Slashdot Mirror
RIAA, Music Unions Agree On Payments For Digital Play
Anonymous Brave Guy writes "BBC News is reporting that musicians and artists will now be paid directly for broadcasts of their work in the U.S., without the cash going to record company middle men, as a result of a deal struck between trade unions and industry representatives including the RIAA." Note the tidbit toward the end of the story mentioning the new European copyright directive, and saying "It gives copyright owners permission to use encryption to block the duplication of copyright-protected works." Permission?
Why only digital play? What about the radio? Seems to me that the record companies shouldn't get any money except from record sales.
__________________________________________
Take comfort in your ignorance.
Grandmaster Plague
why would they need permission? At least they haven't made it illegal to break teh encryption. I never had a problem with the DVD folks using CSS, it was just the "cracking it is illegal" part that bugged me
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
That the artists already have an orginization called The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP). Unlike that one, this 'new' one has partial RIAA control. The final irony is that the BBC used a graphic for WorldClassRock.com, a web site that I set the streaming up for (15 different streams)and is now down to a single mono 20k stream (in other words is practically defunct).
MSNBC has this article which is a pretty description of the origins of copyright in the US and how the system is currently completely out of whack.
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
What? The record companies actually relinquished any control of anything? You're kidding. What's the catch?
The RIAA's large-scale actions of recent years -- first and foremost the DMCA! -- have been designed not so much with an eye to profit as an eye to control. They are a very powerful cartel, and they'd like to keep it that way -- even at the expense of immediate profits.
So what's the catch here? Could it be that they're suddenly worried about anti-trust action? Were the two artists' unions involved actually that effective?
If the unions were effective, it might be worthwhile to start making the anti-DMCA case to them. The kinds of controls on copyright the DMCA creates are ultimately to the benefit only of the copyright holder -- which, in the case of most recordings, is the record company and not the artist. Although it appears to benefit artists by protecting their work, the DMCA actually takes music out of the hands of musicians.
It would be a long, difficult, argument, but perhaps it's time to start making it. I'm a musician, and I'm convinced; I think others could be as well. If the artists' unions can pull off a deal like that, they might also be able to pull the rug out from under the **AA's run on the constitution.
I thought the bit you quote above was a bit weird, though.
I say that there's more going on here than meets the eye.
In other news...
RIAA officials will be sending groups of up to 2,000 teenagers to any house party, block event, or apartment get-together where so-called "DJs" (i.e., pirates) are illegally performing protected works. By filling the space with RIAA agents, the hackers and pirates can't get in, thus protecting the vital intellectual property from misuse.
Also, the RIAA and MPAA are continuing their plans to merge and become the fourth branch of US government, overseeing the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Especially the judicial branch. Look for the RIAA seal in a courtroom near you! You PIRATE!
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
My guess: artists will be issued certificates from RIAA authority. (CA)
Yes, I understand that keys is is all they need to encrypt their music and not actual certificates, but hey, maybe I want "certified" music. heh. Anyways, this is one way for RIAA to stay in the picture.
prediction: next they'll wanna sell their music to me encrypted with my own key.
I never used Napster... was this a feature?
I don't think permission is the right word. If I own the copyright then I don't have to get permission from anyone if I want to copy-protect my work.
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
Groups that signed the agreement included the Recording Industry Association of America, a recording industry trade group, and two major artists' trade unions, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists and the American Federation of Musicians.
I'm surprised a RIAA spokesdroi^H^H^H^person did not say "In the words of Bill Gates, 'It was a fair agreement'..."
Translation: The fat lady ain't never going to sing because that song is copyrighted on a protected disk. And no, you can't have the mp3 version!
Heh, Microsoft can "take their ball and go home", as it were.
the MP|RI AA can take the ball, the bat, the bases, the field, the speakers, announcers, the concessions et al.
I'd sing the National Anthem right now, but I can't be sure if I'll get sued or not, seeing as my brain is an anti-circumvention device.
(at least it is good for something this weekend).
Yeah, I'm thrilled. Can't you tell?
If it is not on fire, it is a software problem.
