The worst bill you’ve never heard of
This will be a busy week in the House -- Congress goes into summer recess Friday, but not before considering the Section 115 Reform Act of 2006 (SIRA). Never heard of SIRA? That’s the way Big Copyright and their lackey’s want it, and it's bad news for you.
Simply put, SIRA fundamentally redefines copyright and fair use in the digital world. It would require all incidental copies of music to be licensed separately from the originating copy. Even copies of songs that are cached in your computer's memory or buffered over a network would need yet another license. Once again, Big Copyright is looking for a way to double-dip into your wallet, extracting payment for the same content at multiple levels.
Today, so-called "incidental" copies don't need to be licensed; they're made in the process of doing *other* things, like listening to your MP3 library or plugging into a Net radio station. If you paid for the MP3 and the radio station is up-to-date with its bookkeeping, nobody should have to pay again, right? Not if SIRA becomes law. Out of the blue, copyright holders would have created an entire new market to charge for -- and sue over. Good for them. Bad for us.
Don't let Big Copyright legalize double dipping. Fight SIRA today.
Please call the Members of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property and voice your opposition to this legislation.
Republicans:
Honorable Lamar S. Smith
2184 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-4236
Honorable Henry J. Hyde
2110 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-4561
Honorable Elton Gallegly
2427 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0523
(202) 225-5811
Honorable Bob Goodlatte
2240 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5431
Honorable William L. Jenkins
1207 Longworth Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-6356
Honorable Spencer Bachus
442 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
202 225-4921
Hon. Robert Inglis
330 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-6030
Honorable Ric Keller
419 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-2176
Hon. Darrell Issa
211 Cannon House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515
Honorable Chris Cannon
2436 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-7751
Honorable Mike Pence
426 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-3021
Honorable J. Randy Forbes
307 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-6365
Democrats:
Honorable Howard L. Berman
2221 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-4695
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
2426 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5126
Honorable Rick Boucher
2187 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-3861
Honorable Zoe Lofgren
102 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-3072
Honorable Maxine Waters
2344 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-2201
Honorable Martin T. Meehan
2229 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-3411
Honorable Robert Wexler
213 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-3001
Honorable Anthony Weiner
1122 Longworth House Office Building
Washington DC 20515
(202) 225-6616
Honorable Adam Schiff
326 Cannon House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515
(202) 225-4176
Honorable Linda T. Sanchez
1007 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-6676
123 Comments:
I've been on the phone with most of the people listed. The people I spoke with were usually young staffers. When I described the bill, most of them, Republican and Democrat, were surprised by what Section 115 Reform Act of 2006 was about and thanked me for calling.
When I got to the Democrats on the list, I ended up being transfered to the the Democratic side of the Judiciary Subcommittee (that's how they refer to the Subcommittee of the Courts). I left word for them as a whole.
When you call, I hope you find as many friendly people on the phone as I did. Please call today.
Called a half-dozen or so of these folks and left messages, also with friendly young staffers. Most hadn't heard of the act, and all were surprised to hear that they might have to pay (and pay and pay and pay) to keep using their music the way they want to use it.
When I called the first office on the list, the staffer said that someone had just called on that issue, and wondered if I knew the bill number. It doesn't seem to have one. Googling, I've been able to find the following links mentioning it. IPac folks, do you have a up-to-date draft of the bill? How did you hear about it?
williampatry.blogspot.com article
judiciary.house.gov record of hearing
copyright.gov statement on the bill
non-official link to PDF draft of the bill
(I haven't checked the PDF draft link)
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html
What I would like to know is, "who is sponsoring this?"
As far as I know, any bit of legislation, even one so obviously drafted by the RIAA, has to have a sponsor of record. And I would like to know who this congressman is, so an active campaign can be initiated to make sure that they don't return to office this fall...
The bill is going to be introduced and marked-up on Wednesday (another trick to hide the bill), so we won't know who is sponsoring and cosponsoring it until then.
That's why it's so important to call before it is introduced. We need to send a message that this is not a small piece of legislation that can be dealt with quietly before the recess.
why don't we just give up on corporate music? if you had to pay everytime you wanted to hear a song you wouldn't listen to that song anymore and then corporate music will just go out of business. other music will pop-up and everyone will be happy.
When posting lists of Representatives like this it might be useful to include their districts. I've found my representative and their staff particularly responsive when they know I'm a constituent.
Just wanted to say I'm impressed, I mean to be honest I didn't realize it was as simple as making a phone call, but I mean it is just going through house, lets start worrying if it actually makes it to senate.
If I write a song, and I want to charge someone every time they hear my song, why should the law prevent me from doing that?
@ theonewhoneverlies said...
"but I mean it is just going through house, lets start worrying if it actually makes it to senate."
In other words, "don't re-enforce the levees just yet, wait till the flood is about to flow over."
Not a good idea to wait. Stop bad legisilation as soon as possible, every time it comes up!
@ trey
Charging for every listen eliminates fair use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
That's why.
It's not that the law should prevent you from doing that, Trey, but more that doing so means the death of fair use, and doing it would require a massive change to the infrastructure of, well, everything. From putting DRM on everything in the world to making sure tape recorders with microphones are illegal to banning whistling in public.
In short, if you make performance art, let's hope you are somebody who enjoys watching a meme spread around, rather than somebody who wants to put a bushel basket over it and charge admission.
this is for Trey Harrison
If YOU write a song and YOU want to charge everytime someone hears it, that is not a problem. It may not be smart, but its your right as the creator.
the problem is when a body of goverment makes a law, that WE ALL have to abide to, and pay for, even though the MAJORITY of US disagree with it, that is a huge problem.
Once i buy a cd once, i should be able to play it in my MP3 player, on my PC,
and i should be able to keep my original scratch-less by creating another and another copy of it. .. some music enthusiasts really do this,
And there should be nothing illegal about it.
NOTE that i never mentioned anything about sharing or distributing.
Why don't these big corporate companies go after the other big coporations that make the equipment that facilitate the copying of cd's and dvd's?
When you buy a movie or music, are you buying the physical encoding, or simply a convenient packaging metaphorically holding your precious piece of entertainment.
