Slashdot Mirror
New IFPI Boss Vows to Extend Recording Copyrights
JamesD_UK writes "John Kennedy, President and COO of Universal Music is to succeed Jay Berman as Chairman of the IFPI, the worldwide equivalent to the RIAA. Andrew Orlowski of The Register has written an article covering John Kennedy's views on copyright infringement and the public domain. Although Kennedy's thoughts on the former are predictable, he has vowed to fight hard to extend European recording copyrights past the current fifty year term. An extension of the European term to match the US would be particularly damaging to the public domain and efforts such as the Internet Archive as well as increasing the control that the recording industry holds over performers. For those interested, I run a small blog of articles regarding copyright recordings."
The combative former shipping lawyer will succeed Jay Berman as head of the lobby group the IPFI - the international version of the Recording Industry Ass. of America (RIAA) - and he defended both the the lawsuits and file poisoning at the In The City music conference in Manchester this week. (emphasis mine)
Coincidence on their choice of abbreviations? I think not.
He'd be more sympathetic to songwriters, he said, the day that record companies had "50 per cent margins". In fact, he claimed that record companies spend more on R&D than technology companies, because of the marketing spend required to create a hit [*]. The implication was clear: the success of an artist was down to the Shock and Awe bombing of the record company's marketing team, which is very expensive.
I can guarantee you a hit every time. Let me listen to the song. If the song sucks I'll tell you that. Then you can go and pay off every one of your little radio stations owned by ClearChannel and Inifinity (and various other conglomerates) and they can play the sucky song over and over again until people like it. If the song is good the artists should go on tour and make their own money as they have talent and they don't need your pay-offs.
"For 79p you've got a work of art that's like a Picasso, only one that's as close to the original as you can get," he said. [**]
To each their own on musical tastes but man, fucking Picasso is painting a gigantic brown-eye all over the inside of his grave after that comment.
Isn't there something the music purchasers can do to stop this asshole from taking over? Write letters, boycott, something?
n/t
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Most recordings that're > 50 years old are no longer profitable anyway, aren't they?
I mean, isn't the real cash cow in the new 'hit' stuff they're making with cookie cutters nowadays?
Is it actually worth their time and energy to be able to go back that far? I thought they'd go where the money is...
Perhaps I'm just misguided...
is the Register's commentary about this quote by Kennedy:
:)
"For 79p you've got a work of art that's like a Picasso, only one that's as close to the original as you can get," he said. [**]
the [**] equates to: Don't write to us - we'll find him a good earwax specialist.
Damn straight!
-- james
... Lee Harvey Oswald admits his mistake of popping the wrong John Kennedy.
It is in the best interests of the entertainment industry to extend copyrights. So before everyone gets their panties in a twist, remember that it's going to be this guy's job to improve the standard of living for executives in the recording industry.
But he had even less sympathy for songwriters, who receive only a small fraction of royalties that recordings owners receive. that was fair, he insisted, as hits were down to investment in marketing, he said. At Polygram (which became Universal), Kennedy had stopped the practice of chart-fixing, he said, "because we were so bad at it. Songs that were supposed to chart at No.6 were coming in at No.34". Don't you love it when the people who run the music industry don't actually care about the people who MAKE music? And he said they stopped chart-fixing because they were bad at it?! He does think that it's WRONG to outright lie to the public to try to shove shitty music down their throats, he's just disappointed it didn't work as well as they thought it would. What a joke.
But record companies were still needed, he said, because "no unsigned band has been broken by the internet," he said. "Bands are screaming in space on the internet." Its really only a matter of time. And while no artist has become a "superstar" online yet, there are some artists who have built some rather large fanbases (see Mc Chris
If governments won't stop this trend, maybe competition can. If people come up with a licence that expires in, say, 15 years, and a trademark logo ("Sane copyright inside!"), and companies who wouldn't be impacted by this start using it, it might become popular. Then, people who care could exert direct competitive pressure against those who don't go along.
No, I don't think this will actually happen, but wouldn't it be cool?
"as well as increasing the control that the recording industry holds over performers."
I'm not shedding a tear. People act as if labels are the only way to do things. Don't want to sign with Universal? Don't. Publish on your own. Don't use the labels. You still have a choice.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Exclusive licences should be limited to 5 years and carry an obligation to publish; if a licencee fails to publish they should lose their rights without compensation.
