The RIAA and the EFF "If"

The recent white paper report released by the Electronic Frontier Foundation confirmed the obvious -- suing dead people, 12-year olds and others doesn't stop illegal downloading. Nor do extortion letters sent to colleges and universities. Illegal Internet downloading continues to thrive.

The EFF proposes a modest solution: make virtually all music downloading legal, and assess a fee to downloaders. The money would be collected and administered by an agency similar to ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. These agencies collectively represent songwriters and gather performance fees from radio stations, nightclubs, stores and other venues playing music. They then tabulate the frequency of everything played by their clients and divvy up the money collected proportionally.

The EFF has a good idea -- but it doesn't go far enough. I propose that instead of trying to persuade individuals to pay up just make this fee part of the cost of going online. Imagine that one dollar paid by every subscriber to every ISP went to a Download Administration Agency (this would be a non-profit organization, not a government agency). The mandate of the DAA would be to monitor as best it could the transfers and downloads of all copyrighted material, and disburse the money collected to the copyright holders whose intellectual property was being used.

This would cover not only music but images, articles, videos -- any kind of creative content.

The goal would be to ensure that everyone would be paid for the use of their material. I grant that wouldn't happen all the time in practice, but if it could be made to work for most content creators, think of the paradigm shift.

Instead of trying to lock down their content to the point of being virtually unusable, artists would be encouraging folks to enjoy their works -- and share them with others. After all, the more the file is shared, the larger the royalty.

Instead of trying to turn back the clock to the 1980's and alienating their customers in the process, the RIAA could simply enjoy the fruits of its members' labors. The more music downloaded the larger the label's paycheck.

Artists and painters could generate income from simply making their works available on the Internet. Every blog that snags an image for a post means a slightly bigger royalty payment.

The Internet could finally realize its potential to be a free-flowing forum of ideas and creativity.

Someone who loves a band and shares their music with all their friends is currently considered a thief and a pirate by the RIAA. With the DAA, that same person would be actively supporting their favorite band by sharing their music, thereby raising their circulation numbers and thus be seen as a desirable asset by the band's label. Which scenario do you prefer?

OK, there are some technical problems to work out, but with ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC the models are already in place. If the RIAA would face reality and adopt the EFF's proposal, we'd all be heading in the right direction.

(And note to the RIAA -- it's where the money is)

- Ralph

Fire Over England

While most people seem uninterested in movies released before 1995, I've often found entertainment in older film -- and sometimes they contain concepts that give me pause. That's what happened recently when I watched Fire Over England.

Produced in 1937, this British historical drama set in Tudor England had a deliberate subtext. The film makers used the invasion by the Spanish Armada as an allegory to contemporary England's threat of invasion by Nazi Germany. Philip II is portrayed as a coldly cruel tyrant who rules his subjects in a fashion similar to that of Hitler (as seen through British eyes).

Here's Philip II (Raymond Massey) delivering his philosophy on how to rule a country.

Only by fear can the people be made to do their duty -- and not always then.

Not relevant today? How many laws, policies and practices contrary to the Constitution have been enacted since 9/11? And how many, until recently, have gone unchallenged through fear?

Consider this scene, where Don Pedro (Robert Newton) gently chides his wife (Tamara Desni) for wanting to help an Englishman who's a family friend.

You see, Elana, the whole trouble comes from treating your enemies like human beings. Don’t you see, my dear, that when you do that they cease to be enemies? Think what that leads to. It’s the end of patriotism. It’s the end of war. It’s the end of – everything.

Now there's a chilling thought. When written, those lines were meant to characterize the fascist outlook -- so why do they ring true today? There are many Americans who share Don Pedro's view -- and you don't have to search very hard to find them.

For me, Fire Over England worked on many levels, and it was a rollicking good film to boot. Vivian Leigh, Raymond Massey, Laurence Olivier, James Mason and Flora Robeson -- a great cast turning in performances that few could equal today. Check out this interplay between Queen Elisabeth (Flora Robeson) and the Spanish ambassador (Henry Oscar). There's no question who the bad guy is, but his barely concealed arrogance hits just the right note. And Robeson delivers her lines with subtlety and wit, while never letting there be any doubt about the fire of her resolve.



