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.
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
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
Unfourtantley, 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!
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.
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.
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).
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.
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!
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."
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.)
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
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.)
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.
-