Slashdot Mirror
CEA President Slams RIAA Audio Flag
Grv writes "The president of the Consumer Electronics Association isn't happy with the RIAA. According to Ars Technica,
Gary Shapiro accuses the RIAA of trying to shut off fair use by pushing for laws like the audio broadcast flag. Apparently the RIAA is all talk and no action, however, as
Shapiro laments the fact that the organization has failed to come up with an implementation plan or even attend meetings with the industry. This has angered electronics companies
and radio stations who have pressed ahead with digital radio plans only to see the RIAA backtrack on its support for home recording."
CEA members bring in something like $600B in revenue annually, while RIAA members are responsible for something like $10B in revenue. Yes, the music industry is that small, so's the movie industry. Microsoft could buy them both with cash on hand.
The entertainment industry, however, is a big marketing machine, and they know how to market to Congress, in addition to outright buying some of its members.
Congress members are cheap. Literally. For a few hundred thousand here and there you can buy legislation. Pretty much any legislation. It takes something like $100K to turn a Congressman into your own personal puppet, like Fritz Hollings was for the entertainment industry. Put into perspective, it would be like me having to come up with a part of a penny in order to buy legislation to protect my business at the expense of every single person in the US.
Dirty and grotesque as it may seem, the CEA needs to start buying congressmen. I would start with people who were previously and currently bought by the *AA. Turn them into your puppets. They'll do anything for campaign cash.
Sadly, there's no real alternative...
Do you have ESP?
Here is the response I got from Sentator Dianne Feinstein.
I assume it is a form letter, as I replied to it, and got it again.
--
June 8, 2006
Thank you for writing to me about the Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights-holders in Music (PERFORM) Act. I appreciate hearing from you.
I believe that our nation's intellectual property is vitally important and needs to be protected. In fact, the promotion of the creative process is so important that our Founding Fathers gave Congress the express authority to protect it in the U.S. Constitution. Still, we must ensure that any protection afforded to intellectual property is also balanced and fair to all who are affected by it.
The PERFORM Act, which I introduced with Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Bill Frist (R-TN), would require satellite, cable and Internet broadcasters to pay fair market value for the performance of digital music. Currently, these providers are treated differently and pay different rates even though, as technology advances, their services have become increasingly similar. Additionally, the bill would require the use of readily-available, cost-effective, and feasible technology to prevent music theft.
As such, the PERFORM Act would help strike a balance between the promotion of technological advances in digital music delivery systems and the protection of, and fair compensation for, the intellectual property of artists and musicians.
The PERFORM Act has received the support of various music, artist, and songwriter groups, as well as digital music service providers. However, let me say, I believe the bill as it was introduced is the beginning of the legislative process; and while there may be disagreements over how to strike the proper balance on these difficult issues, I am certainly open to a robust dialogue. Please know that as the legislation moves through the process, I will be sure to keep your views in mind.
Again, thank you for writing. If you should have any further questions or comments in the future, please do not hesitate to call my Washington, DC staff at (202) 224-3841.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
> Dear Senator Feinstein,
>
> Thank you for responding to my comment.
>
> I still believe, though, that the PERFORM Act represents another step away from the public interest.
>
> As you mentioned the Constitution, I would hope all of Congress would re-examine the details of what the Constitution says in this area and what the Founding Fathers intentions were regarding publishing rights.
>
> The Constitution allows Congress to grant exclusive rights to writings and discoveries, but only for "limited times", and with the only stated purpose to "promote the progress of science and useful arts".
>
> I would also note that the original copyright term was 14-28 years. This allowed publishers time to benefit from a work, while also preventing the 137 year publishing monopoly that the Stationers had in England starting in 1557 AD.
>
> The US copyright term has now been extended several times. The last time (1998) extending it to 120 years. We have managed to allow large media companies to have similar monopoly publishing rights that the Founders wished to avoid.
> It should be noted that in addition to the obvious benefits of timely public domain information to science, medicine, education and arts, many companies have also benefited as well, like Disney, which used sever
And that means not giving away the music for free on the chance to sign it over to a 'real' label. so let me get this straight. You are disappointed with the friend of yours because he doesn't want to give his music away for free? I just want to clarify this point.
You can't handle the truth.
It seems like these guys come in like the Mafia and just dictate terms that work to their advantage and nobody elses. They already price fix, pay for airtime, and tell us how we use a product we buy. Perhaps the Justice Department should look into some RICO violations here. "Hey bud, youse better do what we say or you could end up sleeping with the fishies...."
Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
Certainly not. I respect that he has the right to do as he wishes with his music. My disappointment is that my philosophical beliefs are unable to provide a compelling business model which we can both support. It would seem to make sense that musicians just want to play and their fans just want to listen, with neither giving much concern over how it happens. Which leads me to question why I do?
A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.
That's true, but that's the flaw, I guess. Online folks prefer tip jars to payment-required setups, and unfortunately that's the primary audience for internet-based artists. If you assume 99% of people won't pay for things they enjoy on principle (maybe partly because of being abused by RIAA types in the past), it's still more lucrative to have that 1% of the head rather than 1% of the tail. What's needed is for people to either start voluntarily paying for things they value, or for internet artists to use the web to somehow snatch part of the less-free-minded offline world. We tend to preach one thing and practice another round here, which leaves our homegrown artists with warm fuzzy feelings but no food to eat.
This is a growing concern of mine... that after a few years now of developing an internet culture, we still look starry-eyed at the Old Media folks as if they're something to admire. We should be creating our own stars, pimping our own projects, eating our own dogfood. The web's a massive engine for exposure (possibly exceeding what Hollywood can do), but we have no aggregators dedicated to our own stuff.
Wow, I went horribly off-topic there.
The world's only surviving livewriter.
"Stealing the music by taking it from p2p networks doesn't appeal to me."
Not to beat a dead horse, but it's copyright infringment, not theft. From glancing at your user info page you've clearly been on Slashdot long enough to know the arguments, but for the sake of completeness:
Theft or stealing requires directly depriving the owner of something. That is, the thief now has use of the item (or money, or land, or whatnot) while the original owner does not. Copyright infringment is often argued to be theft because the infringer deprives the copyright holder of potential revenue. That is, had the song/movie/software/etc not been available through free, infringing channels the infringer would have been forced to purchase it and provide the copyright holder monetary compensation (i.e. buy the cd/dvd/etc). However, copyright infringment does not *directly* deprive the copyright holder of the song/movie/software/etc or cause them to have less money than they started with, as the copyright holder (as well has whomever is distributing the copy) still have their own copies and no money is stolen. Thus, it's not theft.
Please note, I'm not arguing morality at this point (see below for that argument). There are very strong arguments that copyright infringment, while not theft, is immoral and it is certainly illegal (at least in the United States). But it's not theft.
Now for the argument on morallity...
Not surprisingly, I think the distinction is so important because I don't place copyright infringment on the same moral level as theft. In the United States, at least, copyright is defined in the Constituion to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." I think the current copyright system is no longer for a 'limited' time in any sane fashion and, as such, have absolutely no moral qualms about infringing on old (subjectivly defined) copyrights. Thus I would say most - if not all - of the music you're talking about, the rock classics, should be fair game both constitutionally as well as morally in relation to the social contract copyright entails.
More recent copyrights are, for me, a stickier issue and one I'm still mulling over. Currently, I do infringe on recent copyrights but make an effort to purchase whatever I feel is worth the money. For example, while I download Battlestar Galactica I also make sure to buy the DVD sets when they come out. Likewise with Futurama. Arrested Development may have to be my next purchase, purely from having downloaded episodes and enjoying them enough to think they deserve my money. Now, again, their are reasonable arguments against my position and you're welcome to try and convince me I'm wrong. I've thought about it a lot, so I don't think you will convince me, but I'll try to listen with an open mind.
Please note I'm also not trying to make a semantics game to avoid calling myself a thief. I've stolen things before (including media I could have obtained through copyright infringment) and, in those cases, I was a thief. Plane and simple. However, when it comes to copyright infringment, I honestly beleive that, morally, I'm not stealing and that, in a more sane world, I wouldn't be doing anything illegal either.
Just my two cents.
-Trillian
Indeed, great recordings are sometimes made in unusual places and in unusual venues. Sometimes, the character of the recording is that it wasn't done in a hyper-perfect studio with zillions of bits of equipment and ProTools, et. al. I listen to lots of music that was made in a jam in a room off the main studio room. Or in a small, creaky studio, or just in a room together in a garage...
