Canadian Recording Industry Ass'n Lets DJs use MP3s 171
Yannick writes "Wired is reporting that Canadian [mobile] DJs are now (legally) permitted to use MP3s in their 'performances'. Seems that there's CA$200 cover charge (and further fees per additional hard disk). The whole thing has some interesting implications for the music industry in general..."
Canada doing the right thing? (Score:1)
Maybe that's how it happened. Does RIAA have any influence in Canada? I wouldn't be surprised if some industry group showed up here and tried to mess things up.
- Steve
Good for Canada (Score:1)
The US music industry (Score:1)
Here's the real question, though--what do you do you do when a Windows using DJ gets a BSOD in the middle of a party?
~=Keelor
Hate to be a nationalist but how does the policy.. (Score:1)
Stupid law (Score:4)
Why do they need some special law for this? If they own the CDs, they should be able to repackage the data anyway they want, as long as they're only using it the way they would use the original media.
In the United States, a DJ can already do this, and he won't have to pay any special licensing fees. It's only illegal if he distributes copies, or if he doesn't retain the originals.
Re:The US music industry (Score:1)
Hand him a CD of your favorite Linux Distribution and your next song request?!
Re:Stupid law (Score:1)
Re:Stupid law (Score:1)
Re:Hate to be a nationalist but how does the polic (Score:1)
It doesn't, but not everyone who reads slashdot is american.
-- iCEBaLM, Proud Canadian
equipment? (Score:3)
i'm curious as to what kind of equipment (hardware and software) they're using.
there are pro sound cards i would trust to do the audio out, but i've never seen anything but 1/8" and POS d/ac's on laptops. the d/ac doesn't matter THAT much for live playback, but i don't trust those 1/8" cables in a mobile situation at all.
i've done it before with some success, but not at the level they're talking about. and every 1/8"->RCA cable i've ever used has flaked. i do suppose a pro 1/4" stereo to RCA or just a 1/4" stereo to dual 1/4" mono would work and be convertable... but something still strikes me wrong about it
oh yeah: yes, pro vs consumer cables REALLY matter for this stuff. not for audio quality, but for durability. even heavy duty 1/4" cables short sometimes when you move them around that much, and have dancing people around.
i'm also curious as to what software he's using. the only dj software i've seen for windows in virtual turntables.. which has been kinda iffy with me... a big problem is that you can't cue (listen to one song while playing another) unless you do a setup where the right channel out gets the cue and the left channel out gets the signal, which just isn't acceptable to me. anyone found anything better?
ps. i'm sticking with my 1200s ;)
So, where can... (Score:2)
Dan
Cool (Score:1)
If you think you know what the hell is really going on you're probably full of shit.
RIAA & MP3s (Score:5)
I'm working on a project right now to stream .mp3s while remaining in RIAA guidelines (quite a steaming pile of some nasty-ass legalese... I've been on the phone with them and my contractor's lawyer more than a few times trying to get it all straight).
What appears to be the RIAA's biggest worry (as evidenced by thier legal stuffies) is not that people have .mp3s, or even that they're broadcasting them over the net (or at a party or dance or whatever), but that their use is allowing people to bypass buying CDs. Take, for example, this snippit from the Digital Millenium Copyright Act [riaa.com] (one of the documents one must adhere to for compliance), which states:
This is designed so that people can't simply set up a recording device of some sort and 'recreate' an album just by tuning in an pushing the button with the red dot. Other entries in there also seem geared towards non-copying things (some outright, others more hidden).
Under the circumstances, it seems pretty unlikely that DJs using mp3s in the field are going to be doing so for copying/trading purposes, so the RIAA probably wouldn't really give much of a care... and even if they did, the ability to police every kegger, rave and school dance is an impracticality of enormous proportions.
BTW - The site is at www.quicktracks.com [quicktracks.com]. Please note that in its current incarnation we're *not* compliant. I'm working on that software right now, so the beastie will be up and down a bit over the next week or so as I poke at it.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Re:Stupid law (Score:3)
a situation where certain rights of the consumer
are not taken away by license, and they cannot be
taken away. This is why it's ok to backup your
music by copying it to tape, or backup your book
by writing it out longhand, but not ok to broadcast the copy (e.g., in a jukebox in your bar, or as a pro DJ) for profit.
