The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
The music industry bailout is here: Obama Sides with RIAA, MPAA; Backs ACTA Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 16th March 2010
  #1
Lives for gear
 
carllock's Avatar
 

Smile The music industry bailout is here: Obama Sides with RIAA, MPAA; Backs ACTA

Obama Sides with RIAA, MPAA; Backs ACTA

posted by Thom Holwerda on Fri 12th Mar 2010 23:18 UTC

And thus, our true colours reveal. Since Obama was the young newcomer, technically savvy, many of us were hoping that he might support patent and/or copyright reform. In case our story earlier on this subject didn't already tip you off, this certainly will: Obama has sided squarely with the RIAA/MPAA lobby, and backs ACTA. No copyright and/or patent reform for you, American citizens!

Obama made the remarks in a speech at the Export-Import Bank's annual conference in Washington.

"We're going to aggressively protect our intellectual property," Obama said in his speech, "Our single greatest asset is the innovation and the ingenuity and creativity of the American people [...] It is essential to our prosperity and it will only become more so in this century. But it's only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can't just steal that idea and duplicate it with cheaper inputs and labor."

"There's nothing wrong with other people using our technologies, we welcome it," Obama continued, "We just want to make sure that it's licensed and that American businesses are getting paid appropriately. That's why the [US Trade Representative] is using the full arsenal of tools available to crack down on practices that blatantly harm our businesses, and that includes negotiating proper protections and enforcing our existing agreements, and moving forward on new agreements, including the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement."

It seems that the RIAA, MPAA, and similar organisations have been successful in lobbying the US administration into supporting their cause. This means that the US government will continue to (financially) support an industry that is simply outdated, and has failed to adapt to the changing market - which seems remarkably anti-capitalistic and anti-free market, even for a Democratic president.

Luckily for at least us Europeans, the European Parliament has already shot the ACTA agreement down in an overwhelming 633-to-13 vote, while also forcing total openness - something the US does not want. This means that despite Obama siding with the content providers, ACTA will most likely not come to fruition.

Sadly, all this also means that American consumers will continue to see their rights eroded, as corporations and content providers further gain influence within the government. This means that devices you buy will not actually be yours, that uploading a video of your daughter dancing to a song on the radio could cost you thousands of dollars in damages, and it will also most likely mean that three strikes laws will be enacted.

Good times.



Obama Sides with RIAA, MPAA; Backs ACTA
Old 16th March 2010
  #2
I love the completely Animal Farm logic this guy manages to work into that little article. Orwell himself couldn't have done better.
Old 16th March 2010
  #3
Well, since I have spent 80 hours a week and an entire career making it, I think intellectual property should have a value.

I guess making sure it is illegal for people to steal from me and my clients is a "bailout" now.
Old 16th March 2010
  #4
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

I'm afraid this has very little to do with the entertainment industry and all to do with the bioindustry.
Biotechnology is the current hot IP playingfield and the US wants to make sure they own the patents on our DNA...
Old 16th March 2010
  #5
Lives for gear
 
GearBit's Avatar
 

The bias and spin in that article would make fox news blush.....

Not sure about the rest of the world but I like my news as dry and as factual as possible.
I'm off to see if there is a less slanted version of this story.........
Old 16th March 2010
  #6
Lives for gear
 
swafford's Avatar
 

It is necessary for the US government to control IP rights to enable exclusive access to our DNA so they may properly task the Assassination Drones they will be using to target True Patriots.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ZOMG!1!!!11!!!!!11
Old 16th March 2010
  #7
Lives for gear
I agree that this is not being motivated by our industry, I do think that it will help reestablish a bit more level a playing field.

I am baffled by this movement against the idea of copyright because I don't think it is strictly motivated by pirates and thieves. Somehow it has been coopted by a certain class of civil libertarian who I would normally have something in common with.

IMHOP copyright was a brilliant idea that the founding fathers saw as a way to motivate people to think creatively and innovate. The fact that their creativity could be used as a foundation for a career or company spawned all sorts of greatness.

Paricularly in the creative fields, the death of copyright spells the end of "professional creativity". the anility to become good enough at your art or craft that you can earn a living at it.

This of course enfuriates the people that are either not good enough, or not dedicated enough. Un their minds they are being discrimianated against by the system, when in fact they are simply failing.

We are in 'The Information Age". Its time the goverenment moved to restire the value of our ideas and labor.

