Slashdot Mirror
ASCAP Shakes Down Webmasters
afabbro writes "Wired has this article about how ASCAP is shaking down webmasters for licensing fees. The key point is that they want fees even if you're only linking to another site. "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Hasn't this crap been tried before? The bit about getting charged for linking to another site.
:)
It doesn't sound like these people have much to offer with tactics like these...
I could be in trouble, I was singing to myself last night. I wonder what that's going to cost.
Chances are that they would pay me to stop
It makes me want to stop buying any music new and then spend my money on used CD's and my time downloading MP3's. They don't have a clue...
> The radio station pays a licensing fee to broadcast the music, and if I'm in a commercial environment, I have to pay a fee for receiving it?
Yep.
> 50/50 -- Half for the makers, and half for the sellers
This is what we have now, except that the record labels claim to be both the makers and the sellers.
If I remember right, Hong Kong has one of the most relaxed attitudes to copyright. This is presumably why so much so-called pirated material comes from there.
Unfortunately, this is very likely to change as the Chinese government tightens the screws.
chris
This is really making me ill. Who has the money to challenge these companies and thier lawyers. The net should belong to the people. While there have been some cool things brought to the net when these large companies came, I think we have lost a lot more. Look at the problems with Network Solutions. Where did our anonymous E-mail go? I say we revolt and get Government and Lawyers out of OUR internet before it gets any worse. Lets start by replacing the the biggest internet leach of all Network solutions.
A big 'middle finger' goes up to the greedy, tyranical, pinheads at ASCAP. Again, they are relying on the fact that average Joe cannot defend himself in court due to the fact that he has less money than they due. Average Joe should NOT HAVE TO go to court over a matter as silly as this. This once again proves that the american legal system is horribly flawed and is slanted towards big monopolistic businesses. That DOJ MS anti-trust thing is just a cover... It's probably just because MS didn't pay the goverment "royalty" fee that's associated with being a monopoly. ASCAP and RIAA probably pay the govn't a nice fee at the end of the year and they back off from any anti-trust suit.
....And Justice for none...except the rich.
I imagine it should be just a simple case of ASCAP SHUTTING THE FUCK UP. Who gives a shit about ASCAP. What do they do to benefit society? NOTHING, they aid in destroying it for everyone except those with deep pockets. I can only think of a few ways to deal with groups like this, leave the country that supports these assholes, or blow their goddamned brains (if they have any, yeah right) out. That's what eventually happens when you bully someone. Look at Littleton.
See subject.
They state that if you are simply linking to another site, that they don't care (for now, anyway). They are concerned with sites that 'appear' to provide the music themselves.
Now, ignoring the rights & wrongs of ASCAP and music licensing for amoment, this is the same as an argument I heard years ago about using graphics off the web. Specifically, in-line images. There were two schools of thought.
One said that 'if you put an object, any object, up so that it can be retrieved by anyone over standard http, then they can do what they like with it.' so putting an in-line image in your website, where the image tag just grabs the image off the original server it came from, you weren't violating anyone's right. You were displaying the object that they KNOWINGLY put on their server for all to request.
The other school said 'that picture is part of a web page. The media is irrelevant. The location is irrelevant. The fact is, you are using someone elses copyrighted work in your web page, without their permission.
The way I see it, both are right, and both are wrong. The same goes for music.
All these sorts of arguments will go away in the future, I think... as the big corporations, and even the shareholders realize that you can't make money by exploiting 'media' like you used to.
We won't stand for it.
It's a radio station. Whoppee. And ASCAP can make me pay for having a publicly heard radio? The RADIO STATION shold be paying ME for tuning more people into the station.
The problem is that the government allows "legal" monopolies. They may function fine under certain circumstances, but when a situation comes along like digital distribution and mp3's -- with their tremendous capability to change the way things are done -- then the control that the so-called "artist protection agencies" (yeah, right) have becomes more of a hinderance to the consumer than a help. We're in a time of change and I think they are going to try and ride the storm out forcing the old model on the new distribution method. But since new music is available from unsigned artists, they don't stand a chance.
Few things get me as steamed up as what's going on in the music industry currently with all the control and manipulation. The music industry has been smart to craft a monopoly over many years. They know how not to cross the line, but to use all the loopholes. They know the psychology of the artist with stars in his eyes and how to use this to their advantage.
I figure ASCAP and others are breathing their last gasps. I'm just totally disgusted with them and with our government's impotence in dealing with the situation.
I'd like to see ASCAP and others die and blow away.
This sounds like charging the people who make radios because it appears like the radio is broadcasting the music. I'm sure the sight that's broadcasting the music on the web is already paying the fees. The web site isn't rebroadcasting the music, it's just providing a nice interface.
The Man knows you'll happily go into debt to play your electric twanger in front of those fifty people, not to mention that you can't afford a lawyer, so why should they pay you? I actually heard a label exec say this in so many words, but he was laughing so hard he had trouble getting the words out. Can you say Motown?
Me, I get quarterly raises.
Let's skip the lashing rafts together stuff. Why can't we just get together and go to the moon?
Yes, there'd have to be cooperating groups both on the moon and back here in Sticksville, to keep sending up the massive amounts of materials that would be needed to get settlements off to a good start. But it's do-able. Heck, together a whole lot of people made (and are making) Linux, so why not a moonbase for everyone who wants to get away from the marching morons down here? It's just rocket science.
(I'd love to actually do this, but I'm afraid now I've given Jon Katz another story idea... [wince])
When ASCAP, BMI, RIAA, or whoever else's large lawyers start playing games, the 'net should not solve this problem using the highly effective social means that have solved other lawyers.
In particular, people should not post the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the lawyers involved. Otherwise someone who disagreed with those lawyers' actions might call them and intrude on the comfort from which those lawyers are writing new threatening letters and adopting new policies that involve you sending them money for more and more absurd things or getting sued. And we wouldn't want to put any social pressure on lawyers to pay attention to the people they're disaffecting, right?
There's nothing they can do about it. I go by what is right and wrong, not what is illegal and legal. Legal and illegal have lost any moral meaning since people have lost their right to control it. We vote yet this still happens. You have the right to listen to the radio without paying for it (the content that is, not the radio). Rights of individuals and personal liberties are being trashed by government, often at the whim of corporations. This country got to where it is now through sweat and blood, and this type of support for these corporations is akin to pissing on the graves of those who died for this country.
>>So when ASCAP sues someone, how much is kept in attorney fees?
//FIRST\\ AND TELL THEM WHAT SIDE THEIR BREAD IS BUTTERED ON, OR ELSE YOU GET SQUASHED CHEWED UP AND SPAT OUT.
ALL.
>>How much goes to the Artist(s)?
NONE.
>>I'm sure everyone can see where I'm leading.
IF YOU WISH TO BE PART OF THE "MUSIC INDUSTRY" THEN YOU MUST FIRST MUST HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO GRAB THESE MAFIAS BY THE BALLS
Anyone else notice that Yoda's eyes are not quite pointing in the same direction? His right eye's iris is almost all the way at the inner corner while his left eye's iris is almost centered.
Imagine that,..... a googly-eyed Yoda!
Back to the original subject: You'll find that SCAP-ASS & their ilk not only want to control all forms of distribution, but also all forms of promotion. Even a simple link will be construed, in their minds, to be a form of promotion.
I never by new CDs. There are so many used CD places popping up all over the place, you can almost always find what you are looking for. If I really have to have it, then I just record it off of The Box or MTV until I can get my hands on the used CD (though lately, I have heard almost nothing new that I just have to have :-)
:-)
Even better, with writeable CDs becoming cheaper, I won't even have to pay for used CDs anymore
SCREW YOU music industry slimeballs!