Law in the USA is not a binary state, it's an interpretive struggle between the letter and the spirit of the laws, with great latitude tending towards individual rights.
Regardless of what you read on slashdot or alt.redneck.conspiracy-theorists, individual rights are alive and well protected in the USA
for the most part.
Re:equipment? (Score:1)
Hold on a minute... (Score:4)
It's a step forward for recognition of MP3s as not-just-pirated-material, but it's not exactly a great thing altogether.
Re:Stupid law (Score:2)
Well, I don't know where you get your information, but it is perfectly legal for an individual to make copies of digital recordings for personal, non-commercial use (assuming the original recording was obtained legally). http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/100 8.html [bitlaw.com] even indicates this ("... or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."). The obvious difference in this case is that, in the case of some DJs, this is a commercial use. Thus the recording industry's magnanimous offer.
logan
Re:equipment? (Score:2)
------------------
Re:equipment? (Score:1)
the better way to do it is with multiple soundcards. one device pipes to your headphones, and the other out the speakers. vtt can do that, i believe.
Probably isn't a big deal (Score:1)
As for sound quality, vinyl doesn't have as high a frequency range as CD, but MP3 worsens the problem by aliasing in some cases.
Re:equipment? (Score:1)
By the way, is playing MP3's instead of cd/vinyl while DJing explicitly illegal here in the US?
Re:equipment? (Score:1)
The other avenue many take is the newer USB audio route, which was only recently supported on the Laptop Rocker Laptop of Choice, the Wallstreet Powerbook, but is making headway. Check out http://www.usbstuff.com for some products in that range.
Finally, they don't have to use laptops-- I for one have a rackmount system that has a breakout 1U space audio box with 1/4" balanced connectors, preamps, the whole works.
As far as software, I would imagine that some of the newer DirectSound enabled ones (for Wintel) allow different tracks to go out of different outputs on your card. So if you have 8 outputs, 1/2 go to broadcast, 3/4 for vo, 5/6 for monitor, etc...
$RIAA = \$EVIL; link("/tmp/riaa","/dev/evil"); (Score:3)
I assumed that major record companies would be opposed to DJs' use of MP3s, as I always held the RIAA's opposition to MP3s as a projection of major record companies' opposition. However, the article says:
Most of the major record companies have signed on to AVLA's licensing scheme, although Universal Music -- which owns Polygram -- continues to hold out.
What does this mean? Well, for starters, it means that every major record company that sells music in Canada thought it was worth mentioning that MP3s even existed. In addition, they thought that it was just fine for some people to commercially use licensed music in MP3 format.
What does this mean?
The RIAA is more evil than the record companies they allege to represent.
The RIAA web site says:
Consumers, retailers and replicators can report suspected music piracy to the RIAA by dialing a toll-free hotline, 1-800-BAD-BEAT or sending e-mail to badbeat@riaa.com.
So call them and tell them that you spotted a geeky-looking DJ with a laptop possessing licensed copies of Top 40 MP3s run across the US-Canadian border to avoid capture by authorities. He's probably armed and dangerous.
Finalscratch (Score:1)
http://www.n2it.net/finalscratch/ [n2it.net]
There.
But there's still The Tax (Score:3)
It's important to remember that the Canadian government is still well on its way to imposing the asinine 50-cents-for-15-minutes tax on digital recording media.
The supposed rationale is that the tax will make up for the revenue lost by recording artists who have their works pirated. The monies collected are supposed to be distributed to those starving artists.
Unfortunately, the distribution will be based on the artists volume of media sold. The truly starving artists won't receive bugger all, while Celine Dion and Bryan Adams rake in yet more dough.
And never you mind that the tax is indiscriminate. You might never use your CDROM for music; you use it as data backup. You'll be paying the artists tax anyway, unless there's some sort of language that lets "For Data Use"-labelled CDROMs be sold taxless, while "For Music Use"-labelled ones be sold taxed.
It's a right cockup, in any case, and you can register your protest at http://www.sycorp.com/levyinfo.htm [sycorp.com]. Please do!
Re:equipment? (Score:1)
It started out as AIFF/CD play, but added QT4 and MP3 support as well.
Personally, I think this is great! Not only as a Canadian, but as a wanna-be DJ.
