RIAA President Says Copyright Law "Isn't Working" 473
Kilrah_il writes "Apperantly not satisfied with the current scope of the DMCA, RIAA President Cary Sherman wants to broaden the scope of the law to have content providers such as YouTube and Rapidshare liable for illegal content found on their sites. 'The RIAA would strongly prefer informal agreements inked with intermediaries ... We're working on [discussions with broadband providers], and we'd like to extend that kind of relationship — not just to ISPs, but [also to] search engines, payment processors, advertisers ... [But], if legislation is an appropriate way to facilitate that kind of cooperation, fine.' Notice the update at the end of the article pointing out that Sherman is seeking for voluntary agreements with said partners and not to enact broader laws without their cooperation."
Let me be the first to say it... (Score:2, Insightful)
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree (Score:1, Insightful)
It's pretty ridiculous that thousands of people can upload copyrighted content all day long on YouTube and it's up to the copyright holder to scour YouTube for all of the violations.
I understand the holder has to defend their copyright in order for the copyright to remain valid, but YouTube is completely abusing the system.
To me, because YouTube is such a blatant/careless repeat-offender of being a haven for copyrighted content, they should be fined or shut down.
Re:Why stop there? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the wall was labeled a "public art space" and people were encouraged to do graffiti on it, then maybe? Youtube and RapidShare encourage people to post content then basically look away until someone complains about it.
a better law would disband the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What a coincidence (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always been curious as to exactly how the copyright holders expect the content providers to determine if any given piece of content is copyrighted or authorized. Is there an algorithm that can distinguish between an original copyrighted work and a fair-use derivative for audio or video?
To which these particular copyright holders would respond, "what fair-use?".
My turn (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's deal, Cary...
-Since every CD I buy today says that downloading music has the same effect as stealing a disc, make the punishment for downloading the disc the same as physical theft.
-Hold Rapidshare responsible for their hosting of copyrighted content, but you pay double if the content is found to be uninfringing.
-Allow me to write my own music to which I own the copyright and stream it over the internet without having to pay you royalties.
-Show that monies collected from copyright infringement cases (less court fees) literally go to pad the pockets of the artists you claim to protect. For added sympathy, use some to fund school music programs to encourage the next generation of musicians.
And, as a personal request:
-Stop using Autotune as an effect. It's annoying.
Re:I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
> It's pretty ridiculous that thousands of people can upload copyrighted content all day long on
> YouTube and it's up to the copyright holder to scour YouTube for all of the violations.
If it's worth the effort then it's worth the effort.
Clearly, Big Content would rather not be bothered.
Therefore, it can't really be that important.
The notion of "copyright violation" or "piracy" really isn't the point.
The industry needs to demonstrate what actual harm is being done when
some toddler dances to a song that is old enough that it should already
be in the public domain by now.
The law not working? So sad. Big Media paid for it after all.
As much as they have corrupted the system, they are really in no position to whine.
Informal... what? (Score:4, Insightful)
How is an agreement that is written down somewhere considered "informal?"
Holy protection racket ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, that just sounds like something out of a bad gangster movie ... "we'd like to reach an informal arrangement wit youze, but if we can't, we'd be willing to force one on you".
What will be enough for these people? Everybody just simply tithes to them?
They want the entire world to be beholden to, and policing, their copyright. At some point, they're actually doing society more harm than good. These people aren't even the ones "creating" anything -- they're just the ones using funny math to prove they're losing money hand over fist so they can avoid paying the actual creators. A bunch of middlemen skimming off the top don't contribute anything.
Sadly, I'm mostly preaching to the converted, and I fear bitching about it won't help.
Re:What a coincidence (Score:5, Insightful)
I think your theory needs a little more work since it would imply that such a situation couldn't ever have existed.
The food was awful, and the portions small! (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, I agree with him... (Score:1, Insightful)
when he says copyright law isn't working.
Since it isn't working, let's do away with it.
Yes the law isn't working (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA is allowed to rip off the very people the law should be protecting.
Copyright law should protect authors and artists not non value added resellers.
