Slashdot Mirror
The RIAA Doesn't Like Paying Lyricists
baptiste writes "I came across a story in Wired News that on first glance had to be a joke. The scary part is, its not. The RIAA is looking to start their own MP3 streaming services, but they are also trying to stiff the song writers who hold copyrights on the lyrics. The RIAA doesn't want to pay the songwriters royalties on streamed copies of songs and has petitioned the U.S. Copyright Office to settle the matter. I highly recommend you read the petition - if you didn't know better, you'd think it was from Napster or MP3.com. The irony is almost too much."
Isn't there some kind of legal precedent (reminiscent of the MS legal battles) that would allow the govt. to say "Enough is ENOUGH!"?!
I've read over the petition and it looks to me like the RIAA wants a clear rate set for the medium. I'm not adept at reading legalease so maybe I missed the part where the artists get stiffed, but I couldn't find anything potentially overly offensive - Other than the RIAA in general that is....
I thought this was interesting
How can they claim copyright on something which is not substantially different from the word file the RIAA provided?Yes, it is.
But only if you take responsiblity for it. Then it's called civil disobedience.
Just breaking a law for your own purposes.. Well that's different.
It states that they would like the panel to convene in order to determine what the applicable royalty rates are. They are not trying to get out of paying the rates, they are stating that they believe no rate has been established for this type of distribution.
I agree with you when you state all the reasons that the RIAA is obsolete, except the section about promotion.
In my opinion, promotion is just another way of being exposed to new music. But word of mouth from friends, opening acts at live shows, and Napster hotlists work just as well as record companies putting up adverts and sending free copies to radio stations. In fact, they work better because they are targeted towards the correct market segment much better.
Folks, if the record companies stopped all promotion, what would happen? Would there be no top 40 artists? No, maybe just a different set of top 40 artists--ones that made their way to the top the old fashioned way, not through the record companies opening the collective mouth of society and shoving the Backstreet Boys down it. Would you suddenly have less music to listen to? I know I wouldn't, since virtually nothing I listen to is really promoted at all by the record companies. Almost everything I listen to I discovered by one of the ways above.
Look at the huge pool of musicians who do their music just for the fun of it, and possibly make it big enough to make a living out of it even with no promotion. Sure they may not make the millions that a Dave Matthews makes today, but I PROMISE you that Dave Matthews would still be jamming with his buddies in bars if he had never been discovered-even if he made no money. And if an artist amasses a good sized following, they can easily make a decent living from their music--maybe not 100 million a year, but enough. My point is that the music WILL always be there because there is no shortage of musicians, even if the pay sucks. And all promotion is is a tool for the record companies to turn an underground favorite into a larger than life superstar for their own monetary gain. But if that artist is going to do the same music for $100 or $100million per year, then tell me why promotion is needed (it's not)
LOTS of bands pay for their own studio time and cd pressings, and do so even though they may make no money or even LOSE money doing it. With the RIAA running the show, the laws of economics & supply vs. demand are being totally subverted.
Read the note. The RIAA will pay copyright holders, it's asking which versions of copyright law apply to digital music downloads and broadcasts. Apparently, there are several subversions of copyright laws, including ones that deal with performances, recordings, recordings sent by electronic means, etc etc. The problem is, that under some of them, if interpreted strictly, they'd have to pay the copyright holders money for even incidental copies that never reach a consumer, such as copies cached in multiple servers that are there to facilitate downloads and broadcasting, but not necessarily meant to be a product in and of themselves. For such 'incidental' copies, the RIAA is asking the US Copyright Office to issue a ruling to either develop a new area for copyright, or determine under what area that digital broadcasts and DLs fall. It is the current legal grey area WRT to royalties that is holding up music delivery by the industry. Lord knows, if you assume one thing, and then it's later ruled to be different, you face lawsuits. So the RIAA is not moving forward with digital broadcast plans over the internet till the USPTO rules. Geez, READ people.
RIAA sues Napster and effectively put them out of business. And then they plan to start up the same sort of service they shutdown?
Is it legal to use the courts to remove comptetition from the field, only so you can dominate the whole field?
That's just not cool.
The RIAA is guilty of making money off someone else's work, then stiffing them for it. That's even worse than Napster users listening the music for free. At least most of them aren't reselling this music.
The RIAA just doesn't want any competing "pirates".
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
Correction: *pop* songs don't make it because they are good, they make it because of promotion. A good song will still swirl its way up on underground fandom alone. Hell, you don't see anyone but a bunch of geeks saying "All your base are belong to us" but suddenly it's on the damned news. Now.. oooh.. it's not popular anymore, gotta move on to something nerdishly cool again. ;-)
Exactly. Musicians will regret ever signing up with the RIAA members. I can see the class action lawsuit coming now... "The RIAA is stifiling our (the RIAA member artists) ability to get exposure in recently very important XYZ online music video stream/audio stream/forum. We are asking for 123 dollars in compensation."
That will make me smile. :p Heed this warning, independent artists. Don't Do It! Don't sign that RIAA member contract. You Will Be Screwed, and in the cold. It's your stuff, Don't sign away exclusive rights.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
I wouldn't say a monopoly so much as something like a cabal. The RIAA, as far as I understand, is just a political lobbying association composed of representatives of the various recording companies. And all those recording companies surely compete with each other... they just compete more fiercely with everybody else. It's a whole lot like the way cable companies work - they have a local monopoly (over the artists, in the case of the recording companies), but there are many other companies in the same business.
