EFF's Letter to the Senate on INDUCE

z0ink writes "Picked up off of EFFector today a letter to all US Senators on the topic of IICA (Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004 -- formerly the INDUCE Act). 'In February, EFF proposed an industry-led collective licensing solution that would ensure compensation for copyright owners while minimizing the need for governmental intrusion into the digital music marketplace,' writes EFF Executive Director Shari Steele in the letter. 'It's time for a solution to the P2P conflict that pays artists, not lawyers.' IICA has been covered here on Slashdot with more information available here."

Comments

Copyright owners != artists

[0123456]

"It's time for a solution to the P2P conflict that pays artists, not lawyers"

Of course most copyrights are owned by publishers, not artists...

Re:Copyright owners != artists

[EvilCabbage]

A P2P system designed with a more direct artist > consumer flow in mind could alleviate that problem too.

Then of course it'll be blamed for putting a whole shitload of fat guys in suits out of work, they'll buy some more laws to put a stop to it, etc...etc...etc...

Damn, I have become cynical lately.

Re:Copyright owners != artists

[sotonboy]

I dont think putting fat guys in suits out of work is a bad thing. And if you do create the more direct flow of cash to the artist then the fat guys wont have the money to buy the laws. Once it starts it may well snowball.

Re:Copyright owners != artists

[Rhesus Piece]

I'm not expert, but my understanding of the music industry leads me to believe that the "fat guys in suits" do serve a genuine purpose.
They may get paid too much for what they do, but they do stuff.

Artists cannot go national on their own; they somebody to invest in studio time, radio distribution, etc.
From what I've seen, most artists in this day and age just go where they are told and say what they are told by their Handlers.

In short, you don't become big without luck or a very talented promotional team.
I, for one, would prefer the artists get to concentrate on performing and writing.

Re:Copyright owners != artists

[dgatwood]

Ah, but the main reasons that artists can't go national on their own is that A. they are being artificially repressed by payola (or something resembling it), B. the recording industry's marketing machine is a juggernaut, an 800 lb. gorilla, if you will, and the individual artist is forced to compete with that, and C. most of the major media venues are owned by the same parent companies as major recording companies, so there is no incentive for them to provide alternate mechanisms for non-major-label artists.

Let's break this down one point at a time.

Studio time: I think there are at least three recording studios in people's homes in my neighborhood. Most of them are highly computer-based, costing a tiny fraction of what a major label studio would cost to build, but still providing similar quality. That's not saying that finding a good engineer isn't important, but a good engineer costs a tiny fraction of what it costs to rent a studio, which in turn is a tiny fraction of how much many record company-owned studios screw you for if you are signed with their label....

Radio distribution: this one is easy. It's not like books where the cost of publication is huge and you have to be hyper-selective. You just need a handful of companies that take submissions and distribute them to radio stations. Your band would sign a waiver of liability to protect the company if you ripped off somebody else's music, and then your music would go in a slush pool. There are already a few companies that do this, though they mostly target Muzak-type markets rather than radio stations.

Anyway, with such a mechanism, radio stations who wanted to be indie-friendly could then simply grab a random 24 songs (one an hour) from the slush pool and play them, then report upstream on whether people called in and said "that song rocks" or "that song sucks". The slush pool songs would have someone reading a URL at the end telling where you could find that artist on the distributor's website ("to hear more by this artist, search for 'My Sucky Little Band' at megamusicdb.com". Music that got a good response could be weighted higher than music that got a bad response, and thus would naturally get more airplay. The weighting could be segregated by target audience, by region, by genre, whatever.

Most artists who "just go where they are told and say what they are told by their Handlers" end up making cookie cutter music that appeals to teenagers for three weeks, then dies out. And you're right that those sorts of disposable pop stars could never make it on their own. That doesn't mean that there aren't artists who could.