I like the idea of not having to carry crates of vinyl and/or CDs around with me to a gig. Just think! You can MP3 your favourite vinyl, and it doesn't wear out, get dirty or stolen.
You'd still need some removavble media, like CD-R or Orb/Jaz to me more flexible, but those new iMacs have like 10Gb harddrives, so you'd get a LOT of milage off anything you put on there.
OTOH, do DJ's have to pay licenses for commercial clubs? If not, then why the fsck should we pay just for the format? What if I keep all my files as compressed AIFF? or QT4? What then?
Pope
Re:Hate to be a nationalist but how does the polic (Score:1)
Is it meant to affect you in some way?
If you don't find the story interesting/relevent then just don't read it. You're not the only person who reads /. you know. Nor are we all American...
Hrrrm (Score:4)
Any fool can create legalise and obscure things, and any fool will mind it. Information has been, and always will be... free. The RIAA would spend it's resources better trying to make water run uphill.
--
First the CRTC declares the net to be... (Score:1)
Future (Score:2)
---
Re:equipment? (Score:2)
Unless you're on crack there is a table of some sort set up for all your equipment and the cables run along it somehow. No-one should be touching your cables, much less dancing on them. The real worry should be if the cable will be given a sharp tug in the wrong direction, not it's transmission quality. You give the RCA a quick yank and you can break/crack the connection solder within your mixer or soundcard. To damage a cable requires cutting it or bending it so sharply as to crack/cut the metal wire within the sheath.
Standard 1/8th to RCA work perfectly fine. They should be treated as well as you treat the rest of your equipment. But they're still cheap. Always carry a spare.
As for laptop sound cards, good, cheap, 16bit DACs have been standard for years. If you can find 20 or 24 bit DAC, even better.
Cueing is a serious issue. Linux can support multiple sound devices. I do not know if other OS's do. Worse comes to worse you use two laptops connection to a mixer. Cueing by default.
"You want to kiss the sky? Better learn how to kneel." - U2
"It was like trying to herd cats..." - Robert A. Heinlein
What I don't understand... (Score:1)
LK
An update of an older issue (Score:3)
Good and bad... (Score:1)
Re:equipment? (Score:2)
-beme
Hard Drive? (Score:3)
How does one define a hard drive?
Does a RAID count?
IBM now has 73.4GB hard drives (Ultrastar 72ZX). What is the point of limiting the storage to one physical hard drive?
Does the license apply to mp3's stored on other media?
How is the hard drive license enforceable and how are partitions dealt with?
Just a rant, ignore me.
----- --- - - -
jacob rothstein
Software (Score:1)
Re:equipment? (Score:1)
I'm having compile issues with it, but most people get it to work.
"You want to kiss the sky? Better learn how to kneel." - U2
"It was like trying to herd cats..." - Robert A. Heinlein
Re:equipment? (Score:3)
You can use FinalScratch [n2it.net]. You can use a turntable-like device hooked up to your machine to get the same effects you'd get with a normal turntable (scratching, speed up, slow down, etc.). It's only available for BeOS.
short sighted. (Score:1)
For example... the idea that it is bad for a radio station (or webcaster) to play an entire album over the air is absurd. First, it's unlikely that many people are going to have the forsight to record a whole show, let alone have their finger on the trigger, so to speak. If they were that excited to get the album, they'd eventually go buy it when they get fed up with the low quality indicative of home made recordings. the biggest thing tho, is that most people buy CDs after hearing them or at least a big piece of them on the radio. If you are only allowed to play a few songs on the air, the listener isnt going to get the 'big picture' of the album and isnt going to know whether or not they want to buy it. I mean, I dont make a habbit of buying CDs for 1 song. Not for 20 bucks... and I KNOW that it doesnt cost the RIAA even close to that to print and market the CDs (per disc)
So, really, the RIAA should not have such a big nose in such things. It'd be better for them, and everyone for radio djs to play whatever they want, in whatever order, whenever. Most DJs on smaller stations, where its more common to play a whole album arent likely to care about this little clause in the law. Nor do I think that anyone will really care if they break it.
djs and different formats... (Score:1)
-----------------------------------------
the amazing bc
latin/funk flugelhorn & trumpet
webnaut, music junkie, sysadmin from hell
Re:Hate to be a nationalist but how does the polic (Score:1)
Re:short sighted. (Score:1)
I believe the number is something around $0.80 per CD (according to a Wired article - dead tree version- I saw a while back).
