Slashdot Mirror
Congress To Address Digital Music
camusflage writes: "MSNBC has an article that says Representatives Rick Boucher and Chris Cannon are set to introduce legislation that will attempt to control how copyright law treats digital music, and how royalties for it are paid. Among the things the legislation is said to address is what constitutes archival and incidental copying, in-store samples, and 'extending the mechanical compulsory license to Internet file-swapping.' The article goes on to say that the RIAA previously indicated openness to the licensing, while publishers and songwriters oppose it." See also ZDNet or Reuters (this link is the best summary of the bill). And if you've got the stomach to wade through copyright law, read the bill itself. Keep in mind that introducing a bill is a long long way from making any changes in the law, and even this bill doesn't necessarily solve all of the current problems with copyright law.
I read most of the posts above and it's just amazing what people are willing to say to try to justify that they take other peoples work (music and others) without paying for it.
Mod this guy up, right at the spot.
You were doing quite well until you came up with this. The problem is that the record company and artist do not get any of the revenue from your computer (or internet hookup or IRC network service). You might as well argue that you paid for your car and therefore you shouldn't have to pay for gas. Just because you're connected to the internet does not mean that everything else is free all of a sudden.
I'm sure he'll be glad to hear he doesn't have any talent. Just like my friends who are in bands don't, just because they haven't been absorbed into the maw of the corporate music machine.
You confuse two things. One is that recording companies provide a service to artists - yes, they provide publicity, and upfront money, but at usurious rates. The second is that one must therefore choose to go that route. That is one method, but not necessarily the best one.
The services that recording companies provide could be provided by other means - better MP3 publicity tie-ins for one, better splits on profits for upfront money for another. Neither needs to come from existing recording companies.
And you can get studio space at a lot of locations - a friend of mine at work has a recording studio on Vashon that some of the local bands use. It's not as hard as you think.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Fine. But you still haven't addressed why we need to LEGISLATE this particular topic. Breaking marriage vows is immoral, and wrong. But why a law? To what end? Do we really want to see more of this circus polluting our airwaves all week? I am sick of tired of pundit after pundit droning endlessly about Levy, Lewinsky et. al. It is ALL we see on the evening news because it tittilates the masses. If you have traveled as much as you say you have, you know that the U.S. is unique in its obsession with the sex lives of its politicians. Sure, the U.K. tabloids may drone on and on about the royal family's antics, but rarely does it monopolize EVERY single major news outlet for months and months on end.
People sleep around. Its wrong. If you think somebody who does it isn't fit to hold office, fine. Don't vote for them. But don't subject ME to the month long feeding frenzy that invariably involves these scandals. Politicians do MUCH worse on a daily basis, and we NEVER hear about it because we are too busy obsessing about some young thing in tight pants.
OK Sorry guys, it seems ive been corrected - the only reason for going into politics is: Bribe money, Sex (bribes), and Power (i.e the power to blow up anything you want... hmmmm ahhhh ohhhh blooooow up bah ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaa. Now all your base _are_ belong to us ^H^H me.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Woops, good point. Amazing - a .com without an IPO. Who'd 'a thunk it?
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
And obviously, you just don't want your wife/sig-other/boyfriend finding out what you are doing behind his/her back.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
I have lost **all** faith in the ability of the `house' to address anything. The DMCA proves that. Maybe they could just pretend they were addressing important issues. But then they would get less payoffs from (big business/labor unions).
There is an enormous difference between thinking something is WRONG and thinking there needs to be legislation to make it illegal. This is the point I was making, not that breaking wedding vows was "ok"
IANAB: I Am Not A Banana. (Just in case anyone assumed I was)
Less the substantial money to be gained through the sale of copyrights, how exactly is an artist to make money?
The money made off copyright is by licensing someone else (for sum of money x) to duplicate your copyrighted work (with specific limitations on how, where, formats and duration of license et. al) and they can then sell those copies or whatever they want to do with them, to recuperate (and exceed) sum x, either financially or in other terms.