It's sad that no viable alternative exists, and it also seems increasingly unlikely that one will arise, given the way the RIAA deals with its competitors, real or imagined. I'm sure they'd try to stomp anything that represented even a shadow of a threat to their stranglehold on the industry.
The problem is that no real alternative exists.
/. when it was first announced but I have not been able to find anything since.
By the way, what ever happened with that Justice Dept. Investigation into the RIAA being a monopoly? I read a few posts on it here on
Minne-snow-da: Winter is comming...
Well, I think the RIAA has made enough, and if they aren't going to give any money to the artists, I'm not giving any money to them.
Simple, eh?
Of course not, but nothing is.
The enemies of Democracy are
That's not the question he's asking. What we want to know is: how can musicians promote *directly* to the public without going through a large record label? Technology has evolved to the point where it's cheap to record and distribute. All the recording cartel has *left* is promotion (and they outsource *that*).
Notice that while this was filed in 2000, it wants rates set as from 1998? Suddenly, what was a free, legal act may have become a pay-for illegal act. Nice...
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
wouldn't the radio technically be considered a streamed copy of a song? Does that mean radio stations won't have to pay royalties anymore?
--"Karma is justice without the satisfaction"
It is actually. Organized and widespread civil disobedience has a long history. It is an excellent method when the people you're dealing with are not utter barbarians or ruthless despots, or are at least restrained from being so by some outside authority.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
The computation of the Pop Charts boggles the mind - it's supposedly based on singles sales (can you even buy singles anymore?) and radio airplay. Problem is that the classic 'top 40' format bases their airplay rotation on the pop charts. So we get a situation where it's easy to "make" a popular song just by seeding the system appropriately.
Every now and then, a "good" song will swirl up through luck and something-or-other. One example is Nirvana kicking Michael Jackson out of the #1 spot in the early 90s, with very little top 40 airplay and promotion. But it doesn't happen very often.
Another datapoint - Apparently whoever computes the charts excludes most rap singles sales (many of which are on indy labels in mom+pop record stores). If they were included, the Top 40 would be almost entirely rap.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
. . . ah, here it is.
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Contact the RIAA
I sent them:
"
I read your petition to the Copyright office requesting that streaming music not require royalty payments to the artists.
I find this unfathomably hypocritical, after your lawsuits against MP3.com and Napster, Inc.
I will never buy another CD from an RIAA-associated artist or label for myself or as a gift until such time as the RIAA mends its ways, supports its artists and embraces the advantages of digital distribution with proceeds from tours.
Learn from history. Read Jack Valenti's arguments against Betamax, and notice the Blockbuster video rental store(s) on your commute home. I don't think the video industry was ruined.
"
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
There is an anology with french fries. McDonalds has done a huge job of getting their french fries everywhere. What is interesting is for folks who've grown up eating those french fries, eating real fresh cut french fries tastes weird, because for them, a french fry tastes like a McDonalds french fry.
Music is more than simply the song, it is the way we connect to it, and good promotional work I think is usually successfull in driving that connection. With DJ's on the radio getting Payola, dj's in clubs are a bit more limited in what they can play. People like to hear what they have already heard.
Songs don't make it big because they are good, the make it because they are promoted. Technology has addressed everything else the RIAA does, with the promotion piece solved they'd go the way of the Dodo.
Unfortunatly, so far it has been other commercial companies that want to come in and replace them (Napster) which I'm not convinced gains us huge amounts. The infrastructure of music should be free, just as the infrastructure of a computer (OS). What's the next step to make it so?
The RIAA and ASCAP/BMI - the songwriters' organizations, have had this strange relationship forever. A lot of what we know as the concept of intellectual property came from them dealing with each other and with broadcasters and such. Each has a sort of domain over which it has near-caveat authority to set prices and pay artists: When you buy a record at the store, the money goes back to whoever made the record, but not the songwriter or lyricist (unless they performed on the album and are owed a piece of the retail net). In the case of the recording artist/company, the important intellectual property is the performance placed on the album, that's the copyright that they sell to make money.
For ASCAP/BMI/(I forget the third), the important copyright is the sheet music and lyrics. They gained power in the early 1900s with the advent of radio, since songwriters wanted to be paid per broadcast. Anyway, they didn't have computers then, so they just have a flat fee for each radio station, bar w/jukebox, nightclub, elevator, etc. They just listen to a station for 6 hours, then multiply that over a year, and that's how they determine how much to pay an artist. So the little bands you liked in college never make a dime, but Britney's songwriters a rolling in it.
It gets real dicey in nightclubs: who owns the performance? ASCAP charges the nightclub a flat fee and then pays the bands using the same proportional setup they use for radio broadcasts. Again, no computers, and no exact counts of who gets played how much. It's all statistics, and the low end gets cut out consistently. The bands at a little club like the Middle East probably never see a dime from the songwriter's fee. They get paid for the performance, though, which belongs to them (any record made from it is their copyright).
This streaming media stuff is a real problem for us as webmasters/computer filesharing types as well as for the courts. If you stream the music, you're broadcasting a written song, but if you transmit it for HD storage, you're distributing a copyrighted recording. Thus you are going to get billed twice, and the RIAA and ASCAP/BMI are going to try to bill each other.
Like Clay said in his interview here the other day, the likely long-term outcome is that bands that write their own music will hire engineers to produce their records and then just let ASCAP deal with the licensing, cutting the RIAA out of the licensing business altogether (ASCAP would manage both copyrights, the song as written and performed).
