Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Office Accepting Digital Music Comments
program21 writes "The Copyright Office has just announced it will be accepting comments about rules for governing SoundExchange. SoundExchange is the RIAA division responsible for collecting royalties for webcasts. This is your chance to make sure the RIAA doesn't get to walk all over webcasters!" You've got until May 21st to be heard.
The Copyright Office is setting up rules on how the RIAA can collect royalties from Web Casters? Isn't that like the Fox setting up rules on how many chickens it can take per night from the henhouse? Anyone else sense a conflict of interest?
I haven't lost my mind!
It is backed up on disk...somewhere...
At the time I posted this, there was 1 other comment (and not a FP, BTW). It seems obvious to me that no one really cares about a webcaster getting screwed.
Oh sure, when a story shows up on /. about it, 500 people post to say how outraged they are. But, when there's a forum for actual discussion about how to fix the problem, no one bothers to comment?
Perhaps it's because we've all decided to say "screw it" and just download our music using our favorite P2P software and not bother with streaming webcasts?
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
Would anyone care to post an English translation of the copyright.gov page?
Kid-proof tablet..
"Run Your Car on Grease" makes it to the front page and yet this story doesn't. Certainly news for nerds stuff that matters.
Is there something going on I don't know about or is there a reason no one comments anymore?
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
...actually not give them any money. You don't stream any of their stupid music. that's the answer. You can't just dance with part of the devil, you have to make up your mind, make an executive decision. You don't *have* to use their stuff. If ALL the webcasters did that, then that would make a statement. Why ask what the listeners think? It's obvious,hardly no one likes those guys and just about everyone wants them to go pound sand. They are about as equally loathed as spammers. Loathed. I don't buy their new music from their "artistes". Period. Never. They don't get one cent from me. I don't do P2P download music either, but that's irrelevant to how I feel about them, because I'm old enough to have seen them pull the same lame crap for decades now. You either support RIAA branded music or you don't, if you do, pay them their money. You know they are blood suckers up front, nothing whatsoever is hidden or sneaky about it, they lie through their teeth over everything,always have, they've colluded for generations now on price fixing, payola bribes, screwing the artists, etc, none of that is any big secret, and it's gone on through every iteration of technology that passes through. You can't un-demonise them or avoid getting cooties from them if you do business with them, so what's the point? If webcasters can't see that, too bad, they get what they deserve then. if they can't find alternative stuff to stream, they can't run google and maybe should look for a new gig.
That's all my opinion of course, but it's based on past historical data and logical extrapolation. We won't stop this crap until those people hurt at the bank, only way to do that is to stop giving them cash, one customer, one dj, one broadcaster, one concert goer, one cd buyer, one listener, one stream caster at a time, JUST_SAY_NO. Streamcasters who avoid the fees will most likely stay in business and get more popular, that's US brand capitalism for you. The ones who pay, knowing in advance it's heinously expensive and no practical way to recoup, will gradually drop off the net. Good, that's how it should be. Good riddance to bad industry monopolists. The RIAA is too stupid to realise 'gee, free advertising for our artists". that entire industry is too stupid to walk outside, look around, notice the entire economy is not 1999 anymore, we are in this little "recession" deal now. They are too stupid to realise 15 clams for ten songs where two of them are any good is lame, people with less cash just won't buy them, let alone pay serious money to listen to them stream, no matter what "formula" they come up with. Webcasting is TOO EXPENSIVE to charge additional fees for, it's usually run at a net loss anyway as a labor of love for most folks, and from radio stations it's subsidised from their normal broadcasting revenues. Over the air can be profitable because for the same dollar in expense you can reach thousands and thousands more people. This is a DUH. RIAA is too stupid and predatory to see that.
coffee > aroma > realistic work and realistic expectations= bingo, success, people happy all around
coke > alcohol > out to lunch business models and demands of profits over and above anything realistic = problems, resentment, formulas that won't work, bad laws, bad vibes, bad feelings, "civil disobedience" by the millions with P2P.
The RIAA cartel can choose *one*, they can't have it both ways.
Note that the Copyright Office is accepting comments. They don't promise to read them, consider them, or do anything else in particular with them. For all we know they stick them on a web page somewhere and promptly forget about them. What incentive do they have to listen to us anyway?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Ok here goes.. a little background to start.
copyright owners have exclusive rights to their works, and those rights are found under section 106 of the copyright act. The exclusive right to digital transmission of audio is covered under the copyright act, section 106(6), and is different from a public performance under 106(4), which would cover the radio or anywhere else for that matter.
For the sake of not boring you to death with a long legal explaination , let's just say that there is a provision of the copyright act, 114(d) that allows people to broadcast digitally (webcast) and not infringe. Special rules apply under 114 to "[nonexempt] subscription digital transmission services", (those pay webcast services) of which there appear to only be the three listed in the proposal. In return for this right to broadcast, the broadcaster has to pay a "compulsory license" fee, which basically just means that those who want to broadcast can, they just have to pay the fee. The fee is negotiated from time to time.
Now, what the article said was that essentially the RIAA was complaining about the compulsory license fee they were awarded through arbitration with the librarian of congress(The RIAA, through SoundExchange, collects the royalty and gives it to the musicians et al that they represent). The Librarian of Congress, through their panel, established the new license fee. The RIAA was unhappy, and appealed. The court of appeals upheld the fee, but sent the case back down to consider other issues. Some legal wrangling occured (omitted for brevity), and the RIAA and the copyright office came to an agreement on rules that would govern SoundExchange. The proposal was published for comment, and two groups objected to the terms.
Congress then decided to pass the SWSA, which changed things a little. The SWSA changed the way that SoundExhange collects the royalty from people - the webcaster. It also looks like it rendered a lot of the compromise the RIAA had worked out with the copyright office moot, as well as some of the problems they had with AFM and AFTRA. The RIAA proposed a change to the rules of how SoundExchange would be regulated, satisfied the copyright office, AFM and AFTRA, and the copyright office is now publishing this record as a call for comments on the matter.