Re:Hate to be a nationalist but how does the polic (Score:1)
Irony... (Score:1)
How this is good news? (Score:1)
If the DJs have already purchased the CDs, and therefore have paid the companies (and, supposedly, the artists) why should they have to pay additional fees just to convert the music into a different format?
--
Re:equipment? (Score:1)
Re:equipment? (Score:1)
1200's sure are a lot cheaper and more fun, though. *grin*
-----------------------------------------
the amazing bc
latin/funk flugelhorn & trumpet
webnaut, music junkie, sysadmin from hell
Re:Hold on a minute... (Score:1)
The $200 CAN fee buys business users of the song the right to transfer it into a form that they find more convienent or efficient. I don't think it's too unreasonable to expect copyright holders to receive payment from businesses for making copies of their works.
Re:Probably isn't a big deal (Score:1)
Re:hey now (Score:2)
I don't understand why this is an issue (Score:2)
Is there a reason why a DJ here in the US can't buy a CD, MP3 it, and then take that somewhere to play it? He's already paid the record company (and thus the RIAA) and now he is just using his music.
Where's the problem? Why does he need a license?
(And yes I know this law exists in Canda, but the wired article implied US DJs can't use MP3s. I don't understand why.)
Re:short sighted. (Score:1)
FYI, radio stations are allowed to air an entire record (within certain guidelines). They're exempt from a lot of these rules, and for good reason... radio stations are the most effective advertising media for new music the RIAA and the individual recording studios have. I believe radio stations are also completely exempt from limitations on storage methods (.wav, .au, .mp3 or whatever) as long as they destroy those units within a 6 month period.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
More Evil than Evil (Score:1)
Was it ever illegal to use mp3s in the first place (Score:3)
Since when were Canadian DJs NOT allowed to use MP3s in their performances? As long as the DJ legally purchased the original record or CD that the mp3 came from I see nothing wrong with spinning mp3s. What an absurd law.
The article in Wired gives the impression that it was previously illegal to use anything other than the original media when DJ'ing for money...as if! Even the most backwards RIAA toad would agree that it's OK for DJs to create compilations for use in performances, as long as they own the originals and never distribute the compilation.
The CN$200 fee gives DJs a blanket license to make one reproduction of music released by most of the major record companies.
And we're supposed to act like this is a good thing? DJs have used homemade cassette tape recordings in their performances for years without anyone making a fuss. Granted, most serious DJs use vinyl or CD these days, but there's nothing stopping them from using minidiscs or DATs if they wanted. It looks to me like Canada has lifted a restriction where no restriction ever existed, along with adding a convenient new source or revenuse (from the $200 license). However, IANAC (I am not a Canadian). Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong ;).
Using re-recorded media is nothing new. DJs have also been able to use samples of copyrighted media (within certain limits) for ever.
Better go turn myself in to the RCMP: one time I drove through part of Canada while listening to burned audio CDs made from mp3s. It's a good thing nobody else heard the music or offered to pay me for it, or I'd be in big trouble, eh!?
Re:equipment? (Score:2)
seems to have fallen apart over internal issues
during the commercialization process -- hopes
for final scratch production now hinge on a
random large company picking up the idea and
running with it, from what I've heard.
I still want one, even if the label on the
side says "Pioneer"
now this is what i call a sticky situation. (Score:1)
um... it's not a law (Score:2)
-
<SIG>
"I am not trying to prove that I am right... I am only trying to find out whether." -Bertolt Brecht
I don't see what the big deal is. (Score:3)
Copies that are made for personal convenience or backup purposes don't amount to copyright infringement.
The DJ already has legal master copies and is allowed to play them to the clients, so what does it matter by what means the music makes its way to the speakers?
What's surprising to me is that this wasn't previously allowed.
Re:The US music industry (Score:1)
Re:equipment? (Score:1)
BeOS is the DJ OS.
Re:Future (Score:2)
Re:Hard Drive? (Score:2)
- controller
- disk
- disk controller
- disk drive
- drive
- file system
- logical disk
- mount point
- partition
- physical disk
And doubtless a good bit more. I have no idea what they think of a striped or concatenated filesystem. Well, yes I do. They don't.Re:Good and bad... (Score:2)
That's not what is happening.
