[rumori] Re: pho: Re: My open resolution to the online music crisis

From: Don Joyce (djATwebbnet.com)
Date: Wed Jun 13 2001 - 00:26:51 PDT

Thanks for trying to be so comprehensive, but who do you think is reading
this? Most on this pho list are not at all concerned with cultural good
sense, the health of music, or the logic which digital media suggests to
any sane person. Almost everything you suggest will be seen by most of them
as a horrifying diminishment of potential profitability, and therefore not
even up for consideration. THAT is their alpha and omega, the ONLY star
they follow, the only thing that counts. The rest is just a bi-product. Do
you think they want to lose their jobs or take a pay cut by making musical
sense or improving our culture at this late date? NOT their job! Houses,
cars, and college for the kids is at stake! They never swerve from the road
they're on.

Most all your ideas are instant dumper fodder in music owning offices all
over this list, and unfortunately these are the offices now in charge of
almost all music in America. The actual art impulse, the real thing that
actually attracted most of them to this calling when they were youngsters
and which they have now completely forgotten as a priority, what is at the
root of all this stuff they have become comfortable commodifying, has now
been reduced to a tiny hit and run and hide guerrilla action which has been
pushed way back up into the distant hills to fend for itself against an
over funded army of high rise corporate lawyers, accountants, and their
economically compromised so always willing rubber stampers in Congress. I
wonder what they all think they will have accomplished when they finally
starve all the pesky cultural resistors to death or lock them up in
copyright prison? Until then, dream on, do everything you can yourself, and
continue breaking all anti-art laws wherever you find them, because you
will certainly continue to find them everywhere...

>Here is my open resolution to this "music crisis", pass the "Music Reform
>of 2001" (that I propose here):
>1) I would make a law that says a company can own only ONE record label.
>All the rest must be split up. For example, Bertlesmann could only own
>Arista or RCA, but not both. AOL Time Warner could own Warner Bros
>or Reprise, but not both.
>2) Require that ARTISTS/SONGWRITERS own the copyrights to their music, not
>the record labels. Record Labels would be required to return all the
>work rights back to the artists with 90 days of passing.
>3) Require that 50% or more of all royalties collected for a song, go to the
>artists and songwriters. The record label gets the remaining percentage.
>4) Make it be the ARTISTS choice on what uses are considered "fair" and
>are infringing of their copyrighted works. For example, if Metallica wants
>their music blocked on song-swapping services, that is their choice. If U2
>on the other hand is pro-sharing, their music should NOT be blocked.
>5) ISPs should NOT be liable for their customers actions. They should be
>exempt. However, if an ISP chooses to revoke a user for a copyright
>violation, they can choose to do so, but they should NOT be required to.
>6) That streaming music should be considered a broadcast, and the royalties
>collected for streaming that music should be paid by the person streaming
>not the fans (like radio play). Also, the fees paid for an over-the-air
>broadcast should cover a stream of it, if it is a simulcast of the
>over-the-air stream.
>7) To be guilty of copyright infringement, you must have the infringing file
>in your possesion. This would apply to peer-to-peer systems too. In
>the case of peer-to-peer systems, the central point should remain exempt
>liabilty if one of their members shares an infringing file. However, the
>person that shares the file is liable, and should be given a warning to stop
>sharing it, and if they keep up, they can be sued. The peer-to-peer
>provider can revoke a user for this, or block the infringing file name on
>system, but is not required to do so. This would apply to linking, too.
> In
>the case of linking, you are not guilty if you link to infringing content,
>only if you download it. However, web site operators can be sued, if the
>file is on their server or on their "shared space" on a web hosting
>servers (note: here the web host company is NOT liable).
>8) For Decentralized sharing systems, the same rule would apply above.
>Indivuals sharing can be sued, however the makers of the client software
>would be exempt from liablity. An ISP could NOT be held liable for their
>customers infringing content being shared. They can request info from
>ISP to see if they can find out who is uisng that IP address or internet
>(with a court order). However, the ISPs would NOT be required to keep a
>of every user logged on at a given time. If they cannot trace down an
>infringer, tough luck for the copyright owner! It is their responsibilty
>to have enough evidence to prove their case, not someone else. You are
>innocent till proven guilty!
>9) That record labels would be prohibited from refusing to license to
>who does not use their technology. For example, if someone wants to use
>non-encrypted MP3 files, instead of encrypted files that have timeouts, they
>should be able to get a license to distribute this way. If someone wants
>to use Opennap instead of Musicnet for their servers, they should be able to
>get a license to distribute music this way.
>10) That DRM restrictions should not infringe the "fair use" rights that are
>given in the AHRA, and the following cases: RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia
>Systems (space shift), Universal City Studios v. Sony (Time Shift a
>Broadcast), Sony v. Connectix (reverse engineer to make a compatible
>to play a medium), Vault v. Quaid (to be able to make a backup copy to a
>disk, data CD, Zip, etc).
>11) Non-profit and educational use should be charged a lower fee than
>commercial use of music.
>12) For downloaded music from the web, the price should be reasonable.
>13) There should be a way to efficently get royalties where they need to go,
>and have it be publicly auditted frequently. This organization should NOT
>be run the RIAA, or any record label. There should also be a system to get
>royalties to independent label artists, as well as non-signed artists.
>There should also be a way a procedure for distributing royalties for
>"disputed" artist transfers. For example, if a song is named "Silent
>on a peer-to-peer sharing system, there should a procedure ito either
>identify or distribute equally between. The system may not know if it
>sang by "Bing Crosby", "Trisha Yearwood", "The Wangenheim Middle School
>Choir", or someone else. In the case of non-professional artists, it may
>make since to send the royalties to them, or to a charity. For example, if
>the Scripps Ranch High School Choir gets downloaded, send that royalty money
>to the school (made out to the school choir), Attention the principal or
>choir teacher.
>13) The RIAA should not litigate the online world.

Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
Rumori list archives & other information are at

Home | Detrivores | Rhizome | Archive | Projects | Contact | Help | Text Index

[an error occurred while processing this directive] N© Detritus.net. Sharerights extended to all.