Suing Your Customers a Good Idea? 305
VB writes "Boycott-RIAA is running Fred von Lohmann's article which looks like the ideal answer to solving the P2P problem. He suggests setting up a payment system similar to SESAC, ASCAP, and BMI, collecting organizations for songwriters. This seems such an obvious solution and a great way to get artists paid and give listeners the right to listen to their favorite songs cheaply and keep them out of jail. Why wouldn't this work?"
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since the purpose of control became the ability to extract money.
KFG
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
Not according to Reuters they're not. [reuters.com] Music revenues are up but not CD sales.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Why The EFF's VCL won't work. (Score:5, Interesting)
Truthfully, now, isn't that a bit silly?
Next, you have to think about how this system would actually track what people download, in order to divide up any money collected. Do you really want to ask for even more monitoring software added to your ISP on behalf of the govenernment / entertainment industry? (I don't)
They claim that it would render all transfers anonymous, but even if it did (yeah, right) then there would be no way to identify cheats like bots that artificalially increase someone's popularity.
I could go on, but I'll stop there -- the EFF VCL isn't the answer.
IMHO, my suggestion is DRUMS [turnstyle.com].
Money is only part of it (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where on earth did you ever get that idea? The RIAA is the trade association of the record labels.
Can they do anything without the RIAA's blessings?
If 'their' recordings are the 'intellectual property' of an RIAA member, no.
What they can do, in future, is not allow themselves to be bought into the system. The system, however, has created a very powerful, but false, impression that it is a necessary componant to record, release and sell music.
It may still be a necessary componant to achieve fame in the music business, but I might also argue that those in the business for fame aren't people I would call artists.
Go it alone. Raise your own money, take your own risks and make your own art. Own yourself. It gets cheaper and easier every day. Be happy with this whatever it brings in terms of money and fame.It's what the RIAA fears most.
Fuck the 'industry' and the horse it rode in on. Music is about people.
KFG
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with that. I'm an artist (a game developer instead of a musician, though), and I've sacrificed deep to remain independent of the machinery of the computer games industry which parallels the music industry. It's not been easy, and I'm still deeply in debt financing this.
The thing that most people forget is that the same intellectual property laws which allow large companies like the RIAA to fuck over the artist also protect the little guy from being equally fucked over by the large companies. You might complain about the abuses of the large companies using intellectual property laws, but without the laws it'd be even worse.
Let me give an example. Let's say I'm a musician and I put together a few songs of my own. Believing that "information wants to be free", I put my songs up on a website and ask for donations or even offer to ship a CD to someone who gives me a little cash. But, now a large publisher finds out about my songs and visits my site. They take the songs, produce a CD, and I never see a dime from it. The large publisher has the advertising and distribution system to do this, and I'm powerless. And before some idiot comes along and says, "But, that's free advertising for you!" let me say this: What makes you think the publisher is going to put my name on the CD they publish? They have no incentive to do so. In fact, they have incentive to put someone else's name on it, so that they can pay that person peanuts to go lip-synch my songs in front of crowds of screaming fans instead of paying me a decent amount of money to live on.
Yes, I'll agree that the current intellectual property laws are insane. The copyright extensions of "forever minus one day" are just stupid (and I'm a registered copyright holder). But, to abolish intellectual property laws because of this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There's real value in protecting the intellectual property of artists so that they can continue to create art, even if this intent has been perverted by the large companies.
Finally, let me say that real change starts with the individual consumer. Everyone here has the real power if they choose to use it. Don't like what the big companies do to artists? Find an independent and support them. The more of us independents that are able to live off of our art, the more it will be seen as a legitimate alternative to the big money machine that crushes the artists. I know in the games industry, people hate what the big publishers do to game developers; the publishers chew them up and spit them out. But, until there's a real, rational way to make a decent amount of money outside of selling your soul to the publisher, only a small number of us are going to risk financial ruin to do what we love independent of the large publishers. Go find an indie game developer, a small local band, or whatever. Let them know that you support them. Encourage them to stay away from the big machine, and to remain independent and free. Get your friends to do the same. This will effect real change instead of posting on Slashdot about how suing P2P users is unfair because people want free music, games, whatever.
