Slashdot Mirror


Colleges Secretly Test Music-Industry Project

An anonymous reader writes "The music industry is still pushing Choruss, a controversial blanket-licensing scheme, but it is far less innovative than first described. Six colleges are setting it up now, but they refuse to have their names released because the issue is a political landmine — and who wants to be associated with the recording industry?"

11 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. Blanket licensing is never legal by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Canadians have their blank CD tax ostensibly because blank CDs are used to copy music. Great. But is it then legal to copy music in Canada? No. How does that even work?!

    Doing this other blanket licensing stuff will enjoy similar respect in that anything acquired will be decidedly illegal until proven otherwise and even with proof, there is little doubt in my mind the recording industry will respect it as legal.

    1. Re:Blanket licensing is never legal by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Individuals do not have access to government. Government is influenced by money. The corruption is plain and obvious for all to see and neither the government nor those who are influencing government with money are the slightest bit ashamed.

    2. Re:Blanket licensing is never legal by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As an artist, no way would I let someone download my entire library of songs for a monthly fee. It's simply not fair.

      Why not? Serious question. If I subscribe to a service with a monthly fee, it's because I want to be able to listen to lots of new stuff. If you're not producing new stuff, then once I've downloaded everything from you that I want then I won't pay you any more. How is this different to buying a CD? You don't get paid every time I listen to a CD and you don't get paid if I sell the CD to someone else later. If your music is good, then I'll want to download your next album, so I'll keep paying the subscription and when you release something new I'll download that too and you'll get more money. If it's not good then I won't download anything else from you.

      The problem with the Canadian system is that there's a disconnect between the music people copy and the people who get paid. If someone likes a band and gives a copy to their friend, this is not recorded anywhere. If they sent a link to download it, covered by their monthly subscription, then it would be and the bands that produce the music people download would get more money.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Blanket licensing is never legal by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      essentially you'd be downloading my music for a fraction of the retail cost.

      Since there's no packaging, no physical media, no cover art, not shipping, no retail overshead, it should be a fraction of the retail cost.

  2. Re:infinite, free music for a one time fee? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Won't most of the students get sued the day after graduation, when they are no longer associated with the college and haven't deleted their music collections?

  3. Re:The really interesting part of the article... by user4574 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whether they have some kind of intrusive metering software or not, what I'm wondering is how they think they can pull off paying out per-play royalties to artists from a flat-fee, unlimited-download subscription model. The maths, they don't add up.

  4. Re:Music's worth it; labels aren't. by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If we had a free market and sane copyright terms I would agree with you. The way I usually end any argument about "artists rights" and the *.A.As is this-

    Steamboat Willie is STILL under copyright. The man has been worm food (or a Popsicle, depending on whom you believe) for going on half a century but one of his FIRST works, one made when airplanes were made out of cloth and antibiotics were still but a dream, is STILL under copyright.

    If we hadn't had the public domain stolen from us thanks to treasonous bribery we all could go to a nice public domain website and download all the music up to the mid 70s for absolutely free. Artists could use that material to create new and exciting works by remixing, sampling, and using snippets in their original compositions. Instead thanks to treasonous bribery in all likelihood your grandchildren, if they are very lucky and live to be VERY old, might actually one day see the music of Jimi Hendrix and the Stones make it into the public domain. That is of course if that damned mouse doesn't cause copyrights to simply be extended forever, again thanks to bribery.

    So while I haven't heard shit from an RIAA artist I would bother even stealing, I say if you like it please steal the fuckers. After all they have stolen from you, me, our children, our families, by robbing our public domain from us to fill their greedy pockets. The copyright system was a CONTRACT nothing more. In return for a LIMITED copyright We, The People, got a richer public domain. But the contract has been broken, and until We, The People, are again allowed a place at the bargaining table all rights granted by that contract should be ignored. Considering they are ignoring our end of the contract, why shouldn't we do the same?

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  5. Re:The music industry is retarded by purpledinoz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's retarded is that is secret? Why is this secret? Why is the copyright treaty secret? The only conclusion I can come up with is that they're up to no good.

  6. Re:Thank you, RIAA... by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Six colleges are setting it up now, but they refuse to have their names released

    The music industry says there are six colleges, but the six won't let their names out? How are they supposed to keep a service used by all their students secret?

    I call bullshit on these lying bastards. Everything the RIAA labels do is based on a lie, starting with the lie that P2P costs sales when every study says "pirates" spend more on music than anybody. Well, P2P does cost RIAA labels sales; if you buy two or three indie CDs, that's money you don't have to buy an RIAA CD.

    And thank you, reverendbeer, for pointing out that these lying bastards DON'T own rights to all music. They don't. We need to call these lying sociopaths out at every opportunity.

  7. Re:The music industry is retarded by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What do I want from them?

          a) No suing or prosecuting of non-commercial pirates.
          b) No DRM, No laws forbidding circumvention tools.
          c) Copyright terms that last no more than 30 years.
          d) Don't attempt to shakedown or otherwise control radio in any form (terrestrial, sat or net).

    Don't give me the impression that I am building my own gallows if I give them my money.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  8. Re:infinite, free music for a one time fee? by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I know no one RTFA but you could at least make an exception for a story about parts of the recording industry attempting to update their business model (the mantra we have been chanting for how long now?)

    No problem. Even after students stop paying the Choruss subscription fee, they will be able to keep all the songs they have downloaded. "They get to keep them the rest of their lives," as Mr. Griffin put it. That differs from some subscription music services, which allow access only while users are active members of the service. What's to stop students from paying for one month and downloading the whole collection? "Nothing," said Mr. Griffin.

    Other folks at other companies considering similar models even go on to say:

    "We're not going to stop file sharing—it's probably going to happen in one form or another, and it's probably folly to try and stop it," said Charlie Moore, a Noank official who has traveled to campuses in the past few months to drum up interest. "If we're able to use consumption data to compensate the rights holders of a particular recording, then we think we've got a handle on a fair and equitable model for rights going forward."

    That is a beautiful bit of reality right there and a much improved level of insight regarding the file sharing world by recording industry insiders. This may not be the best solution yet, I don't know, but at least these folks are trying to do something productive for both their business and their customer base (college students) rather than attempting to bankrupt the latter while clinging to an outdated version of the former. I find the attitude quite refreshing myself.