative Christian
and other "traditionally Republican" viewpoints. Notice I'm using a lot of quoation marks - I'm trying to avoid stereotyping as best I can, but I doubt I'm doing a good job. I hope everyone can get the gist of what I'm saying.Don't get me wrong - I voted for Nader for all the reasons other people voted for him. But the truth is that the philosophies of the "older generation" of people in charge of our government and corporations are NOT dying out.
--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
There is no constitutional right to copyright. The constitution merely gives congress the ability to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". Personally, I'm not sure that the life of the author plus 70 years is a limited time.
Kind of a silly question, but how can an author retain the exclusive rights to his/her work 70 years after dying?
---
Check in...OK! Check out...OK!
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Almost time to celebrate my birthday with a good round of UT, and later, vigirous masturbating.
God fuckin' bless America.
Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
this is a naked pick of me!!!
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
If there's anything that evolving technologies and related analyses should be teaching you, it's that the notion of copyright is not a universal truth. It is instead an economic construct that is highly dependent on its technological and societal substrate for validity. Copyright's purpose is the betterment of life for the masses, and exactly how to go about that is guaranteed to change over time. The issues are rich, subtle, controversial... anything but "simple".
This is a country which has built itself up on the image of the man alone and unhampered, the cowboy, going out to stake his claim on territory and land.
Some of us didn't grow up wearing Lil' Cowboy Brand chaps and watching John Wayne movies. I even have a sensitive side! I regard "American" to be about striving for equality in an imperfect world, not about heroism.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Id like to see this applied to everything.
Say I wrote a book or a song, and decided I should
earn 10% of all sales; anyone should be able to publish it as long as they paid me my royalties, and Id have to give everyone the same deal.
The customer would benefit from the competition, inventors/creators would still become filthy rich and nobody would be able to hold back some new technology if it hurts their current business model.
Take the current compulsory license fee paid by radio stations, and calculate a "per estimated user" number (I think the fee already takes the station's estimated listeners into account). Use something in this general range as the "compulsory license download payment". Maybe bump it a little for digital vs. analog quality, or assuming that 3 or 4 people will "listen to" each download. Can anyone (except the RIAA) honestly say this would be unfair? I suspect this would exactly the sort of thing he has in mind.
Teen Angel - a Ghost Story
your link didnt crash me. plz die tnx
Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
WE complain about it here on /. all the time. That isn't getting it fixed though. Hatch's complaining isn't getting it fixed either. He needs to actually DO SOMETHING.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The US Government *does* have business telling creators what they must do with copyrighted works. That's *exactly* how it works. Copyright is a limited right granted by Congress under the Constitution.
It's scary how many people believe the misinformation spread by the music industry.
How dare you say such things about this respectable senator!
Don't confuse the issue of the ownership on the music, too: music belongs to the copyright owner. Those guys who WORKED FOR HIRE for the copyright owner agreed in their contract that they RELEASE ALL RIGHTS on the recording. Saying that music belongs to them - this is neglect of the contract law, this is pure COMMUNISM!
(sarcasm off)
What about the side-effect this would have on sampling, if it were to go through?
This would effectively establish a simple procedure for guaranteed rights to sample a song, with no regard to fair use one way or another. As long as you paid the fee, you're allowed to use the entire song or pieces thereof. Thus, you could legitimately sample it.
Of course, due to the wording of what Hatch said, this likely wouldn't apply to CDs, but imagine if it were extended... suddenly, sampling an artists song is good. The original artist is compensated, there're no worries about permissions or fair use, and new artists can receive inspiration from whence they will.
Preach on, Brother Hatch! Extend this, so that compulsory licensing could be applied to ALL forms of music. Imagine that... copyright limited to originator of work, and compulsory licensing for all. A truely free America.
Because, as someone else will/has no doubt pointed out - American Law != Worldwide Law.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
And I doubt that more legislation is the answer: it's what got us here in the first place. We don't need to make more laws, we need people to either sanely enforce or repeal the ones we already have.
An antitrust case against the RIAA/MPAA should be a slam dunk, right? So why hasn't one been raised? Do we really want more laws on the books for their lawyers to exploit or do we want to scrutinize their actions, past and present?
Copyrights have become neither, save an asset for megacorps. Until something's done about it (i'm not holding my breath) I'll be figuratively flippin' the bird with my Apex player's handy-dandy "loopholes".
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
So maybe he's bluffing. Maybe he has no intention of doing what he's saying. Maybe his only motive is to whip the music industry (or should I say content distribution industry?) into enough of a frenzy that they finally start allowing music to be downloaded over the Internet. And maybe he actually manages to get them to do it without having to muck around with legislation that shouldn't exist anyway.
Hooray! Or not.
Just because it's available in a digital format over the Internet doesn't mean that we're any better off than we are now. What if the record companies produce a digital licensing system that requires that the music only be distributed in an SDMI or (even worse) SAP protected format? What if BMG and the others gang up on Napster and say "We will only allow you to exist if you distribute content protected with digital copyright (read: content control) devices."
Great. Now I can download it. But I can't do anything with it but play it on my PC. I can't (necessarily) copy it or make a backup of it. I can't burn it to CD for use in my home stereo (or car). I can't make a re-mix of it or alter it in any way. I can't sample it.
The DMCA will still exist. Content distributors and their cohorts (read: Microsoft) will continue to develop technology and legislation to maximize profits by reducing "piracy" and eliminating users rights. And Linux won't help you in this case if Napster is distributing SAP-protected music.
And once broadband capability becomes more widespread, video will be the next to go.
Take it one step further: Because SAP won't exist for Linux and it will be illegal to create a SAP-compatible Linux player (remember DeCSS, anyone?), what consumers are going to be using Linux? By targetting the popular applications of PC's and the Internet and trying to create proprietary de facto standards to monopolize those markets, MS is effectively going to be able to wedge Linux out of a potentially large market.
And it's nothing that MS hasn't done before. Many times over.
Times are changing. Ms is gradually realizing what people have been saying since the Internet boom in the mid-1990's: content is king. MS is going through an idealogical shift right now. They are trying to re-mold their software into content rather than applications.
Content enjoys (generally) much greater protection than a software package that people can "buy". Most computer users still don't realize that they license software and buy copies of the installation media. So by shifting to a content/subscription model, they can break end-users of the annoying false notion that they actually own it just because they paid for it. And we all know that MS will make much more money from a subscription model anyway, so it's a double-win for them.
The MS anti-trust trial is too little too late. In the new MS model, the OS is just a point of authentication and a content display device, whether that content is audio, video, or an application. Sure, it's also a tidy revenue stream now, but in pales in comparison to what the future will bring.
Wow. Sorry, I didn't mean to turn this into an anti-Microsoft rant. But for the first time this afternoon it became clear to me what MS is doing before they were doing it. And it's tied to online media distribution, which is what we are talking about. It's all part of the same thing, and I don't think that it's a coincidence that we've been seeing a lot more about this topic in the past month than in previous months.
So in summary: we are heading down a very dark and dangerous path that is the erosion of our rights, and Orrin Hatch isn't doing as much to protect them as we think he is.
Strange comment, considering that Fair Use is a very communistic (or at least socialistic) concept.
Not that Russia ever followed communistic or even socialistic ideals with anything more than a lip serivce sincerity
But it IS legal for a 3rd party to sell you a box which will allow you to convert your DVD's to VHS yourself, without paying any money to the copyright owner.
--
"You mean someone can take my CD, that I paid out of my own money to have recorded at a studio, copy it and sell it for their own all over the web??? That isn't right!!!"
I guess it's good depending on who you talk to.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Remember, Utah is a staunchly conservative state, possibly the most in the Union.
This is probably why he is making the statements he is.
Record Companies == rock and roll == California == long-haired, godless hippies == "everything that's wrong with this country, and why aincha doin' sumtin about it".
While I happen to agree with him on this issue, I don't necessarily think this is a "pro-freedom" stand as much as it is an "anti-liberal record executives" stand.
On the other hand the enemy of my enemy may be my friend (for a while a least...)
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
You are confusing two seperate pieces of this issue. Hatch is opposed to Napster because it does facilitate copyright infringement. (It can be argued, and frequently is on slashdot, that the noninfringing uses of napster should be enough to keep it from being shut down) Let's be honest-- most napster users are using it to infringe on copyright. Hatch is a musician, and this bothers him, so he wants it shut down. Understandable. He is even more worried, however, that shutting it down will give rise to some form of infinitely scalable super-fast ultra-gnutella/freenet that will be anonymous, untraceable, decentralized, and unsueable. I imagine that scares him a bit, too.
On the other hand, you have the issue of the DMCA and online music publishing. Hatch helped write the DMCA, because in his (misguided, but understandable) view it would encourage the development of legitimate online music sales. Much to his surprise, the record companies took the DMCA and are using it to screw the heck out of everybody involved-- but STILL haven't gotten around to selling their music online. Which was his whole point: "we'll give you some additional copyright protections if it will help you move online more quickly". So now hatch is fighting for compulsory licensing to get the record companies in gear.
I'm all for it. Hatch may have been misguided in the beginning, but he is really starting to understand just how nasty the record companies are.
Compulsory licensing has plenty of precedent. The one that strikes me as most relevant is radio broadcasting. A radio station may play a record on the air without negotiating a royalty rate with the record company. They also pay a clearance fee, which allows the owners of the music to be paid at the fixed compulsory license rate.
Before 1943, radio stations were not copyright-licensed to play recorded songs! They played mainly live music; networks had orchestras, paid musicians to show up, etc. Those were the "radio days", before there were disk jockeys. The law was changed in 1942 and the musicians' union revolted. They refused to make records for over a year! Radio stations could play them but there was no new material.
