Napster Judge Wants Major Copyright Reform

A plan to reform copyright by establishing public and private organizations that will be in charge of licensing was proposed this week.

0
The judge responsible for shutting down the original version of peer-to-peer service Napster proposed an interesting plan this week to reform copyright by establishing public and private organizations that will be in charge of licensing and enforcing the law in this digital age. Judge Miriam Hall Patel had this to say at the Fordham University School of Law in New York City: "There needs to be a comprehensive revision of the provisions that relate to the administration of copyright licensing, royalties and enforcement. I propose that a joint public/private administrative body made up of representatives of all competing interest, including the public, be established and authorized to, among other powers, issue licenses; negotiate, set and administer royalties; and adopt rules and regulations to carry out these purposes." "It was not surprising that the notion of free music caught on," she added. "What is surprising is how the industry seemed to be caught so short. While it was fumbling the new ways to distribute digital music at a profit in the new age, savvy innovators were moving full speed ahead. Sadly, it is the artists and composers who have been the most neglected in this matter. [In regards to legislation,] our copyright laws have become a patchwork of amendments that are adopted as emergencies arise." Judge Patel's recommendations (Thanks to Wired.com):
  • The new body needs to be a mix of public and private entities with all parties represented. It cannot be a purely governmental body because that is not likely to instill confidence in the public.
  • All copyrighted music would be part of this system and subject to a compulsory license, with possible opt-out provisions for certain rights holders.
  • Congress should abolish all current compulsory licenses and adopt a blanket licensing system. (Such a system may have allowed Napster to continue operating, assuming it could afford to pay labels under the compulsory licensing scheme.)
  • The body would administer all royalty payments and would replace all current systems for doing so.
  • An independent arm would arbitrate royalty disputes using music databases that allow arbitration to be done with speed and precision lacking in the current system.
  • Manufacturers and developers would need approval from this body before introducing an application or device capable of recording, distributing or copying music to consumers. The body would include technology experts to aid in making those decisions quickly - Patel described this as "sort of like the FDA, but much faster." Judge Miriam Hall Patel was the judge who presided over the famous A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. case which effectively shut down Napster until it was repurchased and turned into a pay-service. Report by David Lowe-Bianco.
  • 156 comments sorted by best / new / date

    comments policy
      False_God
      I will download the album, and if I like it I will go out and buy it. But if I dont like it I just delete it. Im not gonna waste 20 on a new cd that I wont even like.
      vidinamusic
      Look at it this way. I AM a solo artist trying to make money from music. But I dont expect much. I cant tour. Im not on a label. I am completely independent. I have my album up for 80 cents a song. I dont make much from that. But guess what, I have a day job. Thats where my money comes from. I say, if you can get your hands on my music for free, go for it. I wont be losing any money. But I will be gaining an audience. The best way for an artist to make money, I think, would be to start up a small business selling your own products. And i could do this. Like I said, I am completely independent, I design my own artwork, I produce and master my own music, all i'd have to do is something simple like go through a t-shirt design company online, submit my own designs, and start selling. Something as simple as that. If you dont have the skills to do that, take the time to learn them. You cant rely on just the music to pay your bills. Music was never really the product in the first place.
      Axl_Explosion
      Lotz222 wrote: Congress should abolish all current compulsory licenses and adopt a blanket licensing system. (Such a system may have allowed Napster to continue operating, assuming it could afford to pay labels under the compulsory licensing scheme.) That is actually not a bad idea, but i doubt Limewire makes enough off its "pro" and advertising for this to actually work. But it does seem practical.