I understand that most music copyrights are owned by "I am really strange" "Michael Jackson". Even the Beatles stuff. Perhaps the ASCAP lawyers just follow his lead in human behaivor.
>Someone had a book out once, about how to write your own scary letters
Hey, that gives me an idea. What we really need is a HOWTO-Scary-Legal-Letters. (un)fortunately, I'm probably sick and disturbed enough to write it..
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
The solution is simple. Make it illegal for
lawyers to use the net. Perhaps life in prison without parole. Then... they can't investigate anything on the net or yell about it with facing jail time themselves. Make sure that the jail time is in a hardcore prison like singsing or marion with a room "mate"! That way the rest of
us can live our lives and they can get lost.
Actually, yes, the song, "Happy Birthday", *IS* copyrighted. That's why restaurants have their own birthday "song" schtick routines (well, it's the real reason, so the company doesn't have to pay for what would be a commercial performance of the song), with the fluff reason being that "well, we need to differentiate ourselves from our competitors".
You mean the ones who act with the the unwritten approval of the administration and the community in general, because his father is a good Rock of the Community (because he owns all the good stores, and thus just about everyone works for him, etc.)? Because his Mom is a Good Woman for and of the Church Community? Because his uncle is the Coach? Because her mom is a Professor?
Yep, it sure does sound that way. These people, and the people in Government, are very much alike these days. "We must protect our own!"
WE're all just a bunch of untermenschen to be tolerated as long as we keep buying stuff and giving up our freedoms so we get committed for more and more debts.
"I owe my soul to the Company Store"
The problem is that the ATLA is an extremely powerful lobby... Dan Quayle tried to fight them on tort reform, but the Clinton campaign shifted the focus to medical care and insurance. The ATLA funded the Clinton campaign heavily, he got elected, and tort reform is dead for the duration of his administration. Deal with it.
If it attracts George W. Bush's attention, he might do something once he's elected president, but that's a mighty big "if" paired to a might big "might".
It means that any public performance of a recording is subject to a fee... Whether you charge money or not is irrelevant. If you play music inside your house you're OK. If you play it out by the street, you're not. That's always been the way it worked.
Where ASCAP has gone nuts in this particular case, is that they consider a reference to a location where you could go to hear music to be the same as actually providing the music yourself. Kind of like charging you a fee to allow you to say "you can hear song in station's rotation"
The problem here is that nobody violated any copyrights.
Hmm. The /. community does have latent political juice (100,000+ and growing technically savvy geeks with well-paying jobs). If this place ever decided to pool resources it could simply BUY a country tomorrow and hammer out the most free, tech-friendly constitution conceivable. There are nearly 300 countries in the world - many that have next to no population at all. How about Pitcairn - population 60? Think we could buy all four dozen out? Yep. Turn the island into a giant co-locator with a rotating crew of techs/techettes who want to maintain the place and shag in the tropical sun. All the coconuts and fiber-optic trunk lines you can eat.
At the rate things are going in the traditional G7 countries, this sort of country/data-haven would begin to economically and tecnologically clobber Uncle Sam and the rest of the lawyer-fouled planet in no time at all. Of course, CIA moles would be all over it like flies on shit. Sigh. Hell I'd still throw in my $2,500 for an acre of the New World, wouldn't you?
Linus for President!
Duh. The USA claimed the moon in 1969. The moon has the same laws as any other state of the union. Read up on your history. :-)
What does it matter in this case if Framing someone elses site is a violation of that sites copyright? The ASCAP doesn't represent the radio stations, whose copyrights are the ones being violated by this definition.
Also, I'm not sure you're correct about copyright as it applies to music. I'm pretty sure I've heard that in many cases, anyone can use your music if they want to, provided they pay a set "reasonable" fee. Of course, this may be what happens to your music if you sign up with the ASCAP. Not really sure.
Agreed. Software companies need to quit bullshitting the public and lower their prices to a fair price rather than these ripoff prices I've been seeing lately. If I could simply go out and pick up a piece of warez for say 10-50 depending on it is, then I sure as hell would buy more software. Sorry, I have not paid for AutoCAD, BSDi, IRIX (SGI *gave* me the media and sent at their cost, thumbs up to SGI!), Digital UNIX, MacOS, yadda yadda, because they want to much for it. I'm just a hobbyist and can't afford to dump so much money just to learn about a piece of software. I really don't *use* my computer for anything practical, it's just a hobby. Piracy is really the only way to go if you want to be fairly marketable to employers. Sure you could learn Linux and free software (which really helps), but you really can't go in and say that you have experience with SunOS 4 without actually ever touching it. If anything selling very cheaply, ala Sun, to hobbyists is an excellent way to get that software into your employer's hands which boosts sales for the software vendor. As for other software pieces, hey if you can't make much selling a few for a high price, sell many for a low price. I wouldn't even piss around with piracy if software vendors priced reasonably. This also gives you the advantage of having the printed manual. Really it's a win-win situation for both the software producers and the software consumers. As far as publicly playing music and such, that's ridiculous. Quit concentrating on suing everyone's ass off and concentrate on making /promoting GOOD music and lower your prices because what applies for software also applies to other forms of so-called intellectual property.
The point of the American Dream
is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Special emphasis on "the pursuit of happiness".
There are no guarantees that you will actually find it. In fact, from a logical standpoint, that
phrase guarantees you will NEVER find it, but
will always be pursuing happiness.
That is the American Dream. Who out there has actually found it?
So just how DO we deal with the aforementioned entities?
Rutting pigs, you!
Great book.
First off, if you play the radio in your business and you play a radio station, then the radio station has already paid to play the music. If you play cds, then you bought the cds, and the artist has already been compensated.
Second off, you are a moron. Games would never cost 20 dollars, because, first of all, it costs roughly 5 dollars to make each individual cd, it costs many thousands of dollars to develop the software, windows would have just barely made a profit selling at 30 dollars, and it sold 160 million coppies i think. Games sell many less copies and are just as expensive to make. No Industry could possibly benefit from a tyrannous group like ascap.
I could stoop really low and ask you why you need an organization to protect your intellectual property, since it is obviously very low grade, judging by the IQ level shown in this post, but i won't.
My point exactly... my little duck.
Some dickhead made two orders of magnitude more money off you than you've made off yourself, and you laugh it off. The beat goes on....
There's an independent part of India called Auroville that has no laws. It's a community based system and everybody does as they please. Magically enough it works, but only because you have to be allowed in. Once you're in yuo can do what you want, including copying and distributing anything you want, unless international law can stop it. But I don't think there is an international copyright law.
So if you want to escape copyright you can become an Aurovillian.
Downpart is that you have to live there too, and they aren't exactly technologically minded.
So what you're saying is to basically to an IDP (internet death penalty) on them.
Not yet.
Look further up for Auroville.
Just get in there with a sattelite link and you can publish anything you want.
Musicians already DO have the right to determine what happens to their creations--and they can do this without greedy middlemen bottom-feeders. Do you really think such agencies CARE about musicians or fans? wake up. I dream of the day when I can pay musicians DIRECTLY for songs of theirs I like. And we will both be better off. And as a side note, I too am a musician.
Hmmm.... this sounds like a Multi-Level-Marketing Scheme :-O
ASCAP at top, radios in the middle, you as the sucker.
BSD has fallen on hard times. FreeBSD is in trouble; Walnut Creek is struggling to stay afloat and it is up for sale, so says Jordan Hubbard. BSDI growth is flat. And then there are the "also-rans" NetBSD, OpenBSD etc--no comment needed. BSD never caught on with users, and odds are that it never will amount to more than the niche OS that it has always been. Unable to attract younger users, a BSD BOF is looking more and more like an AARP coffee klatch. The BOF chit chat is now just as likely to center around prostate problems and "regularity" than it is to BSD topics. The twilight years of BSD are now upon us. A "Kevorkian" may eventually be in order. Who will be the first to "pull the plug"?