I've tired writing my Senators and Congressman

[Mr. Neutron]

But it's like talking to a brick wall. They see this as a "protecting against theft" issue, and no amount of oration will change their minds. The concepts of freedom to invent and create without worrying about being liable for any and every violation that might produce is lost on them. The concept of fair use, and reasonable limits to copyright are lost on them.

I give up.

Give 'em a chance

[seaniqua]

I hate lawyers as much as the next guy, but this is a good thing.

The current online music business model sucks a big fat one. If improvements were made (better availabiliy of new and non-pop artists, choise of file size including lossless, etc.) and the fee were changed to a per-month system, I think enough people would switch over and make it work. I would gladly pay $10 a month for unlimited downloads of lossless material (the EFF says $5, which is derived from the statistic that the average american spends $60 a year on CDs, I would recommend a higher amount, though, because I expect that people would download more music in this system than they would buy in a store).

Re:No comment

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

EFF is a nonprofit group of passionate people -- lawyers

I hear some lawyers are more than just profiteering bastards and actually want to change things...

Fair letter but ,,,

[SalsaDot]

Its a fair letter but in this world political "support" speaks lounder than words, you know the kind of support that lines pockets.

Whilst there are artists (ahem) who strive to be "superstars" and there are companies (the publishers who end up OWNING the stars and their material) who will push their resources to get them there -AND- there is an audience for these "pop" sensations, then the monetary incentive will be there to support the publishers and their whims. And that is that.

I do wonder sometimes if the politicians passing these draconian laws have EVER copied a tape, made a compilation disc for the car OR HAVE TEENAGE KIDS who would be so inclined?

Support the EFF!

[faqmaster]

Buy a T-Shirt, or become a member. A sensible organization like this deserves your support.

If this was the 80's

[AngryScot]

I wonder what the current state of the computing industry would be like if during the 80's a bill similar to this was passed to stop double tape decks being manufactured?

I belive that if this bill goes ahead it could act as a catalyst for other countries to pass similar laws and at the same time hurt the IT sector worldwide.

It'll never happen

[Jay Maynard]

'It's time for a solution to the P2P conflict that pays artists, not lawyers.'

The problem here is that Congress is full of lawyers bent on doing things that amount to full-employment programs for lawyers and accountants. A program like this one that would have the effect of reducing lawsuits has no chance at all.

We complain loudly about conflict of interest by legislators and regulators, while ignoring the biggest one of all: that lawyers write laws. I believe that being a practicing attorney should bar one from being eligible to serve in Congress in much the same way as being an insurance company executive, as a practical matter if not a legal one, bars one from serving as an insurance regulator.

Why it won't work

[cluge]

I hate to say this, but their are several reasons this won't work. Unless of course YOU write your congress person. [to be honest most people are too lazy]

The EFF idea makes too much sense, and therfore violates about 10 rules of making law

10 rules of making law
a. Any law congress shall enact must be hard to understand and convoluted
b. Any oppurtunity to get your face on TV to tackle a serious problem of your campaign contributer must be taken
c. Do not pass any law that may in any way reduce any lawyers potential to earn money
d. Keep starving artists that way
e. The EFF is just like the ACLU - it's just a collection of letters that your constituants don't know about - but probably won't like
f. If I don't understant it, I must fear it and pass legislation against it
g. This letter contains the phrase " P2P technologies", get RIAA approval on how to think about this
h. This letter contains the phrase "profound threat to innovation", get Microsoft approval after talking to the RIAA
i. Anything that congress can meddle in the better
j. If it's simple, makes sense, and doesn't require congressional involvement it must be wrong.

Also remember that this is an election year. The eff proposal removes a potential income source from lawyers, the single strongest lobby in Congress. This will go nowhere until people take the time to write their congresspersons. May I humbly suggest that my fellow /.ers start writing.

cluge
AngryPeopleRule

Comparing the INDUCE act to...

[dpilot]

If gun control were pursued the way the INDUCE act goes after copyright violation:

Fishing sinkers would be illegal because they *might* be melted down and recast into bullets.