In the short, term, though, these record companies (who are the RIAA) aren't going to give up so easily, and this is just them starting to open their eyes to the internet's potential re: their products. They'll probably lose this case because of the quasi-broadcasting nature of music file distribution, but ASCAP's fee isn't so high, and the RIAA will certainly find a way to leverage what they have while they still have it.
-jpowers
-jpowers
The RIAA vs Everyone (Napster...) was about the agreement between the distributors (them) and you (the buyer)
Only if you buy social contract theory. The RIAA vs Napster was (is) exclusively a statutory issue. I have no contract with the RIAA, and neither did Napster.
This new one is a contract issue - namely, the RIAA is attempting to use its weight to unilaterally modify contract terms. Though the title for this story is misleading, what they are doing here is still wrong. They appear not to be seeking to avoid payment of royalties. The RIAA appears to be requesting that it be allowed to dictate royalty rates and terms of the agreement without having to negotiate with the artists. There aren't too many places where unilateral changes to contracts are acceptable...
Actually its ASCAP thats one of the biggest companies that pays monies to lyricists, composers, etc., so RIAA would have to deal with them before anything is even created.
ASCAP doesn't license mechanical rights -- those are obtained directly from Harry Fox Agency, or via compulsory licenses, or both. ASCAP/BMI licenses performance rights, another thing entirely.
One can argue all day and night over the ethics of RIAA's actions, but most will fail when it all comes down to rights. RIAA has the rights to their controlled assets (music) and can do as they wish with it.
Nope. There's an important subtlety about intellectual property -- ownership of a copyright grants no right to do anything, just the right to exclude others from doing certain things. The exercise of these exclusive rights, either by a promise not to sue (a license grant) or filing an action for infringement are all that the owner can do, apart from outright assigning fo the asset interest .
In the case of a musical recording (termed in the law a "phonorecord"), there is always (unless in public domain) another, underlying copyright, owned not by the record industry, but by the composer, the right to the musical work. The former copyright is represented by the P-in-circle symbol, the latter by the C-in-circle symbol. RIAA gets from the C-in-circle owner a mechanical right, via the harry fox industry, to make a phonorecord from the original work. And RIAA's rights to exploit its P-in-circle rights are limited by its licenses from the C-in-circle owner.
Is to encourage your favorite artists to sign with record labels that aren't among the RIAA.
The only way to battle the RIAA, speaking in terms of business, is to draw the money of the music market to other outlets that offer better service to the bands and that are more friendly to the consumer. A really viable alternative to the RIAA system has to be found, and I'm not talking about virtual tip jars or the odd t-shirt sale.
Somehow I don't see that happening in the short term though if the RIAA, as flawed as it is, remains a more attractive business model to a lot of bands.
This is not even remotly surprising. It was crystal clear from the beginning of the Napster thing that this was where the RIAA was headed. Napster was a great way to rip off the artists and the RIAA loves ripping off the artists, but they don't like anyone ripping off the artists who is not under their thumb. This how cartels and protection rackets work.
I'm shure they only waited this long since they did not want it to harm their legal sitation with Napster and MP3.com.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Thats exactly what they are doing, infact here in the UK they even made a TV series of them doing it called "Popstars" which finishes tonight, the really sad thing is that it looks like they are going to be number 1 in the charts this week, oh the irony, and to think it wasnt that any years ago that the KLF released their guide to how to make a number 1 hit, which can be found here I guess you really can't stop people from being sheep.
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
So, all this time, whilst we all knew they were talking crap for other reasons, when the RIAA were claiming that Napster et al had to be shutdown because otherwise the starving artists wouldn't be able to eat, they weren't /even/ trying to protect the value of recording contracts. We all know that many musicians sign away almost all their rights and are paid in a lump contract sum, but now it turns out that the RIAA really doesn't care in the least about their rights.
Can they really not be done for perjury for talking crap in court all this time? (Answer - nope, they have expensive always!)...
...I look forward to seeing Metallica embrace RIAA's new plans.
No, but may be "it's not going to the artists anyway but only to the greedy RIAA who'll just use the money to do more damage to consumers and artists rights" is. Obviously we need a way to cut the RIAA out of the loop and get the money to the artists on a more direct way. That can only work if the artists retain enough rights over their music that they are allowed to market it themselves. At the moment the RIAA plays both sides against the middle and is happily reaping the profit, establishing the old record labels as the only ones who may make a profit from music.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Of course. And then there are people who discover how bad french fries are. How many people chooses to ear junk food all thier lives? My suspision is, after adolescent, people starts to develop better taste for food.
If one chooses to be brainwashed, there isn't much we can do about it, right? If one wishes to be influenced by RIAA's massive promotion, why shouldn't he pay for the music? MTV takes money. Cute dancers take money. Special effects takes money. Why do you think RIAA will make them for free? When you listen to music that is promoted by RIAA, you are buying into their whole scheme. RIAA provide "entertainment", not music. If the only music you are willing to hear is the music that you have heard somewhere else before, well, maybe RIAA is what you deserve.
You are right, advertizing is about convincing you something is better than it actually is, in order to make you buy it. Smarter buyers don't buy into advertizing. Smarter buyers use thier own judgement. If you lack a judgement of your own, your money goes to the advertizers. in this case, the RIAA.
Assuming that people want to hear what they have already heard is pretty much stating that everybody is dumb. I refuse to think so. I think most people have thier own judgement, simply not awaken.