/*
I've never understood how this works, legally speaking. The radio station pays a licensing fee to broadcast the
music, and if I'm in a commercial environment, I have to pay a fee for receiving it?
*/
Yep. That's why Muzak is in business. They sell paid-for content so that businesses don't have to worry about ASCAP hassles over radio.
Why are /.ers so protective of copyright violators? Copyright is the only protection free software authors have. Musicians have just as much right as programmers to determine what happens with their creations.
And let's get this straight: framing someone else's content is piracy, just as surely as copying it onto your hard drive.
If the ASCAP can (hypothetically so far) legally force webmasters to pay fees for indicating where to find content, this can have much wider repercussions. After all - slashdot also indicates where to find content - much of it provided my reuters, zdnet, cnn, bcc - and other companies.
It raises questions about portal sites, search engines and homepages. Search engines can spew out links to musioc that doesn't take you off the search engine's site. It woudl seem that they'd be liable for fees to the ASCAP.
It also brings up questions about where end-users really are. is a site such as slashdot an end user as well as a provider?
Rikard
[Science] is one of the very few things that raises human life a little above farce and gives it the grace of tragedy.
I've never understood how this works, legally speaking. The radio station pays a licensing fee to broadcast the music, and if I'm in a commercial environment, I have to pay a fee for receiving it?
I guess maybe now I know where Microsoft got some of their ideas for their licensing practices from. ;)
Protecting against companies who would manufacture CDs, tapes, records, etc., then distribute them is one thing but hassling mom 'n pop businesses for playing the radio is silly.
I've no sympathy for the music industry. For decades, they've screwed musicians. Now they are going after fans.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
Check out U.S. Code Title 17.
As you can see, they mention ASCAP specifically.
ASCAP is a little more old-school and technophobic that BMI, which is why my songs are represented by BMI. They at least seem to *want* to have a clue.
Don Nego
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
Given their history, I'd guess that the only reason they don't go after people singing in the shower or 'listening' to a song in their head is that they can't police it. Any organization that would demand money from a bunch of kids for singing at camp deserves to be scrapped.
How the word piracy got co-oped to mean violating someones copyright's is beyond me. Piracy involves boarding someones ship (or plane), taking control of said vessel, killing everyone on board in some cases, and then stealing their stuff. To use the word piracy to refer to something as non-violent as copyright violations is an affront to all the people that STILL die at the hands of real pirates.
--
Python
Python
>But now we have ASCAP stepping in and saying that
>if I'm setting up a little page saying how
>much I like They Might Be Giants, and I want to
>link to emusic.com where they have some
>sample clips of TMBG music that they sell
>(legally), I have to pay a license fee, or be
>faced with a lawsuit that I can't afford,
>regardless of whether or not the lawsuit is >frivolous.
No, it doesn't. Read the article. They're *quite* clear that a link to another page is not what they're talking about.
>>If you would like to link to ASCAP's Site,
>>please read and comply with the following
>>guidelines and all applicable laws. A Web site >>that links to ASCAP's Site:
>>May link to, but not replicate, ASCAP's content.
...
>>Should not create a browser or border >>environment around ASCAP content.
...
>OK, These are actually perfectly reasonable
>requests. There are a lot of issues with framing
>other people's content, especially if you put ads
>in those border frames.
Read the article. This is the situation where they're asking for license fees.
hawk, esq.
It's the letterhead they're printed on, not the contents, that matters.
And this works in the little guys favor, too. I saw many situations where a record club, or homeowners group, collection agency, IRS, or whatever, was steamrolling the little guy.For about $100, they could have me send out the hostile letter, often *with the exact same information*, and the problem would suddenly go away.
The letter from a lawyer gets looked at by someone further up is part of it, I suppose. And it also adds a bit more credibility to the threat.
No, it's not fair that someon has to pay the $100. I might have been willing to work for free, but my secretary and kids weren't willing to skip meals
hawk, esq.
You don't have to go that far. Just have a link rather than a frame, and you're fine.
ASCAP is thinking about things backwards, they should be paying stores to play music since the store is,in effect, advertising the artists for free, no? The artists are not being exploited, they are being advertised. It's similar to grocery stores advertising products on the "on-air radio", IMHO.
Another point, does this mean I have to pay a licensce fee everytime I have a block party and people have to pay to get in, we have the radio on?
--shdragon
"...we dont care about the economics; we just want to be able to hack great stuff."
This is nothing new, and there have been numerous cases involving this.
If you are going to link to another site, then the other site should show up in the entire browser, or you should open a new browser. You shouldn't embed it into a frame.
Well first of all, it makes it painful for the end user to bookmark the site.
And second of all, it gives the impression that your site is responsible for the content in some capacity, and frankly I agree it is a violation of copyright law.
This is a non issue, why the slashdot article for it?
This post confuses many things.
/. article) which provides a very thought provoking discussion of the issues around IP and digital technology. Far more illuminating than most of the posts in this thread.
1. Copyrights are about art. Ideas cannot be copyrighted. A copyright provides potection for specific expression (in words, music or visually) of some "idea" in a very broad sense of the word. The moral basis of copyright is to protect the financial interests of artists (and their estates) to encourage the development of artistic expressions. I find it fascinating that copyrights were used as a tool to protect software. This puts software into the category of art, as oppossed to technology (see 2).
2. Patents are about technology. Ideas cannot be patented. A patent provides protection for a specific implementation of an invention (e.g. your specific drug to cure cancer). Again, the moral basis is to encourage inventors to recoup years of R&D and to encourage the development of technology.
[3. Just for completeness sake, trademarks are about marketing]
To cut to the core issue of IP, the question is how to compensate artists and inventors while balancing the rights of society to a rich and open cultural heritage and technological benefits to all. Digital technology creates complications on both sides (its both easier to copy and also easier to protect). But these issues have been around for couple hundred years or more (until relatively recently, there was no concept of ownership of intellectual property). I recently read that in the early 1800s British books were printed in the U.S. without royalties to the author (i.e. pirated) making them cheaper (and hence more popular) than books by American authors, who, being here, could demand and get their royalties.
There was a recent post by the FSF's lawyer (noted in a
The moral outrage around the issue of IP is that in fact the law has long ago moved from its original basis of protecting the interests of artists and inventors. It is now used to protect the interests of the distributors of artist productions and inventions, which tend to be greedy corporations. Artists and investors usually end up getting very little compensation. Digital technology, by changing the means of distribution and allowing a direct connection between creator and consumer, may restore some balance where the legal system has failed.
Cut'n'paste
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
Hello
What country is friendliest to someone with the perspective modern scientist/geek? I have about had it with this censorship driven, encryption restricting, scam supporing, lobbiest centric, let's buy winmodems by the millions because I don't have a clue fest.
A minimum of loopholes created by ancient legal spaghetti would be preferable.
Maybe if everyone with an IQ over 100 and a moral center bigger than a peanut, moves out to this imaginary-land the crew in Washington (who will still be there) will get it.
Or did I somhow miss the point of the American Dream?
Well anyway the question was where can I move, or at least where could I base a business?
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
That's a very reasonable plan, and I wanted to do something along those lines myself. The start-up fees (mostly liscensing) and the head-ache of needing to contact EVERY artist who's music you wanted to sell makes it prohibitive. If you charged $0.25 per mp3, the artist will still receive more than TWICE their royalties (with the exception of a couple artists who can command upwards of $1.00 or more per 5 minutes of a song).
-------------------------------------------------
The way their web licensing contract is written, in its current form, that is exactly what can cause you to have to pay the royalties. According to the article, they aren't pursuing that right now.
It is a current work in progress, so expect it to change. Maybe with a little bit of pressure, it can happen.
-------------------------------------------------
>What gives them that right?
By entering into contract with one of these three companies, an artist liscences them to police their copyrights. With the standard license, the artist basically says "do whatever you need to protect my music".
>What law provides them that power?
Contract Law.
>If there's no law authorizing such a right, then why are they allowed to do it?
Contract law is a very convoluted form of law practice. I only know enough to whatch for certain clauses, and to take ALL contracts to a lawyer to review BEFORE you enter into any contract and contest every clause you disagree with. If you can't reach agreement, then don't enter into the contract.
>As far as I can tell, this is a civil matter, there're no laws actually involved. Or does US copyright law specifically appoint ASCAP/BMI/whoever as copyright police?
The record companies basically force the artists hand in this regard. Basically, if you are going to be signed, you must have your work protected by one of the three big companies (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC). ASCAP is big in pop music, BMI is big in alternative/Christian music, and SESAC is big in world music. In effect, the record companies refuse to play policeman--it takes up too many resources. If they left it to the artist, they run the risk of the artist being too permissive (and thus they lose revenues) or too restrictive (and thus they lose market share). By using these companies, both the artist and the record company operate under a known set of rules that they can build a business with.
If an artist refuses to be signed, and protects their own rights (which is a whole lot more work), then we probably wouldn't have all this crap going on today. So what do we do? If we have a band, control your own destiny--you may not make millions per year, but tens of thousands is ok if you can gain the following for it.
Remember, an artist makes most of its money touring and royalties are secondary income. Record companies are big machines, and they can offer you an easier access to radio air play, a video on VH-1, and a big tour with lots of promotional support behind it. Record companies came into business not to get artists heard, but to sell records and create a demand for the phonographs. They have since grown, and many artists simply give up rights they should protect in order to get heard.
If we could set up a Artist and Repetoir company that catered to unsigned bands, providing a lobbying system for air play, and bringing in money for both the artist and the promoting companies, then we could have a competing model that would totally change the business operates. Unfortunately, I have no clue on how to do this. Otherwise, I would. Music is one of my passions. That is why I went to school to learn how to record and mix it (unfortunately, the starting pay wasn't enough to support me).
-------------------------------------------------
Alot of people don't realize the power that these companies wield (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC). They have the legal right to enter any store, club, resteraunt, or place of business and demand to see proof of current licensing (with their company, of course). Let me qualify place of business: any retail or business site that plays music covered by ASCAP (& etc.) to generate revenue or productivity. In other words, if the store or office pumps the music over the phone or intercomm, then they are liable. This now includes web sites (you can check out their web licensing contract and fees at their respective sites-- ASCAP, BMI, SESAC). As you can see, they are rather steep--and you have to be careful who you link to.
I find that this truly bites for a couple reasons. The first, I wanted to set up a web site akin to mp3.com that you paid legitimate fees for copyrighted music so I could pay the artists royalties (a cause I deeply believe in). The licensing not only forbids that (I would have to individually contact every record company individually to do it), there fees are prohibitive. Especially the up-front fees. Secondly, it bites because if someone you directly link to decides to distribute music (in any format) on his site, I am liable. I think there reasoning behind it is that I generate revenue (?!) because of that link. I am glad that they can't make you liable for some moron who decided to do the same thing links to you site (you have no real control over that).
I have attempted to contact these companies for alternative liscensing agreements that would permit the site I wanted, but received no response. So, unless you can be assured that you can use GPLd music, you are SOL (remember, a band who does a cover of protected music cannot release their version under GPL, FPL, or any other open distribution license).
-------------------------------------------------
so that it gives me the right not to enter his bedroom!
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
IIRC, it's American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers.
No mention of the actual performing artists in there anywhere.
I suspect that they concentrate on seeing to it that those holding the publishing rights to the songs get paid first and most, as publishing rights tend to be owned by big corporations.
If your band played original material on that tour, then they (ASCAP)probably weren't too concerned with making sure that you payed yourselves. If you did covers of ASCAP licensed stuff I'm surprised you didn't have to pay them.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Actually, that song is copyrighted. It wasn't composed until late in the 19th or early in the 20th century, so it's not really "folkmusic" or in the public domain.
Next time you go Christmas Caroling you might want to avoid the non-religious numbers as these are by and large 20th century commercial endevors.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
What happens is that the lawyer has a guest that evening who is also a lawyer, but for a publisher, and the kid who said "Bah Humbug!" winds up sued for infringing on Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" where that particular phrase appears.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
For a better idea of whatr ASCAP is and how it came to be, there's a book I suggest you read: Rockonomics. (Or maybe Rocknomics?) It goes into a lot of the legalities of the music business in an enduser friendly way (and a lot of you guys seem to be endusers of music, especially asking why ASCAP can do this).
It's not the best book on the subject, and it's not great on its own, but it'll get you in that direction.
Hell, just boycott web links. No links to bands. No links to band sites. No links to CDnow. No links to anything that has anything to do with the music industry. (Ok, true indies can stay) I mean, between MP3, the lyrics database, and this, I say screw 'em.
Give 'em what they want:
"Hello, music industry - Don't like the web? Feel threatened? Ok, fine. No web for you."
Sheesh.
Get him to use the RICO act against these people. As the article already mentioned, there's been one RICO suit against ASCAP. I bet if you find a tough on crime prosecutor, he could put a serious dent in this sort of crap.
65.0% slashdot pure
I wouldn't be proud of that...
oops.
that's what I get for assuming plain text.
but my grandfather is. and he's not a bad guy, and hates what all the crazy lawyers do.
and for most of them, it's just a job. hate the ones who tell them what to do, if you're feeling so aggressive.
no, I don't think it's right, but it's not so wrong as you make it seem.
Lea
a bit more feasible, I think...
:)
check out the Mars Society, if you want one of those little radical plans
Lea
metacrawler does this (but from several engines) and though (I believe) they've been challenged, they're still up... (though acquired by go2net)
Lea
I was just telling myself the other day, I need a goal that's unrelated to anything else going on in my life. I think I found it.
I find the actions of this group highly reprehensible, offensive, and in very poor taste. If someone is willing to donate some web space and a domain name to me, (Not a lot...maybe 10 megs or so) I would gladly put up a site that links to every online musical resource anyone can think of.
See, my best friend's uncle is a lawyer...he and I have an agreement...he never pays for computer services, and I never pay for legal services.
Unfortunately, I lack the resources right now to go about this myself. But, if anyone wants to donate a little space for the good fight, I'd be all about going to court and trying to set a good precedence for the rest of the community at large.
Considering the great resemblence of this to a protection racket, and the legal skills of my lawyer (the guy is GOOD), I think a milestone could be set here. Might always fail, too, but it's worth a shot, and it's only a little web space, eh?
Send an email if you're interested.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
I don't think they're ignoring the fact that it's coming from somewhere else -- I think they're claiming it's not obvious it's coming from somewhere else, and therefore, TravelFinder is essentially repackaging the content as their own.
Mind you, I don't necessarily agree that ASCAP is the entity that should be getting their panties in a bunch, but I understand their viewpoint.
No, web rings (and what we mean by "links") only point you to content elsewhere -- not provide that content for you.
To limit that, of course, would be amazingly stupid on ASCAP's part, and I don't think they're stupid.
Stupid people will be persecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law.
Only if the radio automatically replaced the call letters of the radio station with, for example, "Panasonic".
