Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media

Future of Music Summit 184

Posted by michael from the retina-scans-required-to-turn-on-car-radio dept.
DotcomScoop writes: "We were provided with a copy of the letter sent by Congressman Rick Boucher to RIAA head Hilary Rosen and IFPI head Jay Berman questioning the legality of copy-protecting CDs. 'I am particularly concerned that some of these technologies may prevent or inhibit consumer home recording using recorders and media covered by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA),' Boucher writes. We've summarized the letter in a story and CNET also has coverage. Monday is the kick-off of the two-day Future Of Music Policy Summit, which includes keynotes or panels from Boucher, Rosen, Napster CEO Konrad Hilbers, Nirvana's Krist Novoselic, Fugazi's Ian MacKaye and the National Writer Union's Jonathan Tasini, among others." We already posted a story about the Boucher letter, but it can't hurt to mention it again.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Future of Music Summit More

Future of Music Summit

Comments Filter:

  • "it can't hurt to mention it again" (Score:3, Troll)

    by Mike Connell ( 81274 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @07:24AM (#2797560) Homepage
    The motto of a new generation (of /. editors)

    ;-)
  • The RIAA has been stomping royally on anyone and everyone about protecting their copyright.
    Of course, the artists themselves don't actually see much of it but the publishers do.
    Last I heard the royalty paid to the artist was somewhere in the region of 5%. Once you deduct production and advertising costs, it's not hard to see why the industry is trying to protect it's margin...
    • Of course, the artists themselves don't actually see much of it but the publishers do.

      How often do the people paying the money care about the artist, probably quite a bit of the time, otherwise why would they be buying the music. How often do they care about the publisher, rather less, just so long as they can get the music they want...

  • Nice! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Ace Rimmer ( 179561 )
    I've always like the idea to let recording ass. a few cents from a potentially made copy. Now if I can't even do a copy I'm excited to pay a few cents for my own backups of my work.

    Just my two cents has now a new innovative meaning...

    • Re:Nice! Royalty payments (Score:4, Informative)

      by Technician ( 215283 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @08:17AM (#2797698)
      The royalty payments are on Digital Audio Tape, Blank Music Compact Discs, and Mini Discs. There are not any music royaltys on DATA CD's. Using a data CD for music is wrong. The royalty is not paid. Using a music CD for data backup is stupid. I agree, why pay music royaltys on your data backups? (unless it's your Napster directory)
      I keep stock of both kinds of CD blanks for these reasons. I do have copies of some of my cd's to use at work and in the car. That's what the mucic CD blanks are legaly for. Any CD that won't work with the music blanks gets returned as defective. I refuse to buy/own defective CD's.
      • What's the difference between a Data CD blank and a Music CD blank? Hmmmmm, let's see . . . None? If you're paying a different price for one or the other because of a simple label, you're getting hosed. OTOH, I might be completely off the deep end here.
      • You do realize that you're paying royalties twice for the same music, don't you? That's like buying two licenses to use one program. No thanks. And with RIAA-endorsed copy protection, you would effectively have to buy THREE licenses -- one for work, one for the car, and one for your music CDRs.
        • You do realize that you're paying royalties twice for the same music, don't you?
          Yes. I pay the huge royalty for the original which I keep locked up at home and less than a dollar for the other copies. If I could just pay the lower royalty and take my blanks (Audio with royalty paid) into the music store with my laptop and legaly borrow the originals for a few minutes... Of course I am paying an additional royalty. I am expanding the lisence of the original product. Public performance also requires an additional royalty. Space & time shifting is worth the royalty for the privilage of not carying the originals in my car.
          • except, of course, you have a legal right to your space & time shifting WITHOUT paying an additional royalty. So you're paying this extra royalty for NO reason, moral or legal. You might as well just buy data CDs and then send Hillary Rosen a check directly (note: no artist sees any of the money from blank media taxes).
    • not a bad idea actually. i assume you mean that i'd pay $x for a copy protected album and $x + 3 cents for the non-protected version. i wouldn't have a problem with that.

  • my prodictions.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @07:37AM (#2797592) Homepage
    Either the record companies will say "Keep you pittance you collect on the blank media" or they will simply start a smear campaign on the senator and all others that bring this up to discredit them or to try and direct the public's focus away from the issue.

    The record companies know what they are doing is wrong... hell they helped write the law.

    • Re:my prodictions.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @08:01AM (#2797656) Homepage
      Actually, they may be better off keeping the "pittance on the blank media" and dropping the copy protection altogether using this as face-saving excuse to drop their feeble attempts at copy protection.

      Let's face it, copy-protecting audio CDs is an expensive waste of time and the studios must be realising it by now. They have the costs of licensing the copy protection scheme, the costs of the bad press it generates, the costs of dealing with returns from unhappy punters whose CD players don't work. And what do they get in return? A CD that can always be ripped simply by feeding the stereo line out of a CD player into the stereo line in of a soundcard and pressing "play" at one end and "record" at the other. Line noise? I'm Ogg/MP3ing anyway, you think I'm going to notice the little bit of line noise after compression has mangled it?

      • Either the record companies will say "Keep you pittance you collect on the blank media" or they will simply start a smear campaign on the senator

      Or bride him, or blackmail him (with real or fake material), or threaten him or his family, or, hey, just kill him. American history is replete with examples of elected officials coming a cropper when they try to play hard ball with (even more) ruthless self selving bastards. You'd be surprised by how little protection officials have from non-acute threats.

      On the other hand, they might just say "Won't somebody think of the children/national economy!" and ignore him. It seems to be working fine up to now.

      • On the other hand, they might just say "Won't somebody think of the children/national economy!" and ignore him. It seems to be working fine up to now.

        Thank you! I'm glad someone is finally saying it. All these companies are making a large amount of money by citing the children or producing crappy (quality-wise) flags that heart-broken Americans will buy because "It's the right thing to do."

        I'm glad someone else realizes that companies are making a killing of those killed.

