I'm not as sure about the laws in the UK, but I'm a designer working in the US and I've often had to sign a "Work for Hire" agreement â" essentially stating that my client/employer owns the rights to my work once I've been fully paid.
I've always seen this in reference to the 1976 copyright act in the US, so the timing's a little funny with a movie from 1977...so who knows how it was defined. But it's worth keeping in mind.
"This entire situation points to an outdated business model for soundexchange to enforce in a digital environment."
That's a very good point. I was talking with someone at a label last week (non-RIAA), and it's almost the exact point they made. The label business model has changed a great deal, and a lot of it depends upon paid digital downloads. That's why labels large and small are placing an emphasis on prevention of stream ripping. I think simple efforts like yours go very far in the labels' eyes. The music industry as a whole is still in the *middle* of a metamorphasis, and it's natural for all sides to be wary. You're essentially saying "I do my best, but I need to compete too" and I think if more outlets were to say similar things then the defenses of record labels would come down a bit.
As for US jurisdiction over-running European establishments...well its silly. Problem is that copyright laws aren't universal and anything headed by the RIAA is bound to be overly aggressive. The methods by which SE is proposing to collect royalties is simply terrible, but its likely that any solution will need to be fairly complicated. I'm sure a solution exists that will allow small internet radio to prosper and grow, along with small labels and independant music. The problem is that this current mess is going to hurt internet broadcasting OR independant music depending on which way things develop. And those are the two sides nearly everyone on/. is advocating for.
I understand the point is that many of the people make _too much_ money, but it should be pointed out that they all do deserver _some_ money for their efforts. I know folks at various record lables, and they put in (easily) sixty hour weeks as a normal thing. I know many touring musicians with good CD sales, and they work tirelessly...practice, travel, shows, recording, promotion...it's non-stop almost year round.
My point is: it's not wrong for labels and artists to want money for their craft. It's only wrong to want exorbitant amounts.
The RIAA asking for better stream ripping technology isn't really so evil. Lawsuits and the ugliness around file sharing is rather despicable, but this is totally reasonable. Their goal here isn't to end "piracy" 100%, it's only to deter the casual listener from totally ripping all streams. They absolutely understand that its just a simple loop-back for analog recording, but the idea is that the CD as a package is still appealing, the quality is a little higher, and that the casual consumer would still be inclined to buy a CD as long as they can't simply download a piece of shareware and rip the streams with a push of a button.
Collectively the RIAA is pretty nasty, so are many software advocacy/anti-piracy groups. That doesn't mean that the people who produce the work that those groups advocate for don't deserve to be paid for their efforts.
This is a really good point, but let's not forget that royalties still need to be fairly paid to other (non-RIAA) artists. All of the artists working hard and putting out music on indie labels do still deserve their royalties. So if your idea were to work then internet radio stations would need to work out deals with those independents, or with an organization like the a2im (http://a2im.org/), which is similar in function to the RIAA but working for smaller labels and without the thin coating of slime.
What's lost in the rhetoric coming from both sides is that artists and labels are deserving of fair payment for the use of their creative work. Most labels, even some small ones, are up in arms because SoundExchange is telling them that this is an issue of small broadcasters demanding to play their music for "nothing." And broadcasters are clearly incensed at nasty pricing and bullying tactics by SoundExchange. You notice a commonality?
If you take away the extreme cases of major RIAA artists and militant "I deserve to broadcast for free" internet radio outlets, the argument becomes simple really. Musicians, technicians, producers, designers, sales folks, production folks, and more spent time creating each release. They do deserve to be paid for the effort. Just like programmers, IT staff, management, sales folks, production folks, and more deserve to be paid for software they create and distribute. It's a matter of setting a fair price, which SoundExchange doesn't seem particularly interested in. And since they're collecting royalties for the whole industry, RIAA and non-RIAA alike, they're a bit of a fly in the ointment--to say the very utter absolute least.
Negotiating directly with indie labels would work to circumvent SoundExchange. The only other alternative is to broadcast works made by artists who are granting usage rights via creative commons or something similar. Which would be very nice.
groceries are easy. especially in a true metro area. you can find a nice bag (see baileyworks http://www.baileyworks.com/) or set up your bicycle for panniers (http://www.gaerlan.com/bikeparts/acc/bag/bag.html ) of some sort. i live in providence, ri, and cycling is pretty common. i have a young daughter and clearly wouldn't ride with her, but it really does make sense for folks without children. real estate "within cycling distance" is a relative thing. after some practice, riding upwards of 15 miles is really not a big deal and would take no more than an hour or so for someone of average fitness who knows how to properly use their bicycle.
now that said, the more important point is that this is appearing in a thread about ipod FM transmitters. riding in a city with music is a bad idea. not to mention that carrying an extra radio for the transmitter to play with is probably sort of cumbersome...
