Compulsory Licensing for Online Music? 286
Mister Kurtz writes "The Washington Post is reporting that some lawmakers are taking notice of the music industry's extraordinary reticence towards distributing music online. Their solution? Take away some of their copyright privileges. In particular, it was suggested (by Orrin Hatch, no less) that the government create a compulsory license which would allow music to be sold online without the record label's permission. Of course, music executives are "vehemently opposed" to any such license. Check out the story here."
Re:Unfourtnatley (Score:4)
Dude, no it won't, you didn't read the article. It's not about demanding that people be allowed to give music away, it's about *selling* music on the internet. So you can go to CDNOW.com and pay whatever price for them to send the mp3'd album to you in an encrypted stream, so you have it in 20 minutes instead of 3 days.
That's all this is about!! Not taking music away from the artists and making it free! The term "compulsory license" just means there's a set fee for the medium of distribution (in this case, internet), instead of each individual company (eg, cdnow) negotiating with the RIAA seperately.
Re:Interesting but wrong (Score:2)
That strikes me as, at best, self-contradictory. As Heinlein said, any country that requires a draft to defend itself doesn't deserve to exist.
- - - - -
www.theriaaisaoligopoly.com (Score:2)
The US Gov. should break up the RIAA and divide the big labels into smaller companies.
Re:You people are sick (Score:3)
Getting government out of the picture would mean eliminating copyright. Which might be a very good idea - replace it with royalty rights on for-profit use, instead.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Re:This will be an issue with the RIAA for a long (Score:2)
I agree with one thing: It has nothing to do with stodginess or age. Socialism is pretty old as well, and yet seems pretty fashionable to many of today's youth. This kind of stuff seems to come and go in waves.
- Jeff A. Campbell
Re:This will be an issue with the RIAA for a long (Score:2)
A lot of Republicans do care about the environment, they just don't want the government destroying capitalism in the name of the environment like the leftists want to do.
Capitalism is one of the main reasons the environment is being destroyed. If the effects of the destruction aren't going to negatively impact the next quarterly report, they're irrelevant. If I had to choose between the two, I think I'd choose the environment over capitalism.
Re:How do they justify this unamerican theft? (Score:2)
Damn good point. As a musician, I loathe the thought of not being the "owner" of my own work. That sucks, plain and simple. It is also probaly one of the reasons why I refuse to shop my songs to any record labels. Perhaps I'll never be a "superstar", but at least I'll have respect for myself.
Re:How do they justify this unamerican theft? (Score:2)
Basically, the Hatch proposal doesn't affect folks that want to get revenue on this work--it limits the degree to which congress will enforce _non-monetarily_ motivated control over a work. Congress according to the constitution is not _obligated_ to provide these rights-it simply is _authoirized_ to decide what rights to protect here in line with its view of what promotes the arts and sciences.
Now, given that today, the copyright/patent law is mainly a means for corporate elites to play games, I have little problem with redoing the rights accorded here. The Hatch proposal seems a good first step.
I TOTALLY Agree... (Score:2)
I've been thinking about this very option for a couple of days now.
Essentially, you preserve copyright, but you legally render it non-transferrable, non-assignable. This would allow the artist to preserve and control ownership and distribution rights while tearing down the media monopolies and their governmentally corruptive influnces.
Furthermore, the internet's destructive effect on content control forces the artist to trade on their celebrity and not their work product, which is of course an already proven economic model and rewards excellence where deserved.
Are we genuises, or what?
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
Re:Interesting but wrong (Score:2)
Note that some companies still make it very difficult to stat license a song, wanting to have control over it as you suggest. In this case the prospective licensee must apply with the US copyright office for a stat license, which is difficult, annoying and takes months to get through. This is not that bad when you consider that the average mechanical license in the use is granted 9 months after the release date of the album.
I have to believe (Score:2)
Re:Why Orrin Hatch? (Score:4)
Well, it turns out that Orrin Hatch is a musician himself. He's produced at least 7 CDs. He already knows about how the recording industry screws artists. He also realizes that laws like the DMCA is being abused by the RIAA and the MPAA, and that fair use rights are being harmed. In short, he's out to protect his constituents.
Remember that just because Hatch is socially conservative and Republican (and, IMO, wrong about many social issues), doesn't mean that he's a corporate stooge. In fact, Democrats tend to support strong copyrights at least as much as Republicans, because Democrats are the party of the media - this is a hold over from a time when they actually believed in Freedom of Speech.
Wait a minute (Score:5)
Hilary makes it too easy... (Score:5)
Yep. Napster sure made MP3.com's life hard. Oh, wait... wasn't that you?
Re:Fees (Score:2)
But isn't this the problem? - in reality, artists that don't sell millions of albums have their albums selling at a premium in the long term, and without the benefit of a marketing-driven "price boost" at the release date, because they need to make their returns off a smaller base of (usually) more loyal followers, and they don't have the mindless lemmings that buy into the marketing and think Britney is fantastic.
No system set in place by Congress is ever going to be able to match a price-setting mechanism that adapts to demand and responds to the popularity of each individual album/single. Despite the flaws inherent in the current system, it's a far better solution than any blanket price (or margin) imposed.
Furthermore, this is Congress potentially legislating over what a European should pay for a European song published by a European company, just because a US website decided to sell it - ahem... I have lots of respect for the US government (on friday nights at the end of a number of beers) but it can keep its grubby hands out of European (or other) pricing mechanisms, thank you very much; we can do without the guidance of those elected by individuals incapable of reading a ballot form...
Re:This will be an issue with the RIAA for a long (Score:2)
Aw heck. CHOMP!
Compare the environmental conditions in east and west Germany at the fall of the Berlin wall for a nice little data point on the environmental impact of communisim versus capitolism.