To my knowledge, it has always been free to rip music from CDs for your personal use, granted that you own the CD as well.
Yes, this continues to be true. Nobody is charging for personal use. The point you're missing is that playing songs commercially at someone else's party isn't personal use; it's commercial use.
Re:Hard Drive? (Score:1)
I believe that the idea is that you are allowed to make only one mp3 of a particular track per licence. That way a DJ company can't buy only one licence and do two or more events at the same time playing the same music. The DJ needs one licence per set of mp3s. If the licence does actually specify "per hard drive" as opposed to the reporter's interpretation of the licence, then it probably needs to be reworded to "per computer" or "per copy of an mp3 collection."
You are correct that it dosen't make sense to licence per HD. Legally it would be foolish.
An intresting connection (Score:3)
And anyways, personally again the CRIA should put thier hands in another cookie jar, this one may be tasty, but it's definitely not profitiable (at least on the level I'm on now.)
Re:Please get your facts straight. (Score:1)
> music they own copies of. They must obtain a
> license to play their tunes. (Just like radio
> stations
Actually, the DJ doesn't need to have that license if the space he/she
is performing in has one. And almost any club that a DJ would be in
has such a license. I don't know a single DJ that has one.
Re:But there's still The Tax (Score:1)
The 50cents for 15minutes tax is an idea from beaurocrats (sp?) that seem to think that Canadian "Culture" (of which Heritage Minister, Shiela Copps, cannot define) is in danger of being overwhelmed by US commercialism. I'm not really sure if I disagree with the notion.
Really, this law ranks up there with the 40% CanCon regulation (Broadcasters in Canada must have 40% Canadian Content) and Quebec's Bill 101 (a.k.a. The Illegal Language Law for which they have been crying "Notwithstanding Clause" forever..)
Knee jerk reactions to problems which do not exist, IMO.
Back to my point, if Canadian Content is good enough, then it should be able to stand on its own merit. I understand that when they first brought in the 40% CanCon reg it was necessary. I do not believe it is now. The same goes the for the 50cents-for-15minutes tax. I am already paying way too much tax (50%) and I don't want to pay anymore. The only difference between this tax and income tax, is that some lousy musician my be living off me when I didn't even buy their disc.
Re:Canada doing the right thing? (Score:1)
Re:The US music industry (Score:2)
Re:short sighted. (Score:1)
Now we're at $1.80. And, you'd better let the store you buy it at have $1 profit to stay in business.
That's $2.80. Plus tax... Of course, now the RIAA has to play for their 'net police:
That's $2.80 + $15. Total $17.80. And don't forget the fatcat RIAA salary: $1. And, the distributors have to eat... $1.
Now, we have the current price $19.80.
If internet distribution was allows without the BS RIAA and the now not required distributors (sound could be sold by the people who make it), and no record store or media price... $1.
At that price, I'd NEVER copy another tape, ever... I promise. I might even rat on the cheap ass who would (ok, I only said that to keep the RIAA happy, really)... There's no excuse at $1. It would never be worth the effort again.
Here's my beef: A CD costs $20. Most pop-groups make a CD in about 5 months (or less). They sell more CD's than most of today's popular bestsellers (not including the Bible, etc...). And a CD is cheaper to make than a book. And many books take over a year to write (or so I hear) Sooo:
Why does a CD cost $20, and a paperback $5?
ANSWER: RIAA!
Re:Hate to be a nationalist but how does the polic (Score:1)
"no legal mechanical reproduction rights at all"? (Score:1)
That remark is on the second page, at http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,32554-2
"There are no collective industry organizations in the United States such as AVLA, which is empowered to collect license fees and disburse them among record companies. Consequently, American DJs have no legal mechanical reproduction rights at all, never mind the right to make MP3s."
WTF is this? You should have the right unless some specific law says you don't. I'd like to know that specific law. My point is if the DJ drops in and plays and mixes mp3's and one of them is pirated, then if someone thinks it's pirated then do an audit. Mic-record what he is playing and then see if he has the actual music purchased on CD or vinyl. It's far simpler than all this 'licensing' crap.
But that's the point..they want to make this into an extortion racket. You buy the music once and then pay again to play it. Bah. I'll just hold my own private parties.
