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!

RIAA Offers More Details Regarding Online Royalties

Hemos posted more than 12 years ago | from the controlling-the-money dept.

The Almighty Buck 181

DorianGre writes "The following story in The Standard as well as this follow-on at Gigalaw announce RIAA's intention of controlling the royalties of all downloadeble music on the Internet. These are the same people suing Napster and MP3.com. Stand up now for true copyright protection as afforded under the U.S. constitution or risk giving it up forever to global monopolies such as this."

cancel ×

181 comments

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

As they should. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#591384)

I know not one of you wants to see any musicians starving. That's why I think this is a good idea. The RIAA is the one who pays the musicians for their hard work and all the effort they put in to entertaining us.

Not all musicians are the money-grubbing, easy-living scoundrels the media makes them out to be. Most of them are trying to eke out a living touring 300+ days a year and hoping for the big break that will propel them into the bigtime.

I hope to see this succeed, because there are a lot of very hard-working musicians who are not getting paid when their works are being downloaded illegally on the Internet.

Re:Copyright protection? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#591385)

But no theft has taken place. Legally it has not occured and since theft is a legal term then your use of it is a result ignorance, or blatant lying. I will assume the former for now.

The correct term is copyright infringement and while it is worng it is not the same thing as theft. When I steal something the original owner no longer has use of it. When I download an mp3 the artist still has the song, stealing a cd would not be theft of the music for the same reason, just the physical manifestation therein.

Re:The U.S. Constitution (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#591386)

Copying material around the globe without paying for it is not 'free speech', nor is it 'free expression'. Its ripping people off.

Copying material around the globe without paying for it is a fact, it's reality, it can not be prevented, live with it.

Welcome to future shock. If your post is any indication, you may soon be on some very heavy medicaton, and living in a protected enclave where everyone carefully pretends it's still 1975.

Look to the Open Source movement for ways to make money off valuable information, in a world where information flows freely. Look to the Grateful Dead for a model of making money with music, in a world where recordings are traded freely.

And quit whining.

Re:RIAA Pimp Agency (1)

rodgerd (402) | more than 13 years ago | (#591387)

Exactly. The thing that fucks me off most about the coverage of this issue is the way dumb-arse journalists parrot the RIAA line about "artist compensation" when anyone prepared to spend more than five minutes doing research would know that the only thing the RIAA likes to give artists comes without lube.

"Perfect copy" myth! (1)

MO! (13886) | more than 12 years ago | (#591393)

I am so sick of reading/hearing this nonsense via the mainstream media outlets!

MP3 files are not perfect copies! They are degraded due to the compression, bitrate used, etc. They sound nearly indistinguishable to the common listener's ear - but this does not mean the are perfect copies. Furthermore, some aucustic qualities are noticably degraded when recorded digitally by just about anyone with decent hearing.

Copies of MP3's are perfect, assuming no data errors when writing the copy. This is, however, a non-issue since you are copying imperfect copies to begin with.

How can we possibly get this point out to the general public when the RIAA and friends are constantly spreading this falsehood?

Re:Copyright protection? (1)

sugarbomb (22289) | more than 12 years ago | (#591395)

If I write a song myself, me not being a member of the RIAA have sole rights to that music and how and where I choose to sell it.
You have the right to sell the song, or attempt to collect royalties just the same as the RIAA. It's similiar to joining BMI or ASCAP to collect royalties for radio or TV play. You are just a lot more likely to get paid if you are part of a huge organization than if you attempt to collect yourself.

Corporate voice? Get real. (1)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 12 years ago | (#591400)

I suppose I could do that... if I had enough money to matter to these people.

I'm currently living on the scale of "how on earth will I buy books next semester", not "how should I leverage this particular fat sack of CASH MONEY".

If I had enough money to throw around, I'd effect change in several ways, but I happen not to.

Remember, these corporations are very, very big. They are made of lots and lots of dollars. More dollars than a normal person has, much more. Your voice in the company is proportional to the stock you own. They are *not* *like* you or me. Well, at least, not like me.

Re:You poor, poor fool. (1)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 12 years ago | (#591401)

No!

Socialism BAD!

In a truly free market, any entity that becomes large, slow and establishment-y is vulnerable to attack by a quicker, smarter version.

Recording companies are obsolete. Notice that they seek their protection from the savior you cite, the government, hoping to stave off the effects of the market.

grendel drago

Actors, but the same thing... (1)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 13 years ago | (#591402)

The old joke goes...

"So, what do you do?"

"I'm an actor/actress."

"Really? What restaurant?"

A reference to the fact that more than ninety percent of actors are out of work at any given time... I'm sure it's likewise for any but the most professional musicians.

grendel drago

Minor Point (1)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 13 years ago | (#591403)

Err... socialism is an economic system where the *government* runs everything.

The government doesn't get involved here until someone gets sued.

Corporations don't stand for democracy, they stand for making a quick buck, repeatedly. This works just fine, as long as everyone understands this, that the company is only concerned about its potential for profit.

grendel drago

Another minor point. (1)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 12 years ago | (#591404)

Egg on me. Revise that to read 'where the government runs everything important.'

Socialism gives me the crawling horrors, anyway. Too many cautionary examples in this century of what happens when your government becomes too powerful.

grendel drago

How the hell are they going to enforce this? (1)

FeeDBaCK (42286) | more than 13 years ago | (#591405)

The RIAA is the Recording Industry Association of America, right? How the f*ck are they planning on stopping someone from Austria from downloading the latest and greatest (yeah, right) Metallica mp3 from their buddy in Russia? One of the main things these guys overlook is that they are really SOL here. They have been used to being in complete control over the distribution channels, which allowed them to bend over both the artists that make the music we love and enjoy, and the consumers who have to dish out their hard earned money.

The RIAA may be able to control the distribution of music in America and collect royalties from online music distribution in America, but who is to say that someone in Pango Pango won't create the next best thing for digital distribution online? The the RIAA will have to start all over once again.

Re:Copyright protection? (1)

bfields (66644) | more than 12 years ago | (#591408)

As in the true copyright protection that lets billions of stolen mp3s get downloaded each day?

Such behavior is already illegal. So here's an interesting question---why isn't the RIAA going after all people who are swapping mp3's? Why is it going after Napster instead?

If the RIAA sued a bunch of individuals (if they even made prominent examples out of a few), they could probably intimidate a lot of people to the point where they would change their behavior. Suddenly a much lower percentage of the traffic on Napster (or whatever) would be in illegal mp3's. Suddenly it would be much clearer that peer-to-peer protocols can have "significant non-infringing uses", and their court cases against companies like Napster, like earlier court-cases against the VCR producers, would be on much shakier ground.

The RIAA would be better off in the long run if they could embed copy-protection controls in every internet protocol. But that doesn't mean they need to do such a thing to prevent "piracy".

Of course we should support our artists. But why does that mean we have to let the RIAA reshape the cyberspace in their image?

---J. Bruce Fields

Re:Copyright protection? (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 12 years ago | (#591413)

Well, thats one of the things that happen when you have freedom of speech. You have to right to say what you believe in, no matter how stupid. Taking that away is far more dangerous. I think you should spend some time in China as a citizen of that country and see what you'd be missing.