So they would have an opportunity to negotiate different terms than they did with ASCAP, BMI and finally SESAC.
davecb@spamcop.net
a famous example behind how music companies work is the example of Prince, the artist formerly known as Prince, etc. The story behind all that was that the name Prince was owned lock stock and barrel by (I think) WB , or had it by exclusive license, or something, and the artist could not use it in any way without money going to the record label, until the deal ran out.
He went with the abstract symbol, so that he could retain control on his work instead of being a slave for art.
So the RIAA only gives up what they have to, in order to keep control elsewhere.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Though almost all of us don't like the fact that music will be encrypted and that cd's will more than likely become non-playable on desktops. I DO like that this gives the artist the power to choose. The recording labels would surely lock down everything they record.
Giving the artist the right to choose may hopefully open a few doors and open the eyes of other artist that choose to encrypt their work; making them aware that restricting their music is NOT the answer.
I still strongly believe that peer to peer software such as Napster increased record sales (and I believe I remember reading articles that backed up those theories).
IMHO giving the individual artist this 'permission to choose' make actually turn into the metaphoric light at the end of the tunnel. Just my 2 pennies! - HSJ
Never try to beat a professional at his own game!
I like the scope of this. It starts to resolve the new problem of what a club (or radio station) is to to with the sound that went out to the public. We at N2IT Development (Yes, we do FinalScratch) have allways wondered about this problem. We all agree it isn't fair to pay the artists that can show the 'highest sales' (I'd be really surprised if fewer than 95% of the new Michael Jackson CDs go straight to the shreader.) See in the past, all you had to do was fake good sales and get other's compensation. If you are really good, you don't have to even press the CDs!
Well, here in Europe, artists 'have permission' to place 'copy prevention' techniques on media. This is not to say they will or if they do, how easy it is to crack such crackpot ideas. It also keeps it legal to crack copy prevention: --NO DCMA in EUROPE!--
In a sence, us geeks might actually buy a 'protected' CD just for the sport of it. We all know it is __absolutely impossible __ to protect anything with a key everyone has. This is called the "Broadcast delima" in the accademic circles. I
think players that refuse to play until a certain release time are quite a joke. Ofcourse it is easy to 'spoof' GPS with super-low-power devices and bypass the system. Fortunatey one doesn't have to even bother with a method that may interferre with navigation as the "Broadcast delima" makes for a simpler crack.
I am proud to be in a society that allows the personal freedom to both allow someone a lame way to "protect" their IP and at the same time makes it totally legal to 'crack and tell'. It is **ILLEGAL** in Europe to deny the user a backup. There is nothing in the law that says the 'backup' must be in the clear. (There is a "copy prevention" method that will not work on Windoze and/or IDE drives. It can be shown that it can be easily defeated with SCSI and UNIX systems, using the most popular tools.)
Perhaps it will be mandatory to state it will not work (or copy) from an IDE/Windoze box and perhaps, if they are with it, will require a disclaimer that the latest 'copy prevention' techniques require professional copying. INAL, but in a twisted way, if Windoze cannot cut it, but Unix can, it must be technically legal, as nobody is telling you that you have to use Windoze here!
One: "Member states have 18 months to ratify and implement the directive."
Two: "Musicians and artists will now be paid directly for broadcasts of their work in the US on cable, satellite and the internet..."
What "member states" are they talking about?
What if it is a US company using European hardware to broadcast on the internet? Where does that fall under? Or is it based on where the music is listened to?
Despite what everybody here wants to say, or how people want to spin it, the common way that software such as morpheus is used is ethically, and legally wrong. It's not fair use to give near-perfect recordings of copyrighted material to everyone on the planet. This is not the same as making a tape for your friend.
That being said, the software is not at fault. The RIAA may argue that it's an enabling the behaviour, but this bad behaviour can, and does occur through other means. There are entire mailing lists [solorb.com] devoted to the trading of copyrighted materials via the USPS. This does not mean that the USPS should be outlawed.
Everybody should write your governmental representatives now, preferably with checks enclosed, to make sure that morpheus and the alike are not wrongly persecuted and prosecuted for behaviour that's beyond the author's control
.
