RIAA's Heavy Handedness Goes Too Far: Lip Syncers Next Target of Music Gestapo

David Hughes
The question of what constitutes "fair use" of music and video has again come to the fore with the revelation that the Recording Industry Association of America has set its legal hounds onto the creative folks who inhabit the wildly popular Web sites such as You Tube, My Space and even personal blogs. It seems that that the RIAA feels that activities such as lip syncing to songs while mugging to the Webcam constitutes piracy and wants these individuals to pay up or face the hot breath of litigation. Even ambient music playing in the background of a blog has to be licensed, it says.

The watchdog agency infamous for suing grannies and little kids for downloading music on the Internet says that there is little difference between that homebrewed video or audio program done in a bedroom and a commercial network's zillion-dollar extravaganza using the same musicĀ­-it must be licensed for broadcast use.

I do not condone song piracy, but also feel that there should be a limit to this group's tentacles. Since the music industry itself will not regulate the RIAA, the time has come for consumers seek help from Congress to bring some sanity. My concern is that these sites are a wonderful outlet for our nation's young people to learn to use technology creatively. Another Francis Ford Coppola or Howard Hawks may be out there who, either personally or by parental decree, be afraid to experiment with audio or video because of RIAA policies.

Just how would one go about licensing the music he or she wants to use in a blog or Web page? What would it cost and to what agency collects it? Most of these personal digital creations are done on the spur of the moment, and if someone has to go through the hassle of licensing a piece of music for a 30-second Web "broadcast" that spark of inspiration could be lost.

Perhaps the answer is a reasonably priced ($20 or under), one-time flat-rate "license" to use copyrighted music in non-profit digital creations of any kind paid to the RIAA or other designated music/video organization. It should be available online and printable.

This license could also be an incentive to buy music. Purchase "X" dollars in music and the RIAA would throw in a license. Artists could also build public brownie points by including licenses inside CD cases or designate their music as "personal use license free."

Most folks want to follow the law, but a national policy should be in place outlining how to do so and spared a usurious fee just to have fun with music. If the music industry will not do it, Congress should.

Published by David Hughes

35 years as a journalist, considered as expert in technology by my sources and peers. Please see my web site at www.ncc1701.net for examples of my work.  View profile

2 Comments

Post a Comment
  • david10/5/2007

    I agree, in a sense, but I also think that lip-syncers should not be able to make a profit off of their lip-syncing, I mean they are doing almost no work to begin with , if they can memorize the song to move correctly, why the heck dont they just sing the darn song?

  • george12/29/2006

    This reminds me about this documentary about schools that had to pay Matt groneg a few megabucks for like 4 seconds of the simsons in the background

Displaying Comments

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.