Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Your Rights Online

Congress To Address Digital Music 120

Posted by michael from the hold-on-to-your-microphones dept.
camusflage writes: "MSNBC has an article that says Representatives Rick Boucher and Chris Cannon are set to introduce legislation that will attempt to control how copyright law treats digital music, and how royalties for it are paid. Among the things the legislation is said to address is what constitutes archival and incidental copying, in-store samples, and 'extending the mechanical compulsory license to Internet file-swapping.' The article goes on to say that the RIAA previously indicated openness to the licensing, while publishers and songwriters oppose it." See also ZDNet or Reuters (this link is the best summary of the bill). And if you've got the stomach to wade through copyright law, read the bill itself. Keep in mind that introducing a bill is a long long way from making any changes in the law, and even this bill doesn't necessarily solve all of the current problems with copyright law.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congress To Address Digital Music More

Congress To Address Digital Music

Comments Filter:
  • I read most of the posts above and it's just amazing what people are willing to say to try to justify that they take other peoples work (music and others) without paying for it.
  • I have lost **all** faith in the ability of the `house' to address anything. The DMCA proves that. Maybe they could just pretend they were addressing important issues. But then they would get less payoffs from (big business/labor unions).
  • Okay.... Let me get this straight.

    "We've made a new bill! It makes it easier for people like Napster to sell MP3s!!"

    Although the msnbc article did not exactly say that, it's pretty obvious that they wouldnt just introduce a bill to allow free music trading after all this trash with napster.

    Unfortunately, companies tend to be pretty dumb on the internet, and record labels are really naive and stupid. They imagine that things like introducing new "uncopyable" formats (hahaha) will make people stop copying. No it won't. We have a format thanks, it's called MP3, we may even use Ogg or Vorbis in future since that's even more free (and not proprietary).

    And distribution has only been a problem when the music industry has caught on that it's happening. For instance, distribution of music on IRC has been going for many, many years without the slightest bit of note from the press. There will always be a distribution method that the music industry won't know about, and that's a marvelous thing :)

    Do not get me wrong -- if the music is genuinely good I would go out and buy the album. It's a very few tracks that make me think "Wow I must go buy their album" and not "Wow I must download that". In fact, MP3 is a great advertising medium. Often when I have got an MP3 I go out and buy the album to hear the rest. If people like a band enough i'm sure they'd do the same. I would rather have a boxed album with inlay card and so on than a hdd full of MP3's but 1 of their tracks on MP3 is okay if you only think they did 1 good track -- it's all about pride of ownership.

    Weevil

  • Contradictions (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rkent ( 73434 ) <rkent@post.ha r v a r d . edu> on Friday August 03, 2001 @06:42PM (#2160380)
    Hm. Both the ZDNet and Reuters articles contradict the MSNBC one on at least one important points: MSNBC says that the RIAA is "open to the idea," but both other sources say that the RIAA "bashed" the proposal or "was sure to oppose [it]."

    Personally, I can't see why they'd like it, except that it's not technically compulsory license. But the RIAA never seemed willing to settle for the "not worst" case before, they usually go whole hog. What's MSNBC smoking?

    • Re:Contradictions (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Sawbones ( 176430 )
      Hm. Both the ZDNet and Reuters articles contradict the MSNBC one on at least one important points: MSNBC says that the RIAA is "open to the idea," but both other sources say that the RIAA "bashed" the proposal or "was sure to oppose [it]."

      I think the idea they're open to is this:
      This would mean there would be one royalty pool, eliminating the need for a Web-based service to negotiate with individual artists, labels, music publishers and songwriters.
      It's hard to say why the songwriters would be opposed to it, but it's likely the RIAA was all for getting money and isn't so keen on being forced to license to everyone if they choose to license to one online service.

  • Not nearly far enough (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bnenning ( 58349 ) on Friday August 03, 2001 @06:43PM (#2160386)
    It looks like the proposed bill would exempt specific online music services from more odious portions of copyright law. That may be a good thing, but it does nothing to solve the fundamental problems of laws like the DMCA which allow the content industry to remove the customer's rights using technology, while criminalizing the customer's attempt to use technology to restore those rights.
    • This bill does not even start on what is required to bring copyright law to a level back in line with the requirements of the Constitution.

      What we need is something equivalent to the Statute of Anne (England 1710) where copyright for authors originated and the Public Domain was created. Prior to that, publishers owned all published material (sound familiar?) and authors, if paid at all, received only a pittance.

