"Professional lobbying, because it is effectively bribery, needs to be outlawed-- it should be illegal to pay someone to speak to a government representative on your behalf."
I don't see any harm in hiring an accountant to do my taxes, or hiring a lawyer if I've been charged with a crime. If I have the money to spend, and I would rather have an expert figure out my taxes for me, or representing me if I'm hauled into court, then I think it's perfectly acceptable.
"If every major company in a given industry gets together and forms an organization like the BSA and then the that organization lobbies for all those companies it effectively creates a trade cartel."
Practically every industry has a trade group. Here's a list of many of them. There are more than 34,000 trade groups according to these people. If your assertation is correct, that's a lot of cartels.
"I'm not sure you should have weakened your assertion by saying "it effectively creates a trade cartel" rather than "it creates a trade cartel". The RIAA and MPAA definitely as as a "monopoly in restraint of trade", but since they aren't themselves engaged in trade, cartel seems the correct word."
Interesting. Trade organizations are so prevalent (there are tens and thousands of them) that I wouldn't have equated a trade group with a cartel. Would you consider the existence of the American Booksellers Association to define the book store industry as a cartel? Or the American Medical Association, or even the Epsom Salt Council?
I'm guessing that you wouldn't, so if there's a finer distinction that means that the existence of the BSA/RIAA/MPAA creates a trade cartel, but, say, the Game Manufacturers Association does not, can you please explain?
"You then get what we have now, a monopoly of several very powerful companies."
That's not what a monopoly means. An industry made up of a handful of large companies and dozens or hundreds of smaller ones isn't a monopoly. This is how the auto industry is structured, as are the accounting services and consulting industries, and on a smaller scale, the breakfast cereal and camping goods industries. I'm sure that if you think for a few seconds on your own you can come up with five more examples of products or services which are dominated by a few big brands.
If you think that any of those industries are monopolies and that there isn't the need for competition, just ask anybody who works in them. Or, more to the point, ask somebody who works for one of the BSA members if they think their industry is a monopoly. Also note that each of the industries I've mentioned all have their own trade groups that represent their interests in Washington. This does not make them monopolies, either.
"Instead of paying one star 20 million for a picture why not pay 200 actors 100,000 for several movies? Duh cuz that would make sense...[well not for the self-centered power-tripping millionaire fake people]."
There are tons of excellent, low-budget indie films released every year. Ebert's best of the year list serves as a good example of the indie fare taht's out there. If you don't like the blockbuster stars and their $20MM paychecks, don't patronize their movies -- I generally don't, and it works just fine for me.
Problem is, film companies are in business to stay in business and there are a lot of people out there who like those blockbusters with $20MM stars. Titanic was a pretty lame film but it made a squillion bucks.
"Getting a group of 10 friends at someone's house with cheap popcorn and a free movie means you save 150-200 collectively... That's a lot of cash that could be spent elsewhere."
Agreed. I regularly throw movie parties at my house. I have an InFocus X1 multimedia projector which, while not the brightest model on the market, throws a gorgeous 10" diagonal image on my wall and it cost me less than $1,000. In terms of screen size per buck it was a great deal and I laugh at people who spend four times as much for a smaller rear projection or plasma screen.
But here's the thing: I don't feel the need to pirate a movie to do this. I pay $20 a month for all I can eat from Netflix, or if I don't have the time to plan getting something from Netflix, I cough up the $5 and rent it from Blockbuster. I don't feel the financial need, or consider it my moral imperative, to download the movie and save that extra $5.
I understand the general disdain for the Hollywood system; many people feel that it's simply unfair to pay $9 to see a movie that benefits an industry where stars regularly get $10 million + per picture. I avoid this issue by sticking mainly to arthouse type fare -- indie and foreign films. They're generally better, anyway, IMHO. I understand that entertainment is not my God-given right and I don't think for a second that I'm being forced to resort to piracy. Also, paying to see quality indie and foreign film is my way of voting with my wallet that I'd like this particular sub-industry thrive.
People who are so entirely jaded with the movie industry also have another option: support the online film community by visiting sites like freetorrents.com and ifilm.com -- lots of great stuff there (although I did not enjoy seeing my grandmother getting shot in the head). Pronouncing one's disdain for the Hollywood system while actively pirating its output is not the best route.
