Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

05/06 Editorial: Stream an MP3, Go to Jail?!?

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse









X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Great editorial Craig! I wasn't aware this was in the works... it's bad legislation at best.
    DJDM.com][DJDM Game Stuff][Myspace

    Comment


    • #17
      Do we have the text of the bill?

      I assume it's alteration to Title 17 stuff?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Brittanylips

        The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!!
        -peace, love, and blips


        Alright, you busted me. I agree that this isn't cause for freaking out.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Anderton
          <<As I understand it, the whole point of copyright, from the point of view of the framers of the original law, was to provide incentive for the creation of new work. Copyright law was and is for us!>>

          Yes, but with the incentive being that you're protected and can control your work. It's exactly what you alluded to later, that people need to be compensated to have this kind of incentive.

          I guess I'm making a distinction between control and profit. U.S copyright law seems to be designed more for profit as an incentive whereas copyright law in France, for example, gives artists more control.

          In the U.S., once you release an initial recording, you've pretty much relinquished control. Other people can record it, parody it, play it, change it, and there's not much you can do about it (except receive liscencing fees and royalties). If anything, U.S. copyright laws encourage derivative work.

          I doubt that the 2 Live Crew case (cover of Roy Orbison's Pretty Woman) that bubbled up to the Supreme Court and expanded Fair Use would have gotten the same thumbs up in France. In France and other European countries, there's more of a culture of "once you create something it's your baby." In the U.S., copyright law seems to reflect a culture of "once you create something, it's your cash cow."
          Originally posted by Anderton
          If I buy a recording, I want to be able to play it, and I think I should have the right to play it in a portable player if I want without having to ask for permission. Protect music from piracy? Yes! Absolutely. But protect it from paying, legitimate consumers? Big, big mistake.

          I couldn't agree with you more. And I think this is where the technology and the laws are simply out of step but will eventually catch up with each other. There's just so much technological innovation, it happens so quickly and is, itself, in a state of flux, that the law, by comparison, lumbers slowly in its wake. I mean, just turn on CSPAN and look at those guys!

          For example, in the 2 Live Crew case, behind the scenes, the supreme court justice who wrote the decision wasn't able to operate the walkman he used to review the song without assistance. Legal reform and technological innovation are just two different animals.

          But the law you're attacking is not about people who buy songs and can't play them where they want to. If I understand it correctly (and maybe I don't), it is about people carting songs around that they haven't paid for.

          It is one thing to buy music and expect to play it wherever you want. But it's another thing to turn on the radio, and receive an endless stream of versatile digital copies, veritable CDs popping out of the radio and onto your shelf, that would canabalize any reason to ever buy the stuff again.

          -plb

          Comment


          • #20
            All the more reason to just say screw RIAA music and ignore it altogether.
            ____________________________
            Powered by squirrels.

            Comment


            • #21
              <<But the law you're attacking is not about people who buy songs and can't play them where they want to. If I understand it correctly (and maybe I don't), it is about people carting songs around that they haven't paid for. >>

              As I understand it, it's about people not being able to take songs THEY OWN and transfer them to anything other than acceptable, protected networks. Otherwise I wouldn't be upset! As I said:

              There are some allowed uses of recording based on "specific programs, time periods, or channels selected by the user" but not "specific sound recordings, albums, or artists." If you did record the music, you would be prohibited from taking cuts or transferring material to portable media devices unless they were part of a DRM-enabled network.

              In other words, you would be allowed to record certain tunes, but if you did, you couldn't transfer them to, say, a Zen or iPod unless the DRM allowed it.

              I also think the "record from XM" is a bit of a red herring. The quality is definitely not "CD quality" (whatever that means these days!!!!), and the only way to record it that I know of is through the headphone or speaker outs, which are also a bit fidelity-challenged.

              Besides, I'm PAYING to listen to XM, and they're PAYING royalties. I'm not hacking the XM signal, like witha cable descrambler or something.