Carlock, there might be a point or two in your argument. No system is perfect in all situations. But most of your post is just blatant fear mongering and as such demeans the intelligence of all here.
Old 16th March 2010
  #8
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by carllock View Post
uploading a video of your daughter dancing to a song on the radio could cost you thousands of dollars in damages, and it will also most likely mean that three strikes laws will be enacted.

Good times.

Good times, indeed -- the Piracy Decade is finally over!

Don't fight the future!
Old 16th March 2010
  #9
dear carlock -

How exactly is protecting copyrights a bailout? As you are new to this conversation, perhaps you've missed this - please read and offer your comments - thank you.

Quote:
the critical issue
by Tom

I agree that debates about property rights in the digital age are often distracted by faulty thinking about scarcity.

So let’s get the facts straight.

Unless a resource is scarce, assigning property rights to those who “produce” that resource is neither sensible nor harmful. After all, even if those who produce an "abundant" resource can exclude others from the portion of the abundant resource that they produce, the value of that right to exclude will be $0 absent scarcity.

But, as economists have long known, scarcity comes in two forms, ex ante, and ex post. Ex post scarcity means that a resource remains scarce even after it is produced and disseminated. Apples, wheat, and iPods exhibit ex post scarcity. Ex ante scarcity means that the resource is scarce until a means to produce and disseminate it is devised. Lighthouses and information goods (like innovations and expressive works) are examples of resources affected by ex ante scarcity.

Copyright and patent law respond to the problem of ex ante scarcity. Anyone who argues that information goods like innovations or expressive works are not "scarce" can validate their argument by producing the following:

-- copies of the films that will win Oscars in 2009,

-- a detailed description of a 100% effective cure for cancer,

and

-- a detailed description of a cheap, nonperishable malaria
vaccine.

In short, useful information is scarce, and it is expensive to create and produce, until the information in question is created and broadly disseminated.

So the problem with information goods is twofold.

First, we must convince someone to incur the expenses and risks involved in creating them.

Second, we must convince those who create valuable information goods that they should disseminate them broadly instead of carefully restricting access to those who are willing to pay (a lot) to obtain access.


An example may make this point more clearly. Dr. Stephen Covey studied business practices for many years and concluded that he could identify seven principles that would increase the odds that a businessperson would succeed.

For years, he profited from this information by acting as a consultant to Fortune 500 corporations and disclosing it only to the senior executives of corporations that paid his (very high) consulting fee.

Then, copyright laws convinced Covey that he could better exploit his hard-earned insights by publishing a book and making his insights available to anyone willing to pay $7 or visit a library. As a result, The Seven Principles of Highly Effective People was created and widely disseminated.

Saying that this particular work is no longer “scarce” because it has been created and widely disseminated dodges the real question: How do we encourage people like Covey to create information goods and broadly disseminate them?

For now, the best answer yet conceived to this question is “copyright”: We give authors like Covey an exclusive right to their expression of ideas so long as they are willing to allow the ideas expressed to pass immediately into the public domain. This bargain explains why you owe Covey nothing if you read a copy of his book at the library for free and then use his seven principles to build a multi-billion dollar business.

To oversimplify somewhat, copyrights are justified by the difference between the costs of creating an expressive work and the costs of copying an expressive work that has already been created, disseminated and become popular. The “abundance” of digital works that have been created and disseminated does not eliminate this justification. To the contrary, it strengthens it: As the marginal cost of reproducing a popular, disseminated work decreases, the justification for copyright increases.

So I agree: If humans already knew everything worth knowing and had already expressed everything worth saying, then it would make no sense to prevent zero-marginal-cost copying of innovations and works that had already been created and broadly disseminated.

But we don’t. That is why copyright and patent laws continue to make sense.

And that is why people who support those laws do understand “scarcity” in the digital age.

I hope this helps.
Old 16th March 2010
  #10
Lives for gear
 
audiogeek's Avatar
 

This may be the first thing Mr. Obama has done that I agree with, assuming it isn't just an empty gesture like the rest of his supposed 'conservative' posturing, while obsessing to neurotic ends over his flaccid National Healthcare takeover plan.

It'll actually take a massive investment in developing new methods of audio distribution and security protection for anything to change.