I know you weren't advocating that in your comment; that was a bit of a tangental rant.
"Stealing is stealing period, however there are some grey areas. If a musician leaning the guitar at home, plays "Stairway to heaven" has he stolen anything?"
That's not a gray area. You've probably seen the phrase "unauthorized public performance" on the packaging for CDs, DVDs, books and the like. Playing it at home is not a public performance.
By the way, that same musician is also absolutely free to get up on stage at the local bar or club and play "Stairway to Heaven" without getting permission or paying anybody. That's because the bar or club has likely already set up licencing with BMI or ASCAP, the performing rights societies in the US. For what it's worth, BMI and ASCAP are fun by and for composers, songwriters and the like and are not connected to record companies.
"What if an artist painted a picture of the Mona Lisa, and it was really an accurate depiction of the original? If he doesn't sell it or profit from it has he stolen anything?"
No. In the specific case of the Mona Lisa, I don't believe that any one person or body controls the reproduction rights, but I could be wrong (if somebody does, it's probably the Louvre museum where it resides). Either way, that's not a gray area either. You or I may not know the answer to that particular example, but somebody does.
"My frustration (point of this) is not that the movie studios and musicians should give their talents away for free - it's the scale that studio executives profit from it."
A valid point, and I'm glad that you didn't draw the "two wrongs make a right" falacy by stating that because film executives are overpaid (by an arbitrary measure), it justifies piracy. Either way, the Eisner example you gave was an extreme one, and as you probably know, shareholders are very upset with the Disney board due to the excessive wages paid to top management. Additionally, highly-paid CEOs are not exclusive to the movie industry.
"What really galls me is that a lot of the MPAA members are simply recycling content that was already in the public domain, and thus they're playing the copyright card from both sides of the table."
You can do the same thing too. You can adapt your favorite Grimm brothers fairy tale into a movie, a Flash animation, an RPG or adventure game, or you can write a poem, short story or even a novel based on it. And then, after you have expended this effort, you can distribute your work any way you choose. If you think it's good enough, you can even ask to be paid for it.
"This is nothing more than greed - who is stealing from who here?"
I find it interesting when advocates of getting movies or otherwise unauthorized material via P2P state that somebody else's greed is the root cause.
You have some interesting observations but I'm not sure what your overall point is. Is it that people and companies who make more than a certain amount of money shouldn't be worried so much about losses?
"And I especially don't think the federal government should have an agency benefitting one particular industry."
Each and every one of us is capable of creating, and benefitting from, creative work. The companies that put out a lot of copyrighted material, such as Random House, Microsoft, or Vivendi, have the most interest in the enforcement of copyright law, but copyright protection is one of many laws that can benefit us all.
"A couple of times each year, there is a story about the RIAA (mistakenly) suing folks who offer their own (unlicensed as far as RIAA members are concerned) creations on P2P networks or direct downloads. Thankfully, it does not appear the RIAA insists too much once the folks in question tell the RIAA to buzz off and have their heads examined. (At least two such stories made it to/. in 2004)"
Thanks! I do remember one instance where a professor named "Usher" had files in an FTP directory which the RIAA mistook for being the eponymous R&B star. That was around the same time that they sued the grandmother and the 12-year-old and it seems that after getting the egg on their face, recently they've gotten a little more clueful, at least with regard to reducing collateral damage.
"This simply shows the RIAA sees piracy and unauthorized distribution everywhere there are MP3s or other such format... simple cases of shoot first, ask questions later. The RIAA/MPAA's automated tools are well known to make mistakes. (At least three stories about this on slashdot last year)"
The RIAA may be making some bad choices but they're not stupid. I'd tend to chalk it up to mistakes in the automated searching rather than a fundamental lack of ability to understand the difference between a random MP3 file and music that's been released by an RIAA-affiliated label.
As for the levies' redistribution, do you seriously think air time reflects download and subsequent listening or copying patterns? No-name independents have a pretty hard time getting any air time, often having to buy it to get any, sometimes bankrupting themselves in the process."
