Slashdot Mirror
Suing Your Customers a Good Idea?
VB writes "Boycott-RIAA is running Fred von Lohmann's article which looks like the ideal answer to solving the P2P problem. He suggests setting up a payment system similar to SESAC, ASCAP, and BMI, collecting organizations for songwriters. This seems such an obvious solution and a great way to get artists paid and give listeners the right to listen to their favorite songs cheaply and keep them out of jail. Why wouldn't this work?"
Because then the RIAA would not have control. Since when was this all about money?
Why wouldn't this work?
Because this system doesn't give the RIAA their share.
This sounds too much like what happens in Canada, where an extra fee is included in the price of most blank media. This fee is SUPPOSED to be re-distributed to the artists, but it rarely is. It is just another case of assuming people are only interested in copying music, never anything else like actual backups, or even recording your own music. Bunch of bozos.
Maybe suing your customer is a good idea if it is a one-off customer and you don't expect to have any other customers. Ever.
You can't handle the truth.
Why wouldn't this work?
Simply put, because RIAA doesn't want competition.
Steal This Sig
It's an email list with people talking about the digital delivery of art and the convergence of entertainment and technology.
Bunch of people there talking about this subject every day (and have been for years).
then we'll sell them pants!
-knowles
doesn't allow the maximum of money to be squeezed out of the punter, and thus will be fought tooth and nail by the guys who are in charge of the "industry" - the RIAA et al. as opposed to the artists.
Gamers Europe - Gaming News. Reviews.
There is a reason that this sort of payment system is ludicrous. The recording industry already gets federal subsidies from our taxes to compensate them for the "inevitable" acts of copyright violation that every citizen already commits. Their lobby convinced the politicians that everyone is a pirate and the only way to stop it is to have the government reimburse them for it. They are already getting paid by us once; they shouldn't get to put their hand in the cookie jar a second time. As far as I'm concerned my taxes have already paid for any and all copyright violations, which gives me the legal right to do as I damn well please with p2p software.
Because lots and lots and lots of people are now used to getting music for free. They don't care enough about the artists to pay for it now, why would that change?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Maybe they should start extorting...err charging them $699 for a "license".
Why should entertainment product distributors (who this is really about) get special dispensation from technological advances? If the business model is built on an insecure foundation, change the model. Official goverment tithing on behalf of (foreign!) corporations who have yet to conclusively demonstrate harm from sharing is an appalling idea, one that shifts the relationship between citizens, corporations and governments.
Why wouldn't this work? because lawsuits are expensive - look at sco.. hmm spend loads to collect $699 - it just dosent make sense.
- Sucking them dry for every penny you can get out of them.
- Free publicity from trials.
- Insures the next time they go to buy, they will think of your company first.
Any others that you guys can think up?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
How many artists would be able to afford to produce quality music without the recording industries willing to take the plunge and invest in them based on a tape of an amateur recording? It might be a good way for a weekend band to make a few extra bucks, but someone who wants to make a career in music would have a much harder time.
The same goes for getting their music played on the radio and stuff... small artists would be at a great disadvantage when it comes to negotiating contracts and stuff without a label's backing.
Sure, we don't need an überpowerful, evil RIAA, but some kind of recording industry still has a place.
Good plan! Then it becomes a clear matter of federal jurisdiction instead of just a private-party lawsuit!
Is it just me, or does the RIAA seem a bit superfluous? Wouldn't it be better if all artists were independant? We could still have our MTVs and such, and iTunes (and online music in general) would be the perfect method of advertising. It would allow fans the ability to quickly link others to the band and let them listen to previews of their songs.
Compounded with collecting organisations, artists would probably earn even more money than they would with the RIAA. Another pleasant side-effect of this would be that the quality of music would go up, and we would no longer have to deal with artistic-abominations like Britney Spears.
Best. Webhost. Ever. Dreamhost.
Yea, it was mostly intended as a joke.
Not that I haven't thought about a similar plan though...
Well, in theory they're not suing their customers. "Customers" are people who pay for stuff. If you're "stealing music" or "infringing copyright", you're not their customer; they get more money out of you by suing you, because it's not like they want your continued goodwill.
Of course practice is more complicated than theory, especially in the case of those who obtain music peer-to-peer as "free samples" and then go out and buy the album. And of course those who are just defending their constitutionally-guaranteed right to fair use (that is, the 71 minues of music you're entitled to download, but not the actual plastic of the disk, because your best friend already bought that, or maybe some guy in Ankara or Boise or somewhere named "kazaaliteuser").
Actually, I think the solution would be to simply make it a misdemeanor to upload or download music to or from the general public without permission of the copyright holder. Make a small but unpleasant fine (say $100), and make it easy to actually find and charge the file sharers, and very easy to fight if you're wrongly accused.
My problem with the lawsuits, is that it all seems so unfair. Even if people are costing the record industry money, it's highly unlikely that anybody is costing them several thousand dollars. I seriosuly doubt that most of these people charged innocent, and I don't agree that this is fair use, but the response is wrong.
Firstly, in much the same way as I don't approve of the death penalty for pickpockets, I also don't agree that these lawsuits are an appropriate response for file sharers.
Secondly, if the crime is really bad enough to justify a punitive fine, it should be considered a criminal offence. I have never agreed that the civil courts should be able to charge punitive damages. If someone is to be punished, then they should have the rights of all criminals, and be sentenced based on guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Not a mere balance of probabilities.
they can do whatever the hell they want. They've got a monopoly. Scratch that, what they've got is even better. They control all the important distribution channels, but since there are plenty of small (mostly inconsequencial) channels available nobody prosecutes them. It's the best of both worlds. So yes, suing is good for them.
