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.
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!
Nor does it attempt to solve the fundamental problems of world hunger or erectile dysfunction. But so what? The law is aimed at furthering online music, which has nothing to do with the DMCA. Even if the DMCA were abolished completely, Napster & co. would still be in trouble for trafficking in music without the permission of the copyright holder.
The DMCA is pretty much orthogonal to this issue.
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?
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.
I actually happen to like techno. Although it's an exaggeration to say that it's not really music, it's easier to type than the real explanation.
Music is essentialy education. Listening to music trains you to hear things a certain way. As children, classical music seems boring and dull, because we don't yet have the knowledge of music to be able to understand what we're hearing, so it just sounds like a bunch of silly strings; but Barney and Sesame Street sound about right. As teenagers, we expand into popular music, and then into Jazz and alternative styles when we hit college. If we keep our minds open, eventually things like Schostakovich make sense to us. The music of our youth, the pop and Barney songs, now sound boring because they teach us nothing new.
My experience listening to techno is that although I hear new things, they are never developed. At all. Listening to classical music, I hear an idea expressed, and then that idea is developed and expanded upon. Techno is like someone just shouting a clever slogan over and over.
What's more is that the human element has been removed from most techno music. Outside of knob-twisting, there is very little expression or emotion. Even the repetition and electronics in Hip-Hop at least have a very strong human element in the vocalist's performance.
I also recognize that this repetition and mechanistic styling is a deliberate choice: If you're going to dance to it, the beat must be steady and constant. But latin dance forms maintain the steady beat while actually developing their themes; why can't electronic music do the same?
So this isn't an "I hate techno" thought. I love listening to the new sounds. But my mind never gets involved. When I'm writing code or paying my bills, it's fine. It's functional. But it is not art.
Wendy Carlos has an interview on her web page (and if you claim to be an electronic music lover and don't know who Wendy Carlos is, LEARN! -- www.wendycarlos.com) where she expresses a very similar sentiment, and does a good job of expressing this as well.
Music is ultimately a human endeavor. If you take the human out of it, it's not really music any more. Sure, it's creative, but that doesn't make it music.
I should also mention that there are exceptions. B.T., to name one example, does a lot to add a human element to his music, and his live performances in particular are stunning. But the overwhelming majority of electronic music today has not progressed in any significant intellectual or technological way in ten years.
So it's not an "I hate techno" thing. I like McDonald's, but face it -- the stuff they serve is crap, and everyone knows it. I like techno, but I'm not going to fool myself into believing it's some kind of high art form.
Too bad it doesn't work that way. Sure, discerning people like yourself may look at the options, and choose the best music at the best price. But your average music buyer purchases what the media and the RIAA says he or she should purchase. You actually think someone bought the latest [insert boy-band, rap artist, or navel-exposing silicone female with quasi-decent voice here] CD because he listened to different music and decided what songs were best?
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
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?