I'm struggling, but I don't see what I misinterpreted.
Prince is just playing games again, & Corgan's continuing to mine his populist angle.

The only thing I could get from re-reading is that there are some great garage bands out there without major label contracts, but you KNOW most of them have been working their butts off to get picked up even by one of the minor labels!

> And if it's dowloaded from Napster, instead of only a buck or two, the artist gets...nothing!

This is most interesting, because it turns out that it's false by omission.

In 1992, the recording industry pushed through a law called the "Audio Home Recording Act." In addition to requiring SCMS copy protection on digital audio recorders, it mandated the payment of royalties to the music industry on blank digital audio media.

The bill was called the "DAT tax", which is inaccurate for two reasons. First, the royalties apply to all digital audio-branded media, and second, it isn't a tax, it's a royalty.

So, whenever you purchase a CDR that says, "Audio" on it, a small percentage of that money goes into a government fund, which is then collected by the recording industry. Those royalties are mandated by law to be paid to artists and songwriters.

Here is the copyright office home page. If you page down halfway, you will find information about the "Digital Audio Recording Fund". This is the royalty fund that Napster users pay into when they burn audio CDRs from their downloaded files.
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/carp/

The interesting thing about these web pages is that they never give hard numbers. In fact, they brnd over backwards to NOT disclose exactly how much money people are paying the music industry in royalties when they burn CDRs.

However, they do say who received the royalties:

Broadcast Music, Inc. (``BMI'');
the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (``ASCAP'');
SESAC, Inc. (``SESAC'');
the Harry Fox Agency (``HFA'');
the Songwriters Guild of America (``SGA'');
and Copyright Management, Inc. (``CMI'')

as well as two individuals who petitioned individually for their royalties because they felt they were misrepresented by ASCAP/BMI.

The interesting part, which is left out of the published reports, is the pattern of royalty collection over the years.

Royalties collected on digital audio recording devices and blank media:

1992 $118,227.42
1993 $520,162.84
1994 $521,999.64
1995 $473,592.20
1996 $397,152.52
1997 $969,178.06
1998 $1,978,457.93
1999 $3,551,030.86
2000 $5,285,246.32

These numbers aren't hard to explain. In 1992, when the royalties were first imposed, the only digital audio recording format was DAT. DAT was never accepted in the consumer market, and the declining revenues reflect this. Then, in 1997, CDRs were introduced, and the royalties started to climb. Since the introduction of MP3s, and then Napster, the royalties have started to rise on an exponential curve. These are royalties that are paid, by law, directly to the organizations that represent artists and songwriters -- the very people that William claims are "not paid" by Napster users

The only difference is that Napster users don't pay when they download -- they pay when they burn. But they do pay. And quite a lot.

So let me ask this.

First, the royalties are only paid on media that is branded for audio use. So, if you buy "data" CDRs, you don't pay a royalty.

Second, the money is handed over to those organizations as a lump sum. They divide the money up as they please, out of the public eye.

quote:

---

And if it's dowloaded from Napster, instead of only a buck or two, the artist gets...nothing!

This is most interesting, because it turns out that it's false by omission.

---

Absolutely a distortion.

You have downloaded something produced by the artist, & paid the artist nothing for that work. That still hasn't changed.

If I come over & take your paycheck for last week's work, may I then say you are still getting paid because you can expect a social security check later?

You are still dodging the issue of taking without payment the property of someone else.

You are not paying Blink 182 for their new CD by buying a blank DAT type.

Are you suggesting there is a "socialized music industry" which supports all artists, regardless of how many units they sell?

When a radio station plays a song, they write down what song they played, then they pay the statutory royalty. Are the radio stations stealing because they don't pay the royalty before they play the song?

When someone downloads a song, they first download the song, then if they decide to put it on an audio CDR, they pay the statutory royalty, yet to you, even though they are paying, they are still stealing.

This is not imaginary money. This is real money paid by Napster users directly to the music industry, and the payments are mandated by law to be paid to artists as well as copyright holders.

> You are still dodging the issue of taking without payment the property of someone else.

I'm not dodging the issue. I've explained over and over why infringement is different from stealing. You might think that it's wrong. You might think that it's just as wrong as stealing, but it is not the same crime, and your analogies don't hold.

It's really hard to argue with someone who can't or won't understand the difference between infringement and theft. Stealing deprives someone of physical property. Infringement is the violation of a government-created monopoly.

> You are not paying Blink 182 for their new CD by buying a blank DAT type.

When you buy a blank DAT tape (or a blank audio CDR), 3% of the wholesale price is, under federal law, placed in a fund At the end of each year, that fund is handed over to the music industry, which divides the funds up between ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and the major labels.

Federal law requires that these funds be paid to copyright owners, writers, and musical artists. If these funds aren't winding up in the hands of artists, then the record labels are breaking federal law. The record labels, I am told, divide up the money for their artists based on overall sales.

