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.