Slashdot Mirror
Webcasting and the DMCA
nknouf writes: "A recent article on Salon talks about how college radio stations that webcast could face fee increases from $623/year to $10,000 to $20,000 per year. What's more interesting is information that Congress is considering a bill called the Music On-Line Competition Act, co-sponsored by Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah and Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va. The bill aims to "break the hammerlock the recording industry has over music distribution." My favorite quote, from Rep. Cannon: Napster is "one of the coolest inventions of modern times.""
Since the link to the bill is dead, here are some links to pdf copies of it:
Digimedia.org pdf
house.gov pdf
A summary of the bill here at house.gov
And the google cached version here
There if you can Slashdot all of those, we deserve a collective cookie.
For instance, consider the following scenario: radio stations N and L, located in New York and L.A., are owned by the same person. N webcasts their content (for free, under the old regulations), and L rebroadcasts it. Why wouldn't L get to rebroadcast it for free, considering that everybody in L.A. already has access to it? ASCAP is there for a reason: the more you distribute the music, the higher the price, because: the more you distribute the music, the more you can charge your advertisers.
There is a time and a place to bash the RIAA but let's choose our battles a little more wisely, okay?
Bill
God damn, I'm so tired of this. Please, take my karma, I don't care.
2001-12-14 16:50:32 dmca and college radio stations (articles,news) (rejected)
This is like the 3rd or 4th damn time this has happened to me. In the beginning I submitted stories because I loved the site and what they'd done with it and wanted to help them. And then that feeling faded away, and I submitted stories because I cared about helping make sure that important news was seen by all the like-minded people who come here. Now I wonder what I even bother anymore at all, cause they'll just reject whatever I submit anyways.
From the interesting stories I have submitted and had shot down, I realize there must be so many great stories out there just waiting to be told, and the only thing holding us back is that we have no way of getting them to the audience because the powers that be decide that Bozo the wonder toaster powered by Linux is more interesting than people getting arrested for the first time in the world for using File Sharing clients (in Japan, look it up) or anti-cancer molecules which self-reproduce. Pisses me off.
I wish there were someway I could read through the submissions directly, and cut those worthless editors, with their inane, poorly-written comments, right out of the process since I could really give a damn about those little biased blurbs they throw on the end of each post. What would be really great would be to see the same moderation applied to comments applied to articles, or to see each rejection or acceptance by an editor labeled with a numerical value that he decides, and we can choose the level at which we want to browse articles, just like we can do with comments. Of course, for them to implement either of these might require them to take time out of their busy schedule of randomly picking marbles out of hat while blindfolded to choose which stories they post........
Hell with that.
We need a "Music Competition Act." On-line, off-line, on-air, whatever: the problem is that the music mafia -- let's start calling them by their true name -- have their greasy, pudgy fingers wrapped around the throat of every artist, choking the life out of them.
Y'ever notice how many artists set up independent studios and private record labels? It's because they want ownership of the music they create, control over the production process, and aren't willing to whore themselves out to the mob any longer.
The only ones who stick with the bigname labels seem to be the ones that are just manufactured puppet bands: the boy/girl bands that pump out mindless pap for the gullible teenage market. Without a mobster's hand up their ass, making them perform their puppet moves, these glam-bands wouldn't be able to make a living wage, so they're forced to stick with their masters.
But there are legitimate artists who have been strung up by the puppeteers. Binding contracts that guarantee their whoredom for many years, loss of ownership of image and name, mounting debt because the mafia loaned them the money to become successful and demand payment back.
We need a Music Competition Act that cuts the hands off the music mafia. It's currently not plausible, if not completely impossible, to break into the music market without sponsorship of the mafiasio. Let's change that. Let's make it so that artists don't have to whore themselves to make a buck.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Well, clearly, you failed your civics class in school, but let's recap:
Congress is the legislative branch of the Federal government authorized under the Federal Constitution. It creates legislation and can, either in cooperation with, or independently from, the President, pass it into law. The Constitution enumerates a number of powers to be granted to the Congress. One power is the ability to create copyright laws.
Note that they're not REQUIRED to do so! Congress could abolish copyright tomorrow, and it would be perfectly within their authority.
Furthermore, within a few broad Constitutional limits that would not be applicable in a scenario where Napster et al are legalized, Congress can set up copyright laws however it likes.
The first Copyright Act, passed in 1790 by the First Congress only granted copyrights to books and maps that met certain criteria. (e.g. the copyright had to be applied for and approved, had to be held by an American, etc. IIRC) Do you claim that they were acting illegally by creating this law? If so, what law could a law-making body be breaking?
If Congress legalized Napster and its ilk, they wouldn't be advocating the violation of federal law, but encouraging people to exercise their free rights. Free and frank debate about the worth of our laws is the only way to improve them. Nothing wrong with doing a reality check and seeing that people aren't happy with the status quo.
Our government's pretty damn well good, all things considered. It's been stable for a few hundred years whilst remaining rather free, and that's definately an achievement.
-- 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.
