Warner Music Pushing Music Tax For Universities 375
An anonymous reader writes "Warner Music is pitching the idea of a 'music tax' for various top universities. The idea is that students would be free to file share, but the university needs to monitor and track everything, create a pool of money, hand it over to a recording industry entity that promises to distribute the proceeds fairly. In exchange, the university gets a 'covenant not to sue' from the music labels. It's not a full license, just a basic promise that they won't sue. It's also claimed that this is 'voluntary' but the Warner Music guy says that they need to include all universities and all ISPs to really make it work. It's basically a music tax, where the recording industry gets to sit back and collect money."
Indie (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll allow it only if I can sign up as an indie artists and get some of the money, too.
(read: this is ludicrous and will never happen)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No Taxation without representation!
Re: (Score:2)
"It's basically a music tax, where the recording industry gets to sit back and collect money."
No change there....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, according to one of the slides, "an indie association" is one of the members. However, slide 7 also claims that this approach is supported by the EFF and Public Knowledge. Is this true?
Furthermore, why should anyone trust a "covenant" not to sue? I'd sure want more assurance than Jim Griffin's word.
Re:Indie (Score:5, Informative)
Sort of.
There was a white paper [eff.org] put out suggesting a superficially similar scheme. Unsurprisingly, the key word the RIAA have missed from the EFF proposal is "voluntary", which makes their claim that their tax is EFF supported highly misleading.
The EFF have published a clarification titled Collective Licensing Good, ISP Tax Bad [eff.org] in case anyone is still uncertain.
Re:Indie (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps. The argument is that the average American spends something like $50/yr on copies of movies/music so if we funded that indirectly through taxes then downloads would be legal. (I'm not an American, I'm a New Zealander, but I believe that's what they say).
Richard Stallman advocates for a similar thing, a music tax on ISP connections or blank media. Like a radio station that pays an annual fee and and just reports back what they played so that the artists who were broadcasted get their cut.
The problem of course is that these music companies are the middlemen (they're not the artists themselves) and yet they want the majority of the money. In most cases these music companies expect artists to turn up with premastered CDs, so basically these companies are just advertisers and distribution channels. The internet can do some of that.
Any agreement that goes via these middlemen will probably mean that artists will continue to get the same bum deal except now it's institutionalized. And you just know that the amount will increase every year. And what if the university wants to leave the agreement after 5 years... now what? they get sued because they don't have legal safe harbour? Fuck that. These universities are just conduits or common carriers for what the students do. They can't monitor every bit of traffic. If they sign up to this Warner scheme they're taking responsibility for piracy and that threat will never end. I don't see why the university needs to do this as a whole... why not optionally, per-student?
More to the point, Madonna showed that the big money is in touring (she ditched her record label and went with a touring company, and the touring company now release her CD). Madonna doesn't like piracy (presumably) but for her the CD is a promotional tool for the concerts so piracy can actually work for her. Until these music companies turn into touring companies (which is where they should be going) they'll continue to try and force their outdated business model on the world.
So while I'm generally in support for an artistic tax (of perhaps $50/yr on an internet connection) this is more like a ongoing threat. This Warner scheme seems to be quite different.
I would hope that the EFF and Public Knowledge would support a scheme that gives artists a fair share, not one that propagates this music industry.
[*] there are some musicians who don't tour, sure, but for the majority it's where they currently earn their money.
Re:Indie (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem I really have with the RIAA and music taxes is that they are the middle men and they are private entities in charge of taxation.
They do not answer to the public or even the people who they are supposed to protect. They are in it to make a profit for themselves with government sanctioned rights to collect and operate in ways no other private corporation or individual can.
If it comes down to a music tax I'd rather see the IRS do it. Taxation should be only be done by a government on those who have representation in that government.
The RIAA is taxation w/o representation!