Odd, i didn't know the french could declare another nation's constition void. Personally i don't know why yahoo is even in court. Their response to France should have been a big 'fuck you' and then completely ignore the idiots. It seems that France is becoming as Facist as the Nazis they so 'hated.' Too bad for them that Nazism isn't the only way to be facist.

Re:A Clockwork Orange (1)

Mike Connell (81274) | more than 12 years ago | (#591419)

Regulation: A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct.

I'd say that applies to Alex fairly well.

> If you use your "freedom to commit a crime," don't be suprised if you lose that freedom and many more.

Thank you. That was exactly my point.

Mike.

Re:A Clockwork Orange (1)

rotor (82928) | more than 12 years ago | (#591420)

Regulation: A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct.
I'd say that applies to Alex fairly well.


Yeah, but that's a huge generalization. Alex was hit with torturous drug therapy - physically and mentally abused to force him into submission. Regulation also means laws saying that if you murder someone or steal, you will be punished for it, and there's nothing wrong with that.

> If you use your "freedom to commit a crime," don't be suprised if you lose that freedom and many more.
Thank you. That was exactly my point.


Nice half-quote. There's a good reason for losing that freedom if you abuse it - you took away the freedoms of others.

-

A Clockwork Orange (1)

rotor (82928) | more than 12 years ago | (#591421)

I think you missed something in A Clockwork Orange... It's more about mind control techniques being used to turn criminals than regulation. Regulation is a rather necessary thing - otherwise you have anarchy.
BTW... If you use your "freedom to commit a crime," don't be suprised if you lose that freedom and many more. Every time you use such a freedom you take away some freedom of someone else's, and should be punished accordingly.

Oh, and for those of us in the US - make sure you get the full book before you read it (the 21st chapter was cut out when it originally went to press here in the US). The last chapter is where the most powerful statements are made. And since Hollywood is in the US, the movie is also missing that last chapter.

-

Re:Irony (1)

rotor (82928) | more than 12 years ago | (#591422)

Work for a few days of their lives? Have you ever known anyone in a band? Most bands never get paid anywhere near as much as the average worker, and those that do (with exceptions of people who are extremely popular and have been for a long time) are out there playing concerts (a very draining experience for those of you who have never done it) and traveling around the world on a nearly daily basis when they aren't recording their next album. Yeah, they might get a little more vacation time than the rest of us, but they also work 6 or 7 nights a week when on tour, and don't get to go home between those nights.
Without royalties most mid-sized bands wouldn't be able to earn a living. Smaller bands will have to work a day job anyways, but to be a mid-sized band you don't have time for a day job. That covers all but the superstars. Dont over-generalize.

-

Re:Copyright protection? (1)

nachoman (87476) | more than 12 years ago | (#591423)

RIAA's intention of controlling the royalties of all downloadeble music on the Internet

Now how is this going to work. I don't understand how they can control ALL music on the internet. For starters, I'm in canada. How could the RIAA get juristiction over canada. Secondly, If I write a song myself, me not being a member of the RIAA have sole rights to that music and how and where I choose to sell it.

I really don't understand what they are trying to pull. Either this article is just bullshit, or they actually think they can pull this kind of a stunt off. I think the reason for all this crap from the RIAA in the first place is cause they want to make money.

The pirateing of music have been around ever since there was a method of recording music. It was all over the place when cassettes came out. The difference with digital format is that they feel they can easily regulate it, which they can't.

They know people will still pirate music, they just want a bigger cut of the action. Selling mp3s for the price of a CD would only allow them to make more profit not haveing the cost of production. (even though it is fairly low). It seems like a great plan. Get other people to create mp3s that you say they can sell, then you make money from doing absolutely nothing.

Is there nothing in our society that isn't driven by the lust for money anymore? Aparently not.

Re:Minor point (1)

cybermage (112274) | more than 13 years ago | (#591427)

Small question on the side, how about international waters? A ship with a bunch of servers on it and a satellite uplink maybe?

Also need an eye patch, peg leg, parrot and a hook for a hand.

"12 miles out at see, beaming you an mp3" - slogan for www.daveyjoneslocker.com, the website for copyright pirates.

--

Re:The U.S. Constitution (1)

Trinition (114758) | more than 13 years ago | (#591428)

After all, less than 10% of the population live in America, so why shouldn't we all be governed by their laws?

And how much of the pirated music on Napster was created in the United States?

Re:Un Ask the Question (1)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 12 years ago | (#591430)

Can anyone come up with a system that will "eliminate the middle man" whilst allowing an artist to have a decent living?

The main problem with a band promoting itself on the web and handing out mp3s and stuff is that they need money to start out with. For good studio recordings, and if they want to make it big, a lot of promotion. Yes, there are bands that make a decent living only based on live performances, but they're really rare. You need radio play, and a lot of exposure. That costs a lot of money, but there are thousands of bands like you, you have no choice.

Currently, record companies supply that money, a lot of bands still fail, but record companies cash in big time on the ones that win.

"Bands" like Five et cetera are not even bands, in my opinion, they are business models. These bands shouldn't be saved, but then, they'll just go on selling their stuff to their 13-year old market. Teenage girls don't buy for the music they could download, they buy for the cool CD by their heroes. These are unaffected.

The real good bands? What should they do? There are thousands and only some can make a living out of it. Well, they just got to work real hard, do a lot of gigs, and hope for the best. That's what they do now, anyway...

Once an artists makes it to loads and loads of Napster downloads, he's already famous. He'll not have a problem. But the record company won't be able to cash in all that big anymore, so they'll focus on the pure fantasy business model "bands" we see all the time.

Actually, the more I think about it, most artists don't make a decent living now. The ones that make it to a record deal *and* have success are a minority. All the other thousands of bands do lots of gigs, work hard, and have a job for a few days. That doesn't seem to stop them though.

Too bad for that small minority of real bands who do make it to wealth nowadays, but for the rest of the industry it's business as usual...

(Just brainstorming along, this is hardly an answer to the question nor a cohesive story...)

Re:The RIAA really needs a choke collar... (1)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 12 years ago | (#591431)

Go to China and then come back. You'll see how good 'we' have it here in the United States.

Yes, but on the other hand - think of America before the revolution. Are you still better off than then? Isn't it time for another one?

"bang head here" (1)

gunner800 (142959) | more than 13 years ago | (#591433)

Nothing in the article says anything about being the only royalty collection mechanism in the whole world. The fact that it is being aproved only by the U.S. postal system sort of implies that its legal reach will end at the U.S. border, although you can be sure the RIAA will sue anybody they can to extend their reach.

Nor does the article say anything about ending file-swapping services like the payment-based Napster, IM file transfers, or FTP. They will still exist; RIAA's attempts to sue them into oblivion are a separate issue.

Basically, this isn't a world conspiracy, its just a new mechanism that many of us will dislike simply because it won't facilitate getting free music. A mechanism in addition to what we already have, with the support of the copyright office for handling royalties.

Oh, and are copyrights established in the Constitution? I thought it was a legislative action, or at least that the details (such as "fair use") were.


My mom is not a Karma whore!

