(continued from previous page)
Q: Do you have any regrets about filing so many lawsuits?
Sherman: That we had to do it at all. It arrested the growth of a runaway solution that would have grown worse and worse.
Bainwol: You make it clear that there are risks.
Q: How useful has the NET Act, which makes not-for-profit copyright infringement a federal crime, been?
Sherman: Did it have an impact? Sure. Anything that increases risk would have an impact. The only thing that has an impact is: "What does it matter for me?" When we've done surveys, the lawsuits are the No. 1 or No. 2 reason for why people have changed their behavior.
Q: What new laws are you lobbying for to help you?
Bainwol: You've got this conversation going on in terms of platform and prices. The iPod has dominated. We're in an MP3 player world. (That's why we see digital radio receivers that record as a threat.)
Q: I wrote about the RIAA's appearance before a Senate hearing earlier this year on an "audio broadcast flag" for digital receivers that are able to broadcasts from HD radio and satellite radio. What exactly would you like Congress to do?
Sherman: Legislative parity in the Senate that would harmonize (licensing rates) and content protection requirements. It doesn't make any sense that Webcasters who are in competition with satellite pay more and have more obligations. They should be harmonized.
They're basically licensed to do a public performance. They are filling up an iPod equivalent with free music. It stays on your device for as long as you're a subscriber.
Q: Do you need congressional action on this, or can you work this out through negotiation and contracts?
Bainwol: As a matter of policy you have very broad issues here. The individual question with XM or Sirius can be (addressed) on a private basis.
Q: Do you actually need to make certain receivers illegal to manufacture, which is the path being taken by Sen. Ted Stevens' proposal or Rep. Mike Ferguson's bill?
Sherman: It isn't a matter of making it legal or illegal. The preferred approach would be to make this a licensing matter.
Any kind of traditional copying would be fine. Just don't create a library like an iTunes library.
Q: How are you going to deal with open-source programmers who release code that simply ignores a broadcast flag? I'm thinking of applications like GNU
Radio.
Sherman: We've long accepted the notion that you're not going to have a pirate-proof system. The idea is to leave that to the hacking community. Most people want to get it legitimately.
Bainwol: The world at large is not aware of DRM as an issue. Nobody feels any real problem with it.
Sherman: It's the ideologues who are focused on it. There's a great article by Jim DeLong that asks how you think there should be rallies outside supermarkets using technology preventing you from taking away shopping carts. (Editors' note: DeLong is an analyst at the Progress and Freedom Foundation in Washington, D.C., who supports stronger intellectual property rights.)
Q: Could the DRM debate flare up again because of public missteps like Sony's rootkit-enabled CDs?
Sherman: DRM has just gotten a bad rap based on this notion that it's going to restrict consumer choice.
Bainwol: It's a proxy for an almost ideological fight on fair use.
Sherman: The fight over DRM will almost fade away as business models (become more flexible).
See more CNET content tagged:
RIAA, Grokster Ltd., conversation, file-swapping, lobbyist
Personally, I say: Boycott the RIAA. Boycott the acts.
mark d.
"Q: Do your view your lawsuits, even ones where you sued a 12-year-old girl or a Boston grandmother, as a success overall and do you think the process is working?
Sherman: Yes. We're feeling pretty good. There will be the opportunity for business models that are consistent with P2P networks (such as demo versions or low quality). There have been a lot of conversations recently about ad-supported models."
Is that the RIAA's answer? I think Mr. Sherman was avoiding the question. Do you care at all that you sued a CHILD?? Do you care at all that you sued an OLD LADY?? THAT was the question. Instead, he answers about business models and ad-supported (aka spyware) models. And he also says that the whole thing makes him feel pretty good.
Listen people, listen to the man who wants you to bleed through your noses for your music. He has no heart, he feels good if he can rob an old lady of all her money, or even a 12 year old girl. His heart has been replaced by a cold, unfeeling gold bullion. Doesn't matter your age or condition, if he can fatten his pockets off you, he will (as if a $1.8 million annual salary wasn't enough). People like this man have turned music, something that is supposed to bring peace, relaxation and all sorts of positive feelings, into a gold mine surrounded with landmines. Unfortunately, the government allows and promotes it (after all, RIAA is one of the big tax payers). The government allows this cold, punishing the the weak behavior to continue, and yet, they profess to care about the people who suffer under the hands of tyrants and terrorists.
In the end, bands are like small businesses and some of the larger controlling bodies aren't adjusting to the market. Artists like other business people should have a say in how people can access their product or not have access to it.
http://www.essentialsecurity.com/yourbusiness.htm The RIAA seems as if they want to keep these independent bodies (the artists) out of the loop.
What's the happy medium. Sentinel was right, was there real justice in brining the Granny and 12-year old to trial?
favorite band that they would do anything for? I remember going
to a flea market to purchase "Hey, Hey, What Can I Do" by Led
Zeppelin on a bootleg cassette. We had to have it. And when the
band released it officially we bought it again. I don't think either of
these guys understand what it means to be a real music fan and
that consumption of music translates into album purchases, live
show download purchases, merch and ticket sales. If these guys
had their way, they would outlaw any recording device out there.
money is going. Unlike their highly paid counterparts in tobacco
and firearms, these lobbyists aren't securing access for the
people who pay them. While smokers and hunters may not mind
their money going to lobbyists that keep prices down and access
up for them, these guys do just the opposite. They spend each
and every waking moment trying to make music more difficult
and expensive to obtain. Like the oil companies, their aim is to
limit supply, which is rampant on the internet, in an attempt to
elevate price way beyond any reasonable relation to actual value.
A dollar for a song? Come on. Maybe they can find a way to
charge us all for the air we breathe... by the breath, of course.
I beg to differ. Sony's rootkit ordeal and MediaMax installing it's software whether or you accept or decline the license agreement were probably the two most public examples. The less technical might not know to call it DRM, but they likely know the effects. Abitrary restrictions on what can be done with content, incompatibility, and term that can be changed retroactively.
These two are great politicians in that they can speak for hours and manage to say absolutely nothing of value.
P.S.: Die in a fire.
I think the goverment should force them to comply as part of a freedom bill.
I'm not dealing with any company that is part of RIAA as I don't want to sell out.
A record company is a service.
- XM radio subscribers
- by baco63 January 19, 2007 9:45 PM PST
- This will comfirm it for me no longer will I buy music from the mall. There are plenty of sites to download music for free. If that hurts the music industry so be it. Theres plenty of old songs to listen to that's alot better than the crap on the radio today.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(13 Comments)