Re:Indie (Score:5, Informative)
the sad thing is, this sort of music tax is already in effect. BMI [wikipedia.org] and ASCAP [wikipedia.org] already collect royalties from any public venue that has a jukebox or plays CDs/radio over a PA system. basically, if you operate a bar or club you have to pay them a yearly licensing fee, regardless of what kind of music you play or don't play. they have their own auditors that they send out regularly to check up on venues and operate in a similar fashion to the IRS.
even if you play international music that is in the public domain, or music by indie artists that aren't members of their organization (meaning don't pay them a membership fee and thus don't receive their royalties), you still have to pay them. unfortunately, this system removes any incentive a venue owner might have to play music by indie musicians who actually want their music played in public for as many people to hear as possible. i don't know what gives them the right to collect royalties on music they don't hold the rights to (or have the copyright holder's permission to collect royalties on), but most bar/club owners just pay the licensing fee to avoid legal repercussions.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I owned a bar I'd tell BMI/ASCAP to "fuck off; I only play public domain stuff here". A commercial entity only has power over you if you give it to them. Don't give away your power so casually.
Re:Indie (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, there's more to PD music than the old, copyright-expired bits.
Having said that - a 20s theme bar? Damn good idea that man, you'd be raking in the cash!
Re:Indie (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if it were a genuine 20s-themed bar, he wouldn't be able to advertise that it actually was a bar. What with Prohibition and all... : p
Re:Indie (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not an American, I'm a New Zealander...
So while I'm generally in support for an artistic tax (of perhaps $50/yr on an internet connection)...
What a great idea.
Any more taxes you'd like to add for Americans while not being one yourself?
You missed the film industry completely. DVDs cost more than CDs. If $50/yr is fair artistic tax for music, then naturally you must be all for $100/yr for movies as well. How about the software industry? I hear that Microsoft products are pirated and that involves the internet. How much additional tax shall you add to protect Microsoft and other software vendors?
Of course, taxes require oversight. It's an odd thing in America - you can't force a business to collect taxes without also allowing them to recoup the costs of so doing. So - how about we add in a just a bit of an extra ISP charge to account for that?
And, there's a precedent for it - how about the add-on charged for every blank cassette recording tape - not a dime of which has gone to a single artist.
Yeah. Great idea pal. Really interesting. And please don't mind if add, fuck me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly you failed at reading the bit where I wrote that "American spends something like $50/yr on copies of movies/music"
Clearly, I did not miss that at all. There's a diff between RIAA and MPAA. The rest of your post discussed music. Your fault for any diff between what you say you meant by artist tax and what you wrote.
And your source of the info that Americans spend about $50/yr on COPIES of music/movies is from...? The same people using our courts nefariously? The same people screwing the artists? And those of us who spend $0/yr on COPIES of music/movies and download nothing illegally and share nothing illegally sho
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>American spends something like $50/yr on copies of movies/music
I spent $0 on movies/music this year. And the year before. Why should I have to pay a $50 fee for no product received??? Stupid. The RIAA can go fuck themselves because I'm not paying them a dime.
Americans should only pay if they walk out of the store with a DVD or CD or MP3 in hand. If they do none of those, then they shouldn't have to pay at all.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To be clear I believe Stallman advocates for some tax going to a government pool which is divvied up among artists. He understands the problem of the middleman music industry.
I've heard (in recordings, on YouTube) him say this many times. Here's a a review in which Stallman says [gnuisance.net]:
Re:Indie (Score:5, Informative)
Your argument doesn't make sense...
Note that I don't think that the RIAA's proposal here makes sense.. no more than do the levies on CDs and DVDs (and tapes, etc) in most European countries and I believe in Canada.. at least; both assume that you will be making copies of music/video that they hold the copyright 'policing' rights to -onto- those media. If you don't.. you only put, say, your own photos onto them.. tough luck, you're still paying the levy. You can get exemption, but.. you guessed it.. to get exemption status you need to pay a yearly fee. Ho-hum.
But back to your argument, and it ties into something I said above... the RIAA looks after the copyrights and whatnot (yeah, I know, they look after their own wallet, blabla) of -their- members. If you are an indie artist, they don't much care about you (other than your diluting the market and such) or rather your copyrights.. as you are not a member.
So if you have a problem with students (potentially) copying your works... hey, that's great... but it's not the RIAA's task to deal with it.. it is your own.. or whoever you signed with (unless you're truly indie and just do your own pressing/burning, distribution, etc.).. it falls onto you/them to have a similar 'I won't sue you' agreement with the university/ties in question.
So yes.. it will never happen.. but the biggest reason why that wouldn't happen is because you are independent artist and simply don't deserve - technically, legally, etc. - any slice of such an agreement.
Just to make this absolutely clear.. I don't think the RIAA deserves any slice of.. well.. whatever - a university's budget, I suppose - for hypothetical / assumed copyright infringing activities where copyrights they govern come into play. I firmly believe they should have to prove it.. of course the laws, regulations and technical aspects make it very difficult to prove who violated what copyright, while at the same time it's clear copyright violation -does- occur.. so if the RIAA wants to get this sort of agreement in action and a university agrees to it... then so be it. I'd frown upon the university but if they figure it's less of hassle / moneysink than is battling RIAA lawyers all the time, then I can't blame them for being pragmatic at least until the laws are more firmly on their side (which is slowly happening, so I wouldn't sign such an agreement just yet).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Indie (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Indie (Score:5, Insightful)
That's no tax.... that's extortion.
Re:Indie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The two classic counterexamples to your curmudgeonly and frankly unbelievable assertion (seriously, who doesn't listen to music?) are:
- Public schools. If you don't have kids, you're paying something for nothing
- Gas tax. If you only gas up your lawnmower and don't own a car, you're paying something for nothing.
Neither of these examples are perfect; you do gain something from both public schools and roads (a functioning society, and a quick way for the local FD to get to your house).
The real argument, IMHO
Re:Indie (Score:4, Interesting)
The two classic counterexamples to your curmudgeonly and frankly unbelievable assertion (seriously, who doesn't listen to music?)
I seriously do not (intentionally) listen to music. I have zero music CDs and zero music files on any of my computers. Hard to believe? Maybe. But I don't... music doesn't interest me.
Re:Indie (Score:5, Insightful)
I seriously listen to music all the time, but I don't steal any of it and would *hate* paying a tax. I listen to the radio, and occasionally buy used CDs. That's about it.
I odn't know why the /. mods think you're trolling. It must be the same mods that mod medown whenever I mention that I don't have cable because I don't watch live TV. Some people just can't understand that others have different priorities! Either that, or its the crack that's standard issue with mod points.
UNlike schools, which I benefit from even though i don't have kids, I don't receive *any* value from an RIAA tax. It's not some kind of social benefit, it's just a damn consumer product. For most of human history, there was no recorded music distribution and people *still* listened to music - often if you lived in a city. Heck, even water and power are paid for on an as-used basis, not by taxes, and they're a bit more important than mp3s!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And how is it even hard to believe? He could be deaf you know. Not saying they are, but that's one fine reason. And there are many others (aside from just not enjoying it) to choose from.
Creative Commons music (Score:5, Interesting)
You must have been living under a rock for half a decade to think that there is only commercial music.
I listen to music all day long ... and every single album is Creative Commons licensed, either from Jamendo (14,000 albums) [jamendo.com] or from Archive.org (300,000 recordings) [archive.org], so I will never exhaust those catalogues in my lifetime. What's more, the albums are vastly better and more diverse than the charts crap.
And your comparison with public services is irrelevant. Music is not a public service, it's entertainment, so my subsidizing someone else's choice of commercial entertainment is completely without basis.
Re:Indie (Score:5, Insightful)
Public schools? You're paying to help educate the next generation of doctors, scientists, and other useful people. These are the people who will help save your life, extend your life, make your life more comfortable and pleasant. Of course, you're also helping educate the next generation of politicians, but on the whole, they're a minority. Thank (insert name of invisible friend here).
Gas tax? That's supposed to go into road construction and maintanance. Where it really goes, well, talk to your friendly politicians and maybe they'll tell you where it really goes. Or maybe not. Did you contribute massive sums to their reelection campaign?
What Warner Music is seeing is an untapped 'revenue stream' in the form of college tuitions, and figuring that most college students are so broke they can barely pay attention and thus automatically filesharers, then Warner Music somehow, by some sleight of hand and language refinement, is due a percentage of said tuition fees and other contributions to said colleges. Never mind that college radio already pays a yearly fee in order to play music on their stations. Never mind that commercial radio pays a yearly fee to play music on their station. Somehow, if one student downloads one music track, then all students everywhere download every piece of music in sight, and thus Warner Music must be paid. The alternative is massive lawsuits by RIAA et al until the colleges do bend over and pay. What's next, manditory insurance premiums on college students with a 3rd party as beneficiary?
