The band's line-up is like a who's who of modern U.S. literature, including Stephen King, Dave Barry, Mitch Albom, Scott Turow, Amy Tan, and "Simpsons" creator Matt Groening. "We are just awful -- but we are awful for a good cause," said crime writer Ridley Pearson. "We have had the most bizarre Stephen King experiences," said Pearson. "He is a totally normal person but some of his fans are lunatics. In front of him at a concert in Nashville one time was a woman waving back and forward with all 10 finger nails on fire."
WeRockYourWorld.Com Reveals the Source
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Sunday, May 13, 2007
LAST MINUTE REPRIEVE
Senators throw support behind internet radio
Legislation has been introduced in the Senate that would overturn a decision putting Internet radio on a death watch. The "Internet Radio Equality Act" would vacate the recent ruling by the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) that hiked payment rates for performances 300 to 1200 percent, and would reinstate the current standard of paying 7.5 percent of the broadcaster's revenue. The Senate bill joins companion legislation in the House. The bill would also vacate the CRB decision and return to the previous payment standard. The CRB had originally scheduled the new rates to take effect on May 15, retroactive to the beginning of 2006, but agreed to extend the rate hike date to July 15, giving opposition efforts more time to lobby Congress and to raise awareness of the issue.
Legislation has been introduced in the Senate that would overturn a decision putting Internet radio on a death watch. The "Internet Radio Equality Act" would vacate the recent ruling by the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) that hiked payment rates for performances 300 to 1200 percent, and would reinstate the current standard of paying 7.5 percent of the broadcaster's revenue. The Senate bill joins companion legislation in the House. The bill would also vacate the CRB decision and return to the previous payment standard. The CRB had originally scheduled the new rates to take effect on May 15, retroactive to the beginning of 2006, but agreed to extend the rate hike date to July 15, giving opposition efforts more time to lobby Congress and to raise awareness of the issue.
MORE SHEKELS LESS SHACKELS
Leaving the Pack!
EMI Music announced in April that it is making all of its digital repertoire available at a much higher sound quality than existing downloads and free of digital rights management (DRM) restrictions on a global basis.
EMI's retailers have been offered downloads of tracks and albums in the DRM-free audio format of their choice in a variety of bit rates up to CD quality. EMI is releasing the premium downloads in response to consumer demand for high fidelity digital music for use on home music systems, mobile phones and digital music players. EMI's new DRM-free products will enable full interoperability of digital music across all devices and platforms.
WeRockYourWorld.Com Reveals the Source
EMI Music announced in April that it is making all of its digital repertoire available at a much higher sound quality than existing downloads and free of digital rights management (DRM) restrictions on a global basis.
EMI's retailers have been offered downloads of tracks and albums in the DRM-free audio format of their choice in a variety of bit rates up to CD quality. EMI is releasing the premium downloads in response to consumer demand for high fidelity digital music for use on home music systems, mobile phones and digital music players. EMI's new DRM-free products will enable full interoperability of digital music across all devices and platforms.
WeRockYourWorld.Com Reveals the Source
PRELUDE TO LIBERATION
Thoughts on Music by Steve Jobs
Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. That’s right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player.
In 2006, under 2 billion DRM-protected songs were sold worldwide by online stores, while over 20 billion songs were sold completely DRM-free and unprotected on CDs by the music companies themselves. The music companies sell the vast majority of their music DRM-free, and show no signs of changing this behavior, since the overwhelming majority of their revenues depend on selling CDs which must play in CD players that support no DRM system.
So if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music DRM-free, what benefits do they get from selling the remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM system? There appear to be none. If anything, the technical expertise and overhead required to create, operate and update a DRM system has limited the number of participants selling DRM protected music. If such requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be seen as a positive by the music companies.
WeRockYourWorld.Com Reveals the Source
Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. That’s right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player.
In 2006, under 2 billion DRM-protected songs were sold worldwide by online stores, while over 20 billion songs were sold completely DRM-free and unprotected on CDs by the music companies themselves. The music companies sell the vast majority of their music DRM-free, and show no signs of changing this behavior, since the overwhelming majority of their revenues depend on selling CDs which must play in CD players that support no DRM system.
So if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music DRM-free, what benefits do they get from selling the remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM system? There appear to be none. If anything, the technical expertise and overhead required to create, operate and update a DRM system has limited the number of participants selling DRM protected music. If such requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be seen as a positive by the music companies.