Hopefully we'll soon be able to look back at the 'piracy era' like we do the 'steroid era' in sports, with a sense of shame that we turned a blind eye for too long, but also relief that it has largely subsided.
Old 16th March 2010
  #11
Lives for gear
 
rectifier's Avatar
 

Great day for file hosting sites. It's not the end of piracy author, it will just change as it has been in the last few years - away from p2p. It certainly wasn't only a decade either - it's been going on for 2, almost 3 decades. P2p piracy yes I agree, lasted about 10-15 years but I believe it will live on - you don't have to run a p2p client on your machine, you can use a remote server for that and then download the file to your machine. And guess what.. that file isn't going to be called avatar01.rar etc.. or ke$ha_you_make_me_want_to_be_a_lezzer.mp3

As I have said previously as long as downloading itself isn't illegal - which it never will be, there will always be ways around this.
Old 16th March 2010
  #12
Lives for gear
^^^^ I can see it now...
Is it it a Wave or a Particle
Old 16th March 2010
  #13
Quote:
Originally Posted by rectifier View Post
Great day for file hosting sites. It's not the end of piracy author, it will just change as it has been in the last few years - away from p2p. It certainly wasn't only a decade either - it's been going on for 2, almost 3 decades. P2p piracy yes I agree, lasted about 10-15 years but I believe it will live on - you don't have to run a p2p client on your machine, you can use a remote server for that and then download the file to your machine. And guess what.. that file isn't going to be called avatar01.rar etc.. or ke$ha_you_make_me_want_to_be_a_lezzer.mp3

As I have said previously as long as downloading itself isn't illegal - which it never will be, there will always be ways around this.
do you support piracy? and if so why?
Old 16th March 2010
  #14
Lives for gear
 
rectifier's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by redvelvetstudios View Post
do you support piracy? and if so why?
Nope. Just stating some truths. Don't have to support piracy to see the facts. Piracy always transmogrifies, this we have seen in the last 30 years.
Old 16th March 2010
  #15
Gear Nut
 

I think what the poster is referring to, is that pirate files will simply become encrypted, which will make them very hard to detect what the content is!
Old 16th March 2010
  #16
Gear Nut
 

The real problem is that there is just no real world solution for piracy eradication no matter what laws are passed, or how restrictive we become trying to filter internet traffic. Unless the internet is completely shut down and redesigned as non peer to peer. Meaning we would have to allow the exchange of information and downloading of information from only a limited set of approved websites. Which I dare say isn't likely to transpire. This would also have to be a global effort as well, unless USA was completely shut off from all P2P traffic all over the rest of the world.

So say we decide to have draconian file monitoring, and every single file that anyone downloads is scanned by the ISPS's for possible copyright infringement. How long do you think it takes for the bad guys to think up a new scheme for pirated content that is safer to the pirates.
Such as implementing full bit locker or other encryption of all files that are hosted by the bad guys. Once the pirates start using encryption on a mass scale it will not really matter who is watching your internet traffic, because full encryption is simply not crack able or easily detected directly from a web based host.

Say for example you have some files on a web space somewhere with pirated content that is 100% encrypted, and half a world away somewhere else, you have lists of the said files on a torrent like search service with encryption keys for each file. So this forces ISP’s to first find all these lists of software or music and then search for the hosted files that are encrypted and entirely somewhere else, and then decrypt these files, and then match these files with users who downloaded encrypted transfers, and then compare the list to see who violated copyrights by downloading stuff they shouldn’t. have.

How much time and effort do you think this would take on the part of the ISP’s from a practical point of view, concerning time, effort and expense.
I think it would be pretty much impossible! Anyone else think differently!
Old 16th March 2010
  #17
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

There is a very important point in all this that is being missed by BOTH sides of this argument.

Look at the collectivist nature of the language being used here:
"We're going to aggressively protect our intellectual property" and "It is essential to our prosperity..."
...It is as if he is saying that "In addition to the problem of the slaves ripping off the plantation's crops, we are also tired of OTHER plantations stealing the proceeds from OUR plantation! (Which in this case basically amounts to a co-op, collectively owned by its slaves.)

Of course BMI, ASCAP, RIAA, etc. are ALSO collectives, incorporated and regulated by GovCo. (Essentially, they are subsidiaries of the plantation.)

What is being missed here is that in this day and age, collective licensing of intellectual property is totally unnecessary; today, here is absolutely NO REASON for creative people to go through a "middle man" to sell and/or license their art!

Moreover, I feel that governments and corporations are defensively trying to stir **** up and create turmoil over false choices in a desperate attempt to sidetrack people from the realization that they can make their OWN DAMN DEALS, without even involving these dinosaur organizations!

