Napster Goes Before US Congress 208
cecil36 writes "Yahoo! is reporting that Napster is going through a congressional hearing. At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing were Hank Berry, Napster interim chief, representatives from the recording industry, artists Alanis Morissette and Don Henley, and the MPAA's Jack Valenti. There appears to be support for online compulsory licensing (pay for rights to listen) in both the House and Senate, but Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is saying that this type of licensing could be in violation of international treaties."
Glad Jack's there (Score:1)
But I guess since Napster trades movies now, he should get involved.
Re:reverted to IRC (Score:1)
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:1)
This is brilliant! Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US constitution [house.gov] states:
[Congress shall have the power] Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Emphasis mine, on "limited times". Patents extend for 20 years. This has proved fair and covers the "sciences" portion of the above. But Current copyright is the creator's life plus 120 years for new copyrights. Is this "limited". It's eternal for all practical purposes since no one will ever live that long. It gets worse when the "creator" is a corporation. Because they can never "die". Even when they're about to die, all their assets are acquired by someone else and thus continue to live on that way. (e.g., Hasbro now holds the copyright to old Atari 2600 games, even though Atari is dead Dead DEAD).
Did it before, will do again (Score:1)
Re:Good news! (Score:1)
Re:IP and TJ (Score:2)
The thing is, internet music is like an _idea_ of music. If (as a WILDLY HYPOTHETICAL example ;) ) I'd never heard the vocoder effect on Cher's 'Believe', I could tune in the radio and listen to crap for hours hoping to both hear that and recognise it, perhaps have it identified. I could attempt to spend my very limited money on something that I _know_ from context isn't what I generally like, and will also be premium priced. Or, I could tune in the Napster Radio, and discover that the only 'station' playing that tune is some guy off somewhere who ripped it off a rotten CD-Rom with LOUD obnoxious CD skips and zaps, as if I was listening on shortwave, but it would be enough to check out _what_ the effect was, and go 'Huh. Fancy that'. And then delete the file and be well pleased that I'd educated myself a bit on what was out there in the world, and never think about Cher quite the same way again because she'd permitted something rather far-out to be done to her voice on a #1 single.
For the record, as of now I don't have Cher's "Believe" on my computer or any form of media... unless you count Napster etc. as a resource, in which case I have ALL MUSIC coming in as sputtery low-fi anytime I want. It's plainly not a physical media situation in a case like that- listening to something you'd never be seen buying in a store? What's up with that? It makes of the music an IDEA, and if I really flipped over the idea it would make perfect sense to go get the physical product- don't know about you, but I've had hard disks fail, and I've had 'licenses' I'd paid for delete themselves, and I just am not interested in playing around with blending the virtual and the actual. If I want a record or a CD I will _get_ it. Virtual is NOT the same- arguably it's not as good, but it sure is more fluid. Like fire it is expansible over all space without lessening its density at any point...
Re:Statutory royalties are already being collected (Score:2)
Re:Can I mod that site (-1, Troll)? (Score:2)
(and if you think I'm joking...)
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:2)
You're assuming that copyright is a natural right -- that Disney should have every right to profit off something it made 20 years ago. To further clarify your position, let me ask you this: Do you believe that Disney should have the right to profit off something it made 120 years ago? 200? Do you believe that the families of classical music composers should still be recieving royalties? Remember, these profits aren't free -- they're made at the expense of the public.
What I'm trying to point out is that copyright is a privilige, given for a very specific purpose -- to encourage innovation. If any system of copyright is succesful in this goal, then it is succesful as a whole, without regard to how it changes the financial status of the holders. To do otherwise would be to have the government willfully create an artificial scarcity of what would otherwise be a commodity, to benefit only a very small portion of the population at great cost to the rest. Where's the justice in that?
And like i said, corps would have a lot longer to sit on an idea and hope it created income than individuals, by virtue of being able to take proceeds from one project that made money to pay for the copyright protection on another project. Indivuals most liekly wouldn't have that luxury, or at least not as much, so ultimately the more money you had, the longer your copyrights could run for, rather than how it is now where if one creates something, it's copyright by them for the rest of their lives.... So you ultimately shift the balance of power further towards big companies by taking away free copyrights.
That presumes that copyright protection would actually be profitable. Around the 15th or 16th year, any huge corporation which pays for copyright protection on a work will almost certainly lose money on that work that year -- so why would they willingly extend copyright when it makes them no money to do so? In short, they will hold copyright only as long it is profitable -- the same as any sane individual will do. So yes, your copyrights could run longer if you have more money -- but how long they will run depends on how much the individual work is worth.
Keep in mind, an individual with a particularly valuable work can afford to extend copyright on it, too. Why? If the work is valuable enough to make it worth the money needed to extend copyright, then the work will be generating all the money the individual needs to pay. If there's good reason to believe that the work's worth will increase dramatically, then the individual will be able to find investors willing to help pay for its extended copyright (and the exploitation of said copyright). Otherwise, it will fall out of protection -- exactly the same as if it were owned by a corporation!