>>>>truth; beauty; unix.<<<<
An interesting sidenote is this: remember when copying a chord (dunno how many notes that was) of song was considered infringement? I wonder what would happen if someone went out and made a pseudosong with every possible combination of a chord. Then they could sue every new song as being "infringing." The whole notion is ridiculous
Do we need any more proof as to why the music industry is in the dumps?! The top dog of the music industry cannot distinguish between a good song or a bad song. He appears to believe that any succession of notes could be a hit merely by marketing.
I hear people say again and again that they buy less music because music sucks today. (At least the crap pushed by the industry.) Now we have evidence to back that up.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Emperor Palpatine, is that you?
Every one of these industry moguls wants to be the Emperor of the Universe. They hate the way things are now, think they have the answers, and they want the power and the money.
The great thing is, just like in Star Wars, *we're
letting them do it*.
Don't like it? Join the rebellion now. I made a vow not to buy any more big RIAA-approved CDs until the insanity stopped, and I haven't. Used and indie CDs? No problem. But it takes more than that (they just blame it on piracy). Write your government representatives (ussuming you live somewhere you have representation). Refuse to support the Empire. There's lots we can do.
Seriously, that's a real question. There's a really good round-table discussion in this month's Playboy about the music industry and how they're running themselves into the ground with this crap. Most everybody - except for the RIAA dick - seems certain that the record industry's days (as we know it) are numbered.
I've read-up on all the Lessig arguments and I think he's done a good job of understanding and explaining the mechanics of how overzealous copyright law can hinder the development of derivatives. But I have to disagree with his conclusions.
Lessig's arguments, in a nutshell, are that because of draconian copyright law, the culture we would expect to see developing around protected works is not developing.
Maybe he's right, but maybe who cares?
It seems to me that the actions of the RIAA and friends will primarily result in the next generation developing it's own non-derivative culture, and with it, a derivative culture based on it.
Here's one example: the fastest growing software culture right now is not the proprietary software culture where everything is fairly adequately protected, but the free software culture where sharing and derivations are king.
Or consider this: The BBC is investigating the possibility of opening their archives to the world, placing them on the Internet, and allowing anyone who cares to create their own derivative works. If this happens, is there any doube that the next geveration of American kids will enjoy a culture of Dr. Who remakes, and be scarcely familiar with the culture of Friends and (God forbid) it's remakes?
The culture will grow wherever the culture is allowed to grow.
There's plenty of music out there on the internet which the RIAA can't complain about you downloading because the artist has already authorized it. (I don't want to bias anyone, so I won't post links here, but I'll invite replies and follow-up to post their favorite sites.)
What would happen if the onling music sharing community were to declare January, 2005 as Free Music Only month and take a pledge to refuse to offer, download, or purchase any music which isn't Free To Share for 31 days. Would the RIAA notice if all priacy stopped? Would they modify their prices or policies to compensate for the sudden reduction in the behavior they are soo keen to stop?
Would the industry ever recover from the loss of customers to the Free Music culture.
I submit that we don't have to build our culture on top of the one created by the RIAA; that the culture we have created for ourselves is really quite good, and certaintly adequate for our needs.
I'd say let the RIAA keep their worn-out cookie-cutter tunes. Let the culture they created die by their own silly overly-protective rules.
Wouldn't that be ironic; the RIAA, faced with the prospect that their primary market just doesn't care anymore, pleading to reduce copyright terms just so that future genrations will bother to remember them at all?
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
I hate taxes.
.5% tax on Mickey Mouse bring into the government till?
However, since corporations seem to think that once something is created they should own it forever, make them subject to the same taxes everyone has to pay - if intellectual property is truly property, treat it as such.
In other words, we must all pay taxes if we own real property - it's called the property tax. If you own a vacant lot, you must pay tax every year on it, whether you use it or not.
I hate that. I think it's stupid. I think once you own a piece of real estate, you should own it forever. However, that is the way the world is.
Let's extend it. The MPAA, RIAA & company pretty much have Congress and the Supreme Court bought off one way or another. It's pretty clear we can't fight them directly. So, let's start a campaign to collect intellectual property tax. Force companies to register and maintain title to created works. Give them a twenty year window, from time of first publication, to own the IP free and clear of tax. After twenty years, charge 'em tax if they don't relinquish the copyright to the public domain.