    • Either the record companies will say "Keep you pittance you collect on the blank media" or they will simply start a smear campaign on the senator and all others that bring this up to discredit them or to try and direct the public's focus away from the issue.

      Are you suggesting that the recording industry, or more specifically, the entertainment industry is going to indulge in a form of `reverse MacCarthyism' in order to further it's own agenda in the same way that Old Joe MacCarthy himself used anti-Communist paranoia to further his?

      No, never in America, land of the brave and the free! Wait, no, it's the land of the robber bandit and the rabidly litiginous lawyers.

    • Re:my prodictions.... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jmccay ( 70985 )
      They can go ahead and try that, but when people return the copy protected CDs is mass hords (like what was experienced by another Record company--I beleive it was BMI), they will sing a different tune. We need to stop protecting companies and let them fall and make the mistakes. We are protecting the companies so much now that they never end up going out of business. That used to be a way the market learned from it's mistakes, but big companies like these monster sized record companies, and other monster sized companies, get protection in the law and federal funds. The result on consumers is that these companies think they can force feed there desires into the mouths of customers even if they go broke. It is no longer about what the consumer wants! It is about what they tell the consumer they want!
      • Minor point:
        BMI is not a record company. They are (sort of) a "union" for songwriters, composers, and publishers. They collect license fees (see "micropayments") for performances from radio stations, etc. on behalf of the composers. When the pennies add up, they pay the composers.

    • Re:my prodictions.... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nehril ( 115874 )
      sad when "the future of music" seems to depend more on lawyers than artists.
    • Then maybe we should start a smear campaign against the recording industry. Write to the editors of your local newspapers and spread some of your own FUD about how the Recording Industry artifically raises the prices of blank tapes and recordable CDs. Nobody likes price fixing and if you can put enough of a slant on what you write, it could make the RIAA look REALLY BAD.

  • copy protection only hurts legitimate users. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by faldore ( 221970 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @07:41AM (#2797605)
    No matter what they do, it will be cracked -- therefore copy protection does not hurt software and music pirates. They will figure out a way to do it. No, the people it hurts is the legitimate users that just want a backup copy in case the cd gets broken, which is their legal right. The people who want to put the songs on their MP3 player so they can listen to it while jogging without experiencing CD skipping. Thats who is hurt by the copy protection. Honest people who have paid for the product are being robbed by the publishing companies. This is true for both software and music. It *will* be pirated. That cannot be stopped. Only law abiding citizens follow the law.
    • It also hurts the not so legitmate users. Now instead of a simple copyright violation, it becomes a DMCA violation. The act opens the door to some nasty legal action under the DMCA. You think Business Software Aliance raids were ugly with MS EULA opening doors for raids. The DMCA is worse. I am working on the EULA thing. New machines only run the bundled software that came with it and nothing else, and home built machines run OSS. CD's will be viewed the same way.
      If there is a major legal liabilaty with fair use due to the DMCA, that software will not be owned by me. I will only buy CD's that do not require violation of the DMCA to use.
    • This is true. I think people are so used to media they can play on more than one device, music they can tape and listen to in the car (with no CD), software they can just install and use on the new PC when they replace the old one (and so on) that market forces will actually work for the good. People will return CDs that don't work on their PCs. It's already happening [theregister.co.uk].

      The stupid thing is that the record companies could make money out of the Internet model. If they charged $1 for a CD download then a lot of poeple would pay it. I would pay it - my local record store has fuck-all beyond the top 40. People wouldn't be bothered to pirate to save $1. That would then be $1 which the record companies wouldn't otherwise have. If they charge $10 for something which can only be played on that PC (while it's connected to the Internet) and only for 3 months, people will pirate.

      Oh yeah, and you should be able to get a free preview (maybe lower bit-rate) to decide if you want to buy the thing in the first place. There a loads of CDs which I would buy if:

      I could find them in the stores (not in stores == not on the radio either)

      I could check them out first.

      Currently, I use Morpheus because there is no other way I can obtain much of this music.

  • The thought they could get away with it both ways (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ZenJabba1 ( 472792 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @07:42AM (#2797608) Homepage Journal
    I would honestly bet, that the people in the cyrstal palace of RIAA forget that there is this "tax" on black media, or they knew about it, and now want to have a more effective way of increasing it without huge public backlash (we will return your right to have clean cds, but we can pull this stunt again if we want more money). Imagine if the RIAA wanted to increase the "tax" to 50c/media, without going through this effort first. People would revolt, now they are saying, well if I get access to all my CD's again, maybe its worth it
    • ***I would honestly bet, that the people in the cyrstal palace of RIAA forget that there is this "tax" on black media***

      I'll bet the people at Vibe, Ebony, and BET are pissed about that!
    • This is a way to increase the pre-paid royalties for blank media?

      Please.

      Quick /. poll - everyone who has used a music CD-R when copying an audio disc raise your hand. (squinting at my monitor) I count zero hands. Granted, I can't actually see y'all, but I suspect the count would be the same if I could.

  • Music was my first love, and it will be my last... (Score:5, Funny)

    by billybob2001 ( 234675 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @07:42AM (#2797609)
    Monday is the kick-off of the two-day Future Of Music Policy Summit, which includes keynotes or panels...

    Keynotes at a Music Summit - how harmonious.

    Shouldn't it be overture instead of kick-off though?

  • You can make a difference. (Score:5, Informative)

    by KILNA ( 536949 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @07:43AM (#2797611) Journal
    The Future of Music Coalition [futureofmusic.org], some of the folks helping to organize this, is one of the few organizations that really "get it". Basically, they've taken the stance that creators of music should be rewarded, and that the practical implications aren't as black and white as "file sharing bad" or "record industry bad". So, what they're trying to do is figure out what technological and social solutions can be used to address the problem of artist compensation. The FOMC Manifesto [futureofmusic.org] is recommended reading.