I think i clearly do understand. IF you make copyrights costs something, then things that depend on them will increase in price further and further to offset the new cost of doing business. if the cost of doing business rises enough, risks can't be taken, new bands can't get promotional funds, we're stuck with more and more top 40 shit being pushed at us. Yeah, anyone could try to compete against them with copyrights that they paid for out of pocket and lasted for 3 or 4 years because it wasn't worth it anymore... But if free copyrights that last past your lifetime don't help individuals versus the corps, making copyrights exhorbantly expensive won't help either.
Most profits off any new product are made within the first six MONTHS of introduction. Not years, months. Admittedly, many products have significantly longer lifecycles -- but the initial producer will make plenty of money... but here's the big thing, the part where this limitation on copyright makes goods much, much CHEAPER for the consumer.
Once the cost of copyrights becomes so odious that a producer can no longer pay for it without raising the price beyond what the market will sanely bear, any producer in their right mind will abandon copyright on their product. What happens then? Copycats come in and make their own versions of this now public domain work -- and sell them nearly for free! It's at this point when the public truly wins.
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:2)
Remember, even if corporations are grabbing public domain works, marketing them and keeping the full profits, they can't profit very much -- after all, if they're asking any price which is not entirely reasonable, folks can then create and *legally* distribute MP3s of the original. In short, the benefit to the public far outweighs the costs.
Making copyright nontransferable can screw the little guy as much as anyone else -- if I write something I don't want to maintain, I *want* to be able to sell complete control and responsibility to someone else.
Re:The best part of the article (Score:2)
(Yes, this is very revelent...)
Expired copyrignt != taking away creator's credit (Score:2)
Re:C-Span (Score:2)
what would suck though, is if officials from other countries started doing it too. Gawrsh, that would be disorienting. .
Re:The best part of the article (Score:2)
Re:Who cares? (Score:2)
Re:Compulsory Licenses (Score:1)
And this works for radio play too - the radio stations play whatever the record companies - sorry, I mean "independent promoters" - pay them to play.
Re:I liked the note at the bottom of the /. page: (Score:2)
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:2)
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:1)
No, the CDs will become printed by everyone who isn't too lazy. They'll be public domain by then, remember? Just like classical music today.
--
Re:The best part of the article (Score:1)
Are you trying to say that the music business is easy money ? That's a laugh. Last I heard, all the easy money people were going into the computing industry.
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:2)
To make it fair though, you'd have to make a scale based on percentage of income realized. Everybody's copyright would start at $1. If you didn't make any money off the idea, then the cost would go up just a slight percentage each year. If you made a million dollars off the idea, then the cost would go up the next year by a rather large percentage. This could be a straight scale, based on the largest and smallest amount of money realized by the copyright holder in a given year.
This is paying for your government services as you go, and when the government service becomes too expensive, you can seek a private source of copyright enforcement if you choose. But, beware the fees surrounding the judicial system, which are based on how many lawsuits you file...
Re:Pentecostal's are actually pretty wild (Score:2)
Re:Pentecostal's are actually pretty wild (Score:2)
But I didn't know that "snake handling" (wink wink - nudge nudge - get it? huh did you get it? huh? did you?) was religious.
Re:What the hell is Jack Valenti doing there?! (Score:1)
For instance, in 1976, the copyright industry came to Congress, and wanted the copyright laws overhauled, which Congress did. They also said that they wanted the copyrights extended from 56 years to 75 years, and that would be the last time they would ask because 75 years was completely fair and that would be it.
Now, 20 years later, there are only a very few members of Congress who were part of that debate, so when the copyright industry comes to Congress and starts saying, "We need 20 years more copyright protection", there are very few members who are in a position to say, "You came to us before, and we remember what you said."
With term limits, lobbyists and congressional staff members become much more powerful then Representatives and Senators, because they have the ability to stay longer and accumulate more favors and power. Term limits are anti-democratic.
Re:Uhhh... No. (Score:2)
You overrate the intelligence and work ethic of the typical congressman. Jack Valenti was testifying before Congress in the 1960s, before most of our current congresspeople were even born.
With most things that are worthwhile monetarily to copyright the company can afford to use the profit from the product in question to renew the copyright and keep up with the latest legalese. That's why so many inventors ideas are rarely copyrighted even though they are mass produced and sold.
Since 1976, all works automatically receive copyright protection the moment they are fixed in some media. The only reason to register a work with the copyright office is so that you can begin to claim statutory damages from an infringer. Also, copyright renewal was abolished in 1976, so these conditions haven't existed for 25 years. You have a very long memory. Perhaps you should run for Congress.