      I doubt it also, considering that Limewire itself is a victim of it's own p2p sharing. I know people who have gone on and downloaded the pro version of limewire...OFF OF LIMEWIRE!!
      reizig
      Keep the goddamn government out of this. Are we going to nationalize our intellectual property? Do we really need the government to control EVERYTHING?
      seanplaysforblb
      I download and buy. Some albums are long out of print with no hope of being re-issued.Those I download.New albums that bands put out I go and buy. As a recording musician I usually sell any full lengths I do for about 5 dollars a piece at a show or whatnot. Thats cheap enough to make money off of without ripping off people. I think it should just stay how it is. The huge record comps would go under and level the playing field with the smaller ones. Kind of a music industry rebirth if you will.
      happyfinesad
      How about this for solving the music issues at hand: Better music. Lower prices. People don't want to pay $16 for a CD that they're going to like three songs on, so they download the ones they want. Sign solid, quality artists, stop being such greedy bastards that you inflate the price of a CD 300%. Problem ****ing solved. The music industry has no one to blame but themselves for this little debacle they're in.
      oldschoolthrash
      seanplaysforblb wrote: I download and buy. Some albums are long out of print with no hope of being re-issued.Those I download.New albums that bands put out I go and buy. As a recording musician I usually sell any full lengths I do for about 5 dollars a piece at a show or whatnot. Thats cheap enough to make money off of without ripping off people. I think it should just stay how it is. The huge record comps would go under and level the playing field with the smaller ones. Kind of a music industry rebirth if you will.
      Exactly, there's a lot of classic thrash I would like to listen to that has long been out of print, so I download those. But if there's any new cd's I like or any rare treasures I can find, I buy them. But if they wanna charge 15 bucks for a new CD with the worst audio I've ever heard, I don't think that's quite fair.
      seljer
      That is actually not a bad idea, but i doubt Limewire makes enough off its "pro" and advertising for this to actually work. But it does seem practical.
      I always found it ironic that you could use limewire to download limewire pro
      Silas S Thompso
      Ya know what? Let's all 'stick it to the man' and never pay for music or movies or books ever again. Then we'll see who's laughing, when all the big companies who fund artists' music go bust, and there is no more music, because people can't afford to do things for free! The thing is is you can't download any music if labels don 't make money to fund them. Then it all goes out of business and no music will come out.
      Hasok
      Makin music and earn money is not a normal job,is a dream job becuase you are gettin pay for doin what you love and you have fans that love your music. gettin pissed becuase ppl downloaded your CD is lame.
      pantericadeth
      I think we could do away with recording companies. I'm not positive it would work but it could. The artists would just distribute their own music. They would make money off of how much people like them not off of how much the record companies think they are worth. Then as they get more popular they could afford better gear, better and longer tours, maybe even hire a producer if they wanted. Then again this could completely fail and we'd be back at square one.
      alex-158
      They can keep shutting down peer-peer programs. New ones will always pop up!
      100% true.
      SamuriChamploo
      The way I see it is that some people have already downloaded thousands of songs and it's already on their iPod. The industry has taken a big hit. I'm not sure if this will solve much. Point is, there's been a lot of damage done, and it's not good for anybody.
      Rtard_GWARRIOR
      I own over 130 CD's 300 Cassette tapes and a huge freezer full of 45's. Didnt bother to count them. I've been downloading the albums i have on 45's so i dont think theres anything wrong with that, since i own the albums. Ie, Metallica: Kill em' all Should i not be able to have a digital copy of it on my computer if i have the album that no longer plays on my record player?
      jeowy
      bassmanjoe08 wrote: I love how some people live in a fairy land, where people have no money problems at all. It IS a job. That doesnt mean its not a ****ing awesome job, but it is a rough one to have. If youre pissed for musicians/labels wanting to make money, then you have serious issues. EVERYBODY wants/needs money. There is no good guys or bad guys on the topic of the music industry. Its a living, funded by every single buck you can turn.
      no.
      new_age_reject wrote: You sir, are extremely intelligent! As a musician myself, I actively want my friends to distribute any music my band produces as it creates a fan base.