It doesn't match up exactly, of course, but the stuff on the top of the Billboard online music chart and at the top of the "most popular" charts on the iTunes Music Store read like Clear Channel radio station playlists. At the opposite end, it may be (in fact, I'd say probably is the case) that the artists who are getting virtually *no* airplay are getting at least *some* traffic on iTMS, the P2P networks and the like, but in general, people are flocking to the download services and P2P networks to get the popular stuff, the stuff they hear on the radio. Again, this is a generalization.
"The RIAA is somewhat like the air time mafia... if you are not family, good luck getting any - the big labels RIAA represents have more than enough cash to finance air time. No air time = nobody gets to know about your stuff on air = nobody will ask to hear your stuff = no levy money if it is the only thing that counts. It becomes a chicken&egg kind of problem."
Agreed 100%. If all I had was commercial radio, I simply would not be aware of the vast breadth of great music that I enjoy listening to. Thank goodness for XM and the iTMS.
Your astute observation is, of course, in direct contrast to the many people who chant the "the Internet is going to put the record companies out of business" mantra. A record contract gets you access to people who will spend the time to send your music to the radio stations, and then pester the radio stations until they play your music. And, of course, the bigger record companies (those affiliated with the RIAA) will generally have more resources to do this than the independent record labels. This is why, for all the headaches they can cause, there are a lot more artists who want recording contracts than have recording contracts. Companies like Magnatune are taking bold steps in exploring the Internet-centric distribution model, and of course unsigned bands can always share their stuff on Kazaa, but Kazaa and Magnatune don't have the time, money or interest in firing up the promotion machine to get you airplay.
"I wonder what kind of share independents manage to get from royalty claims. Since the RIAA regularly forgets that a free/independent market exists and sues intependents who distribute their own stuff, it must be quite a hassle for independents to fight off the RIAA if it accidentally (but happily) files levy claims for unlicensed productions."
It's divvied up according to airplay. This levy goes largely to songwriters and composers. The RIAA is a trade group for record labels... different group of people.
What do you mean by the RIAA suing independents? Do you mean independent songwriters and composers, or do you mean independent record labels? Do you have any examples?
"Do independent and alternative labels get any of the copyright taxes in countries like Germany and Canada, or does it all go to the RIAA equivalents?"
Not sure what you mean by "RIAA equivalents." In Canada it goes to SOCAN, which is the equivalent of ASCAP and BMI -- that is, composers, lyricists and the like. The record labels largely aren't part of the story. So, when reading about tariffs and levies (whether they're in the US, Canada, or Germany), when you see "greedy record label" substitute that with "greedy composers and lyricists."
The money's distributed according to popularity as measured by airplay, I believe. This is a gross generalization, but popular artists tend to be on major labels, and less popular artists tend to be on indie labels (again -- gross generalization!) so the people who write Celine Dion's music for her will get more of the Canadian levy than the people who write the music for your favorite little-known indie bands.
Anyway, the little labels see little or none of the Canadian levy, but then again, neither do the big ones.
"The grandparent was originally talking about Canada. Copying music isn't illegal in Canada. You may legally upload and download all the music you want because everyone pays the tax."
I am aware that a certain amount of copying is legal in Canada (more so than in the US), and I am aware that Canadians pay a levy on CD-Rs and the like, but I was not aware that the former is because of the latter. I've read several articles on the background behind the recent decision and I don't recall the levy coming into it.
"Either the RIAA gets money from a tax on cd-r, or they get to enforce their copyright for damages in the court... but not both."
The tarrif collected on audio CD-Rs goes largely to musicians, composers, lyricists and the like. Record companies get a small slice of the pie. None goes directly to the RIAA.
"I'd be eager to hear from small and up & coming artists themselves to prove that they're actually receiving nice fat paycheques... I suspect they're not, and won't be..."
Of course not -- the money is distributed according to airplay figures. The rationale is that in theory, the artists who are played the most are also pirated the most. As reports of what's the most popular on P2P and legit download sites tends to mirror the Billboard Top 100, this approach makes sense to a certain degree. BMI and ASCAP use a similar system.
So, this means that this is even more money for Celine Dion, Rush, Bryan Adams, and the other music superstars who happen to be Canadian.