It's more like if someone set up a search engine with their logo, their name, their advertisers, but all the form did was pass stuff to AltaVista or Google, collect the results, and display them with, again, their logo, their name, and their advertisers.
Or, look at it this way. Suppose you developed a cool on-line game. You buy some servers, get a T-1, line up some advertising to pay for it all. All is going well. Until you notice your T-1 is jam-packed but no one's seeing your ads.
Turns out, someone else put up a front end page to your game, with their own ads. You did all the development, bought the server, and are paying for the bandwidth, but they're getting the profits. They're using your resources for their own personal gain.
It's the same as SPAM.
Only, with IP theft thrown in.
This is a sore point for me, as I know of at least one site that does this with one of my sites, and it's going to start happening a lot. Unless you can afford to pay lawyers all the time, there's not a lot you can do about it.
Of course, as I said before, I'm not sure ASCAP is the one that should be getting their panties in a bunch about it. They're just greedy.
Stupid people will be persecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law.
I suspect you would if you made your living off the stolen site. Or, perhaps you're already independantly wealthy, and you wouldn't.
Stupid people will be persecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law.
Well, to answer what ASCAP does, here's a quote from their web page (I wasn't entirely sure before, though I had sort of a vague idea):
So what does that mean? Well, let's say you're a guy with a guitar, and you really want to be a rock star. You write some songs, dump 'em to CD, and give some to your friends. Maybe you even play a couple of gigs at the local pub.
Okay, so now your parents (who wanted you to be a doctor or a lawyer) say that it's time you moved out and got your own place (after all, you are in your mid-20's.)
So you and a couple of buds get this really rocking place downtown. You're playing and having a great time, until the landlord asks for the rent. So now you have to get a job, and you don't have much time for playing.
But you still listen to the radio at work, right? Well, one day, you hear your song being played on the radio! Cool! Now you can quit your job and get that limo with the hot tub in the back. Only, the radio station isn't paying you anything.
They don't have to, because they're a big corporation, and you're just a nobody making minimum wage. They've got lots of lawyers, you don't even know any lawyers.
Then a record label hears it, and gets one of their house musicians (or some soap opera star) to sing it and they have a huge hit on their hands. And they pay you nothing. Their lawyers say they wrote it, and they'll happily go to court over it.
So you wander the streets telling people that you wrote that hit song, but the record company stole it, and they just shake their heads and cross the street. Your parents call once a week to remind you how they said you should become a lawyer...
ASCAP purports to be a grouping of composers, authors, and publishers that has banded together to prevent this sort of thing happening.
Perhaps they've gotten too big for their britches, and perhaps they're not doing a good job, but to say they offer no benefit is ludicrous and inane.
Stupid people will be persecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law.
And how do you come to this amazing conclusion?
No. What ASCAP is saying is that you cannot put a link on your page directly to those sample clips and pass them off as if they were your own. To do so, you would need to pay ASCAP licensing fees for distributing their member's music. As you said, "There are a lot of issues with framing other people's content, especially if you put ads in those border frames." ASCAP is claiming that one of those issues is that you need to pay licensing fees for those other people's (ASCAP members) content.
Actually, I believe there was a case wherein the Wall Street Journal sued another site which was posting WSJ stories within their frameset as if they were the other site's original work.
This, by the way, is what ASCAP is claiming is happening here. But you don't care about that, or you would have spent a smidgeon of time reading the actual article, instead of a whole lot of time shooting your mouth off.
As for ASCAP's guidelines for linking to their own site, most of them are just nice wordings of existing laws (copyright and others). btw, when they say false, they're talking factually false, not your inane opinions.
The last two, dealing with infringing and offensive sites, are probably not legally enforceable, but entirely understandable. What they're saying is that they would prefer you didn't say something like "these songs stolen from ASCAP members!" on your warez site, or similarly link from a porno site.
Stupid people will be persecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law.
ASCAP is claiming that TravelFinder was displaying the broadcast within its frameset, giving the impression that the broadcast originated from TravelFinder.
Imagine if you made, say, a really spiffy Got Milk parody featuring Yoda, and someone else displayed it on their site, within a frame, so that although the image was coming from your site, it looked like it was their's. You'd be pissed, right?
To a lesser extent, this is what ASCAP is claiming. I suspect their position is that if you are going to broadcast "their" music, you have to pay the licensing fees, whether you got it as a free promo CD, from the local record store, or as an internet feed from another site.
Mind you, I'm not saying ASCAP is entirely correct, but it doesn't sound like it's a simple case of "you put a link to my site on your page, so you owe me."
Stupid people will be persecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law.
Gak .... sounds like the story going around several years ago about the song "Happy Birthday" being copyrighted.
if you have a lawyer to write scary letters, you are in the right unless the person getting the letters is also sitting on a pile of cash to hire his own lawyers.
Someone had a book out once, about how to write your own scary letters - maybe one of the cheapo home legal kits at the office supply store might have some std boilerplates.
Chuck
Your tuned to the BDI network.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Then we need ubiquitous e-cash so we can publish there anonymously and tell the ASCAP, crypto-export, and other thought police to go chase themselves.
As far as the price of software being a determinate of piracy, you obviously have never been involved ina retail software business venture. Never is there a calculation of how much we'll have to add to the price to compensate for pirates, it's always based on what the market can bare, and what covers our expenditures. The notion that software prices are high because of piracy is a convenient lie.
Sheeit, even calling it piracy is a piece of rhetorical bullshit. Noone is harmed, it's non-violent. Nothing is taken away from the author except for a theoretical sale to a person who almost dfinelty would have not bought the orgiginal in the first place.
craig
You can't link to something that outside your own site....
1. Free speech is shot down.
2. The whole purpose of web-based technology is compromised.
3. In the end, lawyers make all the money.
Hmm, I can't think of one thing this would accomplish for the greater good of mankind.
What if you simply posted the web address without the href so people could cut and paste it into the address bar? You're not actually linking, you're simply mentioning a radio station. And you could say you are not linking to any music sites.
I really don't see how they have any right to say who can and cannot link to their site. imho by putting a site on the www you are granting people the right to link to it, whether you like it or not.
-matt
In some ways this looks like more of the same tempest in a teacup about commercial identity and framed content, and if that's all it was, who'd care? It's not like I ever spend time at framed sites. There's another issue lurking here, though: the appropriate use of the appropriate technology, whether it be sophisticated systems or just the right contract language, to channel the flow of money from listeners to the correct artists.
That is, after all, the whole purpose of performing rights associations - to provide the service of collecting revenues for their members. They are a bit like governments that way: *everyone* complains when overhead and administration costs rise, the fair shares that everyone wants add up to more money than there is coming in, and no matter how the policies are set, they can never, in the real world, be completely fair or accurate. And it's the small fry who can't afford to lobby and are considered hard to count that tend to get proportionately less of the revenue.
OK, so the system can never be perfect. But can't it get better?
When you buy a CD, the correspondences are exact. Aside from overhead, the correct artists and publishing companies get all of the performing rights fees collected from the maker of the CD.
Concert performances fall in the same category. A fee gets paid based on headcount, and the bulk of that revenue goes to those actually responsible for the selections of music heard at that concert.
In radio, the correspondences are less exact. Each radio station pays blanket fees, and is also periodically audited in the simplest possible way: a list is made of every piece of music paid during a period of time. Those lists are the basis for the apportionment of revenues collected from the radio stations. This could never be perfect, and the artists that could most use just a bit more income are the very ones who tend to disappear in the statistical noise, but the system works, and it could always be incrementally improved.
But what ASCAP is trying to do here seems to be to collect more money from additional parties who have no possible way of providing useful data for the apportionment of that revenue.