The story tends to get publicized every Christamstime, because there was only one hit Christmas record released in 1943. Spike Jones recorded "All I Want For Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth" at a New Years' Eve party in 1942, minutes before the strike. Come late 1943, it was the only new record out there! Naturally, it was a hit. In 1944 they settled, and while the musicians lost some radio work, the record business prospered, and radio play became an important source of record sales. The world adapted.
Now what's music on the web? I think a case can be made that it is functionally a substitute for radio. I can turn on the radio, or I can select tunes off of a web site or Internet music service (like, say, Napster). As it stands, web radio stations are not granted compulsory license. But that is the sort of controversial call that Congress needs to look into. What is the correct balancing of interests?
And I point out that "compulsory license" is NOT a "big government" compulsion. As others have noted, Intellectual Property, and private property in general including real estate, are creations of government. As a society we agree to restrict our rights to do or take certain things for the common good. Government steps in to enforce those rights. Compulsory licensing is actually a smaller-government approach, because it tends to simplify or reduce the amount of contract enforcement (a key function of a government or, in societies that don't have a working government, a mafia) by the government. I doubt they have a lot of "intellectual property" rights in Somalia (a country not ruled by any government today).
PseudoCode Example:
AudioByte = &HA0:
Poke SoundcardAddress, AudioByte:
God, I love the internet.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
You're right, copyright is a Good Thing. But using copyrights to maintain a monopoly is a Bad Thing.
Last year Hatch threatened that they were in jeopardy of loosing their copyrights if they didn't work to promote a fair digital distribution option. Obviously they haven't even taken a step in that direction.
Congress has the responsibility of maintaing copyright code. That includes cumpulsory licences.
A compulsory license would encourage competition, and allow anyone to set up a MP3/OGG/??? distribution site so long as they pay the fee back to the owner of the copyrights. Right now the RIAA members do not want to do this because they want to keep all the profits themselves, they have a monopoly on the copyrights. Keep the copyrights there, but make the licenses compulsory and we'll have a quality, and inexpensive distribution network within a year. Record companies as we know them will eventually go by the wayside (The dinosaurs will die -NOFX).
Let the RIAA continue their monopoly, and within 3 years we may have a proprietary solution that circumvents our fair use rights. Which do you want?
Well, technically the record labels didn't create anything but the distribution media. This seems to call into question whether or not intelectual property can be sold (record companies buy the rights to the songs).
Since everything else is considered different/special because it's on the web, why not pass a law declaring that the recording industry must renegotiate with the artists (or the estates of artists) for the internet distribution rights of thier music. This would bring the musicians and creators of digital content back into the argument.
Maybe even Metalica would be happy if they could negotiate independently with MP3.com or Napster or even force the record companies to pay them more to do that negotiation for them.
If nothing else, maybe some of the artists that got totally screwed back in the 40's and 50's might finally get the money they deserve.
I vaguely remember that some bill passed (or nearly passed) that automatically assigned these rights to the record company without any compensation to the artist. Does anyone know the status of this?
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
Congress has as much right to limit the kinds of contracts is will enforce between musicians and record companies as congress has a right to refuse to enforce a contract by which someone sells themselves into slavery.
Not so. The FCC has mandated that cable operators must carry locally broadcast stations with audiences over a certain size. But the cable companies don't pay to do so; instead, the station benefits from higher paid advertising rates due to their increased audience size.
In fact, there was a recent FCC ruling regarding a station that was demanding that cable operators begin paying them to retransmit. The ruling said that any station that tried to charge a cable operator was no longer covered by the must carry rule.
It would stifle new music: copyright would be seen as an encumberance, not protection. Why would a music director for a movie or commercial license the work of $NEW_BAND when he could get the Beatles for free?
You mean that an artist would have to produce something new that was of substantial value compared to works more than 10 years old in order to make money ??
I don't think you can argue with a straight face that the Beatles would not have made plenty of money if this was in effect 40 years ago.
I don't think you can argue with a straight face that Michael Jackson's millions would be worthless if this were in effect.
In any case, with music, there are cultural waves. Music from the late 70s is becoming 'in vogue' now. Imaging if it were copyright free, and new music could be made that sampled old music ad nauseam, and made useful new music from it.
Making music, especially old music, free does not stifle innovation anymore than making free software stifles paying software.
It is a blatant corruption of our government to claim that music should have exlusive rights to the artists for an open undefined infinite length of time. Now that stifles innovation.
Furthermore, this is Congress potentially legislating over what a European should pay for a European song published by a European company, just because a US website decided to sell it.
NO! The European is deciding what he/she should pay for the European song published by the European company. He/She is doing so by deciding to purchasing the song from the US company. If the European company that published this European song decides to sell this song in the US, than it is bound by US laws governing said sales. If the European company doesn't like said laws, then it has every right not to sell it's products in the US.
I have lots of respect for the US government (on Friday nights at the end of a number of beers) but it can keep its grubby hands out of European (or other) pricing mechanisms, thank you very much; we can do without the guidance of those elected by individuals incapable of reading a ballot form...
Troll anyone?
Hehe I coded my newlines as "b" instead of "br". Oops.
True that.
It seems that with the DMCA, MS's new restrictions on media in Windows XP, and their desire to see OSS outlawed (I was actually going to say in a post sometime soon that if MS could have their way, they'd probably outlaw open source ASAP.. Looks like Jim Allchin has beaten me to the punch by implying that they would), the ability of the DMCA to be leveraged to completely eliminate Fair Use and circumvent the First Ammendment in order to favor corporations over consumers, and the FCC banning consumer use of technologies like HDTV other than for viewing purposes, that if things continue to go along this path, than this country just might fill the gap left in the Communist ideal when the USSR collapsed.
Except this time, it's for the sake of corporations rather than the government (but lately, the distinction has become less and less prevalent..)
I can see it now:
I pledge allegiance, to the very existence, of the Great Corporations Of America, and to the stockholders for which they stand, no tolerance, under Gates, uncircumventable, with invoices and subpeonas for all.
Don't even get me started on patents.
It seems that legislators are finally getting the right idea. The question is whether or not they will follow through and reform the current mess that is IP law.
Where do you live?
The main problem with the movement of the left is them trying to tell us we should believe things we cannot see with our own eyes.
Ah, unAmerican. The world's first one-word oxymoron. Why, in a land of supposedly free speech and thought, was a committee created to expunge all those that thought differently than an American should think? Why, in a land where anyone can supposedly succeed, do only the rich and famous have any sway? Why, in a land that is supposedly so markedly different than anywhere else in the world, do people get persecuted for being against the norm? And why, in a land where an artist can own any piece he or she creates, does an artist have no control over who markets his or her art?
Thank you, Mr. Troll, you have brightened my day.
Actually ownership of land was a werid idea to the Navtive Peoples of America. That is why that island in the Atlantic that most of New York City sits on was originally purchased for some beads and bells. The Natives didn't understand how people could own land.
I also don't understand what makes people think that fair use should be increasingly limited. All of this new technology should allow more fair use not less. Why is that idea so repulsive to some?
They can't take copyright laws from my cold dead fingers
Actually they can take copyright from your cold dead fingers. That is how the founders of this country insured property rights. They killed people and took their land. Or killed those who tried to take the land away from them. This is true for what ever country you are from. This has always been true. (America hasn't always felt as it does now about copyright.)
Taking things away from cold dead people is really easy. That is why real freedom has to be kept by the viligent few willing to fight (war or lawsuits) for their rights.
do you want other examples of "set prices"...ok, practically every utility for one...is this a good thing? ask the residents in CA about their power bills...better yet, ask the residents in GA about their gas bills if you want to see what happens when utilities are allowed to set "market" prices..no a pretty thing.
also, whether you want to admit it or not, the "creators" have had too good a time with copyright for way too long. The founding fathers had it right with a much shorter copyright time period...The current time frame is outrageous...even patents are over after 17 years..why not copyright? do you think all those movies, music, etc could of been created if say "Shakespeare" was still under copyright? so much in hollywood is nothing but a derivative of his work, of the Grim Fairy tales (see every Disney movie), etc...same with Mozart, Beethoven etc...
.. so you see, if the US can "grant" copyrights, then the US can also put limitations on the works..because when it comes down to it. It IS the Government who is responsible for enforcing copyright laws and making copyright laws..and if part of making those laws in mandatory licensing..saying, we [the government] will protect your works with our backing if you follow some rules we make, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that...NOTHING...
. I agree wholeheartedly about fair use though. I for one do not want to live in a pay per view world....hmm, does that mean that the record companies are opposed to it, but only in a "Brair Rabbit" sort of way? Do they actually want mandatory licensing?..but don't want people to know that...hmmm
None the less, my point was hatch is still not our friend in congress..given a viable alternative, im sure he would just as soon outlaw unauthorized music distribution on the internet.
-
That doesn't follow at all. If I create a gun, I don't have the right to fire it at my neighbor's house.
"But I was only refering to intellectual creations, to ideas!" you complain. Ok, yes, you have the right to do what you want with your ideas. The question is, do you have a right to prevent others from doing what they want once you express them?
You don't have any natural right to prevent me from copying, quoting, or modifying your work. You may have commerical rights, or other artificial legal rights, but they have no deep moral basis.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I know I run the risk of getting mod'd down here, but this has to be said. You people are all for LESS GOVERNMENT MORE FREEDOM except when it helps you. You want the goverment to tell people how to run their business?
I can't wait till I see the headline Senator Bygbawls has submitted a bill that would make it COMPULSORY for all software developers to submit their work to a board headed by Bill Gates to assure its free from virus or other harmful attacks and works properly with Windows.
