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?
Because ASCAP, BMI and SESAC already handle payments for analog performances. Why they needed a 'new' orginization for digital frankly eludes me.
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"
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
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!
Speaking of Warner Brothers, they've got one of my photos on two of their pages at the official Harry Potter website. You can include it in e-postcards you send.
They did not ask my permission. They did not pay for the use of my copyrighted work (this particular photo has been sold for publication several times).
Needless to say we'll be talking (they've already made an offer to another photographer in the same situation).
In all fairness, it's the web design firm's that at fault, but I find the irony quite humorous.
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.