WeRockYourWorld.Com Reveals the Source
INDUSTRY ACTION - LETTERS
Earlier this month, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sent a fourth wave of 402 pre-litigation settlement letters to 13 universities. Each pre-litigation settlement letter informs the school of a forthcoming copyright infringement suit against one of its students or personnel and requests that university administrators forward that letter to the appropriate network user.
RIAA sent letters in the following quantities to 13 schools, including: Brandeis University (15), Duke University (35), Iowa State University (15), Massachusetts Institute of Technology – MIT (23), Northern Illinois University (50), Syracuse University (20), Tufts University (15), University of Georgia (19), University of Iowa (25), University of Southern California (50), University of South Florida (50), University of Tennessee (50), and the University of Texas - Austin (35).
WeRockYourWorld.Com Reveals the Source
RIAA sent letters in the following quantities to 13 schools, including: Brandeis University (15), Duke University (35), Iowa State University (15), Massachusetts Institute of Technology – MIT (23), Northern Illinois University (50), Syracuse University (20), Tufts University (15), University of Georgia (19), University of Iowa (25), University of Southern California (50), University of South Florida (50), University of Tennessee (50), and the University of Texas - Austin (35).
WeRockYourWorld.Com Reveals the Source
BOOTLEGS - CASE LAW
N.Y. judge strikes down anti-bootleg law
A federal judge struck down a 1994 law banning the sale of bootleg recordings of live music, ruling the law unfairly grants "seemingly perpetual protection" to the original performances.
U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. found the bootleg law was written by Congress in the spirit of federal copyright law, which protects writing for a fixed period of time — typically for the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death. The judge said the bootleg law, which was passed "primarily to cloak artists with copyright protection," could not stand because it places no time limit on the ban. Baer also noted that copyright law protects "fixed" works — such as books or recorded music releases — while bootlegs, by definition, are of live performances.
The Recording Industry Association of America, a trade group that fights piracy and bootlegging, also disagreed with the ruling.
The law did not apply to piracy, which is the unauthorized copying or sale of recorded music, such as albums.
WeRockYourWorld.Com Reveals the Source
A federal judge struck down a 1994 law banning the sale of bootleg recordings of live music, ruling the law unfairly grants "seemingly perpetual protection" to the original performances.
U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. found the bootleg law was written by Congress in the spirit of federal copyright law, which protects writing for a fixed period of time — typically for the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death. The judge said the bootleg law, which was passed "primarily to cloak artists with copyright protection," could not stand because it places no time limit on the ban. Baer also noted that copyright law protects "fixed" works — such as books or recorded music releases — while bootlegs, by definition, are of live performances.
The Recording Industry Association of America, a trade group that fights piracy and bootlegging, also disagreed with the ruling.
The law did not apply to piracy, which is the unauthorized copying or sale of recorded music, such as albums.
WeRockYourWorld.Com Reveals the Source
BOOTLEGS - DEFINED
Bootleg Recording
A bootleg recording (or simply bootleg or boot) is an audio and/or video recording of a performance that was not officially released by the artist, or under other legal authority.
Bootlegs can consist of recordings of live performances, or material created in private or professional recording sessions. Changing technologies have had a great impact on the recording, distribution, and varying profitability of the underground industry.
Although distinct from unauthorized copying ("piracy") and counterfeiting, as it involves material which has never been offered for commercial release, bootlegging is considered infringement in many jurisdictions. The copyrights for the song and the right to authorize recordings often reside with the artist, according to several international copyright treaties. The recording, trading and sale of bootlegs continues to thrive, however, even as artists and record companies attempt to provide "authorized" alternatives to satisfy the demand.
WeWockYourWorld.Com Reveals the Source
A bootleg recording (or simply bootleg or boot) is an audio and/or video recording of a performance that was not officially released by the artist, or under other legal authority.
Bootlegs can consist of recordings of live performances, or material created in private or professional recording sessions. Changing technologies have had a great impact on the recording, distribution, and varying profitability of the underground industry.
Although distinct from unauthorized copying ("piracy") and counterfeiting, as it involves material which has never been offered for commercial release, bootlegging is considered infringement in many jurisdictions. The copyrights for the song and the right to authorize recordings often reside with the artist, according to several international copyright treaties. The recording, trading and sale of bootlegs continues to thrive, however, even as artists and record companies attempt to provide "authorized" alternatives to satisfy the demand.
WeWockYourWorld.Com Reveals the Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