What you are missing entirely is that presently the staff members and lobbyists ARE more powerful than the Senators and Reps simply because they've transformed from "I work for the people" to "I do what the powerful people who control the masses of sheep voters tell me to so I can stay in this cushy job."
Senators and Reps come and go, but staffers can stay forever. Most of what we consider to be "laws" are really regulations, written by staffers, not signed into law by Congress. Our Senators and Reps are too busy with political activities. Quite simply, our government has 1 president, 50 senators, 435 representatives, and thousands and thousands of unelected public servants who actually do the work, and write the regulations, and unofficially the real power of government.
Not that we are a democracy anyway.
True. The U.S. is a republic, not a democracy. The exception being those states with voter initiative laws.
If term limits were anti-democratic we'd have a King named Bill and a queen named Hillary.
If we had a king and queen, we wouldn't have the option of voting them out. Term limits are unnecessary because the public always has the option of imposing term limits on any president, senator or rep by voting him or her out.
Re:Statutory royalties are already being collected (Score:4)
Re:Statutory royalties are already being collected (Score:4)
Make no mistake, the royalty amount is small. That's 3% of the wholesale price, not the retail price. Still, it's the principle of the thing. If Congress is going to consider a small statutory royalty to cover home digital recording, then they should be aware that not only is there already a functioning law on the books that does just that, but that there is strong evidence that this law is actually beginning to function as intended by Congress.
The AHRA was passed in 1992, when the only people who used DAT were industry professionals, and a handful of Grateful Dead tape traders. We know that there's been no surge in DAT sales in the last three years. The only explanation for the exponential growth in the royalty fund revenues in the last three years is that the royalty fund is tracking the explosive growth in music branded CDRs -- which even the RIAA has to admit is fueled almost entirely by the internet, the MP3 revolution, and ultimately, Napster.
Embracing the AHRA as sanctioning file sharing would be such a clean solution. On the one hand, instead of trying to re-educate the public into believing that sharing is wrong, the new message to the public would be that if you want musicians and songwriters to be paid when you download, the way you do it is by using royalty-paid media to store your music, whatever that media may be. Perhaps it's a minidisk, or a CDR, or some future technology.
Now THAT is something that the public could understand, agree with, and feel good about doing.
On the other hand, voluntary media royalty prepayment benefits the music industry because it automatically does what DRM is ultimately supposed to do -- capture royalties on all copying. The main thrust of DRM is to try and either prevent copying or collect royalties. With royalty-prepaid media, royalties are collected on serial copying as well, so there's no need to prevent copying. Royalties are always collected! In fact, the more copying -- the more "anarchy", as one of the industry spokespeople put it, the more royalties paid!
Of course, the system falls apart if people don't use audio-branded CDRs. But look at the numbers. They are, because that's what the royalties are collected on, and they're exponentiating! If the government, Napster, and the recording industry were to come together, accept the AHRA, and start a public relations campaign that the slight extra cost of buying digital media with the word "audio" on the shrink-wrap is how musicians and songwriters get paid, I'll bet people would do it in a heartbeat, and the recording industry, and artists and songwriters as well, would make more money on voluntary media royalties then they ever would on trying to corner the market on and strictly control downloading music. Without having to lift a finger.
Statutory royalties are already being collected (Score:5)
The Settling Parties [which received 99.999% of the funds] receive all remaining royalty fees because they represent the interests of the remaining copyright owners entitled to receive a portion of these funds.
These "royalties", collected by law [cornell.edu], are intended to compensate the music industry for all non-commercial copying of music. These royalties have been collected since 1992, and represent a substantial amount of money. These royalties are compounding by the year as more and more people purchase CDR burners, and blank media, and use them.
It turns out to be fairly difficult to find out exactly how much money has been collected in blank media royalties. here [loc.gov] is the copyright office's website describing how the royalties were divided up. The acronym is DART, for "Digital Audio Recording Technology" If you look over the documents, you'll find that for every year that blank media statutory royalties have been collected, over 99.99% have gone to an organization called "Copyright Management Inc", which is a blanket organization that covers ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, HFA, SGA, and others. It's almost as if they don't really want the public to know how much money is being collected. No matter how hard you look, you'll never find actual dollar amounts -- only percentages. I was able to find out the actual dollar amounts though, from one of those two individuals who filed individual claims, and here they are:
Royalties collected on consumer digital audio recording devices and blank media:
1992 $118,228.42
1993 $520,162.84
1994 $521,999.64
1995 $473,592.20
1996 $397,152.52
1997 $969,178.06
1998 $1,978,457.93
1999 $3,551,030.86
2000 $5,285,246.32
Total: over 13 Million dollars so far.
The royalties collected prior to 1997 mostly represent sales of DAT recorders and tapes. The introduction of CD recorders and blank CDRs caused a large jump in the collected royalties, and surely the introduction of Napster is largely responsible for the enormous growth in royalties collected in 1999 and 2000.
