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."
What a coincidence (Score:5, Funny)
Breaking and Entering Law & modern technology isnt working with my chosen profession of burglar.
I could try going to individual houses asking them not to lock doors but ultimately I think the
law needs changing so I get special treatment so I can continue to screw people.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
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?".
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Right, except that there are physical limits to what you can accomplish when recording in a bedroom. The homemade vocal booth might fare a bit better...if this hypothetical poor musician manages to scrape together the cash for this and for the necessary professional recording and mixing equipment, and has the construction and audio engineering skills. So basically what you're saying is - music for the people, but only where the people are financially well-off home owners with a loads of free time and the ab
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:What a coincidence (Score:5, Interesting)
In Bach's case, he was just a craftsman who was hired to practice his craft by the church (among others). But he vastly surpassed what he was actually remunerated for. Chopin also often wrote music without expectation of remuneration.
So it's a vast simplification to call music throughout history a "commercial endeavor". Historically, it's been an artistic endeavor that is occasionally profitable, or a craft no different than glass-blowing or shoe-fixing. A job, yes. But one with very little in common with today's "job." Certainly the idea of becoming wealthy for an hour's worth of music that's basically aping what everyone else is doing would never have occurred to any composer you can name.
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?
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that it is enough work that it is worth paying someone (like a record company) to do it for you. Other things involved include doing the accounts, keeping and maintaining industry contacts, all the way down to buying paper and other stationary. The record companies are perfectly capable of using these same internet resources too. (And often do without letting people know who is behind it!)
I agree! The guy that lives on the first floor of our apartment complex is a very successful local musician...he makes a lot of his living off his music, even though he hasn't gone big-time yet (he will though...his stuff is too good [myspace.com] to be ignored for much longer. Not my kind of music, but it's really well done, especially considering what he has to work with from an equipment perspective.) His room mate basically takes care of the business stuff, so he is free to do the music thing.
I liked your music, even though ambient/electronic kind of stuff is not normally to my taste. There is movement and arrangement to it that stopped the more soundscapey stuff from becoming just wallpaper.
Thank you :-) That r
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Agreed. If you read Youtube's position on fair use appeals on videos, they pretty much say as much flat-out. "We consider almost no fair use appeal to be valid, and if you make such an appeal, we're likely to sanction your account."
Re: (Score:2)
The only way you could do it is to have some massive database that can quickly and easily identify a work as copyrighted or not based on a small sample of it. This kind of "fingerprinting" already exists for music. Not sure about video. Getting it all together into one big database would be a real pain, though--and so would legally forcing YouTube, et al to use it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.....
Re:What a coincidence (Score:5, Informative)
What if it was intentionally uploaded by the copyright holders themselves, or by those they authorized to do so?
http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/03/broadcast-yourself.html [blogspot.com]
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/google-viacom-wanted-to-buy-youtube-uploaded-its-own-clips/32061 [zdnet.com]
quote:
For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.
Viacom's efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.
Re: (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:5, Interesting)
I know your comment was tongue-in-cheek, but if you've ever watched the documentary The Corporation [imdb.com], they do a very interesting comparison between incorporated business (as a legal "person") and the technical DSM-IV definition of psycopathy, with some disturbing results. I know it's not the most unbiased documentary ever, but it does at least raise some poignant questions about the mental health of these "people" we have created in the name of progress (and... ?? profit!!)
Re: (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?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google Goggles is scary at the things it can recognize. It could probably do video with a little more coding.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The "New World Order" that the *IAA seeks is one where everything is assumed to be copyrighted (by them). If you want to distribute something, it must have their approval (probably to the tune of $thousands + $hundreds per minute of media for "analysis" to ensure it's not infringing). Sounds farfetched? RIAA's Sound Exchange is already THE government-mandated recipient of all royalties for music played on "internet radio". Even if the song wasn't written, performed, or recorded by anyone associated with
Re: (Score:2)
I've read about this. Can you provide a citation? I play CC-licensed music over internet radio all the time, and fair-use-ly sampled stuff as well. I'd love to see the RIAA come after me, I've got nothing better to do than fight a lawsuit like that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here's a slice of the mandatory and automatic internet radio royalty fight, from the point of view of a broadcaster:
http://somafm.com/crb/ [somafm.com]
More recent stuff from the same guy is
http://somafm.com/blogs/rusty/labels/IREA.html [somafm.com]
Re: (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 i
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
RIAA won't stop until they gain the right, by law, to send their personal SWAT team to your home and execute you on the spot for humming more than two notes from a 200-year-old song that they have somehow kept under copyright.
The only other way to stop the insanity is for the artists and publishers to stop participating in RIAA.
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:5, Insightful)
I think your theory needs a little more work since it would imply that such a situation couldn't ever have existed.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the meerling was saying that the artists "working with the RIAA" seem to be doing ok.
Re:What a coincidence (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm just waiting for them to demand the right to break into people's houses and force them to buy the latest album by whomever it is they say is good.
Re:What a coincidence (Score:5, Informative)
Do you really, really just want to listen to such music? Because you know, you can already. You can go listen to local bands and ask for their demo tapes, and stay away from all the artists that belong to some label working with RIAA.
Except, you can't. Venues have to pay "preemptive royalties" (mafia protection) so they don't get sued for local [slashdot.org] artists [thetimesnews.com] playing cover songs [boycott-riaa.com]. They can collect royalties [dailykos.com] for songs they don't even own [slashdot.org]. And they have no intention of making sure even their own artists [techdirt.com] are fairly [slashdot.org] paid [slashdot.org], either.
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: (Score:2)
Re:What a coincidence (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with your position is the assumption that nobody would pay for music if they could get it for free. That ignores decades of legally recording off the radio. It ignores the fact that you can legally read books for free and legally get copyable CDs for free; they're at the public library. It ignores the fact that Cory Doctorow is on the New York Times best seller list despite the fact (he says "because of" in his book Little Brother) that his books are on his website for free download.
Copyright is (or should be) for commercial publishing; my noncommercial use of media should not be against any law.
Creating quality content takes money
Hogwash, especially when it comes to music. It used to be true that it cost a fortune to record an album, but digital media has driven the price of creating most content down to almost zero. Any band that can afford instruments can affored to record these days.
The more people pirate, the less there are quality products, because there is no money to make them.
Again, you make the mistaken assumption that nobody will buy anything they can get for free. The fact is, "free" sells. The fact that you used to be able to get free matches at about any bar or restaraunt back when everybody smoked, yet they still sold tons of matches disproves your assumption. Bottled water disproves your assumption. Libraries disprove your assumption. You're parroting the RIAA line, which has no basis in fact whatever.
In fact, every study not funded by an RIAA label has demonstrated that music pirates spend more on music than non-pirates.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (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
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: (Score:3, Informative)
E-gads, my grammar is terrible in that post...
Why stop there? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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:Why stop there? (Score:5, Interesting)
A law like this would make it impossible to allow any site where a user can upload content.
And just what do you think the xxAA really wants? They want to be the only "authorized" source of "content".
Re:Why stop there? (Score:4, Interesting)
How does this affect the porn industry?
Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Informative)
Youtube and RapidShare encourage people to post content then basically look away until someone complains about it.
Youtube and rapidshare allow people to post content and the law doesn't require them to do anything until someone complains about it.
Despite that, both companies will block previously uploaded content by hash and Rapidshare relatively recently stopped their rapidshare
points program because they say it encouraged uploading of copyright infringement.
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.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, they could just wait for someone to complain and take it down.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You mean like the bulletin boards at the local grocery stores, community centres, churches, gyms, skating rinks, pools, and post offices? You know the ones... where anyone can post notices and whatnot? You are seriously arguing these companies/facilities should be liable for copyright infrin
Re: (Score:2)
...encourage people to post content then basically look away until someone complains about it.
Yeah, and the constitution should also be held responsible for encouraging Copyright violations with this ridiculous "freedom of speech" notion. Surely the right to distribute my works while still telling everyone what they are allowed to do with it is the most inherent and inalienable right of them all. /sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
The wall has a few other grafitti on it, and a sign saying "post no bills".
Youtube et al encourage people to post content they own, and warn against posting material they don't.
Which is enough.
If the RIAA wants to protect its copyrights it has to enforce them itself, against the infringers. Putting Youtube out of business isn't that.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps a slightly better analogy:
An author writes a book, and plagiarizes most, if not all of it from another copyrighted work.
Editor doesn't catch the plagiarism, and passes it on to the publisher for printing.
Publisher prints the book and ships to bookstores.
Original copyright holder finds this book and is now getting ready to sue.
Who does the original author go after?
The plagiarizing author?
The editor?
The publisher?
I'm assuming the publisher would have to pull the books from shelves when the plagiarism
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I thought the answer is 'go after the deepest pockets and just hope the settle out of court'?
Re: (Score:2)
If somebody spray paints the text to a copyrighted poem on the side of a building, shouldn't the building owner be held responsible for copyright infringement?
If the building owner somehow made a lot of money from the poem then yes.
Let me be the first to say it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
No shit, Sherlock! (Score:2)
On second thoughts don't, the slimy git will claim copyright on the passage of the coin through the air..
The best outcome is it can't be fixed. (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe we're getting to a point where big business will no longer make oodles of money distorting our culture. They've had a good run for 150 years, but hopefully technology has destroyed this model. Woohoo!
I agree with RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
It isn't working. Amendment __: Strike the clause "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". Replace with "To enrich the sciences, arts, and culture of the People, by securing for fourteen years* to Authors and Inventors the temporary Privilege of monopoly to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself. But the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.
"Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine...
"That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Jefferson
Re: (Score:2)
You do know he was talking about ideas, not recordings, right?
And that patent law and copyright law are very, very different beasts for just this reason, right?
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: (Score:3, Funny)
"Who is this Jefferson you are quoting?"
- A Texas High School graduate.
If this goes through (Score:2)
Say goodbye to youtube in its entirety. The risk of liability would be too great, it would turn into another hulu. What would happen to user generated video content?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Big media doesn't want user generated content because they don't own it and don't make any money from it.
a better law would disband the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't represent the artists. They represent the copyright holders (the recording and distribution companies).
Let the artists get together and release their work through different channels under different contract terms. They can shop around for other industry representatives to defend their IP. Or go it alone.
Let the RIAA wither and die. If they interfere, then the DoJ can throw the Sherman Antitrust Act at them.
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.
Posible Court Defense? (Score:3, Interesting)
"..Since every CD I buy today says that downloading music has the same effect as stealing a disc..."
I wonder if any attorney has tried using this in court? If there is actual RIAA literature out there saying the downloading of music is the same as theft of a CD, wouldn't that establish a monetary value of the content and hence limit the financial liability of the downloader/filesharer?
Re: (Score:2)
No, because they already bought the law that places the statutory damages at something like $250K for each infringed work.
If they accepted a 1:1 value for downloaded music, those lucrative court settlements wouldn't be nearly as fun or profitable.
Re:My turn (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds average for them (Score:2)
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: (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 laughi
Tough shit, Cary (Score:4, Interesting)
Youtube et al are not responsible for uploads.
They can take down material you identify as infringing, identify infringing users to you under court order, and you can sue the users.
That's how civil law works. You don't punish people who aren't doing anything wrong.
And if it's too expensive for you to make money with your business model, you shut down your business and let life go on.
Copyright will work fine in those instances where it matters, and in those instances where it doesn't, well, you can't squeeze blood from a stone.
I'm sure they taught you that at B-school.
The food was awful, and the portions small! (Score:3, Insightful)
Logic. (Score:2)
In related news... (Score:2)
Apparently not satisfied with the current scope of the minimum age of concent laws, NAMBLA President ????? wants to broaden the scope of the law.
-Rick
(note, you'll have to excuse me for not digging up the name of the NAMBLA president from work.)
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.
definitely something isn't working (Score:3, Informative)
Here is the main content of TFA:
RIAA President Cary Sherman said the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act contains loopholes that allow broadband providers and Web companies to turn a blind eye to customers' unlawful activities without suffering any legal consequences.
"The DMCA isn't working for content people at all," he said at the Technology Policy Institute's Aspen Forum here. "You cannot monitor all the infringements on the Internet. It's simply not possible. We don't have the ability to search all the places infringing content appears, such as cyberlockers like [file-hosting firm] RapidShare."
- you see, DMCA isn't working for RIAA.
In response to a question from CNET, Sherman said it may be necessary for the U.S. Congress to enact a new law formalizing agreements with intermediaries such as broadband providers, Web hosts, payment processors, and search engines.
The RIAA would strongly prefer informal agreements inked with intermediaries, Sherman said: "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."
- makes sense, make it increasingly difficult for US economy to survive.
Last week, the RIAA and a dozen other music industry groups called on Google and Verizon to crack down on piracy, saying in a letter that "the current legal and regulatory regime is not working for America's creators."
- RIAA considers itself a 'creator' apparently.
Clearly the law is not working. The correct fix is to abolish patent and copyright law altogether. There should be nothing of the sort, all government intervention into economy must stop, and this does include creating any sort of barriers of entry into any industry. Copyrights and Patents are like any other regulations, are designed to make competition less likely, to make the monopolies of the existing powers more persistent and pervasive, this of-course helps the government to maintain its power in a number of ways: obviously government makes much more money from monopolies than from actual competing businesses, who wouldn't bother giving the government officials those nice fat bri.. contributions.
All government regulations do this: they tax, they subsidize, they regulate, all that it ends up doing is creating barriers to entry, creating moral hazards, helping big monopolies and destroying competition, all of this of-course helps government officials but totally works against sound economy and competition.
Copyrights and patents must be abolished, that is the correct way to help the economy and not by helping some specific people to maintain their monopoly while giving them ability to drag any competition through a bought court system with their ill gained money.
eventual outcome... (Score:2)
As is, the RIAA can, through it's government proxies, send armed men into your house to throw you on the floor, handcuff you and haul you away. Eventually someone will reverse this situation and do that to a leader of the RIAA.
The big Picture (Score:5, Informative)
... what about the people ? (Score:2)
Uhm ... er ... just why does the RIAA think it can write laws? Merely because they've had success in the past influencing legislation does not mean they have a right to such influence continuing.
Re:... what about the people ? (Score:4, Informative)
Because the paid damn good money to get their guys into office!
Source Obama Taps 5th RIAA Lawyer to Justice Dept. [wired.com]
Reality Check (Score:2)
People NOT the RIAA President saying 'trying to sell garbage at a premium' isn't working.
Translation: (Score:4, Insightful)
He's right, you know. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's precisely how it SHOULD work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty ridiculous that thousands of people can record pop songs off of the radio all day long and it's up to the copyright holder to scour the homes of anyone owning a recording device for all of the violations.
It's pretty ridiculous that thousands of people can carry cell phones into concerts and use
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Cary Sherman, is that you? Don't you have work to do? You know, homeless people and printers to send DMCA notices to?
Re:I agree (Score:4, Informative)
CH = Copyright Holder
CH 0000001 has 30 pieces of work that they want MD to monitor for and prevent from being displayed.
CH 0000002 has 1700 pieces and wants the same thing.
MD gets about 2000 files uploaded everyday, so that means they have to check all 2000 against 1730 pieces of work. Not fun for them, and what liability do they have to face if they miss one?
Ah... we forgot something... There are THOUSANDS of CH with quantities of works ranging from 1 to many thousands. The amount of work (and liability) that MD would have to deal with goes up at an insane rate. MD has NO vested interest in those pieces of work, and can not be expected to take on the task of policing the activities of other people, even though they use the service provided by MD. Are you expected to check the criminal record and intentions of everyone that walks down the sidewalk in front of your house because the police don't want to? No. It's up the the CH to defend their own copyright, and not to force someone else to do it for them.
Re:hmmmm (Score:4, Funny)
Yep...
"'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..."
He essentially believes New Media and the Digital Economy owes the RIAA a living, and wants to change legislation to make this happen. Hopefully legislators tell him he's off his rocker.