Future of Music Summit

DotcomScoop writes: "We were provided with a copy of the letter sent by Congressman Rick Boucher to RIAA head Hilary Rosen and IFPI head Jay Berman questioning the legality of copy-protecting CDs. 'I am particularly concerned that some of these technologies may prevent or inhibit consumer home recording using recorders and media covered by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA),' Boucher writes. We've summarized the letter in a story and CNET also has coverage. Monday is the kick-off of the two-day Future Of Music Policy Summit, which includes keynotes or panels from Boucher, Rosen, Napster CEO Konrad Hilbers, Nirvana's Krist Novoselic, Fugazi's Ian MacKaye and the National Writer Union's Jonathan Tasini, among others." We already posted a story about the Boucher letter, but it can't hurt to mention it again.

Comments

You can make a difference.

[KILNA]

The Future of Music Coalition, some of the folks helping to organize this, is one of the few organizations that really "get it". Basically, they've taken the stance that creators of music should be rewarded, and that the practical implications aren't as black and white as "file sharing bad" or "record industry bad". So, what they're trying to do is figure out what technological and social solutions can be used to address the problem of artist compensation. The FOMC Manifesto is recommended reading.

Re:Nice! Royalty payments

[Technician]

The royalty payments are on Digital Audio Tape, Blank Music Compact Discs, and Mini Discs. There are not any music royaltys on DATA CD's. Using a data CD for music is wrong. The royalty is not paid. Using a music CD for data backup is stupid. I agree, why pay music royaltys on your data backups? (unless it's your Napster directory)
I keep stock of both kinds of CD blanks for these reasons. I do have copies of some of my cd's to use at work and in the car. That's what the mucic CD blanks are legaly for. Any CD that won't work with the music blanks gets returned as defective. I refuse to buy/own defective CD's.

So, What would happen if . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone put up a Napster-like site that only catered to independent artists that agreed to alow free copying? 1) The artists would reach a very wide audience of people that would download samples. 2.) Some of these same people would buy their CDs. 3.) They could tell the RIAA to kiss off and keep all their profits themselves. Is there a down side here?

Re:copy protection only hurts legitimate users.

[Big Dogs Cock]

This is true. I think people are so used to media they can play on more than one device, music they can tape and listen to in the car (with no CD), software they can just install and use on the new PC when they replace the old one (and so on) that market forces will actually work for the good. People will return CDs that don't work on their PCs. It's already happening.

The stupid thing is that the record companies could make money out of the Internet model. If they charged $1 for a CD download then a lot of poeple would pay it. I would pay it - my local record store has fuck-all beyond the top 40. People wouldn't be bothered to pirate to save $1. That would then be $1 which the record companies wouldn't otherwise have. If they charge $10 for something which can only be played on that PC (while it's connected to the Internet) and only for 3 months, people will pirate.

Oh yeah, and you should be able to get a free preview (maybe lower bit-rate) to decide if you want to buy the thing in the first place. There a loads of CDs which I would buy if:

I could find them in the stores (not in stores == not on the radio either)

I could check them out first.

Currently, I use Morpheus because there is no other way I can obtain much of this music.

Re:Nice! Royalty payments

[-brazil-]

Actually, there is a difference: dedicated music CD recorders will refuse to record on data CD blanks.

Re:The tax on blank media

[Rich0]

I am pretty sure that this is the case and that this is how the serial-copy management system works. If you put a standard CD-R in an audio CD recorder (rack component) it will not let you record because the CD-R does not have a flag recorded on it which informs the recorder that the royalty was paid. When making a copy of a CD, the player sends the recorder the status of the previous CD - either: 1. Original non-copy-protected. 2. Original copy-protected. 3. Copy of copy-protected. In the case of #1, the CD is copied and the recording also gets status 1. In the case of #2, the copy is permitted and gets status #3. In the case of status #3, the copy is not permitted and no recording can be made. So you can only make 1st generation copies. This is the compromise of the Home Recording Act. I believe I have seen web pages out there which describe the system in more detail. And you are right in this is why the "audio" CDs cost more - they are identical except that they had the royalty paid on their manufacture and have a flag burned onto them allowing their use in audio recorders. Because the cost of the tax is large compared to the cost of the media they also tend to be better-quality media as well (none of those 100-pack bulk CDs that sell for $20 and lack the scratch-resistant coating).

Re:my prodictions....

[VulgarBoatman]

Minor point:
BMI is not a record company. They are (sort of) a "union" for songwriters, composers, and publishers. They collect license fees (see "micropayments") for performances from radio stations, etc. on behalf of the composers. When the pennies add up, they pay the composers.