"Congress shall have power 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."
-- U.S. CONSTITUTION
Article 1, Section 8
Music, film, and fiction, if by some stretch of the imagination are "art", they are yet most certainly not "useful".
They have made a frace of our founding principles. Britney Speares is a parasite, leeching upon our lifeblood that she might use us for her gain; our founding fathers would have none of it.
Remind me again, what a record company does? so far all i have is:
Take someone who on their own would be a worthless pile of crap -> make them into a star and get everyone to buy their music
kind of like what Microsoft does to grad students?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Sure, I know everybody (or at least alot of people) hates the RIAA, but one good thing has happened. The realisation of digital music delivered over a digital medium to us.
Pitty it took such a long time and they changed the hard way.
----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
What deal does the RIAA have with ASCAP or any other publisher?
Publishers only handle performance royalties (and playing a pre-recorded song on a radio or elsewhere constitutes "performance").
The selling of CDs or any pre-recorded song in any medium constitutes an entirely different payment mechanism based on actual sales (not entirely true, but close enough for the sake of this discussion).
What you think Prince is his real name? Like no first, no last name, just "Prince"? So on his birth certificate, the last name and middle name are blank, just "Prince"?
The agreement only covers the royalties collected under the "statutory license" and not the "interactive licenses". In other words, if you can pick and chose your music, the artists royalties still go through the labels. By making the statutory licenses as narrow as possible to those wanting to "webcast", the RIAA has pretty effectively assured that those who chose to cater to the consumers and public wants with interactive webcasts must seek the interactive licenses (which are negotiated on a case by case basis and cost much more), thus assuring it is business as usual. (and thus bypassing this agreement). SoundExchange does not collect royalties for uses of music directly licensed by labels (or interactive uses), such as the Echo Networks and Warner deal earlier this week.
This still doesn't address the fact that the RIAA and SoundExchange are NOT paying the webcasting royalties this year, even though they were due to be paid in July. This they announced in May. CNet ran an article
According to Webnoize (subscription required) article, The $5.2 Million payment they made on October 15 represents only income from the cable, satellite and Muzak licenses collected from Feb 1996 to March 2000. They do not include any payment for webcasting that they have collected since 1999. Ina ddition their administrative fee is 20% meaning the RIAA collected $1.3 Million for that distribution.
Its a step in the right direction, but its only a baby step. One interesting side note: the payment directly to artists is one thing that is contained in the Music Online Competition Act (MOCA) introduced on Aug 3rd by Rick Boucher and Chris Cannon, that the RIAA has condemned in no uncertain terms.
Wouldn't it have been easier just to post a link?
Okay listen guys this is good. Why is MP3 piracy a problem?? Because really when you get down to it, songs are just data, numbers on a disk, and nothing keeps you from copying a bunch of numbers, right??
SO HERE'S WHAT YOU DO (if you're an artist, otherwise don't do this because the FBI can't tap your phone).
ENCRYPT your music files!! But wait I hear you saying.. how can anybody listen to TEH BOOTY BEATZ if they are encrypted??????????
Well you have a secret key, and only the people with the key can lsiten to the music!!! So instead of worrying about people copying your files, you don't care any more, because only the people with the secret key can listen.
PROBLEM SOLVED!! Let the money roll in, bling bling.
cause see, you can just sell the keys, over the internet, or on CDs, or in music players, or computers, because they're just data, a bunch of numbe......OH SHIT.
Fuck. forget it.
Arguably, copyright holders who encrypt their works aren't living up to their side of the deal. If copyright holders don't live up to their side of the deal, why should society live up to its side of the deal?
I understand why the Europeans ultimately gave in to industry demands, and this is not a simple decision. But I think in the long run, this is a mistake. Content creators should choose between either free and open distribution coupled with legal protection, or technological protection. If you give them both, they will use technological protection to exclude both fair use and ultimately transition into the public domain. Less and less of what is protected by copyright today will make it into the public domain eventually, because of technological protections, and fair use is already greatly restricted.
