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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

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?

[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.

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.

The big Picture

[FudRucker]

The Big Picture

He's right, you know.

[dwiget001]

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