On a slight side note, it can be agrued that Congress was only given the power to CREATE a copyright law, not change it. While this may spell bad news for the legality of the current bill being debated, it also makes the extensions to copyright illegal, which I think serves a much greater good.
greasy, pudgy fingers wrapped around the throat of every artist, choking the life out of them.
Y'ever notice how many artists set up independent studios and private record labels
Which is it?
IMO, it's closer to the former; there may be plenty of independent studios and labels producing excellent music but something is preventing them from getting wider exposure. It isn't lack of quality, so is it unfair competition from the bignames?
Mmmmmmm
Isn't it about time the college radio stations said, "Piss off, RIAA, we're only playing non mafia-sponsored music from now on"? "KBBL: RIAA free and damned proud of it." The first radio station that has the balls to do this will get as much donation money as I can afford. -Legion
I recently ran into this snag about 2 months ago. My band was playing live on a community radio station in St. Louis (www.kdhx.org) and of course I wanted our fans and friends of mine to listen in, so I sent them I link to the radio station. I remembered the radio station had a live web stream and figured listing online was the easiest thing to do.
As I came to find out, the radio station recently (Like 2 weeks before hand) was forced to shut down their web-stream (a shoutcast server) because the RIAA had threatened to sue them unless the station paid the RIAA some obscene amount of cash (around 500K) to comply with this new charge thanks to the DMCA.
So let's think about this for a second -- My band (unsigned) cannot be heard by our fans because the RIAA thinks they should be getting money from music streams over the internet, in turn, my band playing (not signed to an RIAA partnered label).
What pisses me off the most is comments about the artist deserving the cash, yadda yadda yadda, so the RIAA somehow deserves this cash. That's a bunch of horseshit. I'm obviously not receiving any of this cash for my records being played on the radio, nor my live performances on a station.
In case you didn't know, the RIAA's been screwing the independent musician for DECADES. Take recording for an example: most independent musicians use small 4-track cassette based recorders to put record their music to sell at shows, give to stations, etc. But did you know, ALL blank cassette tapes have a RIAA tax attached to them? So when I buy a blank tape, not to copy a RIAA CD, but to record myself, I give the RIAA around 10%-30% of what I paid for the tape! To record *MY* music. Now they want to start taxing CD-R's, and hardrives. Go to hell guys.
Listen, I'm pleading with all of you -- if this stuff makes you angry, don't just boycott RIAA bands, support non-signed/non-RIAA bands! You don't even have to buy stuff, just go to shows, download free mp3's, anything -- just give the underdogs a chance. It's the last thing the RIAA wants. It's not about controlling their copyrighted materials, it's about controlling music -- who hears it, and what they hear.
"The Wright brothers were the first to fly with a heavier-than-air machine, but boy did they have a lousy plane"
I live in VA. Rick Bouchers home state and have spoken with him about MOCA. While the RIAA and the recording labels spend millions to buy the congress, one thing has been emerging.
Your Congressperson and Senators need your vote MORE than they need the RIAA cash. Washington is about maintaining power, without the votes there is no cash, no lunches, no trips, no chance to make a difference. Make it clear to your congressperson that you support MOCA and as a consitutant of his you expect him to vote accordingly, not that of special interest groups such as the RIAA.
The text of the Music Online Competition Act can be Found Here . The MOCA is a even handed piece of legislation the strives to fix some of the roadblocks brought about by the DMCA, but faces a uphill battle. Congress is reading their e-mail these days, write, specify the topic in the subject line Music Online Competition Act, and as much as it pains you be nice. You catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar.
you should read your diffs before posting them.
EXEMPTION.--Section 110(7) of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking "(7)" and inserting "(7)(A)"
(2) by striking "by a vending establishment" and inserting "or of a sound recording by digital audio transmission, by or in a physical vending establishment"...
How is a congressman supposed to review this? Do you expect them to look up the context around every change? Legislators have many patches (excuse me, bills) to review, so you should help them out by using a --context or --unified switch in your diff command.
If your bill is unreadable, the reviewer is less likely to catch bugs, accidental loopholes, or unintentional stray changes from another bill you were working on in the same tree. Of course, if the bill contains "accidental" loopholes and "unintentional" stray changes (note scare quotes), I suppose it makes sense to try obfuscate your bill, but don't whine when the reviewer says "please attach a unified diff".
The shareholder is always right.
Yeah, we sure wouldn't want Salon to make any *money* or anything.. maybe we could all make a donation to help pay for their bandwidth costs..
From the bill summary:
(2) for the owner of a phonorecord lawfully acquired by digital phonorecord delivery, or a copy lawfully acquired by digital transmission of a literary work embodied in that phonorecord, to make another phonorecord or copy of such works, if such new phonorecord or copy is for archival purposes only and that all archival phonorecords or copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the phonorecord or copy should cease to be rightful.
Does anyone else find it disturbing that we have to pass more laws to protect established rights like fair use? Shouldn't fair use be able to defend itself? As a programmer, I believe in writing the minimal efficient code to achieve the objective. Why don't lawyers feel the same way?
IMHO: because more laws means you need to pay more lawyers to understand your rights and duties. They're preserving and expanding the clan.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance