Slashdot Mirror
EU Proposes Online Music System
jefu writes "According to a story in the Globe and Mail, the European Commission has proposed a unified online music licensing (and copyright) system. The article says that one of the points of doing this is to get copyright and license fees to the artists and to simplify the maze of copyright regulations that cover Europe."
When I read the title, I thought they were going to create a P2P system :P
This is a good idea, providing they come up with a system which can take part-time and amateur artists into account.
Currently (at least in Finland) marginal artists get next to nothing. Revamping the system would provide an opportunity to rectify this issue.
.: Max Romantschuk
EU proposes system for on-line music
Thursday, July 7, 2005 Updated at 2:44 PM EDT
Associated Press
BRUSSELS, Belgium -- The European Commission on Thursday proposed a single Europe-wide copyright and licensing system for on-line music, to boost the European Union's music business.
EU Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy said European on-line services had to be improved to make copyrights cheaper for artists to obtain.
"We have to improve the licensing of music copyright on the Internet," McCreevy said, adding such a system would ensure "Europe's creative community will get the lion's share in revenues achieved on-line."
Currently artists have to secure copyrights in each of the EU's 25 member nations, with each country requiring separate copyrights for the right to transmit songs over the Internet, a complex and expensive process the EU head office said.
Advertisements
As a result of these costs, on-line music sales in Europe have lagged behind those in the United States. Last year, the U.S. had an estimated $248-million (U.S.) in on-line music sales compared with Europe's $32.5-million.
Musicians make money from their music after registering copyrights with collective rights managers. Those managers then license songs to on-line services, radio stations, dance clubs and other outlets. All these registrations are complex and costs artists a lot of money.
The EU head office said a single system governing music rights would save money.
"The most effective model for achieving this is to enable right-holders to authorize a collecting society of their choice to manage their works across the entire EU," said the Commission in a statement, adding such a system would "considerably enhance" earnings for artists.
Léa Gris
etc.
Don't trust anyone under thirty.
Since allowing you to have to deal with just one copyright office to be valid for all of Europe is the exact sort of thing that inspired the European Economic Community thing that became the EU in the first place.
Unfortunately, you can absolutely bet 100% that if a system such as this is proposed or comes anywhere near to implementation, the biggest and most affluent copyright holders will use it as an excuse to grab new and undue powers for themselves-- powers which they will then never, ever let go of, and be defending in a hundred year's time as "the way things have always worked".
Thus what ought to be a plus for everyone (a unified, more efficient copyright system) is going to be a massive downer for consumers, or at least that subset of consumers who wish to be treated like consumers or citizens and not cattle.
Ugh...that's a stroy low on details if I ever saw one. Proposed legislation for making things better... How is this going to work? Where does the "Online" in the /. headline come from?
If all this means that musicians can now go and distribute the music we make, and get the copyright watchdogs all over the EU to go after piracy, without musicians having to give up their rights to these watchdogs, that would be a great win. The fact that the new system would be easier seems almost like a secondary benefit to me.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Why this title might sound trollistic it is not. AFAIK when I download an MP3 I want to listen it, perdio - not print its periodogram on toilet paper or any other cabalistic use. Granted, I am a geek and I could want to do something a little odd with the file. Well, free market has an answer to this, if I desperatly want to own completly a protected file I can pay the market's price for that. Listen-once file ? This is restrictive, but it also means it's cheaper. I prefer to have the option to buy a listen-once file if it's my intention and it is cheaper. So what's the real problem with DRM ? IMHO, the biggest deal here is DRM encryption and protection methods. They should be completly open and patent free. If a society owned DRM protection schemed, it could get the lion's share mentioned in the article. However, if artists can use standardized protection system to protect their work and distribute it on the internet (that's where bittorrent can come handy) then the edge of music industry over sales will fall sharply. And that's good for creation.
\u262D = \u5350
The EU was initially set up as a free trading group. The aim has since become to create a level playing field that allows businesses from all member countries to operate in the eurozone; this isn't just free trade but e.g the free movement of capital and labour. This inevitably means changes at the political level to harmonise standards and regulations.
So I think harmonising licensing and copyright systems is a natural step, and a good one SO LONG AS it is not seized as an opportunity for radical reform in the favour of corporations over the citizen, e.g. extending the lifetime of copyright.
If anything, let them change the laws that shit on starving indie artists, seems a lot simpler than a system like this. The local music scene here seems to thrive without a system like this in place.
Will wank off Linus Torvalds for fame.
As much as TFA says the system is supposed to increase revenues for artists by streamlining things, that's great. But I suspect most of what will happen is that another government-mandated program will be too slow and inflexible to allow its supposed beneficiaries to profit from a rapidly changing business world.