Ability to pay disregarded, it is quite apparent that most people will willingly pay reasonable fees to listen to the music they prefer. CDs are bought and sold at a more-than-reasonable price, while listeners catch as catch can for any music that they don't prefer to buy at a premium of 1000% or more than the composers and performers will get paid.
It's easy to envision the administrative nightmare that would arise if performing rights tried to collect accurately and directly from each listener for each piece of music enjoyed or endured. Reductio ad absurdum, compromises must be made.
But can't we do better than this? After all, regardless of whether a link to an internet radio station appears to be part of another site or not, music that gets to a listener came from the radio station, not the site providing the link - regardless of all other considerations. The station can presumably provide the straight goods on what music was played and how many were listening (at least on average). Rest assured that all countable listeners, regardless of how they came to listen to that station, will be included in the formula for the amount the station must hand over.
If I read the Wired article right, what ASCAP is doing here is the equivalent of double taxation.
Before trying to collect twice for the same listener, perhaps it makes more sense to collect from those that proxy streaming media. They serve actual *additional* listeners, and besides, they are the most of the ones that get a good enough signal to bother listening nowadays.
There are, of course, probably some legitimate cases where you wouldn't want others linking to your content. The right to control (or at least influence) the destiny of your content is a debatable issue, but many folks on /. would probably agree there is a case for it.
/., you probably know there's a number of ways you could do this.) Your second effort should be a friendly reminder on your site _not_ to link whatever you want linked, and friendly contact with anyone you know has overlooked that (deliberately or non). Legal action, with all its financial requirements and precedent setting potential, should be last.
Still, sticking something out in the open on a web server is invitation to have it indiscriminately linked to and copied. Your first effort should be to make some technological effort to keep from linking. (Not hard. You read
Much of the complaint I have (and other posters seem to share) is that it doesn't seem like ASCAP is looking out for anyone but themselves. The Wired article notes that they showed up to collect fees from TravelFinder.com, but it doesn't say they were representing anyone -- not even the radio stations. Not the artists. It doesn't even say whether ASCAP knew artists that were part of ASCAP were part of the content of
TravelFinder.com. And from the account, it sounds like the links told viewers where the content was coming from. This doesn't sound like the case of some poor content producer/provider getting robbed blind by deceiving links.
Tweet, tweet.
But nobody does anything about it. I fully expect to see an article on Slashdot one day with a picture of Einstein by it on how someone IS doing something about the weather. But I've been following slashdot for a while now, and I don't see a whole lot about people doing anything about IP issues.
This is interesting, considering the fact that I see the Open Source community as very self-reliant. Cooperative, yes, but also, self-reliant.
I have seen some insightful posts now and again. And some folks have pointed out that there are, in existence, several organizations that exist to work with these issues.
I'm going to list some of these at the end of my post. If you know of others, I'd be interested to hear about them. I'd also be interested in knowing what you folks think of their efforts & effectiveness. And I'm also interested hearing other ideas about what we could DO about this problem. The law system seems to have been designed to be adversarial, with each side of an issue to be represented by an advocate. We've got to have some good advocates, or the law system will fail us.
Organizations:
FSF, of course (http://www.fsf.org)
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
(http://www.eff.org)
Digital Future Coalition
(http://www.dfc.org/)
Web Media Advisory Council
(http://www.com-prod.com/wmac.org/)
Home Recording Rights Coalition
(http://www.hrrc.org/)
Maybe that Ralph Nader guy is even doing something.
Other Online Resources:
Cyberspace Law Center
(http://www.cybersquirrel.com/clc/index.html)
Nolo (DYI law stuff, mostly)
(http://www.nolo.com)
FindLaw
(http://www.findlaw.com)
All these links are listed simply on this page:
http://sun.he.net/~uvm/links/ip.html
And feel free to email me (weston@byu.edu) if you're interested in working on this problem, have insights onto who really is, or if you have other comments.
Tweet, tweet.
Let this be serve as a warning to you work-at-home people. Don't play your radio too loud. This also goes for drug dealers playing loud music in their cars with the windows open
"when they kick at your front door, how you gonna come? with your hands on your head or on the trigger of your gun"
-the clash, "guns of brixton" (oops, did I just tempt fate?)
_______
2B1ASK1
ASCAP artists shouldn't care if their song is being played in a store for free -- it's free advertising.
_______
2B1ASK1
Christmas Eve: Happily caroling along, the group of children and adults knocks on the door of an ASCAP-employed music licensing lawyer. The lawyer cuts them off in mid song and asks them for their names, also telling his wife to get a camera. He informs them that the company is willing to negotiate a reasonable licensing fee for the public performance of copyrighted Christmas Carols, in lieu of taking legal action against the group. Someone starts to laugh but stops short. The group is quiet for a moment. One of the children in the back says "Bah Humbug!" and they all start walking away, while the lawyer runs back inside to see what's taking his wife so long to get a picture of these music pirates.
At least in this case, there would probably be some psuedo-justice as, later that night, an overly hormonal teenager from the group throws a huge plastic Santa Claus through the damned snake's picture window (laughing all the way, ho ho ho).
Iliad is the cartoonist who draws User Friendly, a wonderful little strip. Artur is a Terminator-like character who has appeared in recent strips to (physically) attack Microsoft.
-Imperator
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
Make no mistake about it, ASCAP is merely the enforcement branch of the music industry crime family. Any artist that fools themselves into believing that ASCAP does anything at all for them than make the labels more money is fooling themselves.
;-).
ASCAP hasn't done anything for anyone in the music industry outside of the owners of the record labels. If you are Adman Duritz or Matchbox20 then yeah they are your friends, but anyone else, they're just a tax collector.
Be lucky you do not own a small club at all, these mafiosos will demand several hundred dollars a month from you under continuous harrassment on the premise that any live music venue MUST be hosting coverbands. Hell, if you're anywhere near their offices they will even send out spies to see if any band would have the gall to play a cover.
ASCAP epitomizes the current commercial music industry. The industry now uses artists solely as tools of profit. There is little or no artist development, and signings are treated like futures trading. Sure you may wind up the recipient of a million dollar publishing deal after a bidding war, but if your one-hit-wonder song doesn't do 10 million copies you are now tied up via your contract to the label that signed you and are tossed away with the trash. The only way to return is to reform the band and use all new material. The biz is disgusting these days quite frankly, and ASCAP is merely the enforcement branch. Think of them as the collectors for a bookie or a shylock. Afterall Mariah Carey has to get her alamony on time
Oh btw, I work in the industry. I'm speaking from experience, and the current environment is what is driving me to leave the music biz for other work.
ASCAP is what keeps music piracy at a minimum. If sowtware had an orginization like this, software piracy would be at a low, and software would be less expensive due to it. Games would cost 20$ because they don't have to compensate for you buying it and burning 13 copies for all of your friends.
This is debatable. Pure economics says that piracy drives the cost of products DOWN, since it provides an identical product for less money. Add to that the fact that I GUARANTEE you that at most one of the thirteen of your hypothetical friends would buy the stupid game at $40 bucks if they couldn't copy it.
I see this stupid myth over and over again. Don't buy it. Its total garbage.
The information economy is a sham. In case you havent noticed, its a SELLER's market. They choose what price is optimal, since they can always drop the per unit cost arbritrarily low until it reaches manfacturing costs, which, for a non-material good, is basically zero.
If i see one more llama bleating that piracy is costing software manufacturers' money, im going to scream.
The legal SYSTEM is not necessarily out of control, rather, it is the LAWYERS who are out of control. I'm not aware of much that ASCAP has won, most of it has been settled out of court and never been before a judge.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Thanks Aron, I knew I had mixed up copyrights, patents and trademarks terribly. Ok, so all of the above cover "specific" instances and not the "general" case of the "idea."
