Slashdot Mirror


ASCAP Declares War On Free Culture, EFF

Andorin writes "According to Drew Wilson at ZeroPaid and Cory Doctorow, the ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers), a US organization that aims to collect royalties for its members for the use of their copyrighted works, has begun soliciting donations to fight key organizations of the free culture movement, such as Creative Commons, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Public Knowledge. According to a letter received by ASCAP member Mike Rugnetta, 'Many forces including Creative Commons, Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation and technology companies with deep pockets are mobilizing to promote "Copyleft" in order to undermine our "Copyright." They say they are advocates of consumer rights, but the truth is these groups simply do not want to pay for the use of our music. Their mission is to spread the word that our music should be free.' (Part 1 and part 2 of the letter.) The collecting agency is asking that its professional members donate to its Legislative Fund for the Arts, which appears to be a lobbying campaign meant to convince Congress that artists should not have the choice of licensing their works under a copyleft license."

21 of 483 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Good. by Anrego · · Score: 5, Insightful

    or allow themselves to to be screwed

    This is exactly what's going to happen. Lets not kid ourselves here.. most people don't care about any of this. The few people who have any interest in this.. even enough to never pay for media again.. are just a tiny little insignificant blip.

  2. What else... by Yaa+101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What else would you expect from extortionists, that they play fair?

  3. Re:Awesome.. by JSBiff · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Copyright is all fine and dandy, but if Congress tried to actually make it illegal to *give away* your own recordings, I believe that would pretty clearly run afoul of, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    Congratulations, ASCAP: you are in the glorious position of educating Congress and the public on how awful and evil the 1st amendment is.

  4. ASCAP v. RIAA by foo1752 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems that the ASCAP should be going after the RIAA so that artists can actually make money on music recordings again. Forget about free. People are willing to pay for music, but even when they do, how much do the artists actually get anyway? Not much, if anything.

  5. Re:I blame the courts... by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can't say that I blame them... it's their industry and they're advocating for it - big surprise.

    Uh, they apparently want to lobby Congress to pass a law which will prevent 'artists' from giving away things they've created.

    If true, that is so mind-bogglingly retarded that I really don't know what else to say. Surely even Congress will have to laugh them out of the building?

  6. Re:Good. by impaledsunset · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm pretty sure that protecting your God-given rights to the works you've created precludes anyone else from releasing works under a free license. People who are releasing their works under a Creative Commons are stealing from the real artists, who work so hard to earn a living. They just want to get stuff for free. Good to see ASCAP has understood this simple fact.

  7. Re:Sometimes people make music for music's sake by alexo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is it so hard for them to understand that at one time, music was about artistic expression?

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it.
    -- Upton Sinclair (1878 - 1968)

  8. Re:Good. by zill · · Score: 5, Informative

    You seems to have forgotten your sarcasm detector, sir. Here, have mine.

  9. Coffee shops by michaelmalak · · Score: 5, Informative

    ASCAP is already preventing coffee shops from hosting independent artists.

    For Henderson business owner Mike Hopper, his coffee shop, Mocha Joe, was the perfect environment to let local artists showcase their original music. At least that was the plan until the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers said otherwise.

    [...]

    However, Hopper said it was just a misunderstanding between him and the organizations. He then called to explain that the unsigned bands were playing 100 percent original songs.

    "I am 100 percent in compliance," Hopper said. "I'm not charging cover at the door. I'm not paying the bands, and they are just playing songs they wrote. They essentially said to me, 'We don't care. We have this low-end licensing fee you must have because there is a chance your band might play a cover song.'"

    [...]

    Looking at potentially paying a total of $1,800 in annual fees to the three agencies and the possibility that he would be shut down permanently, Hopper discontinued music at Mocha Joe.

    1. Re:Coffee shops by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 5, Informative

      Holy shit. After reading the above I started searching Google for other instances of similar bullying and found this:

      "[Hines said] 'Hey we need to sit down and talk and I've got some contracts here for you to sign.' I was like, 'Who are you again?' He told me and said, 'Yeah, it's been real difficult to get ahold of you. You've been avoiding us. I'm here now and you need to take care of this. You don't really have a choice in the matter. We need to sit down and you need to sign this paperwork with me.'

