Slashdot Mirror
RIAA President Says Copyright Law "Isn't Working"
Kilrah_il writes "Apperantly not satisfied with the current scope of the DMCA, RIAA President Cary Sherman wants to broaden the scope of the law to have content providers such as YouTube and Rapidshare liable for illegal content found on their sites. 'The RIAA would strongly prefer informal agreements inked with intermediaries ... We're working on [discussions with broadband providers], and we'd like to extend that kind of relationship — not just to ISPs, but [also to] search engines, payment processors, advertisers ... [But], if legislation is an appropriate way to facilitate that kind of cooperation, fine.' Notice the update at the end of the article pointing out that Sherman is seeking for voluntary agreements with said partners and not to enact broader laws without their cooperation."
So he wants to transfer the cost of intimidating users to other companies instead of his own. Why, that's brilliant!
they are a monopoly and certainly do not help the Artists they say that are representing.
I've always been curious as to exactly how the copyright holders expect the content providers to determine if any given piece of content is copyrighted or authorized. Is there an algorithm that can distinguish between an original copyrighted work and a fair-use derivative for audio or video?
To which these particular copyright holders would respond, "what fair-use?".
Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
Let's deal, Cary...
-Since every CD I buy today says that downloading music has the same effect as stealing a disc, make the punishment for downloading the disc the same as physical theft.
-Hold Rapidshare responsible for their hosting of copyrighted content, but you pay double if the content is found to be uninfringing.
-Allow me to write my own music to which I own the copyright and stream it over the internet without having to pay you royalties.
-Show that monies collected from copyright infringement cases (less court fees) literally go to pad the pockets of the artists you claim to protect. For added sympathy, use some to fund school music programs to encourage the next generation of musicians.
And, as a personal request:
-Stop using Autotune as an effect. It's annoying.
Wow, that just sounds like something out of a bad gangster movie ... "we'd like to reach an informal arrangement wit youze, but if we can't, we'd be willing to force one on you".
What will be enough for these people? Everybody just simply tithes to them?
They want the entire world to be beholden to, and policing, their copyright. At some point, they're actually doing society more harm than good. These people aren't even the ones "creating" anything -- they're just the ones using funny math to prove they're losing money hand over fist so they can avoid paying the actual creators. A bunch of middlemen skimming off the top don't contribute anything.
Sadly, I'm mostly preaching to the converted, and I fear bitching about it won't help.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Music, and musicians, existed and even thrived for thousands of years before anyone thought up copyrights.
I think your theory needs a little more work since it would imply that such a situation couldn't ever have existed.
You don't. The RIAA, and other such organizations, do not believe in fair use. They are in fact, very bitter about it.
Their preferred world is one in which they can deny, or enjoy forced monetization, of all content and the burden of defense, both financially, and legally, is borne by those least capable to do so.
Your question about rights is interesting too. I currently have a problem with this very situation with YouTube. I do have rights to use a song in videos and get flagged on a constant basis by the fingerprint system. Guess what their solution to the problem is? MMO DRM. In their solution I would need to embed my own personal code in the video when uploaded to authorize its use. Of course the next logical step is to create licensing rights that demand a per viewing fee.....
All that said, I loathe the idea of "informal agreements inked with intermediaries" Copyright is a public policy issue and it should be decided by the public, not by a cartel of businesses.
This. The RIAA is trying to back-door some deals instead of doing everything out in the open anymore where we can publicly mock them. This is the same problem I have with it.
It's such a shame that music has been ruined by money.
Oh wait, no it's not. Money and advertising are no longer difficult hurdles to overcome for a talented independent musician. True, modern technology is a big reason why so many musicians are able to get their work out in the wild now, but think how many of those people have been driven to do it on their own due to record companies' douchbaggery.
I'm extremely happy that most of the real talent comes from a random dude in a basement with a homemade vocal booth, or some chick jamming on a synth in a bedroom. Being able to get our own emotions and musical inspirations available to the public so easily (and cheaply!) is, in my opinion, one of the greatest side effects of the Internet.
Living With a Nerd
Copyright is not working for the people it is supposed to serve, namely, the public at large.
Creating quality content takes money. The more people pirate, the less there are quality products, because there is no money to make them.
The next time you think about bringing this up, do some research on the topic.
To give you a quick quote:
"The average musician on a major record deal 'gets' about $23 per $1,000 made... and that $23 still never gets paid because it has to go to 'recouping' the loan [that the label gave them]"
So if you think buying a CD is helping your artist, you're really only helping them get out of debt with the record label that signed them, and that actually a majority of that $ you spent went to the label anyways. If you want to put dollars in the pockets of your favourite musicians, donate online or ask them whats best. More money goes to them through concert ticket sales (though ticketmaster and the venue do absorb a bit of that cost) and merchandise (also, cost of production).
There's been a recent movement where a bunch of bands have gone and ditched the record labels, where instead they've taken the money they got from a year of touring and have started their own record labels. (I believe David Grohl of the Foo Fighters is one of them?) - and some Indie bands have gone as far as to ignore a label altogether, instead producing only online digital copies for downloads to increase awareness of the band to make more money during concerts.
In terms of Game companies: No developer is forced to work with EA or Activision or Ubisoft or any of the large Publishers out there, there are actually MANY ways to make money. If you've payed attention lately, you'll see that indie games are actually on the rise, with new bundles such as the humble indie bundle being offered through different mediums, such as Steam or even the Xbox Arcade. While there are publishers behind these new mediums, they've basically reduced the cost of manufacturing CD's down to the cost of bandwidth (pennies) and that means both cheaper prices for you and more money can go to developers. Everything from EA, down to Gamestop, are not actually necessary to develop and produce a quality game; Online mediums have essentially ruined the need for physical mediums, even some BIG shops such as Blizzard have started to offer online methods of payment for their games.
Essentially, what it is coming to is this:
Copyright law is only benefitting publishers now, not the musicians/developers/artists/authors it was originally intended for. Everyone is starting to realize that they don't need a publisher, that their are new methods of distribution, and stopping the harmful piracy is as easy as implementing their own DRM, and that sometimes piracy is good for a product to get it into as many hands/eyes/ears as possible.
Many of the works we consider "great", and part of our cultural heritage, were produced before copyright, and many were also produced without the prospect of payment in the artist's lifetime. Even those who made a living through their work generally earned no more than a modest salary. The "impoverished artist" is a cliche, but it was the norm for a very long time. And yet, these painters, authors, and musicians produced their work because they had talent and drive, and a love of their chosen medium. Now, if you can't be bothered to write a novel because you won't get megabucks for it, then clearly you neither love writing, nor do you feel any particular drive to do it. So why should I care if you never write your novel?
And, by the way, books were being pirated centuries ago - and probably before that, too. Dublin was a big centre of pirated books in the eighteenth century, for example - and yet somehow the book industry has survived that, as well as the Xerox machine, the scanner, the library, and the good old "here, I've finished this - you have it". This is not a new "problem" - whereas the culture of making obscene incomes from little or no real work is becoming the defining problem of the modern world.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
It doesn't even matter in the way you seem to imagine it, anyway - fact is, music is being taken away from the control of big labels (the fight is really about this one). That most of new, often great indies won't make it "big" enough for music to be their only source of income...so what?
Being a typist often used to be a decent position in the times of typewriters - and now look at us, typing away without much thought. Should we allow for obsolescence to be heavily legislated?
One that hath name thou can not otter