      Ever since then, publishers have been working to regain their power and now that they have it, we need to yank it out from under their feet, not ply them with half-measures that will probably not even make it out of the House without Industry approval.

      Politicians who tell you that changes need to come gradually are trying to maintain the status quo. It is the gradual changes that got us where we are today, an extension here, an addition to the rights included there, need another extension, oops - now we need to cover music, time for another extension and, while we're all here, lets make it against the law to break any encryption we might like to put on our digital offerings.

      It wasn't a gradual change that created the United States - nor was it gradual when the old, very corrupt, spoils system of government was replaced with the civil service. Nor when the government instituted environmental restrictions (after Love Canal.)

      Gradual changes are what they do when they want to ease into something that ISN'T good for the people overall - just to see if anybody notices. If they don't, another little change is made, and another after that.

      When government actually gets off its tail and does something good for the nation, they do it quickly (so that the people will re-elect them come the next election.) If the people are so incensed that the politicians have no doubt of their collective anger, change happens nearly overnight.

      We need to all write to our Congressmen - tell them the Boucher/Cannon bill is a start, but it isn't enough - not even close.

    • Re:Not nearly far enough (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03, 2001 @06:55PM (#2160436)
      it does nothing to solve the fundamental problems of laws like the DMCA

      Nor does it attempt to solve the fundamental problems of world hunger or erectile dysfunction. But so what? The law is aimed at furthering online music, which has nothing to do with the DMCA. Even if the DMCA were abolished completely, Napster & co. would still be in trouble for trafficking in music without the permission of the copyright holder.

      The DMCA is pretty much orthogonal to this issue.

      • "The law is aimed at furthering online music, which has nothing to do with the DMCA."

        Not true. Actually, the DMCA was approved specifically to give the RIAA companies certain protections to encourage them to go on-line with their content. Instead, they used it to go after current on-line providers. Inside.com had an article several months back covering a hearing where Orrin Hatch took the major labels to task for the way they were using the legislation.

        Slashdot covered it here:
        http://slashdot.org/articles/00/07/12/1829246.sh tm l

    • I understood it differently (Score:4, Insightful)

      by interiot ( 50685 ) on Friday August 03, 2001 @07:02PM (#2160456) Homepage
      According to an interview with a real lawyer [slashdot.org] (see shrinkwrap question), rights given to use by copyright law are simply the default rights. Even without DMCA or technological measures, it was my understanding that companies could simply say "by opening this package, you agree to...", and procede to place much stricter restrictions on you than copyright law does.

      So it was my understanding that fair use can go out the window at any time, regardless of DMCA. Am I incorrect in my understanding?

      • So it was my understanding that fair use can go out the window at any time, regardless of DMCA. Am I incorrect in my understanding?

        You are incorrect. If they put a shrink wrap license on a CD saying you're not even allowed to listen to it it's the UCITA [badsoftware.com] that gives shrink wrap (and click-through) licences their teeth, not the DMCA or any copyright law already on the books.
        • You are incorrect. If they put a shrink wrap license on a CD saying you're not even allowed to listen to it it's the UCITA that gives shrink wrap (and click-through) licences their teeth, not the DMCA or any copyright law already on the books.

          But UCITA is only in one state, and two other states have watered down versions. Some states have firewall anti-UCITA laws too. In no case is UCITA the law of the land, unless you're in Virginia (think that's the state that bought that bag of foobar).

          So, lacking UCITA, we default to DMCA or standard consumer case law, both of which preserve fair use as they can't override consumer protections.

          IANAL, thank god ...

        • Even without UCITA, producers can put contracts on the outside of the shrink wrap, and indicate that breaking the shrink-wrap indicates agreement to be bound by the contract, no?

      • Re:I understood it differently (Score:5, Interesting)

        by rgmoore ( 133276 ) <glandauer@charter.net> on Friday August 03, 2001 @07:28PM (#2160527) Homepage

        Yes, I think that you did misunderstand. The "first sale" doctrine says that a seller may not arbitrarily remove your rights to something that you've purchased. The specific case in which it was first mentioned was for a book that claimed to prevent purchasers from re-selling it for below a set price. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not allowable; once the buyer has paid for the book it is his to do with as he pleases. (Note that this refers to the physical book itself, and not the words therein, which are protected under copyright.)