When are people going to dump toxic waste in the back yard of the house I own? When they dig my overheated M1-Garand out from under a small mountain of spent and smoking
When is a government owned truck going to dump toxic waste on government owned plot? Hell if I know, or could even find out, or would be willing to risk my life to stop it.
Many Republicians feel that a large and powerfull government will be the absolute WORST environmental steward, and they have quite a bit of history to back them up.
Bill
Re:Unfourtnatley (Score:5)
Yes, the majority of pop music is produced with an eye to the bottom line. That's why it sucks.
Good music is written for the joy of it. Of course, if we want more good music, we have to let those with talent get paid for it, so that they can afford guitars and amps and minidisc recorders, and have more time for music and have to spend less time at day jobs. However, that doesn't mean that a state-enforced pay-per-copy scheme is practical, moral, or on sound legal footing.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
the Telegraph vs. the Pony Express (Score:2)
The Pony Express had a huge investment in infrastructure and the jobs of many hard working common people were lost when the Telegraph came along.
We can only pray that they learn from their past mistakes and protect the poor RIAA (and MPAA and MS) from the modern day telegraph-like menace: the Internet.
And don't get me started on all those damn freelance truckers hauling loads anywhere they wanted that crippled our poor railroad monopolies.
Re:Ouch (Score:2)
The cover art she drew herself.
Next time, read the post before replying.
Re:Of course (Score:2)
I just think it's a hoot that someone is calling anything Orrin Hatch does "left-wing". It amuses me to picture the Senator's reaction.
the result will be that there is no art/music at all,
Bollocks. Distribution and payment will surely change, and perhaps scale down, but the idea that there will be no more art or music is such obvious paranoid raving that I'm convinced this post was a troll...
OK,
- B
--
Re:Unfourtnatley (Score:2)
My beef with Clinton had nothing to do with his affairs. That was between him and Hillary. My beef had to do with the perjury.
- Jeff A. Campbell
Re:Can you spell M-O-N-O-P-O-L-Y? (Score:2)
--
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3)
Re:Interesting but wrong (Score:2)
--
Re:Interesting but wrong (Score:2)
So Congress instituted a standard royalty system. The benefit was that songwriters would actually get paid for their work and not just ripped off, and record companys didn't have to create original product for every record, and everyone was happy for about 50 years.
--
Re:Interesting but wrong (Score:2)
And so are Patents.
Both are being abused. The record companies hold the copyrights of almost all their artists. Not only that, but they have SUCCESFULLY ammended their rights to allow them to keep the copyright, even after the artist dies. Thus, family members have nothing to call their own. No inheritence, no credit, nothing. Just another 'golden oldies/best of' cd to publish to squeeze some more $$ out of the masses.
Rader
Re:Interesting notion (Score:2)
Re:A Great Idea! And here are some more... (Score:2)
Which is fine, I suppose, but it'd be nice if real musicians could get paid well too without having to get lucky and sacrifice their artistic freedom.
- Jeff A. Campbell
Re:Not getting it. (Score:2)
Well, actually, it does, there are laws protecting archival copies.
For some reason that continues to escape me, these rights are never mentioned in all of this copyright/encryption hooha.
Yes, that's right, HOOHA.
Anyway, this right is being trampled over left and right, but noone ever says a damn word about it.
The real reason (Score:2)
It violates the laws of economics, of supply and
demand they're used to dealing with.
They can't artificially alter the supply of an
unlimited resource to jack up the price.
Some artists like Metallica fear the same thing.
If the RIAA gets trampled on digital music, and
we do the same thing next for the MPAA, I forsee
a great revival of live shows and theater.
A cultural reawakening, as artists actually have
to perform to get paid, not just to boost record
sales, where actors actually have to be able to
act, not just look pretty for the screen. Where
human interaction and a real connection with fans
is necessary for success, where musicians and
other performers are brought back down from the
level of stardom and inflated ego'd godhood to the
level of people like everyone else. What a
wonderful world it would be.
heh... (Score:2)
WE complain about it here on /. all the time. That isn't getting it fixed though. Hatch's complaining isn't getting it fixed either. He needs to actually DO SOMETHING.
Uhm... no, *you're* wrong (Score:2)
It's scary how many people believe the misinformation spread by the music industry.
Re:Or rather.... (Score:2)
But it IS legal for a 3rd party to sell you a box which will allow you to convert your DVD's to VHS yourself, without paying any money to the copyright owner.
--
Ouch (Score:2)
"You mean someone can take my CD, that I paid out of my own money to have recorded at a studio, copy it and sell it for their own all over the web??? That isn't right!!!"
I guess it's good depending on who you talk to.
That's not his only, or primary reason. (Score:2)
On the other hand, you have the issue of the DMCA and online music publishing. Hatch helped write the DMCA, because in his (misguided, but understandable) view it would encourage the development of legitimate online music sales. Much to his surprise, the record companies took the DMCA and are using it to screw the heck out of everybody involved-- but STILL haven't gotten around to selling their music online. Which was his whole point: "we'll give you some additional copyright protections if it will help you move online more quickly". So now hatch is fighting for compulsory licensing to get the record companies in gear.
I'm all for it. Hatch may have been misguided in the beginning, but he is really starting to understand just how nasty the record companies are.
Radio station precedent! (Score:2)
Before 1943, radio stations were not copyright-licensed to play recorded songs! They played mainly live music; networks had orchestras, paid musicians to show up, etc. Those were the "radio days", before there were disk jockeys. The law was changed in 1942 and the musicians' union revolted. They refused to make records for over a year! Radio stations could play them but there was no new material.
