Slashdot Mirror
Napster Goes Before US Congress
cecil36 writes "Yahoo! is reporting that Napster is going through a congressional hearing. At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing were Hank Berry, Napster interim chief, representatives from the recording industry, artists Alanis Morissette and Don Henley, and the MPAA's Jack Valenti. There appears to be support for online compulsory licensing (pay for rights to listen) in both the House and Senate, but Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is saying that this type of licensing could be in violation of international treaties."
What would they do without Jack Valenti? He's always the voice of reason...
:/
But I guess since Napster trades movies now, he should get involved.
Which leads us right back to IRC.
This is brilliant! Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US constitution states:
[Congress shall have the power] Clause 8: 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;
Emphasis mine, on "limited times". Patents extend for 20 years. This has proved fair and covers the "sciences" portion of the above. But Current copyright is the creator's life plus 120 years for new copyrights. Is this "limited". It's eternal for all practical purposes since no one will ever live that long. It gets worse when the "creator" is a corporation. Because they can never "die". Even when they're about to die, all their assets are acquired by someone else and thus continue to live on that way. (e.g., Hasbro now holds the copyright to old Atari 2600 games, even though Atari is dead Dead DEAD).
We were downloading music before Napster, before Winamp, before Real and even before MP3. We're still doing it and will do it after. You cannot PROHIBIT me to do or not to do something. You have to CONVICE me about it, otherwise as long as I don't like your practices, you will not like mine. Think about this.
I would, but I read this right after I bought my McDonalds Large Orange Drink.
The thing is, internet music is like an _idea_ of music. If (as a WILDLY HYPOTHETICAL example ;) ) I'd never heard the vocoder effect on Cher's 'Believe', I could tune in the radio and listen to crap for hours hoping to both hear that and recognise it, perhaps have it identified. I could attempt to spend my very limited money on something that I _know_ from context isn't what I generally like, and will also be premium priced. Or, I could tune in the Napster Radio, and discover that the only 'station' playing that tune is some guy off somewhere who ripped it off a rotten CD-Rom with LOUD obnoxious CD skips and zaps, as if I was listening on shortwave, but it would be enough to check out _what_ the effect was, and go 'Huh. Fancy that'. And then delete the file and be well pleased that I'd educated myself a bit on what was out there in the world, and never think about Cher quite the same way again because she'd permitted something rather far-out to be done to her voice on a #1 single.
For the record, as of now I don't have Cher's "Believe" on my computer or any form of media... unless you count Napster etc. as a resource, in which case I have ALL MUSIC coming in as sputtery low-fi anytime I want. It's plainly not a physical media situation in a case like that- listening to something you'd never be seen buying in a store? What's up with that? It makes of the music an IDEA, and if I really flipped over the idea it would make perfect sense to go get the physical product- don't know about you, but I've had hard disks fail, and I've had 'licenses' I'd paid for delete themselves, and I just am not interested in playing around with blending the virtual and the actual. If I want a record or a CD I will _get_ it. Virtual is NOT the same- arguably it's not as good, but it sure is more fluid. Like fire it is expansible over all space without lessening its density at any point...
It's how _major_ _label_ musicians and songwriters get paid. It's how RIAA gets money to stomp out everything that might compete with it. I actually take pains to try and teach people NOT to buy 'audio' CDRs- because pretty much 100% of the people I'm telling it to are indie electronic musicians trying to work out how to do THEIR OWN recordings. There is _no_ justification for taxing them for burning their own music- they are the players that can least afford this, even though it's not a huge percentage. It just doesn't apply to people who are burning exclusively their own stuff to CDR- and people should avoid the commercial music CD burners and players that require 'music' CDRs and stick to the ones that work on any CDR.
(and if you think I'm joking...)
You're assuming that copyright is a natural right -- that Disney should have every right to profit off something it made 20 years ago. To further clarify your position, let me ask you this: Do you believe that Disney should have the right to profit off something it made 120 years ago? 200? Do you believe that the families of classical music composers should still be recieving royalties? Remember, these profits aren't free -- they're made at the expense of the public.
What I'm trying to point out is that copyright is a privilige, given for a very specific purpose -- to encourage innovation. If any system of copyright is succesful in this goal, then it is succesful as a whole, without regard to how it changes the financial status of the holders. To do otherwise would be to have the government willfully create an artificial scarcity of what would otherwise be a commodity, to benefit only a very small portion of the population at great cost to the rest. Where's the justice in that?
And like i said, corps would have a lot longer to sit on an idea and hope it created income than individuals, by virtue of being able to take proceeds from one project that made money to pay for the copyright protection on another project. Indivuals most liekly wouldn't have that luxury, or at least not as much, so ultimately the more money you had, the longer your copyrights could run for, rather than how it is now where if one creates something, it's copyright by them for the rest of their lives.... So you ultimately shift the balance of power further towards big companies by taking away free copyrights.
That presumes that copyright protection would actually be profitable. Around the 15th or 16th year, any huge corporation which pays for copyright protection on a work will almost certainly lose money on that work that year -- so why would they willingly extend copyright when it makes them no money to do so? In short, they will hold copyright only as long it is profitable -- the same as any sane individual will do. So yes, your copyrights could run longer if you have more money -- but how long they will run depends on how much the individual work is worth.
Keep in mind, an individual with a particularly valuable work can afford to extend copyright on it, too. Why? If the work is valuable enough to make it worth the money needed to extend copyright, then the work will be generating all the money the individual needs to pay. If there's good reason to believe that the work's worth will increase dramatically, then the individual will be able to find investors willing to help pay for its extended copyright (and the exploitation of said copyright). Otherwise, it will fall out of protection -- exactly the same as if it were owned by a corporation!
I think i clearly do understand. IF you make copyrights costs something, then things that depend on them will increase in price further and further to offset the new cost of doing business. if the cost of doing business rises enough, risks can't be taken, new bands can't get promotional funds, we're stuck with more and more top 40 shit being pushed at us. Yeah, anyone could try to compete against them with copyrights that they paid for out of pocket and lasted for 3 or 4 years because it wasn't worth it anymore... But if free copyrights that last past your lifetime don't help individuals versus the corps, making copyrights exhorbantly expensive won't help either.
Most profits off any new product are made within the first six MONTHS of introduction. Not years, months. Admittedly, many products have significantly longer lifecycles -- but the initial producer will make plenty of money... but here's the big thing, the part where this limitation on copyright makes goods much, much CHEAPER for the consumer.
Once the cost of copyrights becomes so odious that a producer can no longer pay for it without raising the price beyond what the market will sanely bear, any producer in their right mind will abandon copyright on their product. What happens then? Copycats come in and make their own versions of this now public domain work -- and sell them nearly for free! It's at this point when the public truly wins.
Remember, even if corporations are grabbing public domain works, marketing them and keeping the full profits, they can't profit very much -- after all, if they're asking any price which is not entirely reasonable, folks can then create and *legally* distribute MP3s of the original. In short, the benefit to the public far outweighs the costs.
Making copyright nontransferable can screw the little guy as much as anyone else -- if I write something I don't want to maintain, I *want* to be able to sell complete control and responsibility to someone else.
(Yes, this is very revelent...)
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
There seems to be some misconception that one credit for creating something is somehow lost when the copyright expires. This is false. Only your exclusive right to profit expires. No one is interested in striking your name from every obelisk, nor could they. Look at Beethoven's/Mozart's/Chopin's works. Copyrights have expired of all their work. Does that mean other people have "suppressed their achievement" or "taken credit" for their work? No. Wel still know who did what. And today more people enjoy that work because it has become free. That's what copyright is supposed to do. Profit for A WHILE, then it becomes free to improve all of science and art in general.
What would REALLY be nice is if members of congress would post to slashdot in the comments sections, debating issues, or providing information on their stand, what congress is doing about it, what WE could do to help, etc.
.
what would suck though, is if officials from other countries started doing it too. Gawrsh, that would be disorienting. .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
hey man, fuck you. Elton John ROCKS.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Yup...and when Virgin Records (Believe they're based out of the UK) gets pissed cause it's either "Put your catalog online or Napster can serve it - because the US says so"
And this works for radio play too - the radio stations play whatever the record companies - sorry, I mean "independent promoters" - pay them to play.
You know lynching was very popular in the south once.
The CDs won't become free. The CDs will become "out of print". And we'll have to do semi-underground trading of them just the way we have to do semi-underground trading of "B-Sides" of singles and cdsingles and the like today...
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
No, the CDs will become printed by everyone who isn't too lazy. They'll be public domain by then, remember? Just like classical music today.
--
Are you trying to say that the music business is easy money ? That's a laugh. Last I heard, all the easy money people were going into the computing industry.
I really like this idea. Free Market people should also really like this idea. If you think that all traditional taxes should go away, to be replaced by usage fees for all government services, then this is a reasonable solution. I personally don't necessarily subscribe to that idea, but I can see the beauty of forcing companies to pay for the copyrights that are provided as a government service.
To make it fair though, you'd have to make a scale based on percentage of income realized. Everybody's copyright would start at $1. If you didn't make any money off the idea, then the cost would go up just a slight percentage each year. If you made a million dollars off the idea, then the cost would go up the next year by a rather large percentage. This could be a straight scale, based on the largest and smallest amount of money realized by the copyright holder in a given year.