The MPAA is already using similar tactics in the US. Cox Communications once put a hold on my account because a DVD rip was found on my account. Once I called tech support they explained that on the first and second offense access was simply suspended until the client called in, and the account would be suspended after the third violation. He then went on to say that it was the MPAA scanning P2P networks, rather than the ISP. We even ended up chatting about different firewalls and ways to avoid getting caught.
Now it was my fault...I had turned off my firewall for work, and forgot to bring it back up when I was finished. So shame on me. But the bottom line is that this practice is already in place with at least one major American ISP and MPAA properties...
"Staying at home is HARD WORK and it's selfless. Don't demean it."
Thanks for pointing this out. I have a three month old daughter, and my wife is the one staying home and caring for her. What's lost on most folks not familiar with the situation is that this was a choice we made by situation, not by pre-assigned gender role--as some might assume. I run a small business, and as the business was getting (ever so slightly) more successful, it made more fiscal sense for her to stay at home while I work. Were she to go back to work it would mean that one of us was working solely to pay for care of our daughter. So staying home full time is a sacrifice she's making, rather than the vacation implied by the previous poster.
My point here is that women aren't choosing babies over IT. Nor are they choosing ponies, tea parties, or pretty blouses over IT. I'd actually be willing to bet that they're not choosing any of these sexist stereotypes over IT careers. The problem has nothing at all to do with children, rather with IT as a career choice. Even if every mother chose to have their child based on a desire to escape the workforce, it still wouldn't raise the percentage of women in the IT workforce. It might lower the percentage of women working in regards to men, but that's all. The fact that IT is a male dominated profession is still an issue. Is it a matter of a gender difference between men and women, hiring practices, role models, or is it simply part of the IT culture?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not as sure about the laws in the UK, but I'm a designer working in the US and I've often had to sign a "Work for Hire" agreement â" essentially stating that my client/employer owns the rights to my work once I've been fully paid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire
I've always seen this in reference to the 1976 copyright act in the US, so the timing's a little funny with a movie from 1977...so who knows how it was defined. But it's worth keeping in mind.
"This entire situation points to an outdated business model for soundexchange to enforce in a digital environment."
/. is advocating for.
That's a very good point. I was talking with someone at a label last week (non-RIAA), and it's almost the exact point they made. The label business model has changed a great deal, and a lot of it depends upon paid digital downloads. That's why labels large and small are placing an emphasis on prevention of stream ripping. I think simple efforts like yours go very far in the labels' eyes. The music industry as a whole is still in the *middle* of a metamorphasis, and it's natural for all sides to be wary. You're essentially saying "I do my best, but I need to compete too" and I think if more outlets were to say similar things then the defenses of record labels would come down a bit.
As for US jurisdiction over-running European establishments...well its silly. Problem is that copyright laws aren't universal and anything headed by the RIAA is bound to be overly aggressive. The methods by which SE is proposing to collect royalties is simply terrible, but its likely that any solution will need to be fairly complicated. I'm sure a solution exists that will allow small internet radio to prosper and grow, along with small labels and independant music. The problem is that this current mess is going to hurt internet broadcasting OR independant music depending on which way things develop. And those are the two sides nearly everyone on
"In the end, everyone makes money."
I understand the point is that many of the people make _too much_ money, but it should be pointed out that they all do deserver _some_ money for their efforts. I know folks at various record lables, and they put in (easily) sixty hour weeks as a normal thing. I know many touring musicians with good CD sales, and they work tirelessly...practice, travel, shows, recording, promotion...it's non-stop almost year round.
My point is: it's not wrong for labels and artists to want money for their craft. It's only wrong to want exorbitant amounts.
The RIAA asking for better stream ripping technology isn't really so evil. Lawsuits and the ugliness around file sharing is rather despicable, but this is totally reasonable. Their goal here isn't to end "piracy" 100%, it's only to deter the casual listener from totally ripping all streams. They absolutely understand that its just a simple loop-back for analog recording, but the idea is that the CD as a package is still appealing, the quality is a little higher, and that the casual consumer would still be inclined to buy a CD as long as they can't simply download a piece of shareware and rip the streams with a push of a button.