All this, and a great score by Richard Addinsell proving the perfect sonic backdrop.

Fine acting, a good story, and plenty to think about after the movie ends. Now that's entertainment!

- Ralph

WCNR and the Question of Identity

A recent cover story in the Hook about WCNR "The Corner" touched on the struggle for the hearts and minds of a certain demographic between the station and WNRN (mentioned here in a previous post).

In the article, Mike Friend -- the general manager and founder of WNRN -- shares a new station policy, banning the use of the phrase "the corner" from the station.

"We don't say the word for any reason," says Friend. "It used to be that we said it eight times an hour because a lot of our underwriters were Corner businesses. But we're not going to be in the business of advertising for a multimillion dollar corporation."

I've heard several folks point to this policy as an example of Mike Friend being vindictive and petty. I see it as an example of how well Friend understands radio. Friend knows what many others in radio know -- most listeners have only a vague idea what station they're listening to.Arbitron measures listenership by sending out journals to a representative selection of a market's population. Participants are asked to log their radio listening, and at the end of the survey period returns the journals for tabulation. You can tell when the Arbitron books are sent -- every commercial station ramps up the frequency of their station IDs. Sadly, most people don't really know either the call letters or the frequency of the stations they listen to -- a significant number of books come back with mismatched call letters and frequencies, forcing the evaluator to guess which one the participant meant.

When I worked at WMJA in Orange, I often fielded calls meant for WCUL, WFLS, and other local stations. Listeners would look up "Radio Stations" in the Yellow Pages, and -- not knowing what station they were listening to -- made their best guess as to which one to call.

It still happens to me at WTJU. It's not uncommon for my Wednesday morning classical music program for me to get requests for "Acoustic Sunrise" (WNRN), or have someone breathlessly ask if they're the tenth caller for the "Big Greasy Breakfast" contest (3WV).

And it happens at Plan 9. I've often waited on folks who want some classical piece they heard on public radio. The key to figuring out what it was (seldom do they remember the name) is checking the playlist of the station during the time the piece was heard. What station did you hear it on? WVTF? WMRA? Perhaps even WTJU? They don't know, nor do they remember where it was on the dial ("Um, somewhere on the left side, I think").

A colleague of mine works at a public radio station that shares a market with another public radio station tells me this can sometimes be an advantage. He always knows when the competing station has a fund drive -- his station starts getting phone-in pledges out of the blue. The callers have only a vague idea which station they're calling to pledge support for.

And finally, although WTJU has run a complete opera every Sunday afternoon for years, the program's hosts (and me personally) have talked with several long-time listeners who think they're listening to WVTF!

So Mike Friend's decision to ban "the corner" from WNRN makes perfect sense. Every iteration of the phrase only potentially confuses their listeners. And even though they'll hear the call letters and frequency (WNRN/91.9), if they also hear the phrase "the corner," dollars to donuts when asked sometime later what station they listen to, a significant number of WNRN's listeners will respond "The Corner."

- Ralph

Copyright II - The Orphan and the Manger Dog

Sean Tubbs of the Charlottesville Podcasting Network posted an excellent question to my recent entry on copyright. He wanted to know:

Who would come after you if you decided to use music from the 1930's, say, in a podcast, without permission? Who would you get permission from?

As the law's currently written works copyrighted after 1922 are protected for 95 years (and ones after 1978 even longer). So everything between registered between 1922 and 1978 is off-limits until 2019 at the earliest.

If for example, you wanted to use a recording from 1923 in your podcast, you would have to get permission from the current copyright owner. For an RCA Victor release, for example, you would have to contact Sony/BMG. Okeh Records was independent in the 1920s but was eventually purchased by Columbia, which was bought by Sony and is now part of Sony/BMG -- who you would have to contact to get permission.