The story tends to get publicized every Christamstime, because there was only one hit Christmas record released in 1943. Spike Jones recorded "All I Want For Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth" at a New Years' Eve party in 1942, minutes before the strike. Come late 1943, it was the only new record out there! Naturally, it was a hit. In 1944 they settled, and while the musicians lost some radio work, the record business prospered, and radio play became an important source of record sales. The world adapted.
Now what's music on the web? I think a case can be made that it is functionally a substitute for radio. I can turn on the radio, or I can select tunes off of a web site or Internet music service (like, say, Napster). As it stands, web radio stations are not granted compulsory license. But that is the sort of controversial call that Congress needs to look into. What is the correct balancing of interests?
And I point out that "compulsory license" is NOT a "big government" compulsion. As others have noted, Intellectual Property, and private property in general including real estate, are creations of government. As a society we agree to restrict our rights to do or take certain things for the common good. Government steps in to enforce those rights. Compulsory licensing is actually a smaller-government approach, because it tends to simplify or reduce the amount of contract enforcement (a key function of a government or, in societies that don't have a working government, a mafia) by the government. I doubt they have a lot of "intellectual property" rights in Somalia (a country not ruled by any government today).
Re:Interesting but wrong (Score:2)
Last year Hatch threatened that they were in jeopardy of loosing their copyrights if they didn't work to promote a fair digital distribution option. Obviously they haven't even taken a step in that direction.
Congress has the responsibility of maintaing copyright code. That includes cumpulsory licences.
A compulsory license would encourage competition, and allow anyone to set up a MP3/OGG/??? distribution site so long as they pay the fee back to the owner of the copyrights. Right now the RIAA members do not want to do this because they want to keep all the profits themselves, they have a monopoly on the copyrights. Keep the copyrights there, but make the licenses compulsory and we'll have a quality, and inexpensive distribution network within a year. Record companies as we know them will eventually go by the wayside (The dinosaurs will die -NOFX).
Let the RIAA continue their monopoly, and within 3 years we may have a proprietary solution that circumvents our fair use rights. Which do you want?
Re:How do they justify this unamerican theft? (Score:2)
Re:How do they justify this unamerican theft? (Score:3)
You mean that an artist would have to produce something new that was of substantial value compared to works more than 10 years old in order to make money ??
I don't think you can argue with a straight face that the Beatles would not have made plenty of money if this was in effect 40 years ago.
I don't think you can argue with a straight face that Michael Jackson's millions would be worthless if this were in effect.
In any case, with music, there are cultural waves. Music from the late 70s is becoming 'in vogue' now. Imaging if it were copyright free, and new music could be made that sampled old music ad nauseam, and made useful new music from it.
Making music, especially old music, free does not stifle innovation anymore than making free software stifles paying software.
It is a blatant corruption of our government to claim that music should have exlusive rights to the artists for an open undefined infinite length of time. Now that stifles innovation.
True (Score:4)
It seems that with the DMCA, MS's new restrictions on media in Windows XP, and their desire to see OSS outlawed (I was actually going to say in a post sometime soon that if MS could have their way, they'd probably outlaw open source ASAP.. Looks like Jim Allchin has beaten me to the punch by implying that they would), the ability of the DMCA to be leveraged to completely eliminate Fair Use and circumvent the First Ammendment in order to favor corporations over consumers, and the FCC banning consumer use of technologies like HDTV other than for viewing purposes, that if things continue to go along this path, than this country just might fill the gap left in the Communist ideal when the USSR collapsed.
Except this time, it's for the sake of corporations rather than the government (but lately, the distinction has become less and less prevalent..)
I can see it now:
I pledge allegiance, to the very existence, of the Great Corporations Of America, and to the stockholders for which they stand, no tolerance, under Gates, uncircumventable, with invoices and subpeonas for all.
Don't even get me started on patents.
It seems that legislators are finally getting the right idea. The question is whether or not they will follow through and reform the current mess that is IP law.
Re:How do they justify this unamerican theft? (Score:2)
Actually ownership of land was a werid idea to the Navtive Peoples of America. That is why that island in the Atlantic that most of New York City sits on was originally purchased for some beads and bells. The Natives didn't understand how people could own land.
I also don't understand what makes people think that fair use should be increasingly limited. All of this new technology should allow more fair use not less. Why is that idea so repulsive to some?
They can't take copyright laws from my cold dead fingers
Actually they can take copyright from your cold dead fingers. That is how the founders of this country insured property rights. They killed people and took their land. Or killed those who tried to take the land away from them. This is true for what ever country you are from. This has always been true. (America hasn't always felt as it does now about copyright.)
Taking things away from cold dead people is really easy. That is why real freedom has to be kept by the viligent few willing to fight (war or lawsuits) for their rights.
Re:Of course (Score:2)
That doesn't follow at all. If I create a gun, I don't have the right to fire it at my neighbor's house.
"But I was only refering to intellectual creations, to ideas!" you complain. Ok, yes, you have the right to do what you want with your ideas. The question is, do you have a right to prevent others from doing what they want once you express them?
You don't have any natural right to prevent me from copying, quoting, or modifying your work. You may have commerical rights, or other artificial legal rights, but they have no deep moral basis.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
You people are sick (Score:3)
I can't wait till I see the headline Senator Bygbawls has submitted a bill that would make it COMPULSORY for all software developers to submit their work to a board headed by Bill Gates to assure its free from virus or other harmful attacks and works properly with Windows.
You cry about too much involment and not enough freedom only when it serves you first.
Razzious Domini
Re:Wait a minute (Score:2)
On issues of exessive copyright, he has been on the side of the White Hats almost every time, and is probably the best friend the "anti-record company" crowd has in Congress at the moment.
