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."
It almost seems as if the RIAA is actually *trying* to piss off as many people as possible. Has anyone examined the current chairman to see if he has any inclings towards being a comedian?
FTA:
Shapiro's statement reflects a growing awareness among many technology advocates, and a long-held position at Ars Technica, that digital rights management schemes can be abused to create new revenue models at the expense of fair use, and the truth.
Can be abused? CAN BE!? This is a capitalist, corporate-driven nation. I think it would be more accurate to say that there is a "possibilty" that it "might not" be abused.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
that the CEA is neither a grandmother that has never owned a computer nor an aging member of a washed out metal band; maybe if the CEA chairman dressed up as one of those he could trick them into talking to him.
Punch Lars Ulrich in the nose...
the mods may say you posted flamebait, but to me it's a flame that warms my heart. rock on, brother! --chebucto
It's now been four years since I last purchased music from a RIAA label. Not only do I completely disagree with their business practices, but I consider them a legacy business model that has a greatly diminished role in a digital world. Unfortunately most musicians I know either disagree with me, or don't care enough to make a stand. Mostly they just want to play music rather than get into some philosophical debate over technology or copyright.
Despite my preaching, a friend of mine in a local band (shameless plug: http://www.rictusgrin.com/home) would still be willing to sign with a major label. They are currently still independent, but if given a set of terms they could live with, the desire to quit their day jobs and become 'professional musicians' is bigger than any self publishing model they've been able to cook up. And that means not giving away the music for free on the chance to sign it over to a 'real' label.
A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.
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?
It's either irony or payback that the RIAA - which complained bitterly about tech companies disregarding their investments during the filesharing boom - are now giddily disregarding the investments electronics companies have made in producing the next generation of audio systems. I mean, it's not like they weren't aware the discussions about new standards were going on. I think they're purposely keeping at arm's length so they can claim they didn't have a say in the implementation. It's like making an architect promise to make an invincible fortress, and then not participating in the design, because you want any potential failure to be entirely on the architect's head.
The good part is that it looks like the RIAA is at least partially aware that DRM is destined to fail, because they seem to be setting someone else up to take the fall when it does. It's like the silver lining on a very, very dark cloud.
The world's only surviving livewriter.
FTA:
Why devise a new solution when a fitting solution already exists?
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
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
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.
When you do professional level recording, as opposed to talented amateur level, the biggest expense is not equipment, but studio. A studio suited for recording must have sound insulation and acoustics that are as expensive to get today as they have always been.
Basically, sound insulation needs double or triple walls built of materials that are sound dampening at all frequencies, which means high mass. Building two ceilings and two walls of concrete or solid brick, plus a double layer of concrete floor that rests on high density urethane foam isn't cheap. And then you come to the acoustics part. All the above mentioned room needs to be big enough to have acceptable reverberation times. Or else the walls, ceiling, and floor need to have a thick layer of echo dampening material and the reverberation added digitally. Not cheap either.
However, having said all that, I agree with you that the RIAA business model is dinosaur carrion today. What I cannot imagine is how backyard "pirates" can compete will industrial scale production. For instance, let's compare music with a traditional product: steel nails. Anyone can make a nail at home, with less equipment and time than it takes to copy a CD. Get a piece of steel wire, a hammer and an anvil. Flatten one end of the wire to make a head, pinch the other end to make a point, and there you are: a nail! But why would anyone make a steel nail at home when any hardware store will sell you nails by the barrel at a reasonable price? The common sizes of nails are so cheap that they won't even sell them by the unit, the smaller amount of nails you can buy are boxes with twenty or so.
Generalizing from nails to all kind of fasteners, counting nails, screws, bolts, rivets, etc, there are more standard catalog types of fasteners in the market then CD titles available. So, why can't I get a 1/8"x1/2" round headed screw from the street vendor? Because hardware is priced according to the traditional free market rules. Calculate what your investment will get you at the bank, see if you can get a better margin selling hardware, price your fasteners slightly better than the bank will pay you, taking into account other factors such as risk and liquidity.
The error in the media and software industries is that they forgot capitalism and the free market and tried to invent their own rules. Their prices aren't based on the traditional formulas, they are trying to price their products based on the extreme outliers. If anybody at all is willing to pay $25 for a CD they assume that's the right price for all CDs.
The correct formula, under the capitalist system that has been working for centuries would be, if it costs $0.90 to produce and sell a CD, if the bank pays you 6%, then selling the CD at $1.00 is an excellent business proposition. Multiplying the price by 25 will lower the market by a factor of more than 25, it's not worth it.
Attention consumers:
All your rights are belong to us.
You have no chance for fair use, make your time.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
All the music piracy told me is that a lot of people will happily accept a lower quality version of some content if it comes to them free. Why - because the actual content doesn't have the right value for money - its DRM laden and doesn't respect fair use, or its not as portable as a digital file or even *gasp* the actual content is just not worth enough to merit buying outright.
;-)
Lower quality as in someone buys a nice recording setup, and a nice set of speakers and records something the completely analog way - stick one next to the other and hit record and play at the same time. If the sound reproduction in this digital era is supposed to be so damned good and we get better and better at making recordings - after all someone has to record the artists themselves at some point - then you can end up with a decent sounding copy without drm in whatever format you like with no copy protection.
And thus you defeated the audio broadcast flag.
(BTW please stop any of you who want to preach about me not needing any content I don't consider worth buying-the whole point of whats happening is that this era enables you to have things you don't aboslutely love but do want like that Phil Collins song you get in the random mood to listen to once in a year)
Thats not the answer and I don't suggest doing that though it is guaranteed to work. All I want is content thats high quality, respects fair use, and is cheap enough that its not worth my while to engage in piracy. Yes you will still get ripped CDs but that may not translate into distribution, because frankly I've better things to do with with the time I spend on my computer than hunting down Phil bloody Collings mp3s
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.