But what if it's an "orphan" work? That is, what about works copyrighted by companies that no longer exist, and whose assets were never purchased by another company? Under the current system, these abandoned works do not automatically lapse into public domain. It is incumbent upon the user to make a diligent search for the copyright owners, and even if they cannot be located, the work is still considered to be used without proper clearance.

Does it matter? A record company that went under in 1929 isn't likely to come after a podcaster today. But look at your terms of use agreements you signed with your Internet provider or web hoster. You could technically be considered in violation of the agreement by using a work that isn't cleared.

Legislation has been introduced to force the issue and get orphan works to lapse into public domain -- but it's being fought by the RIAA, MPAA, and other content owners. Why? Because they don't want any of their material that -- through oversight -- may be considered abandoned to automatically become public domain.

And the effect?

Books by publishers long gone molder on library shelves. Archivists don't dare scan them to preserve their content because they're not in the public domain.

Movies from film companies that collapsed in the Great Depression disintegrate in their cans. Preservationists can't reproduce them because they're not in the public domain.

Recordings from defunct labels remain unheard. Sound engineers can't transfer them and present them to the public because they're not in the public domain.

And so a large part of our past disappears into the mist of time while the Big Media dog furiously barks to keep the public at bay. The record labels, publishers and movie studios can't make any money from this material. It isn't useful to them -- but by God no one else is going to use it either!

- Ralph

Z - The Movie

According to the comments of a former Blockbuster employee who loved the cinema, it was frustrating waiting on people who only wanted the latest release, and were completely uninterested in anything made before 1995.

I wonder if its because they don't think movies more than a decade old have any relevance. It's a shame, because many times they do -- sometimes uncomfortably so.

I recently watched "Z" by Greek director Constantin Costa-Gavras. Although not high on the Blockbuster check-out list, this isn't an obscure film -- it won two Oscars in 1969 as well as taking prizes at Cannes, BAFTA and the Golden Globes.

The story is based on actual events in Greece. Tensions run high as the military and the conservative government face criticism from the left about allowing the US to place nuclear weapons in Greece. The government's solution is tighter security and increased vigilance -- and more.

Yves Montand plays a JFK-like leftist deputy (that's an elected representative -- not law enforcement officer) who is the rallying point for those pushing for greater freedom in Greece.

The actual story involves the political murder of the deputy and the government's efforts to cover up the crime, which reaches to the highest levels. As the examining magistrate digs deeper, he's under increasing pressure to accept the official version of events and move on.

It's a great film that raises many questions to think about long after it's over. Expertly edited, it moves along at a rapid pace, and its realistic camera work recalls the faux-documentary style of "Law and Order," giving the film an immediacy that draws the viewer into the story.

And then there's the deputy's speech. The party's forced to hold a rally in a too-small hall by the police, forcing many of the attendees to cluster around outside listening to loudspeakers. Those outside will be set upon by right-wing gangs while the police run a blind eye, with the goal of starting a riot which the government can use as an excuse to crack down on the left.

Having a good idea what's about to happen, (and being attacked on the way into the hall) the deputy addresses the crowd.

They hit me. Why? Why do our ideas provoke such violence? Why don’t they like peace? Why don’t they attack other organizations? The answer is simple. The others are nationalists used by the government....

We lack hospitals and doctors, but half the budget goes for military expenditures. A cannon is fired and a teacher’s monthly salary goes up in smoke! That’s why they can’t bear us or our meetings and use hired thugs to jeer and attack us.

Around the world, too many soldiers are ready to fire on anything moving towards progress. We live in a weak and corrupt society where it’s every man for himself. Every imagination is suspect yet it’s needed to solve the world’s problems.

They want to prevent us from reaching the obvious political conclusions based on the simple truths but we will speak out. We serve the people and the people need the truth. The truth is the start of powerful, united action.

There's a lot in there that seems just as true today as it did 37 years ago.

And the ending? The murder of the deputy galvanizes the people. Faced with the prospects of an overwhelming defeat in the upcoming election, the government declares martial law and suspends elections until the "crises" is over.

Nope, nothing here for today's audiences....

- Ralph