Really? (Score:2)
[sarcasm] I can't imagine *why* the record execs would be opposed to losing some of their copyrights. [/sarcasm]
In a way, I can see that it shouldn't make any differnece whether the music is on CD or on the net, the copyright should remain. However, making the ability to copy something different depending on the medium is another thing entirely. I have a hard time supporting encryption of online music without a similar treatment of music on physical media, the latter of which likely violates the Home Recording Act.
Unfourtnatley (Score:3)
Re:This too will pass (Score:2)
If you don't believe me, take a really good speaker system that can do fairly flat reproductions up to about 24KHz, and play a good analog source through it (like a 1" two-track reel-to-reel tape of a live string quartet performance). Then, put a filter on the line from the source that cuts out everything above 15KHz.
Unless you are nearly deaf from regularilly listening to Metallica at high volumes, you will hear the difference immediately.
Top-of-the-line CD players have gotten better at "faking it" through better interpolation and error correction math since CD's were first released in the 80's, so most of the critics who used to complain about the "sterile" digital sound and rave about vinyl have come around to realize that digital recordings can achieve very high standards... but a higher sampling rate would still be better. (And the whole hi-fi hobby is all about the never-ending effort to create a more-perfect illusion of the original performance.)
16-bit 44.1 was a compromise choice. They wanted a small disk to be able to reproduce 74 minutes of music with available storage technology. DVD Audio may be way more than you really need, but CD audio is slightly less than what picky listeners want.
Interesting... (Score:4)
Bravo!
Napster is an effect, not a cause. (Score:2)
Of course, piracy would have occurred anyways. It always has, and it always will. A small amount of piracy has to be tolerated to some degree if you're in this business. You may not like it, and for the most part, the law is on your side in this regard, but it probably doesn't result in the lost sales you might think it does.
However, if there was an industry endorsed online music distribution method BEFORE napster was dropped upon the world, Napster probaby would never have come to be. Or when it did, people would try it out on a few songs, see how slow it is compared to the RIAA's version, and end up just ignoring it.
But no, the RIAA wants to hold on to their old ways. Well, let them have their old ways then. They can wither into the dust for all I care. They obviously are not thinking in anyone's best interests, even their own. They deserve whatever they get.
-Restil
restil@alignment.net
Re:www.theriaaisaoligopoly.com (Score:2)
Re:Hilary makes it too easy... (Score:3)
But the thing I really like is the reason they give for not providing a downloadable source of music. They keep harping on the idea that they cannot be 'guaranteed' compensation if someone can download music. To me, this is just silly. Is there any guarantee when you purchase a CD to the record company that you won't/can't copy that CD? Hell no! Was there a guarantee that you couldn't copy the music off of vinyl? No. What's the big deal? I know that copying is easier, but if the RIAA would just loosen up a little bit, realize the marketing potential and sell music at a decent price, the pirating business wouldn't matter. People are basically honest. If they were treated fairly they won't be copying a million copies of MP3s and transfering them all over the place. But, they are charging up to $20 for a CD that cost them a few pennies to manufacture, and compensating the artist between $.30 and $1.00 per sale (OK, in some cases it has been negotiated above that, but that's a rarity.) People say that artists deserve to be compensated for record sales, but they aren't getting it through the RIAA member companies.
I don't use napster myself. I copy every CD that I own into MP3 format so that I can carry it around in my laptop and listen to it easily on my desktop, but as far as I know everything I do with it should fall under fair use. I know there is talk that the RIAA wants a person to purchase a seperate CD for each place they listen to it (as in licensing schemes on computers), but they can piss off on that one. If they charged less, I might consider it.
I don't think legislation is going to fix this, however they do have the right idea. I don't think that congress should be able to set record prices either, but at least they are acknowledging that the prices right now are ridiculous, and that something needs to be done to adress the online download potential. I would say, even though I don't like the idea of it being based on new governmental regulations, they are pushing for the right things. They would be creating a competition based market in this realm where the company that came up with the easiest/best distrobution method and priced things the best would come out on top, ending the RIAA monopoly on big-name record sales. Funny how government regulation on one hand can turn your stomach, but on the other hand seem so right. I don't know how to feel about this one.
Interesting and right! (Score:4)
In a free society, compulsion should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances.
I agree. But the way I see it, the RIAA at the moment is COMPELLING music retailers to only use RIAA-approved formats for music distribution. Why do they get to do that? Retailers should be free to sell to people a format they desire! From the article, here's what they're trying to do and why the record industry opposes it:
Under a compulsory license, a Web site would have to make a royalty payment to the music labels for each song or album sold. The fees would be set by either Congress or the U.S. Copyright Office.
Entertainment industry executives are vehemently opposed to such a license, saying the government should not have role in setting the prices paid for music.
Reading between the lines, it seems clear that the RIAA would rather reserve the right to gouge people however they want for online distribution, kind of like they used to fix retail prices in stores. The government intervention here would (presumably) set a realistic fee for internet distribution. The money itself would of course still go to the artists. Okay, who am I fooling, it would go to Sony and BMG executives. But that's nothing new.
Also:
copyright exists and is a Good Thing. People should have blanket copyright protection over their creations.
Okay, why exactly? This is a relatively new interpretation of copyright protection, which was originally intended to protect an author's ability to profit from his books for a few years after publication. Now, it's this gargantuan thing that enables Disney Inc. to profit from the Mickey logo decades after Walt Disney died - hardly a protection of the creator.
Copyright was never intended as a "blanket protection." Non-authors still had a lot of rights with the material. This isn't about protecting the rights of artists, this is about the RIAA trying to lock out an entire medium that they - gasp! - might not be able to monopolize. I hope the government goes forward with all reasonable speed.