This is paying for your government services as you go, and when the government service becomes too expensive, you can seek a private source of copyright enforcement if you choose. But, beware the fees surrounding the judicial system, which are based on how many lawsuits you file...
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
I didn't realize that "snake handling" was religious...
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Yah I knew that. Snake handling is religious.
But I didn't know that "snake handling" (wink wink - nudge nudge - get it? huh did you get it? huh? did you?) was religious.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
The problem with term limits is that they reduce the long-term memory of Congress.
For instance, in 1976, the copyright industry came to Congress, and wanted the copyright laws overhauled, which Congress did. They also said that they wanted the copyrights extended from 56 years to 75 years, and that would be the last time they would ask because 75 years was completely fair and that would be it.
Now, 20 years later, there are only a very few members of Congress who were part of that debate, so when the copyright industry comes to Congress and starts saying, "We need 20 years more copyright protection", there are very few members who are in a position to say, "You came to us before, and we remember what you said."
With term limits, lobbyists and congressional staff members become much more powerful then Representatives and Senators, because they have the ability to stay longer and accumulate more favors and power. Term limits are anti-democratic.
I suppose I shouldn't even bother, yet I will.
Translation: "I'll gladly pay next to nothing in exchange for access to an unlimtied amount of music, versus the $80+/mo. I used to spend."
There's no evidence that people are going to abandon prerecorded CDs, a visually artistic and desirable consumer product, in favor of downloading inferior MP3s. Quite the opposite -- CD sales are at an all-time high and are increasing annually. You'd think that it would be hard to claim that the sky is falling when sales are going through the roof, but the RIAA is doing a damn good job of it.
But I'm just getting started!
joy.
Funny how oh-so-very-Libertarian Slashdotters, who would of course oppose Big Governement's efforts to take information property from them, in the form of privacy violations, suddenly don't bat an eye when a bunch of morons walks onto Capitol Hill and says we must release all IP rights to the music, or the world will die
What are you talking about? I'm not talking about releasing IP rights. These are royalties, which, by definition, are compensation for the right to copy. Just like when a radio station broadcasts a song, and pays royalties to the record company. Do you think that congress has "released all IP rights to the music" because it allows them to broadcast songs without negotiating individual licenses with the record labels and music publisher? Are you going to start ranting that radio stations are pirates because they pay a fixed fee for the right to copy instead of negotiating three individual contracts for each performance of each song?
By the way, I didn't see any reluctance on the part of the music industry to accept these royalty payments. Seems to me that when the recording industry on one hand accepts payment as compensation for non-commercial recording, then goes to Congress and complains that non-commercial copying needs to be stopped because they aren't being paid, that is stealing. Or at least lying.
And I'll bet all those artists collecting piddling royalties will be ever so glad when their royalty checks go from s**t to none because Napster needs a new pair of shoes.
First off, the royalty system is completely screwed up. Artists aren't not being paid because of Napster. Artists aren't being paid because the organizations that are supposed to be representing them are ripping them off. That's an entirely different problem, and one that cannot be solved by legalizing, or abolishing Napster.
Now, back to your assumption that Napster is ruining the CD market. Where is the evidence? All the evidence out there is that people who use Napster are more likely to buy prerecorded music, just like people who listen to the radio are more likely to buy CDs.
Fact is, you just want your goddamn music for free, and don't give a rat's arse about anything else.
This is so funny. What makes you think I even use Napster? What I want is to get the recording industry out of the business of attempting to control what individuals do with their own computers in the privacy of their own home, and back into the business of recording music. That's why I favor statutory royalty payments. Ore are you saying that I'm in favor of payments because I don't want to pay for things?
Oh, and of course you're OKEY VERY MUCH SIR with the added cost on your CD-R's. After all, you've always been so much for attempts to spread costs around, be it taxes (oops, no), surcharges (no again), advertising (no again), ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Actually, I was pretty pissed about the AHRA in 1992 when it was passed, because it looked like a consumer ripoff. Of course, in 1992, recording labels had no way of knowing what people did with the media, so the law didn't really help the public in any way. In 2001, things are very different. The record labels now have a way of monitoring individual users, via the internet, and the protections of the AHRA could become very important to the general public.
However, I'll give you this.
if the courts were to decide that paying the DART "royalty" does not actually give individuals the right to use the music, even though the record companies are getting paid, then I'd support abolishing it. In that case, it isn't really a royalty. More like "protection" money.
Yes, they pay piddling royalties as an ANTI-PIRACY measure. Note to embecile: the convenience stores do this too: mark up their merchandies to accomodate losses to theft."
Record labels sell prerecorded CDs, not blank CDRs. If they wanted to mark up the price of prerecorded CDs to compensate for infringement, they have every right to do that. What they don't have the right to do is use the government to mark up the price of other people's merchandise. How would you feel if every automobile you purchased included a 3% surcharge, established in 1910, to compensate the buggy whip manufacturers for their loss of business?
You would be a lot more credible if you'd learn the difference between stealing and infringement also.
Plus, the royalties aren't piddling. They're right in line with industry practice. All of the other statutory royalty rates, whether you're paying to put a song on the radio, or to put a "cover" song on your album, are on the order of pennies per minute. The 3% rate is actually a reasonable royalty rate.
Sorry about the rant, but 3 years of encounters with the pirates who temporarily subsume the 'information wants to be free' slogan to justify their downloading every song and movie they wanted to see and never, ever felt it necessary to send a dime to those who were making the stuff they were consuming.
If you buy a $3.00 audio CD, then fill it from Napster, you are sending about a dime to those who were making the stuff you were consuming.
I've designed plenty, had my shit pirated across the infobahn and end up having to piddle along in tech support.
I dislike pouring out all my demons anonymously like this, but if one more damned lawyer's son tells me this his unwillingness to spend a couple bucks (literally) for my heart and soul and that's I've no right to protest, I'll break out in huge, noxious boils from the sheer pile of bullshit I'm witness to.
So put your name on it. Or create a slashdot account without your name and use that. Posting as Anonymous Coward was entirely your choice. Funny that you assume I'm a lawyer's son. Did some lawyer's son hurt you in the past? Your bitterness about being stuck in a dead-end tech support job really shows, and it's affecting your ability to make arguments. Perhaps you should consider a career change, or therapy. Your ranting is unconvincing.
That's an entirely different problem. Unfortunately, whatever "system" of paying musicians and songwriters is developed, it is going to involve some sort of intermediary, be it ASCAP, BMI, etc.
Right now, the way the royalties are divided up is based on frequency of record sales and radio play, and since the recording labels pretty much determine who gets the promotion and radio play, the actual effect is that the vast bulk of the royalties follow the small handful of most popular bands, and less powerful songwriters and artists get burned.
This is a big problem that needs to be fixed, but this problem will exist whether the money comes from Napster or from blank media royalties until it is independently fixed.
You are right. Anyone making their own recordings of their own work certainly has no moral obligation to pay royalties to the music industry to do so.
You're right, I have no data on that.
However, consider that the royalties are only collected on CDRs that have "Audio" printed on the label, so I would speculate that most people who buy CDRs to store data either buy bulk CDRs, or CDRs labelled for "Data".
True memories are unnecessary. That's what the congressional record and history books are for.
You overrate the intelligence and work ethic of the typical congressman. Jack Valenti was testifying before Congress in the 1960s, before most of our current congresspeople were even born.
With most things that are worthwhile monetarily to copyright the company can afford to use the profit from the product in question to renew the copyright and keep up with the latest legalese. That's why so many inventors ideas are rarely copyrighted even though they are mass produced and sold.
Since 1976, all works automatically receive copyright protection the moment they are fixed in some media. The only reason to register a work with the copyright office is so that you can begin to claim statutory damages from an infringer. Also, copyright renewal was abolished in 1976, so these conditions haven't existed for 25 years. You have a very long memory. Perhaps you should run for Congress.
What you are missing entirely is that presently the staff members and lobbyists ARE more powerful than the Senators and Reps simply because they've transformed from "I work for the people" to "I do what the powerful people who control the masses of sheep voters tell me to so I can stay in this cushy job."
Senators and Reps come and go, but staffers can stay forever. Most of what we consider to be "laws" are really regulations, written by staffers, not signed into law by Congress. Our Senators and Reps are too busy with political activities. Quite simply, our government has 1 president, 50 senators, 435 representatives, and thousands and thousands of unelected public servants who actually do the work, and write the regulations, and unofficially the real power of government.
Not that we are a democracy anyway.
True. The U.S. is a republic, not a democracy. The exception being those states with voter initiative laws.
If term limits were anti-democratic we'd have a King named Bill and a queen named Hillary.
If we had a king and queen, we wouldn't have the option of voting them out. Term limits are unnecessary because the public always has the option of imposing term limits on any president, senator or rep by voting him or her out.
The royalties are collected on all digital media branded for audio. In other words, if it says "audio", then it is covered. Data media, meaning DDS tapes (which can be used as DATs) and unbranded or "Data" branded CDs aren't.