Thats better, but I still think it should be limited somehow, for the overall benefit of society.
And yes, the money should go to the inventor/creator not some money hungry distributor who benefits from an artificial monopoly.
New proposal:different time limits on patents depending on the industry involved. e.g 1 year for tech(computer), 5 years for drugs etc. This could/should encourage faster innovation.
The only reason all cover-ups appear to fail is that you never hear about the ones that succeed.
1. OK, IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) but I believe that copyright law will have to be seriously adjusted in this digital age. Simply put, copying and transmitting most information is now WAY too easy. Its hard to regulate it and any attempt to do so causes major inconvenience.
2.I think a solution is reducing some of the rights of copyright holders and then rigidly enforcing those rights that remain. I think the whole concept of "owning" ideas is pretty strange anyway. So if I think up a cure to cancer that means I "own" this idea? And people can die left and right if I don't feel like letting them use "my" idea?
3. Certainly you should be allowed to profit from your idea, but I propose copyrights should be limited to 1 year. After that all bets are off. This will be a much cleaner implementation and during that year the copyright can be rigidly enforced and stiff fines levied.
4. OK, this idea probably has a lot of holes in it, but the concept of anyone owning an idea "forever" is deeply troublesome. I mean even if you are the creator, if you didn't want to share you could have taken your idea with you to the grave. Lets see how much profit you would have gotten then...
The only reason all cover-ups appear to fail is that you never hear about the ones that succeed.
First of all, I am an ASCAP member. The ASCAP has the basic job of defending intellectual property rights for musicians and composers. While I do not always agree with their methods, I am glad that they are around.
If you play music in your business, you use that music to make money. ASCAP sees that the artists are compensated for that. It really is that simple. When my jingle becomes the McDonalds commercial, I get compensated. If I open the Carly Simon cafe, all Carly, all the time, Shouldn't Carly be compensated for using her music in the restaraunt??
The web site in question used their links to radio stations in such a way as to make it appear local. Hence it is the same situation as any restaraunt that might use a stereo to play CD's while you browse. He could have simply made the links open a new window to another site.
Microsoft sells ads on their "Radio Guide" page, and hence they pay a licensing fee. As the web develops you will see more "portal sites" that center around mp3 and internet radio. They will be using the music as a draw to sell advertising in the millions. (M$ radio guide takes in a million dollars every month....)
While some of the ASCAP's practices may seem strange to normal people, there are usually ways around these rules. Case in point, if this guy would just have a pop-up window that made it known that the stream was not local, his site is business as usual.
And if the music is not useful to the retailer, he always has the option of doing without, as is the case here. But obviously music is important to these people.
ASCAP is what keeps music piracy at a minimum. If sowtware had an orginization like this, software piracy would be at a low, and software would be less expensive due to it. Games would cost 20$ because they don't have to compensate for you buying it and burning 13 copies for all of your friends.
I am typing this at work... I could do with less interruptions... *SIGH*
I find the last line of the article to be the scariest.
"If [the links] take you off a particular Web site, right now we're not pursuing that at all," Amenica said.
It's the "right now" that bothers me. Who's to say they won't pursue it at some future time?
I agree. I hate what the ASCAP is doing. It kinda makes you want to buy into everything RMS has been saying all these years.
However, I also think the web site developer is getting what he deserves for lazily using frames. Sorry to sound harsh, but anyone putting up a commercial web site should take the time and expense to do it right.
Frames suck. They make printing, viewing source code, and bookmarking ambiguous, and they break the traditional "page metaphor" of the WWW. To avoid the gratuitous framing of someone else's web page, even an amatuer should know how to target the _top frame!
this is the exact reason every chain restaurant now has their own (lame) happy birthday song.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
Hmm, does this mean that yahoo or altavista has to pay too? Perhaps we should retaliate. No, I'm not talking about hacking. I'm simply talking about something everybody can do. Remove all links to there ENTIRE website on their pages and get others to do the same. Imagine if we were succesfull enough to remove links from everywhere, including directories and search engines. They would be completely isolated in cyberspace.
Now that he's available, I think Artur needs to make a visit to ASCAP HQ.
I am tired of the music industry behaving the way they have been. I hadn't realized until I read the article that they were after restaurants with televisions & such. The article implies that noone has ever really challenged them about this. This looks like another example of a disturbing pattern in the U.S. - if you have a lawyer to write scary letters, you are in the right unless the person getting the letters is also sitting on a pile of cash to hire his own lawyers.
*Something* needs to be done about the runaway legal system in the U.S. - this is out of control...
*(Something is kinda vague, I know... my suggestion would start with tar & feathers, tho)
I work(ed) for a company that has media, video and audio that we have to protect from others linking to. Other than financial reasons of linking a particular video to a particular page, there are legal reasons to do this. It's similar to public viewing of movies and licensing. There are licensing issues where a video cannot look like it is linked to some random site, because it causes confusion of ownership and/or who has the right to host it on their website. Think of it as some knucklehead on NBC broadcasting a CBS tv show and it has the CBS logo on there. It's clear to the more intelligent where it came from, but otherwise it's an NBC show. It's silly on the outside, but for ownership problems, it's quite relevant.
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
I think the advent of MP3 has provoked a necessary debate about the pricing of music media to the general public.
Given I have a few CDs and tapes lying around in my flat, and occasionally have visitors seeing them, will these folks next want to charge for these? (An analogous situation to putting up links to sites which merely contain music links.)
I think the whole music industry needs a hefty review. Who's up to the job?
~Tim
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
With a few exceptions, rich musicians got that way by performing live (touring), not from record companies (who not only take the rights to their song, but also make the artists pay back all of the production expenses,etc) or ASCAP. Anyone who is getting played enough to generate significant ASCAP royalties would be popular enough to make quite a bit more touring.
Yes, but ASCAP did extract payment from the radio station broadcasting their songs. The store owner is simply receiving the broadcast from the radio station that has already paid ASCAP. If the "performance" actually began with the stores, then the radio stations shouldn't have to pay.
Do stores have to pay ASCAP a percentage of total sales? Do they have to pay based on the average census of customers in the store? What if business is bad and nobody is buying anything (perhaps because of the offending music) - do they still have to pay ASCAP. Or, in this case, does ASCAP have to pay damages for lost sales?
I'm sick of mononpolists defending their "rights". This is such a bunch of crap. Going after the girlscouts..this is a very community minded organization. I think it's high time we figure out some new copyright laws. The ones we have don't have a snowball's chance in hell to deal with the Internet and digital distribution.
All we'll get is a whole lot more lawyers, who already represent the scum of society (both in court and in person).
How 'bout this as a plan.
50/50 -- Half for the makers, and half for the sellers. If I sell, make more off of broadcasting, or do anything that generates revenue with your music, I have to split it with you, 50/50. This allows for HUGE distribution and, the mark of a good web business plan, multiple revenue streams. Now the lawyers and accountants can come in and make sure the artists get their share, not to make sure the public doesn't get their music.
This is a MUCH better deal than most major label artists get and works much better with our modern means of exchanging music.
Bash away
+&x
That's why you go with an open license (of sorts) it allows everyone the right of distribution with the clause of having to share any revenue. It puts the burden of proof on the part of the license holder, but the right to see a distributors books would be part of the licence. It might not work on a small scale (teenagers) but any major corporations that did it would be easy to police.
We basically a wide open marketplace right now (I have yet to have trouble finding any mp3 I want). Controlling it is an impossibility, adapting to it is a necessity.
+&x
And I thought the RIAA was a bunch of zipperheads. What a bunch of technically illiterate creeps.
