The RIAA Doesn't Like Paying Lyricists 129
baptiste writes "I came across a story in Wired News that on first glance had to be a joke. The scary part is, its not. The RIAA is looking to start their own MP3 streaming services, but they are also trying to stiff the song writers who hold copyrights on the lyrics. The RIAA doesn't want to pay the songwriters royalties on streamed copies of songs and has petitioned the U.S. Copyright Office to settle the matter. I highly recommend you read the petition - if you didn't know better, you'd think it was from Napster or MP3.com. The irony is almost too much."
Insanity (Score:1)
Isn't there some kind of legal precedent (reminiscent of the MS legal battles) that would allow the govt. to say "Enough is ENOUGH!"?!
Read the Petition (Score:1)
While we are on the subject of copyright. (Score:1)
I thought this was interesting
How can they claim copyright on something which is not substantially different from the word file the RIAA provided?Re:This sucks! I've had it! (Score:1)
But only if you take responsiblity for it. Then it's called civil disobedience.
Just breaking a law for your own purposes.. Well that's different.
Did You Read the Material Cited? (Score:2)
Re:Promotional Aspects (Score:2)
In my opinion, promotion is just another way of being exposed to new music. But word of mouth from friends, opening acts at live shows, and Napster hotlists work just as well as record companies putting up adverts and sending free copies to radio stations. In fact, they work better because they are targeted towards the correct market segment much better.
Folks, if the record companies stopped all promotion, what would happen? Would there be no top 40 artists? No, maybe just a different set of top 40 artists--ones that made their way to the top the old fashioned way, not through the record companies opening the collective mouth of society and shoving the Backstreet Boys down it. Would you suddenly have less music to listen to? I know I wouldn't, since virtually nothing I listen to is really promoted at all by the record companies. Almost everything I listen to I discovered by one of the ways above.
Look at the huge pool of musicians who do their music just for the fun of it, and possibly make it big enough to make a living out of it even with no promotion. Sure they may not make the millions that a Dave Matthews makes today, but I PROMISE you that Dave Matthews would still be jamming with his buddies in bars if he had never been discovered-even if he made no money. And if an artist amasses a good sized following, they can easily make a decent living from their music--maybe not 100 million a year, but enough. My point is that the music WILL always be there because there is no shortage of musicians, even if the pay sucks. And all promotion is is a tool for the record companies to turn an underground favorite into a larger than life superstar for their own monetary gain. But if that artist is going to do the same music for $100 or $100million per year, then tell me why promotion is needed (it's not)
LOTS of bands pay for their own studio time and cd pressings, and do so even though they may make no money or even LOSE money doing it. With the RIAA running the show, the laws of economics & supply vs. demand are being totally subverted.
Read the DOCUMENT (Score:5)
Is it legal? (Score:1)
Is it legal to use the courts to remove comptetition from the field, only so you can dominate the whole field?
That's just not cool.
piracy (Score:2)
The RIAA just doesn't want any competing "pirates".
Re:Promotional Aspects (Score:2)
Musicians will regret... (Score:3)
Exactly. Musicians will regret ever signing up with the RIAA members. I can see the class action lawsuit coming now... "The RIAA is stifiling our (the RIAA member artists) ability to get exposure in recently very important XYZ online music video stream/audio stream/forum. We are asking for 123 dollars in compensation."
That will make me smile. :p Heed this warning, independent artists. Don't Do It! Don't sign that RIAA member contract. You Will Be Screwed, and in the cold. It's your stuff, Don't sign away exclusive rights.
Re:What ever happened to... (Score:1)
I wouldn't say a monopoly so much as something like a cabal. The RIAA, as far as I understand, is just a political lobbying association composed of representatives of the various recording companies. And all those recording companies surely compete with each other... they just compete more fiercely with everybody else. It's a whole lot like the way cable companies work - they have a local monopoly (over the artists, in the case of the recording companies), but there are many other companies in the same business.
It's sad that no viable alternative exists, and it also seems increasingly unlikely that one will arise, given the way the RIAA deals with its competitors, real or imagined. I'm sure they'd try to stomp anything that represented even a shadow of a threat to their stranglehold on the industry.
