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."

Comments

What a coincidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Breaking and Entering Law & modern technology isnt working with my chosen profession of burglar.
I could try going to individual houses asking them not to lock doors but ultimately I think the
law needs changing so I get special treatment so I can continue to screw people.

Re:What a coincidence

[Captain Spam]

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?".

Re:What a coincidence

[meerling]

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.

Re:What a coincidence

[EdIII]

how do you separate infringement from fair use? What if it's a clip from a song they have the right to use?

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.....

Re:What a coincidence

[TheLink]

What if it was intentionally uploaded by the copyright holders themselves, or by those they authorized to do so?

http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/03/broadcast-yourself.html
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/google-viacom-wanted-to-buy-youtube-uploaded-its-own-clips/32061

quote:
      For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.

Viacom's efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

Re:What a coincidence

[hedwards]

If you're willing to put forth the effort, there's a lot of really good indie music out there, it's just a bit of a challenge to find. Personally, it's been years since I bought anything from the RIAA since I find there behavior to be beyond disgusting. I'm sure they've chalked that small drop in sales up to pirates and are using it as justification to further erode my rights as we speak.

I'm just waiting for them to demand the right to break into people's houses and force them to buy the latest album by whomever it is they say is good.

Re:What a coincidence

[Pojut]

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.

Re:What a coincidence

[Jedi Alec]

In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

You know, when individuals start to exhibit this kind of behavior we stick them in a padded room somewhere with medication and therapy till the symptoms go away :)

Re:What a coincidence

[mcgrew]

The problem with your position is the assumption that nobody would pay for music if they could get it for free. That ignores decades of legally recording off the radio. It ignores the fact that you can legally read books for free and legally get copyable CDs for free; they're at the public library. It ignores the fact that Cory Doctorow is on the New York Times best seller list despite the fact (he says "because of" in his book Little Brother) that his books are on his website for free download.

Copyright is (or should be) for commercial publishing; my noncommercial use of media should not be against any law.

Creating quality content takes money

Hogwash, especially when it comes to music. It used to be true that it cost a fortune to record an album, but digital media has driven the price of creating most content down to almost zero. Any band that can afford instruments can affored to record these days.

The more people pirate, the less there are quality products, because there is no money to make them.

Again, you make the mistaken assumption that nobody will buy anything they can get for free. The fact is, "free" sells. The fact that you used to be able to get free matches at about any bar or restaraunt back when everybody smoked, yet they still sold tons of matches disproves your assumption. Bottled water disproves your assumption. Libraries disprove your assumption. You're parroting the RIAA line, which has no basis in fact whatever.

In fact, every study not funded by an RIAA label has demonstrated that music pirates spend more on music than non-pirates.

Re:What a coincidence

[Monkeedude1212]

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.

Re:What a coincidence

[MachDelta]

I know your comment was tongue-in-cheek, but if you've ever watched the documentary The Corporation, they do a very interesting comparison between incorporated business (as a legal "person") and the technical DSM-IV definition of psycopathy, with some disturbing results. I know it's not the most unbiased documentary ever, but it does at least raise some poignant questions about the mental health of these "people" we have created in the name of progress (and... ?? profit!!)

Re:What a coincidence

[Pojut]

Agreed. I've always enjoyed making music, but I didn't start really trying to make it until recently. What got me into it is that I like a specific type of music (spacey ambient) that isn't easily found. A lot of the stuff I have found has either been released for free or I've found through bluemars.org. I wanted to give something back to the community, so I release my stuff for free. When I finally finish one of the three projects I'm currently working on, I'll make them available for purchase...but they will always still be legally available for free.

Getting paid for it would be nice, but I'm more concerned with people actually hearing it rather than paying for it...like you, I'm not trying to make a career out of it. I do it simply because I enjoy it.

Re:What a coincidence

[robot256]

Do you really, really just want to listen to such music? Because you know, you can already. You can go listen to local bands and ask for their demo tapes, and stay away from all the artists that belong to some label working with RIAA.

Except, you can't. Venues have to pay "preemptive royalties" (mafia protection) so they don't get sued for local artists playing cover songs. They can collect royalties for songs they don't even own. And they have no intention of making sure even their own artists are fairly paid, either.

Re:What a coincidence

[psychodelicacy]

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.

Re:What a coincidence

[uniquename72]

As someone with a degree in Music History, I can assure you you're wrong. "Works for hire" are actually fairly rare in the history of music. More often (at least for the past 300 years or so) musicians had a patron who supported them financially so that they could create their art. In this model, the composer isn't selling their work; they are driven to create, and a rich patron who appreciates that work has made it easier by supporting them. There is no modern equivalent in pop music.

In Bach's case, he was just a craftsman who was hired to practice his craft by the church (among others). But he vastly surpassed what he was actually remunerated for. Chopin also often wrote music without expectation of remuneration.

So it's a vast simplification to call music throughout history a "commercial endeavor". Historically, it's been an artistic endeavor that is occasionally profitable, or a craft no different than glass-blowing or shoe-fixing. A job, yes. But one with very little in common with today's "job." Certainly the idea of becoming wealthy for an hour's worth of music that's basically aping what everyone else is doing would never have occurred to any composer you can name.