        Similarly there are some rights that a seller may not require you to waive as a condition of purchasing their product. In most states, for instance, there is an implied warrant of merchantability (i.e. that selling a product is a promise that it is actually fit for sale) that legally can't be signed away. Any contract or license that purports to do so is just trying to convince users not to try suing, and that portion of the license would be ruled invalid under the law if push came to shove.

        IIRC, there is an implied licence with any software that the user has the right to do with it any steps required to use it on his computer, like copying it onto his hard-drive, modifying configuration files that come with the program, etc. AFAIK, though, the right of software companies to further constrain users is a legal gray area without enough case law to make it clear what is and isn't permissible. That's what UCITA is/was about. The software companies are unsure that their licenses would actually stand up in court, so they're trying to change the law to explicitly legalize their favorite licensing terms. This suggests that the current legal status of their licenses is dubious and requires explicit validation.

        • Yet NDAs are possible despite the existence of the first sale doctrine...?

          • I don't think that NDAs are generally part of a sales agreement. They're something that's required of people who are given privileged information by a manufacturer as part of an agreement to work with that manufacturer. No sale is involved. AFAIK, though, no reverse-engineering clauses as part of a sales contract have been rejected for physical goods, but their legality for software hasn't been tested.

        • There's no implied license, and IIRC there were cases in which the copyright holders for software successfully sued users for installing and using it. (licenses were originally felt necessary as software was not copyrightable -- then it was very necessary as software was not especially useable after being copyrighted)

          At any rate, 17 USC 117 is a statutory exemption whereby it is not a copyright infringement to make copies for the purposes of use, or to backup software if legally obtained. Additionally there is the novel 'space shifting' use from the Diamond case, but it hasn't been much tested AFAIK.

          You're right though - the legal status of EULAs is at best highly dubious. Sadly stupid states like MD are doing stupid things like passing UCITA legislation.
    • I'm really getting pissed off now!

      I have paid for my music in several different format already and I'll be damned if I'm going to opt for another form of tax on music like this bill proposes.
      • First of all I paid for music on singles ... does anyone remember 45s?
      • Then I paid for the music on albums.
      • Then I paid for it on cassettes (and even some on 8-tracks).
      • Then I paid for the music on cd (that which is available on cd)
      • and NOW they want me to pay a monthly user fee to download music from the Internet? Say $5. - $10./month to start???


      Under the new copyright bill (MOCA) they offer EXCLUSIVE ORGANIZATIONS licenses? EXCUSE ALL HELL OUT OF ME but how is that "fair use" to the consumer? Sure it will start out as a minimal fee to pay once again for the music (surtaxes), but how long until these exclusive organizations start crying costs and steadily raise the subscription license fees ... make no mistake ... that's what's being proposed.

      In addition. I have been collecting music sine the early 1960s and this proposed bill wants me to PROVE I own the music? They better be ready to get warrants to enter my home and get the proof because there's no way I kept 40+ years of receipts!

      I think it's time to stop shafting consumers left right and center and start repealing garbage laws like the DMCA. MOCA should not even get off the ground .. it's that bogus. I own my music, and a great deal of it on several formats. I will do what I please with it because I have already paid enough damn royalties on it.

      Next step ... watch the corporations start releasing music box sets for d/l including songs never previously released. What hogwash!

      I pay for my computer, I pay for my modem, I pay for an internet hookup and I also pay for a IRC network service I chose to run. Now the gov't in all its wisdom expect me to PAY for online music to listen to or download??? DREAM ON dear politicians ... it isn't going to happen.
      • I pay for my computer, I pay for my modem, I pay for an internet hookup and I also pay for a IRC network service I chose to run. Now the gov't in all its wisdom expect me to PAY for online music to listen to or download??? DREAM ON dear politicians ... it isn't going to happen.

        You were doing quite well until you came up with this. The problem is that the record company and artist do not get any of the revenue from your computer (or internet hookup or IRC network service). You might as well argue that you paid for your car and therefore you shouldn't have to pay for gas. Just because you're connected to the internet does not mean that everything else is free all of a sudden.

  • It's hard to tell how the RIAA will react (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sawbones ( 176430 ) on Friday August 03, 2001 @07:00PM (#2160449)
    The Reuters write up mentions that should the major labels choose to not license their music at all, or do an entirely in house online distribution, then no compulsory licensing is required. I doubt they're too keen on being forced to license to the Napster(s) the fought so hard against, so the question remains will it kill any of the (admittedly vaporous) online services they've been working on or simply force them to do only in house distribution. Neither sounds particularly good since I don't make a habit of knowing which house publishes my favorite music. Still it'll be interesting to see how they try and spin either decision.

