Greedy Music Execs and Congress taking away Fair Use

[Fergasun]

I frequently go on travel, and sometimes I end up zoning out watching CSPAN. This past Wednesday I caught Congressional Testimony on Digital Radio (this includes XM, Internet, and upcoming terrestrial digital).

This is a nice summary of the issues .

the proposed changes to the Copyright Act would force the use of protected formats for all streaming media services, whether online, on cable, or through satellite radio and TV

The PERFORM Act seeks to allow that kind of recording under the condition that the user cannot choose which recorded song (or other piece of content) she wants to listen to, other than selecting a channel. In other words, recording songs off the radio the way kids have done for 40 years would be illegal now, despite the fact that this practice is explicitly protected by previous amendments to the Copyright Act.

Once recorded, it would be illegal to process the recorded data in order to extract separate songs for later use. Further, none of the recorded material can be put on removable media or other devices, and only "a secure in-home network that also complies with each of the requirements prescribed in this paragraph," i.e., a properly DRM-compliant network, would be allowed to transmit or transport the media in any form.

Sirius has had recording devices available for some time now, but the RIAA isn't angry at them, because there is a license agreement between the two parties that tacks on some more license fees whenever the recording-capable S-50 receiver is used. Caught in the crossfire between the RIAA and XM, online broadcasters would need to switch from DRM-less MP3 streaming to protected formats such as PlaysForSure-laden WMA or good old Real Audio. And somewhere in the state of Washington (home to both Microsoft and RealNetworks), someone is cheering softly.

Fair Use seems to be a swiftly fading memory, despite all the talk about giving us our entertainment "whenever, wherever, and however" we want it.

I watched the hearing, and everyone it was all a bunch of greedy ****s who have seen the market value in music take a huge hit. The only people sticking up for consumers were the XM guy (albiet weakly) and an Independent Musician who correctly pointed out the threat of P2P networks and challenged Warner Music's Smarmy CEO when he compared the XM device to Napster (basically with the XM device XM still controls what gets put out.... you can't seek and find at will).

Our Congress-people said nothing about the prevailing greed during the meeting and came off as a bunch of mindless puppets bought off by Lobbyists.

Since this is bi-partisan I'm sure it's going to pass the Senate. I like the description of bi-partisan. It's when the stupid party and evil party come together with legislation that is both stupid and evil.

[dfitzo53]

I was under the impression that taping songs off the radio has always been illegal, unless they were talking about songs to which you already own rights.

[Fergasun]

It's only a matter of time before Congress kills the Internet... give them 10 years or so.

[Fergasun]

dfitzo53,

Nope. Part of the Betamax ruling in the US Supreme Court ruled that it is legal to record over-the-air broadcasts. I'm guessing this includes FM and Television. Actually I think this is anything delivered via analog (the so called "analog hole").

[Larry]

I was under the impression that taping songs off the radio has always been illegal, unless they were talking about songs to which you already own rights.

Nope. Copyright law basically says you can do anything you want with any copyrighted material you can get ahold of, if it's for your own use.

(I understand that for some time, the law actually went so far as to claim that broadcasting something ended copyright. The reasoning was that by throwing your material out there for anybody who wants it, you've relinquished it. But I understand that law didn't last that long.)

[Larry]

dfitzo53,

Nope. Part of the Betamax ruling in the US Supreme Court ruled that it is legal to record over-the-air broadcasts. I'm guessing this includes FM and Television. Actually I think this is anything delivered via analog (the so called "analog hole").

The Betamax decision was actually a bit more subtle than that.

Both sides agreed that recording materials off the air for your own use was legal.

What Sony had claimed was that Betamax was illegal because it was capable of copying other materials, like coppying other tapes. They tried to get Betamax declared illegal because it could be used to commit a crime (copying tapes).

The court ruled that the device couldn't be banned merely because it might be used to commit a crime, because it also might be used for legal purposes.

[DjTj]

The Betamax decision was actually a bit more subtle than that.

Both sides agreed that recording materials off the air for your own use was legal.

What Sony had claimed was that Betamax was illegal because it was capable of copying other materials, like coppying other tapes. They tried to get Betamax declared illegal because it could be used to commit a crime (copying tapes).

