Blogcritics Interviews RIAA President Cary Sherman 40
Lunenburg writes: "Blogcritics has posted an interview they held with RIAA head Cary Sherman. Mr. Sherman took questions on the RIAA's policies on digital rights management, fair use, and the need for the RIAA in the internet age, among others. Great quote by Mr. Sherman from the interview: 'Actually, we're not lobbying for copy-restriction technologies.'" There are some mighty slippery answers in here.
A bit out of touch with reality, isn't he? (Score:1)
How about no one? Why even try... now that the P2P ball has been rolling for a while, almost noone will pay for P2P if it's obtainable for free.
My favorite: the Internet will become nothing more than a haven for piracy, with no legitimate alternatives.
WILL become? I think he'll give us all chills when he predicts that *gasp* internet users may soon be using something called IRC to distribute pirated media at alarming speeds on technology that may or may not be called "high speed internet lines"... the horror!
Re:A bit out of touch with reality, isn't he? (Score:2)
This was my favorite quote due to its incredible provincialness. You see, once the Evil Filesharers win, the Internet will no longer be usable for email, or FTP, or ecommerce, or research or...
It's really just his unconscious way of admitting that to the *AA's and the Content Cartel, the PC is just an expensive set-top box and the Internet is just a newfangled cable system. They really really want to take true interactivity out of the equation, because passive sheep buy more things...
Bad Experience? (Score:1)
They are going to have to stop producing Back Street Boys if they want to stop that.
Do they seriously thing we are going to have a good experience with music force fed down our throughts rather then allowing users to listen to music on their own terms?
Re:Bad Experience? (Score:1)
Record labels and emerging technology (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting (Score:2)
Interesting...could someone validate whether this really is true or not? If it is, it would invalidate a number of the fair use arguments you typically see on Slashdot.
All in all, I thought the interview was pretty good...definitely some slick talking, but I would like to see the surveys used to find some of those percentages. And why, in God's name, didn't the interviewer mention that the reason for the decline in sales could have been from a general decline in US markets? I've been waiting to hear an RIAA spokesman answer the question "Couldn't the decline be because of the current recession?" Grrr!
--trb
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
Repeat after me: anything not specifically prohibited is permitted.
When it comes to copyrighted content, there is this notion of "fair use". While some uses might have been explicitly found to be fair (i.e. the use of a VCR to time-shift TV programs -- MPAA vs. Sony, I believe), this does not mean a use is not "fair" just because a precedent finding it so hasn't yet been set.
Whether something is fair use hinges on a number of issues, and while IANAL, some are:
1. Does the use harm the copyright holder, i.e. prevent them from exploiting the copyright they hold?
2. Is the use commercial in nature?
3. How much of the work is copied?
4. Is the use educational?
The thing that was significant with VCRs is that the court established, for the first time IIRC, that entire copies of a work could constitute a fair use. So, this helps the archival copy case as a fair use.
One could argue that archival copies harm the copyright holder in that they reduce the market for replacement copies, but one could argue that taping a TV show harms the market for a commercial videotape release, and that didn't work for Sony -- the marketebility of the TV show (which the viewer pays for via a Cable or Satellite bill, or accepting advertising OTA) is enhanced by the fact that it can be time-shifted, and the copyright holder is not prevented from using technology to frustrate this -- the DMCA making circumvention of the copyright holder's access mechanisms criminal. (Yes, I know the Betamax issue related mostly to VCR to VCR copying, and not TV taping per se, but that would be the closest analogous harm to making an archival copy.)
So, there is nothing preventing a copyright holder from trying to frustrate the making of archival copies, or employing technology to make media "wear out" (DIVX) intentionally. Thus, if such technology is not employed, but could be, archival copies appear to pass the test of fair use.
Now, the DMCA gives legal teeth to prevent the circumvention of an "access control method" and this certainly quashes what would otherwise be a fair use (since making an archival copy might very well require circumventing an access control method), but the ??AAs have been employing access control methods to prevent "piracy", which can be loosely defined as the making of unauthorized copies to avoid licensing one. So, it seams to me that circumventing an access control method for archival purposes should be O.K. unless explicitly forbidden in the content license, if there is one. The DMCA even helps here, because it permits bypassing access controls for interoperability purposes -- if I have equipment which lets me view DVD content from a central server, I should be able to cirvumvent access controls so that I may view them that way.