  • Braindead... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Saeger ( 456549 ) <farrellj@g m a il.com> on Friday August 03, 2001 @07:03PM (#2160460) Homepage
    Under the bill, if a record company made its music available for download only through a service that it wholly owned -- for example, if AOL Time Warner's Warner Music label sold songs over AOL -- it would not be required to license songs to anyone else. But if a label entered a joint venture or partnership deal and licensed its music to that affiliated service, all unaffiliated services would have the right to license the same music under similar terms and conditions.

    So that means if Spicoli has a pizza delivered to his classroom, he can either eat it all by himself, or, if he shares it with just one other person, the teacher will make him give everyone a slice? Tough choice.

    ...Napster would prefer an even stronger proposal to create a compulsory license that would force record labels to let any company sell any song at a price determined by the U.S. Copyright Office.

    Smart. Real smart.

  • Bill (Score:1)

    by SLi ( 132609 )
    Tried to read that. Why, oh why can't they just use diff instead of writing "strike that, and replace that with that, redisignate those as these and add a semicolon"?
    • Law cases refer specifically to titles and sections of law- if the titles and sections referred to are removed, the perspective in which the decision was made is lost.

      Thus, it makes much more sense to retract the sections involved explicitly rather than removing them completely. Think of it in terms of backward compatibility. Current laws must be compatible with older decisions made under the same code, because what those decisions were originally based on is what case review is about.
  • isn't it a bit obvious there's a communication problem when the RIAA and the artists they represent vehemently oppose each others' beliefs?

    should be a sign...
    • No, it's certainly not obvious. It's not surprising. The artists have their own representation ( BMI [bmi.com] and ASCAP [ascap.com], and these groups have their own agendas and priorities which often clash with the RIAA and the individual labels.

      Many artists are famous for their clashes with their labels (Prince, NIN, even The Beatles), and long before napster et al...

    • Yeah, well, all artists hate the Music Industry. But as long as they control every major record store in the country, where 90% of Americans go to buy their music, artists have no choice but to sign a crappy deal with a crappy label in order to get distrobution and have a shot at some sort of monetary compensation for their work. If the populace could be convinced to buy their CDs from other outlets (direct, or online) and was not deluged with target marketed, formulated-to-sell crap (Brittney, Boy Bands, and Limp Bizket Sound-Alikes), there would be hope.

      You never see a Behind the Music where artists say "Oh yeah, we love our label and management, and they've never screwed us over!"

      • If the populace could be convinced to buy their CDs from other outlets (direct, or online) and was not deluged with target marketed, formulated-to-sell crap (Brittney, Boy Bands, and Limp Bizket Sound-Alikes), there would be hope.

        You're right, and that's what they're worried about. Napster made music available through other means. (Some) artists dislike Napster for good reason, because they're not making any money out of it. However, many well-known artists (ie: Courtney Love, Rage Against The Machine, etc) have no problem with Napster/music sharing, as well as a number of local bands. However, for them the issue is can they get compensated for their work. The RIAA understands that the internet is decentralized, low-cost, and that if online music distribution (as a profitable business) was to become a reality, there SOL; and that's why the RIAA is ferociously against reselling off the internet.

        Though I'm sure this is all pointless since I'm pretty much preaching to the choir...
  • I just heard today that Congress in debating a bill to pass a law that would prohibit Congressmen/women from having affairs with their staff (read: interns). The amazing part is,there is not enough support for this law! By showing how low Congress's morals are, is there any doubt that they will pass any law, no matter how immoral and un-Constittional, as long as it lines their pockets with big bucks?

    • Hold it a second... we want to maintain rights to do what we please with that which we own/buy, but you want to take away the rights of congress to screw/do who they please (consensual of course)?

      Huh? This is a discussion about freedom and not having companies or government overly interfering in our lives. But its OK if we interfere in theirs?

      Sorry... does not compute.

      -S

    • HUH? (Score:2)

      by nyet ( 19118 )
      Are you saying such a bill is NEEDED? What you do in your bedroom is none of my goddamn business. You going to make cheating at Max Payne illegal too? How about lying? Should that be illegal? How many more freedoms are you willing to deny Americans in the name of your Puritanical psychosis?

