 Navigation
|
 |
Connect
|
|
|
Forums: General Forum: Create a proposal to send to Congress
paulruss
|
Subject: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
I think with all the great ideas we've heard on this site it might be a good time to draft a document we could send to Congress detailing what issues we'd like to see addressed in hearings on p2p.
I know there are a lot of people versed in copyright law and past legislations on this and other copyright issues. They sit on both sides of the fence but agree that a form of compulsory licensing or a fee tacked onto isp bills would be a way to keep all parties happy.
I'd like to see these great minds put their heads together and bash out such a document that we can then all undersign as a petition, perhaps Bill can involve himself in this and get in touch with the eff to see if they'd want to get on board. I'd like to see this as a kind of permanent forum post that would result in a document. If it were linked to on the action page, that would be great. |
kneo24
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
Actually, this is a good idea. Perhaps Bill, or another person that works for this place should post this as a news topic, and then make it one of the available links somewhere, letting us sign it. |
kneo24
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
I should add we should only sign it after we have the thing drafted. |
paulruss
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
I'd like to get it going.
I hate to do this but I think I'm going to just keep posting in here to keep this idea out there...
sorry. |
4thSSpolizei
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
We should also only sign it under the complete understanding that our personal information is not used for anything other than the petition itself, is not revealed to anyone but our congressmen/women, and a strict bit of wording stating that while the number of names be used, our personal information may not be.
Then, MAYBE, i would sign. |
theHERMlT
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
as promised,
I submit the following letter for criticism, and neccesary adjustment to this forum. Since this letter will be a possible submission to congress, the strictist dicipline and gravity must be understood.
------------
To the honorable Representatives,
In an effort to ease the differences between the Recording Industry and Artist Association, (RIAA), and the common wealth, and also to ease the increasing load on the legal system caused by subpoenas from the Recording Industry and Artist Association, we would like to point to a pleasant, legal, and efficient method for reconciliation.
A royalty distribution system is already in place under the “Audio Home Recording Act 1976 chapter 8”, that clearly outlined how a dispute of this nature should be settled. In “chapter 8”, a Copyright Royalty Tribunal should be created. The intentions of this chapter were to first and foremost:
Maximize the availability of creative works to the public.
Afford the copyright owner a fair return for his creative work and the copyright user a fair income under existing economic conditions.
Reflect the relative roles of the copyright owner and the copyright user in the product made available to the public with respect to relative creative contribution, technological contribution, capital investment, cost, risk, and contribution to the opening of new markets for creative expression and media for their communication.
Minimize any disruptive impact on the structure of the industries involved and on generally prevailing industry practices.
In 1992 the act was amended with “Chapter 10” to include new technology, including computer hard drives, and computer compact disk recorders and blank compact disk. “Chapter 10”, defines the royalty payments from such devices.
The actions of the RIAA are not maximizing the availability of creative works to the public. By sending subpoenas through the courts to the service providers requesting user information, and therefore threatening the privacy of the user of those service providers subpoenaed, they have bypassed “Chapter 8” with an unrecognized measure. Instead this action is causing a chilling effect on the availability of creative works.
The losses claimed by the RIAA are not tested by the actions of “Chapter 8”. The adjustment of the royalty for the purchase of new media and new media recorders covered under the “Chapter 10” amendment have not been considered by the RIAA, because the RIAA has taken alternative measures, not proscribed under the previous rulings of “Chapter 8”.
Very importantly, the technologies listed in “Chapter 10” are not respected by the time consuming legal actions of the RIAA. These technologies will lose attractive value.
Finally, I would like an audit performed of the RIAA showing how all artist participating with the RIAA have been rewarded a fair portion of the royalty mentioned in "Chapter 10". |
theHERMlT
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
sorry to repost,
After reading this letter out loud in public, I immediately see errors. Please find corrections, and submit them. |
theHERMlT
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
I offer these immediate changes,
---------
To the honorable Representatives,
In an effort to ease the differences between the Recording Industry and Artist Association, (RIAA), and the common wealth, and also to ease the increasing load on the legal system caused by subpoenas from the Recording Industry and Artist Association, we would like to point to a pleasant, legal, and efficient method for reconciliation.
A royalty distribution system is already in place under the “Audio Home Recording Act 1976 chapter 8”, that clearly outlined how a dispute of this nature should be settled. In “chapter 8”, a Copyright Royalty Tribunal should be created. The intentions of this chapter are to first and foremost:
Maximize the availability of creative works to the public.
Afford the copyright owner a fair return for his creative work and the copyright user a fair income under existing economic conditions.
Reflect the relative roles of the copyright owner and the copyright user in the product made available to the public with respect to relative creative contribution, technological contribution, capital investment, cost, risk, and contribution to the opening of new markets for creative expression and media for their communication.
Minimize any disruptive impact on the structure of the industries involved and on generally prevailing industry practices.
In 1992 the act was amended with “Chapter 10” to include new technology, including computer hard drives, and computer compact disk recorders and blank compact disk. “Chapter 10”, defines the royalty payments from such devices.