That's how books work. The publisher doesn't hold copyright on the book, but will generally hold a license to produce copies of the book in a specific format (hardcover or softcover) for sale only in a specific region.
This is why you buy a software license, rather than the software itself. Your license to the author's copyrighted software product allows you to do certain things with it, detailed on the back of the box or somesuch.
For some reason, (Detailed by Courtney Love at a stage show a while ago, don't remember the website though...) recorded music in America under the RIAA seems to involve the artist selling the copyright to the music to the label. This is the problem! If the artist holds the copyright on their music, they'd quite quickly find (Like their book-publishing brethren did recently) that the studios only hold the rights to music in a certain format, in this case it would be music distributed through CDs, tapes, records, and via radio/tv/movie broadcast and suchlike.
On the other hand, consigning the copyright to a music label does put someone larger and more powerful than just the recording artist in a position to pursue copyright infringement.
But I don't think it's worth the trade-off.
Paul "TBBle" Hampson
Paul.Hampson@Pobox.Com
Trademarks are sectored - You can use the "linux" name to sell chocolate and washing powder, just not operating systems, just as I could call a warp drive I invent "Mars" without Mars confectionery having a legal leg to stand on if they want me to stop (wouldn't stop them hiring a hit man to do kill me, though....)
I don't think Napster is a publicly-traded corporation. Obviously, somebody has a financial stake in it, but I didn't know it was Marx or Lenin.
Obviously you're correct, cuntlip. I used 'pro-government' in the popular sense of 'in favor of large, intrusive government'.
Probably not, no. There's few cases that have tested this, and it's a mixed bag, but there were slightly more decisions against EULAs the last time I checked, than for. (also depends on the specifics of the EULA)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
As our government officials are supposed to be representatives of the people, they should be held to the highest moral standards as that would help us feel more comfortable about why they make certain decisions. Perhaps if congress was held to a higher moral standard, we wouldn't have to worry about the corporations owning them as so many people complain about here. Unfortunately, it's usually the other way around. For some reason, holding public office makes them exempt from having to exercise even common decency.
Just for the record, I have travelled outside of my city, state and country, I have actually lived in a foreign country (not in the military, either), and I do speak its language. I have also studied as much as possible other cultures and customs to at least be familiar with them. So I don't think I'm looking at the world through a tiny pin hole.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
I'm going to have to spar with you again. I haven't read the proposed bill, but it appears from the post that it's aimed solely at congressmen/women. You would still be free to jump in bed with whomever you please (consensually, and over 18 at least), which is what you're really concerned about, no doubt. If you're married, I pity your spouse for your attitude. If not, then you're just blowing smoke about something that has nothing to do with you anyway.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Okay.... Let me get this straight.
:)
"We've made a new bill! It makes it easier for people like Napster to sell MP3s!!"
Although the msnbc article did not exactly say that, it's pretty obvious that they wouldnt just introduce a bill to allow free music trading after all this trash with napster.
Unfortunately, companies tend to be pretty dumb on the internet, and record labels are really naive and stupid. They imagine that things like introducing new "uncopyable" formats (hahaha) will make people stop copying. No it won't. We have a format thanks, it's called MP3, we may even use Ogg or Vorbis in future since that's even more free (and not proprietary).
And distribution has only been a problem when the music industry has caught on that it's happening. For instance, distribution of music on IRC has been going for many, many years without the slightest bit of note from the press. There will always be a distribution method that the music industry won't know about, and that's a marvelous thing
Do not get me wrong -- if the music is genuinely good I would go out and buy the album. It's a very few tracks that make me think "Wow I must go buy their album" and not "Wow I must download that". In fact, MP3 is a great advertising medium. Often when I have got an MP3 I go out and buy the album to hear the rest. If people like a band enough i'm sure they'd do the same. I would rather have a boxed album with inlay card and so on than a hdd full of MP3's but 1 of their tracks on MP3 is okay if you only think they did 1 good track -- it's all about pride of ownership.