I remember reading about that a few years ago. It even went so far that parents wouldn't allow the group to sing happy birthday to a child in that environment because the "happy birthday" song, believe it or not, is under copyright and would be subject to licensing fees. There was some research, and apparently the law is on the side of the ASCAP, sucks tho it may. Its absolutely slimy, but don't think that won't stop them.
So restaurants will pony up the dough because they don't want to risk a lawsuit. Girlscout groups simply choose to ablige by not playing the music at all, as a non profit organization, the licensing fees don't fit will into their budget.
But there is a solution. A lot of music is getting released outside the territory o fthe ASCAP. Granted, the selection is still a bit sparse, as is the quality in some cases, but give it time. Restaurants cater to a great many people, and if they wouldn't have to deal with this crap, they may be tempted to seek alternative solutions.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
It doesn't make any sense! Why would they not want you playing the radio in your place of business? That's free exposure! More people will hear the ads!
The fact that someone would have to pay to put a commercial radio station on in the work place is completely ludicrous and illogical!
- =^o.o^=
This case reminds me a lot of the case involving a news site that linked to many national newspapers. The news site kept their name and advertising in a frame while linking to the non-affliated new sites. The courts ruled against the news site because it was unclear to consumers that the news that they were viewing was not part of the original site they visited.
The article's description of the problem was very poor. It's more than just linking.
As long as the ASCAP limits its scope to organizations using frames in this manner, I think they are completely right. Like everyone else, I am skeptical of them given the music industry's history and the comments made in the article. However, I'm to hesistantly agree with them.
Besides, if it convinces people to stop using frames, we'd all be better off. I'm proud to say the only html tags I have never used are for frames.
i can assure you that they really do suck. my band was invited onto some of the dates for the Warped Tour last year, and needless to say, we were excited. until we learned that we had to join ASCAP. at first, i thought it was some kind of shady racket to shake down musicians. instead, it turns out it's a shady racket to shake down their fans.
the ASCAP monthly newsletter is delivered monthly to my house. as of late, seemingly the sole focus of the magazine has been MP3 and how it threatens the music industry. last month, there was an extensive article on how bands and labels can attack fan sites.
i guess that, were we being sued, or was my band getting actual radio airplay, ASCAP fight be slightly helpful, but i even doubt that.
it's also worth pointing out that we were NEVER paid for our Warp Tour dates. it's normal to get little or nothing playing a small club to 50 people, but when your band plays to 15,000 people, you might expect to get a little something. you'd be wrong. (the reason i mention this is because it's supposed to be ASCAP's job to see to it that we get paid.)
Lets say I have a link to a music site. When you click on the link, it automatically launches a new browser window (effectively taking you from my site to another that actually has the music). Does this mean I am supposed to pay a royalty?
Wouldn't that be akin to charging royalties from people for putting bumper stickers on their cars displaying their favorite radio station?
Any answers from knowlegdeable people would help.
Well, there they go again. ASCAP and its recording-industry forebearers have fought tooth and nail against every new technology that had *anything* to do with audio recording and distribution, going back to Edison's wax-cylinder phonographs.
I'd rather pay my $100 to a "beat ASCAP up in court" fund, than pay it to ASCAP.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I won't pay those bastards if I link to a radio station, I won't pay them if I link to a honest-to-god pirate site, I won't pay them if I turn on a TV in my office, I won't pay them if I sing a song walking down the street, and I won't pay them if I tell someone how to get to a record store, where they can buy copyrighted works.
We need to deal with ASCAP, just like we deal with anyone else who attacks our beloved internet.
ASCAP; the Church of Scientology; the Chinese, Vietnamese, Singaporean, and other jackbooted-thug governments; the "mainstream media" who miss no chance to write a negative story about the net and the WWW. FUCK THEM ALL.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Sorry that I do not want to write a real reply to this yet, I am too pissed off. But just a word of advice to anyone who has music links on their pages. You know those pop-up contracts that warez sites use to keep government agents out? :)
Course you don't, you don't look for warez, heh
Well make a pop-up for your site that visitor have to agree that they are no members or affiliates of ASSCAP, I mean ASCAP......I think I had it right the first time.
SPAM openly welcomed. I do charge a 500$ proof-reading fee though. Any complaints may be directed to the brick wall to y
Let's all pull out our cd-r's/cd-rw's and start burning bootlegs from mp3 ftp sites/hotline servers and downloading mp3s from mp3.com (hey some of their ska, punk and emo bands are worth it)
---Got Coffee?---
my band was in the same boat...we almost went with BMI but we ended up breaking up in that time frame...
:).
after perusing the literature and meeting people from both ascap and bmi we decided that we would go with bmi.
plus i liked their roster better
Sensei
Sensei
Linuxnewbie.org home of the NHF's
According to Webster's, hypertext is a noun meaning "a database format in which information related to that on a display can be accessed directly from the display." That's a rather convoluted definition. But if we break it down we can see it's not really that bad. We start by calling it "a database format," which is not exntirely false; we can consider a HTML page a record, making the WWW a form of database. Then we say that the nature of this database is such that "information related to that on a display can be accessed directly from the display." This means that the nature of the WWW is such that if I'm viewing a web page on music, I can directly access other pages dealing with music from the page that I'm viewing. So the definition isn't a bad one.
So by extrapolation we see that the nature of the WWW is such that such that pages link to all sorts of other (related) pages, forming a sort of web. This is part of what makes the WWW so useful: if I'm reading a page and I want more information on a particular topic, I just click on it and go there. And as someone making web pages, I don't have to reasearch and compile information and store it on my site if someone else has done it already. I can just link to their site.
But now we have ASCAP stepping in and saying that if I'm setting up a little page saying how much I like They Might Be Giants, and I want to link to emusic.com where they have some sample clips of TMBG music that they sell (legally), I have to pay a license fee, or be faced with a lawsuit that I can't afford, regardless of whether or not the lawsuit is frivolous. So what's next? We could have online newspapers demanding you pay a fee to post links to their stories on your web page. And then every Joe Clueless with a web site starts demanding payment for being able to link to his site.
But why should they stop with the web? Why not sue people for putting links in their Usenet posts telling people where to get some more information on a topic? Or email? I better not put a link to ASCAP's web site in here, or they might sue me! This goes against everything that the World Wide Web is. The WWW was developed for sharing information and making information avaiable to everyone easily.
But I suppose we better make sure that we're in compliance with ASCAP's rules regarding linking to their site....
Oh shoot. I'm violating that right now by copying their copyright agreement, aren't I? Damn. Better notify my lawyers.
OK, These are actually perfectly reasonable requests. There are a lot of issues with framing other people's content, especially if you put ads in those border frames. And as far as misrepresentation goes, that ends up falling into other legal areas.
Who determines what false is? If I say that ASCAP is a fascist organization, that's my opinion. Sure, you can say that it's false, but that doesn't mean you get to tell me to change it. However, if I was to hypothetically say that ASCAP's board of directors has a predilection for child pornography, that would be slander and you'd have legal grounds to sue me.
Again, perfectly sound restriction against using your intellectual property without your permission. However, if I was to use your graphics as part of a parody, you wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. Parodies are protected under fair use.
These two really come down to a matter of opinion. And frankly, if ASCAP really expects to be able to enforce them, I suggest they make sure they go to every major search engine and demand that all links to ASCAP be removed. Because there's not a search site I know of that doesn't return either warez or porn sites in their searches.
I suppose for the items that actual have some legal basis, this is entirely acceptable. But it's still not illegal for me to say "You can find this information over there." You can sue me for slander, you can sue me for copyright infringement, but you can't sue me for pointing at you.
---
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."