They might as well just put implants in our head so that we cannot hear anything that we aren't supposed to. "Hey Bob! Is that the new Metallica CD you are listening to?" "Yeah, You wanna listen?" "Naww. Can't afford it this month" "That's ok man, this one's on me..." Bob whips out his bank card and swipes it behind my ear. "Hey thanks, I'll get you next time." "Cool man.."
We don't need not education.... We don't need no thought control...
Simple proposition for file sharing networks, tag an open encryption header on an easy encrypted *.MP3 file (descibes how to descramble the file with a *.MPE tag to set it apart), transmit the encrypted file in that form, have the receiver use the open header to decrypt back to *.MP3 form or leave encrypted (as the open header leaves easy reading at runtime) on the user's hard drive.
The sender would have a open key (in a PGP way), the receiver would have an open key, the sums of those keys gives a unique file ID number for transmitting purposes.
The reason for open obfuscation is that the DMCA forbids the decryption for proof of file sharing (making it illegal for the RIAA to whine). The encryption is open so that the end user isn't hindered too much and each file transmitted is unique (while encrypted)and encrypted (thusly protected by the DMCA).
Sorry if this seems cold and just another manner to inflame the copyright hubbaloo, but frankly the RIAA is a bunch of unimportant self-righteous self-important thieves that I don't care. This whole issue tires me beyond measure as it has gone beyond any level of rational human behavior on the supply / demand curve. The RIAA knows that lowering CD prices will end this issue, but are too greedy and self-destructive to take the correct action. The consumer knows that if they screw the music talent there will be little high-quality music in the future. The people that hold the money decide the fate of the market for the product. That is not the RIAA. The market has decided and will not budge the RIAA can only destroy themselves on this path until CD prices are reduced to a realistic level.
"Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.
remember that the _purpose_ of copyright is to encourage many people to read the works, and eventually change and incorporate them in new works
If individuals want to incorporate copyrighted works into new works without a lawsuit or royalties bankrupting them, they have to wait for the copyright to expire. Yeah, right. Not in my lifetime nor in yours. Copyrights already last 95 years, and you can bet that by 2020, Di$ney will have contributed another $6 million of soft money to the Republicratic Party in exchange for yet another term extension. How the courts consider 95 years as sufficiently "limited Times" designed "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" escapes me.
Boycott the estate of Sonny Bono, whose widow introduced and sponsored the bill. Boycott Cher, who has been quoted as favoring a term of "forever less a day." Boycott the Walt Disney Company, which bankrolled the bribes that got the bill passed. Boycott all color motion pictures produced by MPAA member studios, as the first commercial color film technology appeared in 1923, and all works created on or after January 1, 1923, are under an effective perpetual copyright in the United States.
May Sonny Bono rot in he11.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Arguably, copyright holders who encrypt their works aren't living up to their side of the deal.
I would argue further that claiming copyright on encrypted work is defrauding society and stealing valuable legal protection services.
The US DOJ should prosecute anyone who claims copyright on the following materials:
- DVDs with CSS.
- Computer software with registration keys.
- Video programs with automatic gain copy control.
They should warn first and give offenders a little time to disclaim illegal copyrights. Everyone has a natural right to produce encrypted work, it's just wrong to claim copyright on such.
The DOJ needs to drop any pending prosecutions for infringment of illegal copyrights, and Congress needs to shovel the unconstitutional slop out of US Code Title 17.
------DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE------
Too late!
--- Work, worry, consume, die. It's a wonderful life. -- Bill Griffith
ASCAP = ASS-CAP
"Why yes sir, we take this here plug and shove it up our asses, hense, ASS-CAP"
Am I the only one who fines this hillarious?
let's see...
Score of 0, check. No "Funny" tag, check.
I'd say yes. You are the only one.