"Or, why is MS and nV giving up booth space at CES?"
They're probably in the Microsoft Partner Pavilion along with a metric squillion other vendors. Doesn't take much to get space there. It's part of their strategy of showing off how many friends they have, at the same time that they recoup some of the cost of their booth space.
"And, are they concerned about the well known flap between Infinium and [H]ardOCP."
As you can imagine, that's exactly why the NET act was created; technology made distribution without payment possible. Of course, this started with the pirate BBSes in the 80's, caught on big time with the advent of FTP and Web sites in the 90's, and wasn't addressed until the late 90's.
The law is always a little behind technology. If I recall (I'm too lazy to look up the exact dates right now) motion pictures weren't added to the list of copyrightable items until several years after they were a viable commercial medium. And, of course, there's the vehicle code -- non-existent a hundred years ago (or, if was around, it concerned itself with horses and buggies) and now, thanks to the invention of the automobile, it's an inch thick.
Re:Instead of reading the dictionary, try a law bo
on
LokiTorrent vs. MPAA
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for the reply, but I'm not sure how it relates. The grandparent wrote that "it's only piracy if you sell it." That's incorrect. The word has had its relevant meaning -- unauthorized copying (not copying and selling) of copyrighted work -- since before any of us were born (its origins are a bit more than a hundred years old).
Your interpretation of the NET act is correct, but its enactment did not change the meaning of the word "piracy" so that it now refers only to unauthorized copying and selling. I'm genuinely interested in how you drew that conclusion, so if you want to explain it, that would be great -- but please take the hostility down a few notches.
Re:Keeping it simple: answer to all astroturf post
on
LokiTorrent vs. MPAA
·
· Score: 1
"It's not "piracy"; it's copying without permission. If you sell copied films, then you're a pirate."
Incorrect, but you're not the first person to try to claim this.
If you're using Firefox, type "dict pirate" or "dict piracy" into the browser bar. You'll see that the relevant meanings refer to copying without permission. No selling is required. There are plenty of folks older than you around here, many of whom were pirating software before you were born. We know what the word means.
Your post otherwise had several very good and accurate points. Drop the "it's only piracy if you sell it" nonsense and you'll have a much better case.
You're correct; I was not using "dervied" in the legal sense. I will choose my words more carefully next time.
"As for criminal copyright violation, that requires willful violation which can be very difficult to prove, especially when the violation may occur before the site owner knows that they may be facilitating a violation."
True. In this case, however, it's pretty obvious that they know what's going on. Check out the torrents page and take a look at the most popular torrents. They'll have to convince people that they had no clue that these might be copyrighted files, and that they lack the technical expertise to take them off the site. They're liable to be laughed out of court.
"It is appearent that some of these sites need to have fairly stringent policies about posting copyrighted material."
Many, many of them do. Check out legaltorrents.com. That's the way to run a torrent site. Sites like these -- that show that BitTorrent can be used in a way that respects both creator and consumer -- aren't the ones that are being menanced by the MPAA.
"I think bittorrent(as well as other P2P) has the power to subvert the coporate hold on media and provide an avenue for indie media to get thier art out in the public space. But its been given a bad name when its used in copyright infringment."
Right on, brotha. There are tons of torrent sites which specialize only in legal, authorized content. I've discovered lots of cool stuff on them. They're not being sued.
Some people are incorrectly framing this as MPAA vs. P2P or MPAA vs. BitTorrent (choice quotes from the Lokitorrent site: "Enjoy BitTorrent? It's time to step up and support it." and "Every penny of this fund will be going towards legal and other costs associated with saving peer-to-peer as a whole."). This is not the case. It is the MPAA vs. the people who've made the conscious decision to spend their efforts in providing repositories of torrents of unauthorized, copyrighted work. It is they who may end up killing BitTorrent, not the MPAA.
Re:There is no equivalent concept in Civil Law
on
LokiTorrent vs. MPAA
·
· Score: 1
Incorrect, at least in the US. There are several concepts in civil law that are equivalent -- any instance where you didn't directly harm another person, but where your action or inaction caused harm to that person. Negligence is a common example of this.
