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."

Comments

Wait a minute

[kammat]

They're considering legislation we might like? When did they turn that cooling laser a few articles back towards Hell?

Hilary makes it too easy...

[RollingThunder]

"The existance of Napster has stifled a lot of legitimate music sites," Rosen said.

Yep. Napster sure made MP3.com's life hard. Oh, wait... wasn't that you?

Re:Unfourtnatley

[Mr. Slippery]

You might hate to admit it, but the majority of music is produced with the intention of making money off of it.

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/

Interesting but wrong

[Jeffrey Baker]

This is an interesting idea, and Hatch has some serious nerve to propose things like this, but I, like the record companies, am vehemently opposed to this idea. In a free society, compulsion should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances. The military draft, for example, has been accepted as necessary to defend the freedom. But I can't see how music distribution qualifies. (I am aware that American law is filled with frivolous compulsory things, but we should be focusing on reducing those, not adding to them.)

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.

This will be an issue with the RIAA for a long

[Hairy_Potter]

time, at least until the current RIAA executives die off or retire.

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 /.'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.

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!

Re:How do they justify this unamerican theft?

[blakestah]

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.

Compulsory != "Compulsory"

[danmil]

Just to point out that when they say "compulsory", they don't mean they're going to take the songs away from the record labels, but rather that they'll force them to use a particular kind of license, which happens to be called "compulsory".

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

Re:How do they justify this unamerican theft?

[RandomPeon]

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.)

Re:Of course

[JabberWokky]

2. companies will go bankrupt, and the result will be that there is no art/music at all,

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