Chalk one up for the people who can't even get a constitution done. Do you really want them involved in your label? Software patents, anyone?
Don't trust anyone under thirty.
let the project be discussed by politicians, artists and fans. Lock all the managers, producers, studio owners etc in a dungeon, take their phones away from them, close the exit with a concrete wall, and don't let them contact the outside world until the project is ready. Otherwise it will be another horrible "all your base" takeover of your rights.
Actually, once the project is over, don't let them out either.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Everyone who makes music available for listening to, should have to publish the name and address of the copyright holder and the amount of money that you need to send to that person in order to be allowed to make a single, permanent copy of that music {i.e. on a medium which cannot be prepared for re-use using generally available equipment -- to re-use a CD, you would have to melt it down} plus an indefinite number of temporary copies. The licencing fee would be the same for any party. If any money changes hands at the time the music changes hands, and the licencing fee is to be stopped out of the transaction charge, then this must also be clearly stated.
Example: I buy a CD of Lester Norton's greatest hits for £12.50. It says in the booklet that Norton owns the copyright on all his music and the licence fee is £1.50 for the album. My friend wants a copy of the album. I make a copy of the CD, and send a postal order for £1.50 to Lester Norton. He gets his money, and my friend saves the best part of £11. Everyone is happy.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
So, let me get this straight-- large music publishing companies that were under threat from losing money to pirates have found/are aggressively creating a system for licensing music that effectively will do away with the need to have a large music publishing company?
The irony is, after the companies go away, the pirates would still be around....
If the music and movie industry is so obsessed with loosing money and control, then have the goverment tax EVERYONE for Music and Movies. Then release Music and Movies for free since they're already payed for in the taxes?
Oh wait aren't they already doing this by having the CDRW/DVDRW Manufacturers pay the Music and Movie industry a couple cents of every disc made?
It's called the doctrine of first sale and it has been recognized time and again by the US and other courts that it also applies to instances of copyrighted works. It's fair use.
The doctrine of first sale has even been used to challenge End User License Agreements
Therefore is the following is self evident that copyright legislation should grant the following rights under the concept of fair use:
1. Acknowledge the supremacy of the doctrine of first sale : When you purchase an instance of a copy of copyrighted work, your rights to view,use,modify,combine,inter-operate with, dispose or resell that one instance should not be impeded by either legislation or technology. This fact has been recognized time and again by the US courts.
2. The doctrine of first sale applies to both physical media and digital content where the receiver pays a transaction for particular instances of a copyrighted works: When you purchase an instance of a copy of copyrighted work that involves the buyer making a choice for that instance of copyrighted work and entering into a transaction with the seller, then the buyer has the rights to that instance under the doctrine of first sale. Sellers of instances of copyrighted work cannot hide behind "provision as a service": when you pay for an instance, you own that instance.
3. You do not have the right to record content without permission of the copyright holders of a live performance ( play, concert etc ) or private performance ( film theater ) held on private property or performance venue. You pay to attend a performance at a physical venue, not for a copy of an instance of that performance.
4. Instances of copyrighted works broadcast ( as apposed to downloaded ) and received by a device held by individual person or on that person's property, may not be redistributed outside of that person's household to anyone who does not receive the content though the same service. You may record an instance of copyrighted work for later viewing ( timeshifting ) and distribute a copy along to any person whos household also receives that same broadcast service ( samaritan clause ). You many not redistribute or resell content recorded from a broadcast service to anyone not receiving that same broadcast service content.
5. Although you may not redistribute recorded copies of broadcast copyrighted content outside of the terms of (4), there should be no limit to what you may do with instances of those works within your household. You should have the right to modify the works, combine with other works and inter-operate with other works. You should also have the right to transform the instances of the copyrighted work so that it operates or can be viewed on other devices (mediashifting).
6. Copyright protection extends only to the particular work copyrighted. The copyright holder's exclusive rights should not extend to the right to deny others combining a legally acquired instance of a copyrighted work with other works. You should have the right to distribute and/or sell, patches, recipes and add-on components that refer and link to the content of the copyrighted work, as long as the distributed items do not contain content from the original copyrighted work. The resulting combined and/or transformed work that contains content from the copyrighted work sources can not be legally redistributed without the permission of all the copyright holders.
We have to ensure that file formats and protocols adopted should not limit the ability to sample mix and match. To do otherwise would limit peoples creativity.
If I purchase an instan
They should have true vision and start building a micropayments infrastructure for the whole of the EU and beyond.
Then not just the holy musicians can indulge in the utopia where talk is free but the beer is charged by the litre!
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
how likely?