Slashdot Mirror
"Professional lobbying, because it is effectively bribery, needs to be outlawed-- it should be illegal to pay someone to speak to a government representative on your behalf."
I don't see any harm in hiring an accountant to do my taxes, or hiring a lawyer if I've been charged with a crime. If I have the money to spend, and I would rather have an expert figure out my taxes for me, or representing me if I'm hauled into court, then I think it's perfectly acceptable.
"If every major company in a given industry gets together and forms an organization like the BSA and then the that organization lobbies for all those companies it effectively creates a trade cartel."
Practically every industry has a trade group. Here's a list of many of them. There are more than 34,000 trade groups according to these people. If your assertation is correct, that's a lot of cartels.
"I'm not sure you should have weakened your assertion by saying "it effectively creates a trade cartel" rather than "it creates a trade cartel". The RIAA and MPAA definitely as as a "monopoly in restraint of trade", but since they aren't themselves engaged in trade, cartel seems the correct word."
Interesting. Trade organizations are so prevalent (there are tens and thousands of them) that I wouldn't have equated a trade group with a cartel. Would you consider the existence of the American Booksellers Association to define the book store industry as a cartel? Or the American Medical Association, or even the Epsom Salt Council?
I'm guessing that you wouldn't, so if there's a finer distinction that means that the existence of the BSA/RIAA/MPAA creates a trade cartel, but, say, the Game Manufacturers Association does not, can you please explain?
"You then get what we have now, a monopoly of several very powerful companies."
That's not what a monopoly means. An industry made up of a handful of large companies and dozens or hundreds of smaller ones isn't a monopoly. This is how the auto industry is structured, as are the accounting services and consulting industries, and on a smaller scale, the breakfast cereal and camping goods industries. I'm sure that if you think for a few seconds on your own you can come up with five more examples of products or services which are dominated by a few big brands.
If you think that any of those industries are monopolies and that there isn't the need for competition, just ask anybody who works in them. Or, more to the point, ask somebody who works for one of the BSA members if they think their industry is a monopoly. Also note that each of the industries I've mentioned all have their own trade groups that represent their interests in Washington. This does not make them monopolies, either.
"Instead of paying one star 20 million for a picture why not pay 200 actors 100,000 for several movies? Duh cuz that would make sense...[well not for the self-centered power-tripping millionaire fake people]."
There are tons of excellent, low-budget indie films released every year. Ebert's best of the year list serves as a good example of the indie fare taht's out there. If you don't like the blockbuster stars and their $20MM paychecks, don't patronize their movies -- I generally don't, and it works just fine for me.
Problem is, film companies are in business to stay in business and there are a lot of people out there who like those blockbusters with $20MM stars. Titanic was a pretty lame film but it made a squillion bucks.
"Getting a group of 10 friends at someone's house with cheap popcorn and a free movie means you save 150-200 collectively... That's a lot of cash that could be spent elsewhere."
Agreed. I regularly throw movie parties at my house. I have an InFocus X1 multimedia projector which, while not the brightest model on the market, throws a gorgeous 10" diagonal image on my wall and it cost me less than $1,000. In terms of screen size per buck it was a great deal and I laugh at people who spend four times as much for a smaller rear projection or plasma screen.
But here's the thing: I don't feel the need to pirate a movie to do this. I pay $20 a month for all I can eat from Netflix, or if I don't have the time to plan getting something from Netflix, I cough up the $5 and rent it from Blockbuster. I don't feel the financial need, or consider it my moral imperative, to download the movie and save that extra $5.
I understand the general disdain for the Hollywood system; many people feel that it's simply unfair to pay $9 to see a movie that benefits an industry where stars regularly get $10 million + per picture. I avoid this issue by sticking mainly to arthouse type fare -- indie and foreign films. They're generally better, anyway, IMHO. I understand that entertainment is not my God-given right and I don't think for a second that I'm being forced to resort to piracy. Also, paying to see quality indie and foreign film is my way of voting with my wallet that I'd like this particular sub-industry thrive.
People who are so entirely jaded with the movie industry also have another option: support the online film community by visiting sites like freetorrents.com and ifilm.com -- lots of great stuff there (although I did not enjoy seeing my grandmother getting shot in the head). Pronouncing one's disdain for the Hollywood system while actively pirating its output is not the best route.