I don't know about you, but whenever I buy a disk, I don't consider the physical media as relevant. It's the content I'm buying. I should be able to back it up, time shift it, remix it, watch it in reverse, or anything else I bloody well want to as long as I don't claim I created it, broadcast it to the world, or try to resell it without giving up access to it.
Whatever scum came up with this garbage legislation will probably try to make it legal to charge us for breathing, inhale and exhale.
Enos: Because if they were to do that, no one would be able to backup important files/etc. to them or make LEGAL copies of DVDs.
My congresscritter Berman (D-RIAA/MPAA) is behind this. I can't reason with the bastard. That's why if you live in the 28th District of the State of CA you should vote for Charles R. Coleman, Jr. instead. Peace candidate. Not sure where he stands on IP issues (I emailed him about it) but he's gotta be better than Howie. :P
Trey, whether you should get paid for every listen or not, this is far more radical than that. It means that the music industry (not musicians) can sue someone if they don't pay them each time a song is *temporarily stored* on the way to the listener. That means they could charge the listener once, the ISP once (for caching the song), then threaten to sue the manufacturer of the media player for enabling unlicensed infringement by temporarily storing the song on the drive, and so on. Think that sounds bizarre? Check XM lawsuit for how the RIAA clamps down on new ways of getting your music heard.
This isn't about musicians right to theoretical cashflows - no artist will ever get to see any cash from the RIAA suing new tech companies, or claiming in court that every cached copy requires prior authorisation from their members. This about the existing recording industry cutting off the oxygen to competing forms of media distribution.
Would we get charged a percentage of the song price for listening to free samples on music store websites, such as MSN Music, iTunes, Napster, etc?
Thanks for the replies, I see why "Fair Use" is something that should be carefully maintained.
But I don't see how charging more than once to listen to a song inherently eliminates "Fair Use".
Where does the Wikipedia entry on "Fair Use" say that "repeated playback of purchased music is fair use" ?
What if I write a custom media player for my song, and that media player includes an option to play the song for free so long as the user describes how that particular playback of the song falls into the category of fair use?
I'm getting off track I think...
my main reason for commenting is that this article doesnt really make it clear to me why the proposed law is bad.
Danny obrien's comments have cleared it up for me a bit more.
If the intention of the law is to compensate copyright owners just because somewhere along the path from broadcaster to listener the song was cached or temporarily stored.. its quite ridiculous.
I think copyright owners should only be allowed to collect royalties when the actual value of the work is being extracted - ie, being listened to, watched, etc.
I personally don't want anyone taxing my EARS.
Holy smokes! Anyone notice the retroactive pricing clause? Am I reading this wrong, or are they saying that we're liable for this activity as far back as 2001?
I don't know about you, but I don't think I could afford to pay for every song I've listed to since then.
Jeff, you could afford to pay every time you listen to a song if it was priced cheaply enough. How does $0.01 per listen sound? Or even less than a penny?
The fact is, every time you listen to a song, you are extracting value from it.
It does not take a giant leap of the imagination to think that the copyright holder could rightfully charge you once per listen, rather than once when you "buy" the song.
Record companies began charging $15-$20 for an "album" because it was the format that made sense at the time, attracted the most customers, and generated enough revenue to support the artists, distribution, promotion, etc.
That was a long time ago, and ITunes has dramatically changed that picture.
Maybe I'm very wrong and consumers will always hate the idea of paying per listen. Just don't be too surprised if the technology comes around someday that makes it more attractive and cheaper than the existing distribution methods.
I left messages for all subcommittee members expressing my opposition to the bill.
am a republican while my friend is a democrat...we've both left msgs on both the subcommittees...I hope this little effort on our part saves thousands (actually millions) of dollars!!
(BTW....who ever decided that this bill is a good one should be shot shit in their face and then charged for smelling stink!!...grrr)
People who think this crap up should be forced to consume the entire contents of an outhouse - and then lynched!
trey: The only value I extract when I listen to a song for the 300th time is the energy from the wall socket to power the player.
Things that seem practical to pay for per use should require actual work per use, like a meal or a tank of gas.
There needs to be a legal distinction between data and service. Things based on data, such as movies, music, and programs, need to be a one time fee, because it is up to me to power the replay, and the replay may or may not have any real intrinsic value. It's bad enough I might have to pay for something that ends up being a piece of crap. Services, such as content delivery, require renewed work on the part of the purveyor, and as such should be paid for in a recurring fashion. Once I have the content though, It -should- be mine to do with as I please, hence fair use.
trey said...
"If I write a song, and I want to charge someone every time they hear my song, why should the law prevent me from doing that?"
Well, at least when your work fails miserably to earn you even one stinking dime, you'll know why!
You can do whatever you want by CONTRACT for your own work, but don't ram a law down our throats that covers EVERY artist and every piece of work!
Pay for every time you listen? that is outrageous. Do you buy food from grocery store and pay everytime you eat leftovers? It was created by food producing company,so in a way it is art. do oil painters charge for every time you view a painting? it is indeed created art. why and how do music artist think they are any more special than a artist of different medium? Music industry wants cake and eat it too, well I'm throwing the cake away.
the problem is that to charge per use would be near impossible if used in this context. what about non home use? every time i watch a show that has a popular song in its title, i owe another penny? every time a jingle shows up on the radio, i have to pony up a share to the pot? what about if i make a song? should i charge you every time it plays over in your head? the possibilities are endless in extorting the people that make the industry thrive.
when i bought my last cd i made a deal with my favorite artist. i said in my purchase that i appreciate there contribution to the world of music, and that i'm willing to give them a piece of my hard earned wages to listen to their art. even if i copy that media to preserve it for later, or maybe even if i give my friend a copy, they knew that in the deal we made. i wasn't borrowing the music from them, i bought a copy for my personal use. i can't see any real music artist agreeing to this, at least not one with integrety.
Trey its very simple. I BOUGHT the music I OWN. I Don't RENT music. you have NO RIGHT to charge me per listen. you either SELL ME a copy that I can and will do anything I please with for personal use or you won't sell me anything. I don't RENT my music. Period.
Pick a price. Sell for that price. Make your money be happy. if you RAPE your fans you WILL NOT succeed.
Imagine if you BOUGHT a car. is that not your property ? by your logic ford should be able to "charge you" another fee each time you DRIVE that car. I mean your extracting use from it each time you drive it so why not more money charged ?
because you freaking BOUGHT IT its your property !! the same with music contrary to what many think.
lets not forget that if this bill becomes law that all existing hardware would be ileagle bacuse it dosent report back to whomever in order for there to be a charge. every burner(that has fees already attached for copying) will have to connect to so-and-so , every player of every form every storage device and hard drive will have to connect to someone to be charged. so unless you fancy having a coin and bill slot placed on every PC, TV and radio in your home. strike down this bill
http://judiciary.house.gov/committeestructure.aspx?committee=3
Lists the people on that committee, and what state/district.
Lets all not forget that skype out is free, so make the calls, please
I agree with whomever said about viewing a painting.
If you can charge per use to hear a song, or you can be penalized for holding a copy in a cache, what's to say you can't be punished for owning an original Ansel Adams (a photograph, for laymen ;) ) and viewing it on a daily basis? Or having friends over to show them, or taking it to a school and showing an entire class, or the student body?
What sperates the rights of music and movie industry from other artists'? Other than the famed "Elian Gonzalez" AP photo debacle, the spotlight is entirely upon the recording industry.
Couldn't I make and distribute a digital reproduction of an Ansel Adams as easily as an MP3 of Led Zeppelin?
At this rate, bootleggers are going to start selling Leibovitz and Cartier-Bresson work out of the back of vans and from under trenchcoats, since prints often sell for hundreds or thousands of dollars.
Of course, I'm being dramatic, but I take a sort of offense to this, being a photographer myself. Why the special treatment? Perosnally, I disagree with distrobution of the content, because it hurts an artist's profit, but digital backups and other legal copyings shouldn't be done away with in one fell swoop.
I should be able to copy my Ansel Adams to my computer and look at it all day long, granted I'm not handing out the copies like candy.
Did anyone actually read the text of the bill?
http://media-cyber.law.harvard.edu/blogs/gems/cmusings/SIRAof2006DiscussionDraft.pdf
It deals mostly with those who are streaming content, and it creates a "blanket license" that specifically covers things like incidentical copies. One license would be required, not many as the post claims.
It doesn't really even affect the end user. Amazing how many people believe anything they read on a blog without doing their own research :\
so says mr. anonymous who gets the draft of the bill from a BLOG none the less. don't be a hypocrite.
aside from quoting the relevant portion of the above article, here is an exerpt from the e-mail I have sent representative Ed Royce:
For many years it has been legal (fair use) for me to purchase music and copy my favorite songs onto a disk to play on my car CD player for my own enjoyment, and it has been just as legal for me to make backup copies of that music in the event that the original media suffers damage. Unlike other works of art such as sculpture, music is made to be portable - you take it with you where you go. In the process of taking these physical copies with you, they do sustain a certain amount of wear and tear (a CD kept in the average teenager's car will last how long before it becomes so scratched as to be unuseable?) A piece of sculpture is not intended to be portable, yet is not any less a work of art (I would argue that it is more), yet the artists that work with that medium are not able to charge viewers of their works for the differing angles that the sculpture is viewed from. A sculptor puts far more effort into creating a piece of their work than any musician (and certainly much more than anyone employed working for a record label), yet their work is not duplicated millions of times and sold in mass quantities as musical works are.
I foresee that if this legislation is passed, a terrible change will occur in the musical culture of this nation. If each member of the public is charged for each method of listening to music that they have already purchased, the net effect will be that people who enjoy music and purchase it will be able to purchase far less of it because their financial resources are finite. The range of artists that each listener is able to lend their support to will shrink as the cost of listening to each artist increases based on the methods of listening to that already purchased piece of music, and many promising artists will not be able to find a market for their art. So because I want to listen to a few selected songs I have purchased in my car, more money will be placed into the coffers of the record companies and the starving members of The Rolling Stones, Van Halen, and Brooks & Dunn, whilst struggling, talented artists such as Sebastian Sidi and Javier Lima who are attempting to make a name for themselves will not be heard. This legislation is the record labels creating a barrier to entering the market for financially challenged artists (i.e. almost all of them at the start)and alternative legal methods of distributing music, in favor of those sponsored from the beginning by the record labels made rich by the successes of past artists. A chill will be cast over the cultural landscape in the name of profit for recording labels.
Please vote no on this bill. I consider this issue alone serious enough to base my voting desions in the next election upon it, as do many others.
@Trey
Hey man, did you buy a pair of pants? How would you like a law that charges you every time you put on thos epants?
Got a car? How about (in excess of gas, insurance, and maintenance) you get charged every time you drive someplace?
Got a TV? Want to pay someone a dollar every time you change the channel?
When I buy a CD, that better be the only money I have to pay. I don't want to be charged an additional fee for listening to it on my PC. I already paid for it. That's why this bill is anti-fair use. It's charging you over and over for a good that you already bought.
Sigh, another description of a bill that is complete inacurate.
I hate this copyright crap too guys, but when a bunch of people call, and show complete ignorance to a bill, then our credibility is lost.
From the freakin bill description on:
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html
A stream does not, however, constitute a “distribution,” the object of which is to deliver a usable copy of the work to the recipient; the buffer and other intermediate copies or portions of copies that may temporarily exist on a recipient’s computer to facilitate the stream and are for all practical purposes useless (apart from their role in facilitating the single performance) and most likely unknown to the recipient simply do not qualify.
In the past, I've noticed politicians will push a waaaaay over the top bill that will ultimatly fail. They know it will fail. Most of the time, when a bill like this comes along, it's to clear the way for a bill along the same lines.
The "new" bill will seem to be less strict, and less over the top, so those that opposed the original will be more accepting of the latest incarnation.
It's a political game, and it's dangerous when it starts playing with basic rights. This bill in any form is a bad idea.
"If I write a song, and I want to charge someone every time they hear my song, why should the law prevent me from doing that?"
The law does not prevent you from doing that, it would just be really really hard to enforce all by yourself.
It's not the law's job to watch over your music and handicap our media playing ability. Many, or most out there are happy if you listen to their song at all!