You cry about too much involment and not enough freedom only when it serves you first.
Razzious Domini
Razzious Domini
I could be a GREAT KARMA WHORE if I could just shed the few morals I have left.
We should stop here and discuss not the jurisdictional ownership of said property (i.e., the fact that the record labels own the music, not the musicians), but the morality of the state of the business. We live in a world where "art" is swept into corners and under rugs based on how much money it will make. You're good at singing stupid pop songs? Here you go: multi-million dollar contract, we own your soul, plus anything you produce while working here. What? You think your "art" is something personal and you want to be able to control what happens to it? Fine, hope life in the indie-records section at the local music store treats you well.
The problem here is not that the general population wants good(?) music for free. The problem which should be flying around Congress is that the copyrights belong to the music industry and not the musicians. Every person who posts that "all you guys talk about freedom, but what you're really doing is stealing from the musicians... blah, blah, blah", all you're really doing is shoveling load of bullshit after load of bullshit so that the members of the RIAA can go on raping budding musicians for all the money they're worth, then dumping them at the side of the road. The only reason that music industry doesn't qualify for anti-trust inquiries is that it is fragmented into (more than) several companies, but since they all come together as the RIAA to get their dirty work done, isn't someone freakin' accountable for their actions? Just when the hell is an entire industry (which itself is just a middleman) going to get its due for screwing not only the consumers of the content but the producers of it as well?
I'm not naive, I see that as long as those filthy vultures have the highest price lobbyists and lawyers, they will get what they want, but music is too old of a human tradition to be controlled in this way. What, in 20 years if I buy a drum set and hit the snare a few times, I'll be sued because one time that beat was used in a song by an artist who at one time was employed by a record label that is part of the RIAA? A bit overboard, I know, but just where the hell is the logical conclusion to the RIAA controlling what we hear?
One last question to those that say Napster rapes musicians: If a musician, under contract from an RIAA label, wanted me (for whatever reason) to be able to have access to his/her music, say, over FTP or Napster, would he/she be sued by their own Record Label for distributing content that they created?
"What we elect to call imagination is mere combination of things not heretofore combined." - Frank Norris
I, respectfully, suggest that you are missing the point.
The artists have a product to sell. Currently the only viable means of distributing that product is to sign away all their rights to a monopoly called the RIAA.
This is not about getting around paying the artists or the RIAA, this is about allowing someone to license the music from the RIAA at a fee rate comparable to the radio industry. It is easier for a traditional radio station to license music because there is somthing called a compulsory license - which means that the RIAA HAS to license the music.
I am looking into setting up a legitimate Internet-based radio station, and would like to be able to license the songs I play without jumping through hoops and paying out the nose.
Not to mention the fact, that the RIAA is letting greed get in the way of good music. Do you ever wonder why radio is so - well - sucky? It's because of all the restrictions placed on licensees - all designed to maximize CD sales. If the RIAA really wants CD sales to take off, they should establish a uniform licensing standard and get the fsck out of the way.
"The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
I really doubt Van Gogh had problems with a bunch of leet kidz sending his work all over the world while he was trying to sell them. He didn't get rich because his paintings were not valuable until after his death. I think that it is the artists choice how to distribute their songs. If they prefer to give away mp3's more power to them, but if they want to sell them pressed into cd's then that is their right. I am also not saying that without copyrights we wouldn't have art, just alot less.
[sarcasm] I can't imagine *why* the record execs would be opposed to losing some of their copyrights. [/sarcasm]
In a way, I can see that it shouldn't make any differnece whether the music is on CD or on the net, the copyright should remain. However, making the ability to copy something different depending on the medium is another thing entirely. I have a hard time supporting encryption of online music without a similar treatment of music on physical media, the latter of which likely violates the Home Recording Act.
If you can't beat them, embrace and extend them.
Such tricks worked once, they'll try them again.
But now Joe consumer has a trick up his sleeve. He can make his own CDs, a.k.a. CDR. Perfect copies of the origional, not possible in the days of vinyl. So the old tricks will fail.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
Agreed. Although, if you think about it, most of the greatest music that has ever been written (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc, etc.) was produced either for public performance or for a specific patron. The concept of profiteering on the actual music (not just on a particular concert or through a paycheck from a patron) just wasn't an idea that existed back then. So maybe if we want to encourage art rather than commercialism we should find some way for the artist to be recompensed alternative to selling bottled up versions of their performance. The current system cheats both the artist and the consumer.
Napster Enabler of New Creative Platform Like Colorized Motion Pictures, Says Jeff Pulver, CEO pulver.com MELVILLE, N.Y.--(ENTERTAINMENT WIRE)--Feb. 15, 2001--``Napster does not violate copyrights to the extent the works it helps distribute are derivative works enabled by the PC as a new creative platform for musical works,'' said Jeff Pulver, CEO of pulver.com. ``Colorized movies encountered similar opposition as copyright infringement, as well as, an offense to aesthetic considerations. Questions of taste play no part in the copyright laws, and the opposition failed to overcome the fundamental tenet of the Copyright Act to encourage innovation. full story: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/010215/ny_pulver_.html
Whenever the subjects of music, copyright and the recording industry come up, you should take the time to review Steve Albini's essay The Problem with Music . Please, read this before defending the major labels.
There's a wealth of other IP and copyright info on the Negativland (1,2)web-site.
SeanUnfourtantley, Orrin Hatch is too honest of a man to be taken seriously by congress. He's one of the few (only?) congressmen I have respect for.
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
If you don't believe me, take a really good speaker system that can do fairly flat reproductions up to about 24KHz, and play a good analog source through it (like a 1" two-track reel-to-reel tape of a live string quartet performance). Then, put a filter on the line from the source that cuts out everything above 15KHz.
Unless you are nearly deaf from regularilly listening to Metallica at high volumes, you will hear the difference immediately.
Top-of-the-line CD players have gotten better at "faking it" through better interpolation and error correction math since CD's were first released in the 80's, so most of the critics who used to complain about the "sterile" digital sound and rave about vinyl have come around to realize that digital recordings can achieve very high standards... but a higher sampling rate would still be better. (And the whole hi-fi hobby is all about the never-ending effort to create a more-perfect illusion of the original performance.)
16-bit 44.1 was a compromise choice. They wanted a small disk to be able to reproduce 74 minutes of music with available storage technology. DVD Audio may be way more than you really need, but CD audio is slightly less than what picky listeners want.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
They have learned! The RIAA is moved by greed. Greed forces you to learn fast how to keep/make your money. They know that it is inevitable that music will be online but they want to delay it as much as possible. Why???? Because they will make more money in the process.
They are claiming that there is no way to guarantee, because they know that it will delay putting the music online, which, in their eyes, means more $$.
They know that online is the way of the future and there is no way out of it, they are just trying to delay it to get more $$.
IMHO, I believe that they would make more mony buy selling music online the same way internet access is sold. You have unlimited access for X $$ per month. I'd sign up in a second if it was $20 or under. But that is just my opinion.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
Congress, or more specifically Orrin Hatch, is pushing a 'pill' that the Music Industry will find hard to swallow. Likely in the hopes that they will get off their collective arses, and offer the services that people actually want.
Bravo!
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
The RIAA blames Napster for the reason that websites and the RIAA can't come to an agreement to sell music online because nobody can compete with a free service. I hate to break the news to anyone, but Napster is simply scratching a market itch that the RIAA outright refused to scratch themselves. Had the RIAA moved its ass years ago instead of holding on and assuming nothing would ever change, the rug was pulled out from under its feet. They wouldn't be having the legal battles right now had they just implemented their own online distribution methods to begin with.
Of course, piracy would have occurred anyways. It always has, and it always will. A small amount of piracy has to be tolerated to some degree if you're in this business. You may not like it, and for the most part, the law is on your side in this regard, but it probably doesn't result in the lost sales you might think it does.
However, if there was an industry endorsed online music distribution method BEFORE napster was dropped upon the world, Napster probaby would never have come to be. Or when it did, people would try it out on a few songs, see how slow it is compared to the RIAA's version, and end up just ignoring it.
But no, the RIAA wants to hold on to their old ways. Well, let them have their old ways then. They can wither into the dust for all I care. They obviously are not thinking in anyone's best interests, even their own. They deserve whatever they get.
-Restil
restil@alignment.net
Play with my webcams and lights here
The identical link is in the text that was submitted with this article (its behind the here at the end). The submitter followed the usual (though possibly misguided) Slashdot form of including separate links to the main page of a news site and to the article itself. Unfortunately, they spreads the links quite far apart.
--
And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.
Berke Breathed
Of course, there are plenty of 40+ year old people who:
are anti-life
tree huggers
thinks people should be punished for making money
thinks everyone should be hippie pagans
Be careful when you start spouting stereotypes.
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. - "Big Al" Einstein
Crap. I say something like this and then Napster comes out and says that they will put copyright protection on content traded through their service. The article I read even specifically mentions not being able to burn it to CD.
m l? tag=st.cn.1.lthd
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4850572.ht
I gotta quit my day job and become a prophet...