      thanks mate
      pootoob wrote: I don't think I have ever read so many stupid comments in my entire life... Small bands need album sales, or else their label will terminate their contract, and then they won't have any money to record music, or tour, or do anything. You can't argue music is art, so it should be free. Did Picasso hand out his portraits on street corners? NO, but he was an artist, so he should've right? Ya know what? Let's all 'stick it to the man' and never pay for music or movies or books ever again. Then we'll see who's laughing, when all the big companies who fund artists' music go bust, and there is no more music, because people can't afford to do things for free!
      think really really carefully about what you've just said. "big companies go bust" - "there is no more music", how did you arrive at the latter from the former? if large record labels cease to exist then music can thrive on independant labels who can put out the music for free and turn a profit based on marketting the image of the band - merch etc. people who adore a band will spend money on them. Why should people who havent heard an album be forced to spend money on them?
      ghostofhendrix wrote: This seems like a very good idea to me. I get annoyed about the people who justify downloading illegal music: -It's not 'free advertising', the bigger bands don't need advertising- everyone already knows who they are! -The little bands desperately need the money from album sales to convince a record label/ their record label to give them a/a better or longer contract. -Downloading is only good if they're a small band that are trying to get a bigger fanbase to come to their shows, either all bands can go indie and have small-medium dedicated fanbases, or we can keep the slowly decaying system we have now. I never justify downloading music- sure i've done my fair share of it, but I always feel bad because I know i'm hurting the artists who work hard to produce their art. Unless they specifically say they want you to download their stuff free, YOU SHOULD FEEL VERY GUILTY!!! Rant over lol
      as much as i respect your viewpoint, you're wrong. you all keep ASSUMING that these "little bands" need record contracts to survive. I would argue that if it wasnt for record labels in the first place, artists would be much better off. also; " all bands can go indie and have small-medium dedicated fanbases" - that sounds like heaven to me. --- the other anti-piracy posts so far have just been too ignorant to even warrant a reply
      postiejim
      Oooooo i better watch da Judge Miriam Hall Patel will be after me. Never bought an album for years and i dont intend doing so in my lifetime, you would have to be a right stupid bastard to pay for something you can get for **** all.
      Chris12345
      Stop making comparisons to films and books, they're completly different, with them the film/book is the end product... the director/writer makes the film/book to be seen, sure if you like it, you might buy more of their stuff, but the film or book is where you get the enjoyment... A CD is different in that it should be (for most artists anyway) an advert for the live show... buy a CD and your paying for TV adverts, subsidising other bands, executive and middle manager salarys etc... sure, if you have the money buy the CD, but if you don't and want to a support the band, your money is much better spent on going to see a band, having a couple of beers and buying a t-shirt... Here in the UK, CDs are around 8-15quid, so lets say you buy 2 of a bands albums and it costs 25, from that money the band probably sees around 50p-4 (it can depend on a lot of factors, but it'll be a small ammount) Contrast that to downloading those 2 albums, liking the band and going to see them next time they roll through your town... spending 20 on a ticket and a 2 shirt and a fiver on a couple of beers... the band will be seeing closer to 10-15 and the venue the rest... the 2 groups of people who deserve the money the most, the band for playing good music, and the venue for putting on live music... The practice of labels getting bands desperate to be signed into debt to fund a record that may not do all that well is another practice that needs to be stopped... with the constant improvement in home recording, pretty much anyone with a bit of practice can record a passable track... With the vast majority of music now being 'consumed' on computer speakers and ipods with in-ear headphones, as opposed to hi-fis, the need for a perfectly mastered record is no longer there, and hell, if you're band makes it big, you'll be able to do one... for a first release there is no real need to pay for a professional recording studio, engineer and the like... As for the person who said "bye bye tours and gigs without record labels", you're an idiot... Next time you walk through your town look at the posters outside pubs and clubs, and you will no doubt see adverts for gigs from small bands who tour for the love of it, manage to gig around 'proper' jobs and aren't just out to make a shed load of cash... you'd pay to go on holiday and enjoy yourself, or even just to go on a roadtrip or whatever, where's the difference between that and going on a roadtrip and playing some gigs and enjoying yourself? Hell, you might make a bit of cash out of it, but that shouldn't be the end game! If your band is good enough and has a wide enough appeal, you will make money eventually. If not, don't sign a deal thats gonna get you into massive debt and organise your own tours, record your own CDs, you'll have a lot of fun and experiences to draw on : O, and Lars Ulrich is a cock. Somewhere during him getting signed, I gaurentee they've given a record company employee a copy of their tape/CD... in what is basically an attempt to get money, whats the problem with people doing it the 'correct' way of giving your music to the (potential) fans, in an attempt to get money? Cut out the middle man...
