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.
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
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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