What ever happened to... (Score:1)
By the way, what ever happened with that Justice Dept. Investigation into the RIAA being a monopoly? I read a few posts on it here on
Re:This sucks! I've had it! (Score:1)
Simple, eh?
Of course not, but nothing is.
Re:Promotional Aspects (Score:1)
That's not the question he's asking. What we want to know is: how can musicians promote *directly* to the public without going through a large record label? Technology has evolved to the point where it's cheap to record and distribute. All the recording cartel has *left* is promotion (and they outsource *that*).
Hey... they want to make this *retroactive* (Score:1)
radio (Score:1)
Re:This sucks! I've had it! (Score:2)
It is actually. Organized and widespread civil disobedience has a long history. It is an excellent method when the people you're dealing with are not utter barbarians or ruthless despots, or are at least restrained from being so by some outside authority.
Re:Promotional Aspects (Score:2)
Every now and then, a "good" song will swirl up through luck and something-or-other. One example is Nirvana kicking Michael Jackson out of the #1 spot in the early 90s, with very little top 40 airplay and promotion. But it doesn't happen very often.
Another datapoint - Apparently whoever computes the charts excludes most rap singles sales (many of which are on indy labels in mom+pop record stores). If they were included, the Top 40 would be almost entirely rap.
--
Re:Promotional Aspects (Score:4)
. . . ah, here it is [salon.com].
--
Give 'em hell. er, feedback. (Score:5)
I sent them:
"
I read your petition to the Copyright office requesting that streaming music not require royalty payments to the artists.
I find this unfathomably hypocritical, after your lawsuits against MP3.com and Napster, Inc.
I will never buy another CD from an RIAA-associated artist or label for myself or as a gift until such time as the RIAA mends its ways, supports its artists and embraces the advantages of digital distribution with proceeds from tours.
Learn from history. Read Jack Valenti's arguments against Betamax, and notice the Blockbuster video rental store(s) on your commute home. I don't think the video industry was ruined.
"
Re:Bazzaar model promotion (Score:2)
There is an anology with french fries. McDonalds has done a huge job of getting their french fries everywhere. What is interesting is for folks who've grown up eating those french fries, eating real fresh cut french fries tastes weird, because for them, a french fry tastes like a McDonalds french fry.
Music is more than simply the song, it is the way we connect to it, and good promotional work I think is usually successfull in driving that connection. With DJ's on the radio getting Payola, dj's in clubs are a bit more limited in what they can play. People like to hear what they have already heard.
Promotional Aspects (Score:5)
Songs don't make it big because they are good, the make it because they are promoted. Technology has addressed everything else the RIAA does, with the promotion piece solved they'd go the way of the Dodo.
Unfortunatly, so far it has been other commercial companies that want to come in and replace them (Napster) which I'm not convinced gains us huge amounts. The infrastructure of music should be free, just as the infrastructure of a computer (OS). What's the next step to make it so?
This probably won't happen (Score:5)
For ASCAP/BMI/(I forget the third), the important copyright is the sheet music and lyrics. They gained power in the early 1900s with the advent of radio, since songwriters wanted to be paid per broadcast. Anyway, they didn't have computers then, so they just have a flat fee for each radio station, bar w/jukebox, nightclub, elevator, etc. They just listen to a station for 6 hours, then multiply that over a year, and that's how they determine how much to pay an artist. So the little bands you liked in college never make a dime, but Britney's songwriters a rolling in it.
It gets real dicey in nightclubs: who owns the performance? ASCAP charges the nightclub a flat fee and then pays the bands using the same proportional setup they use for radio broadcasts. Again, no computers, and no exact counts of who gets played how much. It's all statistics, and the low end gets cut out consistently. The bands at a little club like the Middle East probably never see a dime from the songwriter's fee. They get paid for the performance, though, which belongs to them (any record made from it is their copyright).
This streaming media stuff is a real problem for us as webmasters/computer filesharing types as well as for the courts. If you stream the music, you're broadcasting a written song, but if you transmit it for HD storage, you're distributing a copyrighted recording. Thus you are going to get billed twice, and the RIAA and ASCAP/BMI are going to try to bill each other.