My point is, if you hate RIAA's tactics, maybe you should stop pirating thier music. If you are too damn lazy to explore new music, then you are paying RIAA's "service fee" for putting thier music in the cafe, the radio, the elevator, and everywhere else you go.
FYI, The clubs I go to rarely play any songs from RIAA. If your club plays Madonna and Destiny Child all day, you are in the wrong place.
Here's a reference to my point.
When I was in Chicago, the underground use this thing called DJ to promote music. The story goes like this:
Each week, the DJs will go to record stores to listen to whatever new record that comes in. Then they decide which one they will play and play them to us, evaluate the reaction from the crowd and decide whether to play it in the future.
So that means ther DJs replace the power of RIAA? Not really. Remember that the key to monopoly is that high cost of entrance. It costs a lot of money to start a huge record label and shoot MTVs, build studios. But it takes only a man with a pair of ears to be a DJ. The consumer decides which DJ they will follow by thier own opinion. If they don't like this DJ, they go to another club. If they like the songs, they will ask the DJs where the song come from and buy them. (This is how I am introduced to music from Wubble-U, Suicide commando, etc.)
One may argue that the record shops control what the DJ listens to. Well. not really. the DJs usually goes to stores with one thing in mind - get better quality music to keep thier own job. The bazzaar style evolution again works in this case.
Also I'd like to mention that, on Napster, the ability to browse other people's entire collection also helps promote music. For example, when I searched for "Cuban" "Latin" music and accidentally ran into some flamenco music. i liked it much so I searched for the word "flamenco." What returned was some guy who had quite a few flamenco music. So I took a look at his entire collection, all of which are classical guitar and flamenco music. So that is how I found Christopher Parkening's guitar work.
The key is, as long as there is an easy entrance to music promotion, RIAA will no longer control what we hear.
Money is still the RIAA's only driving force... no matter which way the issues flow, it's always about the money.
I happen to think it's laughable when organizations like this become highly-publicized hypocrites.
Well, look at it this way:
It's a big "I-told-you-so" to all those zeolots out there who defended the RIAA, under the pretense that the RIAA was acting in the artists' best interest, they were not, and here we are.
Maybe now everybody who thought the RIAA was doing the artists' a favor will realize that the only side the RIAA is taking is it's own.
No matter what the RIAA says, or does, it's in there own interests. Nevermind that in the case of Napster it happened to coincide with those of the artists'.
Whether it be a matter of fair use, or artist royalites, it's all speed bumps to be rooted up and destroyed by their lawyers, on their way to the almighty dollar!
"You are only young once, but you can be immature forever." -www.animemusicvideos.org
Very good, you can't pirate GPL'd code without getting into legal trouble (that is, once you're found out...). Now then, Napster is different how? Oh yeah, RIAA isn't going after individual users... that's pretty nice of them considering the large scale infringement that's occuring. Would the GPL be so forgiving?
Also, would you support the RIAA if they went after individuals? Would you support RMS if he went after a GPL violator? The point is, regardless of how the RIAA works, you have to fight them fairly if you want to win. Tech users don't make up the majority of the world... people who follow laws do.
------------------------------------
Can't we use this action against them in the Napster case? Especially there petition. Use it to point out that they obviously were wrong about napster?
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
It seems to me that promotion is the only thing that affects a song's popularity. A number of the "underground" bands I listen to (Enchant, Spock's Beard, Vanden Plas, Tiles, and Transatlantic all come to mind)</PLUG> could easily be played on the radio (to the best of my ability to judge, anyway) yet virtually no one has ever heard of them. The music is there, but they're not getting the publicity from their labels.
And here we see exactly why the anarchists will win. Civilization breeds hypocrites that specialize in taking over the organs of civilization. Any attempt to suppress the hypocrite is countered with religious indoctrination that teaches anyone with an ounce of moral integrity to tolerate the existence of hypocrites while the hypocrites themselves are able to hollow out civilization's primary organs.
This wouldn't be so bad if civilization didn't chew up so many resources in the process of doing itself in.
Seastead this.
Those are your so-called "anarchists". I'm not speaking of ideological anarchists -- I'm talking about people who are literally ungovernable -- people like Bill Clinton. You're kiddies who dress up in black and go to riots with their single moms from the Pacific Northwest are nothing compared to the hypocrites in Washington, D.C. or the guys in Hollywood who provide us relgious indoctrination. They may be dependent on government and want others to be governable, but that doesn't mean they, themselves, are governable.
Seastead this.
I browsed through the legal request and didn't find anything directly suggesting that the RIAA wants to not pay lyricists. Could someone post the excerpt that pertains to this?
The RIAA is being overly possesive of its rights and its precedent to protect the copyrights of musicians and lyricists. However, it's babyish to demand that they move into the modern, digital age on anything but their own terms. The legal request that they've submitted is a signal that they are finally realizing that the Internet is a viable distribution medium, but they're being very cautious about it. They want to make the move on their own terms and they don't want to make any major mistakes while entering this "new" distribution medium. They don't want to do anything that would cause them to unintentionally give up their copyright ownership. If an action of theirs is construed as placing copyrighted works in the public domain, they may lose their ownership of (or control over) the copyright. Also, they could get into serious legal/financial trouble if they start distributing music and it is later found that are required to pay more royalties than they thought they would have needed to.
