Slashdot Mirror

Junkscience.com isn't a mouthpiece for anyone.

As another poster pointed out, the latter half of this article claims that the author of junkscience.com was a registered lobbyist for several large firms with dubious environmental records. And at the same time he has been running this website, he was executive director of a (now defunct) non-profit that had members including "Amoco, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Exxon, General Motors, [...] the National Pest Control Association, Occidental Petroleum, Philip Morris" and so on.

You can verify his lobbyist registration here.

Conveniently, the fact that large polluters have been paying his bills for the last several years isn't mentioned on the "about the author" section of his web site. Maybe he's an entirely disinterested scholar who just happens to be funded by a lot of people with a financial interest in opposing environmental regulation, but I'm not convinced.

Bad science sure does happen, but a guy with a financial interest in the outcome is not one I'll take very seriously on the topic.

Yes, write your rep! And your senator, and the companies that own^D^D^D sponsor them...

Excellent, non-partisan orgs to assist in your civic participation:-

www.smartvoter.org (LWV-CA)

www.opensecrets.org (Center for Responsive Politics)

www.voter.com (private org)

Don't just whore for karma with your political acumen... convince the power brokers!

There is an expiration on all copyrights. Unfortunatly, the late Sen. Sonny Bono managed to extend the law so copyrights effectively don't expire before he skied into that tree. But don't blame him, copyright extensions are a slippery slope.

Every so often the Mickey Mouse* copyright comes up, and Disney and the Gershwin grandchildren (who have are rich despite having produced no music of their own) pays whoever to extend copyright laws for a few years, and our intellectual property rights are eroded that much more.

Unfortunatly, sensible copyright laws conflict with corporate greed, and since the corporations own the politicos, there's not much that's going to change that without a massive overhaul of the system.

Remember, public companies can be held legally liable to their shareholders if they choose doing what's right (not abusing democracy) over what's profitable (keeping the rights to a dopey mouse because they haven't come up with a better mascot in 75 years). If that's not a recipie for social disaster, I don't know what is.

* Mickey Mouse is the trademark of Disney
--

What if a "legal argument" in court was patentable? Anyone who first got the idea of referring to the defendants mental condition could patent it and charge anyone else using it in the court. For anything you say in the court, you would need to check first if it was already patented.

Yes, algorithms and patterns are our tools. If I come up with a solution to a problem, I do not want to check the patent database, if someone has already found it before.

Big Goverment? Hello, we are in the 21st century and goverments are run by Corporations. Try opensecrets To get some perspective.

Check it out here OK. A list of donations in the four-digit range ($2,000 to $8,300)... and some fine print:

METHODOLOGY: The organizations listed here came from two sources: either they were the sponsor of a PAC that donated to the member, or they were listed as individual donor's employer.

Maybe the original poster "feared" who contributed to Browne's campaign...

Check it out here.

In the end though, it's the citizens who lose, not Al or George.
--

from an earlier story link, we see that M$ gives fairly equally to BOTH parties. Don't kid yourself - the Democrats are as pro-business as the Republicans are, it's all a matter of who donated what. Why would a Gore presidency be any different?
Not that it matters, even the mainstream press says Bush is ahead, and their polls are historically about 10% more generous to the Dems than they should be. I'll bet Bush will even win California, or it will be very close. Woo-hoo. That will make life so much more different.
I'm just looking forward to the sudden cessation of political commercials.

Wow's that quite a statistical analysis you've got there. Update your count, because it now looks like three Democrats and six Republicans are co-sponsoring this bill. Gosh, that's certainly enough now to draw a correlation.

I would challange you to back this assertion of yours, but I think it will be more telling to watch this bill get thrashed by Hyde and everyone else on the Judiciary Committee. Selling influence is bi-partisan, and though the entertainment industry leans Democratic, they've hardly put all their eggs in one basket.

And hey, remember the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act? Or the, *drumroll...* DMCA?
--

"Show Me The Money" - Al (Read Between the Lines) Gore

Amar

First of all, Bill Gates does not have nearly enough wealth to pay off the national debt. The last estimate I read - several years ago - was one of around 6 trillion dollars. Unless you want to fudge by an order of magnitude or so, Gates' wealth doesn't even come close to paying that off.

And as for contributions, Microsoft has contributed dramatically more to the republicans than the democrats. OpenSecrets can tell you that much. Bill himself has done little to no contributing.

I know that was a joke. Jokes can be wrong, too.

Oh, c'mon, do you really believe everything you read in the proxy? Boards never want you to vote for shareholder proposals.

I'm a bit new to proxies.

It looks itemized here at the very least. I'm mostly curious what extra this could provide that isn't already known, or is this some form of feel good thing, cause they aren't asking for a change of behavior.

Hah. You want "applied lobbying"?

If OpenSecrets has the facts, then Time-Warner is the one doing all the lobbying, right behind Seagrams which, if memory serves me correctly, is fairly active in the music business, is it not?

It wouldn't take a competitor to leak such a story, just a really disgruntled ISP that Time-Warner is trying to strong-arm. How many of the 40 would you think are disgruntled enough to call the press on this?

The "deal" isn't the only sad thing... I'm also bothered that Time-Warner could get this far, try to dismiss it in such contradictory terms and even hope to be believed, and that consumers could be so Internet-hungry that they motivate such behaviors on the part of big companies like Time-Warner.

I'm also bothered by a government that either doesn't see campaign contributions as a way of currying favor for a significant merger, or who doesn't consider it significant.

---

Hah. You want "applied lobbying"?

If OpenSecrets has the facts, then Time-Warner is the one doing all the lobbying, right behind Seagrams which, if memory serves me correctly, is fairly active in the music business, is it not?