Re:"bang head here" (1)

gunner800 (142959) | more than 13 years ago | (#591434)

The constitution states that Congress may establish copyright and patent laws.

Ah. Well, I was half right, and yeah I'm lazy for not looking it up myself.


My mom is not a Karma whore!

Bad Contracts (1)

nothng (147342) | more than 12 years ago | (#591435)

"Fifty percent of the royalties will be distributed to the copyright holders - usually, the record labels. The balance will be divvied up among the artists."

this is part of the problem, the musicians/writers don't hold their own copyrights. If they did, i'm sure most would want the added publicity of having music available on the internet. The majority of music isn't top 40 you know. In general it's a really bad idea to sign your rights over to any company. Musicians should always work under a QUALIFIED MANAGER, and have a QUALIFIED LAWYER review any contracts.

Also, what's with the RIAA trying to collect royalties? Traditionally ASCAP, BMI and SESAC have handled this in most performances(broadcast, and live) and the Harry Fox Agency has collected mechanical royalties.

The worst part of this is the lable's only get 50%!!! Really, so the apparently the RIAA get's the rest, who's the real criminal. ASCAP and BMI only retain 17-19% and are NON-PROFIT organizations. It's time musicains and composers start sueing the RIAA... Being a Musician and Music Industry Major I plan on boycotting their overly corrupt organization which exists soley for the welfare of their pockets at the expense of musicians and writers. Hopefully I will have to deal with them as little as possible.

Re:RIAA Pimp Agency (1)

nothng (147342) | more than 12 years ago | (#591436)

"I suppose this is better than the estimated 15% artists currently get from CD sales, but still seems quite rediculous"

yeah, it's funny, according to the SGA's suggested contract, artist should get 75% of Mechanical Royalties(cd/record sales)

Re:Why do ASCAP and BMI remain silent? (1)

nothng (147342) | more than 12 years ago | (#591437)

This is very true, Moderaters, he makes a very important point, maybe this should be modded up? Traditionally ASCAP BMI and SESAC have collected broadcast royalties, and the Harry Fox Agency has collected mechanical royalties (album sales). Why are they allowing the RIAA to try to take this, streaming broadcast would be ASCAP/BMI's arena, and actual downloadable files would be the Harry Fox Agency's arena.

Re:Excuse me? Everything?? (1)

nothng (147342) | more than 12 years ago | (#591438)

If you aren't a member then they should have nothing to do with you. They just want money, and if they are collecting royalties you should sue them :)

Re:Copyright protection? (1)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | more than 12 years ago | (#591443)

As in the true copyright protection that lets billions of stolen mp3s get downloaded each day?
No, as in true copyright protection with reasonable limits to the terms of the copyright.

I'd believe this (I'd like copyright terms to revert back to reasonable time limits), but the people using Napster wouldn't respect those limits either. Just look at the selection of songs available on Napster -- how many of those are more than 14 years old? (I believe that was the original term, though I probably got my info from slashdot, so I can't be sure.) Would the availability of older music reduce the demand for the current top 40 songs? Maybe, but I tend to doubt it.

We should be trying to get copyright terms reduced, but support for Napster is, IMO, counterproductive, or at least not useful. If you really believe in the principles of music that is freely available, then support it not by this pseudo-rebellion against the RIAA, but by actually listening to music that is freely released, giving money to unknown bands that you like, so on and so forth.

If you want to use Napster to grab the latest music, that's fine by me, as long as you don't hide behind the pretense that you're part of some 'revolution.' Not wanting to pay for something is hardly revolutionary -- consumers have wanted to keep their money for thousands of years. It's simply being cheap. (Or thrifty, if you like.)

Although I tend to think that RMS is a nut, I like some of what he advocates -- not that people start simply taking all their software (and other IP) without paying for it, but that we should encourage authors to release it for free. We should be following the same premise with music. Honor the requests of those who create the music, but encourage artists to create music under our terms.

Re:Factual error in second article... (1)

Misch (158807) | more than 12 years ago | (#591445)

Ahh... that's right. I didn't think of it from that angle...

Factual error in second article... (1)

Misch (158807) | more than 12 years ago | (#591446)

As to the piracy question, the issue rests in part on analogies with other technological innovations that posed a threat to traditional distributors of information. The MP3 technology could be analogized to the photocopier, which allowed individuals to make and sell copies of books, undercutting the market for the original publication. The clear distinction is that photocopiers resulted in degraded copies; MP3 permits the creation of exact replicas of the original. Umm... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't MP3 lossy compression? This guy needs to get a clue, or at least a nice e-mail explaining his mistake...

Why don't they understand? (1)

spyrral (162842) | more than 13 years ago | (#591448)

It's impossible to control copywrited material in the way they envision. Who is advising these people?

Re:RIAA Pimp Agency (1)

mgoyer (164191) | more than 12 years ago | (#591449)

15% from CDs, maybe 50% from this, come on we can do better.

Use Fairtunes [fairtunes.com] and have 96% go to the artist. It's a voluntary system where the fans control the amounts not the record labels.

Matt

Mo money! (1)

Fat Rat Bastard (170520) | more than 13 years ago | (#591451)

From GigaLaw But one way or another, the band will continue to play and the piper will be paid.

Maybe it should be "... the band will continue to play, but will make even less since the record companies are taking more of the pie." Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Meatspace doesn't ALL of the money radio stations, et al have to pay go to BMI, ASCAP for distribution back to artists and NONE of the money go to the record companies themselves? Looks like now they're trying to muscle their way into that revenue stream as well.

After looking at how they structure their contracts with artists I would be very wary of letting them handle this as well.

Nathan

Re:Minor point (1)

saider (177166) | more than 12 years ago | (#591452)

Small question on the side, how about international waters? A ship with a bunch of servers on it and a satellite uplink maybe?

A ship in international waters is still subject to the government that it is flagged under and also to the governments of the ship's last and next port of call. You have to sail from somewhere and if it is some third world dump that you have flagged under, the RIAA can rest assured that you will have no recourse after they send mercenaries to take over your ship.

Just move your server to Sealand [demon.co.uk] . Cheaper and easier.

Re:Copyright protection? (1)

plumby (179557) | more than 12 years ago | (#591453)

To turn this into a "us vs. shareholders" thing is not really the point. You're probably already a shareholder.

It's not us v the shareholder. It's us v the BIG shareholders - the few huge financial houses that control almost all of the share trading. It's these big investors that cause the problems. They don't care about the success of the companies that they are investing in. They only care about the money that can be made out of them. If that coincides with helping the company succeed, then fine. But if it involves sacking half the workforce, or (to keep this vaguely on topic) dropping the artists then the large shareholders will be just as happy.

Sure. You probably ARE a shareholder through you pension scheme, but I suspect that you don't know who the shares are with, or even if you do, that the companies would listen to you if you begged them not to drop your favourite singer.

Re:Measures to take.... (1)

fatphil (181876) | more than 13 years ago | (#591456)

Stop reading Slashdot, Mark, and get back to work!

FP.

Re:Copyright protection? (1)

fatphil (181876) | more than 13 years ago | (#591457)

I'm amazed, buttfucker2000. I normally disagree with you, but with this I have to agree with you.