In other words, people are buying enormous numbers of blank CDRs. Most of these CDRs are probably being filled with music. Much of that music probably comes from Napster. So Napster is directly fueling the growth of the DART fund, which, I will remind you, is, by law, paid to artists and songwriters as well as copyright holders. So next time someone says that Napster users don't pay for their music, you have the real answer. They are. Congress needs to be made aware of this 13 million dollars in royalties, and decide what rights are purchased by those "royalties." Either admit that Napster users are paying royalties when they burn their downloaded MP3s to CDRs, and allow Napster to continue, or establish a new statutory royalty system based on downloads, and scrap the royalty system based on blank media, because under the current system, the people pay royalties to the music industry on the one hand when they purchase their media, yet are told that they are not paying the music industry when they fill that media. The music industry is talking out of both sides of their mouth on this issue, and no one seems to want to call them on it.
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:2)
Plus who endorses this plan? Individuals? They have to pay to protect their creations when right now it's free... That'll fly. Oh, how about corporations? Nope...
Foolhardy. You're giving the power to people with money, basically... Yeah, you free access to copyrighted materials much sooner, but don't you think the cost will be passed on to you? Imagine everyone complaining as their CD costs triple year after year after year...
Re:Get your own label. . .dot com. (Score:2)
Why not let the musicians take care of themselves, and if you really care about the philosophy about which you preach, tackle the same subjects which stand to effect your paycheck. Which exist in your industry. IP exists everywhere, but the only place anyone's fighting for its' dismissal is in music. Why not software? Why not books?
Because it's not about "freedom" for the artists... it's about "freedom" as in free as in beer for the consumer. And that's just not going to fly.
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:2)
his is mainly to discourage greedy corporations from keeping something under copyright for 20+ years since at that point it is not economically feasible and it'll be cheaper to actually innovate *cough* Disney *cough*.
Many of disneys works are still profitable after 20 years. The only reason they wouldn't be is because your new rules would force them into unprofitablility. That just isn'r right. And like i said, corps would have a lot longer to sit on an idea and hope it created income than individuals, by virtue of being able to take proceeds from one project that made money to pay for the copyright protection on another project.
Indivuals most liekly wouldn't have that luxury, or at least not as much, so ultimately the more money you had, the longer your copyrights could run for, rather than how it is now where if one creates something, it's copyright by them for the rest of their lives.... So you ultimately shift the balance of power further towards big companies by taking away free copyrights.
I think i clearly do understand. IF you make copyrights costs something, then things that depend on them will increase in price further and further to offset the new cost of doing business. if the cost of doing business rises enough, risks can't be taken, new bands can't get promotional funds, we're stuck with more and more top 40 shit being pushed at us. Yeah, anyone could try to compete against them with copyrights that they paid for out of pocket and lasted for 3 or 4 years because it wasn't worth it anymore... But if free copyrights that last past your lifetime don't help individuals versus the corps, making copyrights exhorbantly expensive won't help either.
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:2)
This actually isn't a bad idea at all, though we'd have to do a lot more work on the details, because its pretty unfair to the small guys.
Yes, you can say "oh, it's only $250 your sixth year", but you have to realize that professional writers and artists and musicians make hundreds or thousands of works every year.
While paying $250 for every song is no big deal to the RIAA members, if I had to pay $250 for every single painting I have ever made in my life just to keep the copyright, well frankly that sucks.
I make hundreds of paintings a year, and thousands of drawings. It would cost me literally millions of dollars a year just to own my own drawings for more than a year or two, and believe me I'm not making millions off of reproduction rights, but it puts food on the table.
I would be better off working at McDonalds than putting paint on canvas, because in a year or two someone else could come along and sell all my work as a calendar without me getting a single nickle.
That said, the idea that my copyrights should last for decades after i die is just asinine. I would hope my kids have jobs and won't be depending on work I did 50 years ealier to feed themselves. While I expect to get paid for my work and not have other people profit off of it without my approval or permission, I also expect that my work contribute to the collective library of humanity for free when I die.
---------------------------------------------
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:2)
I wish more people took economics classes
No, it doesn't work like that -- you don't (generally) sell or buy a copyright. You buy limited reproduction rights, for example "first north american serial rights", depending on the use.
Yes, if a copyright was expiring next month, they might be willing to just wait to get it for free, but no one is willing to pay more for a magazine cover because the copyright you have is good for another 100 years instead of 10. In fact, they'd rather it wasn't that long because every time they reprint that cover, they have to send you another check.
The economics of publishing don't assign much of a time value other than a relative period of exclusivity, because 99.9% of the material is dated.