This sort of technology will be circumvented no matter what, and we better watch out where we let the government govern. It's getting way out of control.
As a sometime-professional photographer, I have a little personal experience with copyright, specifically clients who think that they own a picture if they paid me to take it. I also have a relatively large collection of music on my laptop pc, which I listen to when I am not in my living room where the "old school" stereo lives. I'm not paying for these songs, as I paid for the CD collection that they came from. Now, I don't think it would be fair of me to force a client to pay me for each use of a picture, so when the photo is contracted, we make an agreement at the start defining what they can do with the photo. The main stipulation is that I retain all commercial distribution rights, as well as rights to do whatever I want to with the photo, since I'm the creator of the work. I never agree to do "work for hire," since that would void my rights and define the client as the creator. The print that I sell to a client is not going to produce as good a copy as one from the original negative, but if the client wants to scan it and put it on their website, that's fine, as long as they aren't claiming that they took the picture, or charging fees for copies of the picture.
The same basic rules should apply to music.
@Trey - out of idle curiosity, does the RIAA pay it's shills on message boards every week, or is it bi-weekly? I was looking to pick up some spare cash, so I was just wondering...
Hi, does anyone have a list of the e-mail addresses for the Congresspeople listed here. I am a busy person at work and don't have time to call them, but if I had a nice mailto: link with all of the addresses I could certainly write them a quick mail about my views on this.
Here is a link to the Oversight Hearing on May 15 2006
http://judiciary.house.gov/Oversight.aspx?ID=239
there are links to the testimony of the various industry reps are there too.
Trey is obviously an industry plant...or a moron.
I read the Copyright Office comments and the bill as posted on the discussion draft link, and I'd appreciate some help in understanding where you're coming from.
As I understand it, the bill deals with the relationship between Digital Music Providers and Copyright owners. It does not deal with the relationship between Digital Music Provider and end users (other than to define a DMP as an entity that provides digital music to end users).
The basic purpose of the bill is to create a compulsory licensing scheme for digital music, so that digital music providers can buy a single license (in the way that ASCAP and BMI license their portfolios today on behalf of the content producers). The compulsory licensing scheme enables digital music providers to avoid seeking out individual copyright owners and getting a license from each of them, and prevents copyright owners from refusing to license their works.
The bill appears to include caches and other incidental copies to prevent copyright owners from claiming that those are separate copies requiring a separate license. The bill specifically includes those incidental copies in the compulsory license granted to the DMP.
The retroactivity provision enables DMPs that have been providing digital music without the appropriate license to pay for their use dating back to 2001 (or whatever the date was in the bill) and thereby escape any claim that they violated the copyright owner's rights. This protects the DMP from liability.
So, if anyone has a reason to object to this bill, it's the copyright owners, not the end users.
While this is all based on a quick skim of the bill and the Copyright Office's comments, I'm really not sure how this bill creates the slew of horrors that have been posted on this page.
For the record, and in the interest of avoiding some of the low s/n ad hominim attacks that I've alrady seen launched in some of these comments, I don't work for the music industry, any entity associated with the music industry, and the comments are entirely my own. (It is, however, still possible that I'm just an ignorant moron.) I distrust and generally despise the RIAA and MPAA, but I just don't see the harm to end users here. Perhaps that's ignorance on my part, so I'd appreciate it if someone could actually explain (preferably with references to the actual text of the bill) how this bill causes the problems y'all are fearing.
John
(http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html)
Subsection 2, Paragraph 2: "A key component is that the new compulsory license governs all nondramatic musical works and does not permit copyright owners to opt-out, which would otherwise jeopardize the efficiency of the entire blanket licensing structure."
I find this part to be gruesome. Regardless of whether the copyright owner is a big record label or the members of a band, it's unreasonable that the choice on how to distribute can be taken from them by someone else filling out a single form, all in the name of business expediency. Instead of putting this into law, how about writing up better contracts?
Note that I've read the text of the bill, and it's clear it has little or nothing to do with me until/unless I decide I want to create an artistic work of some sort that I want to distribute over streaming media.
-- L.Dryden
Shameless shills. Have you no sense of decency or self-respect? Have you never seen a TV show or a Disney movie, or even read a book featuring heroes and villians?
Stop being villians, industry apologists. You waste your talents in the service of greedy jerks.
I think it's kinda funny how the acronym SIRA has a touch of reverse L337 5P34|< in it.
"Good for them, bad for us"
Realistically this is bad for everyone...
I agree, the only harm I see is indirectly to the end user. This bill defines what it means to be a digial music provider and regulates getting fees to the copyright holder. It requires the copyright holder to have a distributer, basically, or a "default" one is assigned. Who gets to maintain this HUGE database on all the copyrightable work EVER. Ridiculous!
So it means if a music person wants to get paid for their songs in digital format, they have to register with Big Brother, essentially, to GET their money. Podcasts of music would be difficult and expensive, and competition to the big digital music distributers would drastically fall. The real winners here are the napsters and itunes of the world. The losers are still the artists having to deal with this burecratic nonsense.
I've read this bill, and I have to say I don't see it as doing anything like what is described in the blog entry. It sounds more to me like it's providing a way for online music retailers to obtain a blanket license for music distribution. Anywhere it mentions incedental copies, it specifically states that they should be either covered by any license granted, or exempt from any need for a license.
It's important to actually read these things before you get up in arms about it.
It's a war against users, and "they" are winning. Fight or perish. Next, we will get charged for advertisments. The brainwashing is coming. The Internet is the Panopticon of a blind evil God called Greed. All is lost...
Trey,
Here's why it's a VERY BAD idea.
#1 - CD Players have a buffer in them. They read ahead, and store the data for processing so that if a skip occurs, it has time to re-read and correct, before it plays the data in question.
This means that every time it hits a *bad spot*, it requires a re-auth of the license because it is re-reading, taken as re-buffering, the same content.
#2 MP3 Players - USB transfer - 1 license, hard drive / flash drive storage, 1 license, each time you listen to it, even if it's just to press the next button half a second later, 1 license. You could chew up a hundred licenses just hitting next on your mp3 device, without ever listening to a single song.