The actions of the RIAA are not maximizing the availability of creative works to the public. By sending subpoenas through the courts to the service providers requesting user information, and therefore threatening the privacy of the user of those service providers subpoenaed, they have bypassed “Chapter 8” with an unrecognized measure. Instead this action is causing a chilling effect on the availability of creative works.
The losses claimed by the RIAA are not tested by the actions of “Chapter 8”. The adjustment of the royalty for the purchase of new media and new media recorders covered under the “Chapter 10” amendment have not been considered by the RIAA, because the RIAA has taken alternative measures, not proscribed under the previous rulings of “Chapter 8”.
Very importantly, the technologies listed in “Chapter 10” are not respected by the time consuming legal actions of the RIAA. These technologies risk the loss of attractive value.
Finally, we recommend an audit of the RIAA. That audit should explain in detail, exactly how all artist participating with the RIAA have been rewarded a fair portion of the royalty mentioned in "Chapter 10". Also a list of artist must be created to show what the amount was paid to each artist, and further to determine if those amounts are fair.
|
theHERMlT
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
a further correction of the last paragraph:
Finally, we recommend an audit of the RIAA. That audit should explain in detail, exactly how all artist participating with the RIAA have been rewarded a fair portion of the royalty mentioned in "Chapter 10". Also a list of all artist participating must be created, and show how much of that royalty was paid to them directly, and further to determine if that amount is fair to them. |
paulruss
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
Excellent, Hermit! I'm going to re-read it a few times before I add anything, anyone else? |
theHERMlT
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
again correcting the last paragraph,
Finally, we recommend an audit of the RIAA. This audit should explain in detail, exactly how all artist participating with the RIAA have been rewarded a fair portion of the royalty mentioned in "Chapter 10". Also a list of artist must be created to show what the amount was paid to each artist, and further to determine if those amounts are fair.
|
theHERMlT
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
I think I'm finished with this, but again I emphasize that this should be considerer no less important than the "Declaration of Independence". Adjustments must be added, and considered, and with gravity. |
theHERMlT
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
gravity is not a typo, it is choice, or lack there of. |
theHERMlT
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
maybe focus was a better word than gravity |
theHERMlT
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
the whole body of the letter needs legal adjustment.  |
theHERMlT
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
help |
paulruss
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
Hermit, I believe help will come, I've been requesting that people in other threads pop over here and give your letter a read and add comments. Great start, though, I'm looking forward to seeing it take shape. Rest. Help is on the way. |
DemonOfTheFall
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
I only see one thing. You call the RIAA the Recording Industry and Artist Association, but I think it's the Recording Industry Association of America. That's really all, other than that, it looks good to me. |
theHERMlT
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
I would like to present my newest proposal;
-----------------------------
To the honorable Representatives,
In an effort to ease the differences between the Recording Industry Association of America, (RIAA), and the common wealth, and also to ease the increasing load on the legal system caused by subpoenas from the Recording Industry Association of America, we would like to point to a pleasant, legal, and efficient method for reconciliation.
A royalty distribution system is already in place under the “Audio Home Recording Act 1976 chapter 8”, that clearly outlined how a dispute of this nature should be settled. In “chapter 8”, a Copyright Royalty Tribunal should be created. The intentions of this chapter are to first and foremost:
Maximize the availability of creative works to the public.
Afford the copyright owner a fair return for his creative work and the copyright user a fair income under existing economic conditions.
Reflect the relative roles of the copyright owner and the copyright user in the product made available to the public with respect to relative creative contribution, technological contribution, capital investment, cost, risk, and contribution to the opening of new markets for creative expression and media for their communication.
Minimize any disruptive impact on the structure of the industries involved and on generally prevailing industry practices.
In 1992 the act was amended with “Chapter 10” to include new technology, including computer hard drives, and computer compact disk recorders and blank compact disk. “Chapter 10”, defines the royalty payments from such devices.
The actions of the RIAA are not maximizing the availability of creative works to the public. By sending subpoenas through the courts to the service providers requesting user information, and therefore threatening the privacy of the user of those service providers subpoenaed, they have bypassed “Chapter 8” with an unrecognized measure. Instead this action is causing a chilling effect on the availability of creative works.
The losses claimed by the RIAA are not tested by the actions of “Chapter 8”. The adjustment of the royalty for the purchase of new media and new media recorders covered under the “Chapter 10” amendment have not been considered by the RIAA, because the RIAA has taken alternative measures, not proscribed under the previous rulings of “Chapter 8”.
Very importantly, the technologies listed in “Chapter 10” are not respected by the time consuming legal actions of the RIAA. These technologies, hard drives, compact disk recorders, blank compact disk, digital video disk recorders, and blank digital video disk, risk the loss of attractive value, and therefore revenue. Because the time consuming legal actions of the RIAA overstep "Chapter 8", these technological industries are needlessly threatened with loss of usability, and therefore value.