For those of you unfamiliar with American politics (Score:2)
1. Politician looks for an entity that has money.
2. Politician proposes legislation to control, tax, or otherwise put the squeeze on said entity.
3. Entity gets scared and begins to lobby congress and provide kickback to politician.
4. When politicians pockets are sufficiently lined, legislation goes away.
Wash, rinse, repeat
Re:Interesting but wrong (Score:2)
Absolutely... but neither should greedy corporations like the RIAA. Prices should be between the artist and the consumer. But personally, I think the government actually encouraging online music distribution is definitely a good thing.
Just my two cents.
You Misunderstand Hatch (Score:2)
The other part of his motivation is that he fancies himself a lyricist, and has sortof fallen in with the independent artist crowd. His level of privilege/celebrity in society probably gives him a distorted view of what it's like to make it in the world as an artist on your merits, but I think in some ways he's honestly trying.
I think he's misguided in some ways, but probably honestly trying.
You may want to read some of my comments on his DCMA and Peer-To-Peer [csoft.net] hearing.
--
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3)
- Trollificus, the bitchslapped.
Re:Interesting but wrong (Score:2)
Is that fair to the artists who conceived the album, wrote the songs, performed the songs, etc??? I think not.
Competing with free services (Score:2)
Ok, so Napster is preventing agreements between the labels and web sites so they can distribute music...yet Napster is the most popular way to distributed music right now. These people need to realize that free P2P services are always going to be the most popular, and to embrace them. If not Napster, then some other killer app will take its place.
Re:Unfourtnatley (Score:3)
Please understand: Orrin Hatch hates the record companies not because of some anti-copyright fluff, but because the record companies refused to be legislated on morals. Hatch is one of the main enemies of the entertainment industry, because he wants them to clean up their act (with regard to violence in movies, explicit lyrics in music, etc.) His agenda is not to free music, but to bury the entertainment industry, since it won't let the government regulate its content. This is just his first step into making music into the public domain so it can be legislating by government (instead of the private industry it is today).
And don't forget
Re:www.theriaaisaoligopoly.com (Score:2)
Clever bluff (Score:4)
And well they should, because it is dangerous for the government to be sticking its fingers into such a large pie--it is important to make sure the free trade isn't stifled. (as ironic as that may seem due to current CD price fixing)
That being said though I think it is a clever threat to the industry to get its act together and move into the current millenium. It's somewhat refreshing to see Congress taking such a strong stance toward insuring the prevelance of digital media (DTV, digital music, etc).
Re:Cable TV licensing (Score:2)
(1) Subject to the provisions of clauses (2), (3), and (4) of this subsection, secondary transmissions to the public by a cable
system of a primary transmission made by a broadcast station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission or by an
appropriate governmental authority of Canada or Mexico and embodying a performance or display of a work shall be subject to
compulsory licensing upon compliance with the requirements of subsection (d) where the carriage of the signals comprising the
secondary transmission is permissible under the rules, regulations, or authorizations of the Federal Communications Commission.
Interesting but wrong (Score:5)
Bottom line: copyright exists and is a Good Thing. People should have blanket copyright protection over their creations. The United States government has no business telling a creator what they must do with their copyrighted work. To resolve the current problems with the music industry, the government should concentrate on enforcing the doctrines of first sale and fair use, and destroying the concept of "licensing" material to unaware buyers.
Re:This will be an issue with the RIAA for a long (Score:2)
Reminds me of a quote.... "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
Re:Unfourtnatley (Score:2)
I disagree with almost everything he believes in; that said, I think you're way off base when you say he isn't taken "seriously". He's the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is one of the most powerful seats in the Senate.
--
Re:Unfourtnatley (Score:2)
Reagan was caught too; just nobody seemed to believe he was competent enough to have orchestrated anything that devious.
--
If your frend belived that (Score:2)
What this law would do would be to require your frend to let online stores to buy from her (at a government set price), then resell her music.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
This will be an issue with the RIAA for a long (Score:5)
Why? They're jealous, they're aging baby boomers who are jealous of the gen x and y hackers who've created online music.
These RIAA execs are mostly of the baby boomer generation, and I would be hard pressed to find a more spoiled and egocentric generation (though the Atlantic said that the generation at the start of the century was close, though this article was about 10 years ago, and may not be online). They grew up with every material desire fulfilled, and with no impulse thwarted, thanks to one Dr. Spock (not the Star Trek character that most
Back on track, boomers feel that they invented rock and roll and popular music. Ignoring the fallacy of that popular conceit (a little Caruso anyone, Sinatra even), since Boomers feel they invented the popular music industry, they feel that they should have sole control over it. And sole control over it they did have, up until a few years ago.
Now, some punk gen x and y kids code up Napster and a few rippers and players, and all of a sudden, these Baby Boomers RIAA execs are rendered superflous. Not only are they aging, graying, balding and unable to have sex without Viagra, these young whippersnappers who have hair, muscles and instant erections (well, I'm speaking for myself here) have pulled the music rug out from underneath them and made them obsolete!
It's now a pride thing, they won't back down, ever, even though their industy has been dealt a fatal death blow. Good Luck Representative Hatch, you will need it!
Re:Scare tactics (Score:2)
While Hatch co-authored the DMCA, the view of many is that he didn't realize what the entertainment industry would do with how it was worded, and has since been keeping a close eye on anything coming from that corner of the cesspool.
This too will pass (Score:2)
They'll be able to make sure you cannot copy a CD when they start pushing DVD-Audio. DVD-Audio will be copy-protected, leading to the same issues as DVD. Since DeCSS is illegal (sorry to say), the same will apply to attempts to copy from DVD Audio.