Re:Hold on a minute... (Score:2)
TC
(This comment posted using Mozilla M11)
Young whippersnappers! Real men use Shellac! (Score:1)
MPEG-3? (Score:1)
From the article: But "with MPEG-3 compression you can get a lot of music on a hard drive," said Heindl
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but isn't it MPEG-1 layer 3?
Re:Good for Canada (Score:1)
Re:Just a different oppression... (Score:1)
Re:The US music industry (Score:1)
what do you do you do when a Windows using DJ gets a BSOD in the middle of a party?
Easy: have a portable CD player standing by to take over during a reboot. Or, have another laptop ready to go. A laptop powerful enough to just play MP3s is cheap... I'd do this even if I was running Linux. Murphy's law that the one time it would crash would have to be in front of hundreds of people...
I want my MP3! (Score:3)
I also use Sonique [sonique.com] and download MP3s streamed straight to 32mb files, which I then dump to a Rio. Simple, easy, open. Nobody messin' with my HD, nobody tracking me. And now I listen to a LOT more music (and NO fscking commercials), in wide ranging genres.
What the RIAA (and others) needs to realize is that the Internet makes control of digital media impossible. Their products have become (like software) inherently infinite. Pricing based on scarcity will become more and more difficult to maintain. The entire business model needs to change to take this into account. This is not being done. Enough ranting, sorry this is a bit off-topic, but if you have the bandwidth and sit in front of or near a computer for much fo the time, there are vast fields of interesting tones awaiting your inspection, don't let them be taken away from you. (/offtopic rant)
Re:Stupid law (Score:1)
It was underpublicised over here but at the time I thought it was a pretty cool ruling. It made most of the software houses change their licenses to allow a 'backup copy for archival purposes'.
Re:The US music industry (Score:1)
Re:equipment? (Score:1)
"Digital 1200SL".. and gee, doesn't that remind you of a certain brand of turntables..
i'm sticking to my 1200's too
Re:The US music industry (Score:1)
Re:Stupid law (Score:1)
For example, a school teacher cannot rent Barney (the purple freak) and show it to his/her students. The idea being that each one of those kids may have been ready to rent the video themselves, but since the teacher just did, why bother?
Not that I am for or against ripping purchased CDs, its just that the music industry wants to limit the possibility of lost revenue.
Ozwald
Re:Hold on a minute... (Score:3)
My only problem with this announcement is that the industry's "permitting" this use of MP3s implies that it's their decision, when in fact (well, in my opinion, anyway, which is the same thing) they don't have any authority whatsoever even knowing or caring about it in the first place, let alone permitting or forbidding it. Where would they even have gotten the idea in the first place, let alone how would they justify it, to think that this would be illegal?
But DJ's don't own the songs, they own a round piece of plastic.
IANAL, but this is my understanding: they own two things: the round piece of plastic, i.e., a physical medium containing a copy of the copyrighted work, and a license that permits them to use the work in a particular commercial setting. Does the license actually specify the physical process by which the work can be used? I.e., does it say "You may use the song in live performances by placing this and only this particular disc in a CD player and pressing 'Play'.", or does it say "You may use the song in live performances."? I can't imagine that it would be the former. I mean, why, except for them being typically heavy-handed? Even for them, this seems ridiculous.
Here's a similar case: what if a DJ is at a party and someone requests a particular song. The DJ says, "Yeah, I have that," but then he looks through his pile of CDs and finds that, while it's true that he owns the disc and has a live-performance license for it, he has forgotten that particular one at home. Then the host interjects, "Wait, I have that album." He owns a CD of the album but he does not have a live-performance license for it. The question is, if the host lends his physical disc to the DJ, could the DJ then, under his live-performance license, use that disc to perform the song, even though it's not the same particular disc that he owns? I think the answer should be an obvious "Yes". Perhaps the industry sees thing differently, but I can't imagine what they could object to about this situation. Also, what if the DJ's disc is lost or destroyed? Does he have to pay for the license again, or just buy a new copy of the disc? What about the "for archival purposes" fair-use doctrine? (I realize that Canada != USA, so maybe the "fair use" thing is different.)