Collectively the RIAA is pretty nasty, so are many software advocacy/anti-piracy groups. That doesn't mean that the people who produce the work that those groups advocate for don't deserve to be paid for their efforts.
This is a really good point, but let's not forget that royalties still need to be fairly paid to other (non-RIAA) artists. All of the artists working hard and putting out music on indie labels do still deserve their royalties. So if your idea were to work then internet radio stations would need to work out deals with those independents, or with an organization like the a2im (http://a2im.org/), which is similar in function to the RIAA but working for smaller labels and without the thin coating of slime.
What's lost in the rhetoric coming from both sides is that artists and labels are deserving of fair payment for the use of their creative work. Most labels, even some small ones, are up in arms because SoundExchange is telling them that this is an issue of small broadcasters demanding to play their music for "nothing." And broadcasters are clearly incensed at nasty pricing and bullying tactics by SoundExchange. You notice a commonality?
If you take away the extreme cases of major RIAA artists and militant "I deserve to broadcast for free" internet radio outlets, the argument becomes simple really. Musicians, technicians, producers, designers, sales folks, production folks, and more spent time creating each release. They do deserve to be paid for the effort. Just like programmers, IT staff, management, sales folks, production folks, and more deserve to be paid for software they create and distribute. It's a matter of setting a fair price, which SoundExchange doesn't seem particularly interested in. And since they're collecting royalties for the whole industry, RIAA and non-RIAA alike, they're a bit of a fly in the ointment--to say the very utter absolute least.
Negotiating directly with indie labels would work to circumvent SoundExchange. The only other alternative is to broadcast works made by artists who are granting usage rights via creative commons or something similar. Which would be very nice.
it's off-topic a bit, but for the record:
l ) of some sort. i live in providence, ri, and cycling is pretty common. i have a young daughter and clearly wouldn't ride with her, but it really does make sense for folks without children. real estate "within cycling distance" is a relative thing. after some practice, riding upwards of 15 miles is really not a big deal and would take no more than an hour or so for someone of average fitness who knows how to properly use their bicycle.
groceries are easy. especially in a true metro area. you can find a nice bag (see baileyworks http://www.baileyworks.com/) or set up your bicycle for panniers (http://www.gaerlan.com/bikeparts/acc/bag/bag.htm
now that said, the more important point is that this is appearing in a thread about ipod FM transmitters. riding in a city with music is a bad idea. not to mention that carrying an extra radio for the transmitter to play with is probably sort of cumbersome...
The MPAA is already using similar tactics in the US. Cox Communications once put a hold on my account because a DVD rip was found on my account. Once I called tech support they explained that on the first and second offense access was simply suspended until the client called in, and the account would be suspended after the third violation. He then went on to say that it was the MPAA scanning P2P networks, rather than the ISP. We even ended up chatting about different firewalls and ways to avoid getting caught.
Now it was my fault...I had turned off my firewall for work, and forgot to bring it back up when I was finished. So shame on me. But the bottom line is that this practice is already in place with at least one major American ISP and MPAA properties...
"Staying at home is HARD WORK and it's selfless. Don't demean it."
Thanks for pointing this out. I have a three month old daughter, and my wife is the one staying home and caring for her. What's lost on most folks not familiar with the situation is that this was a choice we made by situation, not by pre-assigned gender role--as some might assume. I run a small business, and as the business was getting (ever so slightly) more successful, it made more fiscal sense for her to stay at home while I work. Were she to go back to work it would mean that one of us was working solely to pay for care of our daughter. So staying home full time is a sacrifice she's making, rather than the vacation implied by the previous poster.
My point here is that women aren't choosing babies over IT. Nor are they choosing ponies, tea parties, or pretty blouses over IT. I'd actually be willing to bet that they're not choosing any of these sexist stereotypes over IT careers. The problem has nothing at all to do with children, rather with IT as a career choice. Even if every mother chose to have their child based on a desire to escape the workforce, it still wouldn't raise the percentage of women in the IT workforce. It might lower the percentage of women working in regards to men, but that's all. The fact that IT is a male dominated profession is still an issue. Is it a matter of a gender difference between men and women, hiring practices, role models, or is it simply part of the IT culture?