Moreover, most people know what they're doing is illegal, and therefore think it's morally wrong. Nevermind who fscked up the whole system is. So when the shit hits the fan and people start getting sued, there isn't a lot of sympathy out there for them.
Finally, people are lazy and dumb and don't care about anything until it affects them directly (and noticably). Get 100 people in a room and see how many know what copyright is, let alone that people are being sued over it. Most people I talk to only know downloading is illegal because they know the stuff is sold in stores and they're smart enough to know that if they're getting it free, something's wrong. I'm met tons of people paying a monthly fee to some 3rd rate Kazaa knockoff who think everything they download is perfectly legal because they 'pay' for it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
In some places there is a tax on media like cdrs and everything that can be used to copy music illegally, just like we're supposed to use (identical) music cdrs if we're putting music on a cd. The problem is that
1. Nobody will abide by this system unless it's forced upon us and done universally. We'll need to be taxed even when we access the internet and P2P at libraries, universities and through dialup like Netzero.
2. In order for the money to be distributed fairly, the info will have to be logged at the P2P application level, of which songs traveling to whom how often. However, that would be (accurately) construed as invasive, and even if the major players like kazaa could be forced into adding this, none of the open source programs would even consider this invasive modification of their source.
3. People will always find a way around the system . Everybody is used to paying nothing, and they will jump at the smallest loophole, and rarely accept these tariffs willingly.
Personally, I think the best strategy is to continue suing those who share lots of files, and take down the main distributors/downloaders like was done in Iceland last week. If it doesn't scare away the casual users, at least this removes the crucial sources of media from the internet.
Most people's musical interest is in purely mainstream stuff that can be easily acquired legally on a service like iTMS. For those who can't find it there, this makes sense, but please, don't give me that excuse that you can't find most of the MTV/CMT hits on iTMS.
The thing that has always been a thorn in the side of those who don't abuse P2P are the users that download stuff that they could easily have gotten legally because they're too cheap to pay for mainstream stuff. Stuff like that really makes it hard to defend P2P, and that's sad IMO.
I'm sorry, but if you're downloading Brittney Spears or something like that, you have no excuse. Pay The Man. If it's some obscure band, then no big deal since you probably couldn't find a way to legitimately pay for it. Just remember, most of the cool bands out there that don't make too much money are subsidized by the teenieboppers who buy the pop junk. The profitability of the latter covers the lack thereof in the former and gives us more options, not that I'm suggesting that we buy the pop shit just to subsidize our favorite bands.
Ultimately the biggest barrier to this system working is the credit card processors. If they didn't charge so much for small transactions then micropayments would be possible and practical.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
of one word "middlemen"
In other words, the RIAA and their army of lawyers would not even get a piece of the pie, let alone a majority of it.
The idea of collecting and giving it to the songwriters/artists themselves is beneficial to the artists as they would get more of the proverbial pie and they themselves don't have to do anything additional to get it; all they have to do is just concentrate on what they do best, write music.
Not that i don't believe you, but it would be nice to know exactally where it states they are getting tax dollars to show people what is going on.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
About a week ago Lawrence Lessig mentioned a new book called Promises to Keep . The book, written by Prof. William Fisher, chronicles a bit of entertainment industry history and the various "alternatives we face for protecting copyright in a digital age" (to use Lessig's phrase).
Chapter Six is freely available (66-page PDF), and in that chapter an alternative compensation system proposed by Fisher (not entirely unlike Von Lohmann's from the main article) is outlined in excruciating detail. This detail includes specific cost and savings estimates.
What makes Fisher's proposal interesting is that he also includes a mechanism to allow derivative works to be created, and for both deriving and derived authors to be compensated.
- Neil Wehneman
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
The recording industry as we know it is obsolete. It was created out of a need of distribution when recording was first invented. That need simply no longer exists. I personally do not believe there is another business model that will maintain the status quo for the wealth that is pouring into this industry. Of course music will not go away, but will rather revert back to the system it was before, word of mouth, concerts, etc. With popularity driven wholly by the listeners, musical quality and diversity will increase, sparing us from no talent industry manufactured stars.
It's called greed. Deal with it.
the ideal answer to solving the P2P problem. He suggests setting up a payment system similar to SESAC, ASCAP, and BMI
I don't see how that would encourage people to improve their upload to download rations. If anything they'd be even less likely to upload if they were also paying.
suing you employer and still expect to have a job the next day.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
"Suing Your Customers a Good Idea?"
That's just it. They are suing those who AREN'T their customers. Customers implies buying. If you are downloading (I do it all the time, won't deny it), you aren't buying.
What is hard to understand about that? The RIAA isn't hurting any of their potential customers by this.
If I shoot the kid who stole a candy bar in my store, did I just kill a customer (and lose profit) ? Certainly not!
The Independent Council of Music Listeners in North America (ICMNA) deemed that over 97% of those who download will not end up making a purchase of THAT PARTICULAR recording. That isn't to say they won't buy other brands. But who is to say thats even the same label?
The RIAA might be onto something. Instead of charging people money upfront (e.g. when they buy or download music), you can sue them on the backend. Likely they will have illegally downloaded more than they would've legally purchased, so this is a great way to earn more money! Sure the costs might be higher in suing people, but you can write those off for tax purposes.
This doesn't give the RIAA more than their share. That one word makes all the difference in the world.
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
It's probably already happened too..
RIAA Says you pirated music and shows the titles you pirated. Gives you 30 days to respond if you intend to pay or go to court. You dont respond so they consider their claim valid and hire a collection agency to begin a collection process. Of which they threaten your credit rating and such.