So, in conclusion, copyright holders can make content intentionally "brittle", so it breaks after a while, but can not require me to be less than careful in preserving something I've paid for -- that would be like a furniture maker suing me for having blinds on my windows because that hurts his reupholstering sideline business when the fabric does not fade as fast.
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
Okay, I didn't cut and paste enough of the paragraph from the original article. They went on to say that court cases have actually ruled that music ISN'T covered by the archival section of copyright law. If a court rules that, it's not written into law but it does establish a precedent that can be used in future cases. Thus, if we're measuring on the legal stick where 0 is clearly illegal and 100 is clearly legal, a ruling like this may have just pushed us to below 50, say 40ish.
I had always thought that it was digital material itself, not the type of data, was the subject of the archiving clause. That was more my question, sorry for not being clear.
--trb
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
Not all court decisions have precedential value, and not for all courts. It really depends on if it's a trial decision or an appeal or a Supreme Court thingy. But of course judges often look around to see what other ones are saying, anyway, to get a feel for the consensus.
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
I'm a bit confused. Are you talking about DIVIX--the system where everyone has to pay the hollywood sleazebags $5 for a video disk and it "expires" after a few viewings? Or were you talking about DIVX--the file format that compresses video data really well?
I think you meant to say DIVIX, but I just want to make sure. I suppose DIVX would apply if you're talking about making backup copies of movies. Why were they given similar names? It's so confusing!
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
And here's why being cutesy lands you in hell... (Score:2)
Sorry, they are both "DIVX". Well, actually, the compression format began life as "DIVX
Re:And here's why being cutesy lands you in hell.. (Score:2)
Ahh...so it was the file format guys that stole the name. I would've thought it would be the other way areound--the movie coaster pushers seemed to be intent upon confusing people.
Wait, so you're saying the movie coasters are called DIVX too? I thought they had an extra 'I' in them (Divix)? Did I forget the correct spelling?
Also, I believe there are actually two video file formats called DIVX: the proprietary one is just "DIVX" and the open source is "DIVX ;-)" ...maybe that is what you were talking about?
Sorry, with so many similar names it's hard for me to keep track. I think I'm getting a headache now. ;-)
Re:Interesting (Score:1)
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/
Chapter 10 is probably the most important as it relates to this matter as it conatains this lovely paragraph:
No copyright infringement lawsuit may be brought based on consumers' noncommercial use of digital or analog recording devices to copy prerecorded music. No copyright lawsuit may be based on the manufacture, importation, distribution, or sale of digital or analog recording devices or media.
I'd say that this pretty accurately sums up the "yes, I can make a copy for my own private non-commercial use" argument. However, there are specific "archival" copy permissions for Computer Programs that do not apply to any other type of copyrighted work. So, in slimy recording industry exec speak: The <i>archival</i> exemption doesn't apply in the case of CDs, but there are other parts that do and grant nearly identical consumer protection.
Lawsuits against copy / transmit software illegal? (Score:2)
Then wasn't the entertainment cartel breaking the law when they started suing software companies and universities providing internet access? Their lawsuits would seem to be based on the manufacture, importation, distribution, or sale of digital or analog recording devices or media.
Been to a music store lately (Score:3, Insightful)
[I quote the whole thing because I hate snippets of quotes. They almost always mirepresent.]
"I guess you haven't been to a record store lately. A lot of them feature this really cool "wand" that you can swipe across the barcode of any CD in the bins - and you will immediately hear samples from the various tracks on that CD! It's really great.
Most record stores also feature "listening posts" where you can sample the music from CDs, but those are limited to the specific CDs being offered that month.
The Internet presents an unbelievable opportunity for sampling. Go to online music stores (like Tower, or Amazon, or loads of others) and click on the album you're interested in and you'll be able to hear samples all day long.