They have many more assets to worry about than does Napster. It's easy to do something like Napster did when you essentially have nothing to lose. Anyway, let's hope that this legal request is a sign that the RIAA will soon be distributing music over the Internet in a reasonable fashion. I wouldn't bet on it anytime soon, but at least there is hope.
Jason
If making "infringing" copies of music and videos will become technilogically impossible (SDMI, CSS, etc), can I get a refund on the royalties I indirectly paid on blank tapes and CDRs? Will the MPAA and RIAA tell Congress "Now that we made piracy and fair use impossible, you can drop the royalty on recording media."?
<br><br>
No, they won't. Despite the old saying that "you can't have your cake and eat it too" they're doing just that.
And then I read the RIAA's reason for wanting to 'pirate' the same music - doing it the right way (the lawful way) would cost to much.
Well folks, that about raps it up for me. I'm going to continue to pirate music for one simple reason - it costs less. And that's all I'm gonna say.
For those of you who feel I'm stomping on the rights of artists - tough. If they're dumb enough to sign up with this two faced laughing pile of dogshit called the RIAA then they deserve it.
Don't you think that is something the artists should worry about themselves?
I don't think we need to do anything about the RIAA directly. They have as much right to exist as anybody/anything else. The RIAA sure does seem greedy, but that is their perogative. The Artists themselves are mostly adults, who should be able to take care of themselves. Nobody is forcing them to go through the RIAA, the Artists Chose to go with them.
Napster seems like a great circumvention of the RIAA, yet I also think people who violate copyrights should be prosecuted. And in their trial if they can prove the copyright is ridiculous or whatever, great.
But I am amazed that the same people who say "Fuck the RIAA, we need to get the money straight to the Artists (except metallica)" are the same ones who are illegally grabbing and distributing these songs. Hipocrisy.
I don't hear much of anything from any artists regarding the RIAA. Granted, I don't look too hard either. Seems to me that if they were all that upset with the RIAA, they would find/create an alternative.
Yes, that is pretty simple, and a reasonable and good thing to do, given the way you feel about the RIAA.
Well, it compensates the rights holders. If you _are_ a rights holder to your recordings, then find out what the appropriate agency is (the RIAA might even tell you, if you contact them).
Point taken. Show us your English composition-related Ph.D., and we won't mod you to -1. =)
... because you believe everything you read in slashdot articles wholeheartedly, but never bother following the links. Did you know that they took "gullible" out of the dictionary?
Under the same Act, listening to a radio in a public place doesn't violate any laws. Establishments do have to pay royalties if they are charging customers to listen, are transmitting beyond the establishment, or are over 2000 square feet (3750 for resaurants/bars) *and* have more than six speakers. "Mom and Pop" are not going to be charged royalties for listening to the radio.
See Chapter 1, Section 110 of the Copyright Law.
Oops! A typo in the Copyright Law URL. It's supposed to be http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/
that the RIAA is trying to do this. The RIAA has been screwing artists for years, and when the artists finally realize that they don't need record companies to distribute their music for them, their little plastic empire will fall. I look forward to urinating on the grave of the RIAA.
Although, I'm kind of glad the exist for one reason, they produce pop music, and in that, I can avoid all bad pre-fabricated artists by simply avoiding major record labels.
--
If there is a God, you are an authorized representative. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
If there is a God, you are an authorized representative. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
sopwath
The problem is the only folks the RIAA believe are entitled to the royalties is the RIAA.
-HobophobE
-HobophobE
Nothing laughs forever.
Actually this development echoes pretty well the attitudes of the movie and television script writers. They want to be given credit that's more representative of their contribution. For example, films "produced by X" are not necessarily scripted by X. They are also interested in getting a portion of profits of the shows/movies shown abroad. As the trend in TV has been toward more news shows and "reality shows", where the players more or less ad lib a script, it could help to leave the writers out in the cold.
K .html?searchpv=site12t ainment_Labor_Issues
Some links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/05/business/05STRI
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/Entertainment/Enter
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
First good post this whole thread. You could practically write a script to reverse-troll arbitrary sets of troll posts.
I happen to think it's laughable when organizations like this become highly-publicized hypocrites.
People shape laws. Not the other way around.
Sounds like a classic case of "Do as I say, not as I do."
I've always hated that.
No thanks. I don't smoke anymore.
Does nobody remember reading about Standard Oil in their History classes? Nobody *FORCED* you to go to a Standard Oil station to get gas for your car back in the haydays of huge monopolies. You could choose to support an independant gas station, if you could find one, and then only until Standard Oil either rode them into the ground or bought them out.
--
--
Intelligence is definitely a recessive trait.
- I can't even begin to count how many indie bands have benefited from my cash because I heard them on Napster. Why can't the RIAA see it the same way?
Actually, I think the do see it the same way.I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
Offshore hosting is a sham, unless you live in a copyright/lawsuit-free country, in which case you don't need offshore hosting to begin with.
They can give away their music for free and continue working at burger king! Or better yet put songs on mp3.com with all the other crap.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Why should lyrics and sheet music (such as used for performances, etc.) enjoy copyright protection? This activity only squashes the free flow of culture and puts a financial burden on those who shouldn't have it. For example, back in high school, our marching band, choir, and orchestra had to pay lots of royalties for the music we performed. Because the school inadequately funded its arts program, there were sometimes limitations on what music could be performed. Here's a second example: Remember lyrics.ch? (That is before it ran into trouble) Any song you could think of had the lyrics available. It was a wonderful source for hobby musicians who wanted to learn the words of songs they were trying to figure out by ear. Of course, you can still find all those lyrics / guitar tabs out there somewhere if you need them, but now its a hastle compared to relying on one site with everything. Consider also the fact that stores, clubs, etc. must pay royalties for simply having a radio on for background music. (And this has included even "mom and pop" shops if they're caught by ASCAP). So what are we gaining by paying songwriters a few cents in royalties? Its certainly not making no-name composers rich, whose music is rarely featured. But it IS making crappy pop-music songwriters wealthy, because statistically their stuff is played the most so they get the biggest share of the ASCAP royalties pie. I think for once I agree with the RIAA..