Support independent artists and you'll see a real change.
Have fun,
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
In point of fact one of the functions of the RIAA is to insure that the artist's First Amendment rights get assigned to the record labels.
This is now done automatically, by law (since a sound recording has now been defined as a work for hire by the label).
The artist is left with no more First Amendment rights to his own works than any random bum on the street.
What that phrase really means is that they work to protect the record labels fr
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most RIAA members extort so much money from artists, several artists either start their own company, or have tried to get the system rebuilt from the ground up, since the original basis for the system, record production, is now only one aspect of the marketing and success of an individual artist. That the RIAA members act as much as a bank loaning money to the artist for everything, and yet ultimat
the RIAA aren't the only sleazy ones (Score:5, Informative)
For instance, right now the Star Trek band I'm in, is on a compilation for Trekkies 2. That label's payment seems to be 6 CDs marked "FOR PROMO USE ONLY". Not a surprise for us -- we expected it -- but some of the other bands on that comp have been bitching.
Not only do the bands not get paid, but they were told to buy copies of the CD from amazon because the label WON'T sell copies to bands. That's a nice step of sleaziness that I haven't heard of before. Ensuring that the bands can't even get beer money selling CDs at shows, and trying to get them to boost the amazon rating for a CD that 99.99999999999 of the population wouldn't listen to even if it was free.
Sheesh.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:You insensitive clod (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, you see this is a very interesting point in my opinion. In the country where I live, Taiwan, half of the people have this level of DSL service and it costs about twenty three dollars a month with free local phone service included.
Interestingly, we only have one Internet provider that is majority owned by the government. Actually there are sub-providers, but they all have to buy from the government monopoly. So where's the real problem for people in, say for instance, the US? The probl
the artist (Score:2)
Because then the RIAA would not have control. Since when was this about the artist?
That is what the RIAA (and their likes in other countries) keep shouting about
Because... (Score:5, Informative)
Because this system doesn't give the RIAA their share.
Re:Because... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the system of paying artists directly is that the people with the money in the middle that want to make a lot of money by leveraging a small investment (the artist) in order to harvest a large return (from the consumers, the masses, etc.) are not involved. And the problem with that, of course, is that the people with the money are also the people with influence and power in high places that can lobby and get laws passed to ensure that they continue to enjoy the ability to reap profits by acting as gatekeepers between the people and the things they want. As long as they keep control of that, they will make money.
Ultimately, that's the sinister nature of the RIAA companies. But keep in mind that corporations exist for the purpose of making money. And there's no better way of making money and lots of it, and easily, by using these techniques to fully exploit all of us.
If you thought the Matrix was merely futuristic and philosophical, then think of it a bit more - think of it as a metaphor for the system that we live in now. Think of the Matrix as the capitalistic system, think of the machines as the corporations. Then think of the people as....people. Think of the power they were harvesting as money....think of the "life" the Matrix was providing to the people in their pods as the music/movie being provided to us in return...
We ARE in the Matrix, now, and have been as long as civilzation has been around.
Exploitation (Score:5, Insightful)
There will *always* be predatory people. It is *not* a function of the economic system but rather a function of the nature of human politics.
The goal, IMO, is not to eliminate such exploitation but to make sure that a) the public good is defended and b) that there are checks and balances that prevent such exploitation from getting out of hand.
Unfortunately, the RIAA has subverted the public good with very little discussion or debate, and to date, there are precious few checks and balances on that system.
Re:Because... (Score:3, Insightful)
>North Korea and "unplug yourself" from this evil
>"Matrix" of capitalistic greed anytime you want to.
>You just have to leave your computer at home
So you think that the existence of a country that's supposed to be an awful place is an excuse not to make your own country a better place to live?
Jeesus - seems like things haven't got much better in the US since McCarthyism was around.
Re:Because... (Score:3, Insightful)
The "Matrix" I refer to in regards to the capitalistic system is very much the same as the one in the movie. Most people aren't aware they are in it (either by choice or not).