I'm sure it will eventually happen and those who have agreed to pay who dont may face this situation.
I've been in bands on several labels not dealing with the RIAA and have been treated fair. I've also been with other labels and have been ripped off.
For instance, right now the Star Trek band I'm in, is on a compilation for Trekkies 2. That label's payment seems to be 6 CDs marked "FOR PROMO USE ONLY". Not a surprise for us -- we expected it -- but some of the other bands on that comp have been bitching.
Not only do the bands not get paid, but they were told to buy copies of the CD from amazon because the label WON'T sell copies to bands. That's a nice step of sleaziness that I haven't heard of before. Ensuring that the bands can't even get beer money selling CDs at shows, and trying to get them to boost the amazon rating for a CD that 99.99999999999 of the population wouldn't listen to even if it was free.
Sheesh.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
ASCAP and BMI don't operate under "voluntary collective licensing" or other such thing. They operate under what's called statutory or compulsory licensing (). If you want to use material that a songwriter holds a copyright to, you pay a set fee. The copyright holder does not make a decision as to whether or not they want you to use it.
The record labels (not the RIAA, which has nothing to do with the collection of license fees) do not have a system like this. To make a copy of a physical recording that they own the copyright on, you need to negotiate with the record label whether or not you can use it, and how much you will need to pay them. They can deny you use, which they will typically do unless you are licensing a catalog of music, and intend on making many copies of the physical recordings in question.
If you can't beat them, embrace and extend them.
I wasn't aware of this. The last time I bought cds, they were 15 cents each. Does this mean that a third of my purchase went to this tax (in addition to the 5% sales tax, income tax before I got the money, etc) ? This doesn't seem minimal to me.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
RIAA keeps suing because they want complete control over every aspect of the recording industry. They are suing(and lobbying) to gain control of p2p and any other distribution that they do not control.
You know, it's a good thing I am Canadian, we don't have to deal with the various **AAs...and according to what I heard recently -- but have not checked into myself -- is that we [Canadians] are allowed to share files online due to a recent ruling.
Michael
http://phantasyrpg.com/main.php?view=9898
Michael
http://s1.sfgame.us/index.php?rec=58163
ASCAP, SESAC, and BMI (of which I am an affiliate) don't pay most of their artists. Their collection scheme is somewhat misleading. For the most part, they only pay artists that gross over a certain amount, that make a certain amount of money on tour, sell a certain number of records, and have a significant amount of airplay. So basically only Britney Spears gets paid, and the millions of artists that are touring and sell a small number of records through distribution often never see the money. I know I never have.
The Performers Rights Organizations (PRO's) are in bed with the RIAA and the record labels. If anyone is ripping the artists off, it's the labels and the PRO's, not the filetraders. I refer you to a brilliant article at http://www.negativland.com/albini.html written by Steve Albini, producer of Nirvana's "In Utero" and mastermind behind the band Big Black.
Why do I keep hearing people on /. using this phrase? Is it because it carries more shock value? I'm not a fan of the RIAA or their practices, but the people they are suing (warrented or not) are serving out thousands of songs. In this fashon, they are not acting as customers of the RIAA.
Or ..
.. the artist, the artist ..
Because then the RIAA would not have control. Since when was this about the artist?
That is what the RIAA (and their likes in other countries) keep shouting about
That's the great thing about the internet. All I need to make music are some instruments, a way to hook up the audio out to my computer, and a piece of software to record and edit that sound. I could then distribute that to the entire world. This is the key point that gets missed in these little flamewars. Piracy and the trampling of our rights are side effects of an underlying issue (and while it is important and neccesary to fight for them, property rights are sacred and unassailable territory in America, never mind that these morons around us have never fucking read anything about any philosophy that might suggest reasonable limitations on these rights).
The real reason they're scared is because the internet makes them obsolete. The only problem is that they won't become so until everyone ignores them. Listen to techno (good techno, big difference) with labels like WARP and other indy music with reasonable digital music policies. Movies? I'd hope that you'd be smart enough for that trash to bore you. Books and the Internet are quickly becoming the last sanctuaries of complex human thought and art (along with interconnected ideas, themes and subtlety, all abandoned in the world outside of the University and Internet. Proof? Read the paper or watch the TV.). Remember, the $$AAs only exist as long as they can persuade others that they still have a purpose - to distribute and record cultural content. And they do it 20 times less efficiently than the Internet.
Sure, stupid people with poor taste will keep giving them money, but for the first time in history, the Internet has given us options. We can make our own culture. But most people can't hope to understand the profound implications this raises for institution and tradition. Any of the pioneers of human thought would be amazed at the possibilities that a truly peer-to-peer system such as the Internet makes possible. By creating and sharing our culture through it, we've made obsolete the old institutions and abolished the physical limitations imposed on us by analog distribution (watch as they clamor for a piece of the new pie). It's a testament to human adaptation that we treat it as routine.
I've had run ins mostly with sesac for the last year. I stream video of folks singing karaoke from a bar called 7 Bamboo here in San Jose California.
/end stupid licensing rant
I have several problems with giving some body blanket rights to collecting royaltees.
1. They can use whatever broad definition of what requires a license.
Once you give an organization the right to collect royaltees, there is no checks or balances in place to define what entitles them to a royaltee. Remember elevator music? Thanks to the licensing boards going after elevator operators, we no longer hear it. How in the world is elevator music making someone money? It's not, it's stupid.
