FreePress.net claims that “[o]nline music is in danger”:

Online music is in danger. A recent ruling by an obscure regulatory board threatens to put independent and public radio on the Internet out of business.

The “Copyright Royalty Board” is dramatically increasing the royalties “webcasters” must pay every time they stream a song online. Public Internet radio like NPR is especially at risk.

The rules could shut down nonprofit and smaller commercial Internet radio outlets and force larger webcasters to play the same cookie-cutter music as Clear Channel. So much for new online alternatives.

No, online music is not in danger. FreePress.net is talking about music from members of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), a lobbyist organization for corporate record labels. It might become more difficult to webcast tracks published by RIAA members due to a new fee schedule. But there are plenty of artists licensing their music to share. It’s time to work with those artists and send a clear message to the major label artists that they need us more than we need them.

More importantly there’s the question of (even indirectly) doing business with the RIAA””why lobby to play those tracks when the RIAA treats the public so badly? Answering this question can easily bring one to conclude that it’s not ethically justifiable to do business with the RIAA.

Continue reading →

Some notes on what I saw during the recent SEIU health care forum held at UNLV which was rebroadcast on C-SPAN:

• The host claimed that Sen. John Edwards‘ health care plan is the only one that features details on how it will be paid for. This is not true. HR 676 has been around for a few years and has plans to raise taxes and cut the military budget to pay for universal health care. She also repeatedly complimented Edwards on how he said he would raise taxes to help pay for his health care plan.
• Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton‘s health care plan details are non-existent (Obama promises something in the next couple months). They also don’t define universal health care in terms of the government providing health care for all Americans; both Senators keep the HMOs intact by offering something that merely adds another choice alongside extant private coverage plans (Obama made reference to extant insurers not getting all the upfront money the government would likely put into a national health care plan, Clinton wants to force insurance companies to insure everyone with no exclusions for pre-existing conditions). Clinton wants employer-based health care as well—she wants employers to provide insurance to the workers or pay into a pool which will help pay for insurance. Either Senator could end up simply requiring Americans to acquire health care for themselves like how Illinois drivers must get car insurance in order to legally drive their car. This is not at all what Americans think of when they think of universal health care. It was good to see a tough question for Obama coming from an audience member; her question highlighted how little Obama had to offer a health care forum. I see I’m not the first to understand that their appearances benefited the event more than it benefited the public. The corporate media has already narrowed the race to these two candidates and their appearances gave this event a better chance of being covered in mainstream media.
• Sen. Chris Dodd spent his time talking about things other than the particulars his health care plan. Accordingly, there’s not much to say about his plan because judging by what he brought to this forum, it doesn’t seem to exist. He wants Americans to have a health care program as good as the one he has, but disturbingly he didn’t say he’d extend the extant Congressional plan to all Americans. When asked by an audience member, Gov. Bill Richardson said he’d extend the Congressional plan he enjoys.
• Rep. Dennis Kucinich‘s plan will make it illegal to compete with the national plan. H.R. 676 is a single-payer system you can find online. A related story from the Corporate Crime Reporter addresses why a mix of public/private health care won’t work. I said it years ago when the bill was first introduced and it’s still true today: H.R. 676 continues to be the plan to beat.
• Sen. Mike Gravel said “employer-based plans are a non-starter” and criticized all the Democrats except Kucinich for not challenging the status quo. He endorsed a single-payer voucher plan. Vouchers are annually issued to Americans and the user pays a co-pay and a deductible. If you want more than what your voucher covers, you pay for it. You’ll have a choice of doctors, hospitals, and 5 or 6 insurance plans in the voucher system. You “might see a public plan if we don’t see the medical and pharmaceutical plans shaping up”. The size of the voucher will be the cost of your medical bill in the previous year. There are no pre-existing condition exclusions. Preventative care will come from the bully pulpit of the President somehow. He wants to phase out Medicare/Medicaid over time. Funding for his plan was unstated; he started to mention it but then didn’t.
• Public and private health care plans covering the same thing means the rich healthy people will buy the health insurance they like and the poor will get the government plan which will suffer a “death spiral” according to Kucinich.
• Health care tied to employers means you lose your health care when you lose your job. Some jobs won’t come with health care at all and the government will not be incentivized to help those with multiple part-time jobs.

Overall, given how many of the Democrats simply brought nothing to discuss, it was a very cynical event. Obama, Clinton, and Dodd treated the audience badly by not having a detailed plan to go over. Edwards’ and Gravel’s plans keep private insurance intact and for that reason alone neither plan will serve the public well. Kucinich brought something specific to look at and direct your representatives to endorse. On the merits of the issue, he took the event.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is a proxy for its members—mostly corporate record labels. The RIAA has launched more lawsuits against everyday people than I can count. They aim their lawsuits at people like your neighbor and your neighbor’s children. The defendant is encouraged to settle out of court and pay the RIAA well before any investigation occurs, so the RIAA hasn’t actually done their homework by the time your neighbors get sued. Who are these defendants? Ray Beckerman explains:

As to the defendants, since no investigation is made to ascertain that the defendant is actually someone who engaged in peer to peer file sharing of copyrighted music without authorization, there are many defendants who have no idea why they are being sued and who did nothing even arguably violative of anyone’s copyright. Defendants have included people who have never even used a computer, and many people who although they have used a computer, have never engaged in any peer to peer file sharing.