I hope everyone realizes that intellectual property only exists because of government. Without government, there would be no intellectual property. I also hope everyone realizes that over the last few decades, the length of time sometime remains protected by copyright has been expanded multiple times, and is now 75 years after the death of the creator of the copyrighted work. Essentially, Disney and other content providers don't want Mickey Mouse et al to fall into the public domain. But falling into the public domain is the entire point of copyright law! The reason that intellectual property exists is so it can eventually be made available to the general public. But the large corporations, using the power of government, keep changing those rules to benefit themselves. If they had left those laws at 20 years post death, I wouldn't have an issue. As it is, the companies are using government to artificially extend their monopolies. Oh, and by the way, if you feel (and I imagine that many Objectivists might) that copyright laws should be absolute (i.e they exist, permanently and forever), think about this: a) every time you whistle a tune, you are stealing from the musician and the writer. b) every time you listen to music in your head, you are stealing from the musician and the writer. c) every time you sing "twinkle twinkle little star", or "ABC", you owe Mozart's estate whatever license fee they wish to charge. d) Quoting from Atlas Shrugged in your .sig is theft with a license from Ayn's estate.
e) Song samples are illegal w/out a license from the original owner
f) Parody is illegal w/out a license from the original owner
The list goes on. Intellectual property is not like normal property - it is an aberration, created by government and, ultimately, abused by government. It gave Ayn Rand a living, but it is ultimately a tool of the looters.
"The fees would be set by either Congress or the U.S. Copyright Office"
And the chance of this being less than $3 a song?
Uh... Oh.. Guess that didn't happen. They actually kept on producing art.
And there's thousands upon thousands of stories like that. Only a small minority of artists get rich. And only an even smaller minority of those both get rich and remembered over time as great artists (as opposed to good business people that managed to milk a fad).
In a free society, compulsion should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances.
I agree. But the way I see it, the RIAA at the moment is COMPELLING music retailers to only use RIAA-approved formats for music distribution. Why do they get to do that? Retailers should be free to sell to people a format they desire! From the article, here's what they're trying to do and why the record industry opposes it:
Under a compulsory license, a Web site would have to make a royalty payment to the music labels for each song or album sold. The fees would be set by either Congress or the U.S. Copyright Office.
Entertainment industry executives are vehemently opposed to such a license, saying the government should not have role in setting the prices paid for music.
Reading between the lines, it seems clear that the RIAA would rather reserve the right to gouge people however they want for online distribution, kind of like they used to fix retail prices in stores. The government intervention here would (presumably) set a realistic fee for internet distribution. The money itself would of course still go to the artists. Okay, who am I fooling, it would go to Sony and BMG executives. But that's nothing new.
Also:
copyright exists and is a Good Thing. People should have blanket copyright protection over their creations.
Okay, why exactly? This is a relatively new interpretation of copyright protection, which was originally intended to protect an author's ability to profit from his books for a few years after publication. Now, it's this gargantuan thing that enables Disney Inc. to profit from the Mickey logo decades after Walt Disney died - hardly a protection of the creator.
Copyright was never intended as a "blanket protection." Non-authors still had a lot of rights with the material. This isn't about protecting the rights of artists, this is about the RIAA trying to lock out an entire medium that they - gasp! - might not be able to monopolize. I hope the government goes forward with all reasonable speed.
This is how it works:
1. Politician looks for an entity that has money.
2. Politician proposes legislation to control, tax, or otherwise put the squeeze on said entity.
3. Entity gets scared and begins to lobby congress and provide kickback to politician.
4. When politicians pockets are sufficiently lined, legislation goes away.
Wash, rinse, repeat
Right. The concept has been used before. Radio stations pay groups such as BMI and ASCAP a percentage of their profits to gain the right to play music on the air. On a related note, someone needs to address the issue of the inequality between radio broadcasters and streaming audio providers. Anyne streaming audio over the Net is going to not only have to pay the above fees, but they will also have to pay the RIAA a licensing fee. The NAB is suing to exempt radio broadcasters who also happen to offer Internet streams, but that isn't going to help anyone who doesn't own a traditional radio station. Yet another little gift brought to you by the DMCA.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
Hah. RIAA says Napster doesn't "have the technology." What a laugh.
If that's their best defense, let them climb further out on the limb. No need to even saw it off for them.
The stated purpose of copyright is to promote progress in the arts. Comparing the industry-crafted dreck at the top of the charts to what I hear talented creative people playing for nearly free, it's clearly failing in that goal.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
all your base are belong to us.
I agree that what really needs to be tackled first is the way the record companies own the music. Right now the industry is set up in a way that it is hard for anyone but the most well-known bands to make any money off sales of recordings. The standard kind of contract in the industry specifies that the artist will carry all recording and production costs, so that these are subtracted from any profits going to the artists. Only if these costs are met, do the artists start getting fairly miniscule cuts from sales. Add to this that the record companies retain the rights to the music and you have a very poorly structured industry, in which the vast majority of the poeople doing the creative work make almost nothing for their efforts. These types of problems, which are more pressing, should be addressed first, before forcing record companies into online distribution.
Imagine if the book publishing industry worked this way! You'd have so many fewer books published if authors were forced to pay for the book production costs before getting any share of the profits. And authors can sometimes get fairly decent percentages (20%) on hard covers, which I believe is a lot better than musicians usually get on recordings.
I'm really fed up with the talk about the rights of the record companies being damaged.
Finally somebody is coming out with an idea that goes into the right direction. After all, intellectual property rights are some kind of artificial monopoly granted to the inventor. From the view of society, there should also be an obligation connected with it.
In my opinion, anybody who claims the rights to some intellectual proporty should be obliged to make his work accessible by the public. For example, music that is out of print should be allowed to be copied freely. Also, it should be no problem to swap abandoned video and computer games over the internet. It does not really hurt the copyright owners, if his work is copied, when he does not sell it himself.
While I don't like the administrative overhead implied by compulsory licenses, at least somebody starts to think about the responsibilities of rights owners.
Peter
Absolutely... but neither should greedy corporations like the RIAA. Prices should be between the artist and the consumer. But personally, I think the government actually encouraging online music distribution is definitely a good thing.
Just my two cents.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
I think that part of Hatch's motivation may come from what you're talking about, but I don't think he's quite as interested in completely regulating it as you might think.
The other part of his motivation is that he fancies himself a lyricist, and has sortof fallen in with the independent artist crowd. His level of privilege/celebrity in society probably gives him a distorted view of what it's like to make it in the world as an artist on your merits, but I think in some ways he's honestly trying.
I think he's misguided in some ways, but probably honestly trying.
You may want to read some of my comments on his DCMA and Peer-To-Peer hearing.
--
Tweet, tweet.
I'm not saying it doesn't entitle me to make my own, I'm just saying that the same person who sold me my DVD copy isn't compelled to provide me with any other copies.
Make 'em for my own use? Damned right I can.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
If anything can be said about republicans its that they can smell money a mile away. I bet Hatch and his fellow GOPers are actually aghast that no one is making any money selling music online more so than the fact that consumers might be getting shafted.
Is that fair to the artists who conceived the album, wrote the songs, performed the songs, etc??? I think not.
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
Hilary Rosen, president of the Recording Industry Association of America, said more deals could be reached between music labels and Web sites if both parties did not currently have to compete with the free service offered by Napster.
Ok, so Napster is preventing agreements between the labels and web sites so they can distribute music...yet Napster is the most popular way to distributed music right now. These people need to realize that free P2P services are always going to be the most popular, and to embrace them. If not Napster, then some other killer app will take its place.
I mean that $NEW_ARTIST has to produce a work that has an extra hurdle to jump, that of the encumberance of royalties.
Marketdroids looking to flog a product to the 14-25 age group probably won't think twice about paying royalties and fees for a work that's under the ten-year mark. It's the cost of doing business and it's billed to the client with a 15% markup anyway.
But I'm referring to other points on the mediasphere, like Scorcese using Layla in Goodfellas or Microsoft using the Rolling Stones' Start Me Up to flog Windows 95, for which they paid millions. If the songs that resonate with the 34-55 age group are suddenly available for royalty-free exploitation by ad agencies, filmmakers, and record companies, this will drive newer music back to the fringes.
Why give the record companies a free lunch?
Remember that shelf space in a record store and advertising slots on broadcast media are both zero-sum games. Cheaper, older reissues will marginalize newer product.
I would take the counter-argument that Paul McCartney is really worth $350,000,000. And not $3,000,000. And that Lennon was worth at least twice that.
Were it not for royalties, James Brown would be in jail right now.
Free James Brown so he can run me down!
k.
--
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people
are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
I'm thinking that as a hardcore Utah Mormon anti-1st Amendment conservative, Hatch salivates over the prospect of screwing the bejeezus out of the record companies that pollute the young white minds of the young white youth of Utah. Otherwise, I can't for the life of me figure out what possible interest Hatch could have in this issue, one way or another.
Senator Hatch is also a recorded musical artist. Not that you are apt to hear his music often, but you can buy albums of his music. I feel certain this influences his ideas of copyright and intellectual property.
-- I Am Not A Terrorist.
Remember, Orrin Hatch is the musician's friend. I know this sounds crazy, but he is one of the few senators to stand up to this industry. Courtney Love even respects his views on the industry. When Sonny Bono died, musicians lost a friend in Congress. check out http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/ index.html
Love's Words"Orrin Hatch, songwriter and Republican senator from Utah, seems to be the only person in Washington with a progressive view of copyright law"
"It's technical in a psychometric kind a way" -- C. Parish
Any kind of governamental license would be so bogged down in lesiglation that it would likely be years before it goes into effect. Corporate lobbies would delay the vote and argue incessantly over the details of who would get what share of this government-mandated pie.
And well they should, because it is dangerous for the government to be sticking its fingers into such a large pie--it is important to make sure the free trade isn't stifled. (as ironic as that may seem due to current CD price fixing)
That being said though I think it is a clever threat to the industry to get its act together and move into the current millenium. It's somewhat refreshing to see Congress taking such a strong stance toward insuring the prevelance of digital media (DTV, digital music, etc).