Its members have been nailed in payola scam after payola scam without any serious repercussions. Price fixing on a massive scale and "Record company accounting" is well known for forcing artists to pay for the privilege of earning money for them.
Any just law in the public interest would reduce their profits to a small percentage of the net.
Re:Why stop there? (Score:3, Insightful)
And how should the 3rd party (the site like Youtube or Slashdot) know what material that a user owns the rights to and are allowed to upload? The only ones who possible can know that is the one who upload the content or the guy (RIAA or MPAA) that claims that they own copyright for it.
A law like this would make it impossible to allow any site where a user can upload content. No more Flickr, no more Facebook, no more Slashdot...
Re:I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand the holder has to defend their copyright in order for the copyright to remain valid,
Uh... No. Not true at all. You're confusing Copyright Law with Trademark Law.
YouTube is actually a very poor example for your point -- they have all sorts of ways to filter out copyrighted content -- they have a content matching system, users can flag materials, and they respond to DMCA takedown notices.
If you want to go after somebody, go after the people who are posting copyright material on YouTube. Why make YouTube responsible for what users do?
Re:What a coincidence (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't. The RIAA, and other such organizations, do not believe in fair use. They are in fact, very bitter about it.
Their preferred world is one in which they can deny, or enjoy forced monetization, of all content and the burden of defense, both financially, and legally, is borne by those least capable to do so.
Your question about rights is interesting too. I currently have a problem with this very situation with YouTube. I do have rights to use a song in videos and get flagged on a constant basis by the fingerprint system. Guess what their solution to the problem is? MMO DRM. In their solution I would need to embed my own personal code in the video when uploaded to authorize its use. Of course the next logical step is to create licensing rights that demand a per viewing fee.....
Translation: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why stop there? (Score:4, Insightful)
All that said, I loathe the idea of "informal agreements inked with intermediaries" Copyright is a public policy issue and it should be decided by the public, not by a cartel of businesses.
This. The RIAA is trying to back-door some deals instead of doing everything out in the open anymore where we can publicly mock them. This is the same problem I have with it.
Re:Holy protection racket ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying that everyone inside the RIAA is a psychopath but, the organisation as a whole is. And whomever is in charge probably is. They cannot possibly shelter themselves from reality to the degree that they could not notice the evil and misery they are causing. And if they are psychopaths, they're laughing at our weakness.
Re:What a coincidence (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think you completely understand the RIAA. They have a very simple rule for distinguishing infringement from fair use. If it doesn't make them obscene amounts of money and doesn't give them the option to force you to pay yet another obscene amount of money for using it on a different system or device until the end of eternity it's infringement.
Re:What a coincidence (Score:5, Insightful)
It's such a shame that music has been ruined by money.
Oh wait, no it's not. Money and advertising are no longer difficult hurdles to overcome for a talented independent musician. True, modern technology is a big reason why so many musicians are able to get their work out in the wild now, but think how many of those people have been driven to do it on their own due to record companies' douchbaggery.
I'm extremely happy that most of the real talent comes from a random dude in a basement with a homemade vocal booth, or some chick jamming on a synth in a bedroom. Being able to get our own emotions and musical inspirations available to the public so easily (and cheaply!) is, in my opinion, one of the greatest side effects of the Internet.
Probably not (Score:1, Insightful)
The problem is the internet grew beyond the original core 10% of people. the ones who had interesting stuff to say.
Even if we revert to Archie and Veronica (those were the days) I guarantee that the signal to noise ration won't go down.
Just look at usenet for chrissakes.
Re:What a coincidence (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.
You know, when individuals start to exhibit this kind of behavior we stick them in a padded room somewhere with medication and therapy till the symptoms go away :)
Re:What a coincidence (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't care. They just want the ISPs to do their work for them.
Technology is making it so that business models that revolve around copyright protection need to come up with a new paradigm. They don't want to, for the obvious reasons. They happen to exist in a country with a corrupt political system so rather than change their business model they're just going to buy a law.
What they don't realize it that it's impossible to stop copyright infringement if the cost of the 1+n copy is almost zero.