The court ruled that the device couldn't be banned merely because it might be used to commit a crime, because it also might be used for legal purposes.

I think you have your parties confused. Sony actually invented Betamax, so they were the ones being sued by Universal.

Sony claimed that there were significant non-infringing uses of the VCR, and that's the argument the Supreme Court upheld: the technology could not be banned simply because it might be used to do something illegal.

The Court didn't say that recording for your own use was legal; the definition of "fair use" has remained pretty murky. The only thing the Betamax case said for sure was that it would be legal to use the VCR for "time shifting," which means recording a show to watch it later.

As for the DRM issue, my gut is against it, but I don't think relying fair use is necessarily the answer. Congress needs to pass some sort of home use exception, like they did with home audio in the early 90's, where the record companies get some fraction of the profits off the sale of iPods in exchange for not suing everyone.

[portisizzle]

If it weren't for the people who STEAL from the artists, this would not be happening.

Only ones ****ing about this are the ones who are guilty of theft.

[Larry]

I think you have your parties confused. Sony actually invented Betamax, so they were the ones being sued by Universal.

You're right.

I was drawing a blank trying to think of who The Bad Guys were, and then I thought it was called Sony v. Betamax.

Must've forgotten how to tell the difference between "flash of brilliance" and "brain fart".

[Larry]

If it weren't for the people who STEAL from the artists, this would not be happening.

Only ones ****ing about this are the ones who are guilty of theft.

You are incorrect.

I'm one of the people who're "****ing about this".

Yes, I've copied audio CDs. Of CDs that I own. (I use copies in my car, and keep the originals at home, where they're not exposed to heat.)

(When I had a cassette player in my car, I used to make my own tapes to play in the car. It wasn't because I was too cheap to buy pre-recorded tapes: The tapes I made actually cost me more money than pre-records. But the tapes I made were higher quality than pre-records. And creating my own tapes allowed me to edit the tapes. (I listen to a lot of movie soundtracks. For some obscure reason, people who make soundtrack albums don't put the music in the same sequence as the movie. By making my own tapes, I can put the songe in correct order.))

Reasons I object:

DRM legislation will prohibit Linux from being able to play these media. (Because Linux is open source, there's no way a DRM product can verify that my computer isn't just pretending to be your computer.) (This is why one of the big lobbyers for DRM legislation is Microsoft.)

DRM makes it legal for content providers to do illegal things to you as a price for using their media. (Installing spyware on your computer. Forcing you to watch advertising that you weren't told about untill after you bought the product. Forcing you to buy the product again if you move. Prohibiting you from creating redundant copies for backup purposes. Demanding that you give them permission to cripple your system on demand.)

Now, I support prosecution of people stealing media.

I object to legislation masquerading as "anti-piracy" who's real purpose is to make people pay for permission to do things that they already have the legal right to do, anyway, and to allow "the industry" unlimited privacy-invasion rights.

[skinz1972]

If it weren't for the people who STEAL from the artists, this would not be happening.

Only ones ****ing about this are the ones who are guilty of theft.

are you guilty of theft?:doh:

[NoCalMike]

If people just stopped buying Top 40 garbage, then this problem would all go away as Record Labels would be desperate for our business.

Before the internet and file-sharing in particular, do you know difficult is was to consistently find good music that I enjoyed, other then what was pettled to me on FM Radio?

This is a control issue people. not a financial issue. The Big corporations are tired of spending 50 million advertising the new Beyonce or Mariah Carrey or Kelly Clarkson album...and instead I as a consumer can go online and have access and download music from other artists that aren't signed to big name record companies.

[portisizzle]

are you guilty of theft?:doh:

No, I support the legislation. What is your point.

[dfitzo53]

If people just stopped buying Top 40 garbage, then this problem would all go away as Record Labels would be desperate for our business.

Before the internet and file-sharing in particular, do you know difficult is was to consistently find good music that I enjoyed, other then what was pettled to me on FM Radio?

This is a control issue people. not a financial issue. The Big corporations are tired of spending 50 million advertising the new Beyonce or Mariah Carrey or Kelly Clarkson album...and instead I as a consumer can go online and have access and download music from other artists that aren't signed to big name record companies.