Capitalism is not inherent good or evil. However, people can do "evil" tihngs because of capitalistm. There are countless s
Re:Because... (Score:3, Interesting)
The RIAA has nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism. There's a bloke named Adam Smith who did a pretty good job of explaining how the free market works if you need an education in what capitalism actually is.
Max
RIAA- superfluous? (Score:2)
Compounded with collecting organisations, artists would probably earn even more money than they would with the RIAA. Another pleasant side-effect of this would
Re:RIAA- superfluous? (Score:5, Insightful)
When a band gets an album cover on the front page of iTunes, do you think that's because it's good? No, it's because the record company paid for "placement", just like they do with the big posters in the windows of Tower Records. That stuff doesn't happen for free.
We can all wish for some utopia world where the best music sells the most, but it doesn't work that way. If it did, Linux would be #1, not Windows.
Re:RIAA- superfluous? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it takes a lot of money to market shitty music and make it appeal to the mindless by making it "seem" popular. Good music, like good books, can and does sell itself through word-of-mouth and mild exposure. People sharing what they like with friends* is a cheap, effective way for worthwhile stuff to get heard and spread around. Hell, how did Metallica ever get their fanbase but through fans passing around tapes?
*(Note that this is not an endorsement, or even an accurate description, of P2P.)
Remove the marketing dollars of the corporate labels, and "natural selection" will clear out a lot of the cruft from the stores and airwaves and make way for the good stuff. Less choice? Sure. But the percentage of good choices available will go up.
Re:RIAA- superfluous? (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that shitty and good are subjective. What you find shitty, I might like, or vice versa, and yet we can still be friends (well, unless your friendships are so s
Re:RIAA- superfluous? (Score:3, Insightful)
And lost it as quickly for condemning the same.
Re:RIAA- superfluous? (Score:2)
Your right! It would be so tragic if radio stations simply played the music that attacted the most listeners, rather than taking payola under the table.
When a band gets an album cover on the front page of iTunes, do you think that's because it's good? No, it's because the record company paid for "placement"
Good point. It would be so tragic if iTunes were actually to put the best music on their front page, to attract more sales.
just like they do wi
Re:RIAA- superfluous? (Score:2)
(BTW, I'm pretty sure the labels rarely end up actually paying for the promotio
Re:RIAA- superfluous? (Score:2)
Re:RIAA- superfluous? (Score:2)
Re:Because... (Score:2)
Just like an added tax to blanks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just like an added tax to blanks (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just like an added tax to blanks (Score:5, Interesting)
no U.S. tax on generic CD-Rs (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just like an added tax to blanks (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, I get it...
Re:Just like an added tax to blanks (Score:4, Informative)
I can't say I was surprised by the reply I got back. It hit on every recording industry talking point you can name -- "file-sharing hurting the artists", "fairly compensate recording artists", etc, and didn't even touch the points I had raised. I just chucked it at that point.
Fortunately the board did see some sanity and denied a bunch of the levies the recording industry wanted (like the 0.8cents per MB of flash memory) -- this time, anyway.
Re:Just like an added tax to blanks (Score:2)
These levy collection is nothing more than public-sponsored charity for a shitty, failing industry. The CRIA [www.cria.ca] has been stealing from me for years, since every time I buy CDs for backup media I am forced to pay them a small amount of money. How can they get away with this?
Maybe (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe suing your customer is a good idea to make sure it is a one-off customer and to make sure you don't have any other customers. Ever.
-N
The Obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Simply put, because RIAA doesn't want competition.
Interested in this? Join the PHO list. (Score:5, Informative)
It's an email list with people talking about the digital delivery of art and the convergence of entertainment and technology.
Bunch of people there talking about this subject every day (and have been for years).
we'll sue the pants off of them! (Score:5, Funny)
Because this system (Score:5, Insightful)
Screw the corporate pigopolists. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Screw the corporate pigopolists. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I guess it's "Innocent untill proven broke."
Show us the law? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Show us the law? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/ [boycott-riaa.com]
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-891781.html [zdnet.com]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/28/riaa_sues
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2003Jan/gee2003
And here [google.com]is some info on blank CD taxes in the US and around the world.