I also imagine that they're going to push for penalties for the ISPs. Suing the average person is pointless as they don't have money and it generates an enormous amount of ill will.
However making ISPs liable is nonsensical and goes against decades of precedent. It would make it impossible to to run an ISP. What they're asking is the same as making the phone/cell company responsible for any crime that uses the phone system. People tried that with gun companies and it failed.
The problem is that they are so out of touch with reality they think these are good ideas.
Re:My turn (Score:4, Insightful)
He's right, you know. (Score:5, Insightful)
Paper is the original 'recording' (Score:4, Insightful)
You do know he was talking about ideas, not recordings, right?
You're contending that Jefferson advocated for ideas spreading across the globe, but only via word-of-mouth, never by written transmittal?
Re:What a coincidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Creating quality content takes money. The more people pirate, the less there are quality products, because there is no money to make them.
The next time you think about bringing this up, do some research [slashdot.org] on the topic.
To give you a quick quote:
"The average musician on a major record deal 'gets' about $23 per $1,000 made... and that $23 still never gets paid because it has to go to 'recouping' the loan [that the label gave them]"
So if you think buying a CD is helping your artist, you're really only helping them get out of debt with the record label that signed them, and that actually a majority of that $ you spent went to the label anyways. If you want to put dollars in the pockets of your favourite musicians, donate online or ask them whats best. More money goes to them through concert ticket sales (though ticketmaster and the venue do absorb a bit of that cost) and merchandise (also, cost of production).
There's been a recent movement where a bunch of bands have gone and ditched the record labels, where instead they've taken the money they got from a year of touring and have started their own record labels. (I believe David Grohl of the Foo Fighters is one of them?) - and some Indie bands have gone as far as to ignore a label altogether, instead producing only online digital copies for downloads to increase awareness of the band to make more money during concerts.
In terms of Game companies: No developer is forced to work with EA or Activision or Ubisoft or any of the large Publishers out there, there are actually MANY ways to make money. If you've payed attention lately, you'll see that indie games are actually on the rise, with new bundles such as the humble indie bundle being offered through different mediums, such as Steam or even the Xbox Arcade. While there are publishers behind these new mediums, they've basically reduced the cost of manufacturing CD's down to the cost of bandwidth (pennies) and that means both cheaper prices for you and more money can go to developers. Everything from EA, down to Gamestop, are not actually necessary to develop and produce a quality game; Online mediums have essentially ruined the need for physical mediums, even some BIG shops such as Blizzard have started to offer online methods of payment for their games.
Essentially, what it is coming to is this:
Copyright law is only benefitting publishers now, not the musicians/developers/artists/authors it was originally intended for. Everyone is starting to realize that they don't need a publisher, that their are new methods of distribution, and stopping the harmful piracy is as easy as implementing their own DRM, and that sometimes piracy is good for a product to get it into as many hands/eyes/ears as possible.
Re:What a coincidence (Score:2, Insightful)
your signature is really annoying. deliberately deceptive, making it look like there are more replies and trying to get a click? but where does the link go? to a bit.ly site, which may redirect me to.. who knows where?
why would you do such a thing?
Re:What a coincidence (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. I've always enjoyed making music, but I didn't start really trying to make it until recently. What got me into it is that I like a specific type of music (spacey ambient) that isn't easily found. A lot of the stuff I have found has either been released for free or I've found through bluemars.org. I wanted to give something back to the community, so I release my stuff for free [www.last.fm]. When I finally finish one of the three projects I'm currently working on, I'll make them available for purchase...but they will always still be legally available for free.
Getting paid for it would be nice, but I'm more concerned with people actually hearing it rather than paying for it...like you, I'm not trying to make a career out of it. I do it simply because I enjoy it.
lol (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah he checked his bank book and thought "the copyright law is broken"
"The digital music business internationally saw a sixth year of expansion in 2008, growing by an estimated 25 per cent to US$3.7 billion in trade value. Digital platforms now account for around 20 per cent of recorded music sales, up from 15 per cent in 2007. Recorded music is at the forefront of the online and mobile revolution, generating more revenue in percentage terms through digital platforms than the newspaper (4%), magazine (1%) and film industries (4%) combined. "
http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_resources/dmr2009.html [ifpi.org]
How would I squeeze every last cent out of a clients art/music? Oh I wouldn't I'm a human.