I personally have used MP3.com to give money to the artists themselves, so I don't like you bundling the "uncontrolled distribution" of Napster with the "controlled distribution" of MP3.com. However your sentiments about _most_ users simply wanting these things for their own gain is I think right on.

Say it like it is!

FP.

Re:Excuse me? Everything?? (1)

sulli (195030) | more than 12 years ago | (#591459)

Sue the fuckers if they do this. They are clearly interfering with your rights. Not to flame the RIAA or anything...

Re:Future Shock hits home! (1)

Peter Dyck (201979) | more than 12 years ago | (#591463)

Perhaps so in this particular incarnation of the Internet.

Just wait for the Internet 2 and the wonderful tools it provides for the corporations to track and control the flow of information...

Re:Copyright protection? (1)

multriha (206019) | more than 12 years ago | (#591464)

It's not a matter of us vs stockholders. It's the simple fact that the main concern is making money for those stockholders. Above all else

this is a good thing (1)

Johnny Rocket (207939) | more than 12 years ago | (#591466)

I see this as a good thing for the online music community. Let's face it, we're not going to beat the RIAA anytime soon. Up until now, it hasn't been incredibly common to find some of the bigger name artists distributing their music online, because their labels are RIAA-controlled. With this in place, record labels will be more willing/comfortable distributing music online. Only like one song off an album? You won't need to buy the whole friggin thing anymore, just the songs that you like. It's not going to stop napster, gnutella, or any of those other p2p things. The CD didn't stop people making tapes did it? This is just increasing the legal value of the mp3. the way I see it. But hey, I could be completely wrong too.

Re:Why don't they understand? (1)

tyrius (212849) | more than 13 years ago | (#591467)

You can't blame them for trying. I personally hope and figure it'll fail, but life would be pretty DARNED boring if the bad guys gave up too easily. In any case the artists do have some rights, right ? Hopefully everyone will get theirs. Till then I wish my .edu will release the NAPSTER ports, Scour will AUTOMAGICALLY be reborn and Gnutella RETURN a positive search reponse .... Someone pray for me .... Live long and prosper !

Irony (1)

AstynaxX (217139) | more than 13 years ago | (#591468)

The user's nick and the business model he seems to advocate both imply the same activity... making consumers bend over and accept anal violation in the name of bloated profits.

As a response to the direct statement: the RIAA cheats the artists more then we the people ever could. Also, the concept of royalties is disgusting to begin with. You and I and most folks must work, day to day, to live, even though many like us just as talented at what we do for a living as most modern musicians. So, why should someone with a pretty voice or agile fingers get to work for a few days of their life and use that to live forever? Pay per performance is the only way IMHO.

-={(Astynax)}=-

Do you even know any musicians? (1)

Hairy_Potter (219096) | more than 13 years ago | (#591469)

I have a friend who calls himself a musician. As far as I can tell, his working day is:

  • smoke pot
  • listen to music
  • pick up the guitar and noodle
  • smoke pot
  • yell at kids
  • order take out
  • smoke pot
  • listen to music
  • pick up guitar and noodle.


And about once a month, he gets a gig at Starbucks for tip money.

He calls this being a musician, I call it being a pot smoking bum.

Are you seriously telling me these stole from musicians are working as hard and as long as a ditch digger, or even an SA? Or are they just getting high, partying, having sex with underage girls and trying to make the big score.

My words of wisdom for anyone hoping to be a rock star or actor/actress, get a good fallback career or learn to starve, the competition is immense, and don't expect anything sympathy if you're in it for the lifestyle.

Re:Do you even know any musicians? (1)

Hairy_Potter (219096) | more than 13 years ago | (#591470)

Well, this pot smoking bum is forcing his wife and three kids to go on welfare.

If it wasn't for an overly generous mother in law, they wouldn't even have shoes.

If you want to be a pot smoking bum your life, fine, but don't reproduce.

Re:Huh? Am I reading this correctly? (1)

n8ur (230546) | more than 12 years ago | (#591472)

This an extension of existing deals that handle royalties for other media. There's a concept of "compulsory licensing" under the copyright act -- this is what prevents record companies from denying stations the right to play records. However, the license isn't free and private entities manage the royalty payments for such licenses. In a couple of cases, the managing entity is actually appointed by the copyright office, while in others it's a matter of who the industry players get behind to manage royalty collection on their behalf.

That's where ASCAP and BMI, who license virtually all public performances of recordings, get their clout (and, I'm surprised they're not going after the on-line franchise -- presumably RIAA is trying to do an end run). There's another agency that has the licensing rights for virtually every piece of sheet music published (you have to go there to get permission to record a song, as opposed to playing a recording), and yet another that handles the right to include music in movies and TV. Finally, there's something called the Copyright Clearance Center that attempts to collect fees from businesses and others for photocopies made from books and journals.

Re:Irony (1)

SlippyToad (240532) | more than 12 years ago | (#591477)

Pay per performance is the only way IMHO

You obviously have no concept of what it requires to even begin making money as a musician, so I'll ignore your opinion like the uninformed drivel it is.

Re:The U.S. Constitution (1)

joshuaos (243047) | more than 13 years ago | (#591480)

Frankly, a global law on copyright is the only way to protect the interests of the artists. One that everyone agrees to, one that is enforced, one that is fair regardless of creed, colour or country. Copying material around the globe without paying for it is not 'free speech', nor is it 'free expression'. Its ripping people off.

No, I disagree thoroughly. The last thing we need is more laws that we can't enforce. The point is that you can't enforce copyright on the internet! There simply isn't a way! If I can play it, I can record it and copy it to a friend, or to everyone on the planet. The business models under which music is created will have to change to acomodate that fact. Artists, IMHO, don't have some god-given right to get paid indefinetly (or even for a long time) for something they did. There are lots of artists who will not be hurt by the disapearance of copyright, and those will be the best artists anyway. Certainly, Britney Spears and S Club 7 will suffer from this, but Phish and DMB won't much be affected, infact, I think it'll improve that quality of music that this wee rock produces. Copying music is not ripping anyone off, you can't own data. Joshua

Terradot [terradot.org]

Re:Copyright protection? (1)

joshuaos (243047) | more than 13 years ago | (#591481)

And what are guns used for?

To defend one's self.

Joshua

Terradot [terradot.org]

Re:The Genie is out of the bottle (1)

Bob Gortician (246811) | more than 13 years ago | (#591482)

You are so st0n3d. St0n3d and 0wn3d.

Or is that me?

uhm, whats so bad about this? (1)

rebelcool (247749) | more than 12 years ago | (#591484)

You should stop posting opinions under headlines. Makes you sound like a childish zealot.

Anyways, judging from the article i dont see any reason why this particular company would *have* to be the sole royalty collector. The article states that 208 companies have signed on with it, thus making it EFFECTIVELY the sole collector (which from a business perspective, that makes sense). Also, this division of the company only covers webcasting of music, not transmitting mp3's as some mislead by this headline might think. This includes services such as radio.sonicnet.com that serve streaming audio I would imagine. Just like the RIAA has a sole division for getting royalties from mtv, radio and so on..this is just another logical extension of the system.