Please note that not all of these "taxes" are government taxes in the traditional sense. There are a couple of important questions you should ask yourself though. If every blank CD and new CD/DVD recorder has a tax that is paid to the RIAA (not the artists) as compensation for copyrigt violations, does that mean that we are now free to pirate music since the fine has been paid in advance? Do you believe in corporate welfare? Also, should the public allow tax money to be used to fund governmental investigations into civil matters, such as copyright violations, if said findings are only used to support the corporation (favoring a corporate entity over individual citizen)? Please keep in mind, unless it is bootleging on a massive scale and/or the fradulent copies are sold for profit, it is a civil matter.
Don't forget, we have allowed our rights to me limited more and more over the last couple decades. The media taxes, DMCA, copyright extensions, and many others have made the corporate job of enforcement easier at the expense of personal liberties. The DMCA in paticular only added a few new corporate rights, but was intended to make enforcement/prevention easier at the expense of, lets say, fair use or personal privacy. Not only have we given these corporations laws to make their lives easier, they have the nerve to turn around and say they need tax money because they don't have enough of their own to spend in their defense. It's the equavilent of erasing the fifth ammendment, handing over incriminating evidence, and funding the prosecution.
Why wouldn't it work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why wouldn't it work? (Score:3, Insightful)
So the pirates are to blame for the price fixing and monopolistic behavior of the record industry? Are they also to blame for the fact that most pop/rock albums are released that have one or two good tracks and the rest filled with studio B sides? Recordings like "Best Of" compilations and Live recordings are pirated at a much, much lower rate tha
Re:Why wouldn't it work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why wouldn't it work? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why wouldn't it work? (Score:2)
Re:Why wouldn't it work? (Score:5, Interesting)
The best thing is that in a world such as this, which I am pushing for, there will be no super wealthy musicians. I don't know why people have this expecations that artists deserve to be super rich. What's wrong with being a middle class musician? You'r not going hungry.
Music will never die. Musicians will always be around and people will support them. Only the corporate recording studio structure, the super rich megastars with no talent and all image, the giant stadium concerts filled with lights and pyrotechnics. These are the things that will go away. But people will still make music, if only for their own happiness and the happiness of others. Just like programmers will continue to make software for nothing. This is the world we are heading towards. There is no stopping it as long as we keep pushing.
Do not pay for recorded music. Do not pay for software. Do not pay for information. Eventually the corporate structure will either crumble or change. This event will truly lead us to a freer society.
In short. Fuck those people at the record companies who make money and aren't even the people playing the music. And fuck those people with no musical talent riding MTV to fortunes of cash. Hooray for the people making music because they love to. Let those people develop a new business model whereby they can sustain themselves doing something they love.
Re:Why wouldn't it work? (Score:2)
Re:Why wouldn't it work? (Score:2)
History is full of artists in all media who now would be considered pretty damn good, but died broke. That should suggest something about how difficult it is to get support merely based on quality instead of marketing and business
Re:Why wouldn't it work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why wouldn't it work? (Score:5, Insightful)
In short. Fuck those people at the record companies who make money and aren't even the people playing the music. And fuck those people with no musical talent riding MTV to fortunes of cash.
And fuck the people that create their art out of love but won't ever be able to complete it because they have to work a day job to pay for rent and food. This statement is a natural extension of your philosophy.
I hate to rely on stereotypes, but I took a look at your linked blog. Go graduate from school first, then we can talk about how much you think that all information should be free when you find your job options severely limited. Life's a lot harder than napping in class and doodling on your notebook.
As a game developer that puts in 16 hour days to maintain and create games, I know how demanding it is to actually work at creating "art". Your suggestion simply doesn't work for games, since the market often demands the latest and greatest technology. A game in development for two years already has to worry about looking "old". A game in development longer because everyone had to hold down day jobs at McDonalds just isn't going to make it.
A more constructive attitude is to say that you'll support the independents. Go find a local band that you like and buy their CD. Find a independent game you like and actually send in the shareware payment instead of playing it for free. Or, sign up for an independent online game for a few months and pay the subscription for a bit. You'll see a lot more useful change in the market than taking the "fuck the artist, I want my shit for free!" attitude. In fact, you're just guaranteeing that the only way an artist CAN make money is to join a large company that has the resources to sue people that have this attitude.
