Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Wants Opt-In Filtering For Napster
"So who would decide what songs go on this 'opt-in' list? The copyright holder or the RIAA?
In other words, if I want to distribute a 3-hour recording of me gargling (to which I would own the copyright), would I be able to add it to the opt-in list? If so, what's stopping anyone adding in any old song into the list. If not, who would be responsible for listening to all the material that is submitted, and deciding whether or not it should be added?"
I bet the completely trustworthy, infallably charitable Music Industry would like to be the one making that decision. They know what's best, and how much it should cost (per listen, ideally). Conceding control of what's on people's hard drives to large businesses with vested interests in limited fair use (however you define it) seems like a bad idea.
This sounds very big brother-ish... only listen to the right music, go to the approved places, drive in gov't sanctioned cars.
Sure, I say this with sarcasm now, but even if They can't take away our physical rights, why not our electronic ones? Right now there is the possibility that Napster could turn into the only RIAA approved file sharing system right? And it'll only stock "approved" titles. So what makes you think that after a good relationship is established that gnutella etc aren't going to be what They start going after?
I hate to be a conspiricy theorist, but I appreciate my fair use rights as much as the next guy. Soon you won't be able to download non-sanctioned music, you'll have people monitoring what you watch on your HDTV, you won't be able to record it, and your HDTV won't really be under your control anymore anyway, as it's remote control capabilities allow Them to turn it off when They see fit. Oh, and those DVDs you purchased? Wanna watch them on a non-approved OS or using a non-licensed player? Sorry bub, no joy. Rip a CD to listen in an un-approved manner? Good luck!
Sarcasm now, but lets see what it's like in a few years.
Of course, my cowardly friend! I do both kinds of music- country _and_ western ;)
I DON'T HAVE FUCKING TIME TO PERSONALLY AUTHORISE EVERY LITTLE DOWNLOAD!
_Apologies_ to anyone who is offended by this strong language- but I am _very_ angry here. As copyright holder it is UP TO ME how I want to license my stuff. As it happens, I use the statement "All commercial rights reserved- noncommercial copying OKAY", because I fully intend to completely permit ALL FORMS of fair use copying and EVERY sort of copying and sharing and trading that doesn't actually involve someone charging people for my stuff. That is MY RIGHT under the law. _I!_ am the one who says what people can do with it.
Even _if_ the idea of this isn't 'submit your song to the RIAA to have Napster given permission to let YOU host it on YOUR computer only', even if the idea is that Napster keeps the records, I am really angry and finding this suggestion absolutely intolerable. As copyright holder _I_ have the right to authorise every listener I have to share my stuff on Napster. I've even asked people to do just this, repeatedly- I thought it would not only help me but would also add to the argument that Napster links to lots of different kinds of content.
I am not trying to get a free ride off the RIAA, okay? I'm not even _seeking_ fame and money and record contracts that are fair. I am perfectly content to do all the work for producing my own music, to seek out places like besonic and ampcast that aren't ripping me off, to accept that I may not sell zillions of CDs even once I finish the work of making them available from Ampcast. I'm not asking for help with all this, and I'm not getting any. I have to do it all myself and that suits me fine.
But I draw the line at having to be a _fucking_ performing rights organisation too, just because OTHER PEOPLE can't deal with the idea that people can exchange their artworks without paying. I am completely offended at this to the point that I begin to understand the feelings of some slashdotters and anarcholibertarians when confronted with unions: I am more socialist myself but here's a situation where I am forbidden to license my stuff under my own rules because that would mean people could legally share it on napster without my _personal_ authorisation. And I'm looking at a possible future where, every time some new sharing program or P2P thing comes around, I have to PERSONALLY go and give them an 'it's okay to share my music' before they're permitted. Goddammit, I write that on my CDs! I do not have TIME to piddle around being a performing rights organisation. The record companies have time and resources to do this kind of crap, and I do _not_.