DVD Audio give you more bits/sample, which is useless since the current system already gives 110 S/N ratio (or so). It also gives you 192KHz, good for sampling signals of 96KHz. However, the fact is that humans cannot hear over 15KHz or so. In other words, DVD-Audio gives you nothing.
So, why would people buy it? When CDs weren't exactly flying off the shelf (over 30 bucks a pop), the recording industries stopped accepting returns on vinyl. This meant that stores couldn't afford to stock as much vinyl, so people started buying more CDs since that's what was available. Such tricks worked once, they'll try them again.
When music is mostly distributed in DVD, copy protection will be a reality. In conjunction with the fact that current and future devices will not have digital outputs, just archiving collections will become illegal.
The same will likely happen to books when the e-book finally gets off the ground.
Here's a link (Score:2)
Eric
--
Re:How do they justify this unamerican theft? (Score:3)
Yes. I agree. Perhaps we should report them all for thoughtcrime. Or maybe the House UnAmerican Activities committee would have something to say about this. After all, the only thoughts we're allowed to have in this country are thoughts of freedom, right?
Sarcasm aside, wanker, thoughts like this *must* be aired. For if they are not, there is a chance that all sides of the issue won't be seen, and *that* would suck the most. After all, the only way to truly grok a situation is to see all sides of it, including sides that might be unpopular or politically dangerous. Maybe, out of this, a fair solution can be found. My gut feeling is 'no', but, still, I can hope.
Re:Interesting but wrong (Score:2)
Actually, copyright exists in the USA because the US Constitution authorizes the Congress to create it. In once sense, you may have a point: the Constitution specifies "exclusive rights", which I would take to exclude any rights of the Congress to enforce distribution.
OTOH, maybe it would be constitutional for the Congress to use a carrot-and-stick approach: license it, or you'll be dismayed at how quickly copyrights start expiring.
--
A Great Idea! And here are some more... (Score:2)
Hatch Pissing in Their Petunias (Score:4)
Re:My solution.....$$$ (Score:2)
One question. **WHY???***
Re:Can you spell C-O-M-M-U-N-I-S-M? (Score:2)
I don't think compulsory licensing is the answer either: I think it will be used to pay off the record companies only, and they don't need more money and more unavoidable consumer taxes going directly to them. However, I gotta give the pols credit for at least trying! At least it would break the back of the CD cartel, which is maintaining prices at as much as three times the actual value of the product by ruthlessly controlling the entire chain of distribution from top to bottom, and will literally tell pressing plants not to do business with potential competition (for instance, Negativland).
So compulsory licensing might not do _me_ as a musician any good, but it might at least do consumers some good.
Re: Copyright is not property (Score:2)
I fail to see any basis for this claim. Copyright is an arbitrary collection of rights. It is not property in the same sense that the radio sitting on my desk is property. Physical objects happen to have a very easy to understand and economically efficient bundle of rights we can call ownership (the right to use it isn't separate from the right to sell it). Other stuff is more complicated. We would have problems with such a simple notion of ownership for land -- instead we have all sorts of exceptions, like easements.
With copyright, once something has been produced, it's economically inefficient to allow copyright protection on it. Until it's been produced, it's economically inefficient to not allow copyright protection. Copyright is a gift granted by the government, and what the government gives, the government can take away. It's perfectly legitimate to say, "we'll provide the force to give you exclusive rights to your creative work, but in return, you have to be reasonable about how you license it. otherwise, we'll refuse to enforce this against people who are you are being unreasonable with."
There is no compulsion from this. You are not compelled to do anything. Without government, there would be no copyright (as opposed to real ownership like "this is my radio, and I'll shoot you if you disagree") just because it's impossible to enforce. It's also perfectly legitimate to say you can't use technical means to prevent copying and still get copyright protection (makes "for a limited time" difficult to do).
So, obligatory Heinlein quote:
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped
Re:Interesting but wrong (Score:2)
Ummm... in order for this to happen, Chicago would have to have signed a contract with said company and accepted goods and services in exchange for an agreement to assign ownership and control to works produced to the label.
This is just contract law. Not to mention, that the album may very well have never been produced at all had the label not paid for studio and production costs, and funded the musicians so they could write music instead of flipping burgers.
One could make a pretty good arguement that the record labels and software houses are unfairly engaging in monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior, but to argue against the existence of copyright is basically arguing against the existence of contract law... which might be fine for some college kid with no assets... but it would make the real world grind to a screaching halt.
Go try and buy a house. You and the sellers sign a contract that defines who does what when, what legal conditions must be met by each, and what information is required to be disclosed by whom. Without it, a transaction of this scale would be impossible. It's complicated an annoying, but both parties come out of it protected, informed, and with the goods or compensation they agreed to.
Software and music licenses are just another form of contract law. If you want to complain about potential anti trust (illegal monopoly) arguments against the RIAA (music) or Microsoft, then you probably have a good case, but to argue against individuals agreeing to legally binding contracts is just silly.
IMHO of course.
Bill
Re:A Great Idea! And here are some more... (Score:2)
My God! That's _hundreds_ of times what major label artists make! If you haven't really done your homework you wouldn't _believe_ how many deductions there are, and how twisted the reckoning is.
How about this as an alternate proposal? An alternative minimum royalty of ONE PERCENT...