      It is people like you who make it impossible for the media to carry a meaningful story other than
      "CHANDRA LEVY: STILL MISSING" and "CONDIT 2001: PENIS WATCH".

      I could give a RATS ass about any of that crap, and yet that is ALL we see on the evening news, day in and day out, while more important issues get completely ignored. Do you read? Do you travel? Do you get outside? Do you speak other languages? Have you visited any country outside your own? Any STATE outside your own?

      You do realize that mistresses and concubines have existed for thousands (probably tens of thousands) of years, and yet we Americans seem to be the only ones who bitch about it constantly. You are in dire need of a reality check. Look outside your window, buddy. The world is much larger than the tiny town you grew up in, you poor, deluded, sad, ignorant little man.
      • What a repulsively illogical retort. The fact that somebody believes that it is wrong for all of the congressmen to be screwing their interns, and you believe otherwise means that he has never left the little town he grew up in? Yes, I believe in freedom, but not in anarchy. There will always be bounds set on behavior. It is then up to the people to decide what bounds are acceptable. Some are pretty widely accepted (like we don't let people kill each other). Others spawn debate, and the freedom to discuss those and make decisions is what makes us a free state. What was proposed in this bill and what you are deriding as closed minded is not a terribly radical idea. Regardless of your stance on the morality of breaking marital vows (apparently you think it's healthy, although if you want, I can find reliable research that indicates differently), there is precedent for prohibiting leaders from fraternizing with inferiors, and this is certainly an extreme form of fraternization (try becoming a military officer and having an illicit affair with a private and see how well it's looked upon). Your argument that mistresses have been around for a long time, therefore are good, is simply ridiculous. If you believe the Biblical account, murder predates even adultery. Do you care to defend it on those grounds?

        As our government officials are supposed to be representatives of the people, they should be held to the highest moral standards as that would help us feel more comfortable about why they make certain decisions. Perhaps if congress was held to a higher moral standard, we wouldn't have to worry about the corporations owning them as so many people complain about here. Unfortunately, it's usually the other way around. For some reason, holding public office makes them exempt from having to exercise even common decency.

        Just for the record, I have travelled outside of my city, state and country, I have actually lived in a foreign country (not in the military, either), and I do speak its language. I have also studied as much as possible other cultures and customs to at least be familiar with them. So I don't think I'm looking at the world through a tiny pin hole.

        • Re:HUH? (Score:2)

          by nyet ( 19118 )
          There is an enormous difference between thinking something is WRONG and thinking there needs to be legislation to make it illegal. This is the point I was making, not that breaking wedding vows was "ok"
  • Because Boucher is involved, there may be some hope, but the RIAA will buy enough congresscritters to make this bill take away what few fair use rights we have left.
  • Ohhhh... looks like someone didn't get their bribe from the record companies, so their gonna cause a bit of trouble. If this bill suddenly disappears in the near future, its probably because Boucher and Cannon have been paid to shut-up.

    Its not really a big law. In fact lets face it, its a pile of BS. Who, to be honest really cares what happens to Britney Spears' rights as an artist or if Napster is getting bullied. The short fact is: If you want free music, you know where to get it. On the other hand, if your a record company and have a problem with people getting free music, you know where you can stick it.

    -tfga
    • OK Sorry guys, it seems ive been corrected - the only reason for going into politics is: Bribe money, Sex (bribes), and Power (i.e the power to blow up anything you want... hmmmm ahhhh ohhhh blooooow up bah ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaa. Now all your base _are_ belong to us ^H^H me.
    • I've personally met Boucher and talked with him in some detail...he definitely is not for sale...he's got the right idea about IP in this millenium, unlike most politicos...he's a good man. Cannon, on the other hand, I have no idea about. But you will not see Boucher being bought out.
  • I am not a person of the law, so I'll need some clarification to whether or not this proposed bill will impact Chapter 12 of <a hre="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/index.h tml">United States Code Title 17</a> in any way.

    Whether or not any music-selling web site selling online recordings from any music publisher is not the beginning of my worries (though I could save money). My living nightmare of a copy-protected (Microsoft/AOLTW/Universal only?) recording of Julie Andrews' post-recovery voice in the year 20?? will still happen. And I would still stare down the barrel of an M4 if I want to descramble said recording so I can play it back with a computer running a high-performance free-software OS. Since there's no corporate media backing/approval with said OSes, how the hell can I do such a thing legally?
  • Yet again, we see lawmakers with absolutely no vision. Why do we need laws specificly about music on the internet? The issue being addressed is not specific to music or the internet, its about easy, fair use duplication and access to information. They should be generalizing the problem and writing a tool that can be applied to multiple problems of the same class (say, duplication of books, paintings, sculpture, 3D CAD-CAM models (which in the future will be easily reproduced at home with 3D plotters and etc)).