It's drastic. It's yet another stupid tax. On the other hand, it's a potentially huge source of revenue and a way of bypassing the lobbyists and hacks who prevent enforcement of the LIMITED copyrights mentioned in the Constitution. Go to a politician and tell them that the campaign contributions they take in from the copyright holders can't match the goodwill generated by bringing home the pork money that this tax will bring in.
How much will a
Let's do it. Anyone want to work with me to make it happen? It'd be difficult - copyright is usually a Federal issue, but there must be a way to get something done at the state level. Send me email if you're interested.
I'm a conservative Republican. The idea of working to create a new type of tax is hateful to me. Unfortunately, I must conclude the idea of turn the right to think and create freely over to corporations is even more hateful.
-Steve Calabrese
They seem to have no conception of a need to foster public good will, which is just bizarre for a corporate entity. Whenever I think about things like steamboat willy, I just can't help but wonder why Disney didn't release those really old cartoons just to keep old fans happy. Yes, they would lose out on a small amount of revenue, but a company that "gives back" gets a good reputation that can make its future offerings more attractive since it adds a more human face to an otherwise faceless entity.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
You mean something just like this?
O'Reilly has released a number of titles under this arrangement.
DNA just wants to be free...
When will all this stop?
Will it ever lead to a day when we would finally have the MCXCIII compilation of Britney Spears FOREVER and on the case instead of showing a busty Britney, it just shows a mound of dust.
That's what Britney would be in say.. 70 years, the way they keep extending these God damned copyrights.
So what if they spent 10 billion dollars to market that bitch? Other industries (like drug firms/whatever) spent a lot to develop products too, they don't get protection as ridiculous as these (thankfully)
Of course, we can go on and on about boycotting them, but as long as Joe Average doesn't know (or care) about what is happening, it won't even make a dent on the RIAA.
So long "the land of the free", let's all migrate to Nigeria!
http://www.migrate-nigeria.com/
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
This is all a stupid game of Leapfrog, taking us all as suckers for a ride. To wit:
1: Increase copyright lengths in the USA.
2: Claim Europe is out of step "with the world" because their copyrights are only 50 years now, instead of life + 75.
3: Increase European copyrights to exceed the "world standard".
4: Claim the USA is now "out of step with the world" because their copyrights aren't as long as the Eurpoean standard.
5: Demand increasing USA copyright terms to exceed European copyrights.
6: PROFIT!!!
7: Goto #1.
I believe whatever copyright existed when a work was created and released to the public should remain in force for that work, and expire on schedule. Clearly that copyright was sufficient to insprie the creation of that work at the time, which is the stated purpose of all copyrights!
You know, the more things get unfair, the less I'm worried about "stealing" music over the Internet. I would not take physical product from a store, but that's a very different thing.
HOWEVER, the music industry has very little to worry about from me because frankly just about nothing today is worth listening to.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Many ad agencies, when making a commercial for TV, use music that has not been cleared. When the commercial is ready for production, they have someone record a 'similar' version with different chords or a melody that differs only slightly - enough that it is considered a separate work, and no license is required. Clearing copyright for movies is similar - a license for distribution in a movie is subject to contracts as long as your leg and the price is shooting ever higher.
I predict that the music industry will move to have the mood and 'feel' of a song copyrighted. Just think of the money to be made by copyrighting a genre or production style of music! If the music industry can copyright the 'feel' or production style of a song, they will have what they always wanted - absolute control over who makes and distributes music. Independent songwriters who write a song that has a similar style to the Beatles 'Blackbird' will have to clear the copyright on that 'style'. Bands will be prevented from writing or performing 'a song that sounds like Led Zepplin'.
Yes, it sounds far fetched, yes, it is fraught with loopholes, opinion, and subjectiveness.
But it would make them rich, and it would make them all-powerful.
Watch for it.
When are people going to realize that the extending copyrights, enhancing patent coverage, or any other games being played by IP monopolists are done at the direct cost of reducing the rights of individual people. That's right, it means taking something that you had as a right and giving it to a corporation. At one time this was justified by the belief that it would provide incentive to create new products and services. As we are seeing more and more, the effect now is to stifle innovation and keep it under control of large corporations so that they may maintain ecomonic power.