#3 Wiring - Believe it or not, the wiring that carries the signal from your playing device to the speakers/headphones, could be counted as a buffer. It temporarily holds the signal, until it reaches the destination. This way of looking at it, to play a single song, off of a cd player, through your home stereo, would require 6 licenses in order to legally listen to it.
#1 Physical media license.
#2 License for cd player to buffer the data
#3 License for cd player to stereo connector wires (so signal can be buffered/transported between the cdplayer and the stereo)
#4 License for the stereo to augment / change / amplify the signal
#5 license for the speaker wires to carry / buffer the signal to the speakers
#6 License for the speakers to distribute the audio - however, only one listener can listen to the music on your stereo, otherwise, you are conducting an illegal public performance, as somewhere, somehow, someone *could* listen to the music at the same time you do.
This is an *extreme* case, however, once the line is set, it doesn't take much for corporate america and the congressmen that they own to move the line.
Luckily, I live in the UK, but that won't make a great deal of difference seeing as we have such close ties to the USA. It's about time someone reminded that the last 'A' in RIAA stands for 'America', not the rest of the planet too grrrrrrrrrr......
Does this mean that a special RIAA agent is gonna jump out and nab anyone for humming or whistling a hit song while walking down the street???
If the music band concerned want to take me to court for copyright reasons, fair enough, that's fair and lawful, but when the recording industry want to do it, then stuff 'em, they can take a long walk off a short pier as far as I'm concerned.
Why should the large recording companies make money if the band is using a small 'indie' company??
I'm off to cool down a bit, my blood's near boiling over this....
PS As I don't live in the USA, none of the Congressfolks represent me. If someone there could mention that other folks outside the USA are also against this, I'd be very thankful ;-)
What if I want to sell a product that includes a notice saying "You may not make a duplicate of this product?"
I suspect that many of the commentators here would say that I could not do that. Or, at least that the purchaser of that product has no legal responsibility to follow the notice.
Personally, I think that an artist or copyright holder should be able to legally insist on the those kinds of terms and conditions. If you don't like the terms, don't enjoy the product. Or, break the law and risk the consequences.
Anonymous' response to Trey is precisely what the bill appears to be intended to address, but not in the way that Anonymous worries about.
The bill explicitly includes all of those incidental copies in the license that the Digital Music Provider gets from the copyright owner. That prevents the copyright owner from arguing that the DMP needs to get multiple licenses for each of those possible incidental copies.
John
http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=239
Notice the witness list. Big suprise, huh?
No one is mentioning the air over which the soundwaves travel between the speakers and your ears, even the few milimeters between your earbuds and your eardrum. For that matter, what about the nerves that carry the sound to your brain? Don't forget we live in a society that lets THE MAN patent gene sequences...
Correct. The witness list is not a surprise because those are the two sides affected by the bill - content owners/publishers and digital media providers.
There's no reason for anyone representing end users to be there because the bill doesn't affect end users.
While it's always a good thing to be suspicious of the RIAA/MPAA/and their tame Congress-critters, sometimes a duck is just a duck.
John
Hey Trey ever heard of a public library? Some of think there is a basic human right to read, listen and learn even for poor people. The sort of thinking you endorse leads directly to the nightmare society RMS feared in his essay the right to read, give it a free read and rethink your postion, PLEASE:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
For more provocative thoughts check out my blog: treefunk.net/forum/
Okay, so I'm new at this and not very smart about the whole congress thingy. Is a commite made of senators or house members? I don't recognize any of the people, how can I find out if they represent me?
I don't want to call all of them, just the ones I have direct influence over (yeah, right). I'm in PA if that helps. :-/
Assuming J. Nicholson is right... The spectre (sp?) of control desired is still disturbing.
Copyright owners will no longer have a choice as to whether their material is distributed. Good/Bad
GOOD: All material would in theory be available to the public without creator control of is availability.
BAD: The rates of access to the material would no longer be under the control of the creator. Multiple unconfortable points in this possibility since "value" is now changed whatever is the "established" rate is...
GOOD/BAD (I consider it bad!): Control goes to the licensing entity since I am assuming they dictate the rate!
It should be noted that the copyright owner and the content producer are rarely the same. Moreoften than not the producer/maker has lost the rights to another entity which becomes the owner or conduit to the new owner.
This appears to be another shifting of "ownership" of IP.
Personal note: I generally dislike IP type items since ALL IP is based on prior items/ideas. I have yet to see a PURELY NEW IP item.
This link...
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004679.php
and this link...
http://reviews.cnet.com/Pioneer_Inno_XM/4505-7873_7-31824917.html
seems to answer all issues of why this issue is important to everyone...
----
For those who do not see the link here it is...
If I control the licensing in the form that is being proposed, the use of the content in all forms (as we currently understand) can be completely controlled. Since, I as the licensing authority can control how much the charge (This of course can be a completely arbitrary rate based on perceived value. [can I say twice as arbitrary]
) should be, I am free to collect whatever revenues I deem appropriate. This fee then extends to all forms of said usage.
I think it quite diabolical. I don't trust people/entities I just trust them to be themselves... :)
Folks, this is no time to worry about how "extreme" your thought experiments are. Ignore the industry apologists; we do not need to appease them. "If I create something, I should be able to control how it is used" is complete nonsense. You should not be able to do any such thing.
If you create something, you have added to the world of knowledge, and that world is impossible to own. How ridiculous is it to assume that ANY artist could have written any song without having heard someone else's music first? Or any engineer creating a building without learning from other engineers?
Of course those are silly ideas, but they don't sound as ludicrous as they should after years of these inhuman greed-freaks cramming intellectual property dogma down our throats. Here's an example. I live in a very conservative state, and when I was a young lawyer, I started as a public defender. Many of my "clients" were in for drug crimes. If the charge was simple possession, one young judge started automatically adding a possession of paraphernalia charge because the pocket on the defendant's jeans stored the drugs, therefore it qualified as paraphernalia.
Is that any more extreme than the post about needing licenses to cover the wiring on your home stereo? I think it's more extreme because someone actually did the ridiculous, extreme thing instead of just blogging about it.
Call your congressmen, people. Drown this bill in the same red tape they're trying to hide it in.