I know you weren't advocating that in your comment; that was a bit of a tangental rant.
Thanks for the reply. Just a few comments:
"Stealing is stealing period, however there are some grey areas. If a musician leaning the guitar at home, plays "Stairway to heaven" has he stolen anything?"
That's not a gray area. You've probably seen the phrase "unauthorized public performance" on the packaging for CDs, DVDs, books and the like. Playing it at home is not a public performance.
By the way, that same musician is also absolutely free to get up on stage at the local bar or club and play "Stairway to Heaven" without getting permission or paying anybody. That's because the bar or club has likely already set up licencing with BMI or ASCAP, the performing rights societies in the US. For what it's worth, BMI and ASCAP are fun by and for composers, songwriters and the like and are not connected to record companies.
"What if an artist painted a picture of the Mona Lisa, and it was really an accurate depiction of the original? If he doesn't sell it or profit from it has he stolen anything?"
No. In the specific case of the Mona Lisa, I don't believe that any one person or body controls the reproduction rights, but I could be wrong (if somebody does, it's probably the Louvre museum where it resides). Either way, that's not a gray area either. You or I may not know the answer to that particular example, but somebody does.
"My frustration (point of this) is not that the movie studios and musicians should give their talents away for free - it's the scale that studio executives profit from it."
A valid point, and I'm glad that you didn't draw the "two wrongs make a right" falacy by stating that because film executives are overpaid (by an arbitrary measure), it justifies piracy. Either way, the Eisner example you gave was an extreme one, and as you probably know, shareholders are very upset with the Disney board due to the excessive wages paid to top management. Additionally, highly-paid CEOs are not exclusive to the movie industry.
"What really galls me is that a lot of the MPAA members are simply recycling content that was already in the public domain, and thus they're playing the copyright card from both sides of the table."
You can do the same thing too. You can adapt your favorite Grimm brothers fairy tale into a movie, a Flash animation, an RPG or adventure game, or you can write a poem, short story or even a novel based on it. And then, after you have expended this effort, you can distribute your work any way you choose. If you think it's good enough, you can even ask to be paid for it.
"This is nothing more than greed - who is stealing from who here?"
I find it interesting when advocates of getting movies or otherwise unauthorized material via P2P state that somebody else's greed is the root cause.
You have some interesting observations but I'm not sure what your overall point is. Is it that people and companies who make more than a certain amount of money shouldn't be worried so much about losses?
You can also expect the arrival of the "it's only piracy if you sell it" / "it's only piracy if you're on a boat" newspeak brigade.
"And I especially don't think the federal government should have an agency benefitting one particular industry."
Each and every one of us is capable of creating, and benefitting from, creative work. The companies that put out a lot of copyrighted material, such as Random House, Microsoft, or Vivendi, have the most interest in the enforcement of copyright law, but copyright protection is one of many laws that can benefit us all.
"A couple of times each year, there is a story about the RIAA (mistakenly) suing folks who offer their own (unlicensed as far as RIAA members are concerned) creations on P2P networks or direct downloads. Thankfully, it does not appear the RIAA insists too much once the folks in question tell the RIAA to buzz off and have their heads examined. (At least two such stories made it to /. in 2004)"
Thanks! I do remember one instance where a professor named "Usher" had files in an FTP directory which the RIAA mistook for being the eponymous R&B star. That was around the same time that they sued the grandmother and the 12-year-old and it seems that after getting the egg on their face, recently they've gotten a little more clueful, at least with regard to reducing collateral damage.
"This simply shows the RIAA sees piracy and unauthorized distribution everywhere there are MP3s or other such format... simple cases of shoot first, ask questions later. The RIAA/MPAA's automated tools are well known to make mistakes. (At least three stories about this on slashdot last year)"
The RIAA may be making some bad choices but they're not stupid. I'd tend to chalk it up to mistakes in the automated searching rather than a fundamental lack of ability to understand the difference between a random MP3 file and music that's been released by an RIAA-affiliated label.
As for the levies' redistribution, do you seriously think air time reflects download and subsequent listening or copying patterns? No-name independents have a pretty hard time getting any air time, often having to buy it to get any, sometimes bankrupting themselves in the process."