Re:What a coincidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Many of the works we consider "great", and part of our cultural heritage, were produced before copyright, and many were also produced without the prospect of payment in the artist's lifetime. Even those who made a living through their work generally earned no more than a modest salary. The "impoverished artist" is a cliche, but it was the norm for a very long time. And yet, these painters, authors, and musicians produced their work because they had talent and drive, and a love of their chosen medium. Now, if you can't be bothered to write a novel because you won't get megabucks for it, then clearly you neither love writing, nor do you feel any particular drive to do it. So why should I care if you never write your novel?
And, by the way, books were being pirated centuries ago - and probably before that, too. Dublin was a big centre of pirated books in the eighteenth century, for example - and yet somehow the book industry has survived that, as well as the Xerox machine, the scanner, the library, and the good old "here, I've finished this - you have it". This is not a new "problem" - whereas the culture of making obscene incomes from little or no real work is becoming the defining problem of the modern world.
Re:What a coincidence (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, when individuals start to exhibit this kind of behavior we stick them in a padded room somewhere with medication and therapy till the symptoms go away :)
Not if they have money. Then they are just eccentric until they actually hurt or kill someone else. Phil Spector, anyone?
Re:What a coincidence (Score:3, Insightful)
If the law doesn't work then it's possible that the law is just wrong from the beginning.
One contributing factor here is the ability to transfer the copyright to a new owner. That means that the creator may get screwed over as well as people in general loses respect for the copyright since it's one fat corporation that's controlling it.
And the weird levels of penalties requested/applied for copyright violations compared to many other crimes makes people just ignore them more since it's so over the edge that they can as well go for heavier crimes and come out easier. Sometimes it's a less harsh sentence for dealing drugs than for copyright violations.
Re:What a coincidence (Score:4, Insightful)
Hahahaha. No, advertising still costs just as much. If you mean having a myspace page, then good luck. Join the millions of other bands no one gives a shit about, and who make zero income from music.
There are methods other than just myspace, you know...and many of them are relatively inexpensive. For example, submitting your music to podcasts is a GREAT way to get exposure. True, you won't get the same kind of exposure as you would with a big record label putting your ads up in a Best Buy, but you also get to own your music...and it's free. There are other methods as well. Flyers, message boards, passing out burned CDs at concerts. It takes more work, but there are other avenues besides record labels.
99.9999999999% of the music people listen to did not come from a bedroom studio. People like this myth of the lone genius producing wonderful music and sharing it in the wonderful new internet age. But.. it just doesn't happen.
That's funny, because that's what I do [www.last.fm]. I will be the first to admit that the kind of music I make isn't for everyone...it's a very small niche. But that's exactly why I do it...it's a small niche. I want more people to discover it, and that can't happen without more of it being available. My contribution to the ambient and drone scenes may be small...but it's still a contribution.
Commercial music takes work, time and money, and the people making nothing from it do not have the incentive or the time to produce the kind of music of the standard the majority want to hear. Pop music is an arms race, everyone trying to out do each other, and compete against 100 years of existing back catalogue of pop music. It's very very hard to do that while managing a 9-5 job or a family at the same time.
Those people you refer to at the beginning of your quote aren't the kind of listeners I'm talking about though. Commercial music doesn't make itself, this is true...but it's mostly recycled crap.
That's great, but who is listening?
Again, I don't do music professionally...I release it for free, and expect to make zero money out of it. I do it because I love it. If even just a single person hears it and enjoys it, that's good enough for me.
I could produce a thousand pictures a day, but I would not be an artist.
That depends on your definition of art.
Examine closely the music you like and that your friends like, and see how much was made on zero budget, and does not have any paid advertising or a record company behind it.
The vast majority of the music I listen to is made by either unsigned people making music literally out of their bedrooms or home studios (ambient, chiptunes, etc)...or, it has small labels behind it (dubstep, death metal/black metal, etc.)
My wife, on the other hand...can't really say the same for her :-) She's a mix between bands that everyone has heard of, and bands almost no one has heard of.
Re:What a coincidence (Score:1, Insightful)
You're confusing musicians with entertainers, one sings and sells music, the other sells an image, and sometimes passable music. RIAA supports entertainers not musicians, so don't worry about the future too much.
Re:What a coincidence (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't even matter in the way you seem to imagine it, anyway - fact is, music is being taken away from the control of big labels (the fight is really about this one). That most of new, often great indies won't make it "big" enough for music to be their only source of income...so what?
Being a typist often used to be a decent position in the times of typewriters - and now look at us, typing away without much thought. Should we allow for obsolescence to be heavily legislated?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What a coincidence (Score:4, Insightful)
Amid the furor of increasing crime rates the National Association of Police Chiefs declared that the home owners and citizens were not doing enough to deter crime on their own. The association members concurred that citizens should be wielding tools that allow police authorities to monitor their behavior and the behavior of those around them including voluntarily installing equipment in their homes and vehicles that would allow police authorities to monitor and deter crime in whatever way was possible. The Police Chief's association declared that they would not be able to deter crime at the current rates because they couldn't possibly know where all the crime was occurring and when, nor to the degree it would break the law. As a consequence the Police Chief's Association asked that new laws be passed that would require citizens to become participants in monitoring and reporting crimes. Otherwise crime would continue, other citizens would continue to loose money, their health, and risk their safety. /s
Re:What a coincidence (Score:2, Insightful)
They can huff and puff , but they can blow me if they think their industry isn't obsolete.
Times have changed. The internet has facilitated a million spouts for the pent up energy of music. It has leveled the playing field for every musician to get some fame or at least an audience. By giving away music you increase your fame and consequently the gigs you play for money increases your revenues. By continuing to egg on the industry to survive only causes aggravation. Just let it die. A new era of music is upon us. Just quit paying for music and you will never have a self appointed authority telling you what's good, popular and "cutting edge" when the criteria for talent is more marketability and trend than actual musical accomplishment.
HEY! What about all the poor bastards in the industry who won't have jobs?
"Well, Danny, the world needs ditchdiggers too" - Ted Knight as Judge Smales in Caddyshack
Who cares what becomes of our antagonists and those who approve of them? I welcome the new order.
Let the Artist in the driver seat.
I'm so tired of hearing from the RIAA. I bet the Judiciary is too. Everyone is tired of this copyright crap. I'm surprised this didnt' bust when Sen. Bono extended copyright with a walletfull of Mickey Money.(insert ski accident joke here)
Guess the founding fathers were right to keep copy at around 4 years. If you need any more than that, well, bullshit, what have you done for us today? Get another idea or get out of the way.
Let them try to get their penny ante royalty. I want money for the air they breath since at one point it came out my butt. Therefore it is a personal product of mine and I want money.
O.K. rant off, I feel better, how bout you? Smoke?
We do need new legislation... (Score:3, Insightful)
But legislation that establishes a group with the authority to establish mandatory and fair licensing rates. Some sort of clearing house that is solely charged with collecting fees and distributing the proceeds fairly. Something like what exists in England but way more progressive. Everything can be licensed, you can't withhold, and you must accept the established rate. Furthermore they can be petitioned/lobbied to create varied fair packaged licenses or even custom licenses. Of course whomever owns the copyright is free to accept less money... So all those books out of print and abandonware will still be purchasable.
Truth be told the government should be involved in the issue. Consumer licenses should be tracked and maintained by the government, it's in everyone best interest. It makes what you purchase more physical and non revocable. You should be able to lend your licenses as well as be able to sell and transfer them. So you really do own every book you purchase forever as well as all that music, you won't need to repurchase it over and over again.
Copyright (Score:2, Insightful)
Copyright law isn't working. DUH!! I knew that before they even started. They might catch a few smalltime downloaders, but the real pirates are passing under their noses.
MEMO: to RIAA (Score:2, Insightful)