In short, everyone is better off when you, the consumer, get to know what you're buying before you buy it. You're a happier music fan, and we don't have an unhappy customer who feels ripped off."
----
First:
I don't like to listen to 'samples'. I want to listen to the whole song, from beginning to end. and not just once, but several times.
Second: In the second paragraph, he states that there are listening booths that features the music being currently offered. I say that the 200+million files being shared on the net offer a slightly better selection. Besides, who wants to sit through "trash of the month" to find that ONE good track among the piles of BAD cds?
Third:
Going to an online music store entails:
- giving my information (name, email, etc) I hate that.
- Being bombarded with popups and other spurious advertising (thank God for Moz)
- see point one. I don't want to listen to a 30 seconds snippet at 128Kb when the whole song is available on KazaA at 192Kb, or sometimes at 320Kb.
Lastly:
If I just listen to samples, I don't, in fact, know what I'm buying. The only way for me to know if I like a CD is to buy it, get home, turn the lights low, lay back in my sofa, put on the headphones, and listen to the whole album from start to finish. Then I'll be able to tell you if I like it. And if I don't, I want to be able to return it for a full refund.
As long as I can't return a CD for the full price, then I'm not a happy customer. And that's the fault of the recording industry (thanks Sony), and not the fault of the internet. It's a case of shooting oneself in the foot, if you ask me, then blaming everyone else for the bleeding foot when they have the smoking gun in hand.
Re:Been to a music store lately (Score:1)
Re:Been to a music store lately (Score:1)
Re:Been to a music store lately (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm curious -- does this seem equally reasonable to you?
Re:Been to a music store lately (Score:1)
Do people actually do this? I don't doubt it. Do most? I don't think so. Why? Because if you actuall LIKE the book, you'll feel that you got your money's worth, and you'll keep it. You might even go buy MORE books from the same author.
Re:Been to a music store lately (Score:2)
I might return a book if the contents simply didn't match the jacket, in the sense that a book labeled Pearl Diving for Fun and Profit: A How To Guide turned out to be a book of motorcycle repair, but not a novel whose qualities are largely subjective. I don't think many people would return The Last of the Mohicans just because Cooper was a terrible writer, or The Castle because it's depressing, so why are so many people so much more aggressive when it comes to CD's, which typically cost less than good hardcovers?
Absolutely (Score:2)
I couldn't agree more. If, after sitting down for 15-30 mins in a bookstore's cafe with the book, I buy it only to take it home only to find it's not worth owning, I really only have myself to blame. Either it was expensive, in which case I didn't investigate it thoroughly enough before buying, or it was cheap, in which case I haven't lost much.
One proviso, though. Who in their right mind buys hardcovers? :-)
Re:Absolutely (Score:2)
Still, in spite of their bulk, weight, and expense, hardbacks are simply longer-lasting, by and large. I hate to look at some of the paperbacks I bought 25 years ago, and I have some from the 50's (granted, cheap editions) that shed papges like my dog sheds hair, whereas I have a few hardback books from ~1900 that are doing just fine.
Re:Absolutely (Score:1)
So, yeah. The comparison between hearing something once and reading something once is completely, totally, stupidly absurd.
Re:Absolutely (Score:2)
Tell me, if I buy a book on tape, is that to be listened to thrice daily? If I buy a reference work, am I disallowed from referring to it more than once a year? Maybe a classification based entirely on medium is a little rigid, huh?
Me, I have records that I don't listen to very often. Yes, a year might go by before I drag out some of them (I probably hit London Calling about every three months.) Others I listen to more frequently (although frankly, if you're listening to stuff three times a day I'm inclined to think that you either need more music in your life or a little therapy, but that's neither here nor there.)
I orginally simply asked a question, whether the two seem similar to you. Apparently they don't. Relax. Play something you haven't listened to for a while. Read a magazine.
Re:Been to a music store lately (Score:1)
No. However, he should be able to, if he wants, sit in the store and read as much of the book as he likes--not just "sample chapters".
Apology (Score:3, Insightful)
In the same spirit:
Every morning, my uncle's rooster crows. Shortly after that, the sun comes up. Get the idea?