It doesn't match up exactly, of course, but the stuff on the top of the Billboard online music chart and at the top of the "most popular" charts on the iTunes Music Store read like Clear Channel radio station playlists. At the opposite end, it may be (in fact, I'd say probably is the case) that the artists who are getting virtually *no* airplay are getting at least *some* traffic on iTMS, the P2P networks and the like, but in general, people are flocking to the download services and P2P networks to get the popular stuff, the stuff they hear on the radio. Again, this is a generalization.
"The RIAA is somewhat like the air time mafia... if you are not family, good luck getting any - the big labels RIAA represents have more than enough cash to finance air time. No air time = nobody gets to know about your stuff on air = nobody will ask to hear your stuff = no levy money if it is the only thing that counts. It becomes a chicken&egg kind of problem."
Agreed 100%. If all I had was commercial radio, I simply would not be aware of the vast breadth of great music that I enjoy listening to. Thank goodness for XM and the iTMS.
Your astute observation is, of course, in direct contrast to the many people who chant the "the Internet is going to put the record companies out of business" mantra. A record contract gets you access to people who will spend the time to send your music to the radio stations, and then pester the radio stations until they play your music. And, of course, the bigger record companies (those affiliated with the RIAA) will generally have more resources to do this than the independent record labels. This is why, for all the headaches they can cause, there are a lot more artists who want recording contracts than have recording contracts. Companies like Magnatune are taking bold steps in exploring the Internet-centric distribution model, and of course unsigned bands can always share their stuff on Kazaa, but Kazaa and Magnatune don't have the time, money or interest in firing up the promotion machine to get you airplay.
"I wonder what kind of share independents manage to get from royalty claims. Since the RIAA regularly forgets that a free/independent market exists and sues intependents who distribute their own stuff, it must be quite a hassle for independents to fight off the RIAA if it accidentally (but happily) files levy claims for unlicensed productions."
It's divvied up according to airplay. This levy goes largely to songwriters and composers. The RIAA is a trade group for record labels... different group of people.
What do you mean by the RIAA suing independents? Do you mean independent songwriters and composers, or do you mean independent record labels? Do you have any examples?
"Do independent and alternative labels get any of the copyright taxes in countries like Germany and Canada, or does it all go to the RIAA equivalents?"
Not sure what you mean by "RIAA equivalents." In Canada it goes to SOCAN, which is the equivalent of ASCAP and BMI -- that is, composers, lyricists and the like. The record labels largely aren't part of the story. So, when reading about tariffs and levies (whether they're in the US, Canada, or Germany), when you see "greedy record label" substitute that with "greedy composers and lyricists."
The money's distributed according to popularity as measured by airplay, I believe. This is a gross generalization, but popular artists tend to be on major labels, and less popular artists tend to be on indie labels (again -- gross generalization!) so the people who write Celine Dion's music for her will get more of the Canadian levy than the people who write the music for your favorite little-known indie bands.
Anyway, the little labels see little or none of the Canadian levy, but then again, neither do the big ones.
"The grandparent was originally talking about Canada. Copying music isn't illegal in Canada. You may legally upload and download all the music you want because everyone pays the tax."
I am aware that a certain amount of copying is legal in Canada (more so than in the US), and I am aware that Canadians pay a levy on CD-Rs and the like, but I was not aware that the former is because of the latter. I've read several articles on the background behind the recent decision and I don't recall the levy coming into it.
Does anybody have a cite for this?
"Either the RIAA gets money from a tax on cd-r, or they get to enforce their copyright for damages in the court... but not both."
The tarrif collected on audio CD-Rs goes largely to musicians, composers, lyricists and the like. Record companies get a small slice of the pie. None goes directly to the RIAA.
It's a bit wordy and boring, but here's the section of US copyright law that spells out how the money is distributed.
You are correct, however, that if the audio CD-R tariff were to go largely to the RIAA, then they'd be double-dipping.
"I'd be eager to hear from small and up & coming artists themselves to prove that they're actually receiving nice fat paycheques... I suspect they're not, and won't be..."