Weevil
ghaa.
Sure, but I don't think whatever's in that shrink wrap is a necessity to a 17-year-old, no?
Whoooo cares!
Many artists are famous for their clashes with their labels (Prince, NIN, even The Beatles), and long before napster et al...
The reason I think that this needs to be legislated is that in the rest of the world, you do this, you are fried. (In the commercial world, you sleep with your assistant, you're fired. In the academic world, you sleep with a student, you're fired.) In Congress, you sleep with a pony, you get a pay raise! (Obvious exageration). My problem is that government officials are not held to the same standard that regular business people are, and therefore we need a law to make them conform to society's norms.
For me, it's not about pics and scandals, it's about responsibility.ff
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
This bill does not even start on what is required to bring copyright law to a level back in line with the requirements of the Constitution.
What we need is something equivalent to the Statute of Anne (England 1710) where copyright for authors originated and the Public Domain was created. Prior to that, publishers owned all published material (sound familiar?) and authors, if paid at all, received only a pittance.
Ever since then, publishers have been working to regain their power and now that they have it, we need to yank it out from under their feet, not ply them with half-measures that will probably not even make it out of the House without Industry approval.
Politicians who tell you that changes need to come gradually are trying to maintain the status quo. It is the gradual changes that got us where we are today, an extension here, an addition to the rights included there, need another extension, oops - now we need to cover music, time for another extension and, while we're all here, lets make it against the law to break any encryption we might like to put on our digital offerings.
It wasn't a gradual change that created the United States - nor was it gradual when the old, very corrupt, spoils system of government was replaced with the civil service. Nor when the government instituted environmental restrictions (after Love Canal.)
Gradual changes are what they do when they want to ease into something that ISN'T good for the people overall - just to see if anybody notices. If they don't, another little change is made, and another after that.
When government actually gets off its tail and does something good for the nation, they do it quickly (so that the people will re-elect them come the next election.) If the people are so incensed that the politicians have no doubt of their collective anger, change happens nearly overnight.
We need to all write to our Congressmen - tell them the Boucher/Cannon bill is a start, but it isn't enough - not even close.
Don't just complain - DO something about it!
Personally, I can't see why they'd like it, except that it's not technically compulsory license. But the RIAA never seemed willing to settle for the "not worst" case before, they usually go whole hog. What's MSNBC smoking?
It looks like the proposed bill would exempt specific online music services from more odious portions of copyright law. That may be a good thing, but it does nothing to solve the fundamental problems of laws like the DMCA which allow the content industry to remove the customer's rights using technology, while criminalizing the customer's attempt to use technology to restore those rights.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
This is the same comment that gets posted every time a story comes along that has the flimsiest connection to music on the internet. Never mind that it has absolutely nothing to do with the story at hand (Boucher is trying to close Pandora's box?)
If you want free music w/o the worry of copyrights move to Tailand / Singapore.
The Reuters write up mentions that should the major labels choose to not license their music at all, or do an entirely in house online distribution, then no compulsory licensing is required. I doubt they're too keen on being forced to license to the Napster(s) the fought so hard against, so the question remains will it kill any of the (admittedly vaporous) online services they've been working on or simply force them to do only in house distribution. Neither sounds particularly good since I don't make a habit of knowing which house publishes my favorite music. Still it'll be interesting to see how they try and spin either decision.
Ad in classifieds: Pandora's Box (no box) $5
So it was my understanding that fair use can go out the window at any time, regardless of DMCA. Am I incorrect in my understanding?
So that means if Spicoli has a pizza delivered to his classroom, he can either eat it all by himself, or, if he shares it with just one other person, the teacher will make him give everyone a slice? Tough choice.
Smart. Real smart.
Power to the Peaceful
Tried to read that. Why, oh why can't they just use diff instead of writing "strike that, and replace that with that, redisignate those as these and add a semicolon"?
Or download free stuff from MP3.com.
It's not like the bands the RIAA push onto us are significantly better than most of the better artists on MP3.com, anyway.