    • Re:You can make a difference. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @08:23AM (#2797715) Homepage
      • The Future of Music Coalition [have] taken the stance that creators of music should be rewarded

      Which is a noble sentiment, but I'm still seeing a lot of artists choosing (with eyes open) to sign organ-grinder-monkey-contracts and do work-for-hire for the big labels. When I sign a contract that gives me money and security in return for signing away all ownership rights (as I do when creating bespoke software for an employer), I don't expect to be able to turn around months or years down the line and whine "But I created it, I deserve direct royalties!"

      I suggest that what the FoM and others should work towards is encouraging some big names to jump ship from big labels and go solo. Mariah Carey has just been given $35 by Virgin to buy them out of their side of a multi-album contract. Every time we hear about a struggling artist, let's think about that, and what it says about the amount of money in this industry. That's $35 million dollars for doing nothing. Now, if Mariah really believes that she can make it, she's got the perfect opportunity to spend that money making, promoting and distributing her own music, under her own control.

      Will she do it? Will she hell. She'll go and whore herself to another big label, because it's safer and easier.

      And that's the problem. It's not with the labels, it's with the artists. If I hear another sob story about a struggling artist who acknowledges that they've signed a stupid contract, but are going to tough it out anyway, I think I'll blow a fuse. Why should we feel sympathy for people who are dumb and cowardly and greedy?

      No, when I see artists leaving the big labels faster than new ones can be created and promoted, then I'll feel sympathy for them. Until then, I'll pay my money to the labels, and not get confused about who's doing the work, producing the creativity, and taking the risks in this business.

      My god. I actually find myself feeling sympathy for the RIAA. Now see what you've done! ;-)

      • You make a good point about artist responsibility, but you sidestep the real problem. We have a cultural shift towards not rewarding the artist at all, using the fact that they get so little through the record industry as an excuse. We need to find a social and technological solution that will allow the Mariah Careys of the world to actually be able to make money and reach customers without the RIAA cartel. But right now the majority of music marketing tools are owned by other monopolies (clearchannel,MTV Networks).

        • The technical solutions are here already. A decent recording need not cost 10s or 100s of thousands of dollars. Distribution of (admittedly lo-quality) song files is easy via P2P (and the quality will improve).

          The social end of things is where there is much work to do, and as has been mentioned, the RIAA has no interest in changing its (or society's) tune. However, it is likely that the tune will change, with or without the blessing of the RIAA.

          One option is listener sponsorship of artists, producers and recording studios. Unlike "tips" given in exchange for a file, a sponsorship is an open-ended show of support for the process of creation.

          It will take time, but eventually society will lose the illusion that the music they want is a tangible product, an illusion that the RIAA would like to maintain. What solutions can we offer which better reflect reality?

      • So, What would happen if . . . (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Someone put up a Napster-like site that only catered to independent artists that agreed to alow free copying? 1) The artists would reach a very wide audience of people that would download samples. 2.) Some of these same people would buy their CDs. 3.) They could tell the RIAA to kiss off and keep all their profits themselves. Is there a down side here?

      • It's not as easy as it sounds, dude (Score:5, Interesting)

        by InterruptDescriptorT ( 531083 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @09:33AM (#2798011) Homepage
        Before entering the much more stable world of software engineering, I was a member of a band that had attained some local renown. In fact, we were told that there was some industry attention directed our way. We headlined at a gig one night in New York where A&R personnel from Maverick came to see us play.

        One of my former band's members thought much the same as you did, as did I--we should shun any major-label deals and keep playing gigs and promoting ourselves through mailings, on-line and selling CDs/T-shirts/etc. at each show. We knew that signing a major-label deal would be, in essence, selling our solus to the devil and that we might never see the rights to our songs (on which we all took co-writer credits) ever again. And this was scary enough to persuade us, after careful consideration, not to sign any deals.

        But the stress of promoting ourselves, without major backing or assistance from a label, ended up taking away from the sheer joy that we got making our music, and ended up in the long run causing us to give up the band. If we had sold our souls, we'd have had a lot more support in directing and marketing our music and probably could have concentrated on the songwriting and performance aspects. But despite everything we did--we had a newsletter, Web site, MP3 downloads of sample songs, fans who were willing to sell our merchandise at shows, it just ended up being a lot of work. We had to hustle for our own radio interviews, club dates, write-ups in the paper, etc. It really is frustrating and does take up a lot of time (kinda like the management vs. programming aspect of my job now).

        In conclusion, while it may be easy to say 'do it all yourself--shun the labels and promote and market yourselves', it really isn't as easy as all that. I wish it had been.

        • Hmm.. work that no one wants to do. So few people want to do it, that the people who are willing, can charge 95% of gross for it. Wow, there's an occupation for all those laid-off people to look into.

          If I get laid off, maybe I'll see if Britney is interested in getting 20% of her gross instead of her 5%. She can compensate me for that other 15% with .. various .. services. Maybe people haven't explored all the potential perks of the promoter profession.

        • Sounds like a business opportunity there...

          A company that provides most of the services a record company often does, but has providing a service to artists as its' main purpose rather than furthering its' own agenda.

          Or at least a register of companies willing to provide discount services to new talent.

          I can see that there could very well be money in that, but then I guess that's pretty much what the indies do, right?
      • The reason these "cowardly" artists have typically signed adverse contracts is generally because there has never been an alternative. A bad contract is better than no contract if those are the only two options.

        Record companies have traditionally controlled both the production and distribution channels. Without the help of a major label, the odds of an artist creating his or her own content and seeing widespread distribution have until very recently been essentially nil.

        While the recent technology developments and widespread internet access are changing that rapidly, I think it's a little early to consider anyone who has signed a record deal with a major label a whore. Even now, recording and distributing your own music would require a non-trivial amount of cash and some insider knowledge that is beyond the reach of the "average" starving artist. Everybody needs to eat, and the record labels have a long history of catching an artist at a time when they are negotiating from a weak position and bullying them into signing an unfavorable contract.