Of course not -- the money is distributed according to airplay figures. The rationale is that in theory, the artists who are played the most are also pirated the most. As reports of what's the most popular on P2P and legit download sites tends to mirror the Billboard Top 100, this approach makes sense to a certain degree. BMI and ASCAP use a similar system.
So, this means that this is even more money for Celine Dion, Rush, Bryan Adams, and the other music superstars who happen to be Canadian.
"Or, why is MS and nV giving up booth space at CES?"
They're probably in the Microsoft Partner Pavilion along with a metric squillion other vendors. Doesn't take much to get space there. It's part of their strategy of showing off how many friends they have, at the same time that they recoup some of the cost of their booth space.
"And, are they concerned about the well known flap between Infinium and [H]ardOCP."
Well known among OCP and /. readers.
As you can imagine, that's exactly why the NET act was created; technology made distribution without payment possible. Of course, this started with the pirate BBSes in the 80's, caught on big time with the advent of FTP and Web sites in the 90's, and wasn't addressed until the late 90's.
The law is always a little behind technology. If I recall (I'm too lazy to look up the exact dates right now) motion pictures weren't added to the list of copyrightable items until several years after they were a viable commercial medium. And, of course, there's the vehicle code -- non-existent a hundred years ago (or, if was around, it concerned itself with horses and buggies) and now, thanks to the invention of the automobile, it's an inch thick.
Thanks for the reply, but I'm not sure how it relates. The grandparent wrote that "it's only piracy if you sell it." That's incorrect. The word has had its relevant meaning -- unauthorized copying (not copying and selling) of copyrighted work -- since before any of us were born (its origins are a bit more than a hundred years old).
Your interpretation of the NET act is correct, but its enactment did not change the meaning of the word "piracy" so that it now refers only to unauthorized copying and selling. I'm genuinely interested in how you drew that conclusion, so if you want to explain it, that would be great -- but please take the hostility down a few notches.
"It's not "piracy"; it's copying without permission. If you sell copied films, then you're a pirate."
Incorrect, but you're not the first person to try to claim this.
If you're using Firefox, type "dict pirate" or "dict piracy" into the browser bar. You'll see that the relevant meanings refer to copying without permission. No selling is required. There are plenty of folks older than you around here, many of whom were pirating software before you were born. We know what the word means.
Your post otherwise had several very good and accurate points. Drop the "it's only piracy if you sell it" nonsense and you'll have a much better case.
You're correct; I was not using "dervied" in the legal sense. I will choose my words more carefully next time.
"As for criminal copyright violation, that requires willful violation which can be very difficult to prove, especially when the violation may occur before the site owner knows that they may be facilitating a violation."
True. In this case, however, it's pretty obvious that they know what's going on. Check out the torrents page and take a look at the most popular torrents. They'll have to convince people that they had no clue that these might be copyrighted files, and that they lack the technical expertise to take them off the site. They're liable to be laughed out of court.
"It is appearent that some of these sites need to have fairly stringent policies about posting copyrighted material."
Many, many of them do. Check out legaltorrents.com. That's the way to run a torrent site. Sites like these -- that show that BitTorrent can be used in a way that respects both creator and consumer -- aren't the ones that are being menanced by the MPAA.
"I think bittorrent(as well as other P2P) has the power to subvert the coporate hold on media and provide an avenue for indie media to get thier art out in the public space. But its been given a bad name when its used in copyright infringment."
Right on, brotha. There are tons of torrent sites which specialize only in legal, authorized content. I've discovered lots of cool stuff on them. They're not being sued.
Some people are incorrectly framing this as MPAA vs. P2P or MPAA vs. BitTorrent (choice quotes from the Lokitorrent site: "Enjoy BitTorrent? It's time to step up and support it." and "Every penny of this fund will be going towards legal and other costs associated with saving peer-to-peer as a whole."). This is not the case. It is the MPAA vs. the people who've made the conscious decision to spend their efforts in providing repositories of torrents of unauthorized, copyrighted work. It is they who may end up killing BitTorrent, not the MPAA.
Incorrect, at least in the US. There are several concepts in civil law that are equivalent -- any instance where you didn't directly harm another person, but where your action or inaction caused harm to that person. Negligence is a common example of this.