Slashdot Mirror
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.
The motto of a new generation (of /. editors)
;-)
Tales from behind the Lagom Curtain
Either the record companies will say "Keep you pittance you collect on the blank media" or they will simply start a smear campaign on the senator and all others that bring this up to discredit them or to try and direct the public's focus away from the issue.
The record companies know what they are doing is wrong... hell they helped write the law.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
No matter what they do, it will be cracked -- therefore copy protection does not hurt software and music pirates. They will figure out a way to do it. No, the people it hurts is the legitimate users that just want a backup copy in case the cd gets broken, which is their legal right. The people who want to put the songs on their MP3 player so they can listen to it while jogging without experiencing CD skipping. Thats who is hurt by the copy protection. Honest people who have paid for the product are being robbed by the publishing companies. This is true for both software and music. It *will* be pirated. That cannot be stopped. Only law abiding citizens follow the law.
I would honestly bet, that the people in the cyrstal palace of RIAA forget that there is this "tax" on black media, or they knew about it, and now want to have a more effective way of increasing it without huge public backlash (we will return your right to have clean cds, but we can pull this stunt again if we want more money). Imagine if the RIAA wanted to increase the "tax" to 50c/media, without going through this effort first. People would revolt, now they are saying, well if I get access to all my CD's again, maybe its worth it
`find / -name "*your_base*" -exec chown us:us {} \;`
Keynotes at a Music Summit - how harmonious.
Shouldn't it be overture instead of kick-off though?
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.
Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
Hilary Rosen (RIAA)(Public Enemy)
-- Dan
So we all known the score. The established position is that any "information" product you buy, like a book, video, magazine, LP, CD or whatever, is sold to you on the condition that you do not reproduce it in any way. This wasn't so bad, because reproduction was expensive anyway. Time for a ramble through my thoughts...
If I buy a book, I know what I'm getting; a physical object which I can read (in one place at a time). I can re-read it any number of times without paying any extra money to the author/publisher. I can give it away to someone else, and they can read it too. The people who write and produce books are obviously happy that this does not erode their profits, or they would have tried to outlaw second-hand bookshops and libraries long ago.
So if it's possible to make money on print media in that environment, why is it so hard for those selling music? After all, they have extra revenue channels which have no equivalent in the print world, such as live performances. And that's before you consider the merchandising opportunities, which are just as possible for authors (J.K. Rowling, anyone?), musicians, artists...
More reflections - original works of art are traditionally extremely expensive because a "copy" or reprint is inferior to the master. Studio production of music is very different; the artist can slave for months over one recorded track until it's finally ready... but the perfect copies cost nothing.
Are people used to "getting stuff for free"? Sure they are, they listen to the radio. Who cares what deals happen behind the scenes to ensure airplay? The music is free! In what way is recording something off the radio and listening to it again "offline" any different from re-reading a book, or for that matter, Napster?
So say the music industry collapsed in the face of widespread "piracy", or sharing, or whatever you want to call it. What happens to the creative impulses which were responsible for the great music in the first place? Do they just die off in the absence of money? Hell no. Music and art have existed long before the RIAA, Disney, the Industrial Revolution, Capitalism or even currency.
If all musicians were just in it for the money, then the charts would be full of lowest-common-denominator bland whiney teenage well-groomed all-style-no-substance pap.
Ah.
These sigs are more interesting tha
2. Based upon your knowledge and upon any consumer contact received by your member companies, have any discs entered the U.S. market that may not be copied on a device or on media for which a royalty has been paid under the AHRA?
This is really the point of his question. The AHRA allows the collection of a royalty on recording media, but this comes in exchange for the priviledge of the consumer to make these copies. By making copy protected originals, the priviledge is removed. Congressman Boucher's questions are pulling tight the noose the RIAA has made for itself out of all that rope.
Very funny indeed.
Check out today's (well januari 7th) DrFun cartoon, seems like Dave knows what is going on here...
2 0107.jpg
http://www.ibiblio.org/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200201/df200
As you know from your personal involvement in its drafting, the AHRA clearly requires content owners to code their material appropriately to implement a basic compromise: in return for the receipt of royalties on compliant recorders and media, copyright owners may not preclude consumers from making a first-generation, digital-to-digital copy of an album on a compliant device using royalty-paid media. Under the AHRA, any deliberate change to a CD by a content owner that makes one generation of digital recording from the CD on covered devices no longer possible would appear to violate the content owner's obligations under the statute.
And how much of a royalty does the RIAA get on the sale of hard drives/MP3 encoders/iPods/Nomads? I'm sure Ms. Rosen will gleefully point out to our well-intentioned friend in Congress that she's more concerned about CD-to-MP3 copying than CD-to-CD, which might, unfortunately, render Rep. Boucher's argument moot.
Every clockwork has its limit, just put it in some sand...
By encouraging Free Art models (such as the EFF proposed model or GNUArt) we may achieve a parallel distribution model which will de facto have to cohabit with the existing industrial model.
For example, GNUArt agrees that, for example, Free Music songs may appear on commercial compilations ("Best Of"), provided there is a notification of its GPL'ed status.
That's why the way to avoid such industrialization of entertainment would be to
Trolling using another account since 2005.
One thing that slays me about all this is the attitude that if I record something to a CD it MUST be material that was created by someone else. The folks pushing this battle and demanding taxes on blank media assume that the common man is not capable of creating his own music, documents, movies, etc.