They say that if you love something, you should set it free.
I guess alot of modern artists really hate their work..
Oh wait, it's not April, the RIAA really is just dumb.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
I remember seeing comments here on how much the RIAA was clever and we shouldn't take them for complete morons and if they did do this and that to napster and others, they probably had a good reason, and a clever strategy...etc etc....
Sorry, but... either they are brilliant at manipulating the system, or just plain f* stupid and hypocrite to play the 2-faces like that in such a short amount of time.
I'd vote for the 2nd option, because if it would have been option #1, they would have at LEAST waited a while for people to forget about what just happened.
Either way, I sure hope artists will backfire on them, any artist supporting these idiots deserves to be pirated, heck, worse, BANNED.
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
that's like someone who has a CS degree claiming that they're "a programmer".
cat
Well, this sort of cuts another leg out from under the IP argument, doesn't it? But only sort of. I nevertheless think this whole thing is hilariously ironic. The RIAA has apparently just painted itself into a no-win situation -- if they go forward, they risk getting shot down with their own arguments on the one hand or alienating their own constituency and thereby rendering themselves obsolete. I'd come up with a half-baked solution, but I can't think of one at the moment... /Brian
The RIAA had to show to the world what it really exists for eventually : money. They don't care about artists or helping anyone or anything unless it will line their pockets a little bit more. ---> Under the capitalist free-market system, very few businesses other than philanthropic or charitable organizations are in business for anything other than the money. Business X is supporting cause Y for disabled kids? It's either an advertising/good will thing (which will theoretically lead to increased sales and increased profits) or a tax dodge (which will lead to decreased taxes and increased profits). The difference between outfits like the RIAA and companies that have a warm fuzzy image is just good public relations and maybe avoidance of sticky business situations where the proverbial iron fist under that velvet glove might show.
All companies want a good public image if possible. Not because "it's nice to be nice", but because the public is more likely to give money to the warm fuzzy company.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
The RIAA had to show to the world what it really exists for eventually : money. They don't care about artists or helping anyone or anything unless it will line their pockets a little bit more. This simply disgusts me.
This is just business as usual for the organizations that the RIAA represents. They've been ripping off musicians and lyricists for years. Unfortunately, up until the advent of things like streaming media, the only way that artists could get well-marketed outside their home base was to play ball with these parasites.
Streaming media conceivably can allow musicians to market their product without RIAA member involvement. This is what really scares them.
You want to help fight the RIAA? Set up streaming servers and use them to help your local musicians market their work.
I've said from the begining that the RIAA wouldn't go through the trouble of fighting napster if it was just a matter of CD sales. They know just as well as we do that the people who download a song off napster wouldn't necessarily buy the CD if napster were not availible. The whole thing is that they want to compete with napster. They think that since they are the RIAA they can sue their competition into the ground, then get off clean and clear, because the artists side with them.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
don't sign the petition
ahem, it's not that kind of petition.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
This looks nothing like Napster. They are talking about 'on-demand streams' and 'limited downloads', where the latter becomes unusable after a set time period or number of plays.
This is exactly what we would expect from the RIAA, not surprising at all.
Also, it's old:
RIAA Petition to Copyright Office.
Re: Request for Rulemaking and to Convene Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel.
Date: November 29, 2000.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Big fat money hungry PIGS! jesus, I might just move to Norway, or somewhere else, cause this crap is getting too deep for me.
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
The more I see of the RIAA and how they're trying to control the music industry the more thankful I am that I'm somewhat removed from all of this. Thank God the punk bands I listen to are all on indie labels and don't have any part of this. Otherwise I'd have to make the choice of boycotting the RIAA and supporting the somewhat unknown/underground bands that I listen to, who, unlike Ms. Spears or the Backstreet Boys really do need every cent they can get from record sales.
All these people bitching about how Napster and MP3s are stealing from the artists need to step outside the pop world. I don't know how it is in other places, but down here in Louisiana we have almost no punk scene, no punk bands on the radio, and only a few decent local punk bands (if you're into punk checkout the New Orleans band The Picts). The only way I hear about bands is by word-of-mouth ("Hey man, have you heard the new Swingin Utters CD?"). The only way I can actually hear the bands is to get on Napster and download of their stuff. If I like it, I buy it to support the band. If I don't, the MP3 collects dust on my hard drive. For independent bands, Napster is a light at the end of the tunnel I can't even begin to count how many indie bands have benefited from my cash because I heard them on Napster. Why can't the RIAA see it the same way?
-antipop
-antipop
Breaking the law is a good way to make a change happen in a civilized society...
Indeed. "Good men should not follow the law too closely."