Re:What a coincidence

[Pojut]

Hahahaha. No, advertising still costs just as much. If you mean having a myspace page, then good luck. Join the millions of other bands no one gives a shit about, and who make zero income from music.

There are methods other than just myspace, you know...and many of them are relatively inexpensive. For example, submitting your music to podcasts is a GREAT way to get exposure. True, you won't get the same kind of exposure as you would with a big record label putting your ads up in a Best Buy, but you also get to own your music...and it's free. There are other methods as well. Flyers, message boards, passing out burned CDs at concerts. It takes more work, but there are other avenues besides record labels.

99.9999999999% of the music people listen to did not come from a bedroom studio. People like this myth of the lone genius producing wonderful music and sharing it in the wonderful new internet age. But.. it just doesn't happen.

That's funny, because that's what I do. I will be the first to admit that the kind of music I make isn't for everyone...it's a very small niche. But that's exactly why I do it...it's a small niche. I want more people to discover it, and that can't happen without more of it being available. My contribution to the ambient and drone scenes may be small...but it's still a contribution.

Commercial music takes work, time and money, and the people making nothing from it do not have the incentive or the time to produce the kind of music of the standard the majority want to hear. Pop music is an arms race, everyone trying to out do each other, and compete against 100 years of existing back catalogue of pop music. It's very very hard to do that while managing a 9-5 job or a family at the same time.

Those people you refer to at the beginning of your quote aren't the kind of listeners I'm talking about though. Commercial music doesn't make itself, this is true...but it's mostly recycled crap.

That's great, but who is listening?

Again, I don't do music professionally...I release it for free, and expect to make zero money out of it. I do it because I love it. If even just a single person hears it and enjoys it, that's good enough for me.

I could produce a thousand pictures a day, but I would not be an artist.

That depends on your definition of art.

Examine closely the music you like and that your friends like, and see how much was made on zero budget, and does not have any paid advertising or a record company behind it.

The vast majority of the music I listen to is made by either unsigned people making music literally out of their bedrooms or home studios (ambient, chiptunes, etc)...or, it has small labels behind it (dubstep, death metal/black metal, etc.)

My wife, on the other hand...can't really say the same for her :-) She's a mix between bands that everyone has heard of, and bands almost no one has heard of.

Re:What a coincidence

[sznupi]

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?

Re:What a coincidence

[hairyfeet]

Actually poor old Phil is just in jail because he didn't have enough money. Just look at that heir to the DuPont fortune that was found with a guy's head in his closet and still managed to get off. I think he is up to three or four dead now (it is believed he killed his ex wives as well) and is still walking scott free. Once you get up to a certain dollar amount it pretty much doesn't matter what you do, thanks to superlawyers.

As for TFA, while I don't download their shit for anybody that wants it I say go right ahead. Why? Because they have robbed us of our public domain, that's why! The whole point of copyright was a contract between the holder and the People nothing more. In return for a limited copyright We, The People got a richer public domain. Now? Hell even Steamboat Willie is still under copyright and the man has been dead, what? 50 years now?

Frankly I believe this is one of the reason why the US will end up a backwater. You can't get shit done in the US anymore thanks to the giant minefields of patents and copyrights anymore, and we tech guys now nearly all new things are built upon ideas of old, but now our entire culture is locked up behind paywalls. Countries like India and China will end up being the next great leaders, since you can actually do things there without an army of lawyers, while here in the USA everybody just sues everybody. But it never ceases to amaze me how truly disgusting and greedy the *.A.As are. Really, 150 YEAR copyrights aren't enough for you people? Ripping off the artist AND the consumer and you STILL whine about lack of profits? Disgusting pigs, the whole damned lot.

Re:What a coincidence

[HermMunster]

Amid the furor of increasing crime rates the National Association of Police Chiefs declared that the home owners and citizens were not doing enough to deter crime on their own. The association members concurred that citizens should be wielding tools that allow police authorities to monitor their behavior and the behavior of those around them including voluntarily installing equipment in their homes and vehicles that would allow police authorities to monitor and deter crime in whatever way was possible. The Police Chief's association declared that they would not be able to deter crime at the current rates because they couldn't possibly know where all the crime was occurring and when, nor to the degree it would break the law. As a consequence the Police Chief's Association asked that new laws be passed that would require citizens to become participants in monitoring and reporting crimes. Otherwise crime would continue, other citizens would continue to loose money, their health, and risk their safety. /s

Why stop there?

[Locke2005]

If somebody spray paints the text to a copyrighted poem on the side of a building, shouldn't the building owner be held responsible for copyright infringement?

Re:Why stop there?

[TubeSteak]

Youtube and RapidShare encourage people to post content then basically look away until someone complains about it.

Youtube and rapidshare allow people to post content and the law doesn't require them to do anything until someone complains about it.
Despite that, both companies will block previously uploaded content by hash and Rapidshare relatively recently stopped their rapidshare
points program because they say it encouraged uploading of copyright infringement.

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.

Re:Why stop there?