I will buy music again when..

[SlashDread]

I can -buy- a lifetime irrevocable licence to -it-.

Not a plastic scratchy waste product. Not a shitty format digistream for my iPod.

A -full- perpetual, amd fully paid up licence please. And THEN, ill pay.

Ill burn my own dern copies. Ill mediashift too my own dern iPod. I just want a -licence-, and a one-time access to a 100% lossless audio format. And the burden of knowing Im a licensee, should be given to the RIAA. I fully expect THEM to proove Im a licensee, and as such can copy YOUR cd if mine gets lost.

"This music was made for you and me"

"/Dread"

It's too vague...

[mratitude]

`(g)(1) In this subsection, the term `intentionally induces' means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability. `(2) Whoever intentionally induces any violation identified in subsection (a) shall be liable as an infringer. `(3) Nothing in this subsection shall enlarge or diminish the doctrines of vicarious and contributory liability for copyright infringement or require any court to unjustly withhold or impose any secondary liability for copyright infringement.'.

The first paragraph isn't unreasonable and even includes the "reasonable person" test. Anything can happen in a process involving lawyers, judges and law enforcement but the "reasonable person" test has a long history of staving off overzealous lawyers and enforcement knee-jerks.

The problem is with the third paragraph. Making a copy of your legally purchased mechandise is still against the law. According to paragraph 3, even if you make a copy of an audio disc for your purposes; Should that copy ever be found in a condition by which it isn't under your immediate control (not on your person, on an internet connected PC, in your car) you are liable under the provisions of this law.

Re:Yeah right, 5 bucks

[Curunir_wolf]

(yes, I said steal, let go of your state of denial, nerd)

And how, exactly, is the "Sony Bono copyright extension act" *not* stealing. See, copyright is a deal (see the constitution) where the people (the folks who purportedly authorize government intrusion, BTW) allow artists to maintain a monopoly on their works for a certain period of time. At the end of that time, that work becomes public domain. That is, it belongs to everyone. The artist is compensated.

So, for example, Walt Disney creates Mickey Mouse and produces some cartoons. He is provided a monopoly to make money from that work, and in return it will belong to everyone in 2001. Well, Walt was WELL compensated for producing it, and now he's dead, and Mickey should be ours.

Instead, Eisner buys a few congressmen, and they steal Mickey from us! Mickey Mouse is a cultural icon. He's part of the American consciousness.

Lots of other stuff was stolen from us, too. A lot of it are things that the corporations can't make money on, but they're like "hey, we can't just give away our assets", so it will sit in a vault and the tape or film or whatever it's on will deteriorate until it's gone forever.

This is actually closer to the real definition of stealing, because we are deprived forever of the item, not just an opportunity to make money from it, not just an exclusive right to make copies.

So we complain, we try to point out to them why they are wrong, but they just ignore us. So, we just ignore them, too. We just turn our backs on the bastards that have stolen our culture and our heritage and are trying to take everything else away from us, too. We turn our backs and just say "Fuck you. We're going to do our own thing". We're going to take our country back, one way or another. So you just keep taking money from the traitors that are exploiting us, and sending our jobs over seas, and leading us down the road to a litigation-based economy (how sustainable is that?). You take their money, and pass the laws they want, and we will ignore you more and more. Until your laws don't matter to anyone anymore, and you become irrelevant.

Or artists could start relying on gigs for income

[Numen]

The idea that without the record industry the artists will starve is nuts. The record industry comes very recent in human industry.

Bands and musicians might care to start performing live as a job of work rather than as an act of cherry picking and earn a buck.

There's no reason why musicians can't earn a living like brick layers, plumber, programmers etc all do. The need for the record industry is predicated upon a desire to turn a small proportion of people into multimillionaires.

Pandora HAS openned the box and there's no going back. All this concern about trying to wrestling the P2P networks is just tilting at windmills.