      ...

      "I said I didn't have time to talk with him then, that he could send me something in the mail or email me but I don't have time, as far as I was concerned we were in compliance with all of the licensing or copyright laws.

      ...

      "He was, 'James, James you don't have a choice. I'm leaving this right here. If I don't get this paperwork from you soon, the next person you see will be an investigator. They're going to come in and you're not going to have a choice.' I said, 'Prove that we're violating your laws. Find a song that you own the rights to that we're playing, it's not going to happen.'

      "He said, 'That's not how it works, James. It's going to be too late. By the time we have an investigator come in, we don't have to prove anything.'

      I'm not usually a violent person, but if some ASCAP pisher came to my place of business and said those things to me it is very likely I'd end up in jail for assault after breaking the bastard's nose with a baseball bat.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    2. Re:Coffee shops by Reverend+Zanix · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is not an uncommon occurrence at all. I used to enjoy playing and going to shows at this local cafe/venue that was all independent musicians playing their own songs. Then they were essentially forced to shut down because they were tiny and couldn't afford the overhead with the licensing for things that weren't even. And yes, they have agents that go around to small places like this, check if music is being played and then cross reference if they don't have a license. It's like a Mafia protection racket. You are forced to pay them when they don't even provide a service to them, lest you be sued out of existence.

    3. Re:Coffee shops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm in Sioux City, Iowa of all places, and our band has seen this shit tried on two bars that I've played at. We called the fine gentleman who left his card and told him we were not ASCAP members and played only original music. He responded that it only takes four chords before we infringe on his artists' songs, and it was simply not possible for us not to infringe.

      ASCAP are assholes, but what about the artists who belong to them? Isn't their membership the reason ASCAP can even exist?

  10. Re:Good. by dov_0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm pretty sure that protecting your God-given rights to the works you've created precludes anyone else from releasing works under a free license. People who are releasing their works under a Creative Commons are stealing from the real artists, who work so hard to earn a living. They just want to get stuff for free. Good to see ASCAP has understood this simple fact.

    Are you trolling or seriously arguing on the side of ASCAP?

    Who says that artists have God-given rights to their works for a start? I've personally done several years of Scriptural studies, can read and write in Biblical Greek and Hebrew and find nothing to support this strange idea of yours.

    Let me use a parable to explain what ASCAP seems to be wanting to do. "At a large park there is a running track all the way around the public gardens. Many people use it every day, but when the weather is hot, they get really dehydrated and sometimes people even have heart attacks while running. An enterprising kid makes up a great drink with a mix of fruit juices and salts to sell to the runners. Some other youths set up a protection racket to make sure that the runners buy his product and take a large cut of money on the top for their 'services'. Meanwhile another kid also produces a good drink for the runners, but he really wants to just give it away. He sets up in another part of the park and starts to give away drinks on the hot days. The boys in the protection racket hear about him and come over to threaten him. When he doesn't seem likely to stop, they try and get the police to take him away."

    That is what ASCAP is about. If I want to put a copyleft license on what I produce, what is that to them? If I want other people to enjoy what I've done, to use it and possibly copy it or improve on it, what is that to ASCAP? It doesn't mean that I want anyone elses work for free, it just means I want to share what I've enjoyed making with other people on my own terms. What is wrong with that?

    --
    sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
  11. Speech by NMPA CEO about "anti-copyright agenda" by imthesponge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "THE NEW ENEMY"

    I have put together a top 10 list of the positions taken by these groups that I will define as their extremist, radical anti-copyright agenda.

    No. 10: They support changing the law to reduce damages for copyright infringement.

    No. 9: They support the elimination of statutory damages for secondary copyright infringement.

    No. 8: They favor rolling back copyright extension; in some cases, radically.

    No. 7: They favor the elimination of the songwriter and publisher rights for server, cache and buffer copies.

    No. 6: They oppose efforts to obtain the identities of individuals engaged in massive copyright infringement.

    No. 5: They support extreme versions of orphan works legislation.

    No. 4: They have filed legal briefs supporting anti-copyright positions of Grokster, Napster, LimeWire, Cablevision, Google, YouTube and Verizon.