(Was it Emerson who said this? I think it was am American philosopher/author, at any rate
One problem I foresee in this is that the industry can always blacklist artists who try to work outside of their system. "Are you now, or have you ever been... signed to an independent label? Given away product for free? Performed for free? Well, guess what, you can't work for us you commie radical bastard!" And if that indy artist is doing something that the industry simply can't do without, they'll just come up with their own in-house artists who'll shamelessly copy the cutting edge sound and appropriate it. How many Pearl Jam clones can you count from the early 1990's?
It's cheaper for them to manufacture talents who essentially owe everything to their producers. Take 5 good-looking nobodies with some small measure of natural talent, dress them up, teach them a few dance moves, teach them to lip synch, promote the hell out of them and sit back and watch the money roll in. From their perspective, talent is disposable, and you can always find a replacement.
I rang, you rang, we all rang for orangutang!
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
the only similarity to the napster case is that it involves mp3s. there is no attempt to bypass copyright, deny copyright, or even deny copyright infringement. there is no attempt to not pay the copyright. what there is here, is a request for a ruling to set standard guidelines for payment on those copyrights. presumably to avoid having to negotiate a separate contract for each copyright holder, or at least provide a formula to proceed on. this is not about whether the artist should be paid, but about how much.
I had a legit comment there, the US WAS founded on breaking laws you didn't like or breaking the law as a protest (Boston Tea Party anyone). Jerk moderator.
Your anarchists will never win because they're out of touch, largely in-the-box thinking elitists who tend to be very impressed by their own meager intelligence.
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
GPL doesn't restrict the use - only the distribution. It is only restrictive when the restriction can actually be enforced.
Yeah, man! Anarchy rules doodZ!
Shit. I think I'm going to "pirate" some GPL'd code and put it in my proprietary product!
It's not like the author was making money anyway. Now we all win!
If this is the way you feel, then you (and all of Slashdot) should be selective in what you "pirate."
For example, if you think copyright should only be good for 20 years, you should make it clear that you are only going to pirate songs pre-1980.
Otherwise, you have anarchy with no clear message. And you will lose.
This is sortof offtopic, but I'm curious: does anyone have references to the studies that say Napster increases CD sales?
It does relate, sortof. Because depending on how much they increase CD sales, the RIAA might be able to justify the cost of reimbursing the people who actually create the music.
But I'm not sure somebody didn't just pull the studies out of their butt....
--
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
whoever said that the anti-christ was one person?
flame me for redundancy, but i don't care. whoever hasn't read the article needs to read just this paragraph:
From Bill Goldsmith, Web director of KPIG radio:
Goldsmith thinks the industry's take-no-prisoners strategy may backfire. "They're pissing off the artists," he said. "If they piss off online radio too, what's to prevent a system that doesn't involve the recording industry at all? They're encouraging the development of an alternative relationship between producers and radio stations.
my god, it couldn't have been said any better.
gol
I've written a fun little program that encrypts mp3 filenames in a searchable manner. Download it here and avoid being spied on by Copyright.net. I just really don't like these guys.
You may enjoy the license agreement too.
I thought the RIAA was the ones trying to stop Napster from doing the same thing
The enemy of you enemy is your friend. Wouldn't the logical conclusion of protecting lyracists right also have shut down napster?
At least when they stole music from the artists they weren't making money off of it.
So RIAA is making a big case against MP3 sharing services, saying that people arn't getting the royalties they are entitled to, and now they're stiffing the people to whom the royalties are entitled to. Can we just find a Judge to review the entire RIAA vs. Napster, RIAA vs MP3.com, and just tell RIAA that enough's enough, either follow your own rules, or we're overturning these decisions
blah
Ok, So Napster starts up a MP3 sharing service.
The RIAA gets pissed because it isn't getting paid
RiAA sues
Napster capulates and bends over
Now..
RiAA starts streaming MP3s
Artists are pissed because they aren't getting paid, Napster is pissed to because this is why they had to bend over, over money and copyright
Possible lawsuit?
And if the RiAA bends over?
Slashdot Hypocrisy at work?
In the case of musicians who write their own music, you earn money both from selling recordings (which the record company typically owns copyright to) and being paid publishing (which can be in the hands of the record company, a separate publishing company, or the artist themselves) if someone else records your song, or if it gets played on the radio.
This is what keeps me defending mp3's. I don't want to ripoff my favorite band any more than the next guy, but how can people who pirate their music be chastised, when the only alternative is putting money in the RIAA's pockets? Maybe I'm just a fanatic, but I'm the type that keeps a shitlist of companies to not do business with; so when a monopoly makes that list, where does a person go for the service?
1. AOL/Time Warner is on my shitlist, but in Charlotte NC you can't get highspeed access without 'Road Runner'. Hell, you can't get cable without paying Time Warner. So I turn in a resume to Carolina Broadband. TW's only competition is 2 years away from opening it's doors.
2. In America, I can't buy music without paying the RIAA. Who competes with them? So I download it for free, online.
How can any American support them when it amounts to funding crap like hard drives with copyright protection, or giving the RIAA money with which to pay off our elected officials? That's not for me, thanks. Maybe I'll start writing $15 personal checks to artists that say "for: the album I downloaded."
Actually its ASCAP thats one of the biggest companies that pays monies to lyricists, composers, etc., so RIAA would have to deal with them before anything is even created.
One can argue all day and night over the ethics of RIAA's actions, but most will fail when it all comes down to rights. RIAA has the rights to their controlled assets (music) and can do as they wish with it. Sure its ethically wrong, but has anyone seen any business that was fair? shittt... even the Catholic religion is shaky
This may be the ultimate solution for artists and online stations to go about. Some artists should think about releasing an online version of their songs prior to committing to anyone like RIAA, ASCAP, etc., this way their songs become more popular, people enjoy their music before its been monopolized, and artists can then leverage more rights from RIAA, and the others, and if those agencies don't like it, the artist (now popular from releasing a net based song) can then press and distribute records on their own, which many successful artists have done.