    But no, we have application specific laws, every time a new problem pops up we have to either rewrite or copy and modify. We end up with lots of application specific laws that have to be individually updated as the political and social climate change. Totally not designed for the maintainance phase.

    • I think it's an intelligence thing. One needs to know when to design something ad hoc and when to design a whole new theoritical model.

      Now, name one extremely intelligent person you know that has the social skills (read: manipulation via speech skills) to get into policial office. I can't think of one.

  • When? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Friday August 03, 2001 @08:47PM (#2160720)
    Is this before or after music trading is discussed before the House Un-American Activities Committee?
  • I have a general question: is the Copyright attached to the copy itself, or to the work, i.e. all copies?

    In other words, would it be possible for me to write something, make a xerox, and then transfer the copyright of one copy to you, but keep the copyright of the other copy?

    • If this is a serious question -

      The copyright is on the original (once the work is fixed - it is protected by copyright.) Therefore, you would need the owner's permission to make the full copy. Okay, give yourself permission.

      Now, you have the original and a copy. You hand over the copy to a publisher, keeping the original to yourself, and sell the copyright. Even though you still hold the original fixed copy, you have sold the right to make any more copies. If you Xerox another YOU have committed copyright infringement.

      I hope this example makes you realize that copyrights shouldn't be for sale. As the constitution intended, copyright should be limited to those who created the works.
      • I hope this example makes you realize that copyrights shouldn't be for sale

        While I agree that the this is a horrible scenerio you paint I'm not sure it is entirely possible as per 984 F.2d 1524.

        Regardless of case law, though, I have another more basic question. Less the substantial money to be gained through the sale of copyrights, how exactly is an artist to make money? While I realize that the system is broken, I don't think that the idea of copyrights and the sale there of is fundamentally flawed.

        It has only been in the last few years that the internet has become a viable means for music distibution. Until such time as broadband is ubiquitous and publically controlled, I think that the "music label" model for access to distribution is still a valid one. Even now so few people have broadband access (to say nothing of any access) that it is still not a wholy viable channel to use as your ONLY method of distribution. Given the centurys of precedent for the current system (which can be traced to the artist/patron system in place since the Baroque period) we rationally expect the model or the law to change overnight.

        • IANAB: I Am Not A Banana. (Just in case anyone assumed I was)


          Less the substantial money to be gained through the sale of copyrights, how exactly is an artist to make money?


          The money made off copyright is by licensing someone else (for sum of money x) to duplicate your copyrighted work (with specific limitations on how, where, formats and duration of license et. al) and they can then sell those copies or whatever they want to do with them, to recuperate (and exceed) sum x, either financially or in other terms.


          That's how books work. The publisher doesn't hold copyright on the book, but will generally hold a license to produce copies of the book in a specific format (hardcover or softcover) for sale only in a specific region.


          This is why you buy a software license, rather than the software itself. Your license to the author's copyrighted software product allows you to do certain things with it, detailed on the back of the box or somesuch.


          For some reason, (Detailed by Courtney Love at a stage show a while ago, don't remember the website though...) recorded music in America under the RIAA seems to involve the artist selling the copyright to the music to the label. This is the problem! If the artist holds the copyright on their music, they'd quite quickly find (Like their book-publishing brethren did recently) that the studios only hold the rights to music in a certain format, in this case it would be music distributed through CDs, tapes, records, and via radio/tv/movie broadcast and suchlike.


          On the other hand, consigning the copyright to a music label does put someone larger and more powerful than just the recording artist in a position to pursue copyright infringement.


          But I don't think it's worth the trade-off.

      • Could I circumvent this "Copyright for all copies at once" by slightly modifying the copy before providing it to the publisher and selling its copyright? I still keep the original's copyright, no?
        • Yes, in the same way _someone else_ can change your work and establish copyright over the changed work. (I don't know how much changing is needed though.)