If you purchase digital audio media branded, that is, marketed and sold as for audio use, then the importer or manufacturer had to pay a 3% royalty at the time the CD was manufactured or imported. If you use bulk or data-branded CDRs, no royalty has been paid.
Make no mistake, the royalty amount is small. That's 3% of the wholesale price, not the retail price. Still, it's the principle of the thing. If Congress is going to consider a small statutory royalty to cover home digital recording, then they should be aware that not only is there already a functioning law on the books that does just that, but that there is strong evidence that this law is actually beginning to function as intended by Congress.
The AHRA was passed in 1992, when the only people who used DAT were industry professionals, and a handful of Grateful Dead tape traders. We know that there's been no surge in DAT sales in the last three years. The only explanation for the exponential growth in the royalty fund revenues in the last three years is that the royalty fund is tracking the explosive growth in music branded CDRs -- which even the RIAA has to admit is fueled almost entirely by the internet, the MP3 revolution, and ultimately, Napster.
Embracing the AHRA as sanctioning file sharing would be such a clean solution. On the one hand, instead of trying to re-educate the public into believing that sharing is wrong, the new message to the public would be that if you want musicians and songwriters to be paid when you download, the way you do it is by using royalty-paid media to store your music, whatever that media may be. Perhaps it's a minidisk, or a CDR, or some future technology.
Now THAT is something that the public could understand, agree with, and feel good about doing.
On the other hand, voluntary media royalty prepayment benefits the music industry because it automatically does what DRM is ultimately supposed to do -- capture royalties on all copying. The main thrust of DRM is to try and either prevent copying or collect royalties. With royalty-prepaid media, royalties are collected on serial copying as well, so there's no need to prevent copying. Royalties are always collected! In fact, the more copying -- the more "anarchy", as one of the industry spokespeople put it, the more royalties paid!
Of course, the system falls apart if people don't use audio-branded CDRs. But look at the numbers. They are, because that's what the royalties are collected on, and they're exponentiating! If the government, Napster, and the recording industry were to come together, accept the AHRA, and start a public relations campaign that the slight extra cost of buying digital media with the word "audio" on the shrink-wrap is how musicians and songwriters get paid, I'll bet people would do it in a heartbeat, and the recording industry, and artists and songwriters as well, would make more money on voluntary media royalties then they ever would on trying to corner the market on and strictly control downloading music. Without having to lift a finger.
Statutory royalties are already being collected by the music industry. Every time someone purchases a CDR to fill with music downloaded from Napster, they pay a 3% royalty, which is put in a fund. 100% of this fund (minus some 12 cents paid to two individuals who have been fighting the system and demanding their royalties directly) is paid directly to an organization called Copyright Management Inc (CMI), which distributes the fund to copyright holders, songwriters, music publishers, and artists. Well, they distribute the funds to the various organizations that claim to represent those parties, such as ASCAP, BMI, etc. In the words of the copyright office:
The Settling Parties [which received 99.999% of the funds] receive all remaining royalty fees because they represent the interests of the remaining copyright owners entitled to receive a portion of these funds.
These "royalties", collected by law, are intended to compensate the music industry for all non-commercial copying of music. These royalties have been collected since 1992, and represent a substantial amount of money. These royalties are compounding by the year as more and more people purchase CDR burners, and blank media, and use them.
It turns out to be fairly difficult to find out exactly how much money has been collected in blank media royalties. here is the copyright office's website describing how the royalties were divided up. The acronym is DART, for "Digital Audio Recording Technology" If you look over the documents, you'll find that for every year that blank media statutory royalties have been collected, over 99.99% have gone to an organization called "Copyright Management Inc", which is a blanket organization that covers ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, HFA, SGA, and others. It's almost as if they don't really want the public to know how much money is being collected. No matter how hard you look, you'll never find actual dollar amounts -- only percentages. I was able to find out the actual dollar amounts though, from one of those two individuals who filed individual claims, and here they are:
Royalties collected on consumer digital audio recording devices and blank media:
1992 $118,228.42
1993 $520,162.84
1994 $521,999.64
1995 $473,592.20
1996 $397,152.52
1997 $969,178.06
1998 $1,978,457.93
1999 $3,551,030.86
2000 $5,285,246.32
Total: over 13 Million dollars so far.
The royalties collected prior to 1997 mostly represent sales of DAT recorders and tapes. The introduction of CD recorders and blank CDRs caused a large jump in the collected royalties, and surely the introduction of Napster is largely responsible for the enormous growth in royalties collected in 1999 and 2000.
In other words, people are buying enormous numbers of blank CDRs. Most of these CDRs are probably being filled with music. Much of that music probably comes from Napster. So Napster is directly fueling the growth of the DART fund, which, I will remind you, is, by law, paid to artists and songwriters as well as copyright holders. So next time someone says that Napster users don't pay for their music, you have the real answer. They are. Congress needs to be made aware of this 13 million dollars in royalties, and decide what rights are purchased by those "royalties." Either admit that Napster users are paying royalties when they burn their downloaded MP3s to CDRs, and allow Napster to continue, or establish a new statutory royalty system based on downloads, and scrap the royalty system based on blank media, because under the current system, the people pay royalties to the music industry on the one hand when they purchase their media, yet are told that they are not paying the music industry when they fill that media. The music industry is talking out of both sides of their mouth on this issue, and no one seems to want to call them on it.
How does that protect the smaller person from the bigger fish? Large companies have much more money in general than do individuals, so they could copyright their stuff beyond the pratical reach of most people, and still be able to sit on their hands waiting for other people's copyrights to expire... Which would generally be a much shorter duration than what corps could afford.
Plus who endorses this plan? Individuals? They have to pay to protect their creations when right now it's free... That'll fly. Oh, how about corporations? Nope...
Foolhardy. You're giving the power to people with money, basically... Yeah, you free access to copyrighted materials much sooner, but don't you think the cost will be passed on to you? Imagine everyone complaining as their CD costs triple year after year after year...
Who do you work for, yourself or an employer? At least the vast majority of working folks here aren't freelancers, we're not consultants, we work for other companies, and we own no rights to what we create at work, either. Where's the difference?
Why not let the musicians take care of themselves, and if you really care about the philosophy about which you preach, tackle the same subjects which stand to effect your paycheck. Which exist in your industry. IP exists everywhere, but the only place anyone's fighting for its' dismissal is in music. Why not software? Why not books?
Because it's not about "freedom" for the artists... it's about "freedom" as in free as in beer for the consumer. And that's just not going to fly.
his is mainly to discourage greedy corporations from keeping something under copyright for 20+ years since at that point it is not economically feasible and it'll be cheaper to actually innovate *cough* Disney *cough*.
Many of disneys works are still profitable after 20 years. The only reason they wouldn't be is because your new rules would force them into unprofitablility. That just isn'r right. And like i said, corps would have a lot longer to sit on an idea and hope it created income than individuals, by virtue of being able to take proceeds from one project that made money to pay for the copyright protection on another project.
Indivuals most liekly wouldn't have that luxury, or at least not as much, so ultimately the more money you had, the longer your copyrights could run for, rather than how it is now where if one creates something, it's copyright by them for the rest of their lives.... So you ultimately shift the balance of power further towards big companies by taking away free copyrights.
I think i clearly do understand. IF you make copyrights costs something, then things that depend on them will increase in price further and further to offset the new cost of doing business. if the cost of doing business rises enough, risks can't be taken, new bands can't get promotional funds, we're stuck with more and more top 40 shit being pushed at us. Yeah, anyone could try to compete against them with copyrights that they paid for out of pocket and lasted for 3 or 4 years because it wasn't worth it anymore... But if free copyrights that last past your lifetime don't help individuals versus the corps, making copyrights exhorbantly expensive won't help either.
Because they're generally immature, not very bright, haven't thought out the consequences of their actions, don't know what the real world is like because they're living off of mommy and daddy's money, et cetera, et cetera. Basically, I'd take such a group a little more seriously than a group of elementary school kids marching, but not all that much more.
Cheers,
Seeing as they prefer mooching off the work of others (w00t! Something for nothing!), most Napster users just figure that someone else will do the protesting for them.
Cheers,
So if you can't write a filter to recognize those song names, you expect humans to try all those different permutations just to find the song they're interested in? I don't effing think so. That's why all these name changing schemes are so braindead. Yeah, I can ROT13 all my song names and fool the RIAA!! Hee hee! Yeah, wonderful, too bad only 3 other people on earth can find the songs you're serving. You better believe the RIAA laughs each time a Slashbot comes up with a new scrambled naming system, because the scramblers are doing exactly what the RIAA wants to do, which is to kill Napster's mass market potential and reduce the users to a WaReZ kiddie-like subculture, one that everybody else looks at with derision like a gang of shoplifters who think that they're really living the high life.
Cheers,
Of course, the media also glorifies the words of teenagers and younger kids (or, likely, of their ghost-writing parents) when it suits their position, trying to glom onto a little of that "But think of the children!" mojo. How many times have you checked out the reader feedback to Newsweek or the like to see some vacuous letter starting out like, "As a thirteen year-old, I can't travel two miles without seeing a Joe Camel billboard and instantly wanting to go buy cigarettes. Why are tobacco companies so evil?" Or the good 'ol, "I'm 9 and a half years old and a student in Ms. Parson's 4th grade class. I don't understand why nuclear weapons exist." Break out the Kleenex.