;-)
It's a VERY round number.
If it weren't for the rocks in its bed, the stream would have no songs.
All they EU is doing is facing the reality of the way technology is changing business practices and legislating appropriately which is so normal it should not be newsworthy. The old ways of doing business in the music industry are dying. You can either react to that by suing people who download music left right and center in the hope of keeping change from happening or you can do like Apple did and embrace the new way of doing business. Piracy not withstanding going into the online music business certainly does not seem to have done Apple any harm since people do seem to be prepared to pay for downloadable music even though they have the option of downloading pirated materials free of charge. I suppose you could make the argument that the law suits have actually discouraged people from consuming pirated music and thus helped online oufits like iTunes but I don't buy that argument since the chances of being caught while downloading pirated music are still very small.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
As far as I understand it, what is being proposed is that artist will be able to contract a single authority to distribute the music throughout the EU, rather than having to contract the appropriate authority in each state separately.
This means that (or so it is expected) the existing copyright monopolists (typically there is one authority which has exclusive rights in a state) will be forced to compete with one another. I believe that to be a Good Thing...from 25 monopolists to 25 companies, each having a pretty small market share.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
And, of course, because we're all trustworthy, it'll work fantastically well!
Neither I, nor my friends, would ever just copy music without paying for it. Ever. It would be morally indefensible!
Oh, and the cost of the album is more likely to be about £4. and would go to the record label, not the artist. It's them that own the rights to it, after all.
My Journal
The world must carry on, if we let our lives be affected by this then the terrorists have won.
Disclaimer: I live a couple of miles from London.
Joseph Farthing
http://josephfarthing.com
Instead of the well-spun press-release why has noone bothered to read the f report the commision released today?
h t/docs/management/study-collectivemgmt_en.pdf
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/copyrig
Obviously those who use the words "unified" and "Europe" in the same sentence never got the memo...
Indy Media Watch-Proctologist of the Internet
This isn't your tax anything, this is our tax euros (& Pounds etc.) at work to bring us the latest shitty B artists.
If you're only getting the B artists you're lucky by the way. Heard the Axel F. Crazy Frog "tune" yet? Yay, lets give 12 year olds more buying power! Consume, little ones!
*ahem* Sorry.
Can I get a license to redistribute your post?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Too true. Remember, this is the same EU that brought us the EU Copyright Directive, which is pretty much Europe's DMCA. It'll take a lot to convince me that they're doing this for the benefit of consumers.
Here's a great scenario for you, based on some investigation for an amateur dance club in the UK about the possibility of burning a selection of the best tracks used at club activities onto a small number of compilation CDs, so the club DJs don't have to carry several large boxes of CDs everywhere. For reference, the club already pays a fee to PPL for the right to play the copyrighted music in public at its classes and events. It also buys the original CDs just like anyone else.
It seems the club can also pay another fee to a different organisation, which gives it the legal right to make the compilations (and even to make multiple copies and sell the spares, with a few restrictions). However, while this would be more than enough, under UK law, to make the compilations normally, thanks to the EUCD those people making the compilations could be criminally liable for doing so if they take material from any "copy-protected" CDs. After all, circumventing copy protection now seems to be a criminal act in its own right here, even if you had every legal right to copy the protected material. <sigh>
Now, if the EU were to introduce some common sense to copyright -- the equivalent of fair use rights so everyone knows they're safe making a back-up or format-shifting material they've legally purchased, for example -- that would be great. If the EU want to introduce mandatory escrow for DRM-based material to guarantee that fair use, and prohibit the sale of music in any DRM'd form that doesn't submit a copy for escrow first, that would be in the interests of consumers and yet still consistent with protecting the legitimate rights of copyright holders.
I'm guessing this is neither of those things, but then this is also the EU that just threw out software patents, so there is some hope and perhaps I should keep the faith. Time will tell...
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
There are millions and millions dead! Oh no, stop living your lives and start panicking!
Anyone can copy and redistribute the content of this slashdot post.
I'm against this kind of unificated legislation. There're several reasons, one being that they will most likely try to base it on the American broad copyright.
The swedish copyright which I think is great, makes it possible for only items which reaches a "work of art" level.
This means silly stuff like cease and desist letters cant be copyrighted to keep them secret from outside parties except the legal advisor.
Now, other sources of cultural exchange such as the pirate bay would most likely also be forbidden. Where even "linking" to the source of copyright will be forbidden. I'm not against allowing artists a fair pay for their work. But there's still a thin balance between making a system which is good and a system which limits freedom to the point it's silly.
I dont want a system which allows companies to extort minors.
from the big labels. I mean, draw up a simple law which brings a level playing field? With no loopholes? Mark my words, before you know it somebody will start talking about this disgusting "fair use" thing again!