2. Licensing board broad collection schemes.
I read over the sesac contract very carefully. Basically, I pay based on the number of hits my website gets in a month. What does hits have to do with the number of viewers on the video stream? Nothing, the two are completely unrelated. I could see paying based on my stream traffic, but not on the number of hits I get on the site. If they wanted to make me pay based on my ttsl reports Unfortunately me and the license boards don't see eye to eye on this one.
3. Just plain old greed.
The bar I work for already pays ascap/bmi/sesac public performance fees. They pay a total of $1500@year. Isn't that enough? Why do they want more for the stream? It's just stupid.
4. Lack of disclosure from the licensing boards.
I think licensing boards should be *required* to tell folks exactly what would make them exempt from licensing fees. Unfortunatly this is not the case, they are more interested in getting you to sign a contract (which basically gives up all your rights) instead of telling you what does and does not count as copyright.
I found several sections of the US copyright law that gives me exemptions in the case with karaoke streaming on the net. There's several sections 110-117 which deal all with copyright exemptions. Parody, it's not the real singer or the real background music and it's free to watch. Also there is cultural exemption (We're a Japanese owned karaoke bar, karaoke is from japan) Despite me pointing these out to sesac on several occasions, they're still very insistant that I pay royaltees for the stream.
Anyways, licensing boards need to operate more like a goverment agency than a glass tower of lawyers (which is exactly what they are now) Their only interest is money, and there is no limit to where they will go to collect it. They will lie, use scare tactics, and do everything short of sending hired goons to collect it.
On top of that, lawyers are not techies. Letting a group of lawyers define the law on anything technical is a *bad* thing.
Ok, end rant. Watch my karaoke station.
It is my opinion that something similar should be done with patents also. If you make a product you pay a known percentage "patent tax". How that is divided among the patent filers is now out of your hair. No more surprise patent lawsuits. The fighting over percentages is then between the patent filers, not the patent users.
Table-ized A.I.
No.
I would have to assume the uploader, and I'd be fine with that. It would make p2p disitribution like dubbing off the radio.
Suing customers doesn't change much.
How many cds worth would you buy over say 5 years? Now, when you get sued you might not buy any cds but, for how long will that last? By that time the RIAA got payd for that in a lump sum from the lawsuit payout.
Back in the 80s, Data General thought it was.
I remember when reading "The Soul Of A New Machine" by Tracy Kidder (about the development of the Eclipse 8000 32-bit minicomputer, I seem to recall; won a Pulitzer for non-fiction, I think), there was a passage quoting one of the DG honchos that went something like: "Some companies woo their customers; we litigate 'em."
There was another section that alluded to rumors a DG executive burned down a DEC plant that manufactured VAX components.
Ah, the good old days!
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
" Because then the RIAA would not have control. Since when was this all about money?"
Well obviously they have control from artist to retail store, else you all wouldn't be bitching about it. Let's see that leaves customers (you know. the ones that pay for things). I think marketing can clean up there. Oh I guess that leaves those who don't want to be customers, but want the goods (I believe societies past use to call them thieves).
Gee, no problem here.
BTW Complaining about prices while accusing others of being "all about the money" is disingenous.
A lot of artists could produce quality music without support from the record labels.
The cost of decent digital recording equipment has been dropping rapidly for years. Way back when I was more actively involved in music, a cassette 4-track cost some $$ and though you could bounce tracks to get more out of it, the noise added every time would kill you pretty quickly. Now you can get a tolerable A/D converter for next to nothing, and various better ones in the hundreds of $ range. A limited version of Protools (gives you something like 8 tracks, only runs on archaic hardware) is available free to get you hooked (they're good pushers who understand addiction). Microphones still aren't cheap, but there're some pretty good ones reasonably priced. In a nutshell, you can do comparable recordings in your home to what you could in a lot of studios 20 years ago. I'll leave out the obligatory link to Steve Albini's "Problem with Music" essay, but suffice it to say the only people the majors help are themselves, and a very small number of artists at the top. The rest get screwed. And if you do a bit of poking on the web, you can find that rates for a good studio are getting pretty low-- Albini's studio is a real bargain, and I'm sure there are more like that. He's said some other stuff about not liking digital (entirely for non-technical reasons) that I agree with in some ways, but the strength of digital is that it brings the ability to record stuff without mega-hiss down the the price range of musicians with day jobs selling used records.
Commercial radio sucks these days anyway, and has a very narrow focus (selling your ears to advertisers). College radio is much better, and the distribution channels to that are free-- send a link to the music director so they can download your track to a CD and put it in the studio (or just park it on a hard drive in the studio). The net has made it so I can listen to college radio in the Bay Area, Ann Arbor, New Jersey, Boston, or nearly anywhere, while I sit at home in LA.
The only thing the majors really have is back catalog (as has been mentioned in other RIAA related discussions here). They own rights to a huge back catalog of material, and they want to milk it (again, many of the artists responsible for creating that back catalog will get almost nothing).
Silly person, listen: the RIAA does not represent the recording artists. The RIAA represents the record labels - the RIAA often lobbies for things that go directly against the artists. And it is the RIAA (members) that control these recordings, not the artists. And it is the RIAA (members) that get the money from their sale.
You have swallowed the kool-aid completely; This isn't about artists - it's about corporate profits.
And the notion of subsidies has come up before, and it is still an utterly stupid idea. I personally will move out of the country before I will allow one of my tax dollars to go to subsidizing the suits in hotown.
In the U.S. the surchage applies only to blank Music CD-Rs. Standalone CD-R Recorders.
It won't work because the people who currently use P2P do so to get their downloads free. It doesn't matter what type of payment system you set up, if it isn't mandantory, not many P2P folks will pay. Probably it won't make enough money to justify the cost of running it.