Let's not even get into cross-collateralization, also known as 'your earnings have to recoup the expenses of _all_ _your_ _records_ before you see a f**king penny'... I bet a lot of you think I am making all this up. I wish I were. Sounds crazy, doesn't it? The numbers were not made up- they're straight out of Donald S. Passman's book, "All You Need To Know About The Music Business". Passman is a music business _lawyer_ and the back sleeve has praise and recommendations from Mo Ostin, Randy Newman, Michael Eisner, David Geffen, Don Henley, Quincy Jones and Tom Waits... after that royalty mess he comments on how no label will give up the number of percentages taken away because artists like to royalty-drop- "oh I'm getting a 16% royalty!" (16% of 90% of 65% of 85% of 80% of 75%- do the math, I get _really 4.7736%, which the artist will never see unless they recoup all recording and tour costs _first_ _out_ of that four point seven percent)
The vast majority of _signed_ _major_ _label_ artists would be making lots more money on 1% of gross. What they get is more like 0% unless they not only recoup but land a '16%!!' royalty, in which case they're really getting 4%. Interesting, no?
When will the RIAA learn???? (Score:3)
When will the RIAA and the "content industry" as a whole learn that there is fundamentally NO technology that will completely protect the "interests" (as defined by the RIAA) of the copyright owners (not to be confused with the artists themselves). Once a digital copy is released, that copy can be perfectly reproduced infinitely many times and distributed. Even keyed systems will fail once keys are compromised. Even encrypted to the speakers/monitors won't completely stop distribution. Eventually there has to be a point of playback that is open for capture and somebody will come out with a technology that will capture it with minimal loss. Even Chinese movie captures from a big screen to a video camera that are posted to USENET are getting better because of better camera technology.
This is a war of escalation that the software industry has also been waging since the 1970's and if you look hard enough you can still get a crack for about any piece of software. What makes the RIAA think that they can do in a few years what the software industry's 30 years of development still has not accomplished?
Simply put, people will pay reasonable prices for reasonable products. I actually pay for software that I use, I actually pay for music I listen to. What I don't like paying for is software and music that sucks -- and usually I only find out it sucks after I pay for it.
Personal note to Hillary Rosen, what kind of business sense does it make to through a bomb in the middle of 50 million of your customers???
Personal note to Orrin Hatch, time to start writting that legislation, if the RIAA won't do what the market demands then compulsary licensing will make you a lot more popular to 50 million people.
Re:How do they justify this unamerican theft? (Score:5)
According to the US Constitution, this is the purpose of copyright
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
The artist is allowed to have limited time exclusive rights to the writings that are copyrighted. The purpose is promoting useful arts for the citizens. The purpose is not allowing the artist to get rich off his writings - that is a necessary part of the promotion of the copyrighted material.
One may very well question how American it is to push the copyright protection so that it never expires just so that Walt Disney cartoons are protected. Limited time is certainly not infinite, and may be redefined by Congress whenever they see fit, as long as the goal is promotion of the useful arts.
Here is a proposal. Make music protected for 10 years. No online music except as authorized by the artists unless it is more than 10 years old. Then, the sky is the limit.
In any case, it doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to read the above statement from the US Constitution and see that Orrin Hatch's proposal is unconstitutional, since it deprives the artist of exclusive rights.
How could open source be outlawed? (Score:2)
After all, it is all the evil Linux crowd that is hurting profits and undermining corporate well being. Not the Apache crowd.
Okay, I know this sounds absurd. But hey, I am old enough to remember when the CDA passed. I got a lot less niave on that day. I had been watching it for at least a couple years as it wound it's way through the system. And CALEA I had been watching for years, way back even in 1992. And now the DMCA. So I don't believe that what I say couldn't happen. Obviously, with the CDA, DMCA and CALEA, somebody had their own goals to achieve, and the ability to influence the people with the power to do it. Nevermind the common people or anything else.
So maybe not how? But just could open source be outlawed? If you think not, I think you are niave.
What is the saying about no man, nor his property are safe while Congress is in session.
Re:How do they justify this unamerican theft? (Score:3)
Actually I thought that line was pretty interesting. Mr. Rosen said something interesting:
"They simply don't have the technology available for an authorized agreement" that would protect the interests of copyright owners, Rosen said.
What isn't said here is that the Record Label is the copyright owner is the Record label not the Artist (that the line was supposed to make you think). In reality, he said he wants to keep his cash flow safe, and could care less if the Artists ever get a cent.
Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
Re:Or rather.... (Score:2)
but still, they're trying to do away with our right to archival copies, by making it impossible to make them, while quietly not mentioning this impact.
Re:Cable TV licensing (Score:2)
Compulsory != "Compulsory" (Score:5)
Check out JWZ's explanation [dnalounge.com] of all this (which was linked to from Slashdot awhile ago):
When reading about this stuff, you'll come across two terms, ``compulsory license'' (also known as a ``statutory license'') and ``voluntary license'' (also known as a ``negotiated license''.) A compulsory license is one where the license fee is fixed: you pay the fee, you get the license, no muss, no fuss. The reason it's called ``compulsory'' is that the licensor has no choice but to grant you the license if you pay the fee. A voluntary license is one where you negotiate the terms of the license on a case by case basis, and they don't have to grant you the license at all if they don't feel like it. So generally, ``compulsory licenses'' are much easier to deal with.
A "compulsory" license would simply remove the record labels' ability to use their copyright power to control distribution (by not licensing to companies with alternative distribution methods). This is their big fear, since their monopoly on distribution ensures them obscene profits.
-Dan
Interesting notion (Score:3)
Bear in mind also, an organization is free to negotiate licenses with royalty rates that are lower than compulsory license rates; the compulsory license is just there to provide an outlet if all else fails.
I haven't been too fond of Senator Hatch in the past, but I commend him for some clear-headed thinking on this issue.
Eric
--
Here's the spacific URL (Score:2)
Anyway for the lazy and for the people who want to not seach the site: Link [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Of course (Score:2)
Copyright law in it's current form was deviced to increase innovation, not to protect the people that create. Protecting the copyright holders was just a side effect.