Shouldn't an artist be able to contract the pressing of their own CD's with out any of these money-hungry acronyms pumping them for money from the sale and distrobution? Take small bands for instance. Once they get $1000 together to get some tracks laid down they have the master tapes/discs. Waltz on down to the local CD printer and use your $5500 loan to print and package 5000 CD's. Get them iun stores and start selling or mail order whatever. SO if a small independen band can do this, what the hell is stopping larger recording artists from automating this process. THey have "millions" right. take yer gold off and change the frecking system! you were uhh talented enough( that's saying a lot about most artists) to get to your throne of multimillions so why not change to the system to undercut all these middle men and make more MONEY.? Answer: Contracts.
As if everyone did not already know that the music industry is a bloated boorish monopoly, things like this serve as a reminder of their ignorance of any technology beyond the record player and their unwillingness to accept that music swapping is actually proven to increase sales of their music, and that the new copy protection and inability of future cds to be played in a PC is actually detrimental to their bottom line in the long run, and could quite possibly alienate even more people than they already have, people who for some strange reason like to back up things so that they wont have to spend another 20 dollars to listen to the music that they want.
I hate sigs.
I'm not sure I understand this story. Surely the artist won't get paid for cable, satellite, and internet play of their songs if they don't own the copyright to the song? Most artists sign their copyrights away as a part of their contract.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
The one who owns the song's publishing rights owns the song. ASCAP, BMI and SESAC collect the performance royalties (primarly from Radio stations, TV stations, Broadway shows, circuses, etc. etc. and distributes them directly to the rights holder (minus a processing fee of course). Obviously, the RIAA wants their 'cut' (not being happy with the just a cut of each record sold).
The author states that the intellectual property laws envisioned by the Founders aimed to strike a balance between authors, publishers, and readers. This is well and good. However, in his criticism of DCMA and other means to shift the balance towards the creators, he neglects the fact that there is more to this balance than just written law. There are many other forces at work which absolutely must be considered, but the author gives them no consideration.
For one, the nature of digital media enables people to pirate goods in a way that is totally unprecedented. No time before could a work of art, say a book, have been distributed by one lone pirate. It would have required transcription, printing presses, distribution networks, and so on. Even his concept of the so-called "fair use" as it is viewed today is extremely different from the "fair use" of 200 some years ago. When a professor today wants to do a lesson he can merely (many actually do this) photocopy whole chapter(s) and give them to his students, there was no equivelent of this in Jefferson's time. In other words, technology shifts the balance of power drastically into the pirates court. The same work that would have recieved balanced protection in Jefferson's time could be easily ripped off wholesale today.
Second, the author fails to consider the changing nature of the works produced and the markets that they are sold into. For instance, he mentions database producers recieving protection, yet he neglects that they are serving a unique function, a function unparalleled in Jefferson's time, that adds substantial value to the consumer, which is, in fact, very necessary in the digital world. There is little comparison between the levels and kinds of publications in Jefferson's days and that of today. The rate of creation, the shelf life, the specificity of published works, the amount of resources poored into development, and many other things have changed DRASTICALLY.
In short, the author takes means that were sufficient and proper in Jefferson's times to be a universal statement of what is right for all of time. Laws change for a reason. While I take issue with parts of the DCMA, it's simply ignorant to ignore the reasoning behind it. What's more, I disagree with the assertion that Jefferson would have supported the likes of Napster; Jefferson was a reasonable and intelligent individual, not an absolutist.
Management alternative program?
Then you are just wasting time.
take all the money the artist made for the record company, and fiddle the books so the artist gets fuck all, and the record company gets richer... sweet deal, I'd fight as hard as they do to protect it too!
My favourite system would be:
- record companies are be obliged to put digital ID tags on their CD's. New CD's have no claim on digital copyright when they don't carry this kind of ID.
- the RIAA is forced to offer a kind of Gracenote like service. Music not covered under this service is free of digital copyright.
The RIAA or some other organisation starts a digital service where you can register the mp3's and other music you download or burn on a CD. This is then charged on a monthly bill.
We get software to register our mp3s. Both when we only download them and when we burn them on a CD. Of course such software is optional. You don't want to pay for bad downloads or for CDs that have to be reburned because the first version was not good enough.
Now honest people have a workable system with which they can pay their copyright.
Let's do this first and lets see what happens. Dealing with dishonest people can always be done at a later time...