Yes, having an infinity length of copyright might directly benefit me, but it would also rob me and the rest of the world of the use of the commons, of which ultimately there is a far greater economic value to society -- we have to balance the legitimate exclusivity with the need for culture to grow by adopting creative works as shared resources. 10 years is too short, 120 years after death is too long. I'd like to just make it death+20 or something like that, so that the immediate "reflections" after passing benefit the estate. Corporations, maybe 75 years total so that you'd have to live to be a hundred to see work you created as a new employee disappear from your control.
---------------------------------------------
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:2)
I don't know of many calendars or magazines that publish reproductions of sheet music or code. Visual works are very valuable, and much easier to make money off of because they are instantly recognizable and easy to repurpose (calendar to ad campaign to magaine cover, etc).
And, no, there are no perfect reproductions of paintings, but that doesn't stop people from making decent money off of Mona Lisa posters or American Gothic.
Paintings aren't the issue when it comes to copyright
I'd suspect you haven't paid much attention to the number of commercial paintings you run across in your daily life. From product boxes, to magazines, posters, greeting cards, t-shirts, wallpaper, cartoons, and book covers; paintings and illustrations are right up there with the written word and audio recordings in terms of how widespread they are. Certainly a lot more so than reproductions of sheet music or code, and far more valuable for it.
---------------------------------------------
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:2)
I'm not talking about record companies. Regardless, they don't buy the rights to a song, they own the rights in the first place -- there is no sale of anything.
Musical works are "created" by the recording company, not the artist (legally speaking -- thanks to the RIAA's wonderful congressional lobbying). So the recording company owns the copyright, period.
In most other creative industries, non-staff creators license rights by the use (or sell more rights for a LOT more money). Except freelance newspaper writers, who seem to get screwed a lot more, and generally deal with onerous work-for-hire contracts that are legally fishy (the IRS doesn't consider it work for hire just because you say it is -- the courts seem less certain).
---------------------------------------------
When? (Score:5)
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:2)
As soon as the price becomes unreasonable, people will stop paying. Then the CDs become free.
--
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:2)
How would the new rules force anything into unprofitability? The Bible or the works of Bach are still profitable after hundreds of years. Sounds perfectly all right to me that they're now in the public domain.
--
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:2)
...until the price got unreasonable, at which point the consumer would stop paying, at which point keeping the copyright would become unprofitable, at which point the work would enter the public domain.
--
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:2)
--
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:3)
--
Re:God Bless Orrin Hatch! (Score:2)
I welcome the record labels into the online world, along with other large entertainment conglomerates, including cable companies and large online services. Indeed I have been encouraging them to catch up with consumer demand for online music for some time now. And they are beginning to do so, at least in experimental ways. But I do not think it is any benefit for artists or fans to have all the new, wide distribution channels controlled by those who have controlled the old, narrower ones. This is especially true if they achieve that control by leveraging their dominance in content or conduit space in an anticompetitive way to control the new, independent music services that are attempting to enhance the consumer's experience of music.
Emphasis mine, which I doubt is something the RIAA wants to put on their site.
--
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Re:do we want napster fronting for us? (Score:2)
Frankly, Napster is a necessary challenge to their cartel, and I sort of wish that they could find a way to filter out RIAA songs, just so that somone had the chance to create a musical career by completely avoiding the RIAA. Unfortunately, that route is going to be messy, and compulsory licensing is the only way for consumers to buy the majority of their music (any SDMI or secure format amounts to renting) online before 2048.
I do wish Napster had made a better offer that included per-download royalties. Compulsory licensing almost certainly won't be a better deal than one they could have struck on their own (this assumes that the RIAA was negotiating in good faith and a deal could have been struck, which is more than I'm willing to bet on).
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
shit! (Score:2)
Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
Beep! (Score:2)
Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
Aw, fsck! (Score:2)
Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
Re:The best part of the article (Score:2)
--
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:2)
1st hour of copyright protection costs $1.
2nd hour of copyright protection costs $500.
5th hour of copyright protection costs $5,000.
etc...
If they use a technologically sophisticated copyright protection device, the times might be slightly longer. But even then, each minute that goes by allows more and more people to spread their works. Exponential growth. Exponential lawyer fees.
--
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:2)
On the other hand, if Big Corp. makes a butt load off it - good for them, but it'll cost them if they want to get greedy.
Either way, it guarantees that after an acceptable period the idea will eventually end up in public domain where it belongs.
---
Re:The best part of the article (Score:2)
The best part of the article is certainly calling Alanis Morrisette a "pop singer".
Apparently, so long as an artist sells a certain number of albums, they're automagically blobbed into the "Pop" genre.
She might be POPular, but her music certainly would not fit in the same category as, say, Elton John, or Ricky Martin.
Re:The best part of the article (Score:2)
Anyone got some backbeats and a sampler? Sounds like serious opportunity for a parody.
C-Span (Score:2)
McCain and Hatch have been active in the area a LOT recently, and wether you agree with them or not, at least they're learning the issues for themselves. Not two or three years ago, you could hardly find a member of congress who had a clue; and you'd NEVER have found one posting to SlashDot [slashdot.org].
