Randy Remote wrote:
> I read that the 'artists coalition' is not in favor of that but I wonder
> why.
I just emailed a colleague who works there and their concerns are these:
1) That the rate be set high enough to make for a worthwhile split but low enough to
not discourage music use;
2) That the payments are collected independently and are made to the artists
directly and not to labels who may try to recoup the amounts from unpaid balances;
and
3) That performers will have rights to more than non-interactive DMCA webcasts
(which is what proposals currently limit them to).
When you consider the lobbying history and power that the RIAA has (along with
money) the Recording Artists Coalition is going to have to work real hard to prevail
on issues relative to labels.
> ...one thing that occurs to me is that the current
> copyright laws were written before there was widespread
> ability to digitally clone copyrightable material.
And to top it all off, the RIAA v. Diamond case (for the Rio) established that
portable MP3 players are not recording devices under the Digital Millenium Copyright
Act, the law that was signed by Clinton with very little debate or discussion
outside of the RIAA's lobbying. Hard drives are not recording devices either.