I'm almost 5 years old, but even I can tell that the easy way to get your letter published is to identify yourself as being a youngster. As a 4 year-old, I (did I mention that I'm 4?) fully expect the moderators to mod this post up. Or I'll hold my breath until I turn blue, or something.
Cheers,
The big 5 have announced online music distribution before. Sometimes they've even implemented it. Usually it means you can buy a small set of songs you don't want for a price you'd never pay.
Don't fall for this vaporware any more than you would a software company's.
The fee starts at one dollar and triples each year, for as long as you continue to pay
This actually isn't a bad idea at all, though we'd have to do a lot more work on the details, because its pretty unfair to the small guys.
Yes, you can say "oh, it's only $250 your sixth year", but you have to realize that professional writers and artists and musicians make hundreds or thousands of works every year.
While paying $250 for every song is no big deal to the RIAA members, if I had to pay $250 for every single painting I have ever made in my life just to keep the copyright, well frankly that sucks.
I make hundreds of paintings a year, and thousands of drawings. It would cost me literally millions of dollars a year just to own my own drawings for more than a year or two, and believe me I'm not making millions off of reproduction rights, but it puts food on the table.
I would be better off working at McDonalds than putting paint on canvas, because in a year or two someone else could come along and sell all my work as a calendar without me getting a single nickle.
That said, the idea that my copyrights should last for decades after i die is just asinine. I would hope my kids have jobs and won't be depending on work I did 50 years ealier to feed themselves. While I expect to get paid for my work and not have other people profit off of it without my approval or permission, I also expect that my work contribute to the collective library of humanity for free when I die.
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
No, dude, having the length of the copyright be longer helps YOU. NOW. It makes the copyright worth more. So, assuming someone wanted to reproduce your painting, they'd pay you more for the copyright if it lasted 50 years than if it lasted 5 years.
I wish more people took economics classes
No, it doesn't work like that -- you don't (generally) sell or buy a copyright. You buy limited reproduction rights, for example "first north american serial rights", depending on the use.
Yes, if a copyright was expiring next month, they might be willing to just wait to get it for free, but no one is willing to pay more for a magazine cover because the copyright you have is good for another 100 years instead of 10. In fact, they'd rather it wasn't that long because every time they reprint that cover, they have to send you another check.
The economics of publishing don't assign much of a time value other than a relative period of exclusivity, because 99.9% of the material is dated.
Yes, having an infinity length of copyright might directly benefit me, but it would also rob me and the rest of the world of the use of the commons, of which ultimately there is a far greater economic value to society -- we have to balance the legitimate exclusivity with the need for culture to grow by adopting creative works as shared resources. 10 years is too short, 120 years after death is too long. I'd like to just make it death+20 or something like that, so that the immediate "reflections" after passing benefit the estate. Corporations, maybe 75 years total so that you'd have to live to be a hundred to see work you created as a new employee disappear from your control.
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
It's HIGHLY unlikely that someone is going to make a killing selling absolutely perfect recreations of your paintings
I don't know of many calendars or magazines that publish reproductions of sheet music or code. Visual works are very valuable, and much easier to make money off of because they are instantly recognizable and easy to repurpose (calendar to ad campaign to magaine cover, etc).
And, no, there are no perfect reproductions of paintings, but that doesn't stop people from making decent money off of Mona Lisa posters or American Gothic.
Paintings aren't the issue when it comes to copyright
I'd suspect you haven't paid much attention to the number of commercial paintings you run across in your daily life. From product boxes, to magazines, posters, greeting cards, t-shirts, wallpaper, cartoons, and book covers; paintings and illustrations are right up there with the written word and audio recordings in terms of how widespread they are. Certainly a lot more so than reproductions of sheet music or code, and far more valuable for it.
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Uh uh.. The record companies buy all the rights to the song from the artist
I'm not talking about record companies. Regardless, they don't buy the rights to a song, they own the rights in the first place -- there is no sale of anything.
Musical works are "created" by the recording company, not the artist (legally speaking -- thanks to the RIAA's wonderful congressional lobbying). So the recording company owns the copyright, period.
In most other creative industries, non-staff creators license rights by the use (or sell more rights for a LOT more money). Except freelance newspaper writers, who seem to get screwed a lot more, and generally deal with onerous work-for-hire contracts that are legally fishy (the IRS doesn't consider it work for hire just because you say it is -- the courts seem less certain).
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
When asked when music publishers might actually distribute songs on the Internet, Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen responded, "Real Soon Now." When pressed how this might be expidited, they elaborated, "Well, we're shipping tons of ice to Napster, so when they go to Hell everything will freeze over faster."
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
Absolutely. everyone knows that there's a huge difference between shoplifters and warez kiddies -- the shoplifters at least have the balls to physically leave their parent's basement to go steal something.
As soon as the price becomes unreasonable, people will stop paying. Then the CDs become free.
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
How would the new rules force anything into unprofitability? The Bible or the works of Bach are still profitable after hundreds of years. Sounds perfectly all right to me that they're now in the public domain.
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
...until the price got unreasonable, at which point the consumer would stop paying, at which point keeping the copyright would become unprofitable, at which point the work would enter the public domain.
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
Yeah, after all they are XTC's new label
--wait a minute, include Bloodshot and 1/4stick (for mekons and mekon related groups), and yeah I'd be almost happy--
------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
I've never downloaded a product I can hold in my left hand from the Internet. I think Mr. Nugent is a bit confused. Either that, or he's got the matter transmitter I want so badly...
Note the subtle use of the left hand (called "sinister" in Latin) to connote the inherint evil, punishable by eternal damnation to the blackest pits imaginable by RIAA executives, of downloading music. These people would be funny if they weren't so damn serious.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Are they on napster yet?
I welcome the record labels into the online world, along with other large entertainment conglomerates, including cable companies and large online services. Indeed I have been encouraging them to catch up with consumer demand for online music for some time now. And they are beginning to do so, at least in experimental ways. But I do not think it is any benefit for artists or fans to have all the new, wide distribution channels controlled by those who have controlled the old, narrower ones. This is especially true if they achieve that control by leveraging their dominance in content or conduit space in an anticompetitive way to control the new, independent music services that are attempting to enhance the consumer's experience of music.
Emphasis mine, which I doubt is something the RIAA wants to put on their site.
--
+&x
Isn't that a bit of an insult to toddlers?
Frankly, Napster is a necessary challenge to their cartel, and I sort of wish that they could find a way to filter out RIAA songs, just so that somone had the chance to create a musical career by completely avoiding the RIAA. Unfortunately, that route is going to be messy, and compulsory licensing is the only way for consumers to buy the majority of their music (any SDMI or secure format amounts to renting) online before 2048.
I do wish Napster had made a better offer that included per-download royalties. Compulsory licensing almost certainly won't be a better deal than one they could have struck on their own (this assumes that the RIAA was negotiating in good faith and a deal could have been struck, which is more than I'm willing to bet on).
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Er, are you going to get around to addressing the issue raised, which is that either the audio media surcharge pays for the right to record on it (in which case there's no problem with people downloading to record onto it) or else it doesn't (in which case there is no justification for collecting it, and it should be abolished)?
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
I would pay for a Rhino Records napster in a heartbeat. Of course, the thing I really want is a Rhino Records Wrapster so I could download those funky old music videos from my youth!
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I have the mini-poster and mouse pad (the shit you can pick up at DefCon)!
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Thanks for letting me know, though, AC...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I'm guessing its covered under parody... Or maybe not, IANAL
Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
You mean the Don Henley that tried to grab this site?
So stealing your music is bad, but stealing some guy's domain name is ok? Up yers, Henley.
And there are some who wouldn't ever put Elton John in the same category as Ricky Martin.
--
1st hour of copyright protection costs $1.
2nd hour of copyright protection costs $500.
5th hour of copyright protection costs $5,000.
etc...
If they use a technologically sophisticated copyright protection device, the times might be slightly longer. But even then, each minute that goes by allows more and more people to spread their works. Exponential growth. Exponential lawyer fees.
--
The rate listed seems perfectly reasonable. Even a little guy could easily afford it up to the 6th year. If he can't make any money from it by then, it was probably a crappy idea anyway. If he is making money then he can milk it quite a few more years.
On the other hand, if Big Corp. makes a butt load off it - good for them, but it'll cost them if they want to get greedy.
Either way, it guarantees that after an acceptable period the idea will eventually end up in public domain where it belongs.
---
satire, n: 1) witty language used to convey insults or scorn; 2) a form of humor lost on most slashdot moderators.
I'd have to disagree.
The best part of the article is certainly calling Alanis Morrisette a "pop singer".
Apparently, so long as an artist sells a certain number of albums, they're automagically blobbed into the "Pop" genre.
She might be POPular, but her music certainly would not fit in the same category as, say, Elton John, or Ricky Martin.
Anyone got some backbeats and a sampler? Sounds like serious opportunity for a parody.