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
Am I the only person here that is angered by this news item - and the way it's served to us?
First of all, everywhere in the article, we get excerpts saying "the artists pay too much money", "it costs the artists too much". Which is of course, totally BS, because the labels pay for these, as the artists don't own the copyright!
In other words:
The EU is spending our (I'm a EU citizen) money (all these procedures cost money), so that the record labels spend less trying to restrict us, while at the same time we are going to get the same price for the BS records they serve us?
You'll be seeing me again in a record store buying a CD in...2078. Because no way in Hell am I going to download a drm'ed version from an online store!
7. The duration of the copyright term of a work is fixed when the work is first published, and may not be either shortened or extended by subsequent legislation.
Level-headed, concise, factual... nice counter argument :)
"The most effective model for achieving this is to enable right-holders to authorize a collecting society of their choice to manage their works across the entire EU,"
Isn't EU job to ensure there are no market barriers in Europe? He could create a directive to stop copyright holders parcelling up copyright along National barriers in Europe and leave it for them to sort out the system.
Instead he proposed a 'collecting society' which sounds very much like a super quango - more overhead so the artists will get less not more.
Would the artists be able to license directly to the collecting society or would they still have to go through the lower layers? Would the collecting society simply be an authority ontop of existing one? i.e. another fat lazy luncheons and lobbyists group.
What about internationally? Would a music store in Europe be allowed to sell to the world? If not why not? Russia can sell to everywhere but Europe not?
The European Economic Community was created as a free trading grouop. Subsequent events, including the evolution of the EEC into the EU, have only proven that you can never trust a politician.
Aren't all the EU countries part of the Berne Convention? This stuff about each contry requiring seperate copyrights makes no sense.
That's probably the most insightful thing I've read on this site regarding copyright. However it won't ever happen, because neither side will like it.
1. The record/film industries won't like it as it restricts their rights to fuck us up the arse, sue us and leech us for every penny.
2. The slashbots won't like it as it doesn't allow them free reign to download anything they want.
You have been trolled, bitch. Enjoy the negative karma on your logged-in posts, hahahahahaahahahaahahaha.
When I purchase a car, I own that car. I have the right to that particular instance of that car to use,modify ( pimp my ride ),combine, dispose or resell without having to seek permission from the car builders, vendors etc.
***************
Of course its not easy to make two cars out of one, else noone would pay 250k USD for a Ferrari but ask a friend to clone one for him. Last time I checked noone ever got the Banach-Tarsky paradox to work in his garage.
But I can easily make 100 exact same MP3 CDs from a single MP3 CD and give it to my 100 neighbours so they can skip buying all that music. (Socialismo o muerte! - as commandante Castro likes to say).
In many countries you have to get permission to significantly modify your car, either the authority or from the vendor. Similarly, you have to bring the car back to the vendor or a state-authorized tear-down shop to dispose of it and get a receipt. If you just leave it in a forest to pollute, state will fine you mightily or have you sit a few weeks in jail. Deleting an MP3 file will not destroy the environment, however.
Real-world objects cannot be compared to virtual goods at all, so your three pages long rant was good for nothing.
put them in there too, while you're at it.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
nice work
My Online Music http://www.ind-music.com/ store is for all Indie Artists, part time or full time. We don't discriminate based on "what sells". We don't have use DRM, nor do we rip off the artist of everything they make. In fact we even provide open source utilites and programs for both artists and buyers to use. The only recommendation that we make is for them to use WinAmp to listen to their music, since it plays Ogg Vorbis files by default.
When an artist sells a song, they get 40% of the net sale (less paypal fee), and as they sell more downloads, their % increases to an eventual 50/50 split.
I started this in retaliation to the RIAA and the stupid world of corporate music. I want it to be a situation where the artist has more control of their music, and the buyers have more control over what they purchase. Their are no middle men here (other than paypal for transactions), so the artist makes their money, and a lot more of it, when compared to other online services.
I have nothing clever to put here...
I think it's more important that copyrights exist in order to prevent others from taking your work and then slapping their name on it and selling it as their own or making copies and selling it without your authorization on the streets where the customer thinks they are buying a legitimate copy.
However, if someone says this is such and suchs work and puts it on their own media and gives proper credit it is my belief that it should be legal to do so.
This might seem strange, but copyrights were never really intended to extract money from the populace, but rather promote science and arts and to credit where credit is due.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Now if they could just get steady pricing as well, so the Brits would stop whinging about paying more. :)
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Well, it seems the EU's lawmakers are not all corporate slaves - the dramatic rejection of the recent patents bill by 648:14 is a nice indicator that they do do some things right. I'd say there is hope for them doing copyright stuff at least vaguely right - after all, the current mess would not be hard to improve upon.