              In other words, there's ALREADY a mechanism in place for compensation. Why not just re-negotiate that instead of creating a whole new mess?
              _____________________________________________
              There are now 14 music videos posted on my YouTube channel, including four songs by Mark Longworth. Watch the music video playlist, subscribe, and spread the links! Check back often, because there's more to come...

              Comment


              • #22
                [QUOTE]Originally posted by Anderton

                As I understand it, it's about people not being able to take songs THEY OWN and transfer them to anything other than acceptable, protected networks.


                I'm not sure that it's accurate that by contracting for XM service, one owns (a copy of) the programming
                [certainly an issue to look at and not unique to this context - so I think itmay be a biggie]


                In other words, you would be allowed to record certain tunes, but if you did, you couldn't transfer them to, say, a Zen or iPod unless the DRM allowed it.


                Hmm, well, that *might* (dunno, we'd have to take a look at it in depth prob) constitute "space shifting" as per the 9th cir decision in A&M v Napster


                I also think the "record from XM" is a bit of a red herring. The quality is definitely not "CD quality" (whatever that means these days!!!!), and the only way to record it that I know of is through the headphone or speaker outs, which are also a bit fidelity-challenged.


                that's pretty specific to your unit..the XM PC radios go through USB and one could stream rip, the new Pioneer XM-enabled 'personal players' thingies actually HAVE a record button for XM programming

                Comment


                • #23
                  Brit did bring up the interesting issue that, in general, USA copyright philosophy tends to be far more oriented to monetary v artistic control than a good bit of the world.

                  It certainly is a different 'color' of thinking fo shizzy and sometimes we find ourselves having to 'shift gears' if there is the 'other aspect' like the World Wide Church of God stuff, possibly the Grey Album injunction, our thoughts on Bobby McFerrin not comfortable with the Repub Party or Neil Diamond's initial refusal for "girl.." in Pulp Fiction, etc


                  Hypothetical for consideration :

                  Say we operate under time-shifting (with a valid one-use only provision)

                  BUT
                  the material being time shifted is strict samay (a tradition in which a rag is supposed to be played at a certain time) in Indian Music


                  thoughts?

                  [Sorry, I don't have answers -- just questions ]

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    thank you Craig .

                    it would appear that the gentlemen , our elected reprentitives assume we are all thieves

                    i.e. thought-criminals

                    you may not have not commited the crime yet, but with out the proper guidance you will fall prey to THOUGH-CRIME and from there you will be ripping and running in a short time.
                    a Dangerous thought criminal , a danger to yourself and a danger to others.

                    at the turn of the twentith century a gentleman wrote a book examining the constitution ,who wrote it and the arguements that went into it's framing.
                    the conclusion we (businessmen ) must protect us from them (citizenry)

                    this new law is a continuation of this philosophic supposition.

                    "we must protect ourselves from them"

                    we will avoid the sticky subject of failure to enforce laws designed to protect them (us) i.e. safety conditions in coal mines and those sort of legislated protection, lack of enforcement benefits the business owners (them) while enhancing their profit their margins

                    with this thought in mind the new law is in keeping with a long and honored tradition.
                    to disagree with this assumtion is not in keeping with the "AMERICAN WAY " therefore seditious. (thought-crime)

                    morbundity is a fine discription of the state of broadcasting in America.

                    Now if only the FCC would stop renewing the broadcasting licence of radio station ,KPFA fm a member of the dreaded Pacific foundation
                    http://www.kpfa.org/2ab_gen.htm
                    the air waves would be cleansed of the vile and pernicious filth of the Pacifica Foundation (ie KPFA and all of her sister stations). a foundation of thought-criminals

                    Clear Channel and it's ilk are freeing us from the bondage of unguided choice.
                    though the ministry of truth has been slow to respond to the need to protect us from the thought-criminals roaming freely among us, I believe: that this time the Ministry of Truth has done it's job exceptionally well with this new law.


                    slavery is freedom.
                    Variax , Pod XT Live
                    Chandler lap steel

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Anderton
                      As I understand it, it's about people not being able to take songs THEY OWN and transfer them to anything other than acceptable, protected networks.