Some thoughts from a struggling artist,
Re:Why wouldn't it work? (Score:2)
Not every band or artist wants to tour, or can represent their music live - so what are they to do?
They could work on comission, find a group of people willing to pay them to make recordings. If they are good enough, the internet will give them a consumer base of billions to draw from. They could provide a subscription service with monthly fees, as long as the total take from fees was a pre-determined "enough" the band would release 1 or more
like saying the sky is blue (Score:2)
Silly person, listen: the RIAA does not represent the recording artists. The RIAA represents the record labels - the RIAA often lobbies for things that go directly against the artists. And it is the RIAA (members) that control these recordings, not the artists. And it is the RIAA (members) that get the money from their sale.
You have swallowed the kool-aid completely; This isn't about artists - it's about corporate profits.
And the notion of subsidies has come
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Suing customers (Score:5, Funny)
- Sucking them dry for every penny you can get out of them.
- Free publicity from trials.
- Insures the next time they go to buy, they will think of your company first.
Any others that you guys can think up?
Re:Suing customers (Score:2)
-
Production Costs (Score:2)
The same goes for getting their music played on the radio and stuff... small artists would be at a great disadvantage when it comes to negotiating contracts and stuff without a
Re:Production Costs (Score:2)
Re:Production Costs (Score:2)
Another thing, who says we need the radio, MTV, cross promotions with Pepsi, 2 million dollar ads on the Superbowl to get any kind of message across?
We don't, but they will be around as long as they remain profitable. I haven't listed to a commercial radio station since I got a CD player in my car. The only radio I
Re:Production Costs (Score:2)
The Internet doesn't make anything irrelevant. You write and article and put it on your website. How many people are going to see it. Get the same thing posted on CNN.com. See the difference?
Just because
Re:Production Costs (Score:2)
Forget about corporate radio, payola and semi-legal backdoor payola are horrible ways to judge p
Re:Production Costs (Score:2)
Production Costs and Times of Innocence Lost (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Production Costs (Score:2)
Hmmm... well, it worked for a very long time for Aphex Twin before he became MTV fodder. And it's worked for quite a long time for Siouxsie and Budgie - who, after their breakaway from SATB became "the creatures" full time. They produce several releases a year and most all of them manage to sell out the 1000-20,000 units produced. Doesn't sound like much? Multi
Suing your customers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course practice is more complicated than theory, especially in the case of those who obtain music peer-to-peer as "free samples" and then go out and buy the album. And of course those who are just defending their constitutionally-guaranteed right to fair use (that is, the 71 minues of music you're entitled to download, but not the actual plastic of the disk, because your best friend already bought that, or maybe some guy in Ankara or Boise or somewhere named "kazaaliteuser").
Re:Suing your customers? (Score:2)
As someone in marketing/advertising, I can't help but think of the value of the kind of press they get when they sue someone. Of course, its good because it gets their name out, but the negative value of it with their customers more than outweighs the good. In fact, I would venture to say that the negative dollar value of the bad press the RIAA receives costs them more than suing people nets them.
Of course, you also
Re:Suing your customers? (Score:2)
There will be a few people who say, "Gee, I guess I don't want to support the RIAA by buying the Ja Rule album", but I'd bet those numbers are infinitesimal. (Slashdot users often lay claim to this, and to be particular devotees of n
My solution (Score:5, Interesting)
My problem with the lawsuits, is that it all seems so unfair. Even if people are costing the record industry money, it's highly unlikely that anybody is costing them several thousand dollars. I seriosuly doubt that most of these people charged innocent, and I don't agree that this is fair use, but the response is wrong.
Firstly, in much the same way as I don't approve of the death penalty for pickpockets, I also don't agree that these lawsuits are an appropriate response for file sharers.
Secondly, if the crime is really bad enough to justify a punitive fine, it should be considered a criminal offence. I have never agreed that the civil courts should be able to charge punitive damages. If someone is to be punished, then they should have the rights of all criminals, and be sentenced based on guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Not a mere balance of probabilities.
