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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.