      Smithsc
      Just another way for government to get their hands into more money.
      Smithsc
      Anjohl wrote: Not a chance. This would result in SEVERE limitations on MP3 players, because they would have to have some sort of digital cop that prevented you from putting "illegal" songs on your players. That's a huge privacy violation, a device you buy should not monitor what you do with it.
      yeah that would be BS, but Im sure this wonderful government of ours will make it happen one day.
      Mootallica
      Smithsc wrote: Anjohl wrote: Not a chance. This would result in SEVERE limitations on MP3 players, because they would have to have some sort of digital cop that prevented you from putting "illegal" songs on your players. That's a huge privacy violation, a device you buy should not monitor what you do with it. yeah that would be BS, but Im sure this wonderful government of ours will make it happen one day.
      Welcome to the Australian Internet very soon.
      Shazazmic
      So basically they want to turn Napster into a representative democracy type-thing? Sounds alright...
      DBrooks0022
      I prefer stealing the CD from stores. Stealing is wrong, yes, but 1. I get the physical copy and 2. I put my ass on the line to do it, and you should earn your free music. Sitting at a computer with a drumstick in one hand and your schlong in the other isnt much of a risk, except for the risk of your mom walking in
      wow are you cool or what?? quit trying to sound badass, you just sound like an ass
      Regression
      Anavrin224 wrote: poop182 wrote: One more thing... Dont forget to GO TO THE SHOWS! That is where bands make most of their money anyway! "Casey Calvert always and forever" exactly! bands make peanuts off record sales... something like 10 cents a CD, the rest goes to the record label. If you really want to support a band go see them live and buy a t-shirt.
      Actually, it's about a dollar per cd for bands on major labels. $2 for bands on independant.
      Anjohl
      Not a chance. This would result in SEVERE limitations on MP3 players, because they would have to have some sort of digital cop that prevented you from putting "illegal" songs on your players. That's a huge privacy violation, a device you buy should not monitor what you do with it.
      HostileFTW
      i_am_metalhead wrote: The majority of artists actually want people to download their music because that is free exposure for them. Not to mention, artists barely see any of the profits that are made from album sales - the vast majority of it goes straight to the pockets of the greedy label executives. The war against music pirating will never be won - they need to wave their white flag while they still have a chance.
      It's a great idea to me, people will have to start finding their music elsewhere, obscure music will be king!
      manwithplan
      maidenitalia wrote: Sounds like making music almost a Communist body. And are they just gonna do away with record labels...? Doesn't sound like the best idea to me
      A communist body? wtf? u have to be joking mate? how is this at all communist? its not even slightly socialist! if anything they are suggesting the privatisation of the copyright departments. a very conservitive thing to be doing! and yeh. you can hardly talk, your using a site which is based in russia to stop it from being shut down. a very socialist country, which was fully communist until old america had to get all scared of them so yeh. i hope u were joking,. other wise i pity your ignorance
      manwithplan
      Regression wrote: Anavrin224 wrote: poop182 wrote: but bands on big labels still make more because there music is going to be more widely spread and there will be more sales. due to the ammount of time and money put into getting more sales. there get less of a cut One more thing... Dont forget to GO TO THE SHOWS! That is where bands make most of their money anyway! "Casey Calvert always and forever" exactly! bands make peanuts off record sales... something like 10 cents a CD, the rest goes to the record label. If you really want to support a band go see them live and buy a t-shirt. Actually, it's about a dollar per cd for bands on major labels. $2 for bands on independant.
