RIAA on the run?

from slashdot:

"We talked about Charlie Nesson of Harvard Law School before, and it may not have been known to you, but he is backing former student and Jammie Thomas' new lawyer, K.A.D. Camara. Ars is reporting that Nesson is upping the charges against the RIAA. Not only is file-sharing fair use, but the $100,000,000 the RIAA has collected through fear is due back to those wrongly accused. He's also increasing the number of fronts he's fighting. On Camara's website, he indicates that in another case, Brittany English (pro bono), they 'are asking the courts to declare that statutory damages like these — 150,000:1 — are unconstitutional and that the RIAA's campaign to extract settlements from individuals by the threat of such unconstitutional damages is itself unlawful, enjoin the RIAA's unlawful campaign, and order the RIAA to return the $100M+ that it obtained as a result of its unlawful campaign.'"

Vampires and the RIAA

Ever notice how vampires operate? They suck your blood all the while making you think that they are doing you the favor.

It really does appear that the RIAA and its net representative, Sound Exchange, operate under the same principle.

The RIAA has the Copyright Royalty Board under its thumb and appears to dictate web policy to that board, the RIAA tells webcasters what they will pay or else they go to jail or get sued. This seems to be coercion to me.

So, in effect, the RIAA sets royalty payments unilaterally, sucks the funds from the webcasters and makes them think that the RIAA did them the favor.

If the RIAA had its way, there'd be no webcasting at all. Each note of music would have to be bought from one of the RIAA's constituent members. No more free music of any kind, no more fair use would exist, nothing without payment. Pay through the nose, then give up your nose.

One thing that webcasters forget as victims of this policy, they could put a stop to it fast. Just stop webcasting music. When the public starts complaining to Congress to do something about it, perhaps the RIAA can be controlled by reason and not avarice.

Victimizers often forget that if they destroy the victim, their victimization ceases and they have no source left from which to suck.

Unfortunately, the so-called musical performance artists contribute to this victimization by profiting from the RIAA's activities, whether vicariously or otherwise. You can't take your profits with a clear conscience when the agency collecting for you is known to be set on destroying the source of those profits.

Musicians can create music without an audience, but do they really want that?

Just some thoughts.

BRIAN LEE CORBER, CORBERLAW@AOL.COM, Panorama City, California 91412-4656, 818-786-7133.

the truth behind "blanket licensing"

Have you ever checked into a hotel and asked to be shown to your room? Have you ever been told that in order to get your one room, you had to rent the entire hotel?

Have you ever rented a car and asked for, let's say a Lexus? Have you ever been told that in order to get your Lexus, you had to rent the whole fleet?

Have you ever rented a house? Did the agent tell you that in order to rent the one house, you had to rent the entire city?

Ever want just one drink of water, but you were told that you had to drink the entire ocean?

Ever own a business and someone comes in and tells you that you have to pay them to protect you from everyone? There is a name for this practice and I think that we can see examples of this practice in the movie "Godfather II."

This is what lies behind the concept of "blanket licensing" in the music business.

Restaurants, night clubs and bars are especially victimized by this practice. In order to perform a few pieces of music (generally standards and songs), organizations like the performance rights organizations ("PROs") ASCAP, BMI and SESAC demand that the venue rent the entire ASCAP, BMI or SESAC catalog. And if the venue doesn't, it gets sued for copyright infringement. The lawsuit doesn't admit that the venue was required to rent the entire PRO catalog or be sued for allegedly infringing on just a few tunes, no the venue is sued just for the specific tunes that it performed and the demand for a blanket license is ignored.

Same way with Sound Exchange, the licensing arm of the RIAA with respect to internet transmissions of music (otherwise known as "webcasting"). The webcaster just wants to play the film scores of a particular composer but is told it has to pay for the entire repertory of recorded music.

So, what is the solution? It is called direct licensing. It may take some effort, but you as the restaurant, bar, night club or webcaster contact the actual owners of the music or the onwers of the recording (sometimes known as "the master") and you buy a direct license from that owner. You pay them directly.

Or, perhaps, a new internmediate organization should be created to facilitate these kinds of transactions. If you directly license music from the onwer of the rights you can forego the blanket license because you do not want to be able to play the entire catalog of music from the PRO or Sound Exchange. You may want to perform only the songs of Cole Porter, you are not interested in performing the symphonies of, for example, Aaron Copland. So why pay for what you don't want--and why be forced or coerced into paying for what you don't want? Think about it.