I'm getting sick of the music issue itself, but if it deteriorates the tecnophobia on the hill, I'm all for it.
Can I mod that site (-1, Troll)? (Score:2)
It's so hard managing my spare time now. Should I work for money so I can buy CDs for $16.99? Or I could generously donate my free time telling *others* how they should give $16.99 to the RIAA for a $1 piece of plastic! I don't think I can lose either way. Maybe I'll do both!
Bificus (Score:2)
No, she's not. But she makes damn good music... check out the album I Bificus. Here [bifnaked.com]'s her official site. Her breakout hit was Spaceman, but they remixed it horribly in the American release of IB. Fortunately, they made up for it by including Twitch, which is just as good. :-)=
[TMB]
Re:The best part of the article (Score:2)
-- Bif Naked
Salon, March 25, 2000
Excuse me Mr. Naked, exactly how much "Work" is invoved in doing something once and then sitting around absorbing money? It used to be that musicians would actually get off their lazy behinds and go on tour and play venues to make money, or wait the whole recording industry that oozed its way into existance back in the late 60s early 70s has created an artificial market that it feels it must protect.
-----
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:2)
-----------------------
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:2)
I think that it would still be a good idea that it be required that the original creator be determinable from any copied work, to prevent people from trying to pass a copy of somebody else's work as their own. (Perhaps with criminal fraud charges being applicable
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:2)
That said, the idea that my copyrights should last for decades after i die is just asinine. I would hope my kids have jobs and won't be depending on work I did 50 years ealier to feed themselves.
No, dude, having the length of the copyright be longer helps YOU. NOW. It makes the copyright worth more. So, assuming someone wanted to reproduce your painting, they'd pay you more for the copyright if it lasted 50 years than if it lasted 5 years.
I wish more people took economics classes.
IP and TJ (Score:2)
I think the same can be said about recordings of musical performances.
I suggest everyone go to - Gag! Nofreelunchster [nofreelunchster.com] - and send this quotation to the webmaster, or whatever address is soliciting comments. Fill up their mailbox to overflowing. Send it to Orrin Hatch and your own congressperson and senators while you're at it.
okay, break it up (Score:3)
---
Re:okay, break it up (Score:2)
Completely untrue, actually. When Ashcroft was in the Senate, he led a group of singing Senators. If one searches hard enough, one can find some of his tunes on the Net in MP3. I've heard worse.
And BTW, if anyone wants to read the transcripts of the hearing, here [senate.gov] they are.
God Bless Orrin Hatch! (Score:2)
Your rant was good. (Score:2)
Orrin Hatch (Score:2)
Rich
Re: (Score:2)
The best part of the article (Score:4)
On it, they show how "hip" they are by putting anti-fair-use materials onto MP3s and distributing them for free! They even have a newsletter you can sign up for. (heh, I feel bad for Taco...I wonder how many Trolls will sign him up for that letter
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:2)
Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057
More Record industry quotes to angry up the blood (Score:2)
relating to the labels charging 1.99 for singles, and 18.98 for albums with the new mtv music download service.
keep in mind these are limited recordings, with digital rights management built in.. So no burning to cdr
"The idea that the music doesn't have value when it's taken off the disk is wrong; the art form is the music," said Ted Cohen, EMI's vice president of new media. "Whether it's a download, bought in a store, or burned, we see that the value is in the music.
"It makes it more complex to go to an artist and tell them that they are going to get less money because they are selling the tracks digitally."
Just as a refresher, We're all familiar with the business model and how artists get paid.. Right?
(They get concert revenue.. Cd sales revenue typically goes straight back to the record label)
Re:Open letter to the 'represented' artists (Score:2)
Not just the major record labels (Score:3)
Good ol' Mr. Valenti (Score:2)
--
Re:God Bless Orrin Hatch! (Score:2)
- Senator Orrin Hatch (R) Utah, Roll Call, April 2, 2001
Ripped from the top of an RIAA propaganda page [nofreelunchster.com].
--
Re:God Bless Orrin Hatch! (Score:2)
I was just pointing out how what people say can be skewed to say whatever you want them to.
--
Re:The best part of the article (Score:2)
Rewarding the bad guys (Score:2)
I'm sorry, I want blood. And a bit of justice wouldn't hurt either.
The RIAA has abused their copyrights, to the detriment of the consumer, artists, and society, thei abuse is possibly to the point where the law indicates the correct penalty is the invalidation of those copyrights and release of the material to the public domain. At the very least, lets see someone prosecute them and let the courts decide, not some Senator acting on his economic ideology, (especially considering how well his ideology served the country when he brought us the DMCA).
But I forget - the RIAA, for most intents and purposes owns Washington. It makes me want to go and abuse the Napster service.