Like Clay said in his interview here the other day, the likely long-term outcome is that bands that write their own music will hire engineers to produce their records and then just let ASCAP deal with the licensing, cutting the RIAA out of the licensing business altogether (ASCAP would manage both copyrights, the song as written and performed).
In the short, term, though, these record companies (who are the RIAA) aren't going to give up so easily, and this is just them starting to open their eyes to the internet's potential re: their products. They'll probably lose this case because of the quasi-broadcasting nature of music file distribution, but ASCAP's fee isn't so high, and the RIAA will certainly find a way to leverage what they have while they still have it.
-jpowers
Re:I don't think so... (Score:1)
Only if you buy social contract theory. The RIAA vs Napster was (is) exclusively a statutory issue. I have no contract with the RIAA, and neither did Napster.
This new one is a contract issue - namely, the RIAA is attempting to use its weight to unilaterally modify contract terms. Though the title for this story is misleading, what they are doing here is still wrong. They appear not to be seeking to avoid payment of royalties. The RIAA appears to be requesting that it be allowed to dictate royalty rates and terms of the agreement without having to negotiate with the artists. There aren't too many places where unilateral changes to contracts are acceptable...
Re:Read the Petition (Score:1)
Not quite correct . . . (Score:2)
ASCAP doesn't license mechanical rights -- those are obtained directly from Harry Fox Agency, or via compulsory licenses, or both. ASCAP/BMI licenses performance rights, another thing entirely.
One can argue all day and night over the ethics of RIAA's actions, but most will fail when it all comes down to rights. RIAA has the rights to their controlled assets (music) and can do as they wish with it.
Nope. There's an important subtlety about intellectual property -- ownership of a copyright grants no right to do anything, just the right to exclude others from doing certain things. The exercise of these exclusive rights, either by a promise not to sue (a license grant) or filing an action for infringement are all that the owner can do, apart from outright assigning fo the asset interest .
In the case of a musical recording (termed in the law a "phonorecord"), there is always (unless in public domain) another, underlying copyright, owned not by the record industry, but by the composer, the right to the musical work. The former copyright is represented by the P-in-circle symbol, the latter by the C-in-circle symbol. RIAA gets from the C-in-circle owner a mechanical right, via the harry fox industry, to make a phonorecord from the original work. And RIAA's rights to exploit its P-in-circle rights are limited by its licenses from the C-in-circle owner.
The recourse (Score:2)
The only way to battle the RIAA, speaking in terms of business, is to draw the money of the music market to other outlets that offer better service to the bands and that are more friendly to the consumer. A really viable alternative to the RIAA system has to be found, and I'm not talking about virtual tip jars or the odd t-shirt sale.
Somehow I don't see that happening in the short term though if the RIAA, as flawed as it is, remains a more attractive business model to a lot of bands.
Hello? (Score:1)
I'm shure they only waited this long since they did not want it to harm their legal sitation with Napster and MP3.com.
Re:city of industry (Score:1)
So they were never interested in musicians' rights (Score:4)
Can they really not be done for perjury for talking crap in court all this time? (Answer - nope, they have expensive always!)...
It had to be said... (Score:1)
Re:This sucks! I've had it! (Score:2)
Re:Bazzaar model promotion (Score:1)
If one chooses to be brainwashed, there isn't much we can do about it, right? If one wishes to be influenced by RIAA's massive promotion, why shouldn't he pay for the music? MTV takes money. Cute dancers take money. Special effects takes money. Why do you think RIAA will make them for free? When you listen to music that is promoted by RIAA, you are buying into their whole scheme. RIAA provide "entertainment", not music. If the only music you are willing to hear is the music that you have heard somewhere else before, well, maybe RIAA is what you deserve.
You are right, advertizing is about convincing you something is better than it actually is, in order to make you buy it. Smarter buyers don't buy into advertizing. Smarter buyers use thier own judgement. If you lack a judgement of your own, your money goes to the advertizers. in this case, the RIAA.
Assuming that people want to hear what they have already heard is pretty much stating that everybody is dumb. I refuse to think so. I think most people have thier own judgement, simply not awaken.