Re:Indie (Score:5, Insightful)
People who don't listen to music and people who can't. Should a deaf student pay a music tax allowing him to download all the music that he wants if he can't hear it at all?
And why must this be limited to a music tax? Why not a video game tax? A software tax? A movie/TV show tax? A book tax? Hell, let's throw a blog tax in there so I can get some money in the rare event that someone infringes the copyright on my blog posting. Add up all of the taxes and you'd better hope you can download the content for free, because you're going to be bankrupt. Those middle managers in the RIAA/MPAA/etc. will be rolling in dough, though. Oh and they'll give some to the artists too. After removing some "administrative fees" and such from the pot. Yup, looks like there's enough for the artist to buy himself a cup of coffee!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Software producers
TV studios
Indie music publishers
Book publishers
And if they refuse, they open themselves up to lawsuits. I can't see this flying for this reason alone.
Re: (Score:3)
They do have your permission. By living in the country, you basically agree to be taxed. If you're going to live in the same place as the people around you, you have to pitch in. Think about it as a large rent-sharing agreement. If you don't like the rent, then live somewhere else. If you can't find a place that can survive without "rent", blame cruel reality, rather than the government, or the people around you who elected the government in.
Compare this with a thief. A thief steals something he has no righ
Re:Indie (Score:4, Interesting)
the RIAA looks after the copyrights and whatnot (yeah, I know, they look after their own wallet, blabla) of -their- members. If you are an indie artist, they don't much care about you (other than your diluting the market and such) or rather your copyrights.. as you are not a member.
Yes, but they already tried (succeeded?) in collecting tax on indie tracks played by internet radio stations, and the indie artists have to write them and ask them for the money, or they never get it.
You can say pretty much anything you want--and i done skeet-shot your granmamma as proof--and it makes more sense than anything the RIAA does.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not only do they have to ask them for the money, they also have to pay yearly fees in order to get any. Not exceedingly small fees either.
Re:Indie (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a term for this 'tax'
Protection money,
You pay the money, or you'll need protection.
It's been the subject of mob and mafia movies for decades.
How are the RICO cases against the RIAA going btw?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, indies can be included (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, they specifically said indie artists and labels could sign-on for this and get paid.
Re:Yes, indies can be included (Score:5, Insightful)
Why on God's green Earth would you want to be complicit with this nonsense that's going to create more work for you with no additional pay? Why on Earth would any university condone the use of university personnel, facilities, etc. to do the work of someone else for free? This is extortion and racketeering, almost by definition folks. The RIAA can blow it out their ear. I'd rather they tried to sue and then get hit for malicious and wrongful prosecution than deal with this utterly ridiculous racket.
I'm sorry, I'm someone who loves music, makes music, and last year recorded an independent album that the RIAA can suck on for all I care. We don't need them nor the crappy music they push at us on a daily basis, nor the ridiculous racket of enforcement they are trying to dupe us into believing is their right. It's not and if you believe it is you better educate yourself before you get on the wrong side of a very messy battle that's just beginning to start. I believe in the rights of artists as individuals, not in the rights of unions, guilds, corporations or other corrupt bureaucracies that have only their own self interests in mind.
Don't be that guy/girl! Tell them to shove it and see them in court! The whole point of being "independent" is you are not at the mercy of the RIAA nor any label. You don't need them! WAKE UP!
Why is this the university's problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's an interesting point, and it can be taken one step further. How can the RIAA convince a jury that, by the preponderance of the evidence, the university is responsible for copyright infringement done by its students? That's as daft as saying the DEA ought to arrest the university president because some the students are smoking pot.
Seems to me the university has nothing
Re:Yes, indies can be included (Score:5, Insightful)
I work at UMass Amherst and I'm trying to get this implemented
Why exactly are you trying to get this implemented? Somebody told you it was good? Got a phone call from the mafia? Clueless? It will look good on your resume?