        It's interesting that you compare a record deal to a software development contract, because I believe there is a much greater market and reward potential for an average programmer than there is for an average musician.
      • First of all, comparing contract software development to music is not useful. With the exception of Microsoft, there are no players in the software realm who even remotely approach the stranglehold that the key large media companies hold on the music industry. And even Microsoft provides tools (and therefore jobs) for programmers-- someone has to code all those VB apps and custom ASP scripts.

        But I agree that musicians should reject large label contracts as insufficient, even though they are unlikely to get a better deal elsewhere (from a label with the same capabilities that is). The labels essentially have an oligopoly. It is up to musicians and their allies to fix this. This is how many independent labels start... but the people involved in independent labels almost never make a lot of money or do sell out stadium shows. So it has to be about more than greed for everyone involved.

        As to the greedy RIAA and their sell-out bands, the problem isn't that they exist. I can easily ignore them. The problem is that they are passing laws to make it difficult, if not illegal, for anyone else to exist.

      • Frank Zappa (Score:4, Insightful)

        by epepke ( 462220 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @11:48AM (#2798745)

        The classical example of someone actually standing up to the record companies is Frank Zappa. He discovered that Warner Brothers was pulling one of the standard record company tricks to avoid paying royalties, which involves pressing more copies than they record in the books, typically twice as many. I believe this was with Freak Out, his first album, circa 1965. He sued Warner Brothers and won. Part of the settlement was for him to get his own sublabel Bizarre under Warner/Reprise. Even then, he didn't get completely out from under Warner Brothers' thumb until the mid-to-late 1970's, with the Lather fiasco. After that, he sold records under his own separate Barking Pumpkin label and CD's, at first, under Rykodisc.

        I think there are two lessons from this:

        1. The record companies historically have been the largest producers of illegal copies of an artist's work. The practice began with Edison, and if you think it has magically vanished, there is a nice bridge in New York I'd like to sell you. Whenever the RIAA gets all huffy and moralistic, take it with the contents of every salt mine in the state of Utah.
        2. If one of the top ten iconoclasts of the 20th century takes more than a decade to become free of record companies, what hope Mariah Carey?

  • We are asking music/tech companies whose businesses depend upon the labor of musicians to generously help us to include musicians in the debate. Scholarships are in the amount of $500 per artist and sponsorship position in the program, signage and website will be based on generosity.

    $500 brings in one musician

    $1,000 brings in two musicians

    $5,000 brings in 10

    $10,000 brings in 20

    Gee, with all this math, I can't keep up! Then again, it seems that every other word was "lawyer" on that page, so maybe they just understand their audience. ;)

  • Oops (Score:4, Funny)

    by mESSDan ( 302670 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @07:51AM (#2797626) Homepage
    The two-day Policy Conference included keynote speeches from Senator Orrin Hatch and Michael Robertson, CEO of MP3.com, as well as over 70 panelists including Leonardo Chiariglione (SDMI), Edward Felten (Princeton University), Hilary Rosen (RIAA), Chuck D. (Public Enemy), Marybeth Peters (Director, US Copyright Office), Jim Griffin (founder of Pho and Cherry Lane Digital), and John Perry Barlow (Founder, Electronic Frontier Foundation).
    These people always make silly mistakes. See what I mean? Remove Chuck D. and you'll see how it SUPPOSED to read.

    Hilary Rosen (RIAA)(Public Enemy)

  • Money for nothing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CaptainAlbert ( 162776 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @07:54AM (#2797637) Homepage
    So we all known the score. The established position is that any "information" product you buy, like a book, video, magazine, LP, CD or whatever, is sold to you on the condition that you do not reproduce it in any way. This wasn't so bad, because reproduction was expensive anyway. Time for a ramble through my thoughts...

    If I buy a book, I know what I'm getting; a physical object which I can read (in one place at a time). I can re-read it any number of times without paying any extra money to the author/publisher. I can give it away to someone else, and they can read it too. The people who write and produce books are obviously happy that this does not erode their profits, or they would have tried to outlaw second-hand bookshops and libraries long ago.

    So if it's possible to make money on print media in that environment, why is it so hard for those selling music? After all, they have extra revenue channels which have no equivalent in the print world, such as live performances. And that's before you consider the merchandising opportunities, which are just as possible for authors (J.K. Rowling, anyone?), musicians, artists...

    More reflections - original works of art are traditionally extremely expensive because a "copy" or reprint is inferior to the master. Studio production of music is very different; the artist can slave for months over one recorded track until it's finally ready... but the perfect copies cost nothing.

    Are people used to "getting stuff for free"? Sure they are, they listen to the radio. Who cares what deals happen behind the scenes to ensure airplay? The music is free! In what way is recording something off the radio and listening to it again "offline" any different from re-reading a book, or for that matter, Napster?

    So say the music industry collapsed in the face of widespread "piracy", or sharing, or whatever you want to call it. What happens to the creative impulses which were responsible for the great music in the first place? Do they just die off in the absence of money? Hell no. Music and art have existed long before the RIAA, Disney, the Industrial Revolution, Capitalism or even currency.

    If all musicians were just in it for the money, then the charts would be full of lowest-common-denominator bland whiney teenage well-groomed all-style-no-substance pap.

    Ah.
    • How many artists either actually "slave in the studio to reach perfection" or would be allowed to even if they wanted to? I suspect that the answer is very few. The record companies do not want the artists to produce "perfection" they want to produce recordings as cheaply as they can get away with and sell as many copies as possible.
    • "If all musicians were just in it for the money, then the charts would be full of lowest-common-denominator bland whiney teenage well-groomed all-style-no- substance pap."

      Your point being, that all musicians ARE just in it for the money?
      • Musicians might not be in it for the money, but the record companies sure are!

        The radio plays what ever they are paid to play (well through their promotional agents anyway).
    • Yes but the charts are full of lowest-common-denominator bland whiney teenage well-groomed all-style-no-substance pap.
    • The people who write and produce books are obviously happy that this does not erode their profits, or they would have tried to outlaw second-hand bookshops and libraries long ago.