                      Your pet peeve seems to be the issue of transportability, that when you buy a song you ought to be able to play it on whatever device you like. I agree with you wholeheartedly and believe that the realization of that goal is just a matter of time. It has to be. It makes too much sense.

                      Where we differ is on the notion that when you subscribe to XM for $10 or whatever it is they take out of my bank account each month, you own all the songs it happens to broadcast. In my view, my $10 lets me listen to their audio streams as they are broadcast. Then, any old school surreptitious analog taping of the signal, or new school digital capture per special permissions is gravy.

                      But beyond that, if I wish to own any of the music that XM broadcasts, I expect to have to buy it from some sort of store, brick and mortar or online - at which point your argument about transportability, in my view, is engaged 100%.

                      Isn

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I think all of this is just slight-of-hand to hide the elephant in the room, which is that artists no longer need the record companies to distribute their music. Instead of trying to add value to the equation, the record companies engage boatloads of lawyers to "protect the rights of musicians and artists", when we all know they're only protecting their distribution monopolies.

                        Beating up on tab site operators is a good example. Is it really in an artist's best interest to kill internet tabs? Why not let the artist decide that for themselves?

                        Artists need some recording equipment, a good producer (worth their weight in gold) and a distribution method. Unless they need a way to distribute payola for air play, the only other thing an artist need is a good web site, where their fans and "customers" can listen and purchase their music, t-shirts, etc. A place where their fans can interact through blogs and forae and where artists can post their tour schedules.

                        I used to think of record companies as just one step above organized crime. I now think much more of mobsters than that.

                        Just my opinion.
                        I roll on Shabaz.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I liked the bit about one industry telling another what it can and can not produce.
                          what happened to all that
                          "the free market will regulate itself and the government should not get involved"?


                          I don't make copies of any thing that's not mine and or distribute it . as a matter of principle. do unto others and that sort of thing.

                          the question comes to my mind where was the law to protect the artist /composer/performer when Tom Petty had his problems wuth the industry?
                          an artist being treated as property is OK it would seem if that is whats necessary to insure the industries profits.

                          it's a matter of enforcement or the lack of enforcement , and a lack of continuity regard how the laws are interpreted.

                          if this were the only issue facing artists and consumers presented by the music industry. with all this protectionism going on please allow me to add a link that would help illustrate who gets protected from criminal activity .
                          http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
                          Variax , Pod XT Live
                          Chandler lap steel

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Why should an XM receiver have the capability of easily transferring copies to a portable unit? If you want the song on a portable unit, buy it. The benefits of XM are in the variety of programming, commercial-less broadcasting.
                            Download my instrumental album at music.steamtheory.com or http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steamtheory2

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Anderton
                              Besides, I'm PAYING to listen to XM, and they're PAYING royalties.

                              Yesterday this very issue went to court. The RIAA sued XM claiming that its Inno receiver that lets you record up to 50 hours of music from the XM stream qualifies as a "new digital download subscription service" not covered by existing agreements.

                              The RIAA is arguing for parity in artist compensation as technologies converge.

                              XM is arguing for expanding consumer choice.

                              Part of XM's argument also includes expanding their own profits if they are able to avoid paying the type of royalties that traditional download services must currently pay.

                              How bout that, by the way, that we've gotten to the point that established download services can now be characterized as "traditional."

                              -plb

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Brittanylips


                                How bout that, by the way, that we've gotten to the point that established download services can now be characterized as "traditional."

                                -plb


                                That's the great ting abt these years -- as we grow old and senile, we will be able to talk abt "back in ought six"

                                Comment



                                Working...
                                X