Your post is modded informative, but there is nothing informative about it except that you're trying to get it implemented. I don't know what position you hold at UMAss, but this kind of blind following is exactly what the RIAA hopes. Do they not teach critical thinking at UMass anymore? Are you tenured or a guy/girl with an administrative job. If you are a guy/girl with an administrative job then I really think you should do some research and gain an informed opinion. If you're a tenured prof/scientist/researcher or whatever, then you should know better.
I am only asking because I'd really like to know what motivates you trying to comply with the RIAA extortion.
Re:Yes, indies can be included (Score:5, Funny)
Is this what you meant to say?
Geez...just like 47th street in Brooklyn (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Here's an idea.
Have a student vote, with a quorum of 40%. So, if less than 40% of the students vote, it doesn't count. Then have a student vote. I'd say simple majority, but if half the students don't want it, it may be infringing. Requiring a 3/5th majority. And perhaps limit it to no more than 3 years per vote.
If students really, really want to do it, fine.
By the way, how would this affect off-campus students? Since it's an Internet-based thing, those who live off-campus aren't necessarily under the thumb
Re: (Score:2)
Music tax? (Score:5, Informative)
We need to stop taking them at their word when they say their going to give money to artists. They generally don't (unless the artist had a good lawyer, I suppose.) Actually, we need to stop taking them at their word.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I actually don't think that this general idea is the stupidest idea in the world. It would be much more reflective of the way music is produced and distributed now for there to be a more generalised licensing system, rather than a pay-per-track/album system like we have now.
However, the obvious problems with this proposal are:
- why should the RIAA get to operate the scheme?
- who decides which artists are able (or have) to participate?
- why should the RIAA set the price (and not, say, the market)?
It's extre
Re: (Score:2)
RIAA is one entity in the market. They (on behalf of their members) have a monopoly on licensing replication of certain artworks. This is called copyright.
RIAA's suggestion is bad for many reasons. But saying "let the market sort it out" is just plain stupid, sorry. If you abolish copyright, there will be nothing for the market to sort out. And if you don't, well, the marked created the RIAA.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
CD levy (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Whats the difference, until you put something on it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Canadian levy is a joke (Score:4, Informative)
They're already getting a chunk of change from blank disc sales
That's what burns me every time I buy a spindle of discs for burning my home movies to DVD and data backups. I used to think it was OK until I read how much the Canadian Private Copying Collective wants to hike the rates. [cpcc.ca] They want the rates to be 29 cents per CD-R, $50 per iPod with less than 10 GB memory and $10 for any SD card with more than 4GB memory, just to pull a few.
I just sent them an e-mail telling them to go fuck themselves (well a bit more polite than that.)
That money is supposed to go to SOCAN which distributes the money among artists [socan.ca] but this bloated waste of office space (300 employees) requires over $34 million per year just to operate. They paid out over $180 million last year, probably most to the CBC.
If you treat customers like potential criminals, then that's what they will become. I used to go out of my way to buy the TV shows I watch and music I listen to. But if I'm paying levies on my blank media and to my college or my ISP punishing me for copies I'll never make, or based on the assumption that I'm going to torrent their shit, maybe I'll just do that then.
great timing! (Score:5, Informative)
Now that the cost of higher education is falling [nytimes.com] and endowments are growing [boston.com], universities will have lots of money to spend on music taxes!
Alternatively, they could just give every student a free copy of PeerGuardian.
Re:great timing! (Score:5, Informative)
Check his links. The one linked from "growing" has the title "Harvard's Endowment Plunges 8 Billion." I think you've just restated his point.
Grasping at Straws (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
My hope is that this was in their plan all along, but they intended to drop this one after a bunch of successful suits against students so as to scare everyone into submission. Only now with the growing legal backlash against them by unversities they are having to throw this out there in the hope that it will stick because they see the end is nigh for their little scam.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
too many... metaphors... can't... breath...
Where do I sign up? (Score:3, Insightful)
What do they really want? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt that anything like this will work now though, they should have done this in 1997. It's pretty hard to compete with free.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And why isn't there a pen/pencil tax? I can sit in a library and write down, verbatim, the text from a book.
Yeah, well I got back at you by downloading the original text you uploaded to slashdot.
bwahahahahahahahahaa.