      They tried. The supreme court told them to go fuck themselves (well, no, not in those words, but publishers' arrogance at the time certainly deserved that kind of derision).

      Go read up on the "doctrine of first sale".

    • The established position is that any "information" product you buy, like a book, video,
      magazine, LP, CD or whatever, is sold to you on the condition that you do not reproduce it in any
      way.

      Absolutely not.

      Unless other contract language applies to the purchase, copyright law grants me certain "fair use" rights. I can copy the media however I want if it's for my own personal use, I can take and re-publish excerpts for the purpose of academic study; I agree not to charge money for letting other people experience it.
    • The established position is that any "information" product you buy, like a book, video, magazine, LP, CD or whatever, is sold to you on the condition that you do not reproduce it in any way.

      Except that this "do not reproduce" was never "in any way". e.g. you have always been able to do thinks like quoting part of a book in a review. However when it comes to "software" and "digital media" the publishers have tried to confuse matters, somewhat sucessfully, with the idea that using is copying.
      Thus you end up with the law regarding playing a DVD as being somehow different from reading a book.

      If I buy a book, I know what I'm getting; a physical object which I can read (in one place at a time). I can re-read it any number of times without paying any extra money to the author/publisher. I can give it away to someone else, and they can read it too. The people who write and produce books are obviously happy that this does not erode their profits, or they would have tried to outlaw second-hand bookshops and libraries long ago.

      Or alternativly they tried and failed. Which IIRC is closer to the truth.

  • Poignant Letter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fajoli ( 181454 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @07:55AM (#2797639)
    2. Based upon your knowledge and upon any consumer contact received by your member companies, have any discs entered the U.S. market that may not be copied on a device or on media for which a royalty has been paid under the AHRA?

    This is really the point of his question. The AHRA allows the collection of a royalty on recording media, but this comes in exchange for the priviledge of the consumer to make these copies. By making copy protected originals, the priviledge is removed. Congressman Boucher's questions are pulling tight the noose the RIAA has made for itself out of all that rope.

    Very funny indeed.
    • This would explain why we've had copy protected cd's in Europe for about two years now (in the Netherlands, anyways) but, apparently, none in the US until last september. Guess they figured it doesn't matter if they only go after them stinkin' Yurpians or something.

    • I guess I'm a little confused. I thought the copy-protection schemes only introduced noise when you tried to convert an audio track to a file (i.e. WAV, MP3). AFAIK, the AHRA doesn't cover MP3 encoders or ripping software. Doesn't it cover CD-Rs, and if so, isn't that a non-issue wrt copy-protection schemes, since they don't disallow making of CD-R copies?

      Again, forgive my ignorance if I'm clueless here. I'm just trying to understand what Boucher is all about with this particular move.

      • I thought the copy-protection schemes only introduced noise when you tried to convert an audio track to a file (i.e. WAV, MP3).

        Well, kinda.

        An audio CD player has error-correction hardware that interpolates through any bad bytes that get read. Arguably this could be called "noise", although it's not the same as the noise we're discussing. In any case, this behavior is good for audio, since it allows you to interpolate over the inevitable dust, minor scratches, and other imperfections.

        However, you can't just interpolate a missing byte from an executable program or word-processor document -- that could destroy the entire thing. So the data CD players (like the CD-ROM drive in your computer) don't have the error-correction hardware that audio CD drives do.

        That allows you to deliberately add noise -- especially annoying noise -- to an audio CD. When the audio CD player reads it, interpolation occurs and you hardly notice. When a data CD player reads it, you get every stinkin' byte -- including the annoying ones. This is the case whether you send the bytes directly to the sound card for playback, or to the hard drive for recording.

        (Note that this inevitably reduces the quality of the CD. Besides losing the actual data where imperfect bytes were written, you get less room for the correction of actual errors. I suppose you could only replace bytes that would be correctly interpolated, but I doubt that's what's actually happenning.)

        So really, you don't need to save to a file to hear the noise. You just need to use a data CD player. Like the one in your DVD player. It doesn't matter where the bytes go after that.

        Judebert

        We're out of dynamite. What we need is a plan!

    • Of course congress will respond to this by eliminating the Audio Home Recording Act, thus making it illegal to make copies for your car, computer, etc.

      The record labels will support this. The royalties account for $5 million per year, which is about 0.03% of their annual revenue.

  • What it is all going to... (Score:3, Funny)

    by sofar ( 317980 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @07:55AM (#2797641) Homepage
    Check out today's (well januari 7th) DrFun cartoon, seems like Dave knows what is going on here...

    http://www.ibiblio.org/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200201/df2002 0107.jpg [ibiblio.org]

  • "Covered devices" an out for the RIAA? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gotroot801 ( 7857 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @07:56AM (#2797642) Homepage Journal

    As you know from your personal involvement in its drafting, the AHRA clearly requires content owners to code their material appropriately to implement a basic compromise: in return for the receipt of royalties on compliant recorders and media, copyright owners may not preclude consumers from making a first-generation, digital-to-digital copy of an album on a compliant device using royalty-paid media. Under the AHRA, any deliberate change to a CD by a content owner that makes one generation of digital recording from the CD on covered devices no longer possible would appear to violate the content owner's obligations under the statute.

    And how much of a royalty does the RIAA get on the sale of hard drives/MP3 encoders/iPods/Nomads? I'm sure Ms. Rosen will gleefully point out to our well-intentioned friend in Congress that she's more concerned about CD-to-MP3 copying than CD-to-CD, which might, unfortunately, render Rep. Boucher's argument moot.

    • she's more concerned about CD-to-MP3 copying than CD-to-CD, which might, unfortunately, render Rep. Boucher's argument moot.

      I understand your point, but I don't think that will hold water. The fact that the industry has changed (mp3 compression, cheap 100 GB storage) may require that the AHRA be clarified or expanded, but that does not permit the unilateral action on the part of the recording industry to deny an expressly granted right to consumers, namely the ability to produce CD copies.