Re:My solution (Score:2)
There goes most medical malpractice lawsuits then.
Re:My solution (Score:2)
Re:My solution (Score:2)
Why would the RIAA support that?
Under the NET act it's already a FELONY punishable by up to five years in federal prison.
Make a small but unpleasant fine (say $100)
Why would the RIAA support that?
The penalties for copyright infringment already have a statutory MINIMUM of $200, and can go as high as $150,000. Per song.
make it ea
Re:My solution (Score:3, Interesting)
And my post probably did need the Terrorism comment to tip the subtlty balance. I missed adding it by a split-second on the submit button.
Oh, and I just remebered one varient I worked out for paying musicians. The music industry is like 12 (14?) billion or so. If you assume the artists actually get 10% of that, one point something billion (we only need to pay the artists if we don't need publishers to do anything anymore), and 300 million people in the country, it works o
They own the market (Score:3, Insightful)
Moreover, most people know what they're doing is illegal, and therefore think it's morally wrong. Nevermind who fscked up the whole system is. So when the shit hits the fan and people start getting sued, there isn't a lot of sympathy out there for them.
Finally, people are lazy and dumb and don't care about anything until it affects them directly (and noticably). Get 100 people in a room and see how many know what copyright is, let alone that people are being sued over it. Most people I talk to only know downloading is illegal because they know the stuff is sold in stores and they're smart enough to know that if they're getting it free, something's wrong. I'm met tons of people paying a monthly fee to some 3rd rate Kazaa knockoff who think everything they download is perfectly legal because they 'pay' for it.
What songs can't they legally buy? (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing that has always been a thorn in the side of those who don't abuse P2P are the users that download stuff that they could easily have gotten legally because they're too cheap to pay for mainstream stuff. Stuff like that really makes it hard to defend P2P, and that's sad IMO.
I'm sorry, but if you're downloading Brittney Spears or something like that, you have no excuse. Pay The Man. If it's some obscure band, then no big deal since you probably couldn't find a way to legitimately pay for it. Just remember, most of the cool bands out there that don't make too much money are subsidized by the teenieboppers who buy the pop junk. The profitability of the latter covers the lack thereof in the former and gives us more options, not that I'm suggesting that we buy the pop shit just to subsidize our favorite bands.
Ultimately the biggest barrier to this system working is the credit card processors. If they didn't charge so much for small transactions then micropayments would be possible and practical.
because... (Score:2)
In other words, the RIAA and their army of lawyers would not even get a piece of the pie, let alone a majority of it.
The idea of collecting and giving it to the songwriters/artists themselves is beneficial to the artists as they would get more of the proverbial pie and they themselves don't have to do anything additional to get it; all they have to do is just concentrate on what they do best, write music.
Another (Longer) Article... (Score:5, Informative)
Chapter Six is freely available (66-page PDF) [harvard.edu], and in that chapter an alternative compensation system proposed by Fisher (not entirely unlike Von Lohmann's from the main article) is outlined in excruciating detail. This detail includes specific cost and savings estimates.
What makes Fisher's proposal interesting is that he also includes a mechanism to allow derivative works to be created, and for both deriving and derived authors to be compensated.
- Neil Wehneman
The recording industry is obsolete (Score:2, Insightful)
It's as good of an idea as (Score:3, Insightful)
The title is misleading (Score:2, Informative)
That's just it. They are suing those who AREN'T their customers. Customers implies buying. If you are downloading (I do it all the time, won't deny it), you aren't buying.
What is hard to understand about that? The RIAA isn't hurting any of their potential customers by this.
If I shoot the kid who stole a candy bar in my store, did I just kill a customer (and lose profit) ? Certainly not!
The Independent Council of Music Listeners in North America (ICMNA) deemed that
Could Be Worse (Score:4, Insightful)
RIAA Says you pirated music and shows the titles you pirated. Gives you 30 days to respond if you intend to pay or go to court. You dont respond so they consider their claim valid and hire a collection agency to begin a collection process. Of which they threaten your credit rating and such.