As it is, in the process of performing it, the information passes through any number of intermediate formats as it is processed by various pieces of equipment, e.g., (note that I don't really know anything about professional sound equipment) bits get read by the CD player and converted to an analog signal and this goes through all sorts of mixers, equalizers, amps, etc., before going to the speaker, where the analog signal is converted from an electrical carrier to an acoustic one. Does the industry presume to have any authority whatsoever over exactly what steps the information goes through on its path from the DJ's round piece of plastic to the audience's ears? Of course not, as long as the DJ has paid for a live-performance license and no durable copies are given to anyone else. What's the difference of the bits make an extra stop (i.e., being compressed by Fraunhoffer's (sp?) algorithm and stored on a more convenient physical medium) along the way, all the while remaining in the DJ's possession and not being given to anyone else in a durable form? It sounds like they are just trying to continue to brand anything associated with MP3 as "illegal", while appearing magnanimous in this obviously-trivial case.
From the article:
DJs can buy a license giving them the right to burn their own compilation CDs of "useable tracks," instead of having to cart their whole CD collections around to their gigs.
I don't see how this could possibly not be considered to fall under "fair use" (though, again Canada != USA), or why it would require a special license.
Under Canadian law, a DJ convicted of making unlicensed reproductions with any technology could face serious fines and the confiscation of his equipment. Though there haven't been any such cases lately, Heindl points out that Canadian authorities have made examples of offenders in the past.
I could see it if the concern were over such copies being passed around, but two points: first, why would it be any different for a DJ than for any person making bootleg (don't call it "Piracy" [fsf.org]) copies of normally-purchased albums. Second, here it is again: why are they so obsessed with how many copies exist, as long as they are all in his possession and not performed in any unlicensed fashion? What seems to matter is whether he has the right to possess and perform the song at all. The closest thing that seems reasonable to me would be if we were talking about DJs using songs off of albums that they just bought at the record store, without paying for a performance license, or, better yet, completely bootlegged copies that they downloaded or got from friends. of course that would be illegal, but nobody's talking about that.
Although the record companies will welcome the license fees, the small amount of revenue they will generate isn't the point at all, Robertson said.
"It's more a question of copyright control than generating revenues," he said. "It's important to keep things like copyright above board like this."
Ah, here it is! They are still trying to perpetuate the illusion that they should rightfully have complete control over the proliferation of physical copies of the data, and the perception of themselves as the one and only legitimate source for anything related to it. This is a very nasty tool that they use consistently in their propaganda: the equivocation between the concepts of licensing rights to information and the physical act of duplicating it. The two concepts are very different, but these guys jump back and forth at will, using each to "refute" arguments that are really about the other. The difference was not so important back when physical duplication was difficult and expensive, since they had an almost-but-maybe-not-quite monopoly on the ability to create copies. It was a service that they provided, along with granting licenses. Now, though, it's very easy to copy things, and there is no reason why people should need that service from them. They have absolutely no grounds for objecting to other people performing the physical copying as desired, as long as their licenses are respected.
They're acting as if they have both a patent on "a physical medium storing, in machine-readable form, the digital stream 0x6549cb5a67890f8460d..., or any data that represents the same audio signal", and a copyright on the song (both the composition and the performance) that is represented thereby. The patent would entitle them to control the creation of copies, and the copyright would entitle them to control the use of same. My sense is that they have the copyright but not the patent.
David Gould
Red flags, trains, cars, horses and evolution (Score:5)
Their current actions are like the red flags that pressure groups walked in front of locomotives, and their mega-industry is every bit as collosal as the one that used to be centred on the horse for transport and which now does not exist at all except in tiny niches. The lesson of history is that even the most extensive and solid of institutions is not as permanent as it may seem in its heyday.
In the case of music, that impermanence couldn't be more clear. Before the invention of recording, it wasn't possible to make money from replication of musical performances. Then recording was invented but replication required massive plants and capital, which created the opportunity for an industry to be born and collosal profits to be made. And now the wheel of technological progress has turned again: replication can be performed by anyone and costs almost nothing, and the window of opportunity for making profits from it has closed again.
Despite their self-righteous rationalizations, there is no law of nature that says that the music industry will always be as lucrative as it has been for the last few decades. There are no fixed points where technology is concerned, and MP3s are a sign of that. This newest chapter in the empowerment of individuals effectively means that the time for massive profits from replication and controlled distribution is over, that the RIAA is in the throes of extinction or at least severe mutation, and that the relationship between musicians and their audience is in transition. And so be it.