The bottom line here is not just money but EGO. These people really believe they deserve $16 every time you get a song from a boy band that they helped find. They really believe they should be able to control when and where you may listen to the music owned by their labels. Sure, they love the money, but that isn't all. These are generally people who don't consider themselves thieves, but the elaborate extortion scheme they have constructed doesn't bother them ethically because they feel they really deserve this kind of control over the way people consume information.
It won't work because the CARP webcasting licenses, already applied, prohibit fair use like sharing a stream (not a copy) with your friend, or even making backup copies for your office, car, and beachhouse. The RIAA wants to force everyone to pay for downloaded copies as long as possible (and a little longer), then they'll switch to managing a gateway for inevitable shared streams when people already own files of all the popular music in their catalogs. That's why their license requires a prohibitive mandatory minimum payment of over $200:y (vs. the max $90:y of 4minute songs streamed continuously to a listener), with no requests, or repeated plays within any 5 hour cycle. They did the same thing to radio 75 years ago: turn a cheap, 2-way medium of the people into a corporate wasteland for cartels and official culture.
--
make install -not war
If someone isn't actually buying your product, by definition they aren't your customer. Therefore the RIAA has very little to lose in going after file sharers.
The RIAA won't (don't) attract widespread criticism for their actions because:
1) They are acting entirely within long established laws (basic copyright has been around for a long time, duration extensions notwithstanding, since the bulk of the material mentioned in law suits is less than 10 years old);
2) Journalists equally rely on copyright protection to make their work a saleable commodity;
3) The majority of music consumers still buy the physical product, or are quite happy to use iTMS or the like; in other words, the Boycott-RIAA types are actually a noisy minority more concerned with the politics of big business than the actual music (I am aware the RIAA has a strangle-hold on the mass media, but in reality they don't have a monopoly on distribution; anyone can set themselves up as a record company or distributor, with or without RIAA affiliation. The existence of numerous independant record companies is a testament to this fact).
To paraphrase the OSS philosophy: if you don't want to pay for it, write it yourself; if you haven't learned how to play an instrument, it's your own laziness or ignorance that makes you rely on the pre-packaged item. If this attitude is acceptable for software, why shouldn't it be acceptable for music?
Exploitation of people exists in every system. Unfortunately I think it is in the nature of political systems. It certainly exists in Capitalism, but was worse in Feudalism and arguably worse in Soviet Communism.
There will *always* be predatory people. It is *not* a function of the economic system but rather a function of the nature of human politics.
The goal, IMO, is not to eliminate such exploitation but to make sure that a) the public good is defended and b) that there are checks and balances that prevent such exploitation from getting out of hand.
Unfortunately, the RIAA has subverted the public good with very little discussion or debate, and to date, there are precious few checks and balances on that system.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
While these organisations pay artists (or more precisely, composers) for their efforts, rights for use of the _recording_ belong to the record companies.
Recording and promoting albums is expensive, prohibitively so for most artists to finance it themselves and it is a very high risk investment. So in return for an advance to do all this, they sign their lives away to RIAA members and while the artists have copyright for the composition (intelectual property) they record companies own the recording.
This was also what George Michael vs. Sony Music was about. All he got was an advance to record his music, but this was paid back out of his earnings. Still, he would never own the recordings or have any control over their use.
So unless you also come up with some investors with better terms and that are more open minded about distribution...
This fee is SUPPOSED to be re-distributed to the artists,
Become a spoken word artist, put the words on the Internet, then ask for your share of the blank media tax.
Outsource all the lawyers to India. That way legal fees for downloading music on p2p will be the same price as a download from iTunes.
Until somebody actually goes to jail for uploading (not including selling CDs or whatever, simply pure uploading), geek society as a whole is not going to take the RIAA seriously, and those of us who are less than scrupulous (or Canadian ;) ) aren't going to think twice about downloading versus buying.
I'm sure that Paypal is drooling over the possibility of being the sole provider of micropayments for the direct record label "store," though ;)
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
This is the era of the internet and cheap electronics!
A couple of geniuses in a church, can make recordings that are a technical match for the biggest and most expensive studios in the industry.
A cheap web site can make music marketing almost free!
Cheap downloads can make record distribution almost free!
Never mind the RIAA! Who needs the companies who sponsor the RIAA?! And don't you think that they don't know it!!!
RIAA = Neo-luddites!!!
finally! the answer to ???, the step before Profit!
1st problem: who decides the monthly fee? The govt. should not have the right to dictate prices for a private industry.
2nd problem: How does the money get divided? There is no monitoring system to determine what songs you've downloaded and who owns the copyright for them.
Vote for Pedro
Hiya kfg,
/. seems to prevent me replying to your post from last month; sorry to anyone else reading this, it has no relationship to the RIAA :-)
:)
I've posted here since
I tried your idea of making a stew so as to be able to prepare dinner quickly. I made a Massaman curry on monday night, and through the week it only took about twenty minutes on the other days to bring it to the boil, add cubed potato and cook up some rice to go with it.
Anyway, it worked pretty well. It was quite nice, and very quick. So thanks for the idea
Corrin
Because the songwriters don't own the music, the labels do. When you're one of their artists, they own everything you do. The musicians are entitled to profits, but the contracts are so skewed against them that only the biggest of names will see a dime. A band can't even break up to get out of the contract-- the principals are locked in for the full term, which is usually long enough to ensure they won't be free until they're no longer young and cute enough to be viable in the MTV market. Labels sign lots and lots and lots of bands, and most of them will never see the stardom they're promised... On the contrary, the labels sign them up more often than not to keep a rival label from having them.