Re:How the hell are they going to enforce this? (1)

rebelcool (247749) | more than 12 years ago | (#591485)

The article says absolutely nothing about mp3s. The division is only about webcasting music..aka..streaming audio.

More misleading slashdot headlines....

Re:Minor point (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 12 years ago | (#591490)

I could be mistaking, but as far as I know the USA still has some sort of treaty with most of the countries. Something along the lines of "we don't barge into your country toting machineguns and blowing things apart and stuff". Besides, the RIAA has a lot of influence, but a full scale foreign military operation?

More proof (1)

workers_unite (258946) | more than 12 years ago | (#591491)

This is just more proof that we must nationalize the music industry and return the arts to the people. It's obvious corporate greed of these people knows no bounds.

All art should be publically subsidized, and all ownership should be public domain by law. Everyone should be able to freely copy any work they desire. Only then can we kill the corporatism of the arts.

We must take back all the money stolen from consumers over the years (from BOTH the corporatists AND the musicians who have made sickeningly too much money), and redistribute it to the worthwhile artists who have not been willing to sell themselves to the music industry.


--

Re:The RIAA really needs a choke collar... (1)

UniqueUserID (259510) | more than 13 years ago | (#591493)

Go to China and then come back. You'll see how good 'we' have it here in the United States.

Re:As they should. (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#591495)

Actually, i prefer my artists poor and/or angst-ridden. It gives them something to sing about that isn't some banal dreck that was written by someone without an ounce of real emotion.

Re:Copyright protection? (2)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 12 years ago | (#591501)

Yes, copyright protection. Not the one-sided "We'll guarantee our rights by stripping you of yours" approach of the DVD-CCA and SDMI organisations. Copyright is a bargain between creator and user, it's effectively a list of things that the public are not allowed to do, and things that they are allowed to do. What CSS does is to forbid everything, including the things that users are specifically allowed to do under both American law and international copyright treaties. In my opinion, if a company wants to deny me my rights under copyright law regarding a work, then they are effectively saying that copyright law does not apply to their product. Fine by me, where's that DeCSS code gone? Unfortunately, the DMCA makes it illegal to play the same game as the corporations in the US.

Huh? Am I reading this correctly? (2)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 12 years ago | (#591503)

The Standard article makes it sound like the copyright office is granting the RIAA quasi-governmental status as the sole gateway for digital distribution of music. Am I getting that right? That certainly sounds bizarre, even for a corporate lapdog like the US government.

--

Re:Factual error in second article... (2)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 12 years ago | (#591505)

Umm... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't MP3 lossy compression?

Yes and no. He's technically wrong, but his point is correct. MP3 is lossy, but that loss only occurs in the first generation of copying. After that, all copies of an MP3 file are identical. Thus, it is different than is the case with photocopiers.


---

Wild inaccuracy (2)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 12 years ago | (#591506)

The issue of whether MP3 files themselves constituted copyright infringement came in front of the district court of New York this year in a challenge brought by owners of copyrights in musical recordings against MyMP3.com, an Internet company that created and stored MP3 files for its subscribers. The Internet company claimed that its use of the MP3 files were protected by the fair use doctrine, no different from video recording.

Bullshit. That case had absolutely nothing to do with MP3 files, and everything to do with the distribution of someone else's copyrighted materials without permission.

The only legal issues that exist with MP3 files are issues concerning the Fraunhofer patent. Other than that, MP3 isn't any different than any other digital audio file format.


---

Sole agent (2)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 12 years ago | (#591507)

I don't have a problem with copyright owners seeking to get compensation for the distribution of their works. But, that said...

SoundExchange is already the sole agent for collecting royalties for music broadcast over satellite and cable services. It is awaiting approval from the U.S. Copyright Office to become the sole agent for collecting and distributing royalties for music broadcast online.

The RIAA has been getting away with this same type of shit for too long. Who are they bribing, in the government, that is allowing this stuff to take effect?

Being designated by the copyright office as the sole agent is blatantly unfair, because RIAA does not represent everyone who might have their music broadcast. In fact, if they did represent everyone, then it would be strong evidence of an anti-trust violation.

RIAA has no right to collect royalties on behalf of everyone, just as they have no right to collect media tax on behalf of everyone. This is blatant out-in-the-open corruption, and I really wish someone would put the copyright office person who agreed to this, in front of a "60 Minutes" camera so they can explain to everyone why this isn't graft and/or corporate welfare.


---

Re:Copyright protection? (2)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 12 years ago | (#591508)

BF2k, I think the issue you missed is that RIAA is trying to (re)create a monopoly. They want to collect money that they don't deserve, in the form of royalties that are owed to musicians that they may not actually represent. It's like the blank media tax.

As in the true copyright protection that lets billions of stolen mp3s get downloaded each day?

That is an issue for the copyright holders to address. It isn't any more fair for RIAA to collect royalties on some german speed metal band that I listen to over the net, than it would be for you or Microsoft to.

Gee, maybe I should go to Washington and grease a few palms and buy a few hookers for the right people, and then I could be designated the sole agent for something.


---

Measures to take.... (2)

maroberts (15852) | more than 13 years ago | (#591509)

Relocate your web server to somewhere more legislation friendly.

Support the bill to make legalise copying of music into electronic format for personal use.

Any others...

Re:Copyright protection? (2)

Mr. Piccolo (18045) | more than 12 years ago | (#591511)

the artists don't have to sign the contracts. But they do. Why? Because it's a damn good deal for them. Relatively talentless musicians make millions of dollars.


If only you were right... I think you'll find what Steve Albini [negativland.com] has to say on the matter is qute revealing. Need I mention that he's experienced the record industry first-hand?

The fact is if you don't sell enough records, you don't get paid, regardless of your talent. It's exactly like the bakery owner not paying the bakers unless his store sells 10,000 loaves of bread, and then paying them a few percent of the profit from each loaf of bread afterwards. If you don't see a problem with that, you're an idiot. Artists are basically slaves until their records recoup.

Also, if so many record companies are struggling, what does that say about the artists signed to them?

We have no right to steal from the artists, but neither do the record companies.

Re:I hate to be bitter but.... (2)

Rader (40041) | more than 12 years ago | (#591517)

Exactly. I read the headlines, and thought "This does not affect any normal mp3 traders".

Here's a widely unknown hint: Even if you have Cable (or better) connection, and download mp3 albums every night from some FTP/Newsgroup/IRC/Etc source, it doesn't even come CLOSE to the amount of mp3's you can get by trading via snail mail. Much less work too.

Rader

Re:RIAA Pimp Agency (2)

Rader (40041) | more than 12 years ago | (#591518)

15% ??
That's a bit high!

I've heard $1/album is used sometimes. Let's see $1/$16 is 6.125%
Let's try Toni Braxton?(Whitney?) rate that made her file bankrupt. $.07 / $16 = 0.4 %

Rader

You poor, poor fool. (2)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 13 years ago | (#591519)

Savvy in negotiating?!

"Hi, we're the artists."

"We are RIAA of Borg."

"Okay, we can tour about four months out of the year, and we want half of the profits from everything sold in our name."

"Bwa ha ha! You will tour eleven months to put food in your belly, and see pennies from the merchandise we grow fat on, slave!"

"Why, we don't have to stand for this!"