So yes, every time you purchase a DAT, part of your purchase goes to Blink 182.

> Are you suggesting there is a "socialized music industry" which supports all artists, regardless of how many units they sell?

Only in the sense that statutory royalties are part of a "socialized music industry."

I have a feeling that you just don't believe that statutory royalties are collected on blank media. Read the law if you don't believe it. It isn't a secret, and the numbers are real. You may say that Napster users are "stealing", but $11,000,000+ so far says you're wrong.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.text.html

When you download a song without paying for it, you are depriving
the owners of their money for that work.

The monies paid from buying blank media are not related to that work.

 |  IP: Logged

Comments on the Audio Home Recording Act, from the 1992 Congressional record, by the authors and supporters of the legislation:

The money paid into the royalty fund will be distributed to interested copyright parties to compensate for any loss of royalties due to home copying by consumers

-- U.S. Representative Cardiss Collins, Il.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3204 would make it clear that noncommercial taping of music by consumers is not a violation of copyright law. The debate over home taping of records goes back to 1970 when Congress first extended copyright protection for records but this legislation will end the 22-year-old debate and make it clear that home taping does not constitute copyright infringement.

-- Rep. Jack Brooks, Tx.

There are three basic provisions of the legislation. First, it guarantees consumers the legal right to make analog or digital copies of musical recordings for noncommercial use.

-- Rep Cardiss Collins.

At the same time, the bill resolves an issue that has been of great concern to consumers for the last two decades and that is the home taping of music. The bill makes clear that the home taping of music is not a violation of copyright law.

-- Rep Carlos Moorhead, Ca.

This legislation, the Audio Home Recording Act of 1991 ...
benefits the music industry because it receives compensation. The agreement also removes the legal cloud that has hovered over home taping of sound recordings. Although the practice has become widespread, there are those who have argued that it was illegal under the copyright law. This legislation makes clear the private, non-commercial taping, of both analog and digital material, is permissible under the copyright law. As new and improved recording technologies become available, such clarification in the law becomes more important.

-- Sen. Dennis DeConcini, Az.

Key Elements of Digital Home Taping Legislation

(1) The legislation provides for an exemption from copyright infringement liability for a consumer for digital and analog audio taping for private, noncommercial use.

(2) The legislative provisions discussed below apply to all digital audio recording technologies (DAT, DCC, Mini Disc, CD-R, etc.).

-- Sen. Edward Kennedy, Ma.

One more thing ...

If somebody holds open the fire door at your theater & someone creeps in without paying admission; it is still theft, even if the thief gives money to the theater through other streams - like buying concessions.

That would not be theft. That would be trespassing. Once again, you are confusing two completely unrelated crimes.

You're leaving out the fact that a huge majority of music CD-R burning is done on computers, not stand-alone CD recorders. Computers use data CD-Rs, on which no royalty is collected or paid to anybody. (I'm amazed that such a royalty hasn't been proposed yet...but not complaining!)

Second, all those quotes from government files were made under the assumption that the home taper already "owns" the copy of the music he's taping from. Besides, if those quotes are from the '92 record, they were made long before digital downloading was even a glimmer in the public eye. The rules have changed.

In the "trespassing" case the individual is only stealing from you, judging from the way your sentence is worded. But is he not also stealing from the people who made the movie, since they see no money from his viewing of it, just like every theater employee does whenever they watch a movie for free? Granted, you work for the theater so that is a bonus to the employee that the theater (not the studio) provides. But still, no money is going to the artist. And if I bring my family or a bunch of friends then the studio is really screwed!

Oh well. I guess we'll all just burn in hell

Media royalties were suggested for all media, but Congress was beseiged by computer users, and explicitly rejected including computer media. Obviously, many people are avoiding royalties, just as many people avoid royalties on printed materials by using photocopy machines. However, many people are paying royalties, because the royalties collected are increasing on an exponential curve. No system is perfect.

I'm puzzled by your assertation that the AHRA was only intended to cover instances where the taper already owns the copy of the music he's taping from. I was very involved in opposing the AHRA, and I can tell you that this was never, ever part of the debate. There was no reason that it should be part of the debate, since it is a long-established principle that personal use of copyrighted materials that you already own is permissible. The debate always was about whether consumers had the right to make copies of music that they didn't already own. Why would someone want to copy a $15.00 robust CD that they already own onto a $20.00 (at the time) fragile DAT tape anyhow?

Anyhow, more from the Congressional Record:

American consumers have been deprived of overall access to this innovative recording technology due to litigation and disputes between the electronics industry, recording industry, songwriters and music publishers in the United States. The dispute stems from the music industry's fear that once consumers get access to this technology, home copying will increase and this will lead to reduced sales and royalties.

-- Rep. Cardiss Collins, IL

Why would individuals copying their own music harm sales and royalties? Would it put an end to the non-existant practice of individuals purchasing more than one copy of a CD? How many CDs do you have multiple copies of?