          You can license the other person to duplicate the work as much as they like, while still retaining copyright. (See my other response on this thread.)
  • From the Reuters story:
    Napster would prefer an even stronger proposal to create a compulsory license that would force record labels to let any company sell any song at a price determined by the U.S. Copyright Office.

    Anybody still want to argue that Napster is on the side of the angels? Cyberspace rebels, freeing the people from the bonds of Corporate America?

    When they think it will benefit them, they're as pro-government as a good socialist.

    • Unfortunately, when you have shareholders you can no longer afford to act on the basis of your ethics. Money is the only real measure of your existence. Sure, in some cases presenting an ethical appearance may help bring in the money, but never mistake that for the real motivation.

      Sadly, it doesn't surprise me what any publicly-traded corporation does anymore.

  • Not surprisingly, the RIAA bashed the bill, saying it favors government regulation over market forces.

    I dare say that the market forces have done their work. It should be clear to the RIAA now that the market has said it's tired of getting horked for $18-$20USD every time we want to pick up a disc by our favorite artist (even if the artist has been dead for 50 years)!

    More on the point, I think this sort of legislation is overdue. I'd come much closer, however, to favoring a modification of copyright law which establishes a true compulsory liscensing scheme for online music (as per US title 17 sec 115, which also covered in the Berne Convention). Not so much because I want to drive up costs, which I fear it would in the end, but because it lends more legal credibility to the the idea of online file sharing in general (and sharing of music in particular). I'll pay an extra cent per download if it keeps the damned lawyers off my back. As it stands now this bill reeks of the Audio Home Recording Act.
  • Free webcasting is probably the number one thing that the so-called "digital music revolution" (remember, friends- when someone says they're revolutionary, just think of them as a wheel spinning round and round in place, and you often have the right picture) has brought to me which I truly value.

    This, more than anything else, is what music creators and marketers of all kinds should be standing behind, not trying to tax to death. Streamed mp3 has resulted in so many CD purchases that I've made, I can hardly count them. I've had my tastes opened to many new kinds of music...

    But wait. I've spent most of that money on small-labeled music... such as Metropolis, Gashed, and the like.

    I can't help liking the music I like. I can't help it that it's small-market. And I can't help it that until now I wouldn't have even discovered any of the acts which I now dote on without free, user-created webcasting. I honestly could care less what happens to large broadcasters- let them advertise and tax and fight forever. All of the webcasts I listen to, however, are generally money *losing* operations- they take no advertising and take no revenues whatsoever. They exist simply by enthusiasts for whoever wishes to hear their sound.

    Do the larger webcasters consider the small ones to be competition? We shall see. I am most certainly wary of trusting any large corporation or entity until said groups make it certain that the interests of small webcasters are wedded to their agendas.
  • Keep in mind that introducing a bill is a long long way from making any changes in the law, and even this bill doesn't necessarily solve all of the current problems with copyright law.

    As soon as I read about ANY new legislation my first thought is, "god, how are they going to screw it up now?" I have lost so much confidence in the government that I really can't imagine a new law making anything BETTER. I just keep my eye on court cases, and hope things get struck down that way.

    Theoretically, I suppose it is possible to fix a problem through legislation. But I'm a cynic and I have a hard time believing it!

  • I can understand a basic business law structure for copyrights and other IP rights, but why does the Government get so involved in creating rules for business? Isn't that up to the companies to create and the consumers to be the judge on whether or not they like how it works? I know this isn't exactly the situation but I hear about tax cuts for industries to help spur production or the giant one I heard about for the oil industry so they can use that extra 13 billion a year to create alternative energy resources (like it will happen). There's so much in the news about laws and bills being passed to aid business, what's up with that? Isn't it suppose to be by of for the *people*?

  • Mechanical licensing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by aozilla ( 133143 ) on Friday August 03, 2001 @11:58PM (#2161053) Homepage

    Wait a second... Mechanical licensing refers to the (already enacted) compulsory license for the act of making a copy of the song, not the specific instance of the song. In other words, if I make a cover of "Baby One More Time", I can sell CDs of my cover by paying (probably Britney, through the Harry Fox Agency) under a compulsory mechanical license. I also believe this is what record companies pay to the artist. Generally the artist owns the rights to the song, and the record company owns the rights to the recording.

    Mechanical licensing does not give you a compulsory license to copy an actual recording. This is most likely why the RIAA wants this, and the artists do not. It allows the owner of the recording to distribute over the internet without negotiating a license with the owner of the song.

Slashdot Top Deals

So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand

Close