      I am not a lawyer, but I certainly think that the RIAA has some explaining to do. Or they have to start lining someone's pockets...
    • And how much of a royalty does the RIAA get on the sale of hard drives/MP3 encoders/iPods/Nomads? I'm sure Ms. Rosen will gleefully point out to our well-intentioned friend in Congress that she's more concerned about CD-to-MP3 copying than CD-to-CD, which might, unfortunately, render Rep. Boucher's argument moot.


      Irrelevant. The royalty was part of the AHRA deal -- and the first release of broken CDs should have resulted in the arrival of a federal marshal to get all the money back, now, with a bunch of Teamsters to start hauling off the office furniture if this was not forthcoming.

    • But if in preventing CD-to-MP3 copying, the RIAA also prevents CD-to-CD copying, they would be in violation of the provisions of the AHRA.

      Sure, if they can somehow figure out how to prevent ripping to MP3 while allowing CD copies, they could say they're within the law. But we all know that's not what the RIAA is after. Boucher still has a big roadblock ahead for Miss Rosen. Any theories on how she and her corporate masters will circumvent this?

      mh
  • sometimes I can not understand where this is going.

    Now we talk about the legality of a system created to prevent illegality, besides that it does not work it's far away from being accepted.
    Why all this trouble?

    The stuff I like I buy on CD, if I just hear stuff on air and think i might like it, I download it.
    If I accidentially bought a "defective" CD I may (a) download it, or (b) drag me thru the more or less painful process of ripping it via some analog cables.

    That is my solution, come what may, nobody can kill systems like gnutella.

    So why do we even care? Let the RIAA mofos do what they want, let them waste their money, I couldn't care less.

    I know where I'll get my music. Everybody should. I know most of you already do.

    • Re:Hell... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by uebernewby ( 149493 )
      Let the RIAA mofos do what they want, let them waste their money, I couldn't care less.

      My thoughts exactly. Until they came after me and willfully broke not some lame country soundtrack album, but a cd I was genuinely interested in. Just wait till that happens to you: you'll find you're very pissed off at not being able to play your lovely new purchase any way you want to.

  • Legal Clockwork... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mirko ( 198274 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @07:57AM (#2797648) Journal
    This Legal clockwork not only assumes we're potentially guilty (by charging us a fee for each blank media bought) but now intends to force us to upgrade our digital media devices in order to make even more money on our back.
    Every clockwork has its limit, just put it in some sand...

    By encouraging Free Art models (such as the EFF [eff.org] proposed model or GNUArt [gnuart.org]) we may achieve a parallel distribution model which will de facto have to cohabit with the existing industrial model.

    For example, GNUArt agrees that, for example, Free Music songs may appear on commercial compilations ("Best Of"), provided there is a notification of its GPL'ed status.

    That's why the way to avoid such industrialization of entertainment would be to :
    • Artists, put some of your works under the protection of the GNU General Public License [gnuart.org] (or any other, as you which)
    • Consumers, open yourselves to Free Art, as in the industrial world, there are things you'll like, and things you won't. Just share your favorites around, speak of these, make Free Art another obvious choice.
  • Is anyone else troubled by the fact that this is hosted by a group of lawyers? If you think about it, what better way to find out what's going to be easy to sue about this year than to host a summit like this?

  • Not all recordings are copyrighted. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ONOIML8 ( 23262 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @08:11AM (#2797683) Homepage
    One thing that slays me about all this is the attitude that if I record something to a CD it MUST be material that was created by someone else. The folks pushing this battle and demanding taxes on blank media assume that the common man is not capable of creating his own music, documents, movies, etc.

    I got a taste of this during the discussion of Napster at http://www.tednugent.com where they were insisting that if I made my own MP3 file it was copyrighted and illegal for me to offer for free. Never mind if I wrote and performed my own music, recorded it myself, and chose to give it away to the world. The attitude seems to be that even if a moron like myself is capable of such a thing, I'm not as wise as the RIAA and should be protected from myself and not allowed to give it for free.

    But of course.....the RIAA wants a chunk of "the action" and if I give it away there isn't any action.

    I understand that some places (Canadia?) already have a tax on blank media under the assumption that you are going to use that media to copy copyrighted material. They don't seem to take into account that the same media can be used to save files of any type. Maybe you just wanted to save your family photos to CD, or your letters to your girlfriend. Oh well, you pay the tax anyway.
    • Good point. I wonder if you could get a refund if you prove you weren't using CDs for "bad things." I sense another well-funded government bureaucracy in the works!
    • What's even more annoying is equipment that requires the Audio (read: royalty) CD-Rs, even when there's no reason to... Like that nifty Terapin [goterapin.com] VCD recorder that they sell at Thinkgeek [thinkgeek.com]. It requires the digital audio consumer CD-Rs (which is another royal step, I think) when I make a Audio CD or a VCD. Not all Audio CD-Rs work in it, only ones that say "for consumer".

      In other words, I have to give money to support N'Suck, even if I'm making a VCD of a broadcast TV programs. The Supreme Court (in the BetaMax decision) says I have the right to timeshift Buffy episodes by recording them... but somebody got to Terapin, and now I have to pay a DART royalty to the Backstreet Boys in order to do so.

      I say "somebody got to Terapin" because the VCD feature didn't always require consumer audio CD-Rs. It looks like a recent change. Some of the manual says you can use computer (no royalty) CD-Rs or consumer CD-R, and some of the manual is stickered over so that it says you can only use consumer CD-Rs.

      It's like what John Gilmore says in What's Wrong With Copy Protection [toad.com]... the RIAA and the MPAA are conspiring to make sure that equipment that lets us fully exercise our fair use rights never reaches the market. Or if it does, that they are least get a big cut.

      However, despite all this, the Terapin recorder is still the greatest Christmas present I got, even if the blank "audio CD-R's for consumer" are $0.80.