I presume this would allow all of the European iTunes stores to unify into a one-stop shop with the catalogues of all combined into one. Great thing for consumer choice.
This is thoughtful, well-reasoned, and insightful. It strikes a reasonable balance between the rights of the owners of content and the rights of the consumers of that content. It's also well-written and correctly spelled.
Who are you, and what the hell are you doing on Slashdot?
When I purchase a car, I own that car. I have the right to that particular instance of that car to use,modify ( pimp my ride ),combine, dispose or resell without having to seek permission from the car builders, vendors etc.
I know it's only an analogy, but there are regulations governing cars which will affect how you modify yours. Here in the UK there are noise and emissions regulations at least, plus regulations on tires (tread must be of at least a certain depth, etc) and other parts. Even bolt-ons would have to not be distracting or a danger to other road users.
There are also rules regarding disposal/selling of the car, mostly around making sure that you don't end up liable for road tax on it after you've disposed of it.
(None of those things are regulated by the vendors, of course, but by the government)
Yes, I'm being pedantic, but I find it hard to let flawed analogies slide, I'm afraid...
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I don't get why copyrighting a C&D would make any sense? Yes, it could restrict your ability to reproduce the letter in its entirety. But it doesn't stop you from paraphrasing the content and reproducing that willy-nilly. In other words, it doesn't keep anything secret.
And the American system only covers "creative works" anyway. Although that doesn't seem like as high a standard as "works of art", it is possible a C&D couldn't even be covered.
And I understand the meaning of your last sentiment (extorting minors), but I fail to see what you think can be done about it. How awould having a "Swedish-style" system correct that? Or even how would just sticking with the current piecemeal collection of systems correct that?
the player read the permission's ID and send it to the server to obtain a deciphering key
Just what I've always wanted. A music-player that needs to be online to work. I bet that'll sound good to the portable crowd.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Yeah. I got the memo. And I understand the policy. The problem is, I just forgot this one time. And I've already taken care of it so it's not even a problem anymore.
Several international treaties already exist covering copyright etc. there is no need to create any new system for anything as long as the states that have already signed all those treaties respect those international treaties!
Musicians don't need people collecting royalties for them, neither do other content creators!!! The only thing these agencies do is suck your pockets dry of money you could have had... I am very familiar how many of these agencies operate - being out of a very musical family and a creative writer myself.
What the creative forces need to do is look deeply into p2p + bitorrent + micro payment + web/pod-casting and never look back to the days when you needed a label a collection agency or a store to handle your affairs!
This is something the open Source crowd should be able to pull off easily, speeding right past governments, music labels and other dinosaurs that want to legislate about technology which is morphing faster than any of them can say apple pie and thus securing the creative crowd the cut they ought to have for their work i.e. all the potential earnings...
Just a though.....
(None of those things are regulated by the vendors, of course, but by the government) The fact that none of these things are regulated by the vendors is the whole point. I'm not entirely sure I'd call this a flawed analogy.
I wonder if they've read my essay on content licensing. I'd be happy to ... uh ... license it to them. :-D
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011
There is no reset button in life; however, there are bonus levels.
+1 Funny
Obviously the mods can't spell. This is perfectly on-topic.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
The record companies steals all the money, artist doesnt get much.
It is good that artist can get money too.
Why would anyone want buy music today?
* Artist doesnt get the money, the company does.
* Companies do DRM and crap and try prevent people to listen and download music.
* If you buy a CD then you have to switch the CD all the time, since you can only have 20 (or so) songs to choose from for each cd.
so will they be giving away a free EUPod Mini to every 100,000th song purchase?
slashbots won't like it as it doesn't allow them free reign to download anything they want.
Attacking/eliminating the DMCA and DRM does not equal advocating infringment or demanding a right to infringe. Opposing attacks on technology itself (P2P) or attempt to legislate technology (broadcast flag) does not equal advocating infringment or demanding a right to infringe. Opposing bad changes to copyright law or repealing bad copyright law does not equal eliminating copyright.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
there are regulations governing cars which will affect how you modify yours
Do those restrictions apply if you use that car on your private property?
Sure there are restrictions on volume levels and pollution leaving your private property, and those restrictions apply whether the volume source is a car or a copyrighted song, and the pollution restrictions apply whether the source is a car or a copyrighted song. If you modify a song to spew out excessive levels of nitrous oxide then pollution laws will apply. Chuckle.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Mandatory? Surely you mean optional?
I think, therefore I am. I think?