My point is, if you hate RIAA's tactics, maybe you should stop pirating thier music. If you are too damn lazy to explore new music, then you are paying RIAA's "service fee" for putting thier music in the cafe, the radio, the elevator, and everywhere else you go.
FYI, The clubs I go to rarely play any songs from RIAA. If your club plays Madonna and Destiny Child all day, you are in the wrong place.
Here's a reference to my point. [slashdot.org]
Bazzaar model promotion (Score:3)
Each week, the DJs will go to record stores to listen to whatever new record that comes in. Then they decide which one they will play and play them to us, evaluate the reaction from the crowd and decide whether to play it in the future.
So that means ther DJs replace the power of RIAA? Not really. Remember that the key to monopoly is that high cost of entrance. It costs a lot of money to start a huge record label and shoot MTVs, build studios. But it takes only a man with a pair of ears to be a DJ. The consumer decides which DJ they will follow by thier own opinion. If they don't like this DJ, they go to another club. If they like the songs, they will ask the DJs where the song come from and buy them. (This is how I am introduced to music from Wubble-U, Suicide commando, etc.)
One may argue that the record shops control what the DJ listens to. Well. not really. the DJs usually goes to stores with one thing in mind - get better quality music to keep thier own job. The bazzaar style evolution again works in this case.
Also I'd like to mention that, on Napster, the ability to browse other people's entire collection also helps promote music. For example, when I searched for "Cuban" "Latin" music and accidentally ran into some flamenco music. i liked it much so I searched for the word "flamenco." What returned was some guy who had quite a few flamenco music. So I took a look at his entire collection, all of which are classical guitar and flamenco music. So that is how I found Christopher Parkening's guitar work.
The key is, as long as there is an easy entrance to music promotion, RIAA will no longer control what we hear.
Re:Promotional Aspects (Score:5)
Actually the RIAA (the member corporations, really) don't even do promotion. They pay other people [salon.com] to do that. The business model of a major record label resembles that of the worst dot-coms in existence, only record companies are subsidized by taxpayers.
Re:No surprise here... (Score:1)
Money is still the RIAA's only driving force... no matter which way the issues flow, it's always about the money.
I happen to think it's laughable when organizations like this become highly-publicized hypocrites.
Well, look at it this way:
It's a big "I-told-you-so" to all those zeolots out there who defended the RIAA, under the pretense that the RIAA was acting in the artists' best interest, they were not, and here we are.
Maybe now everybody who thought the RIAA was doing the artists' a favor will realize that the only side the RIAA is taking is it's own.
No matter what the RIAA says, or does, it's in there own interests. Nevermind that in the case of Napster it happened to coincide with those of the artists'.
Whether it be a matter of fair use, or artist royalites, it's all speed bumps to be rooted up and destroyed by their lawyers, on their way to the almighty dollar!
Re:radio (Score:4)
Re:Promotional Aspects (Score:2)
---
Re:This sucks! I've had it! (Score:1)
Very good, you can't pirate GPL'd code without getting into legal trouble (that is, once you're found out...). Now then, Napster is different how? Oh yeah, RIAA isn't going after individual users... that's pretty nice of them considering the large scale infringement that's occuring. Would the GPL be so forgiving?
Also, would you support the RIAA if they went after individuals? Would you support RMS if he went after a GPL violator? The point is, regardless of how the RIAA works, you have to fight them fairly if you want to win. Tech users don't make up the majority of the world... people who follow laws do.
------------------------------------
hmm...IANAL but... (Score:1)
I disagree... (Score:2)
Hypocrisy: Civilization's Curse (Score:2)
And here we see exactly why the anarchists will win. Civilization breeds hypocrites that specialize in taking over the organs of civilization. Any attempt to suppress the hypocrite is countered with religious indoctrination that teaches anyone with an ounce of moral integrity to tolerate the existence of hypocrites while the hypocrites themselves are able to hollow out civilization's primary organs.
This wouldn't be so bad if civilization didn't chew up so many resources in the process of doing itself in.