I got a taste of this during the discussion of Napster at http://www.tednugent.com where they were insisting that if I made my own MP3 file it was copyrighted and illegal for me to offer for free. Never mind if I wrote and performed my own music, recorded it myself, and chose to give it away to the world. The attitude seems to be that even if a moron like myself is capable of such a thing, I'm not as wise as the RIAA and should be protected from myself and not allowed to give it for free.
But of course.....the RIAA wants a chunk of "the action" and if I give it away there isn't any action.
I understand that some places (Canadia?) already have a tax on blank media under the assumption that you are going to use that media to copy copyrighted material. They don't seem to take into account that the same media can be used to save files of any type. Maybe you just wanted to save your family photos to CD, or your letters to your girlfriend. Oh well, you pay the tax anyway.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Let the RIAA mofos do what they want, let them waste their money, I couldn't care less.
My thoughts exactly. Until they came after me and willfully broke not some lame country soundtrack album, but a cd I was genuinely interested in. Just wait till that happens to you: you'll find you're very pissed off at not being able to play your lovely new purchase any way you want to.
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
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.
The truth shall set you free!
According to the 1992 Act people are entitled to produce a copy of purchased music for their own, private use. Ergo, CD copy-prevention software takes away that right; and therefore record companies should be banned from using it.
However, I also noticed that a representative from Napster is to speak at this conference. Although there are legitimate uses for these P2P file sharing networks, Napster and its peers have the legal and ethical responsibility to make sure that their networks are used only for legal purposes. If rampant trading of copyrighted music is the norm for these networks (as I believe it is), then indeed they should be forced to shut down.
Purchasing a CD does not give one the right to distribute copies of the music to anyone he wishes. However, by law if someone wants to make a cassette tape (or MP3 file) for his own personal consumption, he does have that right; and the RIAA should not be allowed to nullify that right without very strong evidence that it is being abused by a large portion of the consuming public.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
I found the congressman's letter concise and powerful. The language was matter-of-fact and keeps the focus on the legal issues. Hopefully his actions will result in a balanced out come. Now if only the congressman would take up the cause of the DMCA and find an equally effective legal approach to repealing the law.
one of the two states that passed UCITA. I don't know how, with all the high-tech companies in Northern Virginia (NOVA), that UCITA made it through the state legislature. Perhaps Boucher, who is a US Representative, can make a difference at the national level. He is definitely against the DMCA in its current form, and wanted Skylerov released when he was arrested. I'm glad I voted for him, and he has my continued support.
I think...I think it's in my basement. Let me go upstairs and check. -M.C. Escher (1898-1972)
This is really what it has come down to. the RIAA is forcing consumers to choose between piracy or a product that is of limited or no use. And I choose piracy.
Before entering the much more stable world of software engineering, I was a member of a band that had attained some local renown. In fact, we were told that there was some industry attention directed our way. We headlined at a gig one night in New York where A&R personnel from Maverick came to see us play.
One of my former band's members thought much the same as you did, as did I--we should shun any major-label deals and keep playing gigs and promoting ourselves through mailings, on-line and selling CDs/T-shirts/etc. at each show. We knew that signing a major-label deal would be, in essence, selling our solus to the devil and that we might never see the rights to our songs (on which we all took co-writer credits) ever again. And this was scary enough to persuade us, after careful consideration, not to sign any deals.
But the stress of promoting ourselves, without major backing or assistance from a label, ended up taking away from the sheer joy that we got making our music, and ended up in the long run causing us to give up the band. If we had sold our souls, we'd have had a lot more support in directing and marketing our music and probably could have concentrated on the songwriting and performance aspects. But despite everything we did--we had a newsletter, Web site, MP3 downloads of sample songs, fans who were willing to sell our merchandise at shows, it just ended up being a lot of work. We had to hustle for our own radio interviews, club dates, write-ups in the paper, etc. It really is frustrating and does take up a lot of time (kinda like the management vs. programming aspect of my job now).
In conclusion, while it may be easy to say 'do it all yourself--shun the labels and promote and market yourselves', it really isn't as easy as all that. I wish it had been.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
Actually, there is a difference: dedicated music CD recorders will refuse to record on data CD blanks.
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
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).
You do realize that you're paying royalties twice for the same music, don't you? That's like buying two licenses to use one program. No thanks. And with RIAA-endorsed copy protection, you would effectively have to buy THREE licenses -- one for work, one for the car, and one for your music CDRs.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
The classical example of someone actually standing up to the record companies is Frank Zappa. He discovered that Warner Brothers was pulling one of the standard record company tricks to avoid paying royalties, which involves pressing more copies than they record in the books, typically twice as many. I believe this was with Freak Out, his first album, circa 1965. He sued Warner Brothers and won. Part of the settlement was for him to get his own sublabel Bizarre under Warner/Reprise. Even then, he didn't get completely out from under Warner Brothers' thumb until the mid-to-late 1970's, with the Lather fiasco. After that, he sold records under his own separate Barking Pumpkin label and CD's, at first, under Rykodisc.
I think there are two lessons from this:
I heard recently that Philips are planning on defending the CD standard (owned with Sony). Copy protected CD's dont meet the red book standard therfore cannot employ the CD logo.
This is going to hot things up somewhat.