I've been really impressed with the coverage I've seen on C-Span lately. Makes me miss living in DC. Some of the crazies on Capital Hill seem much more in tune with the Internet these days than the people in the music industry. The only thing I have to say about that is *FINALLY*!!
McCain and Hatch have been active in the area a LOT recently, and wether you agree with them or not, at least they're learning the issues for themselves. Not two or three years ago, you could hardly find a member of congress who had a clue; and you'd NEVER have found one posting to SlashDot.
I'm getting sick of the music issue itself, but if it deteriorates the tecnophobia on the hill, I'm all for it.
Wow, mp3 voice recordings of artists encouraged by the RIAA to say Napster is evil-- sign me up! I can hardly wait to be a corporate activist for the RIAA.
It's so hard managing my spare time now. Should I work for money so I can buy CDs for $16.99? Or I could generously donate my free time telling *others* how they should give $16.99 to the RIAA for a $1 piece of plastic! I don't think I can lose either way. Maybe I'll do both!
I guess that depends on the snake...
~Sean
Well, if you want to get technical, there's more than that. ;-)
I'm not too big a fan of Okenspay Ordway, and the original Canadian IB is redundant since the second one is mixed right and also includes the Boomtang Boys remixes, but the rest are all well worth having. :-)=
No, she's not. But she makes damn good music... check out the album I Bificus. Here's her official site. Her breakout hit was Spaceman, but they remixed it horribly in the American release of IB. Fortunately, they made up for it by including Twitch, which is just as good. :-)=
[TMB]
A Google search refers to Mark 16:15-18 as stipulating...
17 And these signs will accompany those who
believe: In my name they will drive out
demons; they will speak in new tongues;
18 they will pick up snakes with their hands;
and when they drink deadly poison, it will
not hurt them at all; they will place
their hands on sick people, and they will
get well.'
So for those that take these lines literally (rather than, say, a generic belief that their Lord will protect them, or as a possible mistranslation of an idiom)... yes.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Copy protection != copyright enforcement.
(and, FWIW, copy protection still thrives in the gaming world... and MSFT's registration/activation system for Windows XP certainly looks like another copy protection scheme).
The software companies still do go after significant violators, as is their right.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
At the risk of being redundant, this is absolutely brilliant! There are logistical problems of course, and there would need to be some "grace period" to cover administrative problems ("The check really did get lost in the mail" sort of things) but the concept is wonderful.
I do see a couple of problems though, there would have to be some way to "cover" the works of a prolific, but otherwise "unsigned" author. If I'm a prolific writer, the costs of protecting my articles past the first couple years would add up quickly.
Another problem, of course, is getting something like this into practice. We've already seen how much influence the recording industry has over the political system. Extending this to all the other media would make for an intersting fight.
Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
-----
crazy dynamite monkey
-- Bif Naked
Salon, March 25, 2000
Excuse me Mr. Naked, exactly how much "Work" is invoved in doing something once and then sitting around absorbing money? It used to be that musicians would actually get off their lazy behinds and go on tour and play venues to make money, or wait the whole recording industry that oozed its way into existance back in the late 60s early 70s has created an artificial market that it feels it must protect.
-----
crazy dynamite monkey
Uh, zico. Have you been paying attention? The court order says the record company must notify them of infringing song names. 'Dido1-Thank_you2.mp3' doesn't happen to appear on the list at the moment, and will not be blocked. Additionally, it is perfectly human readable, and an acceptable wildcard fit. It will be returned with the same validity as the actual song name. So why are you bitching irrationally about scrambled songnames? And comparing warez kiddies to shoplifters is bogus, and any one with half a brain knows it.
.sig: Now legally binding!
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
Hell yea!
I'd pay for a Thrill Jockey only napster.
Even though I've been leeching (and serving) off of napster for months, I don't recall d/ling any major label artist. I'm sure there are some, but nothing that I listen to enough to bother about...
These pretzels are making me thirsty.
I'd like to see someone register www.freelunchster.com and place that quote on the homepage.
:(
why don't I do it? I ain't got 40 bucks
These pretzels are making me thirsty.
This is an excellent idea. I would also suggest the following: any funds generated by this copyright "tax" be earmarked for the support of the arts.
:)
I think that it would still be a good idea that it be required that the original creator be determinable from any copied work, to prevent people from trying to pass a copy of somebody else's work as their own. (Perhaps with criminal fraud charges being applicable
That sounds fine to me.
Like others I like this scheme. Books and movies should eventually become public domain. This would likely mean that 20 year old movies would be in the public domain.
That said, the idea that my copyrights should last for decades after i die is just asinine. I would hope my kids have jobs and won't be depending on work I did 50 years ealier to feed themselves.
No, dude, having the length of the copyright be longer helps YOU. NOW. It makes the copyright worth more. So, assuming someone wanted to reproduce your painting, they'd pay you more for the copyright if it lasted 50 years than if it lasted 5 years.
I wish more people took economics classes.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Because the software industry learned a long time ago that copy protection only pisses people off and does nothing to stop piracy. This was because our bits were smaller than the RIAA's, and could be flung around a lot easier.
The software industry grew up, and accepted piracy as a sad but necessary fact of doing business in that area. Software makes still make money despite piracy. Some even say some companies are better off today because of it.
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
I think the same can be said about recordings of musical performances.
I suggest everyone go to - Gag! Nofreelunchster - and send this quotation to the webmaster, or whatever address is soliciting comments. Fill up their mailbox to overflowing. Send it to Orrin Hatch and your own congressperson and senators while you're at it.
Edith Keeler Must Die
---
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
It's a valid comparison when you look at U.S./China relationship right now.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Orrin Hatch is a man who loathes the media. He views it as morally-bankrupt and probably quite leftist. This is his chance to snub an industry thats peeved him for some time. Even though I'm not a big fan of his, this is one time that I'd like to see him succeed.
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
And as a Libertarian myself, I appreciate your pointing out the hypocrisy. But, I must disagree with your analogy to the convenience store. If the RIAA marked up their OWN PRODUCT in order to offset piracy, it would work. But the thing is, they all ready mark up their own product AND they have added a markup to a product that they don't even sell!!! It's not like people are stealing Audio CDRs. They are levying a sort of fine for expected behavior, and when people behave as expected, they want even more money for it. They can mark up CDs all they want and it will fit your analogy, but yours would work better if the convenience store owner added a markup to the price of jackets with pockets because they are being used to steal stuff from his store.
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
Bif Naked is woman.
seems to have misplaced his
Unless, of course, you consider that "pop singer" is defined as popular singer...
umm.. I don't want to nitpick but isn't the RIAA in violation of Napster's trademarked logo?
Didn't Napster sue someone over T-shirts about this once?
Rich
RIAA's new website: http://www.nofreelunchster.com/
:)
I wonder if that logo is a trademark violation?
IRONIC?
I religiously 'handle my snake' if you get my drift ;)
-- Dr. Eldarion --
So for now, I'm just going to work on building my own Electronic Thumb, try to be nice to people, and hope for the best.
:o)
Well, if you get that Thumb working please, for the love of God, email me. I wanna hitch a ride.
Oh yes, and make sure you bring your towel!
While this is just a Senate hearing, and the Senate is currently not debating any bills that could pass through, I thought that the best part of the article was the RIAA's new website: http://www.nofreelunchster.com/
:-) )
On it, they show how "hip" they are by putting anti-fair-use materials onto MP3s and distributing them for free! They even have a newsletter you can sign up for. (heh, I feel bad for Taco...I wonder how many Trolls will sign him up for that letter
Doh!
I think powers of 2 would probably be better than powers of 3, because copyrights originally lasted for 24 years, and that seems fairly reasonable.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Maybe the price would go up for the first dozen years, but once companies are paying billions of dollars a year for the copyright (which didn't take very long under that scheme), they simply can't sell a large enough number of copies at a high enough price. As time goes by, sales of older things falls, and the price the companies have to pay to hold on to them rises, so sooner or later the two will cross.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
We all know that money makes the laws, the RIAA has more money then Napster. So who do you think will get the laws writen in their favor??
OK, so I am a bit bitter today, I just came from a all nighter -- Thank god for red bull.
All yours Copyrighted music are belong to me!
------------------------------ SirPhreak - "It's Thinking..."
Not necessarily. The rest of the alphabet may still want to play with A because [they're afraid A might do the same to them | B had it coming | they don't like the treaty | they don't like B | A has something they need | they don't care | A has somehow furthered their secret plan for world domination | &c.]
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
algorithm is just 3^(year-1)... why 3? just curious
Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057
[o]_O
Geeks of all sorts would rally round the two, cause we can understand two damn well. And 3 billion for 20 years DOES seem a bit excessive. But whatever, I still think a time limit would be better than financial limit.
Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057
[o]_O
---
--
If we don't change direction soon, we'll end up where we're going.
Alanis won't go there totally naked like she usually does, as I understand the US congress is full of old perverts that are married to ugly old facelifted, silicon injected wifes.
For whatever is left of American democracy, that would not be pretty.