Folks, I don't follow. I've read the bill and I'm not seeing anything to be concerned over. The only thing I am seeing is mandatory blanket licensing (good) and royalty-free licensing for temporary copies made for the purpose of distributing licensed media to consumers.
Am I missing something?
Hey Trey - the information about when and how often I play your song is valuable to you as an artist, right? That infomation is licensable by me to you for a nominal fee for each piece of data returned to you. The fee I wish to charge you to access this personal information is twice the license fee you wish to charge for me for listening to a single rendition.
Fair?
After reading the bill:
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html
It doesn't seem that there is any malicious intent, at least regarding end users. It basically grants music publishers the ability to licence music, which has already been digitally published under a blanket licence. The bill posses the following licencing problem: music creators (copyright holders) are claiming that multiple digital forms of their work require different licences (ie those stored in bufferes ect). Under this bill, if the music creator has created a digital publication of a work, it and all of it's incarnations exist under once licence; there is no opt-out, so a music creator cannot charge twice for the cd and usb releases of the song.
Regarding streams; "A stream does not, however, constitute a 'distribution,' the object of which is to deliver a usable copy of the work to the recipient." An artist can apparently have a separate licence for a stream because it is considered a "preformance", however, I think they have misused the technical term streaming download, which can provide a usable copy.
This bill does not seem to address the relationship between providers and end users, although the definition of a provider has not been made clear (is a provider a legal entity or can it be a cd player?). The bill potentially stands to save publishers millions in costs; giving them cart blanch to reproduce the music, in any format without compensation given to the musicians after the initial licence. Musicians are definitely going to suffer as a result of this bill as they will now have less legal levarage. However, I think its a step in the right direction because it gives us legal president to claim right to one music licence, and not have to worry about reproducing; if publishers have cart blanch, why not end users?
tinfoil - yes, you are missing something. The bill establishes the idea in law that the incidental copies need to be licensed. It makes them royalty free for now. But remember that copyright used to end after 23 years and old works used to go into the public domain. The law has been and will be changed to favor media giants. Why change it this way, opening the door to the other things down the road? Let's pass a bill that prohibits licensing incidental copies.
This bill is insidious. The idea that incidental copies will be licensed opens up a can of worms no one has mentioned yet.
If the incidental copies fall under the same license and laws as the original work, then they also fall under the DMCA. Imagine DRM memory in your future computer, and DRM hard disks, along with a DRM internet connection. Imagine not being able to buy computer stuff without any of this DRM in it. Have fun imagining because it won't be available.
This bill must die.
DRM for DRM... hmmm INSANE!
From the Copyright Office's Official Statement:
"The SIRA establishes a royalty-free rate for the making of server and other intermediate copies necessary to facilitate noninteractive webcasting."
It sounds like the act asks for an exemption for streaming performances that would disallow charging for the intermediate copy. If this is needed, then my assumption is that it must allow them to charge for the intermediate copy in other cases.
Currently, the bill claims that independent copies are under dispute. Some are licenced under a different licences but it seems the majority are licenced. Only companies that "double dip" the licence have intermediates as royaltee free.
I think making intermediates royaltee free would essentially lead to more media theft, resulting in harsher laws. Intermitent copies should be linenced under the same blanket as the originating copy. This way there is no confusion.
I expect to be able to mail in my CD to the record company when it is too scratched up to play or when it naturally degrades after a decade or so, and have a replacement mailed back to me. This way I am using only one copy and they can track it. Seems fair doesn't it?
There is no time limit on the license that is purchased when you buy the CD and if they won't let you make a free copy, than it should be replaced - fair and simple. Maybe this will make the record labels think twice about double-dipping.
Some people have mentioned that they don't see anything in this to be overly concerned about. Back in law school we discussed incidental copies quite a bit, mainly in the context of text and images rather than in audio. I think some people don't understand quite the magnitude of seperate licensing for each incidental copy is.
In a picture for example, previously would would by a license to use it and pay lets say 1 dollar. This would cover any private use inside the scope of your agreement.
Applying the new doctrine too our example of the picture, and assuming it's 1 dollar per license still, one would be paying for the file residing on your hard drive, oh no, it copied it to ram, that's another dollar. It's displayed on the monitor, another dollar. These additional copies are currently a fair use of the original media, required to use and enjoy.
Audio can be a bit trickier, but it is definately a bad start down a slippery slope.
There really isn't cause for such concern as the discussion draft now stands (reading the 12 May version to which Anonymous pointed).
This draft describes a license which would cover all end user and digital distributor reproduction. I would be more concerned with the licenses drafted by the RIAA (may I recommend reading those licenses more closely than we read the proposed legislation), but nothing in this draft would prohibit reproduction or the sale of hardware enabling reproduction.
The onus on music lovers (who disagree with the RIAA) is to support only music with whose distribution and reproduction licenses you agree. We are banging our collective heads against the wall when we accept restrictive licenses by purchasing big label music and then rail against the restrictions that those licenses impose. As another person here said, "give up on corporate music".
Lastly, it isn't hypocrisy to challenge bloggers to read the documents about which they're writing and point to another blog to allow that research.
Just my $.02.
The only musicians getting the bad deal with today's music technology are the ones who create and release medicore music to make money.
Basically the good musicians who put out quality stuff and put on quality shows will get paid... as long as they keep an eye on their business.
I'm new to this board, and this has been an interesting discussion. The posts seems to fall into 4 general categories:
1) "The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Anyone who disagrees and says otherwise is an industry shill/apologist." usually from an anonymous poster who doesn't provide any support for his/her statement.
2) "Any law that further defines Intellectual Property is a Bad Thing, especially if it's supported by Big Media companies. All information should be free." This is a valid philosophical/economic argument that has been going on for a long time, and is rarely supported by content creators.
3) "I've read the bill and I don't see a problem for end users," which is a valid position for an end user to take.
4) "I've read the bill and, while I don't see a problem for end users, I don't like what this does for copyright owners." which is a valid position from the perspective of a content creator/copyright owner.
Regardless of what your thoughts in IP and DRM are, in general, I'd suggest reading the bill (and some of the associated commentary and testimony) before posting your thoughts on whether it's a good idea or not.
One more thing to keep in mind with this. Every piece of music composed since 1923, is copyrighted. That means that virtually every piece of music you listen to, has a copyright.