"Yes you do."

"No, I think we'll take our business elsewhere!"

"Go ahead -- throw your talent away in some backwater local scene, and wish for 'the big time' -- 'cause there ain't no recording cartel -- uh, industry -- but ours, kid."

"Well, you appear to have us by the collective hairy sack. I believe we'll have to capitulate to your unreasonable terms, since we have no bargaining power, and this is where The One True Road Of Musicianship has lead us."

"Good boy. Now shine my shoes."

You get the idea.

grendel drago

Un Ask the Question (2)

Number6.2 (71553) | more than 13 years ago | (#591522)

First of all, a nit: it's not *all* music on the internet, it's just the music *"they" hold a copyright* on. Unless i mis-read The Standard article. All music != copyrighted music, and Good Journalism != Sensational Journalism

Second of all, who says artists have to go with a recording company to distribute in this Era of the Internet? This begs the question: "Can anyone come up with a system that will "eliminate the middle man" whilst allowing an artist to have a decent living?" I don't have an answer to that one, kids, but I agree that the current system (all money to the suits, the crumbs to the artists) stinks.

Re:Copyright protection? (2)

Trinition (114758) | more than 13 years ago | (#591524)

Yes, true copyright protection...

As in the true copyright protection that lets billions of stolen mp3s get downloaded each day?

No, as in true copyright protection with reasonable limits to the terms of the copyright.

As in the copyright protection that cheats artists out of the fruits of their labors? Again, no. Here you should replace "copyright protection" with "record labels" -- that is what cheats the artists otu of the fruits of their labors.

As in the copyright protection of p2p tools, which are essentially tools of theft, analagous to slim jims or other criminal tools.

And what are guns used for?

Re:RIAA Pimp Agency (2)

dpilot (134227) | more than 12 years ago | (#591525)

The first thing that hit me about the 50% number was. "That much!", and the second thing was, "That little!" The third take was that aren't most of these people 'workers for hire' instead of 'artists'? In that case, there's no need to pay any 'artist', because there was none. I know there was some recent talk on legislation of this issue, but don't remember where it went.

But it makes you realize that timing really is everything. I suppose the RIAA thinks that all the other lawyers are SOOOO busy in Florida that they can pull a fast one on us, if they act quickly.

Finally, for the ultimate reference, go to that one sentence in the US Constitution, where it references rights for a 'limited time' for 'artists and inventors'. It says nothing about unlimiting that time, or their heirs and assignees, or middlemen, publishers, and distributers. IMHO, wait for the right case, and a VERY interesting Constitutional Case could be made of the whole copyright/patent mess.

Question (2)

Fervent (178271) | more than 12 years ago | (#591530)

How does being able to download music equate to "standing up now for true copyright protection" as the original poster put it?

If I want to make a backup copy of a song, I can simply rip the one song to my hard drive, or copy the song from one part of my hard drive to another part. There is nothing in the royality article that states this would be against the law.

All they're trying to do is prevent a user from transferring one digital copy of a song to another user on another computer. I can buy that.

Some musicians, and writers, and artists may choose to want their music roaming the net, but if others don't they shouldn't be penalized for trying to put bread on the table.

Smashing Pumpkins are fighting music companies... (2)

vectus (193351) | more than 12 years ago | (#591531)

"MACHINA II/the Friends & Enemies of Modern Music" is the pumpkins' final album, the followup to "MACHINA/the Machines of God". It is a limited pressing of only 25 (twenty-five) copies on hand-cut, hand-numbered, non-lacquered acetate (aka vinyl, aka records), consisting of 3 10" EPs and a double 12" LP, 5 discs & 25 songs total. The 25 copies were given to close friends of the band, a few of whom happen to be online, and whom were instructed to circulate the new material as quickly as possible, since the band plans on playing some of the new material on the European tour.

For more detailed info, see: SPFC [spfc.org]

Since there were only 25 copies on vinyl, unless you were one of the lucky 25, you can't get the original pressing. But since the band instructed some of the recipients to circulate and distribute the material, you will be able to get copies of it- consider it an "official bootleg". Currently, the only source available is mp3. Since none of the 3 known online recipients had access to an ultra-high-end audiophile turntable (the tube kind that cost thousands), one of them used what they had and made mp3s so that the new songs could be distributed immediately. There are plenty of web/ftp sites and mirrors hosting the new songs, as well as people sharing files via napster, AIM, etc. Look around a bit, the info has been posted in many places many times.

Virgin was not interested in releasing a followup to Machina, so rather than pack up their gear and go home, they recorded and released it themselves. It will not and cannot be officially released on CD, as their contract with Virgin includes a non-compete clause, which prevents them from releasing anything Virgin holds rights to under another label for 1 year. Since the material was partially recorded while still under the Virgin contract, they are legally prohibited from releasing it on another label or in any other way.

To download, or for more information, go to Machina2 [cjb.net]

Geography? Language? (2)

ABetterRoss (216217) | more than 13 years ago | (#591533)

It sounds like extending Soundexchange would work pretty well, if, say, the internet were divided geographically, and you could be sure all sides of the transaction happened on US soil.

Or maybe this is the RIAA's big international play, looking for international jurisdiction.

Also, the language refers to 'Webcasting', not 'Downloads'. Will that limit the scope? How would things on-the-internet-but-not-neccesarily-the-web (like Napster...FTP, etc) work? Unless webcasting has a really broad definition, they don't seem covered.

questions, questions....

-Ross

Re:Irony (2)

AstynaxX (217139) | more than 12 years ago | (#591534)

You negelect two items:
1. The superstars fit my [admittedly moderately broad] generalization very well.
2. It is 99% superstar music being traded on Napster.
I feel some pity for the mid sizers out there, but when you sell your soul to Satan, expect to be burnt.

-={(Astynax)}=-

Reward for the artists? (2)

Private Essayist (230922) | more than 13 years ago | (#591535)

"For the first time, performers and artists will be rewarded for the performance of their works online," says John Simson, director of artist and label relations for SoundExchange. "

The quote was said to continue as follows:

"...rewarded for the performance of their works online in the same way artists are rewarded for the performance of their works offline. That is to say, after the RIAA takes their massive cut, the artist will be lucky to get a nickle. But if they work really, really hard on their next album, they might get more. Maybe. After promotional expenses."
________________

Copyright protection? (2)

buttfucker2000 (240799) | more than 13 years ago | (#591536)

> Stand up now for true copyright protection as afforded under the U.S. constitution or risk giving it up forever to global monopolies such as this

Sorry? True copyright protection?

As in the true copyright protection that lets billions of stolen mp3s get downloaded each day?

As in the copyright protection that cheats artists out of the fruits of their labors?

As in the copyright protection of p2p tools, which are essentially tools of theft, analagous to slim jims or other criminal tools.

This stuff about the constitution is a lot of bull. Most people don't really care about this - as witnessed by the fact they don't do anything about real oppression under true fascist regimes - they're only concerned about their 'rights' regarding the theft of music.

Re:Copyright protection? (2)

buttfucker2000 (240799) | more than 13 years ago | (#591537)

> most_ users simply wanting these things for their own gain

You're absolutely right. Example: one of my colleagues was going to buy the Nirvana singles box set because it had some rare tracks on it.