Here's the federal law on the subject: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/copyright.act .chapt1b.html#17usc111(c)
(1) Subject to the provisions of clauses (2), (3), and (4) of this subsection, secondary transmissions to the public by a cable
system of a primary transmission made by a broadcast station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission or by an
appropriate governmental authority of Canada or Mexico and embodying a performance or display of a work shall be subject to
compulsory licensing upon compliance with the requirements of subsection (d) where the carriage of the signals comprising the
secondary transmission is permissible under the rules, regulations, or authorizations of the Federal Communications Commission.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Bottom line: copyright exists and is a Good Thing. People should have blanket copyright protection over their creations. The United States government has no business telling a creator what they must do with their copyrighted work. To resolve the current problems with the music industry, the government should concentrate on enforcing the doctrines of first sale and fair use, and destroying the concept of "licensing" material to unaware buyers.
"If I create something, as the creator I have the right to do what I like with it"
This is simply not true in the sense you mean it.
Copyright law doesn't give you unlimited power of distribution over your works, it is a limited license that gives not only you, but the consumer a specific set of rights as well (i.e. fair use being one of those rights).
That's what's wrong with DMCA; its essentially an end run around copyright law by giving license owners complete control over their work.
Understand that as a license owner, you are free to encrypt and put whatever restrictions you want on your work, but don't ask the government, an instrument of the people, to enforce your restrictions.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
These boomers were raised to believe that their opinions and feelings were more important than anyone elses, and society would have to bend to their will, rather than them bending to the will of society.
Reminds me of a quote.... "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
"and dear god does this website suck now." -- CmdrTaco
Ok,
I for one appreciate the irony of the RIAA being threatened with compulsary liscensing, but it's a bit misguided.
Fundamentally the rights of copyright holders must be considered sacred by both the Citizens and the Government.
Sure we all want free music, but are we willing to pay the price of a complete breakdown of the intellectual property system in this country.
Consider this - the GPL is founded on intellectual property law.
Let's take another example - the pharmecutical industry. They too are threatened with compulsory licensing, and like the content industry, we must never allow it to happen. The gain of decreasing the price on some drugs does not match the price of no longer developing new treatments. Similarly, the gain of cheap music and movies does not make up for the destruction of an industry that employs 10's of thousands.
Do we really want to destroy all of this over mp3s?
I hate the MPAA and RIAA as much as the rest of you, but this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
--Kara
--Kara
Before you ask, I already have a boyfriend and he's more of a man than you'll ever be.
Then either you or your frend is an idiot, or was informed by one.
What this law would do would be to require your frend to let online stores to buy from her (at a government set price), then resell her music.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
"and dear god does this website suck now." -- CmdrTaco
time, at least until the current RIAA executives die off or retire.
/.'ers are familiar with, Dr. Benjamin Spock, noted pediatrician and author of "How to spoil your child."). These boomers were raised to believe that their opinions and feelings were more important than anyone elses, and society would have to bend to their will, rather than them bending to the will of society. If this reminds you of certain unpleasant characterizations of USia, well, think who the most influential age group of USIans are, yes, that's right, boomers.
Why? They're jealous, they're aging baby boomers who are jealous of the gen x and y hackers who've created online music.
These RIAA execs are mostly of the baby boomer generation, and I would be hard pressed to find a more spoiled and egocentric generation (though the Atlantic said that the generation at the start of the century was close, though this article was about 10 years ago, and may not be online). They grew up with every material desire fulfilled, and with no impulse thwarted, thanks to one Dr. Spock (not the Star Trek character that most
Back on track, boomers feel that they invented rock and roll and popular music. Ignoring the fallacy of that popular conceit (a little Caruso anyone, Sinatra even), since Boomers feel they invented the popular music industry, they feel that they should have sole control over it. And sole control over it they did have, up until a few years ago.
Now, some punk gen x and y kids code up Napster and a few rippers and players, and all of a sudden, these Baby Boomers RIAA execs are rendered superflous. Not only are they aging, graying, balding and unable to have sex without Viagra, these young whippersnappers who have hair, muscles and instant erections (well, I'm speaking for myself here) have pulled the music rug out from underneath them and made them obsolete!
It's now a pride thing, they won't back down, ever, even though their industy has been dealt a fatal death blow. Good Luck Representative Hatch, you will need it!
Here's the FCC must carry regulation. Note section 76.64, Retransmission Consent:
and also Sec 76.60 Compensation for Carriage:
The FCC is worried about cable operators demanding money to carry broadcast signals, not vice versa.I failed to find a reference to the FCC decision regarding a station's right to either elect coverage under must carry or receive compensation, but not both, but I did find this interesting tidbit in a VIACOM SEC filing
Hatch is the author of the DMCA. Although the provisions that are killing "fair use" in court (i.e. DeCSS) were basically added by lobbyists, he's done nothing to ammend it.
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
I don't understand. Is it sarcasm? Now creator has no control over his work. The company has the control. And in fact most of the artists are slaves of big companies.
They'll be able to make sure you cannot copy a CD when they start pushing DVD-Audio. DVD-Audio will be copy-protected, leading to the same issues as DVD. Since DeCSS is illegal (sorry to say), the same will apply to attempts to copy from DVD Audio.
DVD Audio give you more bits/sample, which is useless since the current system already gives 110 S/N ratio (or so). It also gives you 192KHz, good for sampling signals of 96KHz. However, the fact is that humans cannot hear over 15KHz or so. In other words, DVD-Audio gives you nothing.
So, why would people buy it? When CDs weren't exactly flying off the shelf (over 30 bucks a pop), the recording industries stopped accepting returns on vinyl. This meant that stores couldn't afford to stock as much vinyl, so people started buying more CDs since that's what was available. Such tricks worked once, they'll try them again.
When music is mostly distributed in DVD, copy protection will be a reality. In conjunction with the fact that current and future devices will not have digital outputs, just archiving collections will become illegal.
The same will likely happen to books when the e-book finally gets off the ground.
Now, I don't follow the actions of individual senators that closely, so take this with a grain of salt.
Orrin Hatch seems like a fairly decent guy. I don't agree with everything he does, and you probably don't either. But he seems to make an honest effort at really learning about the issues. He may make a mistake the first time out, but he seems to learn his lesson and do better on that issue the second time it comes up. Normally Republicans are depicted as "corporatist", but now it seems he realizes their power has gone too far.
I don't know if I necessarily agree with this either, but hey, I didn't read the article yet. We'll see how close the /. summary is.
Constitutionally Correct
You are right, The artists on cribs aren't hurting for money. They are the exception though. I don't fault those cribs artists either. They are smart enough to make a product that the general public buys.
OTOH, the typical artist, like the ones I see every weekend at bars and such usually have day jobs, and are cutting their own cd's. IMO some of these bands are good, but they will never get any better because they don't have to time to spend towards their music. Problems then would be what/who constitutes art/artist and how to fund music in a way that people's taste are extracted from the decision process.
I think the the way mp3's have been traded in the past, first on sites, then on napster, will have turned off anyone to actually paying for downloaded music. I would however like to see record companies lose some copyright priveleges simply for being such asses about napster; they took what could have potentially have been the best market tracking tool for music they could ever ask for and forced it to shutdown rather than trying to reach some sort of agreement that benefited themselves, napster, and all of us.
Eric
--
Be who you are...and be it in style!
It strikes me as outrageous that these thoughts are even being aired in American society.
Yes. I agree. Perhaps we should report them all for thoughtcrime. Or maybe the House UnAmerican Activities committee would have something to say about this. After all, the only thoughts we're allowed to have in this country are thoughts of freedom, right?
Sarcasm aside, wanker, thoughts like this *must* be aired. For if they are not, there is a chance that all sides of the issue won't be seen, and *that* would suck the most. After all, the only way to truly grok a situation is to see all sides of it, including sides that might be unpopular or politically dangerous. Maybe, out of this, a fair solution can be found. My gut feeling is 'no', but, still, I can hope.
-- Count Spatula: The Culinary Vampire "...because my cooking sucks."
Yeah, that's definitely the way it *ought* to be. The problem is that musicians freely sign their rights over to the recording companies in exchange for funds to record, distribution, and promotion. Actually, what often happens is that the recording companies find some mediocre band, offer to prop them up with big-time advertising and promotion, all in exchange for a sizable cut of the profits. These bands are hardly in any position to resist because even the small cut they get is usually a fair chunk of change.
Compulsory licensing is a great idea. Here are some others: 1. An "alternative minimum royalty" of 10% of gross sales, with no deductions. Call it the "Artists' Minimum Wage." Remember, this is all about protecting artists -- just ask the MPAA. 2. A Justice Department investigation into record industry price-fixing and other antitrust violations. 3. A "loser pays" provision in which defendants in infringement cases can present to the jury an argument that the case was brought in bad faith, in which case the plaintiff loses and must pay the defendant's legal fees.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
> Music from the late 70s is becoming 'in vogue' now.
Heh heh heh. We certainly thought it sucked back then.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I bet you the RIAA and its companies take napster to the point of extinction, then invest in it and make it their puppet. Well, this story seems to indicate that the RIAA want to take Napster well into extinction and then dance on the grave.
I gather Hatch is annoyed about them using him to push the DMCA which they immediately subverted and started abusing to preserve their distribution monopolies. I gather he's going this far to the extreme so that the reasonable compromise, when it's suggested, will be acceptable to everyone.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
One question. **WHY???***
On the other hand, it is a profound political statement on behalf of "the other view" of copyright; that information wants to be free, and all that.
I hereby nominate Orrin Hatch as /. Stud of the Week.