They are deliberately trying to confuse people in a desperate attempt at self-preservation. So in a way, it really IS an attempt at a bailout (...just not in the way we usually think of it).

(Just my $0.02.)
Old 16th March 2010
  #18
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by slinky View Post
The real problem is that there is just no real world solution for piracy eradication no matter what laws are passed, or how restrictive we become trying to filter internet traffic. Unless the internet is completely shut down and redesigned as non peer to peer. Meaning we would have to allow the exchange of information and downloading of information from only a limited set of approved websites. Which I dare say isn't likely to transpire. This would also have to be a global effort as well, unless USA was completely shut off from all P2P traffic all over the rest of the world.

So say we decide to have draconian file monitoring, and every single file that anyone downloads is scanned by the ISPS's for possible copyright infringement. How long do you think it takes for the bad guys to think up a new scheme for pirated content that is safer to the pirates.
Such as implementing full bit locker or other encryption of all files that are hosted by the bad guys. Once the pirates start using encryption on a mass scale it will not really matter who is watching your internet traffic, because full encryption is simply not crack able or easily detected directly from a web based host.

Say for example you have some files on a web space somewhere with pirated content that is 100% encrypted, and half a world away somewhere else, you have lists of the said files on a torrent like search service with encryption keys for each file. So this forces ISP’s to first find all these lists of software or music and then search for the hosted files that are encrypted and entirely somewhere else, and then decrypt these files, and then match these files with users who downloaded encrypted transfers, and then compare the list to see who violated copyrights by downloading stuff they shouldn’t. have.

How much time and effort do you think this would take on the part of the ISP’s from a practical point of view, concerning time, effort and expense.
I think it would be pretty much impossible! Anyone else think differently!
Your story only touches on private conversations between clients.

P2p works by allowing public access to the data in some way or another.
You, as a p2p user, cannot be sure if you are sharing with someone working for authority or not.
In that case encription is meaningless.
Old 16th March 2010
  #19
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
What is being missed here is that in this day and age, collective licensing of intellectual property is totally unnecessary; today, here is absolutely NO REASON for creative people to go through a "middle man" to sell and/or license their art!
In this day and age the middle man has the more expensive lawyer.
You want to be on their side of the argument.
Old 16th March 2010
  #20
The point has never been completely eradicate theft. This cannot be done, as has been proven by thousands of years of business. The point is to get the chances of getting caught up from zero and the consequences of getting caught up from almost nothing. If that happens, that will do more than any technical sort of protection mechanism. The basic goal should be to get it to the point where the only people doing it are people who are clearly and actively taking a step into illegality in a way where ignorance cannot be claimed. So that, if they get caught, there are meaningful consequences.

In the western world, which has always been really the market for intellectual property, where people have something to lose, that will be a very effective step. The rest of the world, as they move up into the first world and want to do business, will have to become stricter about these things as well.

As to the 'our property' thing, he clearly means the US, whether you are an individual or a company. I'm always stunned at how the anti-label bias has gotten so bad with some people that they will use it as an argument against the abilty to protect themselves. If your stuff is self-copyrighted, then such improvements in enforcement will protect you every bit as much as them. Not because you have to have lawyers like them, but because the disincentives to steal instead of buy, in order to avoid the consequences thereof, will benefit you without any legal effort on your part.
Old 16th March 2010
  #21
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
...What is being missed here is that in this day and age, collective licensing of intellectual property is totally unnecessary; today, here is absolutely NO REASON for creative people to go through a "middle man" to sell and/or license their art!
This is absolutely true.

It's also why there is no reason to change copyright laws to expand compulsory licensing or add other measures to make licensing "more convenient or practical." That's all just code for government-mandated limits on creative people's property rights.

I also don't buy that enforcing the law is some kind of a bailout. The bailout was supporting the tech and telecommunications industries by not enforcing the law and granting them immunity from prosecution as parties to copyright infringement.
Old 16th March 2010
  #22
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
In this day and age the middle man has the more expensive lawyer.
You want to be on their side of the argument.
No thank you.

I like the lawyers to be at the OTHER table in the courtroom!
Old 16th March 2010
  #23
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
What is being missed here is that in this day and age, collective licensing of intellectual property is totally unnecessary; today, here is absolutely NO REASON for creative people to go through a "middle man" to sell and/or license their art!
Really? ASCAP alone counts over 35,000 licensees along with tens of thousands of general licensees (restaurants, bars, etc). And they just operate in the US.

