Innarestin' response to the MP3 streaming debacle over PERFORM act.

[feren]

He gets to have it both ways, if I read this right.  Or maybe he's just trying to appeal to both sides.  I like the part about "paying a fee for every digital music device sold."  I have none, repeat NO unpurchased ("illegal") music loaded on my iPod. But I paid that "fee" for my digital music device, because the universe knows APPLE isn't going to be burdened with it.  How is that fair, again?

Today I got a reply to my e-mail address, addressed from one of my Senate-Critter in response to my letter about this entry. If you love your streaming MP3s, Sirius (or XM) radio and in general are a fan of having the "right" to control your own music your own way... go read the link to my previous entry and take action. Now, on to the show!

---

[REDACTED ]
[REDACTED]
Bolingbrook, IL

Thank you for contacting me about the Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music (PERFORM) Act of 2006. I appreciate hearing from you.

This bill would have changed federal copyright law in several significant ways, altering the standard terms under which music is licensed for transmission and the scope of music recording and playback permitted to the public. Congress did not enact this legislation by the completion of the 109th Congress.Critics of this measure believe that it was an attempt to skirt fair negotiations between the recording and satellite radio industries by imposing new conditions in federal law. In addition, they argue that it would have harmed technological innovation and the development of new recording devices to fulfill consumers' fair use rights, and that copyright holders are already fairly compensated by a standard fee paid to the recording industry for every recording device sold in the country.

Supporters of this legislation maintain that it would have balanced the need to fairly compensate songwriters and performers for their works with the goal of fostering the development of new technologies. They claim that it was designed to create a level playing field of fees paid to copyright holders regardless of the platform on which the music is transmitted.

I am a music lover. In fact, I often tell people that my CD collection is rivaled only by my collection of ties. Music plays a vital role in my own life, and I understand that it is particularly meaningful to many Americans.

The ongoing debate about the legal and technological means to protect copyright in the digital age has significant long-term implications for the future ofdigital content. New technologies enable the delivery of voice, video, and data to billions of users worldwide. Those technologies are changing the way we communicate with each other and conduct business.

Any proposal must include appropriate limitations and safeguards regarding the fairuse of copyrighted material. Consumers should have the ability to make fair use of content for which they have paid. Copyright holders should be able to enforce their rights to protect their works. The proper balancing of these goals will help provide an appropriate incentive tocreate more works in the future.

The goal should be the development of a robust content delivery market in which consumers have multiple choices and sufficient information, and in which issues relating to public affairs content and privacy are fairly addressed. Most importantly, solutions should respect the choices of consumers and the rights of creators without unduly burdening law-abiding users with restrictive and cumbersome digital copyright protection regimes.

I will keep your thoughts in mind as the committee reviews this legislation.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to keep in touch.

---

So there you have it. Draw your own conclusions.

rock me, Amadeus

Comments

[yotogi.livejournal.com]

So, basically he responded to your email without actually communicating anything we didn't already know, retaining the ability to vote whichever the fuck way he wants without contradicting himself later.

My enthusiasm knows no bounds.

No, really.

[almanzo.livejournal.com]

You get points for actually getting off your butt and writing a representative, and then pasting it in a journal entry whose mood is "apathetic."

[schloss-adler.livejournal.com]

The near future, in regards to digital music and such devices, is going to be interesting...

We've got the two sides of the equation seemingly moving in completely opposite directions.

Consumers (or at least the vast majority) are willing to pay a fair rate for music (a song, if you will), provided it meets certain standards of quality. Stemming from that purchase, they want to then be able to play that song any time, anywhere, in any format, on any device they so choose.

The music (and motion picture) industry really wants users to pay a fee every time they listen to a given song. They haven't been able to achieve this, but deep within the bowels of their various organizations, this is what they want.

I have no love lost for the music (or movie) industry. For YEARS they have been able to run rough-shod over their consumers. As consumers, we have no recourse once a purchase is made (even if the product sucks). Until only recently, we have been required to buy a $20 CD (or album) to get one or perhaps two songs that we really want (perhaps even the only good songs on the album). Additionally, the music industry has spoon-fed us the bands and artists that they want us to hear, mistreating scores of musicians along the way.

"Adjustments" to copyright laws are likely to be in favor of the RIAA/MPAA demon. They have the money to pay lobbyists to push their interests. Equal access to government, my ass!