I don't think compulsory licensing is the answer either: I think it will be used to pay off the record companies only, and they don't need more money and more unavoidable consumer taxes going directly to them. However, I gotta give the pols credit for at least trying! At least it would break the back of the CD cartel, which is maintaining prices at as much as three times the actual value of the product by ruthlessly controlling the entire chain of distribution from top to bottom, and will literally tell pressing plants not to do business with potential competition (for instance, Negativland).
So compulsory licensing might not do _me_ as a musician any good, but it might at least do consumers some good.
I would support a "use it or lose it" copyright, except it favors big publishing houses (A small publisher may not to be able to afford to publish everything they hold copyright to). A fix for this problem is a system where the copyright holder was given royalties from an "unavailable elsewhere" download service, but could make higher royalties if they published it themselves (which would remove it from the download service). They could also make lower royalties, if they so wished (ie free software "publishes" by making stuff freely available). Most importantly, we are promoting "progress of science and the useful arts" by ensuring that authors get compensated, and also ensuring that nothing ever goes out of print.
Of course, there are loopholes. A company could set the price for an online version of their product to be astronomically high, to "compensate for the piracy that is sure to ensue," but it's a start.
___
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
Bottom line: copyright exists and is a Good Thing. People should have blanket copyright protection over their creations.
,or turned back, for their private benefit. "
I fail to see any basis for this claim. Copyright is an arbitrary collection of rights. It is not property in the same sense that the radio sitting on my desk is property. Physical objects happen to have a very easy to understand and economically efficient bundle of rights we can call ownership (the right to use it isn't separate from the right to sell it). Other stuff is more complicated. We would have problems with such a simple notion of ownership for land -- instead we have all sorts of exceptions, like easements.
With copyright, once something has been produced, it's economically inefficient to allow copyright protection on it. Until it's been produced, it's economically inefficient to not allow copyright protection. Copyright is a gift granted by the government, and what the government gives, the government can take away. It's perfectly legitimate to say, "we'll provide the force to give you exclusive rights to your creative work, but in return, you have to be reasonable about how you license it. otherwise, we'll refuse to enforce this against people who are you are being unreasonable with."
There is no compulsion from this. You are not compelled to do anything. Without government, there would be no copyright (as opposed to real ownership like "this is my radio, and I'll shoot you if you disagree") just because it's impossible to enforce. It's also perfectly legitimate to say you can't use technical means to prevent copying and still get copyright protection (makes "for a limited time" difficult to do).
So, obligatory Heinlein quote:
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped
I also have a bit of a problem understanding how this sort of thing is good. The RIAA (as much as I dislike them) is a business and they can sell music however they like. We, as consumers, don't have to buy it. The RIAA is just about a monopoly though, so it's a bit tough to figure out where to land on this issue. Still, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think the artists own their music once they sign with a record label, and as such don't get to choose how their music is sold. If the artist retains control of their music, I agree with you. If the record company gets to choose how it's distributed it becomes a grey area (IMO). Maybe Congress should be looking at a way to allow artists to keep the rights to their music instead?
Khyron
My God! That's _hundreds_ of times what major label artists make! If you haven't really done your homework you wouldn't _believe_ how many deductions there are, and how twisted the reckoning is.
How about this as an alternate proposal? An alternative minimum royalty of ONE PERCENT...
Let's not even get into cross-collateralization, also known as 'your earnings have to recoup the expenses of _all_ _your_ _records_ before you see a f**king penny'... I bet a lot of you think I am making all this up. I wish I were. Sounds crazy, doesn't it? The numbers were not made up- they're straight out of Donald S. Passman's book, "All You Need To Know About The Music Business". Passman is a music business _lawyer_ and the back sleeve has praise and recommendations from Mo Ostin, Randy Newman, Michael Eisner, David Geffen, Don Henley, Quincy Jones and Tom Waits... after that royalty mess he comments on how no label will give up the number of percentages taken away because artists like to royalty-drop- "oh I'm getting a 16% royalty!" (16% of 90% of 65% of 85% of 80% of 75%- do the math, I get _really 4.7736%, which the artist will never see unless they recoup all recording and tour costs _first_ _out_ of that four point seven percent)
The vast majority of _signed_ _major_ _label_ artists would be making lots more money on 1% of gross. What they get is more like 0% unless they not only recoup but land a '16%!!' royalty, in which case they're really getting 4%. Interesting, no?
When will the RIAA and the "content industry" as a whole learn that there is fundamentally NO technology that will completely protect the "interests" (as defined by the RIAA) of the copyright owners (not to be confused with the artists themselves). Once a digital copy is released, that copy can be perfectly reproduced infinitely many times and distributed. Even keyed systems will fail once keys are compromised. Even encrypted to the speakers/monitors won't completely stop distribution. Eventually there has to be a point of playback that is open for capture and somebody will come out with a technology that will capture it with minimal loss. Even Chinese movie captures from a big screen to a video camera that are posted to USENET are getting better because of better camera technology.
This is a war of escalation that the software industry has also been waging since the 1970's and if you look hard enough you can still get a crack for about any piece of software. What makes the RIAA think that they can do in a few years what the software industry's 30 years of development still has not accomplished?
Simply put, people will pay reasonable prices for reasonable products. I actually pay for software that I use, I actually pay for music I listen to. What I don't like paying for is software and music that sucks -- and usually I only find out it sucks after I pay for it.
Personal note to Hillary Rosen, what kind of business sense does it make to through a bomb in the middle of 50 million of your customers???
Personal note to Orrin Hatch, time to start writting that legislation, if the RIAA won't do what the market demands then compulsary licensing will make you a lot more popular to 50 million people.
"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."
Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
The simple fact is that copyright establishes ownership. It allows the artist to establish control over his work.
According to the US Constitution, this is the purpose of copyright
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
The artist is allowed to have limited time exclusive rights to the writings that are copyrighted. The purpose is promoting useful arts for the citizens. The purpose is not allowing the artist to get rich off his writings - that is a necessary part of the promotion of the copyrighted material.
One may very well question how American it is to push the copyright protection so that it never expires just so that Walt Disney cartoons are protected. Limited time is certainly not infinite, and may be redefined by Congress whenever they see fit, as long as the goal is promotion of the useful arts.
Here is a proposal. Make music protected for 10 years. No online music except as authorized by the artists unless it is more than 10 years old. Then, the sky is the limit.
In any case, it doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to read the above statement from the US Constitution and see that Orrin Hatch's proposal is unconstitutional, since it deprives the artist of exclusive rights.
Maybe you just outlaw certian open source items that are bad. For instance Linux. But you allow other open source items that are good such as Apache, because it allows Windows NT to run a decent web server.
After all, it is all the evil Linux crowd that is hurting profits and undermining corporate well being. Not the Apache crowd.
Okay, I know this sounds absurd. But hey, I am old enough to remember when the CDA passed. I got a lot less niave on that day. I had been watching it for at least a couple years as it wound it's way through the system. And CALEA I had been watching for years, way back even in 1992. And now the DMCA. So I don't believe that what I say couldn't happen. Obviously, with the CDA, DMCA and CALEA, somebody had their own goals to achieve, and the ability to influence the people with the power to do it. Nevermind the common people or anything else.
So maybe not how? But just could open source be outlawed? If you think not, I think you are niave.
What is the saying about no man, nor his property are safe while Congress is in session.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
The simple fact is that copyright establishes ownership. It allows the artist to establish control over his work.
Actually I thought that line was pretty interesting. Mr. Rosen said something interesting:
"They simply don't have the technology available for an authorized agreement" that would protect the interests of copyright owners, Rosen said.
What isn't said here is that the Record Label is the copyright owner is the Record label not the Artist (that the line was supposed to make you think). In reality, he said he wants to keep his cash flow safe, and could care less if the Artists ever get a cent.
Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
I read the internet for the articles.
Online music distribution either free a-la napster et-al, or paid service of some sort is the future of music and they (the music industry) has been dragging it's feat waiting for *perfect* copy protection. Just charge a resonable price, allow previews, skip the copy protection and more than enough people will buy to keep you in buisness.
So you like the all the *manufactured* artists out there like the Backstreet Boys, Spice Girls, et-al? Go to MP3.com and you will find tons of artists as talented or more talented than those signed by the record labels.The ones signed by the record labels are neither the best or the brightest in their field, they are just the lucky ones to get picked by the lottery.
Many good artists produce art just for the sake of it. Shakespere, Mozart, Bach, etc. produced their art before copyright was granted by any governmet, but it was still produced none the less. Their art was frenquently stolen by theatres in the next town, but still they produced.
Great artists are driven to produce even if there is no profit in it. The best that copyright can do is provide some income so that the artists are able to focus more on what they love. Though in the modern copyright buisness the artist usually get's screwed anyways
Actually if copyright ceased to exist, it would get rid of alot of the profit motive pushing *uncontrovercial* music. You don't hear protest music, experimental music, or totally wacky music because that's not profitable. The current situation encourages lack of diversity.
Funny, I can get CDs in lots of 5000 with jewel cases, fold-outs, etc for about $4000. So where does the $13 of $14-15 go when I buy a CD from best buy? I hope you don't seriously think any sigificant portion is going to the artist!I support copyright, but it is a government granted monopoly. So, as they say, the government granteth, and the government can taketh away. The music industry has foreced it onthemselves, Hatch a year ago was making sounds that if an agreenment between online sources and record industry that of "licencing" may be required, and the record industry being greedy did not listen.
- subsolar
Yes, I agree that the artist created the music and should be able to control it. BUT, is it unreasonable to think that if he/she/they desire to publish the music, then aren't they putting it in the public domain so that it can be bought by anyone (isn't that the idea of publishing)? Should copyright enable control of the sale of the intellectual property in any form, even unaltered? Discuss amoungst yourselves.