They probably won't go for it, because musicians tend to be young and short-sighted, but the only way to really bring down the RIAA and major labels is to get the bands to stop signing their contracts. The only real hope as I see it, is to educate up-and-coming bands that they have a choice... They don't have to sign the contract. They need to be told that the stardom the A&R guy is promising them probably won't happen if they sign their lives away. They need to be told that even with the backing of a major, they're still pretty much on their own to book tours and generate "buzz." They may not open for the Rolling Stones, but they can succeed by touring and distribution through independant channels, including letting the songs go out for free via P2P. Most of all it needs to be explained to them that an "Indie" act with a respectable but not necessarily mainstream following has a longer career and makes more money than all but the highest tier of bands on the major labels.
my password is private, but unchanged.
Copyright collective as a solution to the music p2p problem is not a new idea. Downhillbattle.org and the EFF have been saying that Voluntary Collective Licensing is the ideal solution for quite some time already. Even The Recording Industry Ass. Of America could get a piece of that money, even though it should go mostly to the artists.
Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
This is the whole point. If you want to stick to a disc model of distribution then perhaps there is a place for the labels. But exactly why do we need to stick with a disc distribution system? I have 2Meg DSL. I can download a CD in a matter of minutes. I'm subsidizing that connection so the band can communicate with me. Bands have no business pressing discs, neither do labels. There is no need for this out-dated, expensive distribution technology when the customers themselves are already paying for the modern, efficent distribution. The distribution bill has already been paid --by the customers. Creating more costs to distribute another less efficient way is merely wasteful.
A band doesn't even need a server, they can just use P2P.
So, distribution is free. That's not the point. The point is that simply recording music and having the ability to distribute in volume isn't what the music game is really all about. In fact, it's about marketing. You know --come in here dear boy, have a cigar.
But notice I use the phrase "the music game" rather than music. Music isn't about marketing and music doesn't require enormous finances. Playing the music game is all about marketing and finance. The music game can end as far as I'm concerned.
But companies in America not only hate their employees, but they are starting to hate their customers as well.
Remember Best Buy's Demon Customers?
It seems if you are not acting in a company's interests at every moment, the company is out to punish you. And until we start holding corporations accountable for their actions, as a consumer AND a country, they will continue to throw tantrums when things don't go their way.
Spare the rod, spoil the company.
I'm looking for intelligent comments and criticism on this scheme, as well:
http://n8o.r30.net/a2z/drupal/node/view/153
It does not require (though it could benefit from) a central royalty agency, and so it can be implemented by small labels and artists today. At the same time, it ends up being a tractor app for more SSL or IPSEC deployment among common Internet users.
But let's say the money was distributed by a 3rd party based on number of transactions..
How would Oasis and Blur fight that one out.. they'd both claim to be most popular and demand equal cuts, even though Oasis were much much better..
Collective licensing is the solution, but EFF has the wrong stance on the mechanism:
the fairest and most effective way is to tax the storage media AND the bandwidth/QOS.
Part #1...
Think about it:
to store 2x the stuff, you buy 2x the blank media, and you pay 2x the tax-- ONCE.
IOW, you pay for the volume of stuff you KEEP-- no matter how many times you copy over it-- instead of paying for the number of times that you re-write the media.
If you don't buy more media, you can't record new files without throwing out old ones.
I *think* this already happens in Canada, at least with some media.
Part #2 covers streaming playback, by taxing bandwidth/QOS. This is just like what happens today with U.S. radio broadcasts.
Furthermore, using a tax avoids cheating on a monthly fee.
until i can get small file sizes for lossless compression (shn or flac) and have those file types able to be played in all sorts of devices (from car cd players to mp3 players, the cd is what i want. the cd also adds more art to the music than just the music. what's the point of albums like "tommy" if you're not listening to the whole thing the way they intended it to be? the other problem i have is it's hard to listen to two songs with a nice segue connecting them. the bands i listen to do this at concerts and if i were to put the mp3's of the show on a device like an ipod, there'd be a gap, an unwanted gap. it ruins the flow. i'm all about the music and the sound quality. i don't want to be listening to mp3's or ogg files.
i never listen to music on my comptuer, it's either in my stereo or in my car for the best sound possible. mp3's are just plain crap. so until devices that suit my needs become mainstream enough to be affordable, i'll stick to buying cd's as they're the best solution to my problem. i don't need music anymore portable than carrying a few cd's with me in my car and putting a disc into my stereo. if they want to provide me with a way to download an album in flac or shn format that i can then burn to an audio disc, i'll accept that, but until then, cd's are it.
please me, have no regrets.
Truthfully, now, isn't that a bit silly?
Next, you have to think about how this system would actually track what people download, in order to divide up any money collected. Do you really want to ask for even more monitoring software added to your ISP on behalf of the govenernment / entertainment industry? (I don't)
They claim that it would render all transfers anonymous, but even if it did (yeah, right) then there would be no way to identify cheats like bots that artificalially increase someone's popularity.
I could go on, but I'll stop there -- the EFF VCL isn't the answer.
IMHO, my suggestion is DRUMS.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
A group of us Pho'sters also started a non-profit political action organization called Click The Vote to try and convince Congress to implement a system such as the one Fred describes. We also oppose the INDUCE and PIRATE Acts as counterproductive distractions from the real need which is to Make Share Fair for both creators and the public in general.
"The problem is that Soundscan shows a 10% increase in music sales when comparing the first quarter of 2004 to 1Q 2003."
OK. Now here's a homework problem for you. How much of the increase can directly be attributed to illegal P2P? Hard isn't it? Now try to figure out how many computers out there have Linux installed? Hard isn't it? Same reasons.