Is this person really so out of touch with reality so as not to realize that there has been a recession in the U.S. (with effects felt in other economies) at the same time that prices on CDs have gone up? HELLO!? It is not clear at all that P2P have had any discernible effect on CD sales. It may have, but the point is we don't know and neither does the RIAA. (Not that they'd tell us outright that sales were up.)
Re:Apology (Score:2)
The other thing which the RIAA won't mention is that DVD sales have gone up by a lot in the last two years. I believe the Australian figure is something like a 70% increase in the last 18 months alone. One factor in the steadying of CD sales is almost certainly due to the fact that there are more forms of entertainment but only so much budget to go around.
Re:Apology (Score:2)
Re:Apology (Score:2)
Alot of the music being released and pushed on the airwaves sucks....
There have been a few good new bands, Disturbed, Non-point, Nullset, Trust Co. and a few others that escape me currently(which shows how memorable they really are!)...but of the bands I really like Rush, Metallica, Dream Theater, Queen, Van Halen
Add all that together with a decline in the economy and no wonder CD sales are declining.
Favorite Quotes from the Interview (Score:1)
"Yes, I do believe that most people are honest and would pay a reasonable amount for convenience and quality. What I also believe is that it doesn't take much for people to justify not paying. If it's a major artist, they say "they're already rich enough." If it's an unknown artist, they say "I'm doing her a favor by promoting her work." But in the end, convenience will count for a lot; and security will count for even more (only now are the security flaws in P2P systems becoming known, not to mention the privacy risks). So I'm optimistic about the prospects for legitimate businesses online."
He makes some good points here. His justifications for not purchasing music are right on. I've encountered those very opinions here on
"...record companies have been working very hard at getting music on the Internet legally. That happens to be difficult - because you need the permission of the songwriters and music publishers, and in many cases the artists as well, and those clearances aren't easy to get. (Everyone is nervous about piracy, and trying to figure out how much revenue they should earn, and what the business model is going to be, etc.) And then there are the technical infrastructures that have to be built to account for downloads and streams and pay royalties to rightsowners; the security for the content; and so on. It's a lot easier to do it illegally (just post it, don't worry about security, and don't pay anybody anything); doing it legally takes time. But the companies are getting there. There are a lot of subscription services that are up and running with lots of content; more companies are allowing more downloading, and burning; there's a lot of experimentation on pricing. In other words, a real market is emerging!"
He's got a point. They're trying to fit their old 70's marketing stragegy into the new market of cyberspace. That's no easy task! It's like trying to fit a Ford V8 into a 17th century horse cart.
The Question??? (Score:3)
Could it be that the current trend is to have it so that copyrights never expire and as such the "IP" is actually considered PROPERTY instead of what it really is? All ideas/music/movies/whatever are built on something from the past. We stand on the shoulders of giants. To take that away is to stop forward progress of all humankind.
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped
- Heinlein's Lifeline
Re:The Question??? (Score:2)
Could it be that the current trend is to have it so that copyrights never expire and as such the "IP" is actually considered PROPERTY instead of what it really is?
Yep. That seems to be the plan. Don't expect it to change unless A LOT of people get REALLY pissed off and make the congresscritters fear that they won't be reelected.
Re:The Question??? (Score:2)
Because its been so long since anything has.
I think that at least some of the public's willingness to flaunt copyright law is that it has been perverted from its original intent and now so little has entered the public domain in recent history that the commons is decaying.
Wouldn't it be interesting to see what could be done artistically if all the works in the 20s-70s were in the public domain, rather than having to fight through all sorts of restrictions and laws to incorporate the plots and images into modern works?
Contradiction?!?! (Score:1)
So it seems to be OK to put data sessions with crappy 64kbps MP3s on otherwise copy-protected CDs, but when it's about giving the customer (remember, we're still customers, not "consumers"!) some added value (lyrics, pictures, ...), the technical problems seem insurmountable? I don't get it...
Smooth-talking, but ... (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact of life for most artists is that they make their money from playing live engagements, and those engagements are attended by people familiar with the artist. How better to get the exposure necessary to build and maintain your fan base than by having your music out there in the open for the world to hear?