      Now all I need to do it hack it so that it accepts regular (read: no royalty) CD-Rs. Anybody working on new PROMs for this thing?
    • One thing that slays me about all this is the attitude that if I record something to a CD it MUST be material that was created by someone else.

      Also the whole idea of copy protected CDs is for the "big boys" only. Rather than allowing someone to make a protected "demo disc"...
    • Canada does have a Tariff on all blank media sold, they CLAIM to have taken in to account that only some of these are used for illegal copies when they set the price of the tariff (otherwise there would probably be a tariff on each cd of roughly $15 to cover the cost of the CD that's not sold...) more information on the tariff including exactly what figures were used to decide the price is available at http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/

      this tariff also changes some of the previous copyright laws in canada, among other interesting parts is an excerpt mentioned at the following link regarding copying CDs owned by someone else:
      http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml#copy_for_frie nd s

  • Middle Ground Needed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PoiBoy ( 525770 ) <brian@ p o i holdings.com> on Monday January 07, 2002 @08:31AM (#2797758) Homepage
    If ever there were a time when the middle ground was most appropriate, this is it.

    According to the 1992 Act people are entitled to produce a copy of purchased music for their own, private use. Ergo, CD copy-prevention software takes away that right; and therefore record companies should be banned from using it.

    However, I also noticed that a representative from Napster is to speak at this conference. Although there are legitimate uses for these P2P file sharing networks, Napster and its peers have the legal and ethical responsibility to make sure that their networks are used only for legal purposes. If rampant trading of copyrighted music is the norm for these networks (as I believe it is), then indeed they should be forced to shut down.

    Purchasing a CD does not give one the right to distribute copies of the music to anyone he wishes. However, by law if someone wants to make a cassette tape (or MP3 file) for his own personal consumption, he does have that right; and the RIAA should not be allowed to nullify that right without very strong evidence that it is being abused by a large portion of the consuming public.

    • Your right to copy does not translate into a legal requirement for the producer to make it copyable.

      If you find a way to copy a copy-prevented CD and use it to make personal copies then you're legally entitled to do so. But the record industry is under no obligation to make it easy, or even possible for you.
      • While I agree that this is the current state of the law, I don't agree that this SHOULD be the current state of the law - it's an obvious attemtp to undermine consumers rights in the name of profits. Analagous, to, say, corportations fileing thier SEC papers in an underground bunker, locked with a key that is then destroyed, and guarded by rabid guard dogs. Sure, you can get to them if you really WANT to, but it clearly violates the spirit of the law.

  • concise letter (Score:3, Insightful)

    by f00zbll ( 526151 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @08:53AM (#2797857)
    I found the congressman's letter concise and powerful. The language was matter-of-fact and keeps the focus on the legal issues. Hopefully his actions will result in a balanced out come. Now if only the congressman would take up the cause of the DMCA and find an equally effective legal approach to repealing the law.

  • One lone voice in Virginia... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by LeftHanded ( 160472 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @09:13AM (#2797914) Homepage Journal
    one of the two states that passed UCITA. I don't know how, with all the high-tech companies in Northern Virginia (NOVA), that UCITA made it through the state legislature. Perhaps Boucher, who is a US Representative, can make a difference at the national level. He is definitely against the DMCA in its current form, and wanted Skylerov released when he was arrested. I'm glad I voted for him, and he has my continued support.

  • heh (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    5. Would you and your member companies support independent testing of the effect on sound quality, on listening behavior, and on the performance and operation of home networks, before these technologies appear more widely in the U.S. market? Assuming you and your member companies support such testing, are you prepared to provide assurances that no assertion would be made that these tests and any peer review of the tests would violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?

    When even a US congressman fears DMCA reprisal, you know something's gotta be wrong. ;)

  • Here is what I may do (Score:3, Interesting)

    by truesaer ( 135079 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @09:33AM (#2798007) Homepage
    If I go a block down to Borders to buy a CD, and I discover that there is no option but to buy one that doesn't work correctly in my computer, or that I can't burn it to an MP3 CD (and thus have several CDs in one), then I'm either not going to buy it or return it. Then, I'll get on Morpheus and download the whole damn CD.


    This is really what it has come down to. the RIAA is forcing consumers to choose between piracy or a product that is of limited or no use. And I choose piracy.