Sometimes the cases are misleadingly referred to as cases against ‘downloaders’; in fact the RIAA knows nothing of any downloading when it commences suit, and in many instances no downloading ever took place.

It is more accurate to refer to the cases as cases against persons who paid for internet access which the RIAA has reason to believe was used by some person — possibly the defendant, possibly someone else — to engage in peer to peer file sharing.

Beckerman would know because he and his partner Ty Rogers defend people against the RIAA. They also blog about their work. Beckerman also posts to Slashdot from time to time.

In a recent Slashdot thread discussing a defendant’s lawyer who stood up to the RIAA, Beckerman has some choice words about the RIAA:

The RIAA is absolutely a schoolyard bully.

I disagree with your outlook.

Here is mine.

Rule Number 1: All bullies are also cowards.

Rule Number 2: The only way to stop bullies is to beat them.

Rule Number 3: When you draw blood they run away because of Rule Number 1.

It’s time to stop doing business with the RIAA.

EFF has the scoop:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is the only public interest group to have gained entrance into the secretive meetings of the Digital Video Broadcasting Project (DVB), a group that creates the television and video specifications used in Europe, Australia, and much of Asia and Africa. In a report released today, EFF shows how U.S. movie and television companies have convinced DVB to create new technical specifications that would build digital rights management technologies into televisions. These specifications are likely to take away consumers’ rights, which will subsequently be sold back to them piecemeal — so entertainment fans will have to pay again and again for legitimate uses of lawfully acquired digital television content.

I maintain restrictions like these are what HDTV (and digital television in general) is really about (HDTV is typically broadcast digitally). The increased quality is merely a minor selling point to get people to buy into it without knowing what restrictions they’re buying right along with HDTV. Americans will be pushed into HDTV really hard about a year from now.

Digital booksellers were unable to convince people to do this because they didn’t have the force of law TV broadcasters have, and because booksellers didn’t get their argument straight when they tried to bamboozle people out of their rights. Electronic books (sometimes called “eBooks”) were initially distributed with poor displays and licensing restrictions so onerous even non-technical mainstream press reacted badly to them (some years ago Harper’s magazine reprinted the license for the Adobe eBook version of Alice in Wonderland. One of the restrictions tried to disallow reading the book aloud). So long as the public complains chiefly on technical merit (the screen isn’t big enough, the screen doesn’t work well in sunlight, the device is too heavy/expensive, etc.) they believe they’re setting up an effective argument against eBooks. But once these technical problems are fixed, the public will have no reason to reject eBooks because they never argued against the loss of rights that (unnecessarily) goes along with these eBooks. eBook publishers would love to get their audience into a position where people rely on eBooks for daily use and can’t easily remember a time before eBooks. This way publishers can take away rights you enjoy with paper books—rights you won’t have with eBooks such as right of first sale, which lets you resell your books; fair use, to copy a snippet of your own choosing rather than letting the publisher dictate what snippets you can copy, when, and for what purpose.

Continue reading →

BoingBoing.net has the scoop: (I’ve added some links to the relevant material)

Canadian Industry Minister Maxime Bernier recently introduced Bill C-47, the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act, through which the Vancouver Olympics are guaranteed exclusive public use of the following words: winter, gold, silver, bronze, sponsor, Vancouver, Whistler, 2010, tenth, medals, and games.

It’s amazing how the Olympics have come to symbolize bullying corporate greed; overreaching, violent “security measures;” drug abuse and destruction of public facilities and low-income housing.

Other countries have done similar things for the Olympic Committee but those countries dropped their nonsense after the Olympics ended in their country. Canada plans to drop some of the powers described after 2010. Michael Geist argues that the new powers described in the bill are unnecessary and harmful: trademark law is at the Olympic Committee’s disposal so it’s not clear why C-47 is needed at all, C-47 is potentially harmful to free speech because it provides insufficient and unclear exceptions for criticism, and it is inappropriate to create this form of special power at all. Geist uses the term “protection” instead of “power” as I do here. I think power more accurately describes what’s going on; as Geist points out, last week it was okay to set up a business called “Olympic Pizza” but under C-47 that would not be allowed. Also, Geist explains that C-47’s state seizure power is very broad:

For example, a court can order all goods using the marks to be seized by Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, as if public exposure to non-authorized Olympic goods were a public safety issue.