Oh yes...and it's a monopoly too remember. If anyone complains tooooo much they can say "it's a monopoly and I can set my price go take it up with the government" whose reply is "they can do what they want but maybe I'll see about shaving penny off per dollar for you"...and it's a monopoly that lasts for almost a century in most cases. You know something...this reminds me of craps. I've been told to make money you don't shoot and just play the odds (betting against as much as you can) and you'll clean up (or in the case of Jimmy the Greek he makes money because everybody wants to say they played with Jimmy the Greek). So look at what the RIAA has done. The artists are the shooters and they are betting against them to make their money.
"Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Oh ... so _noone_ is negotiating on behalf
of the government, the copyrightholder's agent
just gets to set whatever terms they want?
Oh. Ok. That's _muuuuuuch_ better.
:-\
--
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 3:01 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Hacking requires search warrant -- ruling
>
>
> "What we have is a failure to communicate." -- Cool Hand Luke
>
> I was unclear in what I posted. In the recent webcasting bill SounEx
> (essentially an arm of the RIAA) was specified to set royalty fees.
> Since these royalty agreements will have the force of law
> behind them it
> puts RIAA in a meta-gov't role.
>
> Richard Hartman wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps I misunderstood what you said then, here:
> >
> > [blockquote]
> > Troubling is that the congress essentially made the RIAA
> the official
> > gov't organization for negotiating licenses with all
> copyright holders
> > (regardless of their membership in the RIAA).
> > [/blockquote]
> >
> > That sound like congress has given the power to negotiate
> > terms for the government to the copyright holders; while
> > the RIAA already has the responsibility to negotiate
> > terms _for_ the copyright holders _to_ (whoever wants
> > the rights).
> >
> > Since the RIAA would be acting as agent _for_ both
> > parties, this would be a conflict of interest.
> >
> > You are the one who said this, and now you are saying
> > you missed it ... did I just misunderstand what you
> > had said?
> >
> > --
> > -Richard M. Hartman
> > hartman@onetouch.com
> >
> > 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 12:33 PM
> > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Hacking requires search
> warrant -- ruling
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm missing the part were they negotiate _for_ the gov't.
> > > They are the
> > > gov't appointed negotiators for _all_ copyright holders (in
> > > the webcast
> > > compromise law just passed), but that seems materially
> different from
> > > negotiating for the gov't. Nothing in the current laws seems
> > > to include
> > > any gov't interest (such as the public good) even as a
> > > consideration of
> > > the negotiation of royalties and fees. The gov't just has
> > > required the
> > > webcasters to (a) pay royalties and (b) pay whatever the RIAA
> > > specifies.
> > >
> > > Or am _I_ missing something? (It certainly wouldn't be a first.)
> > >
> > > .002
> > >
> > > "Few grammatical errors are as embarrassing as not finishing a"
> > > -- .002
> > >
> > > Richard Hartman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry ... the RIAA does represent copyright holders,
> > > > so in negotiating both _to_ and _for_ the government
> > > > they have a substantial conflict of interest.
> > > >
> > > > The fact that they have _additional_ conflicts
> > > > is secondary ;-)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -Richard M. Hartman
> > > > hartman@onetouch.com
> > > >
> > > > 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: D. C. Sessions [mailto:dcs@lumbercartel.com]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 8:43 PM
> > > > > To: DVD-Discuss
> > > > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Hacking requires search
> > > warrant -- ruling
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 11:59, Glendon M. Gross wrote:
> > > > > > It's almost as though the RIAA would become like a
> > > > > "Department of Art"
> > > > > > or "Department of Copyright Enforcement." I find it
> > > > > strange that there
> > > > > > is not more resistance to their point of view in the
> > > courts, but I
> > > > > > suspect that except for the EFF very few people are actively
> > > > > > representing the opposing view.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe the best thing to do is accept the RIAA's status as
> > > > > a quasi-governmental agency. There are any number of laws
> > > > > regulating the conduct of such agencies, and the Courts
> > > > > seem quite willing to apply them strictly. Wouldn't it be
> > > > > fun if the RIAA's meetings were covered by sunshine laws?
> > > > >
> > > > > > The RIAA often seems to win these kinds
> > > > > > of cases by "default." Content creators may need
> some kind of
> > > > > > representation in government but it should be an impartial
> > > > > > representation, not a partisan representation. Ultimately
> > > > > I don't think
> > > > > > the RIAA helps artists as much as they do mechanical
> > > reproducers of
> > > > > > music [and copyright owners] who often don't compensate the
> > > > > artist at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, the RIAA doesn't represent artists at all. (You're
> > > > > thinking ASCAP or BMI) The RIAA represents *publishers*, and
> > > > > on several occasions has represented them *against* artists.
> > > > > The RIAA, for instance, was behind the notorious "work for
> > > > > hire" law.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > | The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to
> > > the strong. |
> > > > > | Because the slow, feeble old codgers like me cheat.
> > > |
> > > > > +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com>
> > > --------------+
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>