racoma.com.phJ. Angelo Racoma on technology, economics, writing, problogging, and getting things done

RIAA, the organization set out to sue grandmas and pre-teens for alleged usic piracy, wants ripping of CD music into digital format to be considered outside of fair-use.

As part of the on-going DMCA rule-making proceedings, the RIAA and other copyright industry associations submitted a filing that included this gem as part of their argument that space-shifting and format-shifting do not count as noninfringing uses, even when you are talking about making copies of your own CDs.

I understand that selling your iPod pre-loaded may not always be considered legal, say, for instance you’re doing it for profit (one of the latest stupid ideas from the RIAA before this one). But this is just too much. You should be entitled to ripping music from CDs you legally bought.

Or maybe they want to lessen incidences of pirates ripping music off CDs and then distributing on peer-to-peer networks.

At any rate, they’re barking at the wrong tree. The RIAA is passing on the blame to the ordinary consumers, and not the big-time pirates. Why don’t they conduct investigations on the large-scale organized crime groups that earn gazillions from selling drugs and pirated wares. Oh, I forgot, the RIAA is actually considered to be the music mafia, with its mob-like tactics in suing “copyright violators.” They may not be an organized crime group, but they’re surely the biggest bullies around (probably even surpassing Microsoft in its pre-antitrust heyday).

What people are saying:

• “Who cares?”
• “They can go to hell”
• “This is completely insane”
• “Does anyone really care about the RIAA?”
• “If the RIAA had it their way, playing music off the CD you purchased wouldn’t be fair use.”
• “Mom, what’s a CD?”

(via DIGG)

An article at the Seattle Pi cites a report by reputable institutions (Berkman Center at Harvard and Gartner, Inc.) that file-sharing is actually good for the music business.

Nearly one-quarter of frequent online music users say that the ability to share music with others is a key factor when selecting an online music service. And a third were interested in technology that helps them discover and recommend music, such as tools that allow Internet users to publish and rank lists of their favorite songs. Perhaps most important for the recording industry, a tenth of those surveyed said they frequently make music purchases based on others’ recommendations.

Finally, we have empirical evidence to support what many advocates of free–or at least fair–online exchange of information (and art) have been sounding out for quite some time now.

A fair setup for sharing media online should be acceptable, as this helps the growth of mindshare among artists.

I say fair, as I particularly exclude large-scale piracy operations that make gazillions in profits from bootlegged albums.

Eat your hearts out, RIAA!  It’s a fact of life.  Your business model must evolve.  Otherwise, we’d still be buying vinyl up to this moment–which is quite an excellent medium (great fidelity), but very inconvenient.

They translated my Blogging 101 article into Filipino, and read it on air.

As part of the terms of posting my article on Blog Chronicles, and with Sun.Star Cebu’s having published it last October 24 in their Cyber Cafe section (edited by Max Limpag), Sun.Star holds the legal rights to the article.

Copyright infringement?

Check out my post over at Pinoy.tech.blog.

There are discussions (my bro’s blog, Inq7.net, Manila Bulletin 1, Manila Bulletin 2, the rest of the blogosphere) that the Pinoy Big Brother theme song, Pinoy Ako by Orange and Lemons, was ripped off from a 1980’s song Chandeliers by the Care.

I tend to agree with my bro on this one.

Orange and Lemons claims that the song was indeed inspired by Chandeliers, but there was no copyright infringement perpetrated, since the similarities ended with the guitar intro.

According to ONL vocalist Mcoy Fundales, there was no other similarity, even in the melody.

But I got to listen for myself, and I can say you’d be frickin’ tone-deaf if you don’t think Pinoy Ako’s rhythm approximates that of Chandeliers almost to a T!  Not only is the guitar intro a sound-alike, but the rhythm and structure of the two songs do approximate each other (check out the bass guitar riffs and the drums).

Listen for yourself.

• Pinoy Ako – from tristancafe.com
• Chandeliers – from nestlepoell.net

Don’t get me wrong.  I find Pinoy Ako a catchy and ear-friendly (though too frequently played) tune, and the kids love it!  But it just seems so eerily similar to Chandeliers that you can’t help but wonder about the intentions of the composer.

Well, maybe he wasn’t aware that his music so closely resembles another song already in existence.  Or perhaps the group wasn’t betting on their song going very popular in pop culture.

At any rate, according to the Manila Bulletin article, the recording labels owning the rights to either song don’t find any infringement.

So in the legal realm, ONL is safe.  But I still have my doubts in terms of artistic integrity.

Five publishers are suing Google for the scanning of print material for the Search giant’s online library project.

The suit seeks a declaration that the Web search leader commits
infringement when it scans entire books covered by copyright without
permission of the copyright owner.

But according to Google,

Creating an easy-to-use index of books is fair use under copyright law
and supports the purpose of copyright: to increase the awareness and
sales of books, directly benefiting copyright holders …
…
Supporters of the Google Print project say the scanning of the full
text of the books is necessary to create a searchable catalog of the
books located within the five libraries’ collections. Google says it
has no plans to make full copies of copyrighted works available without
their owners’ permission.

Google is considered to be the de facto technology for searching the Internet, and even other things (i.e. with Google Desktop, etc.).  I think it would have been advantageous to the publishers if Google had coverage of text in existing printed material.  Yes, this could be abused, but I’m pretty sure Google has learned its lesson from the issue over its caching web pages.  And the company would surely have the technology to control access over the scanned copyrighted material.

Heck, I’d even think Google has enough resources to just buy off the rights to the material!  Or would they?

All five of the publishers named as plaintiffs in the latest lawsuit
have participated in Google’s publisher program, according to the
company.

Why the sudden turnaround?