Hm (Score:4, Interesting)
What happens when you graduate and later get busted p2p'ing and then they find your stash from the college days?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What happens when you graduate and later get busted p2p'ing and then they find your stash from the college days?
the cops get to divide up the loot. same as in a drug bust, only less smoking is involved.
a recording industry entity? (Score:2)
the kicker for me is the "a recording industry entity" part.
there's been plenty of articles and such (even on /.) about how recording industry entities for distributing royalties is...well....distributing to themselves and not to the artists.
What was that organization that the RIAA made....SonicExchange? or SoundExchange? whatever it was...it wasn't distributing funds to where it was truly due.
Even if they change it to be an independent, non-profit collection organization/entity, I still won't bite.
What abo
Or better yet (Score:4, Insightful)
Just thinking about, I can not see much difference between the labels or the detroit 3. All have had greedy management that is worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Warner Music (Score:5, Funny)
You and your fellow record labels are dying dinosaurs. Someday, people will dig up your bones and declare that you used to rule the world. And then it all came to a sudden, catastrophic end. All caused by a comet called the Internet.
Goodbye, so long, and thanks for all the fish.
extorting protection money... (Score:5, Funny)
"That's a nice university you have there -- shame if anything were to happen to it..."
The Italians have a word for it -- Pizzo -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzo_(extortion) [wikipedia.org]
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:They can kiss my ass (Score:5, Informative)
wrong. there aren't any goods being stolen or traded. bits are not goods, they are a copy of other bits, which means they are infringing on a copyright. that is a civil matter not criminal. so unless you really believe government money,your tax money, should be spent fighting someone elses private court battles you are serioulsy misunderstanding the situtation.
Re: (Score:2)
I think if you copy stuff and sell it, you're a fucking bastard, though. I think that's what GP was saying.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
bits are not goods
Wrong.
which means they are infringing on a copyright.
And this is why. Wikipedia has a pretty good definition [wikipedia.org] of what a "good" is:
A good in economics is any object, service or right that increases utility, directly or indirectly.
Information that is copyrightable is a vague category that can as desired slide into "object", "service", or "right" depending on point of view. It however remains a good no matter how you view it, which is the way it should be, I think.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just classic:
The capitalist pigs want me to pay for the stuff they keep pushing on me.
The socialist assholes want me pay for the stuff they keep taking for themselves.
End of the gravy train (Score:2, Insightful)
It's real simple. The RIAA can see that it will soon be common place for Law Students to fight for the victims of the music industry's suits. They are looking to replace that lucrative revenue stream.
Actually kind of scary (Score:4, Insightful)
Just what we need (Score:2)
I promise not to sue... (Score:2)
...with all this detailed, logged and tracked information on our over-priced and bloated money laundering scheme!
Definition of extortion (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, so the record industry doesn't actually make it legal for the students to share the music, they just require their cut and they promise not to sue.
I hope someone more qualified than myself takes this up because they are trying to extort money from the universities in what appears to me to be a very literal definition of the term.
What about after University / What about Ruckus (Score:3, Insightful)
What happens to the file-swapper after they graduate? Their identity is compromised, their activities documented, and they would be ripe for a lawsuit after graduation, no?
Why not allow service providers to perform this service and actually grant a license? I have unfettered access to ruckus.com through my university e-mail, and that works just fine more me.
Re: (Score:2)
Well for one thing, Ruckus only works on Windoze. I tried to sign up last year only to discover that they only have a Windoze client and, IIRC, everything's got DRM.
The mafia does something like this. (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't it be easier to just sell music? (Score:4, Funny)
Seriously...why don't they just sell music online for *reasonable* prices, and screwing around with licenses/DRM. Standard copyright issues would apply (i.e., if you want to make money off someone else's work, you need to cut a deal with the copyright owner), but otherwise, just make it really easy and cheap to buy music.
If they could just do that, I'd actually be buying music - right now I only bother with stuff I can download (legally) for free. Buying mainstream music online these days is generally expensive and/or involves too much hassle/DRM - and the music isn't convincing enough for me to go through all that. I guess I'm just too poor and lazy.
Yeah, your cheque's in the mail (Score:5, Interesting)
The last time somebody did a full-scale audit on one of the record companies, they found that they'd underpaid royalties to over 90% of the artists under contract to them. The idea that this pack of thieves could be trusted within a hundred miles of anybody's money is ludicrous.