Spot on.

[portisizzle]

If people just stopped buying Top 40 garbage, then this problem would all go away as Record Labels would be desperate for our business.

Before the internet and file-sharing in particular, do you know difficult is was to consistently find good music that I enjoyed, other then what was pettled to me on FM Radio?

This is a control issue people. not a financial issue. The Big corporations are tired of spending 50 million advertising the new Beyonce or Mariah Carrey or Kelly Clarkson album...and instead I as a consumer can go online and have access and download music from other artists that aren't signed to big name record companies.

By definition "Top 40" is not garbage.

BTW, I have heard this argument many times and it is weak. Basically you are saying these artists and music companies are not entitled to the protection of their rights to what they produce because you want to download lesser known music. First and formost is copyright protection regardless of your argument.

Again, I say that you can thank people who use Kazaa and Torrents for what is happening here. People are STEALING as if the laws do not apply to them.

But I guess if someone who can justify possession of marijuana because the law should not apply to them, well then can easily justify in their minds the simple download of copyrighted material...... and if that is the case then artists and production companies are entitled to the enforcement of the law by any means necessary.

[dfitzo53]

By definition "Top 40" is not garbage.

BTW, I have heard this argument many times and it is weak. Basically you are saying these artists and music companies are not entitled to the protection of their rights to what they produce because you want to download lesser known music. First and formost is copyright protection regardless of your argument.

Again, I say that you can thank people who use Kazaa and Torrents for what is happening here. People are STEALING as if the laws do not apply to them.

But I guess if someone who can justify possession of marijuana because the law should not apply to them, well then can easily justify in their minds the simple download of copyrighted material...... and if that is the case then artists and production companies are entitled to the enforcement of the law by any means necessary.

I don't believe NoCal Mike ever advocated music theft in his post and neither do I. His point is that the system is flawed because the major music companies have a stranglehold on the market and crank out flavor-of-the-week, lowest-common-denominator music to appeal to the teenage masses. Those of us who want to find real musical innovation are forced to go to the internet to legally find the music from lesser known artists. The fact that we can circumvent their control that way scares them.

[portisizzle]

The fact that we can circumvent their control that way scares them.

REPHRASE:

"The fact that we can steal their copyrighted material has forced them to STOP IT."

And Difzo, if this is JUST about downloading unknown artists online what will stop you now? The only thing the music industry is doing is protecting their investment. They could care less about a band named "Turtle Cheese Donkey Slongs". Go download the ****-stained underground music to your hearts desire. The music industry does not care. That is until their music can make them money. Then they will be signed and protected by copyright laws.

And protecting their investment does not scare them. But I can see how it would scare a criminal.

[dfitzo53]

Go download the ****-stained underground music to your hearts desire.

Is this necessary?

[portisizzle]

Is this necessary?

I meant this in the most positive light possible. My point is to say the music industry does not care about fringe underground music. Neither does the vast majority of the buying public. Mainly because most of it is just bad music that would appeal to almost nobody. To say that this is the reason for all the legislation like NoCal was saying and you were supporting is, in fact, missing the legitimate point of the legislation.

[MSJHWT]

You are incorrect.

I'm one of the people who're "****ing about this".

Yes, I've copied audio CDs. Of CDs that I own. (I use copies in my car, and keep the originals at home, where they're not exposed to heat.)

(When I had a cassette player in my car, I used to make my own tapes to play in the car. It wasn't because I was too cheap to buy pre-recorded tapes: The tapes I made actually cost me more money than pre-records. But the tapes I made were higher quality than pre-records. And creating my own tapes allowed me to edit the tapes. (I listen to a lot of movie soundtracks. For some obscure reason, people who make soundtrack albums don't put the music in the same sequence as the movie. By making my own tapes, I can put the songe in correct order.))

Reasons I object:

DRM legislation will prohibit Linux from being able to play these media. (Because Linux is open source, there's no way a DRM product can verify that my computer isn't just pretending to be your computer.) (This is why one of the big lobbyers for DRM legislation is Microsoft.)