Well, first, because the RIAA has to know what acts to pay. What should they do, pay every act equally even though some of these people's music doesn't bring in money at all? They would need all new programs to handle the subscription service. I know! A new version of Napster that lets you download all you want for a subscription fee. Wouldn't THAT be great? Besides that, ISPs are NOT going to get involved, they have no reason to, and it would be almost impossible for them to deal with.
"The recording industry as we know it is obsolete. It was created out of a need of distribution when recording was first invented. That need simply no longer exists."
Woah there, horsey! Start showing examples of this "other" model. What's that you say? The internet (sung to the tune of Simpsons monorail). Here's a couple things to think about. In the US alone a little over half have broadband (and what the bad economy will do to that, who's to say?). How many of just those will accept a burned CD (who's longevity is questionable) with Inkjet liner notes, and cases THEY bought(1)? Then there's the little manner of creating music. Have you ever created any music? (pots and pans down the basement stairs doesn't count). First not all kinds of music fit well the "I did it on my Mac" model. Second there's more than just "the computer". There's all the other equipment required in making a sound people will pay for (not to be mistaken for sound people will just download and later erase). Last through all this the artist has to make enough to justify ALL the equipment and time (servers and bandwith are free, just ask Yahoo). And make a big note of the fact that I haven't even gotten to the rest of the world that your little "new and improved" model hasn't even touched. Oh yeah! Were's my flying car? I want to make the road model obsolete.
(1) Look up "Selling Convenience"
RIAA represents the distributors and record companies in their quest to collect money. BMI, SESAC, ASCAP etc collect royalties for everyone else - particularly from broadcast use.
The world doesn't need another seven headed hydra to collect money for artists. It needs to kill the current seven headed one and replace it with an easier to understand single-headed dragon.
-- $G
"Think of the Matrix as the capitalistic system, think of the machines as the corporations. Then think of the people as....people. Think of the power they were harvesting as money....think of the "life" the Matrix was providing to the people in their pods as the music/movie being provided to us in return..."
I'd much rather think that because of copyright, the artists could produce, market, and make money on their particular vision, in a capitalistic society.
They are called STORES. Use them.
Who are the customers then if its not people with large music collections? If someone has thousands of music files I think its safe to say that they have bought a CD or two.
ASCAP isn't called the OTHER Music Mafia (aside from the RIAA) for no reason; they are the ones who sued the Girl Scouts over public performance rights. They like to sue businesses who play the radio (or allow it to be played) in the workplace. They're also notorious for a byzantine payment method which short changes small songwriters. BMI and SESAC are birds of a feather. Why would anyone want to create another monster like them?
If there's a solution to the problem of P2P v. the music industry, it involves the destruction of organizations like those, not the creation of more of them.
If von Lohmann wants the rule of law enforced, he ought to be coming up with some mechanism wherein lawsuit-abusers like DirecTV and the RIAA get bitch-slapped, not one which rewards them.
Suing Your Customers a Good Idea?
Dunno...ask DirecTV that question.
The anti-label stance most people take is scary. Just as the monopoly control that the largest corporations take is scary.
I started my own record label only a year ago because I see opportunity for change. The major labels are scrambling to save their monopoly which they and their investors have put billions into. It's not that music still won't sell or that hundreds of millions of dollars invested in manufacturing plants, distributiong companies, media outlets such as radio and so on. They could easily give into p2p and use it as the fastest distribution method, but then how do they make back the money their investors put out to control this monopoly -- what is probably 1/3 of their business assets.
The smaller labels though can grow with Internet technologies such as p2p easily because they don't own multi-billion dollar distribution companies and communications companies.
VCL will work and the more transparent it is to the end user, the better. Like getting cable, there are often some specialty channels included in the basic set up that you can opt out of if you wanted. The fee for this specialty channel is included in the basic subscription price and the rest we know.
As for how do you track the dollar? Bots? That's easily avoidable. Big Champagne and a few other companies have been developing tracking systems that is insensitive to such obvious manipulations. Combine that data with the traditional Nielson system for television and you can statistically and qualitatively eliminate erroneous data.
New developments are under way. I just hope I can help them arrive before this cynicism ruins the possibilities.
As an artist -- yeah you damn well right I should be compensated. You want live shows? Shirts? CDs? Posters? It costs money. Touring is bloody expensive. Insanely so. Without a label, that comes out of the artists pocket -- I'd love to see you just pull that wad out and get goin. If it was that easy and cheap, who wouldn't do it? Even skill wise, it takes a lot of energy and dedication to put on a show, let a lone a tour. Are you nervous every time you go to work? Do you break a sweat every time you go to work? Can you play a guitar solo well enough to get a crowd pumpin? No? But you can write really good code, or make one hell of a burger. It's no less work just because it looks fun.
So I don't know what the problem is. All I do know is that p2p has so much potential benefit to society. Consumers demand a solution that fits their needs. Artists need to be supported by businesses that incur less risk in investing in them. That to me is opportunity. We're not all screwed. Nobody should be condemned. There's ample opportunity for this all to turn around.
I have 2Meg DSL.
If you limit your distribution to people with similar Internet connection capability, you may be excessively limiting your market. Not everybody in your audience has a computer, let alone Internet access, let alone high-speed Internet access.
So you say:
Capitalism is not inherent good or evil.
As you say the MPAA does what it does:
because it is in their best interest to maximize profits.
Isn't this what all corporations are after.
I think you've not so eloquently shown that capitalism is inherently evil.