    No. 3: They oppose graduated-response protection for copyright owners.

    No. 2: They oppose treaties that support copyright enforcement like the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

    No. 1: They actually argue that illegal peer-to-peer file-sharing traffic helps the economy and doesn't hurt songwriters.

  12. Hey now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They are just being idiots about how they are going about fixing things. Bottom line? No one wants to pay for music anymore. Around half my income is derived from ascap. In the last ten years, seismic changes have occurred in television and film having nothing to do with the internet.

    First, broadcasters stopped paying royalties for movie trailer music. Next, networks on cable stopped paying fees for music knowing that we would get paid on the backend through their endlessly repeating show schedule. By and large, they were right to a certain degree. Basically, they wanted us to get paid by the broadcasters but now the broadcasters don't seem to want to pay either

    Now though, hulu has emerged and it is nothing short of a land grab. you only get paid a performance royalty if there are commercials in the show. Well guess what? Hulu does not pay out royalties even though there are millions of performances daily on their website.

    And let's not forget the shady music supervisor that fills in his own name instead of yours in the cue sheets and then he gets the back end that you were supposed to get. It happens.

    At some point you have to stop and ask yourself, what is the value of your work on a whole when everyone and there mother is hell bent on not paying you a dime.

    Creating music for television or film is no joke. It takes a lot of time, energy and skill to learn how to craft a score to picture. Underscore is a lot different but still, lots of work. I mean, if everyone is cool with hearing the same loops from GarageBand and logic than really, what the hell do I know?

    However, if you agree that while the world is not fair, just like licensing code, use of music needs a mechanism of payment that is fair.

    I like creative commons, ascap is just misguided.

    And finally, before anyone tells me to play live and find alternative revenue streams, licensing is the alternative revenue stream. I give all my music away because licensing makes it so I don't have to worry about actually selling anything.

  13. Patent Pending. by ciroknight · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shame it's Patent Pending.

    --
    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
  14. Re:Good. by IronChef · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The same argument has been going on in photography for a while now. The explosion of "microstock" agencies that facilitate Joe Blow Hobbyist actually licensing the one good picture he has ever taken really aggravates the old pros. Even worse are people who just post their stuff online and don't worry about people who choose to use it commercially.

    The proverbial million monkeys have left their typewriters, and are taking photos now with digital cameras. I don't say that disparagingly. I am one of the million monkeys.

    It probably sucks to be a pro when some hobbyist undercuts you on price, with pictures that are not as good... but good enough for many clients' uses. But I'm not going to support changing the laws to keep them or anyone else in business.

    It's not the first industry that has been shaken up by changing technology (or culture) and it won't be the last.

  15. Re:Good. by Gordonjcp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am also far more conservative in my views than I was when I was young.

    Really? Because I found the opposite happened. I used to write shareware. People occasionally registered it, but not nearly as many people registered as used it without paying. Bugger. So I made it less and less functional, without registering. Even *less* people registered, and not only that but on BBSes (jeez, I'm giving my age away) people used to post cracks to get around the registration code.

    As I grew up, my silly, naive and idealistic capitalist side waned and I settled down into the comfort of being a rabid old Commie. I gave my software away for free. I gave my music away for free. I gave my circuit designs (ones that I wasn't being paid quite a lot of money to do by my employer, but stuff like guitar effects) away for free. People posted on the Internet, oh yeah, use this stuff, it's quite good. People I spoke to at computer festivals and other such geekery pissups said "Oh you're the guy that wrote $thing? Cool, I use that" and bought me beer.

    Long story short, fuck capitalism. Give the stuff you love away for free, and earn money from the stuff you don't care about.

  16. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Waiting for prostitutes to complain that there are people out there making love for free. o_O

  17. Re:Good. by king+neckbeard · · Score: 5, Informative

    For the millionth time, copyright infringement and stealing are very different things. If anything, released works 'belong to' the public, and authors, and the authors are just 'borrowing' certain rights from the public, so the closest thing to 'theft' would be the Sonny Bono Act, which actually deprived the general public of its rights, with the retroactive parts presenting no gain for the public.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  18. Re:You don't get it. by Lehk228 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the soviet system has about as much to do with communism as fred phelps does to christianity

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.