DRM makes it legal for content providers to do illegal things to you as a price for using their media. (Installing spyware on your computer. Forcing you to watch advertising that you weren't told about untill after you bought the product. Forcing you to buy the product again if you move. Prohibiting you from creating redundant copies for backup purposes. Demanding that you give them permission to cripple your system on demand.)

Now, I support prosecution of people stealing media.

I object to legislation masquerading as "anti-piracy" who's real purpose is to make people pay for permission to do things that they already have the legal right to do, anyway, and to allow "the industry" unlimited privacy-invasion rights.

Man that whole post was spot-on. I still buy music in store, but the first thing I do is rip the CD to my hard drive, and make a backup CD, and then I don't use the CD again unless I need to make another CD copy. I listen to the music on my computer, I listen to the CD at work, and I have a MP3-capable head unit in my car, I burn the songs I like with other songs in MP3 format to play in the car (appox 200 songs per CD).

I can't even tell you how frustrating it was when I didn't have this ability, that after having some CDs for 2-3 weeks, and having them get scratched, stepped on, broken, etc etc.

Now when this happens, I make myself a new one.

One of the reasons I don't do iTunes/Napster etc is the liscensing and the subscriptions. I don't want to only be able to make 1 copy of the music, or loose my music after I cancel a subscription, so I still buy CDs. If CDs start being unable to be copied, will they send me a new one at the cost of the CD only when mine brakes, since I own the rights to the music, right? I wouldn't risk holding my breath.

Portinizzle, do you work for the RIAA?

[portisizzle]

Portinizzle, do you work for the RIAA?

No I am just a capitalist pig who understands that profit is not a dirty word and that stealing music is no different than me stealing your car.

[MSJHWT]

No I am just a capitalist pig who understands that profit is not a dirty word and that stealing music is no different than me stealing your car.

I don't understand why you're harping on file sharing as being the issue here, because it's not. If they want to make the penalties for file sharing harsher, make them harsher. Hell, I'm all for that. Even when sue people without a computer for filesharing (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060424/1141216.shtml).

THIS hurts people who still buy music.

If you want to use a car analogy, it would be like having a car, which isn't too reliable (CDs are fragile), that can only be taken back to the dealer once bought (DMR protection), if something does brake, the way to fix it? Buy a new car, for the same price (a new CD).

[portisizzle]

I don't understand why you're harping on file sharing as being the issue here, because it's not. If they want to make the penalties for file sharing harsher, make them harsher. Hell, I'm all for that. Even when sue people without a computer for filesharing (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060424/1141216.shtml).

THIS hurts people who still buy music.

If you want to use a car analogy, it would be like having a car, which isn't too reliable (CDs are fragile), that can only be taken back to the dealer once bought (DMR protection), if something does brake, the way to fix it? Buy a new car, for the same price (a new CD).

The analogy would be having a car, tearing it up, and expecting GM to give you a new one for cost. Try taking care of your stuff. Or start downloading music via one of many legitimate sources.

Also, my point is to say if people were not stealing and taking advantage of the loopholes the recording industry would not be forced into such measures that affect us all. Anyone using Kazaa or torrents are stealing and causing undo additional restrictions on our use of copyrighted material.

This is not the fault of the industry, this is the fault of the criminals. Put the blame where it belongs.

And file sharing is the issue. Care to explain why we are getting new HD-DVD Blueray devices very soon?

[Destino]

If it weren't for the people who STEAL from the artists, this would not be happening.

Only ones ****ing about this are the ones who are guilty of theft.

No they aren't. Many of the ones ****ing about this are the ones watching companies gain more and more control over MY STUFF. My computer can be tracked and hacked by them and used to increase their profits and promotions... now what I decide to listen to and how, even if I bought it legally has to be ok'd by them.

[Destino]

The analogy would be having a car, tearing it up, and expecting GM to give you a new one for cost. Try taking care of your stuff. Or start downloading music via one of many legitimate sources.

You didn't take it far enough. The analogy would be...

- You buy a car.

- The car tells your dealer, everywhere you go, how many people are in your car, how fast you drive, and how heavy the loads you put in your trunk are.

- They can sell this information.

- If you try to fix your car yourself your car will no longer work.

- If you try to use parts purchased from another manufacturer your car will no longer work.

... and you support this ****.