But because of Napster he didn't because he stole it for free.

But in any case, even if it didn't result in loss of sales CDs, it would still be theft - for one thing there is lost sales from legal mp3s - this is just the same as vinyl->cd, and the market is currently nonexistent event though by rights their should be a market.

And don't think that it's just a ripoff of the consumer selling new versions of what you've already got. It isn't.

Artists are paid for record and mp3 sales - therefore you are cheating them by stealing music.

Record companies are not evil. People seem to think that they are big corporate entities that just rip people off.

This is not true. The people working for them are being paid, just the same as you are, and they have a right to make money - after all, you wouldn't suggest that the man running the local bakery has no right to make a profit out of his wares.

Everything here is consensual:

you don't have to buy the music
the artists don't have to sign the contracts. But they do. Why? Because it's a damn good deal for them. Relatively talentless musicians make millions of dollars.

This isn't exploitation. In fact, many record companies have gone bust or are struggling.

In fact, the only non-consensual thing is the theft of the music, which you seem to think you have the right to do. And the only reason that is because you can get away with it.

The true test of whether someone is moral is not whether they don't steal physical things like cars - that has getting caught has a deterrent so morality is secondary.

It is that they do not steal where they cannot get caught. Those who do steal are immoral.

The Genie is out of the bottle (2)

Bob Gortician (246811) | more than 13 years ago | (#591538)

Music fans won about 3 years ago.
Don't weep for the musician. If they care, they want their music to reach as many people as possible, royalties be damned.

Record companies operate a lot like software companies. The talent always gets screwed. I don't hear anyone standing up for the rights of coders WRT software piracy...

Hell, Gortician still manages to make money from mp3.com downloads, CD sales, t-shirts, gigs, etc. Where else would we get so many Indonesian fans but from "illegal" music piracy? Don't bother defending my rights. We *want* to give it away. A lot of other artists feel this way about Napster. We don't want anyone speaking for us, especially conCerning the intentions of releasing our music to the public.

Record labels are gay, anyway.

Minor point (2)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 13 years ago | (#591540)

It is awaiting approval from the U.S. Copyright Office to become the sole agent for collecting and distributing royalties for music broadcast online.

Hmmm, the US Copyright office. And how on earth are these people supposed to exert their influence to the rest of the world? Seems there's going to be yet another reason for some of the smaller Net corps to start doing business in the "less developed" parts of the world. Guess my FTP server will have to move to the Rainforest.

Small question on the side, how about international waters? A ship with a bunch of servers on it and a satellite uplink maybe?

Re:Sole agent (3)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 12 years ago | (#591541)

> and I really wish someone would put the
> copyright office person who agreed to this, in
> front of a "60 Minutes" camera so they can
> explain to everyone why
> this isn't graft and/or corporate welfare.

So, did you write to Mike Wallace, or did you write to slashdot?

Re:Copyright protection? (3)

Mike Connell (81274) | more than 13 years ago | (#591542)

> As in the true copyright protection that lets billions of stolen mp3s get downloaded each day?
> As in the copyright protection that cheats artists out of the fruits of their labors?
> As in the copyright protection of p2p tools, which are essentially tools of theft, analagous to slim jims or other criminal tools.

Yes - exactly those freedoms. The freedom to have a choice: to commit a crime, or not, that is an important freedom.

Regulation isn't the way to turn the criminals into good citizens. Go read A Clockwork Orange.

Mike.

Endangered Industry - goodbye RIAA (3)

Khopesh (112447) | more than 13 years ago | (#591544)

The record industry is an endangered industry. They are big and powerful -- like a bronco. The MP3 format is an indestructable format that can crumble an empire -- like a shotgun. Musicians are beginning to realize that they don't need to be rodeo clowns, running with the bronco, fearing for their lives. They can just shoot the bronco.

There is no real need for the record industry anymore. Support good artists by going to concerts and buying tee-shirts and CDs (or go to paylars.com [paylars.com] ).

Re:As they should. (3)

SuperBug (200913) | more than 13 years ago | (#591546)

These artists wouldn't have to be on the road so damn much if RIAA would pay them what they're worth and stop lining their own pockets instead. Artists of all types are always "trying to make it big" even if it's Painting, sculpting, etc. Hell, all of us are all trying to make it big. Art is a perception. Code is art I think. So does that mean we need someone to approve our code before we release it to the world? Does that mean we need a governing body like CIAA, Coding Industry Artists Association. Right and let them take royalties for all the code we right, even though it doesn't belong to them. The real point here is even though the CIAA doesn't exist, the RIAA does and they are NOT a good faction to be part of. They are NOT looking out for the artists. They have become a self serving group whose interests lie in making themselves fat off the sweat of good people like TRUE artists. This is the reality of things, not what is supposed to be. Sorry to burst any bubble you may have, but the truth hurts! - SB -

The RIAA really needs a choke collar... (3)

AFCArchvile (221494) | more than 13 years ago | (#591547)

...and we, the consumers, should be responsible for yanking on the leash when something like this happens. This is probably the worst thing for musical freedom since the DMCA was passed by Congress behind closed doors via an anonymous voice vote. Despite what Al Gore is saying, I think that the entire "consent of the governed" concept is being quietly ushered out of existence.

Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. It seems that everyone's forgotten about the French Revolution, and now it's happening all over again. Right now, the wealthiest 10% have more money per capita than the entirety of the remainder of the people. Gee, sounds a lot like the late 18th century French aristocracy. Maybe it's time for another revolution.

RIAA Pimp Agency (4)

PureFiction (10256) | more than 13 years ago | (#591549)

It's interesting to note in the article that only 50% of the royalties will go to the artists.

There is no packaging costs, no distribution costs, and the sites offering the music will be the ones doing all the work supplying and maintaining the digital databases, yet the RIAA stll wants its 50% cut of the revenue.

I suppose this is better than the estimated 15% artists currently get from CD sales, but still seems quite rediculous.

Time shifting (4)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 12 years ago | (#591550)

The analogy with video recorders is also tenuous. Although video recording can produce exact replicas, its use can be detected. Video recording is protected by fair-use principles and is allowed within limits. The Supreme Court restricted these limits to what it termed "time shifting," allowing the viewer to watch a broadcast show at a more convenient time. But the use of MP3 permits more than time shifting. It allows the playing of whole songs repeatedly and the compilation of a whole medley of songs for redistribution and public performance. When analogies fail, the law has to come up with fresh answers.

Interesting. The above differs from reality. The use of video recorders also permits more than time shifting. It allows the playing of whole video tapes repeatedly, and the compilation of a whole medley of vids (which could be illegally redistributed or publicly performed). Thus, there's no real difference between the capabilities of MP3s and video recordings.

The implication is that the legalization of video recorders was intended to allow time shifting only. This means you're not supposed to, for example, tape every episode of Babylon 5 and keep your tapes long-term, watching them over and over. That's news to me.


---

cutting out the middlepimp (4)

fhwang (90412) | more than 13 years ago | (#591551)

The internet buzzword that applies here is "disintermediation" -- that is, the way that new networks cut out the middleman and their part of the cut. It's been happening across many sectors of business due to the internet; I remember hearing, for example, of moderate cuts in the salesforces of midline department store chains because a lot of people were using ecommerce sites instead.