Re:Hypocrisy: Civilization's Curse (Score:2)
Those are your so-called "anarchists". I'm not speaking of ideological anarchists -- I'm talking about people who are literally ungovernable -- people like Bill Clinton. You're kiddies who dress up in black and go to riots with their single moms from the Pacific Northwest are nothing compared to the hypocrites in Washington, D.C. or the guys in Hollywood who provide us relgious indoctrination. They may be dependent on government and want others to be governable, but that doesn't mean they, themselves, are governable.
did I miss something? (Score:1)
The RIAA is being overly possesive of its rights and its precedent to protect the copyrights of musicians and lyricists. However, it's babyish to demand that they move into the modern, digital age on anything but their own terms. The legal request that they've submitted is a signal that they are finally realizing that the Internet is a viable distribution medium, but they're being very cautious about it. They want to make the move on their own terms and they don't want to make any major mistakes while entering this "new" distribution medium. They don't want to do anything that would cause them to unintentionally give up their copyright ownership. If an action of theirs is construed as placing copyrighted works in the public domain, they may lose their ownership of (or control over) the copyright. Also, they could get into serious legal/financial trouble if they start distributing music and it is later found that are required to pay more royalties than they thought they would have needed to.
They have many more assets to worry about than does Napster. It's easy to do something like Napster did when you essentially have nothing to lose. Anyway, let's hope that this legal request is a sign that the RIAA will soon be distributing music over the Internet in a reasonable fashion. I wouldn't bet on it anytime soon, but at least there is hope.
Jason
Re:This probably won't happen (Score:1)
Linux rocks!!! www.dedserius.com [dedserius.com]
On the subject of royalies... (Score:1)
<br><br>
No, they won't. Despite the old saying that "you can't have your cake and eat it too" they're doing just that.
This sucks! I've had it! (Score:5)
And then I read the RIAA's reason for wanting to 'pirate' the same music - doing it the right way (the lawful way) would cost to much.
Well folks, that about raps it up for me. I'm going to continue to pirate music for one simple reason - it costs less. And that's all I'm gonna say.
For those of you who feel I'm stomping on the rights of artists - tough. If they're dumb enough to sign up with this two faced laughing pile of dogshit called the RIAA then they deserve it.
Re:This sucks! I've had it! (Score:1)
I don't think we need to do anything about the RIAA directly. They have as much right to exist as anybody/anything else. The RIAA sure does seem greedy, but that is their perogative. The Artists themselves are mostly adults, who should be able to take care of themselves. Nobody is forcing them to go through the RIAA, the Artists Chose to go with them.
Napster seems like a great circumvention of the RIAA, yet I also think people who violate copyrights should be prosecuted. And in their trial if they can prove the copyright is ridiculous or whatever, great.
But I am amazed that the same people who say "Fuck the RIAA, we need to get the money straight to the Artists (except metallica)" are the same ones who are illegally grabbing and distributing these songs. Hipocrisy.
I don't hear much of anything from any artists regarding the RIAA. Granted, I don't look too hard either. Seems to me that if they were all that upset with the RIAA, they would find/create an alternative.
Re:This sucks! I've had it! (Score:1)
Re:I'm a musician. Where do I get $ from DAT/CDR t (Score:1)
Heh. =) (Score:1)
Except that you do not know what is going on... (Score:1)
Re:While we are on the subject of copyright. (Score:1)
Re:The recourse (Score:1)
"[...] remains a more attractive business model to a lot of bands" - Would this be because musicians shopping for contracts can't do the math? Or, because it really is economically better?
Re:Lyrics and sheet music.. (Score:1)
Under the same Act, listening to a radio in a public place doesn't violate any laws. Establishments do have to pay royalties if they are charging customers to listen, are transmitting beyond the establishment, or are over 2000 square feet (3750 for resaurants/bars) *and* have more than six speakers. "Mom and Pop" are not going to be charged royalties for listening to the radio.
See Chapter 1, Section 110 of the Copyright Law. [loc.gov]
Re:Lyrics and sheet music.. (Score:1)
It's no surprise... (Score:1)
that the RIAA is trying to do this. The RIAA has been screwing artists for years, and when the artists finally realize that they don't need record companies to distribute their music for them, their little plastic empire will fall. I look forward to urinating on the grave of the RIAA.
Although, I'm kind of glad the exist for one reason, they produce pop music, and in that, I can avoid all bad pre-fabricated artists by simply avoiding major record labels.