This raises a very good point. If RIAA's music control fails, and the consumers route around the damage, buying CDs in the Bahamas for artists who are willing to list MP3 songs so we can try them out, it really doesn't matter what Congress tries to do.
In the end, the market has no soul, no love for RIAA and the corporate music scene. If they increase costs and try to closed source their music, open source music alternatives will become more attractive. If I'm into Techno and they try to charge me USD$20 for a CD of 10 songs, when I can get decent (if not better) quality Techno for USD$0 for tryout and USD$0 for one or two sample MP3 songs (full length), then I'll send them USD$10 for the 10 song CD. Cost to band - USD$7 for production, shipping, handling, MP3.com split. Profit to band - USD$3. Profit under RIAA USD$20 CD to band is USD$0.20 at most. If you're a techno band and you can sell 2 million CDs with USD$3 profit or choose to sell 1 million CDs via RIAA groups for USD$0.20 profit, which will you choose?
Right, you choose open source, cause you get more fans, more net dollars to band, and you also get the charts of where your CDs sell the most to plan tours with and can then email those fans and crash at their places.
The market wins, open source wins, RIAA loses.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
If congress should do anything, it should recognize that the RIAA is a price fixing cartel across the major artists just as OPEC is a price fixing cartel across the major oil producers and order it dissolved or broken up. I see no difference.
You are incorrect. If they put a shrink wrap license on a CD saying you're not even allowed to listen to it it's the UCITA that gives shrink wrap (and click-through) licences their teeth, not the DMCA or any copyright law already on the books.
...
But UCITA is only in one state, and two other states have watered down versions. Some states have firewall anti-UCITA laws too. In no case is UCITA the law of the land, unless you're in Virginia (think that's the state that bought that bag of foobar).
So, lacking UCITA, we default to DMCA or standard consumer case law, both of which preserve fair use as they can't override consumer protections.
IANAL, thank god
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
isn't it a bit obvious there's a communication problem when the RIAA and the artists they represent vehemently oppose each others' beliefs?
should be a sign...
I just heard today that Congress in debating a bill to pass a law that would prohibit Congressmen/women from having affairs with their staff (read: interns). The amazing part is,there is not enough support for this law! By showing how low Congress's morals are, is there any doubt that they will pass any law, no matter how immoral and un-Constittional, as long as it lines their pockets with big bucks?
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Because Boucher is involved, there may be some hope, but the RIAA will buy enough congresscritters to make this bill take away what few fair use rights we have left.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Ohhhh... looks like someone didn't get their bribe from the record companies, so their gonna cause a bit of trouble. If this bill suddenly disappears in the near future, its probably because Boucher and Cannon have been paid to shut-up.
Its not really a big law. In fact lets face it, its a pile of BS. Who, to be honest really cares what happens to Britney Spears' rights as an artist or if Napster is getting bullied. The short fact is: If you want free music, you know where to get it. On the other hand, if your a record company and have a problem with people getting free music, you know where you can stick it.
-tfga
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I am not a person of the law, so I'll need some clarification to whether or not this proposed bill will impact Chapter 12 of
Whether or not any music-selling web site selling online recordings from any music publisher is not the beginning of my worries (though I could save money). My living nightmare of a copy-protected (Microsoft/AOLTW/Universal only?) recording of Julie Andrews' post-recovery voice in the year 20?? will still happen. And I would still stare down the barrel of an M4 if I want to descramble said recording so I can play it back with a computer running a high-performance free-software OS. Since there's no corporate media backing/approval with said OSes, how the hell can I do such a thing legally?
But no, we have application specific laws, every time a new problem pops up we have to either rewrite or copy and modify. We end up with lots of application specific laws that have to be individually updated as the political and social climate change. Totally not designed for the maintainance phase.
Is this before or after music trading is discussed before the House Un-American Activities Committee?
In other words, would it be possible for me to write something, make a xerox, and then transfer the copyright of one copy to you, but keep the copyright of the other copy?