Well, technically the record labels didn't create anything but the distribution media. This seems to call into question whether or not intelectual property can be sold (record companies buy the rights to the songs). Orrin Hatch seems to think not, or as was said in another comment, perhaps he's just showing them something they'd dislike even more so they'll stop whining.
"// this is the most hacked, evil, bastardized thing I've ever seen. kjb"
Right, but the copyright issues that 76.60 mention are what the section I pointed to is all about (there's more there than just the tiny section I quoted). Overall, tho, you know more about this than I do, and we're generally in agreement.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Check out JWZ's explanation of all this (which was linked to from Slashdot awhile ago):
When reading about this stuff, you'll come across two terms, ``compulsory license'' (also known as a ``statutory license'') and ``voluntary license'' (also known as a ``negotiated license''.) A compulsory license is one where the license fee is fixed: you pay the fee, you get the license, no muss, no fuss. The reason it's called ``compulsory'' is that the licensor has no choice but to grant you the license if you pay the fee. A voluntary license is one where you negotiate the terms of the license on a case by case basis, and they don't have to grant you the license at all if they don't feel like it. So generally, ``compulsory licenses'' are much easier to deal with.
A "compulsory" license would simply remove the record labels' ability to use their copyright power to control distribution (by not licensing to companies with alternative distribution methods). This is their big fear, since their monopoly on distribution ensures them obscene profits.
-Dan
I have written a truly remarkable operating system which this sig is too small to contain.
Were it not for compulsory licensing, the cost of operating a station would be astronomical, and all but those hosting Howard Stern or some other such cash cow would be forced to close.
I have always thought of MP3s as nothing more than a tailored Radio Station. If I have to pay a little bit as part of a compulsory scheme to have my own selections played, then I'm happy to do it.
Paying $18.50 for a non-returnable Brittany Spears CD just so I can find out it sucks is NOT the intention of the Constitution.
Bear in mind also, an organization is free to negotiate licenses with royalty rates that are lower than compulsory license rates; the compulsory license is just there to provide an outlet if all else fails.
I haven't been too fond of Senator Hatch in the past, but I commend him for some clear-headed thinking on this issue.
Eric
--
Be who you are...and be it in style!
I agree that the CREATOR of the art/music should be able to control the distribution.
What is happening here is that the MUSIC COMPANIES are doing the controlling. Artists could probably make a good deal more money from their art if they could sell directly to the BUYING public.
Suppose there is a replacement for Napster that will pay a royalty to the owner of a song and the Artist is the owner. I for one would be willing to pay a reasonable price for music under these circumstances.
The MUSIC COMPANIES realize this and wish to prevent the technology/distribution network that will wipe them out from forming.
boyfoot_bear [with teak of chan]
Anyway for the lazy and for the people who want to not seach the site: Link
A Penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
Copyright law in it's current form was deviced to increase innovation, not to protect the people that create. Protecting the copyright holders was just a side effect.
In this case, the music industry is fighting against innovative new technologies.
Keep in mind that this is not about an artists right to choose not to publish, but about requiring that works that are already being published be available for licensing on the internet as well.
And it was cited as an alternative if the music industry itself fails to follow through on licensing content for the internet.
The copyright holder has only the rights granted by copyright law, no more, no less. Music was composed, books written, paintings painted centuries before copyright law was conceived.
And this wouldn't stop anyone from getting paid, just from not licensing their music for the web if they're already publishing it through other means.
You seem to believe that most musicians create music only because they want to, but forget that through history, countless of the most famous music was written by composers on fixed salaries, which had no control over what kind of music they wrote, for what occasions, or even how long, or for what instruments. Some of them wrote music for the same people for decades, without much to show for it. Artists have to eat too.
And lack of control didn't stop them from producing great works.
Alright, prayers do get answered! thank you brother hatch! at first, I thought he was a good guy, then I found out about him helping the copyright issues, so I wondered if he was a good guy, then he told the music industry to protect themselves and now this ... this ROCKS.
ALRIGHT!
If I turn off the radio during commercials, am I stelaing music? - Larry Lessig
This is bullsh*t. Recorded music belongs to the people who recorded it: the artists and their record companies. To allow its sale without permission is simple theft on the part of the government. You may not like the fact that you can't but music online; neither do I. But the purpose of legislation is not to change companies who inconveniance you. Let the free market seperate the companies who embrace the Net from the dinosaurs who don't. Because if we allow the government to start stealing, they won't stop.
This link works Properly
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
In any case, it doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to read the above statement from the US Constitution and see that Orrin Hatch's proposal is unconstitutional, since it deprives the artist of exclusive rights.
I don't think so. What about fair use? That clearly limits the rights of artists. Furthermore, the Constituion authorizes copyright protection. It doesn't require it. Congress could abolish copyright if it so chose. The copyright clause is listed among those things which "Congress shall have the power to:" in Article 2.
Furthermore, under modern interpertations of the Constitution, Congress can regulate the music business in any manner it wants under the commerce clause. (I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, I'm just saying it's the Supreme Court's interpertation of said clause from 1930-2001, whith minimal exceptions.)
Hmmm I m not certain if this is right but I think radio airplay and live music "covers" are covered by compulsory licenses. What's more american than those. Besides copyright laws grant a monopoly to the artist; what's more un-american than that. IANAL..at least till May I am not.
I think the game is over.
If your business is based on selling copies of a piece of information (like a music recording, a book, or technical & scientifical papers, for example) and a situation comes allong where copying is no problem for anyone, you are out of business.
It's as if you sold water in the desert, and suddenly someone diverts a river and solves the problem for good.
rmstar
just click here. If you use IE4 or IE5 you will see your password. (first you should be authenticaded on slashdot)
Bullshit. My guitars will not disappear, my fingers will not be mangled, and I (and thousands of others) will not stop making music, creating works of art, or chasing a vision, be it a desire to create for oneself, or to entertain and hear the glory of applause.
I can point you at dozens of theater groups that work for free (or at least break even), plenty of musicians that play for fun or for enough money to keep their equipment in repair and to pay their bar tab, and even a whole bunch of programmers who are writing a modern operating system with powerful server features and a modern GUI just for their own pride in their work. And there are plenty of artists who work enough to pay rent and still eat out. Amazing as this sounds, you don't need to make $12 million a year to provide for yourself or your family.
I hope this law dies soon before it damages the creative industry.
The only people who stand to be damaged are the middlemen and a dozen or so lucky people. Lotteries always make money - they just have to show a few "winners"... the music industry produces a handful of "winners", but the majority of artists are... well, it's a cliche because it's accurate... starving artists with day jobs.
Ghod... look at the phrase you used: "creative industry". How can your fingers type that? It's like something out a gritty dystopian cyberpunk novel. It's all about perversion of art, not the salvation thereof.
Art will not die because it is shared. Anyone who tells you otherwise is not interested in art.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
I want to see the Artist get paid. After all this is copyrighted material. But I am glad that congress is coming and pushing the Music industry to move in give consumers a wider choice.
Alrighty then... Lets make all music free and pay the artests with Bush's tax cut...er Uh..... or is that $ going to the military??
Hatch warned that some in Congress may attempt to remedy the situation by stripping the music industry of some of its Internet copyright privileges.
Hmmm...no election coming up for a while...looks like someone didn't get his monthly kickback from the RIAA.
*Warning: The preceeding was both bitter and conspiracy laced at the same time. But don't blame me, blame video games.*
No matter how much I despise RIAA's tactics, they are still a legitimate business. If this passes, it will be one of the biggest thefts by the American government since the FCC appropriated radio and TV. Even I have pity on RIAA if this horrendous law passes.
Hah! And I thought he was tighter than a submarine airlock! How wrong I was!
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
This is one quality troll. The echo of that Microsoft buffoon is brilliant. Well done.
--
And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.
Berke Breathed
We had this same issue (and still are having this same issue) in the computer industry. What it comes down to, is that anything with information as a product will eventually have to convert from a traditional "product-based" economy model to a "service-based" economy model. Just as the explosion of open source software reshaped the way computer companies thought about their business, so too will a corresponding change occur in music, literature, and eventually even movies.
I for one wholeheartedly welcome such a change, and remain confident that the talented artists will still find plenty of work. It's about time music became an art once again. If I consider business entertaining, I'll go listen to a steel plant, not a bunch of factory-generated music groups. Take away the product, leave the service, and you will find art and quality rising to the top in a very natural way.
What is happening here is that the MUSIC COMPANIES are doing the controlling. Artists could probably make a good deal more money from their art if they could sell directly to the BUYING public.
There is nothing to prevent the artist from doing exactly that today. The way that the music companies obtain copyright rights is through transfer from the original artist via contract that offeres the artist some compensation in return. There are web sites that directly offer the work of independent artists.
Some authors, most notably Stephen King are doing exactly this. Various musical groups are also trying direct sales. Whether they will be able to succeed without the marketing expertise of the large publishers is an open question.
MOVE 'ZIG'.
Show me a bill that would revamp said copyrights or STFU and keep your promises.
"Me Ted"
BOSTON SUCKS!
Good point. Iomega is in Utah, and they make big ol' storage media useful for storing large amounts of mp3s, pr0n, and warez.
The US constitution, he said, clearly limits what rights congress can grant copyright holders, because copyright was in the US contitution, and in US history and law, always seen as a restriction on personal freedom that was insituted only because granting some protection to intellectual work could stimulate innovation.