In what way would it be better for creative people to seek individual public performance licenses from as many as 100,000 outlets as opposed to signing up with one blanket licensing society that takes care of all of that? I doubt your average songwriter has the time, ability, or inclination to track, collect, and audit performance royalties from that many licensees.
Old 16th March 2010
  #24
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by terryhart View Post
Really? ASCAP alone counts over 35,000 licensees along with tens of thousands of general licensees (restaurants, bars, etc). And they just operate in the US.

In what way would it be better for creative people to seek individual public performance licenses from as many as 100,000 outlets as opposed to signing up with one blanket licensing society that takes care of all of that? I doubt your average songwriter has the time, ability, or inclination to track, collect, and audit performance royalties from that many licensees.
...OR, you COULD have your OWN damn "outlet," and keep ALL the money!

(A larger slice of a smaller pie.)

Do whatever you want, but I'd rather have 100% of 3000 sales than 3% of 100,000 sales.
Old 16th March 2010
  #25
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ukFaith View Post
Shoudn't this Thread be moved to the Piracy forum?

Where it belongs...
Probably...

...But give it time...

I have a feeling that before too long, it'll be more at home in the "Moan Zone"!




.
Old 16th March 2010
  #26
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
Your story only touches on private conversations between clients.

P2p works by allowing public access to the data in some way or another.
You, as a p2p user, cannot be sure if you are sharing with someone working for authority or not.
In that case encription is meaningless.
Yes, you are definitely correct, my understanding is that Peer to Peer has an easy signature for potential detection algorithms as well. That's why I mentioned web host based hosted piracy as the main threat.
Old 16th March 2010
  #27
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
The point has never been completely eradicate theft. This cannot be done, as has been proven by thousands of years of business. The point is to get the chances of getting caught up from zero and the consequences of getting caught up from almost nothing. If that happens, that will do more than any technical sort of protection mechanism. The basic goal should be to get it to the point where the only people doing it are people who are clearly and actively taking a step into illegality in a way where ignorance cannot be claimed. So that, if they get caught, there are meaningful consequences.

In the western world, which has always been really the market for intellectual property, where people have something to lose, that will be a very effective step. The rest of the world, as they move up into the first world and want to do business, will have to become stricter about these things as well.

As to the 'our property' thing, he clearly means the US, whether you are an individual or a company. I'm always stunned at how the anti-label bias has gotten so bad with some people that they will use it as an argument against the abilty to protect themselves. If your stuff is self-copyrighted, then such improvements in enforcement will protect you every bit as much as them. Not because you have to have lawyers like them, but because the disincentives to steal instead of buy, in order to avoid the consequences thereof, will benefit you without any legal effort on your part.
Yes, if the ISP's start sending out mass letters of disconnect threats to every potential copyright enfringer they find, that should start to make some difference. Because thousands of RIAA lawsuit threats so far has not. But on the other hand, if file sharers are tricky enough to start hiding their activities better, then its gonna be tough to even find them - I would think.
Old 16th March 2010
  #28
Lives for gear
 
rectifier's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by slinky View Post
Yes, if the ISP's start sending out mass letters of disconnect threats to every potential copyright enfringer they find, that should start to make some difference.
What will happen is .. instead of accepting they will be disconnected if illegally downloading, there will be a massive surge (already happening) in vpn/remote host types of services. Will the pirates buy their music? No they will spend it on the service allowing them to get away with untraceable downloading. There will be a massive backlash and word of mouth will spread about these services and the companies making these services will ride the wave and make a ton of money. Then it's back to legislation, new laws in attempt to stop these services but they will find a way to host this service (such as what is happening with RS now being HQ'd in Switzerland) at a location that does not follow these laws that are trying to be enforced.
Old 16th March 2010
  #29
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
...OR, you COULD have your OWN damn "outlet," and keep ALL the money!...
Actually ASCAP only keeps a tiny percentage that is well worth it. The point is that people deserve to have a choice and full control over how their intellectual property is used.
Old 16th March 2010
  #30
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Actually ASCAP only keeps a tiny percentage that is well worth it. The point is that people deserve to have a choice and full control over how their intellectual property is used.
...But they are not the only organizations sapping your wealth. Even without using a major label, these guys nickle and dime ya to death.

...Besides, why not write the rules yourself (instead of letting these bozos write them FOR you)?

...And why on God's green earth is it "worth it"? Why?
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
rack gear / Music Business
19

Forum Jump
Forum Jump