Bye bye RIAA. No one really expects you to die quietly, but die you will, just like other prehistoric giants who were too set in their ways to adapt to changing conditions. And that's not a bad analogy, because once again it's those pesky little creatures underfoot that are in the ascendency.
Re:How can one become a citizen of Canada? (Score:1)
Seriously, Washington is becoming more oppressive, tax hungry, and legislation happy every day. What is required to become a citizen (or at least a legal resident) of Canada?
Not much, just give up your right to freedom of the press and get ready for a shock anytime you try to bring your new Canadian money back into the U.S.
Re:The US music industry (Score:1)
I believe you (Score:1)
Obviously. The less than perfect situation (within stumbling reach of drunks with requests) is the rule, not the exception.
Ahem... Vinyl is BETTER than CD (Score:1)
The damn things still get scratched much easier though, and would be a bitch to play in a moving vehicle ;-P
--
You're still using Windows?
Re:How can one become a citizen of Canada? (Score:1)
I don't think you realize just how not free the US media is. Check out Project Censored here [sonoma.edu]
If you think Canada lacks Freedom of Press, it's obvious you've never heard of the CBC [www.cbc.ca], an insitution with far more freedom and far more honesty than anything public or private that exists in the US.
Re:i be ass'n (Score:1)
I thought the same thing when I saw ass'n, but I just can't wax poetic like the above AC did
Re:Stupid law (Score:1)
I don't see why the record companies aren't actively pushing such solutions. It seems like it would cut their distribution costs dramatically, as well as increasing their sales (since many of those promo-only CDs somehow end up in used CD stores...).
Re:equipment? (Score:1)
i stand corrected.
it didn't used to support multiple sound cards, as far as i remember. or maybe i just didn't HAVE two soundcards and wasn't interested enough to buy another ;)
for anyone that wants to check it out, go here: virtual turntables [prohosting.com]
it is a neat program. just didn't seem to compare to a pair of technics when i looked at it before. i still think the interface can't compare to being able to move a record any way you want, though. i'm not talking about scratching here, just effective beatmatching and.. all that other hard to verbalize stuff that djs do.
then again.. i don't mean this snottily at all, but "mobile djs" just don't do that much with the music. it's not the same as being a "rave dj", which is the perspective i'm coming from. maybe vtt's interface is just dandy for mobile peeps.
Re:An intresting connection (Score:1)
no.. not flamebait at all (Score:1)
Re:Red flags, trains, cars, horses and evolution (Score:2)
From my experience with MP3.com, I'm quickly reaching the point where I will buy $5 CD's from them. The whole entertainment medium is being force to speed up and to cut costs.
However I do agree that it's only a matter of time before BtoB distribution cuts out the middle man.
A Little Context (Score:3)
This decision is just a way to score some ink and political fire for a otherwise tiny and powerless group.. Of course it's already legal to make comps out of CDs you already own, they know that..
They seem to be addressing hardcore 'single' type DJing, where downloading the super fresh singles of the moment off the net and licencing them would be useful.. Maybe in the clubs in london or dancehalls in jamacia, but in canada that scene just isn't much of a factor. Besides, that style of DJing pretty much requires vinyl..
Of course, you can just skip the fee and do it anyway.. The record companies want the exposure anyway, club plays lead to album sales.. That's why they make white labels (pre-releases for DJs).. Our station gets a boat load of free promo-only music every week.. They'd happly pay us $200 to download and play their song, but that's illigal.. Instead they have to give away free trips and prizes and crap.. "Win a trip to blah to see blah contest." Guess who pays for those I'm sure Chris Sheppards life is a non-stop orgy of record company financed sin.
Labels don't care about DJs stealing their hot new singles.. On the other hand, DJs building up a few hundred gigs of mp3s by ripping every CD they can get their hands on and then using that for gigs, that might be a little worrying.. But still, there just aren't enough DJs in Canada for it to matter in term of sales.. DJs have been doing record pools forever..
So basically, this is totally meaningless to everyone I can think of, but I will admit, a tiny step forward and that's still good..
Re:whoah... do you actually talk like that? (Score:2)
Anyway, you guys played. It's obviously the output of the ubiquitous Automated Rant Generator, with one or two words changed. Somebody is having some fun seeing if you guys can tell the difference.