Re: Everyone who thinks I support the SIRA bill -
I am not an industry shill, I am just a guy who is trying to use his own brain to decide what is and isn't right. I don't get on the phone just because someone posts a blog that contains the words "call your congressman".
This article is poorly written and does not clearly describe why the bill is bad, and I got shat upon for asking questions. If it still is not clear at this point, I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS BILL. Unlike many of you, my lack of support is not flipped on like a switch by the words "Big Copyright" and "Bad for us."
Re: Creator's Rights
One of the anonymous cowards said:
" 'If I create something, I should be able to control how it is used' is complete nonsense. You should not be able to do any such thing. "
I absolutely disagree with this except in cases where the usage of something that I have created falls into the legal category of "Fair Use". The law disagrees with you too.
If I cook dinner, I decide who eats it. If I think something, I decide who I share the knowledge with.
Re: JViz
"The only value I extract when I listen to a song for the 300th time is the energy from the wall socket to power the player."
This is flat wrong. If there is no value extracted in listening to the song, you wouldn't listen. You don't listen to songs you don't want to hear, and you do listen to songs that you do want to hear. Songs you don't want to hear aren't valuable. Songs you do want to hear are.
"Things that seem practical to pay for per use should require actual work per use, like a meal or a tank of gas."
I agree, this is a good way of thinking about it, although pay-per-view and on-demand movie services are already a bit of a contradiction. The "work per use" is the work of streaming the data to your TV.. but it is still work. I bet a pay-per-listen on-demand music service would work similarly.
I can just see them trying to collect on the buffer medium that transmits the sound to my ears (air), charging extra because I'm playing it loud enough for people who are close to me to hear, charging me extra to use anti-skip technology in my CD player...
Looking at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html that another anonymous poster put up as a description of the bill looks like it is a discussion as to how some of the proposal "as is" is bad. Like lumping in streaming with other types of music. This bill does not affect end-users directly, only indirectly as the copyright or control of content is taken out of the content-creator or content-controllers hands and redistributed under one agency which has the ability to charge administration fees and make sure abiguiously defined royalties are distributed according to thier terms. Major inpact on independant artists as it also want to make this content-control agency completely centralized and under the control of one of the major players (read RIAA). Oh and if you don't want to charge the public for your music you will still have to get a license and pay the administration fees to the centralized adminstration agency. Not a good situation in the least.
Actually, what someone at IPAC should do is look into the efforts to defeat a similiar bill launched in the early 90's. At the time the music industry wanted to put computer chips into cassette players that would stop people from copying cds. The measure was blocked. Personally, I think that I have the right to copy,for my personal use, any media (music,movies, photos,etc) that I purchase. I firmly fell that the reason the music industry as a whole is experiencing declining revenue is due to the lack of good "new music". That, and due to album length increasing, most musicians that are successful put out albums less frequently. I mean lets be honest, where is the new talent? The other thing that is hurting the industry is the continues ridiculous pricing of cds in general. I mean really, it costs less than $1.00 on average to manufacture a cd and package it. the music industry should take a lesson from history and sell for less so they can sell more. It is said when the most anticipated tours are either by bands that have been on the scene for decades and no talent wannabe thugs or no talent wannabe sluts. Enough is enough, the industry needs to wake up, smell the coffee, and look at the writing on the wall and stop blaming digital media for their problems. It reminds me when disco died and the idiots kept producing it anyway. If I am wrong about the quality of content in general, then why do music television networks have game shows and crap like that on their schedules? Back in the eighties and early nineties they made loads of cash doing nothing but playing music videos. Wise up the problem with revenue is the quality of progreamming period. I personally own somewhere around a thousand cd's and about 500 dvds. However, I haven't bought many cds in over five years because the music available now stinks. To be honest I would love some new music. Why don't you run a survey on the overall impression of the quality of music? I think you will find similar sentiment among many users. If I think the music is worthwhile, I bought the cd ages ago.
Read this: http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html it's all about making it easier for digital music providers to provide us with music. As stated by another anonymous user, the blanket license is to make it easier to have multiple cache-type copies to ease distribution without needing seperate licenses for each. I think it'd be better if they were just exempt. But really I only see how this would benefit the consumer by making it easier for music services to obtain licenses. Easier for the service means less cost for us. If you use music services I think you'd approve of this legislation (it's tone makes it appears to be backed by music services). If you don't use a music service you probably won't be affected by it.
I'm not much of a legislator or lawyer, but the unintended consequences are the real problem. The previous poster pointed out the spirit of this section is probably intended to make things easier and there by less expensive, but we don't govern by the spirit of the law. We govern by the actual interpretation of the law.
This makes the wording the most important part of any law because if it can unintentionally be interpreted causing consumers no end of trouble. What we need here is a good old fashion rebellion. Unfortunately, we aren't very good at that because it requires unity as a community. Hey, unity as a community. Nice rhyme!
Hey Trey,
One of the anonymous cowards said:
" 'If I create something, I should be able to control how it is used' is complete nonsense. You should not be able to do any such thing. "
I absolutely disagree with this except in cases where the usage of something that I have created falls into the legal category of "Fair Use". The law disagrees with you too.
If I cook dinner, I decide who eats it. If I think something, I decide who I share the knowledge with.
But there's a difference between FOOD and CULTURE. Your food, once consumed, becomes part of MY body. And your song, once consumed by OUR culture becomes PUBLIC DOMAIN. If you, the artist, don't like it, then keep your song to yourself. And THAT is how the law has viewed it until the recent THEFTS of our culture by the law you are supporting.
Ive called every office on this list , and found some folks were informed and some were not .
All were very polite , took my name and city . I explained to all those nice folks how this bill would make you pay three or more times to get a song from your cd into your ipod . That simple analogy really seemed to wake them up .
I personally was not switched to any subcommittee when I called the Democritters .They didnt seem to mind that I wasnt a consituent either , as one staffer said "we've been getting swamped with these calls ,they're calling
from across the country !"
Oh Yeah ,
It took me less than 20 minutes .
Including this post !
Thanks for the info , IPAC !
I have two main problems with this bill.
1) the General Designated Agent has the say on who can distribute and on who can appropriate the royalties for each Designated Agent body.