From the Reuters story:
Napster would prefer an even stronger proposal to create a compulsory license that would force record labels to let any company sell any song at a price determined by the U.S. Copyright Office.
Anybody still want to argue that Napster is on the side of the angels? Cyberspace rebels, freeing the people from the bonds of Corporate America?
When they think it will benefit them, they're as pro-government as a good socialist.
Oh, one more thing.
"Have you any clue about the creative process involved in making techno music, or are you speaking purely from a biased-listener standpoint?"
You might want to listen to "Journey to Rivendell" or "Hyperactif" on my mp3.com page if you really want an answer to that question.
I have paid for my music in several different format already and I'll be damned if I'm going to opt for another form of tax on music like this bill proposes.
Under the new copyright bill (MOCA) they offer EXCLUSIVE ORGANIZATIONS licenses? EXCUSE ALL HELL OUT OF ME but how is that "fair use" to the consumer? Sure it will start out as a minimal fee to pay once again for the music (surtaxes), but how long until these exclusive organizations start crying costs and steadily raise the subscription license fees
In addition. I have been collecting music sine the early 1960s and this proposed bill wants me to PROVE I own the music? They better be ready to get warrants to enter my home and get the proof because there's no way I kept 40+ years of receipts!
I think it's time to stop shafting consumers left right and center and start repealing garbage laws like the DMCA. MOCA should not even get off the ground
Next step
I pay for my computer, I pay for my modem, I pay for an internet hookup and I also pay for a IRC network service I chose to run. Now the gov't in all its wisdom expect me to PAY for online music to listen to or download??? DREAM ON dear politicians
Law cases refer specifically to titles and sections of law- if the titles and sections referred to are removed, the perspective in which the decision was made is lost.
Thus, it makes much more sense to retract the sections involved explicitly rather than removing them completely. Think of it in terms of backward compatibility. Current laws must be compatible with older decisions made under the same code, because what those decisions were originally based on is what case review is about.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Not surprisingly, the RIAA bashed the bill, saying it favors government regulation over market forces.
I dare say that the market forces have done their work. It should be clear to the RIAA now that the market has said it's tired of getting horked for $18-$20USD every time we want to pick up a disc by our favorite artist (even if the artist has been dead for 50 years)!
More on the point, I think this sort of legislation is overdue. I'd come much closer, however, to favoring a modification of copyright law which establishes a true compulsory liscensing scheme for online music (as per US title 17 sec 115, which also covered in the Berne Convention). Not so much because I want to drive up costs, which I fear it would in the end, but because it lends more legal credibility to the the idea of online file sharing in general (and sharing of music in particular). I'll pay an extra cent per download if it keeps the damned lawyers off my back. As it stands now this bill reeks of the Audio Home Recording Act.
Are you saying such a bill is NEEDED? What you do in your bedroom is none of my goddamn business. You going to make cheating at Max Payne illegal too? How about lying? Should that be illegal? How many more freedoms are you willing to deny Americans in the name of your Puritanical psychosis?
It is people like you who make it impossible for the media to carry a meaningful story other than
"CHANDRA LEVY: STILL MISSING" and "CONDIT 2001: PENIS WATCH".
I could give a RATS ass about any of that crap, and yet that is ALL we see on the evening news, day in and day out, while more important issues get completely ignored. Do you read? Do you travel? Do you get outside? Do you speak other languages? Have you visited any country outside your own? Any STATE outside your own?
You do realize that mistresses and concubines have existed for thousands (probably tens of thousands) of years, and yet we Americans seem to be the only ones who bitch about it constantly. You are in dire need of a reality check. Look outside your window, buddy. The world is much larger than the tiny town you grew up in, you poor, deluded, sad, ignorant little man.
Free webcasting is probably the number one thing that the so-called "digital music revolution" (remember, friends- when someone says they're revolutionary, just think of them as a wheel spinning round and round in place, and you often have the right picture) has brought to me which I truly value.