[Talderas]

How does this affect the porn industry?

Re:Why stop there?

[OffaMyLawn]

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.

Re:Why stop there?

[sconeu]

A law like this would make it impossible to allow any site where a user can upload content.

And just what do you think the xxAA really wants? They want to be the only "authorized" source of "content".

So...

[mark72005]

So he wants to transfer the cost of intimidating users to other companies instead of his own. Why, that's brilliant!

I agree with RIAA

[theaveng]

It isn't working. Amendment __: Strike the clause "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". Replace with "To enrich the sciences, arts, and culture of the People, by securing for fourteen years* to Authors and Inventors the temporary Privilege of monopoly to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself. But the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.

"Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine...

"That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Jefferson

a better law would disband the RIAA

[Dan667]

they are a monopoly and certainly do not help the Artists they say that are representing.

My turn

[Voyager529]

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.

Re:My turn

[canajin56]

You can if you only play your own music. Basically what he's saying is that a webcaster needs to pay the Copyright Royalty Board royalties on music, period, even if the CRB doesn't represent the copyright owner. That's because their statutory license deal is "0.33 cents per listener per hour" not "per listener per hour of stuff WE own" just per hour your stream is active. So, if you give your CD to a webcaster to play, they still have to pay royalties on it even if you give them permission to play it at no charge. The webcaster doesn't "have" to agree to these terms, but if they don't they can only play music with written permission of both the copyright owner and the label representing the copyright owner.

Informal... what?

[AndyAndyAndyAndy]

"The RIAA would strongly prefer informal agreements inked with intermediaries"

How is an agreement that is written down somewhere considered "informal?"

Holy protection racket ...

[gstoddart]

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.

Tough shit, Cary

[blair1q]

Youtube et al are not responsible for uploads.

They can take down material you identify as infringing, identify infringing users to you under court order, and you can sue the users.

That's how civil law works. You don't punish people who aren't doing anything wrong.

And if it's too expensive for you to make money with your business model, you shut down your business and let life go on.

Copyright will work fine in those instances where it matters, and in those instances where it doesn't, well, you can't squeeze blood from a stone.

I'm sure they taught you that at B-school.

The food was awful, and the portions small!

[Draque]

Now correct me if I'm being blindingly stupid here, but is Sherman suggesting that because there is a systemic problem with copyright law, that we make more of it?

The big Picture

[FudRucker]

The Big Picture

Re:I agree

[meerling]

MD = Media Dump
CH = Copyright Holder

CH 0000001 has 30 pieces of work that they want MD to monitor for and prevent from being displayed.
CH 0000002 has 1700 pieces and wants the same thing.

MD gets about 2000 files uploaded everyday, so that means they have to check all 2000 against 1730 pieces of work. Not fun for them, and what liability do they have to face if they miss one?
Ah... we forgot something... There are THOUSANDS of CH with quantities of works ranging from 1 to many thousands. The amount of work (and liability) that MD would have to deal with goes up at an insane rate. MD has NO vested interest in those pieces of work, and can not be expected to take on the task of policing the activities of other people, even though they use the service provided by MD. Are you expected to check the criminal record and intentions of everyone that walks down the sidewalk in front of your house because the police don't want to? No. It's up the the CH to defend their own copyright, and not to force someone else to do it for them.

Translation:

[Locke2005]

"Nice file sharing site you've got here... be a shame if anything should happen to it!"

Re:... what about the people ?

[thestudio_bob]

Uhm ... er ... just why does the RIAA think it can write laws? Merely because they've had success in the past influencing legislation does not mean they have a right to such influence continuing.

Because the paid damn good money to get their guys into office!

• Gershengorn, left, a partner with RIAA-firm Jenner & Block, represented the labels against Grokster (.pdf) and will be in charge of the DOJ Federal Programs Branch. That’s the unit that just told a federal judge the Obama administration supports monetary damages as high as $150,000 per purloined music track on a peer-to-peer file sharing program.
• Donald Verrilli, associate deputy attorney general — the No. 3 in the DOJ, who unsuccessfully urged a federal judge to uphold the $222,000 file sharing verdict against Jammie Thomas.
• Tom Perrilli, as Verrilli’s former boss, the Justice Department’s No. 2 argued in 2002 that internet service providers should release customer information to the RIAA even without a court subpoena.
• Brian Hauck, counsel to associate attorney general, worked on the Grokster case on behalf of the record labels.
• Ginger Anders, assistant to the solicitor general, litigated on the Cablevision case.

Source Obama Taps 5th RIAA Lawyer to Justice Dept.

Re:hmmmm

[interval1066]

Yep...

"'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..."

He essentially believes New Media and the Digital Economy owes the RIAA a living, and wants to change legislation to make this happen. Hopefully legislators tell him he's off his rocker.

He's right, you know.

[dwiget001]

Copyright is not working for the people it is supposed to serve, namely, the public at large.

Paper is the original 'recording'

[bill_mcgonigle]

You do know he was talking about ideas, not recordings, right?

You're contending that Jefferson advocated for ideas spreading across the globe, but only via word-of-mouth, never by written transmittal?