2) Those Designated Agents are the ones that decide if the purchase and use of the License is okay, and then those same Agents can charge a fee for it.
Depending on who has the reins of this bill it could force the distribution industry to it's knees, and the rate hike would have to come to the end users. Any attempts to be more competitive by the itunes of the world would reduce their profits and discourage innovation, while encouraging people to further operate out of the system.
everyone keeps losing :(
First, they attack people by arresting Zundel, and David Irving.
Second, they attack books by forcing Amazon to stop stocking "America Deceived" by E.A. Blayre III.
Third, they attack the music by suing indiviudals for downloads and passing legislation.
Fourth (and coming soon), the internet will be silenced.
Last link before Google Books caves:
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0
This is a direct attack for the satellite radio companies. The government doesn't like unregulated radio!!
what people fail to understand:
by giving mpaa and riaa so much power to sue it will be up to us to prove there was no wrong doing. in proving that we will have to hire an attorney and pay whatever associated costs come from a lawsuit. even if you win the lawsuit you lose. all the money you spent will not be reimbursed. riaa and mpaa lose nothing.
Imagine if you BOUGHT a car. is that not your property ? by your logic ford should be able to "charge you" another fee each time you DRIVE that car. I mean your extracting use from it each time you drive it so why not more money charged ?
Actually, via vehicle registration, the government charges you for owning your own vehicle on a continual basis. The government has proved before that they can charge people to have, use or own anything. Many countries have vehicle registration, very few charge for it though.
All I can say is that this is just like the legislation regarding public network regulation on Internet backbone providers.
It is a cowardly way for these people to double-dip into the consumer's wallet. They see new media as a threat to their business models, and they are looking to pressure as many laws as necessary through to protect their business models.
So, rather than adapt, they would rather squash freedom of choice and innovation. They are too lazy to adapt their business models to prosper in the new media age.
Personally, I say that if the RIAA and MPAA pass this bill into law, then I for one hope that corporate music and movies enjoy a slow, agonizing death as independants spring up and take their place. Independants that won't require the draconian licensing that corporate music and movies require.
Besides, if the money was going to the artists/creators of the content, then I wouldn't be nearly as opposed to this. They created it, they deserve it. But when the money is going to corporate fat-cats that do nothing more than "make decisions" and authorize things, with NOTHING going to the artists/creators, then I say up yours fat-cats...
Here is the part that I don't think most of you have caught, it will more or less be illegal to copy your own CD collection to your own iPod or MP3 player without first playing whatever "fines" they deem necessary, plus the charges of then playing the content from your MP3 player or iPod!
Corporate America has already killed any independence in the music industry. Most(if not all radio stations are owned by big corps. It was only a matter of time when they went after the last bit of consumer freedom. The culture of this mentality will be to force you to pay for the music you are not listing to also. (National Endowments for the Arts)
Oh, and you do pay for using you car. Check the amount of money on a gallon of gas that goes for tax’s next time you fill up.
I can really see the money add up the next time I get that song stuck in my head playing over and over. Or does it count as just one license that I need for the song to be stored in my brain?
spoke with Danny at EFF - they are very grateful to Ren/IPac for jumping on this which almost snuck through.
The EFF has just a few minutes ago updated their website:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004723.php
with news and a pdf of a letter signed by many technology companies that was sent to the judiciary committee (who are sponsoring this purported bill) just a short while ago, with hopes that the committee will clean up the sketchy language to be much less favorable to the RIAA/MPAA at the expense of individuals and Fair Use doctrine.
I used to do DPD licensing for a record label. My brief read of this legislation is that it has to do with the licensing obtained by the record companies from the publishers. The license they obtain will cover them for those incidental copies and will, in fact, prevent the publisher from claiming that they made illegal copies. As far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with the end user. You don't actually buy a license to your music. You buy a copy. The record label licenses the music. You may or may not have a separate agreement with your DMS.
Can someone email me a rational explanation for how this law means what this article and these comments say it does? I have read and re-read it and don't see any of the things of which you speak. I'm not trying to undermine this post. Seriously, if it does say this, I oppose it. Like I said, I'm intimiately familiar with DPD licensing, and I just don't see this. ce3482001.ipaction @ spamex.com
The EFF organized letter to the Judiciary Committee:
The Honorable Lamar Smith
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property
and the Internet
U.S. House of Representatives
2184 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Howard Berman
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property
and the Internet
U.S. House of Representatives
2221 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Berman:
The undersigned companies and associations, representing the interests of American
consumers, information technology and telecommunications companies, consumer
electronics companies, broadcasters (including terrestrial radio, satellite radio and webcast
services), libraries and educational institutions, write to express our very serious concerns
regarding the proposed Section 115 Reform Act of 2006 (“SIRA”). While the reform of
section 115 is a worthy goal, provisions of SIRA would constitute an extraordinary
expansion of copyright rights that would harm technology, innovation, and consumers. It
would threaten the development of new, innovative technologies and services that deliver all
forms of content. It would reject considered and well-founded recommendations of the
Copyright Office. And, it would encroach in unprecedented ways upon long-held consumer
rights to make private, personal uses of copyrighted works – rights that become even more
vital and necessary for the public good in the digital age.
We support instead broad consensus approaches to the resolution of copyright issues. This
bill apparently reflects a privately negotiated outcome between two interest groups, and does
not reflect such a consensus. Any change as major as SIRA merits careful consideration and
input from all users of copyrighted works, and from the general public.
We are troubled that the bill will reverse broad, long-standing principles of copyright law,
and will be misconstrued by courts to the detriment of technology innovation and consumer
welfare. Among our chief concerns are the following:
The bill appears to establish, for the first time, that every incidental, server,
cache, network and buffer copy made in digital transmission systems, digital
networks, and computers and other personal consumer equipment is subject to the
control of copyright owners and must be licensed. The bill erroneously suggests that
interactive public performances of sound recordings are “digital phonorecord deliveries” (i.e.,
a transfer of ownership) subject to license for reproductions of copies. The bill goes so far
as to provide that even noninteractive public performances require licenses for such copies.
There is no justification to so penalize streaming, or, indeed, any other type of licensed
transmission made via internet or any d