This, more than anything else, is what music creators and marketers of all kinds should be standing behind, not trying to tax to death. Streamed mp3 has resulted in so many CD purchases that I've made, I can hardly count them. I've had my tastes opened to many new kinds of music...
But wait. I've spent most of that money on small-labeled music... such as Metropolis, Gashed, and the like.
I can't help liking the music I like. I can't help it that it's small-market. And I can't help it that until now I wouldn't have even discovered any of the acts which I now dote on without free, user-created webcasting. I honestly could care less what happens to large broadcasters- let them advertise and tax and fight forever. All of the webcasts I listen to, however, are generally money *losing* operations- they take no advertising and take no revenues whatsoever. They exist simply by enthusiasts for whoever wishes to hear their sound.
Do the larger webcasters consider the small ones to be competition? We shall see. I am most certainly wary of trusting any large corporation or entity until said groups make it certain that the interests of small webcasters are wedded to their agendas.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
I hope this example makes you realize that copyrights shouldn't be for sale
While I agree that the this is a horrible scenerio you paint I'm not sure it is entirely possible as per 984 F.2d 1524.
Regardless of case law, though, I have another more basic question. Less the substantial money to be gained through the sale of copyrights, how exactly is an artist to make money? While I realize that the system is broken, I don't think that the idea of copyrights and the sale there of is fundamentally flawed.
It has only been in the last few years that the internet has become a viable means for music distibution. Until such time as broadband is ubiquitous and publically controlled, I think that the "music label" model for access to distribution is still a valid one. Even now so few people have broadband access (to say nothing of any access) that it is still not a wholy viable channel to use as your ONLY method of distribution. Given the centurys of precedent for the current system (which can be traced to the artist/patron system in place since the Baroque period) we rationally expect the model or the law to change overnight.
Keep in mind that introducing a bill is a long long way from making any changes in the law, and even this bill doesn't necessarily solve all of the current problems with copyright law.
As soon as I read about ANY new legislation my first thought is, "god, how are they going to screw it up now?" I have lost so much confidence in the government that I really can't imagine a new law making anything BETTER. I just keep my eye on court cases, and hope things get struck down that way.
Theoretically, I suppose it is possible to fix a problem through legislation. But I'm a cynic and I have a hard time believing it!
I can understand a basic business law structure for copyrights and other IP rights, but why does the Government get so involved in creating rules for business? Isn't that up to the companies to create and the consumers to be the judge on whether or not they like how it works? I know this isn't exactly the situation but I hear about tax cuts for industries to help spur production or the giant one I heard about for the oil industry so they can use that extra 13 billion a year to create alternative energy resources (like it will happen). There's so much in the news about laws and bills being passed to aid business, what's up with that? Isn't it suppose to be by of for the *people*?
No sig for you!!
Wait a second... Mechanical licensing refers to the (already enacted) compulsory license for the act of making a copy of the song, not the specific instance of the song. In other words, if I make a cover of "Baby One More Time", I can sell CDs of my cover by paying (probably Britney, through the Harry Fox Agency) under a compulsory mechanical license. I also believe this is what record companies pay to the artist. Generally the artist owns the rights to the song, and the record company owns the rights to the recording.
Mechanical licensing does not give you a compulsory license to copy an actual recording. This is most likely why the RIAA wants this, and the artists do not. It allows the owner of the recording to distribute over the internet without negotiating a license with the owner of the song.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
...meant to buy off the people who've raised the loudest ruckus so far - or at best, a first step in the right direction.
Keep raisin' ruckus! "Free speech" should not be mutated into "free commercially significant speech." ("All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.") "XXXteens" is commercially significant, and the Bill of Rights is not.
Your wish is granted! FTC is investigating the Musicnet/Pressplay Douoploly as you read this.
The labels are starting to ask Why are we paying this Rosen woman a 1.1 million dollar salary? First the EU Investigation in June, this Boucher/Cannon bill, and now a FTC investigation. Not to mention that the FTC Finding of Price Fixing, or the 28 states lawsuit over the price fixing