The difference between a license and covenant... (Score:2)
No taxation without representation. (Score:2, Funny)
Time for the colonies to revolt
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Blank Tape Tax (Score:2)
Not unlike the blank tape tax of the 80's.
I laugh at the whole debate. When you stop investing in crafting the artists of tomorrow and instead center your model around being a distribution machine, don't be shocked when the internet figures out a better way to distribute your property.
Music labels are dead. They don't control the artists. They don't control access to the masses. They have no traits that would let them survive in the future.
[For the youngsters reading this, yes, there was a blank tape tax th
Re: (Score:2)
On a related note: College Tuition unaffordable (Score:2)
Back in the United States, a new report shows college tuition is becoming increasingly unaffordable for most Americans. The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education says college tuition and fees have increased by 439 percent since 1982. The cost of attending a four-year public university now amounts to 28 percent of the median family income, while a four-year private university would account for 76 percent. The Centerâ(TM)s president, Patr
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing. That article says that poor college students get lesser grants than rich ones. In my experience the opposite is true: those universities that have money to give give it all away in need-based grants instead of nepotism or merit scholarships.
mafiaa (Score:4, Insightful)
"Nice university you got there. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it."
I'm not in college but maybe I need friends there? (Score:2)
I needs to get me some free musik, two! [sic]
hey, since they are proposing that college kids get a free ride on pirating, hey, I want in on that, too! but I'm not in school anymore ;( maybe its ok that I can do a disk copy of their 'legal' mp3's? do you think that would be ok? I won't tell anyone, I promise. scouts honor.
getting serious - this is absurd that anyone would even consider 'hush money' at the university level.
a new low in the mafiaa's tactics.
Safe harbor (Score:2)
The DMCA already has a "Safe Harbor" clause. So... the RIAA is only promising to not sue Universities that capitulate, when the law already explicitly says they have no case? Or, did they mean they won't sue the students? (But would require spying on them, which would seem to be a violation of FERPA.)
Even if it were a blanket license to share (which isn't clear in the summary or TFA), that would only seem to help the universities not have to deal with as many DMCA requests -- but they still have to dea
How about a giant pool of death? (Score:2)
And every time the recording industry proposes something like this, they can take a nice bath in in it.
Every single one of those fuckers needs to be put to death. They're wasting oxygen, fuel, and food the valuable parts of the species could be consuming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is nothimg more than a mafia style "protection" (hint: extortion) racket. The only difference is you have legit businessmen doing the... oh, nevermind.
Affordable and yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to say this sounds a lot to me like a person who is very frugal going out to dinner with a bunch of other people who order extravagant food options and then having someone want to split the bill at the end.
I mostly don't listen to music. $2 to $10 per month is $25-$125/yr or $100-$500 over the course of a four year college. That's about $90 to $490 more than I would have paid if buying a la carte every piece of music I wanted to buy. That's money I could have spent on things that matter to me.
Will you be as excited about anteing up $2 to $10 per month to cover some routine cost that I pay for and that bores you to tears, just to bring my price down?
To employ a musical reference, does the phrase "tyrrany of the majority" ring any bells?
Tell me why it isn't just fair that people should pay for what they use?
Re: (Score:2)
This is a good thing.
No it isn't and if the EFF wanted it, the EFF were wrong too.
The EFF proposal is pretty thin on details: it skates over the crucial issue of how monopoly abuses would be avoided. It is theoretically possible to have such an arrangement, but why would anyone trust Warner to administer it, when they are busy abusing their oligopoly position at the moment?
If I see evidence of Warner speaking out against the abuses of the RIAA then I might consider trusting them.
Oh, and nothing personal, but your story d
NOT a good thing at all (Score:2)
This is not a good thing, and last fall I wrote an indignant letter to EFF about their advocacy.
Why? I refuse to give even a single nickel to these people. I hate their abuse of our legal system, I hate their despicable extortionate practices, I hate their lobbying for sweetheart legislation, I hate their hubris, and also I don't like the music they promote. I want their business model to die. I want to continue to boycott them. But this would compel me to help prop them up.
I don't care if the bill is