(a decent wrap-up is over at zeropaid)
I don't really see much happening soon. Congress seems pretty reluctant to force any type of compulsory licenses, I'd like to see this become a choice for the artist, regardless of contract but I doubt that would happen.
It is becoming totally obvious now to everyone that the RIAA represents no one but themselves. They are the parasite that has taken over. One thing I wanted to scream at Orrin during his final statement (although I think he's pretty close to this opinion himself) is that the distribution part of the triad (artists, consumers, dist.) is really not needed anymore. Yet becuase of their historical need, they have become the dominant legal entity.
The "secure" part was pretty funny too. I don't really think many hope this to be the answer...except for the guy at Intertrust who said his product can cure all ills. When a solution includes to absolution of any rights to a product, it's not a solution.
The TW/AOL guy was funny. I wish I could remember some quotes, but you got it right. Paraphrased "well, give it all to us and everything will be fine."
I'd have to say that I'm for some type of compulsory licensing and a new entity set up to track royalty collection and payments. The fact that the arists had to be there to represent themselves, despite the fact that their organization was also there, speaks volumes. Henley's quote from the copyright office director about American artists being the least protected in the world was also telling.
The mire of trying to identify who "owns" a song is also ridiculous. To have to contact upwards of 10 distinct, hostile entities to try and obtain rights for one song is silly. There are so many things the RIAA does that is anti-competitive, it baffles me that they haven't faced anti-trust proceedings yet.
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]