  • I was under the impression that the tax on blank CDs only applied to those 'special' music CD-Rs for component CD writers that I would imagine nobody on /. has ever even purchased? I thought that was part of the reason they are so much more than 'regular' blanks for a computer-based CD writer. Can somebody comment on this? All I can find on Google are articles about Canada and Germany's tax laws.
    • I am pretty sure that this is the case and that this is how the serial-copy management system works. If you put a standard CD-R in an audio CD recorder (rack component) it will not let you record because the CD-R does not have a flag recorded on it which informs the recorder that the royalty was paid. When making a copy of a CD, the player sends the recorder the status of the previous CD - either: 1. Original non-copy-protected. 2. Original copy-protected. 3. Copy of copy-protected. In the case of #1, the CD is copied and the recording also gets status 1. In the case of #2, the copy is permitted and gets status #3. In the case of status #3, the copy is not permitted and no recording can be made. So you can only make 1st generation copies. This is the compromise of the Home Recording Act. I believe I have seen web pages out there which describe the system in more detail. And you are right in this is why the "audio" CDs cost more - they are identical except that they had the royalty paid on their manufacture and have a flag burned onto them allowing their use in audio recorders. Because the cost of the tax is large compared to the cost of the media they also tend to be better-quality media as well (none of those 100-pack bulk CDs that sell for $20 and lack the scratch-resistant coating).
      • Well, what's this mean then. Even if this guy succeeds in shaking things up, will he only effect change insofar as rack CD burners will be able to copy these discs?
        • My personal feeling is that the Home Recording Act has a lot of problems and doesn't fairly make a balance between fair-use and content protection. However, unless the law is changed, I think you may be right. The law only covers consumer-oriented digital recording equipment, which has generally been interpreted as being rack-mounted CD audio burners. Blank CD-R's do no have a royalty fee on them, and neither do CD-ROM burners (unlike the rack-mounted devices). That is the compromise - we don't pay royalties on their use, but on the other hand the RIAA isn't obligated to support them. Obviously there has to be a fair balance. If somebody wants to charge for their music, that is up to them (I'm all for GPL'ed music - but that is up to the artist who creates the music). If they want to sign away their rights to a huge recording company, that's their right as well. On the other hand, if I want to make a copy for use in my car that should be fine, and if a library wants to lend out a CD, that should be fine too. The AHRA tried to strike a balance, and does a better job than a lot of other laws like the DMCA, but it is not perfect. Honestly, in a court of law I don't think that you would be able to use the AHRA to combat CD copy protection - at least for computer CD players/burners. Other laws may be more effective and there is always the chance that new laws could be passed. The current inquiry will help bring attention to the current state of affairs, and keeping the RIAA on its toes will probably help them to tone down their measures next time. As was pointed out by others, it is only a matter of time before these schemes are cracked. The RIAA can only go so far in using draconian measures to stop this before the opposition gets heavier than it already is. Supporting representatives that are for better fair-use protection is a step in the right direction. So is boycotting CDs that use draconian measures. I think eventually a balance will be found (at least de facto, if not in law), or technology will move in a different direction making this whole debate obsolete. If nothing else, eventually some of those teenagers who traded files using Napster will end up being record company execs. Even bureaucracy allows for change - with about the same half-life as human life-expectancy.
  • Copy Protection and Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems will likely not only dilute user control but also user privacy.
    EPIC DRM and Privacy Web Page [epic.org].

  • Philips prepared defend CD standard! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by orbitalia ( 470425 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @11:56AM (#2798791) Homepage
    I heard recently that Philips are planning on defending the CD standard (owned with Sony). Copy protected CD's dont meet the red book standard therfore cannot employ the CD logo.

    This is going to hot things up somewhat.
  • According to their arguments - the RIAA owns the rights to the music, and all the royalties entitled to it. Well, if that's the case - let them put copy protection on all of the CD's and DVD's they want. When it gets scratched or damaged, I'll just send my CD back and demand they send a new one to replace it. After all, I've paid MY licensing fee. If they don't send me a new copy to replace the damaged one, they're not honoring the purchase contract that I agreed to when opening their CD......Let's just see what happens when the RIAA has to start giving away millions of CD's as replacements. Oh, and for the argument of "once it leaves the shop its out of my control" - I could say the same thing, only in different terms - "once the CD leaves the store, its out of my control, if a copy happens to get made, than it must have been an act of God."
  • The real future of music is my recently purchased beat-up secondhand piano in the living room.

    Let's see the RIAA try to do something about that, the greedy bastards.

  • How about starting a new campaign? I personally have been on this campaign for a while now due to the insanity that is known as the music industry [negativland.com]

    Campaign title: I choose piracy!!

    I have been refusing to buy Major Label albums for years now, trouble is even most of the indies are being fuXored by the majors and the RIAA through distribution and legislation deals that are wrought in the favor of business and not art.

    Later on as more facts came in, I began refusing to buy any albums/cds/tapes at all. The advent of p2p and all sorts of wonderful little corners where I find the music I want (usually hard to find) has made living the reality of no support to the industry at all pretty easy.

    But what of the artists you say? Well, here's how I do it. I download like mad, but pay the artist directly. Here's an example:

    Sonic Youth released a new album on Geffen, I download it as well as another Geffen SY album I was missing from my collection. As payment I goto sonic youths website, click the link for their own label SYR [smellslikerecords.com] and purchase a copy of one of their own CD's directly from them. Later in the year, sonic youth rolls through town, I buy a t-shirt, a book of poetry and a canvas shopping bag from the stand outside the show- cos that stuff is theirs and they make the most profit from it.

    Granted, if we were talking Creed here, the stuff for sale outside the show does not have the same level of intimacy that it does at a Sonic Youth gig. But, we are not talking about Creed. If for some strange reason I liked any of the output from that band, I would have no problem stealing a cd or two from them because everything about that band has been manufactured [powells.com] from start to finish. I don't get the guilt that drives me to the edge of the stage to hand the guys from Modest Mouse a 10 dollar bill, while telling them I downloaded their latest album off of the internet, so here's ten bucks. With Creed, you just simply can't do that, unless you win the "wow man, rockin" contest from the local Alternative market (read: radio station). The same contest that if you had any scruples would require a few showers to wash off all the dirty feelings you got from the payola scams going down left and right around you. The contest that would make you feel like you needed to be a woman so you could get your tits signed backstage by the lead singer. But wait.. I digress.

    And why are we talking about Creed anyway? If you stop squinting Creed has nothing to do with alternative anything. We should be talking about Negativeland [negativland.com] and the fact that they have made a career out of challenging the record industry about copyright issues. You should too.

    Tell em all: "I choose Piracy!"

  • According to the logo license agreement issued by Philips [philips.com]

    Compact Disc Digital Audio (CD-DA)
    This logo may only be used on discs complying with the CD-DA specification: IEC60908 and/or the Philips-Sony Compact Disc Digital Audio System Description (also known as the RED Book).

    If any Record company issues 'copy-protected' discs that violate the spec, they should not use this logo on the packagaing.

    When I was involved with pressing CDs, including this logo on the artwork was mandatory. If Philips is smart, they will enforce this clause to preserve their brand as the gold standard in audio quality.
  • Congressman Boucher is concerned that 'restricted' music CD's conflict with the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) which taxes blank media.

    I think he's mistaken to suggest RIAA stop producing these CD's. I say let the RIAA make all the defective CD's they want. Just repeal the AHRA tax on blanks.

    -

Slashdot Top Deals

"I've got some amyls. We could either party later or, like, start his heart." -- "Cheech and Chong's Next Movie"

Close