--
Je t'aime Stéphanie
From a wired article:
relating to the labels charging 1.99 for singles, and 18.98 for albums with the new mtv music download service.
keep in mind these are limited recordings, with digital rights management built in.. So no burning to cdr
"The idea that the music doesn't have value when it's taken off the disk is wrong; the art form is the music," said Ted Cohen, EMI's vice president of new media. "Whether it's a download, bought in a store, or burned, we see that the value is in the music.
"It makes it more complex to go to an artist and tell them that they are going to get less money because they are selling the tracks digitally."
Just as a refresher, We're all familiar with the business model and how artists get paid.. Right?
(They get concert revenue.. Cd sales revenue typically goes straight back to the record label)
I agree ! This is probably the most intelligent post I have read on /. for a while. I hope it gets modded up.
What's next? Is someone going to send Ralph Reed to a committee headed by Democrats to get something that Ralph wants?
Holy cow, hope this is on CSPAN
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
One thing that impressed me was that they had one of the smaller record label execs was speaking before them. I believe it was the head of TVT. One of his major points was that napster wasnt just popular becasue of the free as in beer nature of the music. He thought its major success was the freedom of choice that it provided, allowing easier access to new and unusual music, which honestly is the major reason I use it. Yes he did think that napster was breaking copyright laws, but he was ready to make a deal with them so they could actually still have the music trading, but the copyright could be taken care of and some sort of payment could be made. He definately sounded more intelligent than any of the other record execs. He was also concerned about the division between the larger labels and the independant labels in application of copyright laws. Kudos to the committee and to CSPAN for providing some airtime and publicity to a viewpoint we dont see in the regular debates on this issue.
"My head hurts, My feet stink, and I dont love Jesus." -Jimmy Buffett
This fee protects no one, and destroys music as we know it. The motivation to record music diminishes greatly. Music is a long-term investment to a label; You pay for it once, and you keep selling it for years and years.
There IS some merit to your plan, but it is far too simplistic. It would be better to charge a percentage of sales, increasing per year of revenue. Also, copyright should be free for ten years, period; This protects children who write papers in school, and such. Children have no money - Until the age of 18, in the US anyway, you don't strictly own anything. You are, basically, a slave who is protected from undue physical or emotional trauma.
In any case, ten years for free. At the end of the eleventh year, you are required to pay 1% of all of the profits you made that year. The percentage should be multiplied by 1.5 (or so) per year, so that in year two you pay 1.5 percent, in year three it's 2.25%, and so on. The amount should never rise above, say, twenty-five percent. Copyright should forcibly expire after a fairly long time, and it should ACTUALLY EXPIRE like it's SUPPOSED to do now, but does not. Let's say, forty to fifty years.
This system protects everyone, and if you're not making money off of something, then you don't have to pay for it. As we all know, IP can be unprofitable for twenty years, and then suddenly make money.
--
ALL YOUR KARMA ARE BELONG TO US
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Reasoning like this is why we have copyright laws. They are there to protect. If I write something, I shouldn't have to worry about whether or not someone else is going to make money off of it. It's mine.
--
ALL YOUR KARMA ARE BELONG TO US
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Maybe his memory has improved since his last hearing.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
The RIAA has been screwing the consumer for years, and doing so with open contempt, retailers are complaining that the music cartel preventing them in bad faith from selling online so that it could build its own online retailing empire first and be free of any pesky competition, and now Sen. Hatch is saying that they should be given tax incentives to put their wares online?!? WTF?
I'm sorry, I want blood. And a bit of justice wouldn't hurt either.
The RIAA has abused their copyrights, to the detriment of the consumer, artists, and society, thei abuse is possibly to the point where the law indicates the correct penalty is the invalidation of those copyrights and release of the material to the public domain. At the very least, lets see someone prosecute them and let the courts decide, not some Senator acting on his economic ideology, (especially considering how well his ideology served the country when he brought us the DMCA).
But I forget - the RIAA, for most intents and purposes owns Washington. It makes me want to go and abuse the Napster service.
Woah, Commander Taco, watch that generation gap.
because of idiots who don't know anything about music and misattribute songs. Here's a list compiled so far by me:
Bob Marley -- Red Red Wine (should be UB-40)
Steve Miller Band -- Stuck in the Middle W/ You (should be Stealer's Wheel)
Steve Miller Band -- Sweet Home Alabama -- (should be Lynyrd Skynyrd)
Led Zep -- Black Dog (rare acoustic) -- (some nobody who sampled Robert Plant overtop of himself playing guitar)
Dead Can Dance and Enigma -- Enigma of the Absolute (just DCD, not Enigma)
Aphex Twin -- Answers Come in Dreams (from The Snow) -- (should be Coil)
If you're not going to pay artists, at least give them fucking credit for the songs they do instead of being ignorant.
Don't post on slashdot. Get back to work.
1st year of copyright costs $1.
2nd year of copyright costs $3.
3rd year of copyright costs $9.
4th year of copyright costs $27.
5th year of copyright costs $81.
6th year of copyright costs $243.
7th year of copyright costs $729.
8th year of copyright costs $2,187.
9th year of copyright costs $19,683.
10th year of copyright costs $59,049.
11th year of copyright costs $177,147.
12th year of copyright costs $531,441.
13th year of copyright costs $1,594,323.
14th year of copyright costs $4,782,969.
15th year of copyright costs $14,348,907.
16th year of copyright costs $43,046,721.
17th year of copyright costs $129,140,163.
18th year of copyright costs $387,420,489.
19th year of copyright costs $1,162,261,467.
20th year of copyright costs $3,486,784,401.
and so on...
Keep paying for as long as you wish.... No need for an expiration date. The moment you fail to pay, though, your copyright expires and your IP becomes as public domain as classical music.
Don Henley, not John Henley in the original post, came through with a nice soundbite about how the recording industry failed to take steps to embrace and extend new technology (read: Napster), condemning them as Old Fashioned and scared of the digital revolution. He did make it clear, however, that if Napster is allowed to continue that "compulsory licenses" should be implemented if no good licensing scheme/distribution channel is contrived in the immediate future by the RIAA member corporations.
main(){char I,l,O[]={'-',1-1,0,(1<<5)-1,0+'-',-10-1,-10,11-0,
I have to say that I'm very intrigued by this idea. Thanks for posting it!! I do understand however that it could very easily become a problem for someone trying to remember to "officially" copyright all the material they have produced that year. Maybe the first three years could only "administratively" require payment. In other words, you the creator would have three years to sort out your intellectual property and decide what you thought was worth protecting. So you wouldn't really have to pay for the first three years and you could technically register your IC for the fourth. Could this help you separate the wheat for the chafe? 1 $0.00 ($1) 2 $0.00 ($3) 3 $0.00 ($9) 4 $27.00 (registered) 5 $81.00 etc... Any thoughts?
Man, that guy just won't die.
I fail to see why he even needs to get in on the discussion except for the fact that he was heard on the DECSS issues and the RIAA must think of him as looking golden to Congress.
Therefore he polishes their image in front of all those nice old men and women that sit in the best job they have ever had in their lives and are too scared to leave because they don't even know how they got there and upon leaving they couldn't even write a book report anymore if asked.
It's time for term limits people.
If you had term limits, we as a generation wouldn't have to fight an uphill battle against major corporate power while simultaneously trying to re-educate lawmakers that have been in office since the most hight tech item was canned beer. Term limits would ensure the the progression of the general knowledge base and background of political higher-ups. This would more closely represent the voters.
It is simply shallow to think that one man or woman needs to stay in office simply because they are the only person or the best person for the job.
Besides, the likes of Strom Thurmond aren't going to remember that crap anyway.
Copyright law changes are entirely constitutional. If you don't like them then vote in new people who feel the same.(Which would be easier with term limits)
The length of time that is involved in copyright is nearly moot.
With most things that are worthwhile monetarily to copyright the company can afford to use the profit from the product in question to renew the copyright and keep up with the latest legalese. That's why so many inventors ideas are rarely copyrighted eventhough they are mass produced and sold. It's simply not cost effective because most likely you can still take a market share without it and with small time products there won't be any competition in the near future anyway simply because of limited visibility and lack of interest in reinventing the wheel.
What you are missing entirely is that presently the staff members and lobbyists ARE more powerful than the Senators and Reps simply because they've transformed from "I work for the people" to "I do what the powerful people who control the masses of sheep voters tell me to so I can stay in this cushy job." Term limits are NOT anti-democratic. Not that we are a democracy anyway. Rome was a democracy when it was ruled by senators. We are a republic of states ruled by a trilateral checks and balances system thought of by geniuses.
If term limits were anti-democratic we'd have a King named Bill and a queen named Hillary.
I have considered this kind of thing before - and the shame of it is that it won't work the way you would want it to. Increasing the cost of copyright as each year passes would not guarantee the works would quickly move to the public domain. It would simply mean that older works would increase in cost - the copyright costs passed down to the consumer. Not a good thing. What we need is Thomas Jefferson's set term limit (no argument - no chance of extensions - he wanted it as the 9th Amendment.)
check out my website about copyright ---
http://www.limitingcopyright.com
Don't just complain - DO something about it!
The music companies have just announced a joint venture to distribute tunes online. Doubt this hearing will result in much more than a hearing. Once the legal scribbling starts up on any type of "forced licensing" this sort of joint venture rules out the notion that the music companies are just being lazy.