The royalty system is designed to compensate creators and copyright owners of music for lost sales due to copying on digital audio recorders.

-- Rep. Jack Brooks, Tx.

How would a bill permitting people to copy their music they already own "compensate ... for lost sales." Anyone who already owns a CD has already compensated the creators and copyright owners, and presumably has no reason to purchase a second copy.

and finally, I quote Sen. Edward Kennedy, explaining the purpose of the bill:

I first became involved in the issue of home taping of copyrighted material in 1981. At that time, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision finding that the non-commercial private video taping of broadcast television shows constituted copyright infringement. I disagreed with the decision of the Ninth Circuit and immediately introduced legislation to overturn it. It is difficult to believe that the so-called Betamax decision was announced almost 10 years ago. Over the intervening years, the issue of noncommercial home taping has remained a hotly debated one.

My purpose in introducing this legislation today is the same as it was when I introduced the Betamax bill in 1981, to protect the rights of consumers to tape copyrighted material for their own non-commercial, private use.

So there you have it. According to the author of the law, the Audio Home Recording Act is intended to protect the rights of consumers to tape copyrighted material that they did not previously own, just as the Betamax case was about the rights of consumers to tape copyrighted television broadcasts that they did not previously own.

Besides, if those quotes are from the '92 record, they were made long before digital downloading was even a glimmer in the public eye. The rules have changed.

By 1992, Congress was tired of the recording industry running to them in a state of panic every time a new technology was introduced. The AHRA was designed to be technology neutral. It was designed to cover any and all present and future technologies.

All of the hysterical anti-Napster arguments are exactly the same hysterical anti-DAT arguments of 10 years ago.

Digital audio technology has been around for several years. Compact discs are examples of digital technology. In the mideighties, consumer electronics companies decided to market a new wave of digital audio technology to American consumers--the digital audio recorder. Unlike the familiar analog audio recorder, the digital audio recorder is capable of making virtually perfect copies of source music. With analog recorders, as one continues to make copies from copies, the sound quality deteriorates. With digital audio recorders, on the other hand, multigenerational copies--from the 1st generation to the 15th generation--maintain virtually perfect sound quality.

-- Cardiss Collins

Even more exciting than the compact disc and the compact disc player, is the digital audio recorder. Unlike the familiar analog recorder, digital audio recorders are able to make virtually perfect copies of source music. With analog recorders, as one makes generational copies, the sound quality of the music eventually deteriorates. On the other hand, with digital audio recorders multigovernmental copies do not change the sound quality of the music, so that a 100th generation copy will sound as good as the original version.

-- Cardiss Collins, again

You could replace the words "digital audio recorders" with "Napster" and you would have essentially the exact same argument. Nothing has changed. Napster hasn't changed the basic nature of digital copying. Digital copying is, and has always been about what to do when people have the technology to make an infinite number of perfect copies.
Granted, Napster has dramatically increased the amount of digital copying going on -- that's obvious -- but at the same time, the law has dramatically increased the amount of royalty revenues generated by unregulated digital taping. And, after all, isn't that the hallmark of a successful statutory royalty system? The numbers show that the AHRA, after 5 years of market failure, has only started to succeed in its purpose with the introduction of CDRs, MP3s, and Napster.

As for that rotten little fellow who snuck in the back door of your theatre, you can say that what he's doing is "sort of like" stealing, but if you called the police and tried to have him arrested for theft, the first thing that the police officer would ask you is what did he steal? What would you have the police officer write down as the stolen goods, and do you really think that a judge or jury would convict him of theft? Trespassing, yes. But theft? Honest question. I've never had occasion to have someone prosecuted for unauthorized viewing of a movie.

While this is the case with non-SCMS DAT and CD-recorders, an MP3 is HARDLY a 'perfect' or even 'virtually perfect' copy, even at high bitrates. I have NEVER heard an MP3, especially one ripped from a CD, that *perfectly* matched the original recording.

 |  IP: Logged

Here's an interesting article. Since the evisceration of Napster, the recording industry is apparently in free-fall. Major label album sales are down 8%, and concert ticket sales are down 12%.

http://www.salon.com/ent/music/feature/2001/07/19/industry_downturn/index.html

Now this could just be the downturning economy, or a string of poor product, but while Napster was operating, record sales were booming, and now that it's shut down, record sales are in free-fall. There's a good chance that something entirely different is happening -- something that the recording industry doesn't really want to think about.

Previous generations of young people listened to the radio to find the music that they liked and wanted to buy. The current generation of young people have abandoned the radio and have become used to searching Napster to find the music that they like. Now that Napster is essentially gone, how does the recording industry expect them to discover new music to buy?

One thing for sure, they aren't going back to the radio. All the stations are owned by Clear Channel now, and they all have been reprogrammed with the lowest-common-denominator, pre-programmed corporate crap imaginable. Radio is dead, dead, dead.