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.""
More permanent link to the Music Online Competition Act
HR 2724.
Mmmmmmm
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.
Too bad the link to the bill is already broken, I would have liked to have read it.
OK I did a search and found a PDF copy of the bill HERE. Also found a site to organize support for the bill, it has a form to send your representative an email. Since Cannon is mine, I guess I'm already OK on that one. However, I have been pretty unhappy on his stance on several issues in the past, hopefully he won't drop the ball on this one under the intense politial pressure of the RIAA.
Enigma
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
How many people could these webcasters REALLY reach? If everyone in LA listens to a station at once that's fine, and you have millions of listeners - but since the practical reality of many webcasts is one of limited bandwith, perhaps pricing (if any) should be reflected based on how many simultaneous users could really listen at once.
The other thing to consider is how many of the artists a station is playing are really going to get a piece of that ASCAP pie. If all you're playing is experiminetal stuff, why should ASCAP get anything from you? How about a pool composed of exactly the artists played, that seems a lot more fair.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Some of my favorite stations have been college radio stations. My personal example is WSOU, Seton Hall University's station in NJ. There's no way I can hear them w/o webcasting anymore because I've moved across the country.
Poor record companies - no one sympathizes with their "dilemma". The Internet has revolutionized music and it's about time they realized that the more they make access to music difficult, the less people want to buy their music, and the more people will find other ways to get it.
Some of the more interesting music I've heard has been on college radio. Treat an academic institution's radio station like an enterprise is beyond disgusting. The best part of college stations is that their playlists are often less strict, and much of what gets played wouldn't fit into the "mainstream", or even a format, for that matter. It's way better than having a radio station pump their "Heavy rotation" down my throat.
...is to recognize the nature of their audience and the utility of the Open Audio License. All of the colleges I am aware of have a significant population of aspiring musicians eager to be heard, as well as many young, fresh minds open to listening to something other than what "Mom and Dad" listened to at home. So you have willing producers and open consumers, and the Open Audio License allows the college radio stations a way without fees to bring them together.
In such an environment, a college radio station should actively promote the Open Audio License and encourage student musicians to release their work under it -- and then give it plenty of airplay (it costs them nothing). Open Audio might not work well in some markets (i.e., those where listeners expect to be given what the music industry convinces them to listen to via advertising), but I can imagine no market more prime than college radio.
No Laughing Allowed!
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.
What, have teens started voting or something?
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
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
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/12/13/colle ge_webcast/print.html
And it is a bit easier to read as well.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
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"
Jamie Zawinski wrote a most informative rant on the labyrinthine regulations and pitfalls that potentially face anyone wishing to Webcast. As he owns and operates the DNA Lounge nightclub in San Francisco, which does its own share of Webcasting, the man has definitely done his homework. Definitely worth a read.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
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.
or you could try to help build other sites like RadioFreeNation.net or GlobalFreePress.com, or AlternateNews.com, or SmirkingChimp.com, etc etc etc
The point being is that maybe one percent of people reading will even post a comment, and a lot less will submit a story. so when there are hundreds of submissions, there is a plenty good chance that someone will post it before you. It is again a scalibilty issue
Then you have to see if one of the editors will like your write-up or not. Or if it confuses them, or does it entertain them enough, etc.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
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.
In particular, I'm thinking of a system where anyone can broadcast audio (or even video) streams semi-anonymously. Listening nodes automatically forward the stream packets to each other, meaning that only the nodes directly adjacent to the source know who/where it is, and only those nodes use any of its bandwidth.
Such a system could be as scalable as "real" radio, since the bandwidth available increases with the number of people listening, and it could be lawyer-resistant enough that the RIAA couldn't stop it (similar to how they haven't been able to stop mp3 file trading).
Time to start coding I guess
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Slashdorks can agree with any politician as on as they support the theft of intellectual property
The U.S. Constitution recognizes it not as a birthright but as a tool "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" (U.S. Const. 1.8.8) "Copyright" is a misnomer; it really should be "copyprivilege". The law doesn't recognize intellectual "property" as property at all, especially considering how it treats transfer of exclusive rights. Copying another's work isn't termed "theft" but merely "infringement" on a government-granted privilege. Besides, with enough storage space, I could generate and store every melody in the book or at least a melody confusingly similar to every melody in the book (thus killing practical trademark law).
Will I retire or break 10K?
"College Radio" ?? How many RIAA major label acts ARE there on "college radio" anyway?
An artist on a truly indie label or an artist with self-released material receives no compensation for radio play anyway (and much of college radio consists of this type of material).
The most ironic aspect of all is that we EASILY have the technology to track and pay the actual performers for either broadcast or webcast WITHOUT pooling the money the way the present system operates. We can arguably track even the number of LISTENERS of webcasts.
Perhaps this scenario will further a movement to create truly independent mechanisms for distributing and compensating artists/labels for material... that an alternative system will develop (that isn't ASCAP, BMI, RIAA, etc...). I doubt major label artists would feel much pain by NOT being included in college radio.
Those that suggest you "dance like no one is watching" really want to see you make a complete fool of yourself.
Because 1) this isn't fair use. Fair use is well-defined, both in its original judicial form, and its more recent legislative embodiment, and doesn't cover this. And 2) because they are being efficient; something like fair use applies all across the board. Here they only want to carve out an exception for a particular class of works. Archival copies of books, for example, wouldn't be protected here.
Law is really not all that complicated -- it's just that there's TONS of it. There need to be.
Heck, I'm a law student, so let me ask you a question as a programmer: why don't we have OSes that can fit in a kilobyte of memory and be clear and plainly understandable, while not sacrificing any of the features or ease of use we want? Or are we stuck with it just having to be larger than that in order to get what we want out of it?
-- 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.