Actually, he went on at length to explain the history of US copyright and patent law, and how the constitution expressly forbid congress from passing any law that grants copyright holders rights unless they clearly advance innovation, and at the same time strike a balance with providing the public with a reasonable access to the copyrighted works (hence things like the fair use provisions in current copyright law).
If anything, this is as "American" as it could be. It has roots to your nations founding fathers, and there is substantial precedence supporting that copyright is a limited right granted by the government that is meant not to serve the copyright holders, but innovation that the public gains from.
If copyright ends up restricting the publics right so much that it is not worth it, then the government is full within its rights to revoke those privileges, and stop restricting personal liberties in that area.
If anything "unamerican" idea is to use laws to restrict personal liberties by stopping people from copying in the first place, and by that restricting the market in the copyrighted material to only those granted a government licensed monopoly to a work via copyright law.
Those of you who are shocked, shocked that an American would even consider such a thing should at least be aware that compulsory licensing is not a new idea. For example, under certain circumstances, someone who invents new medical technology but refuses to license it "to a responsible applicant under reasonable terms" can be compelled to do so by law.
Less tangentially, copyright holders in nondramatic musical works--like, songwriters--are already subject to compulsory licensing in the United States. If you write a song, you get to decide who makes the first recording of it. But once there's a legitimate recording distributed in the US, anyone else can license your song at a rate mandated by law.
See also Bob Kohn's A Primer on the Law of Webcasting and Digital Music Delivery , and, if you're hard core, Title 17 of the US Code. (Compulsory licensing of musical works is covered in chapter 1, section 115.)
Normally when the government seemingly sides with consumers it suprises me. However, there are industries out there who are severely slowed by "big brother" types of content control.
This would be the hardware industry, storage industry, and really any "tech" industry. If we can't move forward with technologies that generally allow the free flow of information, these industries will slow greatly, with no new products or products consumers don't want. Remember, these industries have lobbyists too, who can whisper their agenda into Mr. Hatch's ear.
If the RIAA had its way, all of us would have to pay for super encrypted mp3s et al formats that once you download, they self distruct in 24 hours unless you pay more to keep it N more days/weeks etc. you couldn't copy them at all, for whatever reason. The CD's would be super encrypted so you could only play them yourself. Couldn't make personal compilations, or do anything that is private with them, etc etc. Personally I think the hack/crack community could get around this. But still, it's the principle of the matter.
Hatch IMHO, isn't going to rob the RIAA blindly of copyrights and toss it in the consumer's direction. All he's basically saying is that their needs to be a level playing field for both parties. If the RIAA wasn't so damn greedy/slow we wouldn't be in this mess. bah.
Good article though, at least someone cares up on the hill, at least it seems.
A Penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
>In reality, he said he wants to keep his cash flow safe, and could care less if the Artists ever get a cent.
You hit the nail on the head. But here is more of the problem. An artist needs the labels so bad that they must sign away there life in the begining ( giving up there copyright to the songs ) afterwards, if the artist is realy good they can renegociate.
An artist has to understand if they want to be popular in a short time and earn money fast they have to go with the labels at there terms. But if an artist is willing to do all there own leg work, they themselves will have the labels come to them and offer sweet deals. MC Hammer is a clasic example. He did the club sceen, self promote, and even sold his own albums from the back of his car for a few years before the labels tried to pick him up. And when they did he made them work. I understood that he was able to get very large royalties from his work and a HUGE percentage from his album sales.
same topic different thread
the article said the following :
>Under a compulsory license, a Web site would have to make a royalty payment to the music labels for each song or album sold. The fees would be set by either Congress or the U.S. Copyright Office, which is a division of the Library of Congress.
>Entertainment industry executives are vehemently opposed to such a license, saying the government should not have role in setting the prices paid for music.
Would you let the government dictate your rates to the market. Let the market rule the rates. If I inverst in you, the least I should get is a return on my investment ( maximized if possible) I'm not going to make any money from you arean sales so give me a break. ( Metalica grosses somewhere in the range of 250k-to 1MM per concert ) Not a bad chunk of change.
ONEPOINT
spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop news
please help me make it better
if you see me, smile and say hello.
I think I've heard him complain about how it's being used. But I can't remember the specifics.
The purpose is not allowing the artist to get rich off his writings - that is a necessary part of the promotion of the copyrighted material. The purpose is to allow them to make money from their work and to get rich if the work is good. That is what promotes the progress of science and the arts. If all artists and scientists gave all of their work away for free, there would be alot fewer artists and scientists. Especially the talented/smart ones because they would be doing something else that did allow them to put food on the table.
I posted this earlier in the Belgium thread, but the full text of Orrin Hatch's statements on the subject of Naptster can be found here.
- idiolect
The overpowering weight of your affection has caused me to drink myself into oblivion.
>However, making the ability to copy something different depending on the medium is another thing entirely.
What? I own a DVD copy of "Suicide Kings". If I want to (Macrovision aside), I can copy it onto a VHS tape. Exactly what laws have I broken?
No, buying a DVD copy does not entitle me to a VHS/laserdisc/etc. copy of the film, but if I want to make my own for my own use, why the fuck shouldn't I be able to?
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Score 4, Insightful?
-1, Troll or Flamebait is more like it...
The Tlog - a technology blog
Take the average amount spent on offline music last year, divide it by the actual number of people who bought music...Charge that for a subscription cost to a my.mp3.com-type repository.
This way, the damn RIAA/Publishers will still get the *same* amount of money the recieve this year and not have to sell a damn thing.
Steven V.
I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
For those of you who think this is totally crazy and without precedent, let me ask you if you have cable TV. If so, you already benefit from compulsory licensing - cable providers pay a government-decided rate to broadcasters in order to transmit their content. So, Comcast pays ABC (or, possibly, your local ABC subsidiary, I don't know the specifics) so that you can get local news on cable. Before compulsory licensing, you couldn't get this.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
I didn't bash Al and Joe because the article wasn't about them. But now that you bring them up, they (and Joe in particular) are terrible enemies of the 1st Amendment, across all media--much more so than Mr. Hatch.
Read the article! It wouldn't be freely distributed, it would be distributed with royalties set by the government. So, its simple govenment regulation, not theft.
--
And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.
Berke Breathed
Anybody else feel that this whole thing would be settled quicker if this was the case?
I bet you the RIAA and its companies take napster to the point of extinction, then invest in it and make it their puppet. Why you ask?
Look at it how a few years back microsoft infused apple with a ton of money to keep them alive. Was it because apple was an innovative company with great things and they were doing The Right Thing? Hardly. It was because if apple goes under, microsoft would have had a monopoly and would surely have been broken up.
So the same is true for the RIAA..instead of killing your ONE big enemy, make it your puppet so you dont spawn even bigger problems in the future.
-
Now, the RIAA obviously hates the idea of any money slipping out of their fingers and getting sent directly to the artists so of course they're jumping up and down. But they're dinosaurs: large, noisy, and inefficient, and the Internet is a big asteroid. All will turn out well in the end.
Now if only I could figure out how this will affect Natalie Portman, I'd be a rich man.
While I agree with you amusement at the situation, the goodie you listed is not all that out of line. As anyone that has taken an introductury course in sociology or psychology will tell you, it is widely known that in American culture individualism is taught over the "common good." In other cultures, for instance some Asian cultures, a sense of commitment to the family or community is more important than personal beliefs and values. Neither is more "right" than the other but I personally choose the emphasis on individualism (Most likely because I was raised that way).
Also, this is the description of an entire culture so there will be exceptions to this rule.
Anyway, I think this licensing is a step in the right direction - while it will never be enacted it might make the recording companies more willing to compromise.
What this will do, instead, is it will cause some of these people to create more, instead of living off their royalty checks. People will have to create some stuff that's damn good if they expect to be paid for it.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
But I do understand that music, if cut free entirely would mean that only the hitmakers before any acts/laws/updates are passed would get the most airplay and use becuase the cost of royalties are down. Which would hurt the musician who is trying to make a living.
Or would it?
People are only going to listen to those hitsongs for so long. It will stagnate the market eventually. So the Labels would have to find new acts to breath life into it. The bottom line is this is just talk right now. What needs to happen is to get the consumers and the labels together and work on a deal as partners. Only then will this will be truely fair to both parties.
Perhaps that won't happen, but at least i can hope for it.
A Penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
Or maybe "collusion"? Take your pick.
I don't like the government meddling all that much either (something about them inevitably fucking up bigtime. right, california?) but if they're not going to hit them with an antitrust suit, these dinosaurs really _are_ monolithic enough to cockblock any forays to distribute music over the internet.
You can argue over whether it's a good or bad idea (probably with you on it being the latter), but anything that raises public consciousness of what those weasels who are artificially inflating the price of CDs are up to isn't all bad in my book.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
This should have been subtitled "A Modest Proposal".
Think about what would happen if this were adopted (and the chances are slim, as those classic rockers like McCartney, Clapton, and Don Henley have deep pockets). The availablility of royalty free classic hits would unleash a torrent of moldy oldies on the airwaves, not just on radio, but in advertisments and soundtracks, malls and elevators.
It would stifle new music: copyright would be seen as an encumberance, not protection. Why would a music director for a movie or commercial license the work of $NEW_BAND when he could get the Beatles for free?
This would also be like giving record companies a license to print money: you think store shelves are full of reissues and boxed sets now, just wait.
And who gets hurt in the end? The majority of songwriters who make a modest living from royalties and publishing rights.
Sure, there's always going to be a market for new music. That's the nature of pop. But if all that back catalog goes royalty-free, it'll be as common as clip art, re-recorded as Muzak, and piped into your cubicle to enhance your productivity.
k.
--
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people
are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank