Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ASCAP Declares War On Free Culture, EFF

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the less-sense-than-a-unicorn-meat-c&d dept.

United States 483

Andorin writes "According to Drew Wilson at ZeroPaid and Cory Doctorow, the ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers), a US organization that aims to collect royalties for its members for the use of their copyrighted works, has begun soliciting donations to fight key organizations of the free culture movement, such as Creative Commons, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Public Knowledge. According to a letter received by ASCAP member Mike Rugnetta, 'Many forces including Creative Commons, Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation and technology companies with deep pockets are mobilizing to promote "Copyleft" in order to undermine our "Copyright." They say they are advocates of consumer rights, but the truth is these groups simply do not want to pay for the use of our music. Their mission is to spread the word that our music should be free.' (Part 1 and part 2 of the letter.) The collecting agency is asking that its professional members donate to its Legislative Fund for the Arts, which appears to be a lobbying campaign meant to convince Congress that artists should not have the choice of licensing their works under a copyleft license."

cancel ×

483 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good. (3, Interesting)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696676)

Let them attack everything. Hell. I say let them even win. Once people can't do anything with any of the stuff they own they will wither get smart and take matters into their own hands, or allow themselves to to be screwed.

Re:Good. (5, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696734)

or allow themselves to to be screwed

This is exactly what's going to happen. Lets not kid ourselves here.. most people don't care about any of this. The few people who have any interest in this.. even enough to never pay for media again.. are just a tiny little insignificant blip.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32696754)

You assume most people will notice.

Re:Good. (5, Funny)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696856)

I'm pretty sure that protecting your God-given rights to the works you've created precludes anyone else from releasing works under a free license. People who are releasing their works under a Creative Commons are stealing from the real artists, who work so hard to earn a living. They just want to get stuff for free. Good to see ASCAP has understood this simple fact.

Re:Good. (0, Flamebait)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696988)

that artists should not have the choice of licensing their works under a copyleft license.

You're saying that if "Artist A" wants to release her own works under a Creative Commons license, she must be stealing from "Artist B", who works so hard for a living. I am going to have to disagree, Mr. Troll.

Re:Good. (5, Informative)

zill (1690130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697046)

You seems to have forgotten your sarcasm detector, sir. Here, have mine.

Re:Good. (1)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697142)

Thanks, I see it now. Well played, impaledsunset, well played.

Re:Good. (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697154)

You seems to have forgotten your sarcasm detector, sir. Here, have mine.

I have one, but it must be broken. Its indicator never turns off.

Re:Good. (2, Insightful)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697200)

Sarcasm detector...that's a useful invention

Re:Good. (4, Interesting)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697062)

To clarify the nuance of the argument, I think they are saying that if Artist A gives away their work for free, it is inherently undermining Artist B who is trying to sell an equivalent work. They're not saying that it's theft, they're saying it's anti-competitive. I would argue, though, that if you can't compete with free-as-in-beer then there's something wrong with your business model.

Truism time! (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697108)

"Real (artists|musicians) have a day job."

Re:Good. (1)

djdanlib (732853) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697070)

Here, you can borrow my sarcasm meter, it's functional

Re:Good. (1)

goofyspouse (817551) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697078)

He was not Mr. Troll. He was Mr. Sarcasm.

On a related note, you clearly are Mr. Whoosh. *grin*

Re:Good. (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697178)

He was not Mr. Troll. He was Mr. Sarcasm.

Well, the name change hasn't gone through - Mr. Sarcasm married Mr. Troll, so they're both going to be Mr. Troll - at least once they get all that awful paperwork taken care of.

Re:Good. (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696998)

Hehehe... no one has modded you funny yet, but maybe they will soon.

I think what you said is hilarious! The very idea that someone should get paid for their [hard] [artistic] work is hilarious! To get paid is not why people become artists. "Artists" have been starving since the beginning of time and yet they continued doing it simply because they loved doing it. And if they don't love doing it, they aren't artists.

And seriously, if I want to create something to share, THAT is my God-given right to do so... it's like telling a joke! We do it to put smiles on peoples faces. I don't ask for a dollar every time I tell a joke to someone.

And to be clear, EVERYONE wants something for free... or as close to free as possible and that includes everyone below the poverty line all the way to the top 1% of the world's most wealthy. It's a fact of life and indeed a fact of nature.

I'm sure I'm not the only one to take notice of the similarity of name "ASCAP" and "ASSHAT."

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32697164)

I was thinking more 'ASSCAP' and 'BUTTPLUG', because what they seem to want to be doing is plug up a natural process with an artificial means. Information wants to be free. If you don't want it free you hide it in a hole somewhere, or kill everyone who knows it. There are NO other options.

Re:Good. (2, Funny)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697218)

it's like telling a joke! We do it to put smiles on peoples faces. I don't ask for a dollar every time I tell a joke to someone.

Well I do!

Why did the parrot wear a raincoat?

He wanted to be polyunsaturated

Anybody laughing at that owes me a dollar!

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32697250)

God-given rights to the works you've created

"God-given" rights are, essentially, rights that exist until someone else uses force to restrict them.

Copyright is a social contract, not a nautral right.

Information is either secret or public. There is no natural right to restrict access to it once it becomes public; since force must be applied to restrict access to information that has been exposed to the public, one might argue, quite strongly in fact, that the "God-given" right is for people to freely copy what they see, hear, and read, just as they did prior to the very recent invention of "copyright". At that point, only civlly-agreed-upon restrictions apply, usually to serve a specific social purpose (such, as, by way of for instance, to promote the advancement of science and useful arts). Which is what Copyright is.

Free speech, as a counter example, IS a capital-r Right, because until someone uses force to restrict it, everyone has it. So freely releasing creative works into the public domain is absolutely and inarguably a "God-given" right, and any voluntary licenses less strict than copyright are thus also inherently righteous.

In conclusion: you are fucking retarded, and so is anyone who modded your post "informative".

Re:Good. (2, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696926)

I wonder how far they had to stretch to assume this was a good idea?

It's going to put them out of business.

"hey, we can embrace our fans, or sue our customers". I guess we knew which one of those sounded more appealing.

Re:Good. (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697196)

I wonder how far they had to stretch to assume this was a good idea?

I don't know... About 85 gum-gums?

Re:Good. (4, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697148)

Yeah, we were having a slow month at the pirate party. Thanks for bringing new amunitions. Thanks for making clear that copyright is not the defense of all culture but the defense of an old model of culture financement.

Awesome.. (4, Interesting)

Anrego (830717) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696688)

Don't get me wrong.. this is really bad because they probably have a good chance of succeeding. As absurd as this is, essentially making it illegal to give the stuff you produce away for free, the media industry has a metric ass tonne of money and influence, and most importantly your average guy on the street is not going to understand or care.

I am just happy to finally see what I would describe as inevitable happen. And I totally don't blame the media industry. It a logical approach:

problem: something is costing us money
solutions: make it illegal

Should be interesting to see how this all unfolds.

Re:Awesome.. (5, Interesting)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696810)

Copyright is all fine and dandy, but if Congress tried to actually make it illegal to *give away* your own recordings, I believe that would pretty clearly run afoul of, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Congratulations, ASCAP: you are in the glorious position of educating Congress and the public on how awful and evil the 1st amendment is.

Re:Awesome.. (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697080)

But they can get Congress to declare copyleft unenforceable...

Re:Awesome.. (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697138)

No they can't. That's a court's job, and courts have inevitably come down on the side of copyleft being completely enforceable when it's actually gone that far.

Re:Awesome.. (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697140)

Yeah, I suppose that's true, since copyleft is really copyright with 'non-traditional' terms of usage. I suppose they could argue that while Congress can't stop you from giving away your work, Congress is free to change copyright law, so that, for example, you can't require people to use the same license on derivative works, or something like that.

That probably wouldn't run afoul of the Constitution because A) you are still free to give away your work with no copyright protection, and B) Congress is allowed, by the Constitution, to create copyright laws, but the Constitution provides no mandates to Congress on how copyright must work.

Re:Awesome.. (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697262)

I think this one should fall under Article 1, Section 10:

No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.

But then, that just says state, and I ain't no lawyer.

Re:Awesome.. (4, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697092)

I suspect that ASCAP is not going to ask congress to stop people giving away their work with no restrictions (hence allowjng other "artists" to make money from it), rather they will ask the lawmakers to remove copyright protection from works that people want to release under a Creative Commons or similar license.

In other words, it is an attack on the GPL and similar licenses.

Re:Awesome.. (2, Insightful)

adamdoyle (1665063) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696824)

Agreed. It's their money and if they think it's in the best interest of their companies, they should do it. It's not their job to make sure the USA keeps running like it's supposed to, it's the job of Congress and the judicial system. They are who we should be outraged with.

Re:Awesome.. (2, Insightful)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696834)

Indeed. It appears as though the gauntlet has been thrown. I'm concerned over where everything will be when the dust settles. It seems like every time I think that the oligarchy that governs us can't become any more absurd, they manage to discover the most creative way to strike that all-time new low. I give it five years before it's time to start passing out the Guy Faux masks.

Re:Awesome.. (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696854)

Fawkes. Saw it the moment I hit submit. I'm tired. Don't fuck with me.

Re:Awesome.. (2, Funny)

CelticWhisper (601755) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697054)

Can we faux with you?

Music IS free, as in beer (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697186)

As absurd as this is, essentially making it illegal to give the stuff you produce away for free, the media industry has a metric ass tonne of money and influence,

Most interesting is the fact that the media industry *does* give music and films for free. Radio and TV, for instance, have been largely ad-financed for decades. This does not mean the industry does not receive payment for it, but whatever they receive is orders of magnitudes less than what they claim their losses from unauthorized copies are.

I recently bought a Nokia "Comes With Music" phone. I bought that model for other reasons, it was only after I read the documentation that I learned it came with a licence to copy music from the Nokia site for one year after the purchase.

I paid about $200 for that phone, I don't know how much of that goes to the music industry, let's assume it's $20. If I copy twenty thousand songs during that first year, the media industry gets $0.001 for each song copied.

So, the true value the media industry gives to one copy of a song is about one tenth of one cent. Compare that with the $150,000 loss they claim they have for each song copied without authorization.

Or, wait, does this mean my phone is actually worth $3 billion? If so, then it's for sale at that price. Any takers?

That's funny... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32696700)

I sure don't remember a single one of those groups claiming all ASSCRAP's music should be free, just that the copyright terms should be of a not-fucking-absurd length, and that fines for downloading a song here and there shouldn't ruin someones life.

But then again, ASSCRAP is run entirely by shitheads, so no big surprise there.

End Game? (1)

DIplomatic (1759914) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696708)

I really wish people could understand that the only way people find out about new music is to hear it.
What would happen if they got their way and it was no longer possible for people to trade or share music? Their profits would plummet is what. Who would drop $15 on a CD just to see if it was god or not?

Re:End Game? (1)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696784)

Who would drop $15 on a CD just to see if it was god or not?

Don't know. I mean I am sure there is someone out there who might think a round plastic disk with a silver coating with tiny circular pattern holes and "valleys" cut in the silver layer might think it is a god. But, I know I don't.

Re:End Game? (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696816)

Who would drop $15 on a CD just to see if it was god or not?

Yes, I wouldn't pay just to find out if it was god or not. I really don't care if they put Vishnu in a cd case. I mean he's one of many. I feel like I'd have to buy a lot of them to collect the whole set. But, if it was God, in there? There's only One, so that might be less expensive a proposition. I don't know I might. Depends on the odds. Do on out of every ten CD's contain God, or one out of every Billion?

Re:End Game? (1)

AkaKaryuu (1062882) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696846)

Drop rates are dependant on your faith and the faith of those around you.

Re:End Game? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32696978)

I really wish people could understand that the only way people find out about new music is to hear it.
  What would happen if they got their way and it was no longer possible for people to trade or share music? Their profits would plummet is what. Who would drop $15 on a CD just to see if it was good or not?

This is EXACTLY why they are doing it. They don't want independent musicians to get heard which I believe is the real reason they want to shut down file sharing. If the only legal way to get music is to buy it from the big distributors, they win. If you don't know if the music is good, you will likely only buy CD from big name bands that get air time on corporate channels.

Yes I do believe file sharing does help them actually sell more disks, but it also empowers small produces which reduces their power. That is why they want to shut down file sharing.

Re:End Game? (1)

jgrahn (181062) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697094)

I really wish people could understand that the only way people find out about new music is to hear it. [...] Who would drop $15 on a CD just to see if it was [good] or not?

I suppose that's a rhetoric question and you expect the answer to be "noone". But the real answer is, millions of people have happily done that, for half a century or so. You typically have a friend recommend it, or you hear a song on the radio, or you already know the artist's earlier work.

Today's recommendation from me is Calenture by The Triffids. Or *any* of their albums. (See how easy it is?)

Copyleftists, damn those commies. (1)

CallMyCards (1432059) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696732)

"According to a letter received by ASCAP member Mike Rugnetta, 'Many forces including Creative Commons, Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation and technology companies with deep pockets are mobilizing to promote "Copyleft" in order to undermine our "Copyright." I love how they play the age old political view, it's maybe a bit surprising that communism is not mentioned in connection with the "Copyleft". Luckily time is running out for this to work as effectively, the McCarthyist-generations is hopefully moving towards better commie-hunting grounds.

Free Culture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32696744)

Formerly known as yogurt.

Re:Free Culture (1)

chibiace (898665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696938)

Great for your digestive system.

I blame the courts... (2, Interesting)

adamdoyle (1665063) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696764)

Can't say that I blame them... it's their industry and they're advocating for it - big surprise. That's how the system works: Both sides fight it out based on how important it is to them and the courts decide. If I'm a shareholder, I want them doing everything they can to make the value of my stock go up. That's why the courts are supposed to be there to make sure they're playing by the rules. It's the courts that screw us.

Re:I blame the courts... (1)

adamdoyle (1665063) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696772)

and the idiots who make the laws in the first place - let's not forget them

Re:I blame the courts... (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696840)

Can't say that I blame them... it's their industry and they're advocating for it - big surprise.

Uh, they apparently want to lobby Congress to pass a law which will prevent 'artists' from giving away things they've created.

If true, that is so mind-bogglingly retarded that I really don't know what else to say. Surely even Congress will have to laugh them out of the building?

Re:I blame the courts... (1)

adamdoyle (1665063) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696976)

I don't think that will ever happen. IANAL, but I don't see how you could make it illegal to license your IP under one license while making it legal to use a different license.

Re:I blame the courts... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32697192)

It's the courts that screw us.

I think this is a bit silly. If at any time, you agree with every decision the courts are making, then you must have somehow become a dictator.

What else... (5, Insightful)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696768)

What else would you expect from extortionists, that they play fair?

They are undermining their own argument (4, Interesting)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696776)

ASCAP is asking its members to send donations to help out in a project against the free culture movement. They realize that no single organization alone can finance this 'war', and are trying to spread out the effort among their companies. They are using exactly the same strategy here that open source software like Linux uses - have large corporations that benefit from the project being successful all contribute to it, and allow the entire world to benefit from the result. If they lose, we win. If they win, they will have shown us that we can also win.

Re:They are undermining their own argument (4, Insightful)

dsavi (1540343) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697074)

Not to mention that the fact that they are starting this is proof that CC, EFF etc. are a serious threat to their way of business.

first they ignore you ... (2, Interesting)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696778)

  • first they ignore you
  • then they fight you
  • then you win

In a way this is great news. As long as people are ready to answer them with a good message, this will give great publicity. However, it's really important to point to new things that are produced by the free as in freedom movement. Out of copyright stuff and especially illegally copied stuff isn't stuff we have any right to claim and doesn't show the value of the new approach. Find good artists on Jamendo. Create your own stuff. Talk about how most new things in computing come out of the F/OSS movement.

Re:first they ignore you ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32697068)

You forgot the "then they laugh at you" part.

Sometimes people make music for music's sake (4, Insightful)

mykos (1627575) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696780)

Why is it so hard for them to understand that at one time, music was about artistic expression?
If nobody could ever make one penny from their music, I guarantee you that music would not die.

Re:Sometimes people make music for music's sake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32696896)

A long time ago, they chose to believe $ is more important than anything else. Including the expression of ideas through a medium: aka, art.

Re:Sometimes people make music for music's sake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32696922)

But they are stealing the money who want to write music to earn a living!

Re:Sometimes people make music for music's sake (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696928)

It might not die, but there would be a whole lot less. I don't think Sturgeon's law takes into account "love," so I would rather the averages be pumped up a bit.

After all, 1% of 100000 is way better than 1% of 1000.

Donations welcome but not always expected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32696932)

Some street performers do fairly well from what I've seen and they don't charge for their public performance. I've also known more than a few people who work a full time job and go out to perform just because of their love of the music.

Re:Sometimes people make music for music's sake (5, Insightful)

alexo (9335) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697044)

Why is it so hard for them to understand that at one time, music was about artistic expression?

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it.
-- Upton Sinclair (1878 - 1968)

Re:Sometimes people make music for music's sake (1)

mykos (1627575) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697224)

That is an awesome quote.

I agree with the Legislative Fund for the Arts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32696812)

Dear Legislative Fund for the Arts,

I'm writing today to let you know that I completely agree with your position! We should be asking congress to change the copyright laws...

Sincerely,
"The Copyleft advocates"

The wonderful thing about copyleft is that we're beating them at their own game. Either we're allowed copyleft licenses under today's copyright or copyright laws start to restrict what owners and publishers can do with their work. I suspect this restriction will be too much for "casual" owners (e.g. bloggers) of works and so they'll start releasing under different laws (or public domain) thus marginalizing copyright and demonstrating to everyone that we need to fundamentally change how we view "the right to copy" a work

ASCAP v. RIAA (5, Insightful)

foo1752 (555890) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696818)

It seems that the ASCAP should be going after the RIAA so that artists can actually make money on music recordings again. Forget about free. People are willing to pay for music, but even when they do, how much do the artists actually get anyway? Not much, if anything.

Big brother much? (2, Insightful)

mlippert (526036) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696826)

Wow,
So not only do they want copyrights to last forever, but now they also want to take the copyright away from the creator of the content, because obviously the creator isn't capable of understanding what 'value' their property has if they want to release it under a copyleft license?
 

Re:Big brother much? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696898)

Making "copyleft" music available hurts their business model of charging customers through the nose for music, then passing a few cents of the profits onto the actual artists. Once artists figure out they can make MORE money without these middlemen, then what happens?

"Deep pockets" (4, Interesting)

dsavi (1540343) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696850)

That continues to baffle me. Apparently you can't make money off of copylefted music, so where did all this acclaimed money come from? If they can have deep pockets as copyleft organizations, then why doesn't ASCAP become one themselves?

Re:"Deep pockets" (3, Informative)

dsavi (1540343) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696924)

In addition to this, after a quick search for Creative Commons on ASCAP's website, I found this lovely article [ascap.com] which gives the same give peace a chance/save the whales vibe as their letter did.

What a bunch of— (2, Informative)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696876)

What a bunch of asshats.

Re:What a bunch of— (2, Funny)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697228)

What a bunch of asshats.

That's ass-CAPS... :)

Screw Them attitude (1)

asticia (1623063) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696888)

If all they want to achieve by this is people saying "Screw them, I donate to EFF right now just to make them angry" they may actually succeed.

If it's real... (4, Insightful)

s-whs (959229) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696902)

(Part 1 and part 2 of the letter.)

I want to see the proper letter, with letterhead, contact details etc. At the moment this looks like it can be fake.

If it's not fake then these people are insane and by not wanting to allow people to choose another type of licence, they are taking away rights that they do want for themselves (to choose their own licence).

Assuming for the moment the letter is real:

They say they are advocates of consumer rights, but the truth is these groups simply do not want to pay for the use of our music.

It's not about music. And in case of music, if it's 15 years old or more, I have no problem with copying without paying for it. It should have paid the author, if not, tough luck, that's life.

The long copyright duration (essentially unlimited) also means companies and individuals who don't allow free copying after say 15 years, are hogging our past. Want to see a film again for nostalgia, or some music? (That you probably paid for already, via cable networks, records) Then you have to pay for it again. It's a great business model, getting paid for nostalgia etc. [ Note: Cleaning up very old records etc. and making those available should be rewarded, but for most music there's very little cost, lots of profit, and still lots of whining. ]

Names of donors so I can boycott their products (4, Insightful)

AnalogDiehard (199128) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696916)

The collecting agency is asking that its professional members donate to its Legislative Fund for the Arts

And is there a list of these donating members so I can boycott their products...?

"We will use the funds... (2, Informative)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696920)

... to advance our agenda in Washington..."

Nothing like stating the obvious...

But actually the "letter" sounds a little too goofy..

"We all know what will happen next..."?

Too late for these morons (4, Insightful)

geekd (14774) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696930)

These morons want to prevent ME from releasing MY OWN SONGS under the Creative Commons?

It's idiot moves like this that led to do exactly that. Here: http://theexperiments.com/ [theexperiments.com] All my band's music for free under the Creative Commons.

They can pry the Creative Commons from my cold dead fingers.

No actual points of purpose in the letter (3, Insightful)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696942)

Man, don't you love letters like that? They are asking for money, but they don't list a single, specific point of how the law needs to change, or what specific philosophical claims for which they are in disagreement with EFF, CC, et. al.

They are asking you to write a check, but they haven't explained, AT ALL, what the money is going to be used for. They use very vague and nebulous statements that add up to nothing. What do they actually want to do?

Re:No actual points of purpose in the letter (1)

Robin47 (1379745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697120)

Man, don't you love letters like that? They are asking for money, but they don't list a single, specific point of how the law needs to change, or what specific philosophical claims for which they are in disagreement with EFF, CC, et. al.

They are asking you to write a check, but they haven't explained, AT ALL, what the money is going to be used for. They use very vague and nebulous statements that add up to nothing. What do they actually want to do?

Obviously receive money.

Re:No actual points of purpose in the letter (1)

djdanlib (732853) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697122)

Get free money and publicity? Looks like it worked.

Re:No actual points of purpose in the letter (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697258)

Man, don't you love letters like that? They are asking for money, but they don't list a single, specific point of how the law needs to change, or what specific philosophical claims for which they are in disagreement with EFF, CC, et. al.

They are asking you to write a check, but they haven't explained, AT ALL, what the money is going to be used for. They use very vague and nebulous statements that add up to nothing. What do they actually want to do?

Man, I wish it were possible to take all my debt, multiply it by a dollar, then take the square root of it and give it to them... I'd love to send imaginary dollars to them to support this agenda!

It's the modern way (0, Flamebait)

anorlunda (311253) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696950)

Everybody with an agenda today needs a straw man demon. Look at US national politics. Obama demonized George Bush, then Wall Street, then the Banks, then the isurance companies, and now BP. He hasn't addressed any major topic without a straw man demon.

Like it or not, people in the USA evidently love to hate. An anti-demon campaign is more successful than one with a positive message, regardless of the topic.

generational change (1)

Goldsmith (561202) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696952)

generational change is a bit hard, yes?

Free culture movement? (4, Insightful)

markdavis (642305) | more than 4 years ago | (#32696964)

Free culture movement?? They either don't understand what those organizations fight for or they know and are completely twisting everything around.

Organizations like the EFF are fighting for the consumer to be free to use what they PAID FOR in ways not dictated by multi-million dollar organizations. I have no interest in "stealing" copyrighted content, nor selling or giving it away to others. But when I pay for music, video, text, pictures, or whatever, I should be able to use it on any device I own, for as long as I like, in a manner that I choose. Most consumers are not anti-pay, or anti-copyright, or anti-arts. We just want to be able to obtain quality, reasonably priced media, and enjoy it on our stuff without some company dictating which program we must use, or which operating system, or which device.

And if creators of content want to release things under Creative Commons, or Copyleft, or Public Domain, or whatever, that has NOTHING to do with fighting against commercial companies wanting to make a profit on their materials. They should have that choice, and it should have the protection of law, just like traditional copyrights. What do they propose? To FORCE people to not license content how they choose? What's next? Legislation to block donations to the Red Cross because it might compete with big business? Amazing...

tl;dr: OSS/Free Software is finished. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32696984)

Grab your ankles, everyone -we're about to get fucked!

wait a minute... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32696986)

"They say they are advocates of consumer rights, but the truth is these groups simply do not want to pay for the use of our music."

"...artists should not have the choice of licensing their works under a copyleft license."

wtf? Should or should not an artist have control over how his/her work is used?

I'm too lazy to RTFA, but if these really are valid quotes, then they have a terrible argument here. Sadly, Congress will probably be too stupid to see that.

Even if they win (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697002)

Even if they win and oulawed 'copyleft', forcing everyone to use 'copyright', its still MY work, and i can choose to give it away if i want..

Industry needs to change, instead of fighting.. (3, Insightful)

atticus9 (1801640) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697012)

Rather than clinging to the old model, and try to intimidate people into using it, the industry needs to change figure alternative ways to get revenue for content.

Will it ultimately result in less money for the same amount of art (music/video/writing)? Probably, but in a day and age with our technology does it really make sense that publishers get billions of dollars (not going to the artists) for burning cd's and posting videos?

"Our" music? (4, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697024)

Last I checked, the Creative Commons licenses were applied to the music by the people who created the music... you know, the ones who actually have ownership of the music per current copyright laws.

Clearly ASCAP's problem is that they assume they should own everything and receive all the money from whatever automatic and inescapable royalties they can bribe Congress into assigning to them instead of to the actual musicians. Musicians being allowed to let other people play their music for free are cutting into their profits.

Good. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32697038)

It's this damn "copyleft" movement that has prevented me from releasing any of my music. I, for one, hope that one day I'll be able to make some money off the work that I put my heart into.

write an album about this (1)

dynamo (6127) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697050)

I've heard of some stupid shit from copyright lawyers, but this is record breaking - and it should be record making. Imagine if this had great songs written about it and compiled into a record.. The record has to be given away free, of course.

second option: I'd donate to a legal fund that does nothing but publicly out anyone mentally challenged enough to donate to an anti-1st-amendment fund.

ASCAP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32697060)

More like ASSHAT! mirite?

lollerz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32697110)

It's funny watching these media dinosaurs scurry like drowning rats, suing everything in sight.

FUTILE!

Rampant Windows Piracy (2, Interesting)

Hairy1 (180056) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697116)

Yes, its terrible, its just like those "Free Software" people rampantly pirating Windows all over the place. Oh wait. The Free Software people are a group of individuals least likely to pirate Windows. Something is wrong here.

It's my choice (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32697132)

If I choose to release my work under a free license, what is it to them?

Re:It's my choice (2, Insightful)

goofyspouse (817551) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697204)

If I choose to release my work under a free license, what is it to them?

A (potentially) lost revenue stream.

In related news ... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697136)

... the publisher's organization officially changes its acronym to ASSCAP.

I do hope ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32697146)

lobbying campaign meant to convince Congress that artists should not have the choice of licensing

 
I do hope they word it that was to Congress, They would WIN with that statement.

The Deal Breakers (4, Insightful)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697162)

Entities like ACAT can only blame themselves for the massive push back by the public regarding copyright. If copyright holders and managers had not gone out of there way to bri.. cough, give certain political entities rather large financial enticements to change copyright law so as the public are denied access to their own cultural heritage for an ever extended period of time then the push back by joe average they are experiencing now would not be happening, to put it simply, they (copyright holders) broke the original deal and now the public are saying stuff you. What I find amusing is that "all culture derives from prior works". For example I don't see bands paying chuck berries estate money for ripping of his guitar riffs but at the same time copyright lawyers are blocking all avenues or derivative works by the public even if it is satire.

Braindead (1)

AlgorithMan (937244) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697182)

These organisations ASK musicians, programmers etc. to give usage-rights to the people VOLUNTARILY. If you don't want to, then nobody is trying to force you!

god, how braindead do you have to be, to make such a fuss about a subject that you have nearly zero knowledge about? didn't these morons even read the friggin wikipedia article? or are they just too stupid or too far into their "internet=evil" fanaticism to understand it?

End of the road, pack up, go home. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32697208)

What part of 'culture war' didn't you hippies understand?

We've got the laws, we own your judges and politicians -why did you naive fools ever believe that the outcome would be anything else?

We will not rest until the last filesharer is strangled with the intestines of the last programmer.

New Theory 1 + 1 = (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32697222)

To see the result of this equation and the totally new mathematics that were behind creating and proving it, I must as per law charge you $10.

so this is a clear signal (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 4 years ago | (#32697238)

the lobby in discussion has not only recognized the rise of GPL/copyleft, but that
they have tacitly conceded it fosters competitive and worthwhile art and media with and empowers
creators and artists to supplant these lobby groups...sounds like we just realized bottled water was tap
water all along.

Misleading summary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32697246)

"The collecting agency is asking that its professional members donate to its Legislative Fund for the Arts, which appears to be a lobbying campaign meant to convince Congress that artists should not have the choice of licensing their works under a copyleft license."

Funny, I missed the part of the letter that said that artists should not be allowed to choose a copyleft licence.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>