This whole idea that they're championing the cause of the starving artist just doesn't wash. Nasty stuff that really gets up my ire!
trane
Un-smegging-believable (Score:2)
Actually, we're not lobbying for copy-restriction technologies.
Ok, even supposing for one minute that that were true, they seem awfully eager to jump on the DMCA bandwagon. Napster, Felton, Webcasting, to name a few, all got smacked upside the head with copyright-circumvention legislation courtesy of the RIAA.
You mention Enhanced CDs. As it happens, lots of consumers have had trouble with Enhanced CDs,
So actually adding value to the purchase is beyond their ken, but fscking up the disc so it won't play in a computer or on a Mac or in many stand-alone or car CD players is easy as 1-2-3? Nice to see what their R&D funding priorities are.
Also contrary to your impression, record companies want Internet radio to succeed.
Sure, to the same extent that a wolf wants the farmer's herds to be healthy. Web radio is a stone's throw away from being as impenetrable a market as regular radio. The RIAA evidently has a radically different notion of 'successful'.
It would not allow, and we would never seek the right, to go into people's computers and "scan" their files. No viruses; no deleting MP3 files; no hacking; just technical measures to prevent distribution of a file after it leaves someone's computer
Being a computer science major with training in networks and telecom, I for one an extremely interested in how they, acting purely as a third party, plan to go about stopping a packet once it has left my computer.
Of course record companies want to embrace the technology for greater profits
These fucktards have fought tooth and nail against every technology that could possibly reduce the grip they have on the music industry. Recordable cassettes, recordable CD's, DAT, and even normal radio all had attempts made on them to outright ban, tightly control, or merely tax into oblivion.
So the market for downloads is developing, and it will probably start to move more quickly now that a lot of the clearance problems have been solved.
They've been saying that for years. It's bogus. They want to have it both ways: easy use of digital music (i.e., enough fair use to keep the masses from rioting) but with strict/total control over how it gets used _on someone else's equipment_. They will work on this for another century and still not have it.
filesharing. (I hate that term, by the way.
This from the same guy who gives the act of copying data the same name as theft, rape, and murder on the high seas. Tell you what Sherman, if you call it what it really is, 'copying bits', then we will too.
To me, "sharing" means we each get a little less. If I share my pie, I only get to eat half. I share my car, I can't use it when the other person has it.
Remind me never to let this guy so much as be in the same room with a kindergarten class. Sharing means spreading a good thing around; it's generally encouraged and for good reason. The absolute best kind of sharing is one in which we can share with everyone and never run out. To hear this grown man implying "Anything that detracts from my pleasure is a bad thing. Only legitimate publishers (like myself!) are allowed to share", is utterly appalling.
That the signal-to-noise ratio for this interview approaches zero doesn't really come as a surprise to me. These were exactly the questions the RIAA doesn't want the public to know the answers to. The RIAA needs to take a lesson from the tobacco industry about lying to anyone and everyone. I just wish this had been a debate like the MPAA one awhile back; Lessig would have chewed him up like he did Valenti.
Question Not Answered (Score:3, Interesting)
Ms. Sherman responded,"I guess you haven't been to a record store lately. A lot of them feature this really cool "wand" that you can swipe across the barcode of any CD in the bins - and you will immediately hear samples from the various tracks on that CD! It's really great. Most record stores also feature "listening posts" where you can sample the music from CDs, but those are limited to the specific CDs being offered that month. The Internet presents an unbelievable opportunity for sampling. Go to online music stores (like Tower, or Amazon, or loads of others) and click on the album you're interested in and you'll be able to hear samples all day long. In short, everyone is better off when you, the consumer, get to know what you're buying before you buy it. You're a happier music fan, and we don't have an unhappy customer who feels ripped off."
Ms. Sherman did not answer Jon's question. He was asking to listen to the whole CD-not a "sample". He wants to know why he can't listen to whatever tracks he damn well pleases in the store before he buys the CD. I would like to know that too. In a bookstore, I could, theoretacaly, read the whole book. Why can't I listen to an entire CD in a record store?