Play Inc. wanted us to play for them for their Internet Public Access show. They came, saw us play, got worried that we'd break their stuff, and changed their minds. Then when the dotcom bubble burst, they went under and figured they'd make millions from a Star Trek band since we aren't interested in the money making aspect. I really enjoy playing in a Star Trek band, but it's not some sort of "get rich quick" scheme for us. I mean, how many times a year does anyone want to see a themed band?
At first they were pretty nice. We played a show with them and their manager was demanding money for unreasonable things. One bit was, we went and got a PA since the club didn't have one, but he wanted to be paid for it. Then we started hearing from local press and clubs that they said we'd broken up. Which is pretty funny, but why would you want to deal with them after that?
So we where the only band in the movie that didn't want to be involved on the soundtrack because it's on their vanity label. You'd think the movie folks would be used to self-publicity but they take it seriously. They play up the "hit song on the radio" which played at the low powered Sac State station that's so low powered you can't hear it in the dorms because it won't go through the cement walls. I've got a quote of there's somewhere that they talk about ditching the Star Trek gimmick once they get famous. Yeah, I'm sure Weird Al has the same plans. It's a Sci-Fi themed band. I figured it would mean you could laugh at yourselves automatically.
So we said hell no about releasing our songs, but figured since we aren't expecting them to pay us, who cares? The movie guys wanted us to do it, other bands asked us, so we said screw it and signed the contract.
There are free copies of the soundtrack floating around the internet that weren't released by us. I'm honest when I say we didn't put them out. I did a quick check for movie pirates and saw a copy of the soundtrack along with the movie. I didn't download either so I don't know if the compression ratio is good. But the soundtrack is a good thing because since they aren't paying the bands, why should I care if anyone can hear it for free? The movie was put out by small guys under the Paramount name and they didn't get much of a choice with it. Hell, Paramount probably just financed it because it was cheaper than paying Activision for doing such a crappy job with the Star Trek stuff that Activision sued them because it was costing them money.
Anyway, we put out our songs for free. We need to get our lawyer to check out the contract and see if we can put out the songs we recorded on our site. Besides making some sort of secret folder called nokilli.com/mp3 and dumping them there. Not that they're there, because I don't have the time to dick around with some label with no common sense.
Around the world in 4 years is my plan.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
http://www.whomovedmycheese.com/
Someone hates these cans.
Because it has already occured to a few different folks. :)
Not just answers, the correct questions.
Or, for instance, let downloaders agree they won't sell your music. The big labels aren't going to distribute it for free, but P2P users will.
:)
If you want to stop the P2P distibution as well (or at least make it illegal), let them agree to not distribute your music at all. Since they can point out your website to their friends, they can generate more hits to your webpage.
You can also put an ad in the ID3 tag of the mp3's you offer for download
File sharing crap only prolongs the acoustic pollution from RIAA 'artists'. Do not participate in it. Thanks.
We have the SACEM here... which is supposed to collect fees and give back to artists.
But as usual more than half the money disappears in structural expense, and probably some people's swiming pools.
Besides, only big artists get something from it, small ones are left alone.
So, it's really useless.
Muscians (and associated labels, publishers etc) have only been making money from sales of recorded media for about 100 years or so - since the introduction of media on which to record and sell their music. This does not coincide with the commencement of music. Before this period muscians made their living by performing live in front of people paying to attend.
What's wrong with this model? I actually believe this would breath some much needed life into our musical culture. Live performance might be something worth attending, rather than an extended advert for the latest album.
By chance over the last few weeks I've been to see two acoustic live performances, not a regular thing for me, and they were fantastic! Relatively unknown artists performing their own work in small venues - beautiful. This is what I feel we need to get back to.
Comments..?
Who's with me?! I SAID... WHO'S WITH ME!!??
I don't know about ROC, but in Korea and Japan, the people are packed more tightly than they ever were in the United States. It's easier to deploy DSL to an area with a large population density than to an area with larger suburban and rural components to the population.
Still, not every family has a home computer, and you can't download Parental Advisory music at a public library.
> But exactly why do we need to stick with a disc distribution system? [...] There is no need for this out-dated, expensive distribution technology when the customers themselves are already paying for the modern, efficent distribution.
:) If you live in a city, you need to remember that there are a WHOLE LOTTA PLACES in the U.S. where broadband simply is not available at all and satellite is not a viable option (for example, those pesky mountains get in the way where I live).
I think you need a better grasp of the percentage of homes with an actual broadband connection. I don't mean that as an insult, BTW. It is MUCH MUCH smaller than you seem to think. Heck, some people don't even own computers (the backward hicks)!
CDs are far from outdated. People still buy records furpeet's sake. Even 8-tracks -- hard to imagine, I know, but there are some masochists out there.
DESPITE what I have said, I agree with your sentiment. A real musician is about playing music, not about making money. If you make money while doing it, however (even millions), more power to you. Otherwise, you just play an instrument or sing songs, not make music. Unless you're a music nut, it's a pretty worthless distinction these days, but I make it anyway.
> Isn't this what all corporations are after.
Some businesses exist to serve a product and make a living for the employee(s), not to "maximize profits." Unfortunately, those are small businesses that are being run out by megacorps. Result: product quality & individual customer service goes to shit.
How do you find local music? Start calling around to bars ... but there's worse fates.
Worse fates such as having been born after October 4, 1983, right? Did you miss the "without involving ethanol" part of the comment you replied to or its implications on food service establishments that serve too many beverages containing ethanol to admit any minors? Do you suggest that a person not listen to any music at all until his or her twenty-first birthday?
I think your logic is the product of a retarded mind.
Yeah its a great idea...
For me to poop on!