      tj-666
      it is better to sell 150,000 copies of an album for 5 quid then to sell 50,000 copies of it for 15 quid. the way musics got now with some bands making a decent song with an album of fillers, id rather download an album first and if i like it then i'l buy uti
      daryle_goh
      Ram_overdrive wrote: technically....we have been re -using the same melodies for centuries...just new packaging...and teh audiences bad memory.....!
      you're right about that too. anyway, the world is beginning to wake up to what you've just pointed out too. and we're beginning to see a change in that sort of "aura" and "air" that we used to see in great musicians.
      Ram_overdrive
      daryle_goh wrote: there will come a day where... every possible way and arrangement of music has been used before. at this point, there will no longer be a question of originality but more rather, a question of knowledge, skill and most of all: enjoyment!!!!
      technically....we have been re -using the same melodies for centuries...just new packaging...and teh audiences bad memory.....!
      daryle_goh
      there will come a day where... every possible way and arrangement of music has been used before. at this point, there will no longer be a question of originality but more rather, a question of knowledge, skill and most of all: enjoyment!!!!
      Ram_overdrive
      which ones pink wrote: sea_bass wrote: just give me affordable music. then i will be less tempted to download. i cant afford $15 for all the cd's i want to listen to Word.
      i second that
      AtticusNathy
      Tbh its about time they started sorting this copyright stuff out. Get rid of Limewire xx
      tcelfer
      There's a reason record labels exist. They exist because not everyone can afford a recording studio. So, those who can afford it loan out their studios. As a result, they want a cut of the money that the band's recording gets. Since the owners get a cut, they advertise the band's music, helping the band gain a fan base. If music was free, the studio owners couldn't afford to stay in business. Then, the small bands have to use the big bands' recording studios, and the big bands want a cut anyway, so the big bands just become the new labels, and you have the same situation. And if you're saying that free music is helping the bands, what do they do when they can't record because the labels are out of business? Then they can't even tour to get money, because no one has heard of them, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T RECORD. Of course they could record with their own cheap recording equipment, but if the songs have a horrible quality, nobody is going to listen to their music anyway. I'm not saying all labels are the best examples of helpful, fair business partners, but they're still needed.
      A-440
      TestMan6 wrote: ChucklesMginty wrote: They should just start one of those 'you wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a baby etc.' campaigns like on the DVDs. If the chances of getting caught stealing a car was the same as the chance of getting caught stealing music I would have a nice car collection.
      If the chances of getting caught stealing a baby was the same as the chance of getting caught stealing music I would have a nice baby collection.
      googoog'joob
      ChucklesMginty wrote: They should just start one of those 'you wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a baby etc.' campaigns like on the DVDs.
      oh hell no not another
      googoog'joob
      TestMan6 wrote: ChucklesMginty wrote: They should just start one of those 'you wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a baby etc.' campaigns like on the DVDs. If the chances of getting caught stealing a car was the same as the chance of getting caught stealing music I would have a nice car collection.
      LOL you made my day +1
      ethan is hot
      it amazes me that the record labels are complaining when cds are STILL selling millions to fans
      googoog'joob
      ShadowWolf579 wrote: slann101 wrote: i reckon lars will have something to say about this... I hope lars keeps his mouth shut...
      pfft. fat chance
      njustice4all
      all bands make a sh-it load more when playing concerts, selling records is on the side, i'd rather see some metal band , than spend 10, 15, 20 on one of their 30 or so albums. most bands are very greedy, but good job for Metallica and AC/DC making plenty of money on their new records, in this day and age! HAIL SATAN