I do not have a signature
Not quite the same thing...
sulli
RTFJ.
I would have gone if I didn't (a) live in San Francisco and (b) have work to do all day. If I lived in DC (my hometown BTW) you can be damn sure I would have shown up, and not for the T-shirt.
sulli
RTFJ.
'Nuff said.
sulli
RTFJ.
Four words, very slowly for Mr. PHB: ALL ... YOU ... CAN ... EAT.
Once this happens the illegals will disappear. Until then, see you on ftp and Gnutella.
sulli
RTFJ.
Am I the only guy here who thinks we should make a "Copyright Legislation" addon to The Sims so we could test this theory out ? =)
-Billco, Fnarg.com
All the economics you ever need to know is that when you tax something, all other things being equal, people will produce less of the taxed good.
Under the plan that was at the subject of this thread, investment in creating durable, lasting goods will dry up, because people would not be able to protect the fruits of their labor. Why would you create a classic novel -- one that will be read for ages -- when you will be forced to pay an increasingly severe tax in order to maintain the rights to its use? Instead, it would be much preferable to create a kitschy, faddish comic book.
In other words, the creation of Garbage Pail Kids would be a more economically rational endeavor than the composition of the greatest and most memorable story of music known to mankind.
The current copyright period is for life of the author (or long-lived joint author), plus 70 years. For works made for hire, the duration is 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.
So, you are correct that copyright tends to last a lifetime, but that's a natural limit that is well within the constitution. American and old English copyright laws have typically extended for the duration of the author's life, plus some period of time thereafter. That way, the author could reap the benefits of having created something useful, and also pass along the fruits of his creation his or her heirs for a brief period thereafter.
Also, you are incorrect when you state that intellectual property "created" by a corporation holds its copyright forever. As I mentioned at the outset of this post, the maximum time for which a published work maintains copyright protection is 120 years, the "life" of the creator notwithstanding.
Accordingly, if you are waiting for Atari games to go into the public domain so that you lawfully can replicate and play Tank to your heart's content, you probably have about 80 years left.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (known as the "D.C. Circuit" and the "Second Highest Court in the Land") recently decided that the most recent extension of the period of protected copyright (from 100 to 120 years) did not violate Article 8, s. 8, cl. 8 of the U.S. Constitution. In so doing, the court rebuffed arguments by Harvard law professor and self-styled cyber-doofus -- and member of Der Sprockets dance troupe -- Larry Lessig.
I wonder why the article specified that most of the support was from teenagers. Is it because most of them are not allowed to vote and therefore are routinely ignored by the legislature? I recall trying to express my opinions in such peaceful ways, and getting totally dised by the media. It is little wonder that some (desperate) youth are resorting to more lethal means.
I am sure nothing would have been said if the group consisted mostly of middle age white men in bad suits with mismatched ties.
It seems to me that this whole hoo-haw is happening because a small group of artists who create some of the more easily distributable art forms seem to have bought into the delusion promulgated by the unscrupulous business types that are their middlemen. These artists have forgotten one of the most exciting things about art: An artist never knows whether his/her next work will make any money. The aforementioned middlemen have convinced them that they are some kind of magical geniuses who never make art the somebody doesn't like, and that there's some kind of intrinsic, not-to-be-disputed "value" to each and every piece of work that comes from them.
Well, gang, tough. You "label" recording musicians, and "best-seller" novelists and Hollywood movie actors are no different than the poor yutz who stands on a streetcorner making noise on his guitar with the case open in front of him, hoping that passers-by (like me) will drop a tad of cash in. Me standing there listening, whether it's for 5 seconds or three hours, does not constitute "piracy" if I don't toss in some cash. Me humming/singing the songs later, to myself or to others, does not constitute piracy, or infringement or anything. Me telling friends about "Slouching Tired, Wide and Dragging" does not constitute infringement, piracy or any other heinous act. Oh, sure, it can be legislated so, but that doesn't make it so, nor will that stop it in the long run. The mere fact that one artist or another has a somewhat larger corner to play on (say an entire cinema chain's screens) doesn't change the fact that they're still just a busker, and have the same economic situation as one on the streetcorner.
The point of this reminder, artists, is to advise you all to, as far as possible (and that's quite a bit farther than you think right now (with the probable exception of Courtney Love; She has definitely thought this through)) get the middleman out of your way and get back into touch with your audience. Set up that Busker's Square on the 'net. Do it _yourself_. Don't let some cheesy-ass middleman set it up and charge you to use it, and legislate you out of all your take in the process. Form a coalition and do it yourselves, with _hired_ technical labor, that _you_ control. The cinema folks did it at least once in history (anybody remember how United Artists got started and who did it?). The key will be to make sure that _you_ own Busker's Square. Let your tech people have a stake in it, but if you do that, make it a closely-held corporation or a co-op, even better. Keep the agents (parasites) and lawyers (bigger parasites) out of ownership positions.
Think about it.... can't hurt, and you'll probably end up making lots more friends (hint, hint, Lars)
Ms. Morissette was quoted as having remarked to Napster interim chief Hank Barry that:
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
I guess it's hard to get people behind a cause that's pushed by a company that's every bit as duplicitous and money-grubbing as the corporations it supposedly defies.
Ummm, ok - I guess I don't have anything nice to say, so I won't say anything else :)
-artistX
Better yet, have all copyright fees fund the US Patent Office. Maybe then, they'll be able to hire enough technically competent people to review technology patents properly.
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
Got friends?
The single most important fact about a person a journalist can report is his/her/its age. For example, when you hear about a car accident, you don't read: "Four men were involved in a car accident." Instead, it'll say: "Four teenagers, ages 16, 17, 21, and 15, were involved in a car accident with a woman, 43, of Lake City last night." It is unlikely that the media will say "Jeff Guy, a scientist involved with the human genome project and 'A' student, was driving the car. Neighbors and friends said he was an incredibly generous man who volunteered often in the community and was friendly to everyone he met." Simply saying the age tends to create a negative connotaion, which is often what is intended.
Got friends?
While I believe that Napster is in kind of a catch-22, that is that if they block music, no one uses their service or if god forbid their user base goes up after that happens, the Record companies will say that its because they aren't complying with the court order. I personally think they get paid too much, and manipulate the public in a way that makes professional wrestling look honest. However, if we are going to have to pay, it should be a reasonable fee. I also believe that the money should go to the artist, with a nominal amount figured in for the actual recording. It seems to me that if they had their way we would pay the full price of a CD for a couple of tracks. And I think that what made MP3's popular is the fact that you can pick the few tracks you like and listen to them.
However, in regard to the article and government price controls, monetarists would say that the market should fix the price. But for that to work, there needs to be healthy competition. There's an oligopoly in the music industry, and if we were to look at it from a file sharing area, napster is about the only mature system out there. So I think rather than being soaked, government price fixing is probably the lesser of the evils.
Uh...it's called PROFIT. You are permitted to gain a profit. Or are you against making ANYTHING on the sale of your house.
Then there is depreciation. Unless your car is a real nice classic that you fixed up from crap to jewel, your car is depreciating. You cannot sell it for what you paid for it. You must take it in the ass and accept MUCH less than you paid for it.
That all said, the record companies can kiss my lilly white ass. I'll do my thing just to screw them over.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Right before all were seated, a sudden outburst of "All Hail Valenti!" ran through the room.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
...if you count Senator Hatch's little "re-elect me" special hearing in Provo last October. Shawn Fanning came, and several other P2P companies based in Utah. They all recited their little scripts and went home.
A friend of mine did the write up, but alas, slashdot didn't pick it up.
--
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Isn't that DON Henley? I wish I could think of something clever to say about it...
--
--hongpong.com
It's also interesting to note that Jesus' first public miracle was making wine.
Trolls throughout history:
Trolls throughout history:
Jonathan Swift
omfg rofl, that's pretty funny! If you're not kidding, you really should stop reading /., you're getting way too paranoid.
"I've seen plays that were more exciting than this.
Honest to god... Plays!" Homer Simpson
Got kicked off Napster yesterday.
They said he had a copyrighted MP3, and showed him a list of which ones.
He said he didn't have a single on of them!
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
I wonder how long we will keep hearing this crap of "no patent/copyright => no innovation". Apart from the fact that I've read an interesting study on the effect of patenting of software (resulting in basically no increased R&D investments), I know a lot of people working in research at Universities (e.g. myself). It's not like my salary will go up if I invent anything, but this does not prevent me (or any of them) do to our best to "innovate" (a verb which deserves being erased from any dictionary, BTW).
If the recording industry really wanted to do what Napster is doing now, they would have bought them out a year ago and done it. All they want is to shut it down, regardless of the amount of legal wreckage they leave in their wake.
Napster is dead. Long live Napster.
The RIAA will shut them down, but someone else will quickly rise to take its place. Of course, once the first is closed under legal issues, any following systems will be quickly eliminated, because now they have a legal precedent. The only reason this is taking so damn long is because it's never happened before.
I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that you're an idiot!