The only significant difference in this case is that, unlike department stores, the RIAA has some legal leverage to use to protect its own middleman status. Even so, I wonder how long they'll be able to last.

Re:RIAA Pimp Agency (4)

jdunlevy (187745) | more than 12 years ago | (#591553)

> > It's interesting to note in the article that only 50% of the royalties will go to the artists. < <

It'd also be interesting to see who "the artists" are in RIAA-speak.

Under the RIAA-pushed laws that require payment of royalties on the purchase of DAT machines and DAT audio media, consumers have to pay the RIAA-approved "artists" even if the DAT machine and media are being used only for the creation of new works. If I'm an artist, using a DAT machine in my home studio to create new works to which I hold copyright, I still have to give money to the RIAA.

Based on past performances, I've concluded that one of the RIAA's main goals is to keep new artists from taking advantage of new technologies to compete against the established recording industry. Or more accurately, the RIAA wants to ensure that, as new artists increasingly take advantage of technologies that allow them more easily to work outside the established recording industry, the RIAA is somehow still able to get a cut of this activity, from which they would otherwise be excluded.

The U.S. Constitution (4)

onion2k (203094) | more than 13 years ago | (#591554)

Stand up now for true copyright protection as afforded under the U.S. constitution or risk giving it up forever to global monopolies such as this.

Oh yeah, we can't possibily live on a planet that isn't entirely governed by the U.S. constitution. After all, less than 10% of the population live in America, so why shouldn't we all be governed by their laws?

Frankly, a global law on copyright is the only way to protect the interests of the artists. One that everyone agrees to, one that is enforced, one that is fair regardless of creed, colour or country. Copying material around the globe without paying for it is not 'free speech', nor is it 'free expression'. Its ripping people off.

Re:I hate to be bitter but.... (4)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 13 years ago | (#591555)

Do we really think the RIAA represents what most artists think?

Of course it doesn't. the RIAA represents what the money thinks. And as we all know, money talks as well. In this case, quite a lot.

Re:Copyright protection? (5)

Enry (630) | more than 12 years ago | (#591556)

>these companies (who have their stockholders' interests in mind, *and no one else's*, not you, not me, certainly not the artists who they hide behind)

Err....a few things here.

First, there's nothing preventing you from buying shares of sony, time warner, etc. They're listed on the US stock exchanges, and also on the exchanges where the company is based (Tokyo, Toronto, etc.).

Second, anyone with a retirement account (401(k), IRA, and so on) may own shares in these companies already.

To turn this into a "us vs. shareholders" thing is not really the point. You're probably already a shareholder.

So now what?

If you're a direct shareholder, contact investor relations. Find some financial why maintaining their relationship with the RIAA will hurt the company and its share price.

If you're indirect (401(k)) contact the investor relations of the mutual fund company that you're going through. Do the same thing.

With stock prices being real crappy these days, some solid reasons why a particular company's plan to extort money from consumers will backfire could be of help.

Re:Copyright protection? (5)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 13 years ago | (#591558)

True, but you can't believe that such power can be handed over to entities that have proven themselves so rapacious in the past (RIAA, MPAA) with no consequences for the average *non*-criminal.

p2p tools are *not* instruments of theft, it's just terribly popular to use them as such. They're like crowbars... powerful, with a legitimate purpose, but subject to the goodness or evilness of their operator.

Remember, if draconian access controls are allowed, and *enforced*, it certainly won't stop with the college kids with forty gig of DMB. Witness DeCSS: "But only *pirates* use it!" "Oh, okay, let's make reverse engineering a crime." Do you really believe that taking power out of the hands of the hacker/common man/scr1pt k1dd13 and giving it to these companies (who have their stockholders' interests in mind, *and no one else's*, not you, not me, certainly not the artists who they hide behind) will solve anything?

Perhaps 'copyright protection' is the wrong phrase. But believe me, it's not about the pirates; they don't cost the companies an appreciable sum, they never have.

About the 'right' to the Nappy... I won't argue there. I still can't believe what I hear when my roommates complain that the school blocked Napster.

Why do ASCAP and BMI remain silent? (5)

drteknikal (67280) | more than 13 years ago | (#591559)

My understanding is that ASCAP and BMI retain the performance rights administration, and that what the RIAA is attempting is a unilateral power grab to take more power back from the artists and give it to the record companies. ASCAP and BMI seem to have remained curiously silent on these issues.

Excuse me? Everything?? (5)

eAndroid (71215) | more than 13 years ago | (#591560)

I'm an artist on mp3.com and luckily enough I've made more than a few dollars there. I don't know how the RIAA can expect to be involved with MY music whatsoever. Not only am I not a member of any music organisation/union so I can't in any way be a RIAA member, but I am not even an American!

I think royalties for signed artists is fine - they know what they are getting into when they sign - but us *truely* independant artists don't owe the RIAA anything!

Re:Endangered Industry - goodbye RIAA (5)

mgoyer (164191) | more than 12 years ago | (#591561)

Actually the paylars.com people haven't sent Metallica any of the money (read the fine print on the site carefully, first they have to recuperate their costs).

Another option would be Fairtunes [fairtunes.com] which lets you send money directly to the artist, which bypasses the blood sucking RIAA. And unlike Paylars we've actually mailed thousands of dollars worth of cheques to artists who have in turn cashed them. (Metallica cashed their cheque this Tuesday).

Matt.

Re:As they should. (5)

NulDevice (186369) | more than 12 years ago | (#591562)

RIAA themselves have doen more harm to the starving musician than just about anyone. They are NOT a performers rights group like BMI or ASCAP. They do not pay artist royalties. Rather, they are a lobbying group formed of executives of the big 4 record labels. According to their own press, they are "trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Our mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality." One of their major lobbying subgroups is the one that tries to require blank CD and Tape manufacturers to pay recording royalties, since those blank media *could* be causing lost revenue. Their job, basically, is to ensure that major record labels make money. They claim to be fighing "illegal downloads", and to an extent I believe that illegal distribution of music is wrong (I say "to an extent" because without Napster most of my last album wouldn't have been heard outside my hometown). But pretty much in the end, their policies ensure that I wouldn't be able to distribute my music legally without the support of a major label, which makes the whole internet-indie-artist revolution pretty moot. Of course, they're on a pretty sysiphean quest - anyone can encode and distribute music and no amount of legal wrangling is going to put that genie back in the bottle...

----

Re:Need to speak with someone w/RIAA (5)

rabidcow (209019) | more than 12 years ago | (#591563)

gosh... i'm sorry.
nsync is one of the things i think the riaa should have to pay *us* for.

Need to speak with someone w/RIAA (5)

packphour (257276) | more than 13 years ago | (#591564)

I would like for someone from the RIAA to contact me regarding my account balance. See, a few days ago I pulled up at a stop light with my windows down and the girl next to me had "Bye Bye Bye" (by N'Sync) blaring. The song got stuck in my head and I've been singing it to myself ever since.

I guess I've now played the song in my head atleast 40 times by now and wanted to know how much I owe you.

Sincerely,

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>