--
If there is a God, you are an authorized representative. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Re:RIAA Shows Its True Colors (Score:1)
sopwath
Re:... (Score:2)
-HobophobE
Not just lyricists... (Score:1)
Some links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/05/business/05STRI
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/Entertainment/Enter
Re:Read the Petition (Score:1)
A DPD is an "individual delivery of a phonorecord by digital transmission of a sound recording, which results in a specifically identifiable reproduction by or for any transmission recipient of a phonorecord of that sound recording . . .
I barely understand legalese, but it sounds to me as though they are saying "well, that clip sure could go in that gun and the bullets could go in the clip, but kids should be able to buy it all because hey, you don't really know for certain that they might make a gun out of it."
Re:Doctor of Trolling ? (Score:2)
Re:Bazzaar model promotion (Score:1)
Not if you like Madonna and Destiny Child (not that I do, but there are people who do). Why is a particular kind of music bad if it sells much but really really great if you're the first person to have heard it...
If you like the music it doesn't matter if they sell X million copies and earns Y million dollars or if it is someone totally unknown person, good music is good music no mater how it is wrapped.
Re:Read the DOCUMENT (Score:3)
No surprise here... (Score:2)
I happen to think it's laughable when organizations like this become highly-publicized hypocrites.
Hmmm. (Score:1)
I've always hated that.
Re:This sucks! I've had it! (Score:1)
Does nobody remember reading about Standard Oil in their History classes? Nobody *FORCED* you to go to a Standard Oil station to get gas for your car back in the haydays of huge monopolies. You could choose to support an independant gas station, if you could find one, and then only until Standard Oil either rode them into the ground or bought them out.
--
Re:This sucks! I've had it! (Score:1)
- I can't even begin to count how many indie bands have benefited from my cash because I heard them on Napster. Why can't the RIAA see it the same way?
Actually, I think the do see it the same way.Re:Will the RIAA move *their* servers outside the (Score:2)
Offshore hosting is a sham, unless you live in a copyright/lawsuit-free country, in which case you don't need offshore hosting to begin with.
yeah! (Score:1)
Lyrics and sheet music.. (Score:3)
They say that if you love something, you should set it free.
I guess alot of modern artists really hate their work..
April Fools!!! (Score:2)
OMFG (Score:1)
Sorry, but... either they are brilliant at manipulating the system, or just plain f* stupid and hypocrite to play the 2-faces like that in such a short amount of time.
I'd vote for the 2nd option, because if it would have been option #1, they would have at LEAST waited a while for people to forget about what just happened.
Either way, I sure hope artists will backfire on them, any artist supporting these idiots deserves to be pirated, heck, worse, BANNED.
Re:Doctor of Music ? (Score:1)
that's like someone who has a CS degree claiming that they're "a programmer".
imminent death of copyright predicted (Score:2)
Re:Promotional Aspects (Score:2)
/Brian
Re:RIAA Shows Its True Colors (Score:1)
All companies want a good public image if possible. Not because "it's nice to be nice", but because the public is more likely to give money to the warm fuzzy company.
RIAA Shows Its True Colors (Score:1)
Business As Usual (Score:3)
Streaming media conceivably can allow musicians to market their product without RIAA member involvement. This is what really scares them.
You want to help fight the RIAA? Set up streaming servers and use them to help your local musicians market their work.
Not all that suprising (Score:3)
Re:Lyrics and sheet music.. (Score:1)
In general, you're right. We could make music free. Popular music wouldn't die away. Nowadays amateur hobbyists have the resources to do what used to require big companies with lots of money. But, if we want professional artists, then we need to protect their copyrights.
Re:don't sign the petition (Score:1)
ahem, it's not that kind of petition.
Nothing like Napster (Score:2)
This is exactly what we would expect from the RIAA, not surprising at all.
Also, it's old:
RIAA Petition to Copyright Office.
Re: Request for Rulemaking and to Convene Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel.
Date: November 29, 2000.