And I am _pissed_ that they are even suggesting it. Sorry for all the strong language. I am _so_ pissed at this suggestion. I'm sorry, I put a great deal of effort into checking out the resources available to me (like ampcast, and for that matter CafePress) that let me offload some of the work in being an active, productive Internet artist and musician, and this ability is absolutely central to increasing the fluidity and efficiency of the Internet age and allowing people like me access to the world's commerce and media. It is _crucial_ that I am allowed to set my own terms on copyright and that this is _respected_: requiring me to authorise each new little P2P startup is refusing to honor the copyright licensing I already make that specifically authorizes noncommercial copying! I _must_ be allowed to authorise just-plain-listeners to share my stuff on P2P networks etc, do anything with it as long as it's noncommercial- because _I_ don't have the time to run around being a Publishing Rights Organisation and an IANAL and a publicist and an advertising flack and a suit. It's just not reasonable. Why the hell can't they at least let _me_ do my work and allow the random forces of the net to bring me whatever publicity or sales turn up? Why do they effectively plan to _force_ me to operate as a rights agent and individually authorize every little P2P thing that might turn up? I am so angry...
OK, that was messy and a lot of extrapolation but I've got a lot of work to do which these nice people at the RIAA are _not_ helping me do in any way shape or form, so I'd better go off and do it and hope other people can keep the RIAA from loading even _more_ compulsory work on me for the privilege of trying to distribute MY OWN music... I _so_ don't have the time to track down the relevant people and scream at them... if anyone wishes these views cleaned up for broader publication I'd be more than happy to do so and promise not to say F**K...
It's supposed to place the burdens on the holder to prove that a violation has, in fact, occurred. Not the other way around. Many people need to scream "foul" right now over this.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
In other words, for Napster to distribute one of my spoken-word pieces, I'd have to tell Napster that it was okay to distribute it, exactly the same way I give permission to distribute my software by slapping a GPL on it. The presumption is that copyright exists and that people own their creations.
Having said that, I have severe misgivings about IP laws in general, but in this particular case, there doesn't appear to be anything questionable going on from a legal standpoint.
--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
The RIAA represents five music publishers. They may sell the majority of all music recordings, but there are many other smaller publishers and self publishers.
The RIAA's idea is that you must get your music file onto their "approved" list before you can share it with anybody.
And, of course, the RIAA wouldn't want to provide such a service to their competitors for free, would they? That's right. This is just a simple, slimey trick that would allow the RIAA to extort money from ALL music distributors if they want their music on Napster.
So, the big companies get richer, and the smaller companies take it up the ***.
I guess the "government by the people, for the people, and of the people" is redefining the word "people" as multi-national corporations.
[sigh]
--
"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
None of my bands have ever been a part of the RIAA andhopefully never will. I wrote it. I recorded it.. I produced it. Not the RIAA. If any of these major "artists" would actually stand up for their rights we wouldn't be in this mess.
There is a reason for the ethics of indie lables and why they have always been and will always be around. Alot of these new "alternative" bands tout their indie and/or punk ethics but I have yet to see one follow through. The cash keeps coming in so it doesn't really affect them.
--
The problem is that this assumes that all content is copyrighted in the first place and that the copyright lasts to perpetuity. There should be no need to get permission to distribute works in the Public Domain, as no one "owns" the work.
The RIAA's behavior seems to indicate that they believe that Copyright lasts forever. This cannot be the case under the current Constitution.
The court has an obligation to ALLOW non-infringing uses of Napster that will prevent this from happening. You have to identify infringing uses, and block them. Not block everything, and then decide what is non-infringing and allow it.
Basically, a long long time ago, the RIAA opened a really bad Pandora's box called radio. In this scheme, the radio stations pay the RIAA to play music, and the consumer gets music for free. Well, it is only a small leap in the consumer's mind from free music over the radio to free music on demand via Napster.
If it were not for free music to the consumer, the RIAA would be nearly worthless. That is their dominant form of advertising - radio, MTV, et al. Now they have to sleep in the bed they made.
I'm assuming that the copyright holder of the music is to contact napster and then opt in themselves. Most music will be owned by RIAA (per the artists record contract). Anything else (stuff I recorded in my garage) will have to have the permission of me. So I send that permission to Napster and all is well.
Doesn't sound like that bad of a deal to me. Who knows, there might be non-signed bands that don't wait their music on napster and don't have the money/time/resources to sue people trading their copyrighted works without their permission.
--
Free Mac Mini
I'm sure the RIAA would want jurisdiction over the opt in decision, thereby also giving them control over independent artists who want to use their talent to make money for themselves instead of paying the music industry to do it for them.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
What about all the music out there that is NOT controlled by the RIAA?