L. Ron Hubbard's FBI files a la FOIA
360 degrees of Karma
Perhaps I don't understand the concept, but would this basically give the record companies the right to pretend that they're end-users? In other words, when I play a record in a coffee-shop, I'm an end user and I pay a negligible fee to the copyright holder. So this would allow the record companies to get away with paying the same negligible fees, rather than negotiating a real contract with the artists the way they do today?
Yes your correct, my bad thinking ... right = write. just sometimes I'm not thinking.
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.
As simple as you make it sound, there is a lot more to it. I happen to be in the camp that agrees with the idea of: copyright holders should paid for their work.
Now with that out of the way. Alot of people don't know how many layers of hands might be in a song. at any given time there might be 5 to 25 layers (percentage takers ) in a song. for example :
singer, producer, engineer, backup vocals, song righter, hook righter, hook musician, album producer, agent, lable, and this list can go on and on. Each one of those parties eat a certain percentage ( or $ depending on the contract ).
Now what is very freightening is that the RIAA wants to back out of their contract. And they might win.
In most record lable contracts, there are different right's. MP3's might not be covered, the only digital media covered right now is the cd and dat ( I think there might be another but I can not recall ). It's new to the industry ( mp3's) so you can imagine what it might look like.
So the record industry knowing that MP3's might not be covered can ( with some good lawyers ) back out of paying MP3 distribution. ( contract does not cover it so it belongs to the holders of the master tape, otherwise you could argue that you hold a cd and the first digital broadcast of the MP3 would belong to you )
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.
When I read the /. first page synopsis, my first thought was "How and why could the RIAA screw the lyricists without trying to screw the composers of the music too?".
The answer is they are trying to screw both. Which means someone should explain to the poster that published music rights are for the lyrics AND the music.
Can't understand why lyrics were singled out...
I wonder if the RIAA will end up hosting their MP3-streaming services out of nations that don't conform to US copyright laws? Could be a good backup in case this blows up in their face. It'd be nicely ironic, too. :)
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
You know I used to not download lots of mp3's because I saw some sense in the argument that the artist's should be compensated. Now I'm just going to go into a downloading frenzy. If they don't respect the artists why should I. If I do respect the artists the money will go to the RIAA anyways.
But Yogi, the RIAA won't like that.
If you don't want to pay royalties, then don't take in income by charging people to listen. Paying a percentage of as yet untapped *profit* is hard for these people? They will be making MORE MONEY, with royalties or without.
Screw em. The less we buy, the less likely they are to patent their business model...
The RIAA says, "To be compelling to consumers
Duh, what do they think MP3.com was trying to do? The RIAA really is a joke. I find it quite hilarious that they themselves are being sued for exactly what they sued others for. Even the director of the KPIG online radio station called the RIAA a bunch of idiots.
Some of us still believe that
..and
1) the rights of corporations *should* not be as rich as those of people (I know -- they are)
2) that the GPL uses the (unifairly) restrictive powers of copyright law in a way to to lessen the restrictive impact of some future copyrights -- (get it...GNU != Unix)
Yes, if our laws were'nt bought and paid for but were instead subject to real democratic input, there would be no need for a GPL, or any of the other crazy license agreements (Use of this product entitles us to all moral rights of your work and your first unborn child. You agree to not disparage this software or make money off of any remotely related activity. Any ideas you think of while using this product belong to XYZ corp..) we wouldn't have to rely on creative legal maneouvres to maintain the richness of the public domain. I agree with the original poster. The current copyright laws had no public input, were not responsive to any public pressures, and were not written with any public benefit in mind. They were spawned in the offices of lobbyists a stone's throw from the capitol. Said lobbyists handed the bills and a check to our congressmen. Virtually all laws governing commerce in this country have the same history.
If the corporations have such a low regard for the law that they can bribe our legislators and rewrite it retroactively anytime a Disney cartoon approaches the public domain, then why should we have any higher regard for these McStatutes*?
Why obey?
*
Mc* is a trademark of McDonalds(TM) corp.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
....the RIAA just wanted to get in on the action in a controlling role. They don't want to be a partner, they want control, and Napster didn't give it to them, so they had it shut down so they could start their own service. Now they have control over when they start charging, and how much. Cute, isn't it?
-----
Bow before my sig, for it is good.
This is the kind of behavior I'd expect from a panicked corporation -- very much in touch with its own mortality, and sensing the possibility (or inevitability) of demise. It's strange that with so much excessive cash the RIAA has accumulated over the years they'd be feeling threatened, but they must know what's going better than the likes of me.
In short, RIAA is no longer needed by the artists OR the consumer, and they know it. So I'm going to sit back and watch them bury themselves. Should be fun!
When there's more sick ones than well ones, by golly the sick one will lock the well ones up - Eric Goldman
So we tend to think that owning something and ethics go together, and accept that the RIAA would look out for their artists (an ethical thing to do) by enforcing their ownership (a legal thing). But the RIAA is not opposed to people getting music from the 'net, they're opposed to someone else profiting. In every sense, they are the pirate, since they see no connection between ownership and ethical treatment. This is, and always has been, about control, and never about the artist.