I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C). (Score:5)
1st year of copyright costs $1.
2nd year of copyright costs $3.
3rd year of copyright costs $9.
4th year of copyright costs $27.
5th year of copyright costs $81.
6th year of copyright costs $243.
7th year of copyright costs $729.
8th year of copyright costs $2,187.
9th year of copyright costs $19,683.
10th year of copyright costs $59,049.
11th year of copyright costs $177,147.
12th year of copyright costs $531,441.
13th year of copyright costs $1,594,323.
14th year of copyright costs $4,782,969.
15th year of copyright costs $14,348,907.
16th year of copyright costs $43,046,721.
17th year of copyright costs $129,140,163.
18th year of copyright costs $387,420,489.
19th year of copyright costs $1,162,261,467.
20th year of copyright costs $3,486,784,401.
and so on...
Keep paying for as long as you wish.... No need for an expiration date. The moment you fail to pay, though, your copyright expires and your IP becomes as public domain as classical music.
Too late! (Score:3)
I liked the note at the bottom of the /. page: (Score:2)
'Nuff said.
Re:Not just the major record labels (Score:3)
How many thousands of /. posts have said that people would pay for legal Napster? It's precisely this threat to their distribution system that the major labels are so afraid of.
In fact, someone please tell the TVT guy that I'd pay for TVT only licensed Napster. Fuck the majors, it would still give me freedom of choice.
Nobody will pay these prices (Score:3)
Four words, very slowly for Mr. PHB: ALL ... YOU ... CAN ... EAT.
Once this happens the illegals will disappear. Until then, see you on ftp and Gnutella.
do what is wrong with teenagers (Score:2)
I wonder why the article specified that most of the support was from teenagers. Is it because most of them are not allowed to vote and therefore are routinely ignored by the legislature? I recall trying to express my opinions in such peaceful ways, and getting totally dised by the media. It is little wonder that some (desperate) youth are resorting to more lethal means.
I am sure nothing would have been said if the group consisted mostly of middle age white men in bad suits with mismatched ties.
Open letter to the 'represented' artists (Score:2)
Well, gang, tough. You "label" recording musicians, and "best-seller" novelists and Hollywood movie actors are no different than the poor yutz who stands on a streetcorner making noise on his guitar with the case open in front of him, hoping that passers-by (like me) will drop a tad of cash in. Me standing there listening, whether it's for 5 seconds or three hours, does not constitute "piracy" if I don't toss in some cash. Me humming/singing the songs later, to myself or to others, does not constitute piracy, or infringement or anything. Me telling friends about "Slouching Tired, Wide and Dragging" does not constitute infringement, piracy or any other heinous act. Oh, sure, it can be legislated so, but that doesn't make it so, nor will that stop it in the long run. The mere fact that one artist or another has a somewhat larger corner to play on (say an entire cinema chain's screens) doesn't change the fact that they're still just a busker, and have the same economic situation as one on the streetcorner.
The point of this reminder, artists, is to advise you all to, as far as possible (and that's quite a bit farther than you think right now (with the probable exception of Courtney Love; She has definitely thought this through)) get the middleman out of your way and get back into touch with your audience. Set up that Busker's Square on the 'net. Do it _yourself_. Don't let some cheesy-ass middleman set it up and charge you to use it, and legislate you out of all your take in the process. Form a coalition and do it yourselves, with _hired_ technical labor, that _you_ control. The cinema folks did it at least once in history (anybody remember how United Artists got started and who did it?). The key will be to make sure that _you_ own Busker's Square. Let your tech people have a stake in it, but if you do that, make it a closely-held corporation or a co-op, even better. Keep the agents (parasites) and lawyers (bigger parasites) out of ownership positions.
Think about it.... can't hurt, and you'll probably end up making lots more friends (hint, hint, Lars)
Journalism (Score:2)
Pay the artist... (Score:2)
However, in regard to the article and government price controls, monetarists would say that the market should fix the price. But for that to work, there needs to be healthy competition. There's an oligopoly in the music industry, and if we were to look at it from a file sharing area, napster is about the only mature system out there. So I think rather than being soaked, government price fixing is probably the lesser of the evils.
Napster Has Been Before The Senate For Months (Score:2)
A friend of mine did the write up, but alas, slashdot didn't pick it up.
--
John Henley (Score:2)
--
Re:The best part of the article (Score:2)
"No matter what you do for a living you should get paid for your work, whether you're washing dishes or recording songs."
-- Bif Naked
Salon, March 25, 2000
Holy shit! I've been washing my dishes every day for YEARS and I never got a STINKING PENNY! This NAP-STIR program has got to be SHUT DOWN immediately! I demand my dishwashing payments!
Who is Bif Naked anyway? Never heard of the chap. Is he really naked?
Pentecostal's are actually pretty wild (Score:2)
It's also interesting to note that Jesus' first public miracle was making wine.