I'm sure it will eventually happen and those who have agreed to pay who dont may face this situation.
Author has it wrong (Score:2)
The record labels (not the RIAA, which has nothing to do with the collection of license fees) do not have a system like this. To make a copy of a physical recording that t
Because they'll never pay the artists (Score:5, Informative)
The Performers Rights Organizations (PRO's) are in bed with the RIAA and the record labels. If anyone is ripping the artists off, it's the labels and the PRO's, not the filetraders. I refer you to a brilliant article at http://www.negativland.com/albini.html [negativland.com] written by Steve Albini, producer of Nirvana's "In Utero" and mastermind behind the band Big Black.
Suing your customers? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sesac/BMI/Ascap are a joke (Score:5, Informative)
I have several problems with giving some body blanket rights to collecting royaltees.
1. They can use whatever broad definition of what requires a license.
Once you give an organization the right to collect royaltees, there is no checks or balances in place to define what entitles them to a royaltee. Remember elevator music? Thanks to the licensing boards going after elevator operators, we no longer hear it. How in the world is elevator music making someone money? It's not, it's stupid.
2. Licensing board broad collection schemes.
I read over the sesac contract very carefully. Basically, I pay based on the number of hits my website gets in a month. What does hits have to do with the number of viewers on the video stream? Nothing, the two are completely unrelated. I could see paying based on my stream traffic, but not on the number of hits I get on the site. If they wanted to make me pay based on my ttsl reports [shoutcast.com] Unfortunately me and the license boards don't see eye to eye on this one.
3. Just plain old greed.
The bar I work for already pays ascap/bmi/sesac public performance fees. They pay a total of $1500@year. Isn't that enough? Why do they want more for the stream? It's just stupid.
4. Lack of disclosure from the licensing boards.
I think licensing boards should be *required* to tell folks exactly what would make them exempt from licensing fees. Unfortunatly this is not the case, they are more interested in getting you to sign a contract (which basically gives up all your rights) instead of telling you what does and does not count as copyright.
I found several sections of the US copyright law that gives me exemptions in the case with karaoke streaming on the net. There's several sections 110-117 which deal all with copyright exemptions. Parody, it's not the real singer or the real background music and it's free to watch. Also there is cultural exemption (We're a Japanese owned karaoke bar, karaoke is from japan) Despite me pointing these out to sesac on several occasions, they're still very insistant that I pay royaltees for the stream.
Anyways, licensing boards need to operate more like a goverment agency than a glass tower of lawyers (which is exactly what they are now) Their only interest is money, and there is no limit to where they will go to collect it. They will lie, use scare tactics, and do everything short of sending hired goons to collect it.
On top of that, lawyers are not techies. Letting a group of lawyers define the law on anything technical is a *bad* thing.
Ok, end rant. Watch my karaoke station.
And Patents also (Score:2)
who would be sued the uploader or the downloader? (Score:2)
Suing customers... (Score:2, Interesting)
How many cds worth would you buy over say 5 years? Now, when you get sued you might not buy any cds but, for how long will that last? By that time the RIAA got payd for that in a lump sum from the lawsuit payout.
Because... (Score:3, Interesting)
copyright killed the radio star (Score:2)
I don;t know if anyone has noticed. (Score:4, Interesting)
Remember Best Buy's Demon Customers? [sfgate.com]
It seems if you are not acting in a company's interests at every moment, the company is out to punish you. And until we start holding corporations accountable for their actions, as a consumer AND a country, they will continue to throw tantrums when things don't go their way.
Spare the rod, spoil the company.
Re:It's A Good Thing...! (Score:2)
Sorry to say, you're being naive. As we speak, the recording industry CRIA [www.cria.ca] is working hand in hand with the government in order to push ratification of the WIPO Treaty in Canada. WIPO ratification in the US created the DMCA, and in Europe created their messy equivalent.
As a Canadian who currently enjoys digital freedom, but is on the brink of losing them, I beg you to become more actively involved - as a starting point, go t
Re:News? (Score:3, Funny)
Was that intentional? Very funny.