Finally, we recommend an audit of the RIAA. This audit should explain in detail, exactly how all artists participating with the RIAA have been rewarded a fair portion of the royalty mentioned in "Chapter 10". Also a list of artist must be created to show what the amount was paid to each artist, and further to determine if those amounts are fair.
|
theHERMlT
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
thanks demon,
"The first step to wisdom is to call things by there right name." - unknown author of Asian origin |
theHERMlT
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
I am in debate about the royalty paid to the RIAA with regards to hard drives in this forum. |
bo340002
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
This is a rough idea that I came up with--I also posted it under one of the news topics, since I wanted it to be seen. A lot of people have said how action, rather than talk, needs to be taken on the issue. I know a couple of people have made proposals about what to send to Congress, but I thought I'd put in my $0.02. I'm not trying to step on any toes, but here it goes:
(I'm sure the formatting looks weird, but it's good on my computer. Goal: fix it up, post on a petitions web site on Monday, and send in signatures after 30 days--that's why 9/18 is mentioned.)
A RESOLUTION URGING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO HOLD HEARINGS ON PEER-TO-PEER (P2P) FILE SHARING AND THE RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (RIAA)’S LEGAL FIGHT AGAINST IT
1. Whereas: An estimated 60 million American citizens utilize peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing
2. Software, and,
3. Whereas: The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) asserts that said software
4. is a violation of United States copyright laws, and,
5. Whereas: The RIAA has begun a legal campaign against users of these P2P networks, filing
6. administrative subpoenas in the United States District Court in Washington, D.C., and
7. Whereas: These subpoenas violate due process rights by forcing Internet Service Providers to
8. turn over personal information about their subscribers without the consent of the
9. subscribers, and,
10. Whereas: These subpoenas also create an undue burden on the American legal system, are a
11. frivolous waste of American taxpayer dollars, and do little to address the underlying
12. copyright, fair use, and legal ramifications of peer-to-peer file sharing systems, and
13. Whereas: The RIAA refuses to hold dialogues with the creators of the P2P software, the users
14. of said software, and the artists whose music is being transmitted on such networks, and
15. Whereas: The RIAA refuses to present a viable alternative to the P2P software that is similar in
16. scope, features, usability, and that is offered at a reasonable price to consumers, and
17. Whereas: The RIAA refuses to present an alternative that also does not infringe on a consumer’s
18. right to use the music purchase as they see fit, by placing unnecessary and improper
19. restrictions on content downloaded from a pay-music site, and
20. Whereas: American consumers pay a two-percent (2%) tax on all blank recording media, and said
21. tax is then given in reimbursement to the RIAA and its artists as compensation for home
22. recording of music, as required under the AHRA regulations, and
23. Whereas: The need has arisen for the United States Congress to intervene in this matter to ensure
24. that the rights of consumers are properly protected and that the American taxpayers do
25. not face an undue burden because of the RIAA’s behavior., be it:
26. Resolved: That the consumers, voters, and American public as a whole, by signing this petition,
27. demand and request that the United States Congress hold hearings on P2P music sharing,
28. the RIAA’s issuance of subpoenas to users of these networks, and the need to update
29. Copyright laws in the United States to ensure that fair use is balanced with the needs of
30. artists in this increasingly digital world, and further be it
31. Resolved: That any hearings involve consumers, consumer-interest groups, programmers and
32. creators of Peer-to-Peer file sharing software, members of Internet Service Providers, the 33. Recording Industry Association of America, and any other party who wishes to take part,
34. and further be it
35. Resolved: That on September 18, 2003, a copy of this resolution and any and all signatures
36. accompanying it be sent with a cover letter to, but not limited to: George W. Bush,
37. President of the United States, Rep. Dennis M. Hastert, Speaker of the United States
38. House of Representatives, Rep. Tom Delay, Majority Leader of the U.S. House, Rep.
39. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader of the US House, Sen. Bill Frist, Majority Leader of the
40. United States Senate, Sen. Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader of the US Senate, Sen.
41. Norm Coleman, Chairman of the US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations,
42. Cary Sherman, President of the Recording Industry of America, Shari Steele, Executive
43. Director and President of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Nikki Hemming, Chief
44. Executive Officer of Sharman Networks, Jack Valenti, President and Chief Executive
45. Office of the Motion Picture Association of America, Irwin Robinson, Chairman of the
46. Board of National Music Publishers’ Association, Richard D. Parsons, Chairman and
47. Chief Executive Officer, AOL - Time Warner, and Ivan Seidenberg, Chief Executive
48. Officer, Verizon Communications. |
greatsott
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
Rock And Roll!!! |
theHERMlT
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
adding numbers to lines eases the burden of correction, good idea. |
theHERMlT
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
sorry to repost,
Perhaps a system of numbering every 10th line would make each proposal more dicernable. |
bo340002
|
Subject: Re: Create a proposal to send to Congress
Date: November 30, 2003 @ 9:12 PM
okay...it's basically a re-post, but I placed it in its own thread with only the 10th lines numbered. The link is:
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/forums/general/1210
that way, it's not buried at the bottom--please make comments on it!
bryan
|
|
|