Trolls throughout history:
Re:We care (Score:2)
Let's use a little common sense... (Score:2)
Napster is dead. Long live Napster.
The RIAA will shut them down, but someone else will quickly rise to take its place. Of course, once the first is closed under legal issues, any following systems will be quickly eliminated, because now they have a legal precedent. The only reason this is taking so damn long is because it's never happened before.
Re:Not just the major record labels (Score:2)
Exactly, only if you pay for the content there is no need to put up with the crappy peer to peer distribution, the content can be distributed from the content provider via the likes of Akamai.
The danger for the RIAA is that the key players in such a scheme would most likely be the broadcast media companies - the AOLs, CBS, Disney and the like. The fact that the many of record labels have distribution arms only adds to the concern. Sony and Philips are paranoid that CBS will scoop the pool. CBS Records are paranoid that CBS Networks will absorb them.
Napster is the greatest gift for the RIAA it allows them to divert attention from their own rapacious greed and gives them a lever to fend off the forces of change. It will be a short lived strategy however. Hopefully once Napster is trash the real realignment can start.
If the RIAA and the labels are cut out the cost of music can drop to about 45 cents a single track or 1.50 for a CD full. At that price the incentive to piracy goes down and also the number of CDs bought goes up.
If I could download CDs in ripped form from Amazon I would probably end up buying stuff I own already to save the bother of doing it myself.
Re:do we want napster fronting for us? (Score:2)
Napster is a bunch of venture capitalist crooks that are at least as bad as the RIAA. What they want to do is to kill their competition peddling WAreZ, then when they are the only game in town they can jack up the fees.
The Internet existed before Napster, it will exist after Shawn Fanning and the opportunists he is fronting for have gone bankrupt, and so will Internet music.
I am sure that some commie type said something about letting capitalist exploiters of the workers kill each other but I can't remember the exact quote.
What would make the scene real perfect is if somehow they could dredge up enough dirt on Orin in the process to have him imdicted for something career ending.
Re:I have an idea. Charge companies for priv of (C (Score:2)
This is similar to how it works, the time schedule is not so steep and cheques have to be made payable to 'The Committee to Re-elect Orin Hatch Ltd.'.
Re:Not just the major record labels (Score:2)
Napster samples are not representative. A good compression algorithm introduces much less noise than the discrete linear quantization used on a CD.
That said, MP3 is not a very good compression algorithm. It is not even the compression algorithm used on DVDs as many people eroneously believe. Most DVDs are encoded using Dolby Digital (AC3). MP3 is also proprietary.
Compulsory Licenses (Score:3)
Compulsory licenses are those which the owner of some IP must grant regardless of who wishes to license their material.
For instance, if there were a compulsory license on NFL Football, any TV station that wished to broadcast a game could pony up a statutory amount of money and the NFL has no right to say "No, I don't want to do business with your" (nor do they have the right to say, "Okay, but you can't broadcast any game that any other station is already broadcasting, here's the list... and by the way, if you accept any advertising dollars from the XFL, you'll never get another NFL game as long as you live." (This is a purely hypothetical example, and has nothing to do with real extant circumstances)
Compulsory licenses are the "opposite" of voluntary licenses, in which the IP owner makes all and only the deals that they individually negotiate with the licensee
ASCAP and BMI (the people who collect royalties for radio performance) have voluntarily made their operations work -like- compulsory licenses, where anybody who ponies up a certain amount of money can play a certain amount of music (different rant about how ASCAP and BMI don't pay the people who's music is ACTUALLY played by the people who pay the fees... but they pay the people who are POPULAR *sigh*).
If most/all IP were under compulsory licenses... well, you wouldn't have to worry about AOL-Time Warner withholding all of their programming from other cable networks, and you wouldn't worry about Pfizer withholding all of their medicines from knock-off producers. Sounds great doesn't it? But like all things that foster competition in the delivery of IP, it reduces the strength of the Innovator's half of the copyright/patent bargain... and any time you WEAKEN that half, you WEAKEN the encouragement to innovate.
I don't know enough about markets to say whether the lost innovation would be made up for by the increased social welfare of a competitive market, but I wouldn't want to trust legislators with that decision either.
do we want napster fronting for us? (Score:3)
However, what does napster add to this debate? While they on the surface want to provide a similar application (on the backs of their user's bandwidth which is ugh, an ugly solution)... but who trusts napster now? Their $1 billion proposed package was nothing but a lot of hype... the economics of the situation on both sides seems poor for a deal like this that doesn't even include stable payment per user.
Having Hank Barry push for this kind of legislation groups the rest of the folks that suppport or would benefit from this into this attempt, which is nothing more than a company that promoted massive piracy gasping for it's last breaths. The industry (and the public) will be much better off when napster finally dies.
Well... (Score:2)
Re:We care (Score:2)