Since when does the RIAA speak for artists OUTSIDE of the US?
I am become Troll, destroyer of threads
All content IS copyrighted in the first place - read the current copyright act (if you have a strong stomach.) Very, very little recorded material is in the Public Domain since, if it were recorded after 1923 it has an automatic copyright lasting an absolute minimum of 70 years and, more likely with music, for 95 years. Congress has been systematically lengthening copyright term limits since 1909. Every time one limit is almost over, they tack more time onto it - a perpetual copyright handed out piecemeal. For more information check out my copyright website at http://limitingcopyright.com -- a lot of good links to important articles.
Don't just complain - DO something about it!
This is not illegal restraint of trade, because a) it hasn't friggin' happened yet, it's only that RIAA has asked a court to order it, and b) even if it did happen, something ordered by a court is assumed to be legal unless it's overturned, and even if it is it's ultimately the court's fault, and not the petitioner.
If I ask a court to kill my neighbor, that in itself does not make me a murderer.
Next time your knee jerks, don't let it hit you in the head and cause brain damage.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
The RIAA should just drop the Napster lawsuit and get into biotechnology. That way they can replace our ears with digital devices that will automatically bill our credit card whenever we hear one of their copyrighted songs. Then it doesn't matter if you overheard somebody's radio on the street, the poverty stricken RIAA gets their fair share.
Yes, but the Sherman Act prohibits agreements, combinations, and conspiracies in restraint of trade. RIAA is a combination of companies looking to restrain trade. 'Nuff said.
sulli
RTFJ.
If the RIAA wants to block sharing of everything except - what? approved non RIAA music? this sounds to me like illegal restraint of trade. Where's the Antitrust Division when we need it?
sulli
RTFJ.
I work at a modest college radio station and we have a fairly large collection of CDs, vinyls and 7 inches. Despite our amassment music we do not have some albums. For the last couple of months, our solution has been to use Napster to download and then play the songs over the air; a supplement for the music we don't have. And it has been working very well.
We delete the MP3's after our shows - we only have a finite amount of space after all. There's no stealing here. If anything, we are helping promote the bands by playing the music we love so much.
I guess it's an interesting case in which we are using Napster, but the end results is good for the bands, RIAA and the people who are listening to our shows.
It'll just be harder to play some music or fill requests for music which I haven't gotten around to buying or which the station doesn't have in it's library. Oh well! We lived before Napster and we will live after. But some things just made life a bit easier.
My new band Etallica just released an album "Nd Ustice Or LL" which we will promptly be submitting for approval.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Damn it. I actually believe one thing about what the RIAA is alluding too, and that is that Napster is doing their damndest to not do what they know their supposed to do.
They simply are going to act like spoiled little children and keep yelling "NO" and name calling the RIAA. They aren't fighting for me or anyone elses rights. They are fighting to keep their stock value and their salaries. They are damn willing to use the users of their service as cannon fodder in their attempt to stay in an illegal business.
So what happens, the RIAA keeps dragging them into court, and popping out new ideas to screw over the rest of us. Unfortunately everyone damn twit jumps on them instead of facing the fact that is is BOTH the RIAA and Napster that are quickly eroding our rights.
Napster and RIAA both operate on one principal, and that is GREED. The only difference between the two is which came first.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
My question is who gets to choose whether music will be available or not:
A) The Record Company
B) The Artist
An Artist like the Dave Matthews Band, Madonna, Courtney Love, Fred Durst, and many more have voiced their approval of Napster, but they are all under contract with RIAA member companies.
Will their music be available?
If the RIAA gets to decide what songs get to be distributed, they come one step closer to rebuilding thier fallen monopoly on mass distrbution of music and media.
artists with out RIAA recognition (which grow by the truckloads thanks to home recording software and such) will get pushed off to the side as so much rubish, so they wont be competition for the RIAA pop music slush.
Thank the fates that I know that the RIAA will never completly succeed in recreating their previous monoploy just do to the simple saying:
The bigger the wall, the more cracks in it.
the harder they try and squash the people trading the music, the more people they will have to squash (nothing draws a crowd like a crowd), and the more creative those people will get.
people should pay for the music they listen too, but people should also be able to do what they want with what they pay for.
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" - RWE