RIAA = (Score:1)
Re:This sucks! I've had it! (Score:1)
All these people bitching about how Napster and MP3s are stealing from the artists need to step outside the pop world. I don't know how it is in other places, but down here in Louisiana we have almost no punk scene, no punk bands on the radio, and only a few decent local punk bands (if you're into punk checkout the New Orleans band The Picts [mp3.com]). The only way I hear about bands is by word-of-mouth ("Hey man, have you heard the new Swingin Utters CD?"). The only way I can actually hear the bands is to get on Napster and download of their stuff. If I like it, I buy it to support the band. If I don't, the MP3 collects dust on my hard drive. For independent bands, Napster is a light at the end of the tunnel I can't even begin to count how many indie bands have benefited from my cash because I heard them on Napster. Why can't the RIAA see it the same way?
-antipop
Re:This sucks! I've had it! (Score:1)
-antipop
Breaking the law (Score:2)
Indeed. "Good men should not follow the law too closely."
(Was it Emerson who said this? I think it was am American philosopher/author, at any rate
Re:This sucks! I've had it! (Score:2)
GPL doesn't restrict the use - only the distribution. It is only restrictive when the restriction can actually be enforced.
Re:This sucks! I've had it! (Score:2)
Shit. I think I'm going to "pirate" some GPL'd code and put it in my proprietary product!
It's not like the author was making money anyway. Now we all win!
Re:spirit not letter (Score:3)
For example, if you think copyright should only be good for 20 years, you should make it clear that you are only going to pirate songs pre-1980.
Otherwise, you have anarchy with no clear message. And you will lose.
Looking For Napster Statistics (Score:2)
It does relate, sortof. Because depending on how much they increase CD sales, the RIAA might be able to justify the cost of reimbursing the people who actually create the music.
But I'm not sure somebody didn't just pull the studies out of their butt....
--
Help me make RIAA's life miserable (Score:2)
You may enjoy the license agreement [umn.edu] too.
don't sign the petition (Score:2)
Re:did I miss something? (Score:2)
--
... (Score:2)
city of industry (Score:5)
Actually its ASCAP [ascap.com] thats one of the biggest companies that pays monies to lyricists, composers, etc., so RIAA would have to deal with them before anything is even created.
One can argue all day and night over the ethics of RIAA's actions, but most will fail when it all comes down to rights. RIAA has the rights to their controlled assets (music) and can do as they wish with it. Sure its ethically wrong, but has anyone seen any business that was fair? shittt... even the Catholic religion is shaky
This may be the ultimate solution for artists and online stations to go about. Some artists should think about releasing an online version of their songs prior to committing to anyone like RIAA, ASCAP, etc., this way their songs become more popular, people enjoy their music before its been monopolized, and artists can then leverage more rights from RIAA, and the others, and if those agencies don't like it, the artist (now popular from releasing a net based song) can then press and distribute records on their own, which many successful artists have done.
L. Ron Hubbard's FBI files [antioffline.com] a la FOIA
Re:.adding a bit more fuel to the fire (Score:2)
Now with that out of the way. Alot of people don't know how many layers of hands might be in a song. at any given time there might be 5 to 25 layers (percentage takers ) in a song. for example :
singer, producer, engineer, backup vocals, song righter, hook righter, hook musician, album producer, agent, lable, and this list can go on and on. Each one of those parties eat a certain percentage ( or $ depending on the contract ).
Now what is very freightening is that the RIAA wants to back out of their contract. And they might win.
In most record lable contracts, there are different right's. MP3's might not be covered, the only digital media covered right now is the cd and dat ( I think there might be another but I can not recall ). It's new to the industry ( mp3's) so you can imagine what it might look like.
So the record industry knowing that MP3's might not be covered can ( with some good lawyers ) back out of paying MP3 distribution. ( contract does not cover it so it belongs to the holders of the master tape, otherwise you could argue that you hold a cd and the first digital broadcast of the MP3 would belong to you )
ONEPOINT
spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop news
please help me make it better
Re:radio (Score:2)
I just wanna see Lars Ulrich in court testifying that he wants his stuff on Napster...
--Blair
What a Joke (Score:2)
The RIAA says, "To be compelling to consumers
Duh, what do they think MP3.com was trying to do? The RIAA really is a joke. I find it quite hilarious that they themselves are being sued for exactly what they sued others for. Even the director of the KPIG online radio station called the RIAA a bunch of idiots.