In this case, the music industry is fighting against innovative new technologies.
Keep in mind that this is not about an artists right to choose not to publish, but about requiring that works that are already being published be available for licensing on the internet as well.
And it was cited as an alternative if the music industry itself fails to follow through on licensing content for the internet.
The copyright holder has only the rights granted by copyright law, no more, no less. Music was composed, books written, paintings painted centuries before copyright law was conceived.
And this wouldn't stop anyone from getting paid, just from not licensing their music for the web if they're already publishing it through other means.
You seem to believe that most musicians create music only because they want to, but forget that through history, countless of the most famous music was written by composers on fixed salaries, which had no control over what kind of music they wrote, for what occasions, or even how long, or for what instruments. Some of them wrote music for the same people for decades, without much to show for it. Artists have to eat too.
And lack of control didn't stop them from producing great works.
Re:Interesting but wrong (Score:2)
The society changes. It only makes sense to change the original compulsion to fit the society if the original compulsion is inherently flawed. It's called "correcting a mistake".
No new compulsion should be created. However, it's more than right to correct wrong compulsions.
Re:How do they justify this unamerican theft? (Score:5)
I don't think so. What about fair use? That clearly limits the rights of artists. Furthermore, the Constituion authorizes copyright protection. It doesn't require it. Congress could abolish copyright if it so chose. The copyright clause is listed among those things which "Congress shall have the power to:" in Article 2.
Furthermore, under modern interpertations of the Constitution, Congress can regulate the music business in any manner it wants under the commerce clause. (I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, I'm just saying it's the Supreme Court's interpertation of said clause from 1930-2001, whith minimal exceptions.)
Re:Of course (Score:5)
Bullshit. My guitars will not disappear, my fingers will not be mangled, and I (and thousands of others) will not stop making music, creating works of art, or chasing a vision, be it a desire to create for oneself, or to entertain and hear the glory of applause.
I can point you at dozens of theater groups that work for free (or at least break even), plenty of musicians that play for fun or for enough money to keep their equipment in repair and to pay their bar tab, and even a whole bunch of programmers who are writing a modern operating system with powerful server features and a modern GUI just for their own pride in their work. And there are plenty of artists who work enough to pay rent and still eat out. Amazing as this sounds, you don't need to make $12 million a year to provide for yourself or your family.
I hope this law dies soon before it damages the creative industry.
The only people who stand to be damaged are the middlemen and a dozen or so lucky people. Lotteries always make money - they just have to show a few "winners"... the music industry produces a handful of "winners", but the majority of artists are... well, it's a cliche because it's accurate... starving artists with day jobs.
Ghod... look at the phrase you used: "creative industry". How can your fingers type that? It's like something out a gritty dystopian cyberpunk novel. It's all about perversion of art, not the salvation thereof.
Art will not die because it is shared. Anyone who tells you otherwise is not interested in art.
--
Evan
Re:How do they justify this unamerican theft? (Score:3)
The US constitution, he said, clearly limits what rights congress can grant copyright holders, because copyright was in the US contitution, and in US history and law, always seen as a restriction on personal freedom that was insituted only because granting some protection to intellectual work could stimulate innovation.
Actually, he went on at length to explain the history of US copyright and patent law, and how the constitution expressly forbid congress from passing any law that grants copyright holders rights unless they clearly advance innovation, and at the same time strike a balance with providing the public with a reasonable access to the copyrighted works (hence things like the fair use provisions in current copyright law).
If anything, this is as "American" as it could be. It has roots to your nations founding fathers, and there is substantial precedence supporting that copyright is a limited right granted by the government that is meant not to serve the copyright holders, but innovation that the public gains from.
If copyright ends up restricting the publics right so much that it is not worth it, then the government is full within its rights to revoke those privileges, and stop restricting personal liberties in that area.
If anything "unamerican" idea is to use laws to restrict personal liberties by stopping people from copying in the first place, and by that restricting the market in the copyrighted material to only those granted a government licensed monopoly to a work via copyright law.
compulsory licensing is not a new idea (Score:3)
Less tangentially, copyright holders in nondramatic musical works--like, songwriters--are already subject to compulsory licensing in the United States. If you write a song, you get to decide who makes the first recording of it. But once there's a legitimate recording distributed in the US, anyone else can license your song at a rate mandated by law.
See also Bob Kohn's A Primer on the Law of Webcasting and Digital Music Delivery [kohnmusic.com], and, if you're hard core, Title 17 [cornell.edu] of the US Code. (Compulsory licensing of musical works is covered in chapter 1, section 115.)
Re:Interesting but wrong (Score:3)
Record Companies shouldn't copyright music (Score:3)
Anybody else feel that this whole thing would be settled quicker if this was the case?
Orrin Hatch still isnt the good guy. (Score:3)
I bet you the RIAA and its companies take napster to the point of extinction, then invest in it and make it their puppet. Why you ask?
Look at it how a few years back microsoft infused apple with a ton of money to keep them alive. Was it because apple was an innovative company with great things and they were doing The Right Thing? Hardly. It was because if apple goes under, microsoft would have had a monopoly and would surely have been broken up.
So the same is true for the RIAA..instead of killing your ONE big enemy, make it your puppet so you dont spawn even bigger problems in the future.
Re:Record Companies shouldn't copyright music (Score:3)
Razzious Domini
Re:Interesting but wrong (Score:3)
It would have been nice if you had explained what this has to do with compulsion.
The military draft, for example, has been accepted as necessary to defend the freedom
Um, no it hasn't.
The United States government has no business telling a creator what they must do with their copyrighted work.
Why not? The only reason copyright exists is because the government says so. Why shouldn't it be able to retract or amend the rules of the game?