No, no, you are getting it all wrong. IRC is for finding fan subs of anime which leads you to hunting down the original script to see *who* is right after finding the english dub version 2 years later on your local video's store hentai^H^H^H^H^H^Hanime shelf.
Gnutella is for finding mp3s, and for randomly downloading files out of boredom. :)
Oh, and Swapoo still has a decent rom community, even if it has "expanded" to any file.
I downloaded WinMX the other night to try it out. I searched for the song "Thank You" by "Dido"... I'd never heard of it, but my girlfriend thought it was a nice song. I didn't find any "Thank You" songs, but I did find "Thank You1.mp3" and "ThankYo u.mp3" and "Thank YouA.mp3", etc. I haven't followed the battle THAT closely, but if the recording industry thinks that they can simply filter out songs BY NAME, they've got another thing coming. Anyone who has written a regular expressions knows that it's not hard to match out every possible permutation of the letters "Thank You". But can you extend that logic to "Thank You1"? Probably. "Thank Yuo"? Probably not. It will be impossible to write a filter that will recognize song names BETTER than a human (who's searching specifically for that song) can. My thoughts...
Napster is a bunch of venture capitalist crooks that are at least as bad as the RIAA. What they want to do is to kill their competition peddling WAreZ, then when they are the only game in town they can jack up the fees.
The Internet existed before Napster, it will exist after Shawn Fanning and the opportunists he is fronting for have gone bankrupt, and so will Internet music.
I am sure that some commie type said something about letting capitalist exploiters of the workers kill each other but I can't remember the exact quote.
What would make the scene real perfect is if somehow they could dredge up enough dirt on Orin in the process to have him imdicted for something career ending.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
This is similar to how it works, the time schedule is not so steep and cheques have to be made payable to 'The Committee to Re-elect Orin Hatch Ltd.'.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
You know, you definitely make a point. You sound very happy as a person without music. I think you just have a hard time coping with the fact that you probably tried very hard at learning an instrument, and expressing your creativity and have now become bitter in your own failure! Music (or lack thereof) plays a huge role in one's happiness, intellect, and overall sucess in life. It's proven in studies, schools, and especially in yourself! I think from your own comments you can see that music has even effected "your" well-being. "...the stupidness of music....music is shit..." I am so sorry for you...it must really suck to be you.
I could be wrong, but I believe the copyright only lasts for 35 years. Then it becomes public domain. Or it's possible to (for lack of better word) re-copyright it. I think this is true because, at one point it was said in the news that Michael Jackson once outbid Paul McCartney in an auction for the copyrights to some Beatles music that had hit it's 35 year mark (hencs the idea that 35 years is the magic number).
DAMMIT!! Get Kenny Loggins down here and let them dance already!! WHY?!?! WHY WON'T YOU LET THEM DANCE!!!!
And when I do stories, I don't respond to young boisterous idiots that can't make a point. I do however respond to people that can make a intelligent, informed statement that is long enough to fit on television. So, chances are, if they looked like idiots, it was probably because they were and weren't coherent (because we LOVE to personalize stories), and I can almost guarantee that the media talked to them, THEY WERE THE USERS FOR GAWD SAKE (honestly, I love the way that many see the news as idiots, by making judgements of stories, based on their own lean on an issue). In the communication business, the winners are the best communicators... I've seen noble causes crushed because the good side sounded like fools. Ultimately, there is nothing I can do if the peson they send to me can't communicate well, because I have to be a slave to objectivity, and give both sides a fair shake. So the lesson here: get a person who is a good speaker to front your cause, and don't fear cameras!
The purpose of copyright is not for you to make obscene amounts of money...
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
I have no problem with obscene amounts of money. I do have a problem with people distorting the original intent of the copyright system to do so.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Not
No patent/copyright => No innovation
The facts are
no patent/copyright => less innovation
study economics, figure out how public goods and research costs interact, such that a government founded on the concepts of the free market decided to add patent and copyright laws to the constitution... granting temporary monopoly's ENCOURAGES innovation, not "allows for" but ENCOURAGES.
An employee of a company that invents something may not get the royalties, but they still get a paycheck, and the company wouldn't be paying as many paychecks in the R&D department unless they expected their temporary monopoly. Just because the inventor doesn't own the invention doesn't change the basic operation of economics.
Just for clarity... in case somebody isn't aware a "Compulsory License" cannot be summed up correctly as "pay for rights to listen". That quoted aside was a specific case of a compulsory license.
Compulsory licenses are those which the owner of some IP must grant regardless of who wishes to license their material.
For instance, if there were a compulsory license on NFL Football, any TV station that wished to broadcast a game could pony up a statutory amount of money and the NFL has no right to say "No, I don't want to do business with your" (nor do they have the right to say, "Okay, but you can't broadcast any game that any other station is already broadcasting, here's the list... and by the way, if you accept any advertising dollars from the XFL, you'll never get another NFL game as long as you live." (This is a purely hypothetical example, and has nothing to do with real extant circumstances)
Compulsory licenses are the "opposite" of voluntary licenses, in which the IP owner makes all and only the deals that they individually negotiate with the licensee
ASCAP and BMI (the people who collect royalties for radio performance) have voluntarily made their operations work -like- compulsory licenses, where anybody who ponies up a certain amount of money can play a certain amount of music (different rant about how ASCAP and BMI don't pay the people who's music is ACTUALLY played by the people who pay the fees... but they pay the people who are POPULAR *sigh*).
If most/all IP were under compulsory licenses... well, you wouldn't have to worry about AOL-Time Warner withholding all of their programming from other cable networks, and you wouldn't worry about Pfizer withholding all of their medicines from knock-off producers. Sounds great doesn't it? But like all things that foster competition in the delivery of IP, it reduces the strength of the Innovator's half of the copyright/patent bargain... and any time you WEAKEN that half, you WEAKEN the encouragement to innovate.
I don't know enough about markets to say whether the lost innovation would be made up for by the increased social welfare of a competitive market, but I wouldn't want to trust legislators with that decision either.
Your math is wrong between the 8th and 9th years.
2187 * 3 = 6561.
That changes your scale mucho.
Cyberia
The RIAA is complaining that there IP is being used inappropriately. Isn't that website design and logos the ripoff of Napster's IP. Sure that is their fair use, but they want to deny us fair use. Was Napster fairly compensated for the use of their design and trademark?
More hyprocrisy from the psycho lesbian bitch, Hillary Rosen.
--Joey
Copyrights, as they stand now are 90 years if held by a corporation(ie, movies) or 70 years plus 35 past the life of the owner, if held by an individual.
Any movie whose copyright expired, did not get it back. For example, many movies in the 50s did not renew before the time they needed to, they are public domain. However, the script, film techniques, music and etc. may still be under copyright. That is why you don't see full length movies online.
If you do want to see movies, in MPeg2 or DivX format that are legal,
http://www.archive.org/movies
--Joey
All your inalienable rights are belong to Orin Hatch.
I wonder how feasible it would be for bands that are already established and have the financial resources to do so to start promoting their own material online and avoiding the inevitable entanglement of record companies and industry marketing hounds.
Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny.
how many member of the RIAA have kids at home who are Napstering under their very noses. Oh, yeah, is John Henley realted to Don Henley?
What is the point of even trying to charge for Napster as a service? People will just get a copy of Napigator or a program like it and connect to any one of the free servers out there. Even if some people don't know how to use it/get it, they probably have a friend that does and is willing to show them. Most people will accept a slight inconvenience if they can still get free music.
Do the artists want to be under the record companies control forever?
Seems to be the time to start moving them out. At least for online stuff.
I couldn't fail to disagree with you less.
However, what does napster add to this debate? While they on the surface want to provide a similar application (on the backs of their user's bandwidth which is ugh, an ugly solution)... but who trusts napster now? Their $1 billion proposed package was nothing but a lot of hype... the economics of the situation on both sides seems poor for a deal like this that doesn't even include stable payment per user.
Having Hank Barry push for this kind of legislation groups the rest of the folks that suppport or would benefit from this into this attempt, which is nothing more than a company that promoted massive piracy gasping for it's last breaths. The industry (and the public) will be much better off when napster finally dies.
If sovereign nation A renigs on a treaty with sovereign nation B, than the whole rest of the alphabet doesn't want to play with A anymore. I suppose you have never tried to retrieve your car keys from a hostile three-year-old when you are late for work... Similar affect. (yes I just compared world governments to toddlers).
Easy to tell difference, socialist monstrosity makes attempts to disguse itself as beneficial to its victims, spreading progaganda which is at least amusingly mockable. Whereas the corporate monstrosity demands from the public to be respected for its ability to become such, calls its propaganda marketing and rather than simply using it to sugarcoat lies, insidiously sneaks it into every aspect of life. In other words, it has a greater number of duped victims.
I like the way liquidcd.com has setup an alternative. You can buy the music, have it on CD, and then rip it back to mp3 if you like.....
So, what, it's a bad thing to work 4 hours to buy a CD, half of which is either "commercialized tripe" or "banal crap"? Maybe that's where we've all gone wrong. I guess we were brought up thinking we had to support those who are convincing when they say "Support me!" A peasant revolution! Serfs unite! It's not Pirating! I grant you all the titles of "Privateers" as long as I get copies of everything...