To be fair, there are extraordinary producers, studio professionals, and sound professionals that make a perfect album look easy. Those folks are often the real unsung heroes of music. They deserve to be paid well, and deserve lots of respect. I don't think there's a real replacement for a good studio and good studio people. Home studios, alternative indie studios (even the mobile ones) make great music too, just not the killer sound of the big guys. I think, too that we often talk about the extremes too often. There are actually folks out there who aren't big studios/labels who make GREAT recordings. I've also listened to music from big studios that are poor recordings...
I don't think I'll ever be able to afford a studio or afford to use a professional studio... That's OK... I enjoy the rough-and-tumble world of engineering my music on a shoestring. Would I use a great professional studio if I could? Sure! (Although I wouldn't know how to act in a studio - I'm used to doing my music in our basement...) So, my recordings don't compare to David Gilmour or Sheryl Crow's when it comes to quality (yes, I know my music isn't as good as theirs, either - don't whack me with the obvious stick).
Sorry, I ramble... my point is: There is a place for studios and labels - they do things that are really hard for someone to do independently - especially if that person is an unknown. There is also a place for raw, emotional, imperfect, home-recorded/small-time-recorded music. I sincerely feel that there is good reason for all types of music production - we get lots of neat music from the pros, the hobbyists, and those in-between.
I don't think anyone knows to where the music industry itself will evolve... my opinion is that there is room for companies (studios, sponsors, benefactors, etc.) and for indies.
A Passionate Independent Musician
Now, here's where they've gone wrong in _my_ opinion. The established industry is basically the early adopters. They were around on vinyl and cassette and CD long before it was easy for you or I, thanks to the internet and computer recording/editing software, to produce and distribute our own music. In essence, to compete with the early adopters. And so, the value of music, particularly soulless music generated by an industry that had expended its energies in the last decade on promoting image over substance and generating a formula for determining the likelihood of a song being a 'hit', declines. Because others are able to produce in many cases a far superior product (i.e. one that is authentic and has soul) for a lower cost. Because they are not paying for the overhead that the established industry has mired itself in and the artists are not after millions of dollars anyway.
Think of it this way. Company X releases product Y. Let's say it's Sony and Blu-ray. There's no competition or equivalent out, so they can charge $5000 for a player (which probably doesn't even play at this point) and do so happily, recovering some of their DRM R&D. Then HD-DVD comes along. Microsoft et al decide to price it quite a bit lower than $5000. Now, in the normal scenario, Sony would respond by matching or beating their price, driving the cost-to-consumer down as has happened with vanilla DVD drives, CD drives, and countless other tech in the past. Imagine instead that Sony continues to keep their price at $5000. Furthermore, they introduce tough measures so that HD-DVD players can not read BluRay and sue the pants off anyone who tries to circumvent that. Meanwhile, HD-DVD offers better features, more rights, lower price, and none of that bullshit. They allow their discs to play on BluRay players, knowing that this is a competitive advantage. Sony sticks to the $5000 and insists that people hacking BluRay is their problem.
It seems not only pretty obvious what will happen to Sony but that this would be unthinkable strategy in any other situation. It also seems obvious what Sony could've done to maintain their early lead and, if nothing else, maintain some relevance. That the record industry is choosing to go this route is no surprise to me, but still one would hope a little clear-headed shrewdness would see that the model has changed and they're no longer the only kids on the block. What DOES surprise me is how cohesively the industry is bound together to resist change. I would think the successful radio stations would be those who embrace the new competitors as well as the old farts, but I see none of those popping up. I would think that more brick and mortar music stores would establish a concrete and creative presence online, but iTunes clearly dominates. I would think more artists would want less DRM so ANYbody can buy/listen to their music, not just people with MP3 player X. And I would think that by now music sites would offer full listens/previews of albums, perhaps just at reduced quality, which would, at least for me, mitigate the need to hunt for things on filesharing networks anyway. Or even find a way to make the sharing networks work for them.
This is a long and drawn out analysis, especially for someone whose only real business experience comes from running a restaurant and a little thing I optimistically call common sense.
That's probably a requirement for concert halls not probably not as strict for recording studios. A lot of instruments are closed miked and the cohesive room reverb is probably added in the mixing or mastering process.
Anyway, a basement of any house meets most of the requirements. Low celiling with insulation, thick walls on the bottom and sides. Insulation boards with good acoustic can be had for cheap.
Plus, listening to some of the music that's out today, I even doubt there is any actual mic recording except for voice involved.
Capitalism doesn't imply here since record companies are granted monopoly via copyright.