It wouldn't take a competitor to leak such a story, just a really disgruntled ISP that Time-Warner is trying to strong-arm. How many of the 40 would you think are disgruntled enough to call the press on this?

The "deal" isn't the only sad thing... I'm also bothered that Time-Warner could get this far, try to dismiss it in such contradictory terms and even hope to be believed, and that consumers could be so Internet-hungry that they motivate such behaviors on the part of big companies like Time-Warner.

I'm also bothered by a government that either doesn't see campaign contributions as a way of currying favor for a significant merger, or who doesn't consider it significant.

---

• they get the overwhelming bulk of the money from music sales
• they tend to not pay musicians money, but rather 'prepay' by bringing the musicians to hugely expensive and elaborate music studios and mastering houses and charging these services against royalties
• in so doing, they are able to throw a LOT of money into establishing a system where it appears that only major label acts are any good and the 'minor leaguers' don't seem worth listening to.

As for the profit margins- it's a bit shocking. I will refer you to Steve Albini's "Some Of Your Friends Are Probably Already This Fucked" for a look at typical band incomes assuming a _high_ level of CD sales and a successful tour, and another data point would be "Destroying The Artist's Right To Escape Contracts Through Bankruptcy" which is a news article exploring a recent trend of multiplatinum artists attempting to get out of brutally unfair contracts because they are literally left bankrupt and owing large amounts of money (for instance, owing their real landlords money, as the landlord doesn't take payments in label-purchased studio time- the landlord would be wanting actual money, and the multiplatinum major label star may not ever see any actual money).

More precisely, those large contributions have to go to parties as soft money, not to individual candidates, nor to parties as hard money for redistribution.

ISTR that the largest contribution from any PAC to an individual candidate, browsing opensecrets.org was $25,000 for a single campaign year. It would be blatantly illegal, for instance, for Microsoft to give $100,000 to the campaign of George W. Bush, or to give that same money to the GOP for the party to give to that candidate.

The large donations you're thinking of are almost certainly soft money, or possibly simply the total contributions from a PAC to the specific candidates of a party plus the soft money.

Not to the RIAA.

Nope, it doesn't convince me. The law only makes is possible for record companies to sign their artists on a work for hire basis. It's up to the individual artist to agree to those provisions. I don't see anything wrong with that. No one could force them to sign such a contract. Here's a quote:

Billboard reported that the change in the law was requested by the Recording Industry Association of America, a record industry group that defends the interests of the major record labels. RIAA president Hilary Rosen claimed that the amendment merely makes a recording "eligible" for work-for-hire status, and the artist and label must still sign a contract that either explicitly makes the recording a work-for-hire or leaves rights with the artist.

or try this one, if that didn't convince you.

Again, this doesn't mean anything. PAC contributions are an unfortunate consequence of our existing government, but the RIAA would be remiss to not make them. Also, $5,000 dollars is chump change to a representative, and would not cause someone to embrace a policy that they don't believe in. However, if you start paying people $2 million (Napster to Limp Bisket), you might start making believers out of just about anyone.

So artists rights mean nothing?

Not to the RIAA.

or try this one, if that didn't convice you.


--

...the other day I wrote a rebuttal to a recent interview on Salon.com...here it is again. Hilary, are you listening?

--

To Hilary Rosen. A Retort. v1.1

This is a quick dissection of your recent interview with Salon.com. Please respond if you have a moment.

Your quotes are in italics, questions are in bold, my comments are in plain text.

While ultimately I don't think litigation is the right business strategy over the long term,

Would that be 20 years long term? It will take at least that long for a generation to forget.

I do think that Napster is guilty of copyright infringement, and we will have both a favorable court decision and some precedents set for companies that try and commercialize file sharing.

Why is sharing so bad? And I am shocked that you didn't say "commercialize file pirating." Some would call that a Fruedian slip.

There is certainly a lot of intrigue in the notion of file sharing -- for community reasons and for marketing reasons and for putting like people with like-minded interests together.

Nice, it even sounds good coming from you.

Clearly I understand all that.

For some reason I don't believe you.

But those issues really should be divorced from the very unique and specific issue, Does a company have a right to create a system that is so deliberately designed to take other people's work?

Why do we need another divorce? This country needs healing. It needs the power of community. I lost you after "does a company have a right..."

It's interesting in court -- the Napster lawyer tried to make the argument that file-sharing services like Napster actually bring the Internet back to its original purpose and history, which was when university researchers would share their research with their colleagues around the world.

Perish the thought. Please tell me, again, why this is a bad thing for anyone?

That was a very valuable and exciting thing that happened, but there's a principal difference between that activity and what businesses like Napster are engaged in -- it was those professors' works that they themselves were sharing!

Again with the sharing? This is the word we're talking about right? "a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common" That's the bad word?

As a practical matter going forward, lawsuits get a lot of headlines and they raise a lot of passion -- I understand that.

Not yet you don't. I still have three friends that haven't heard about you yet.

But ultimately the future of music on the Internet is not going to be about legalities and litigation, it's going to be about how are we bringing music to fans -- new music,

Yes, it is. But I don't think you know what "we" means yet.

established artists -- what are the new business models that people are adopting and how do you make all the new opportunities win-win.

BY SHARING THE MUSIC. YOU HAVE A FREE RESOURCE. USE IT! I can explain this philosophy in greater detail if you like. So can a bunch of others around here. Click that "user info" button and look for a conversation (still ongoing) with Eric the .5b

I don't think anybody has illusions about controlling all transmissions online.

I do (think some have illusions, not have them myself).

The question is, How do you compete if services available to give it away without regard to the creators are allowed to flourish with such customer-service-friendly tools?

If you ask the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter. Remove the words "without regard to the creators" and you are on the right track. The Net is like that, it doesn't really make sense in most traditional terms.

Gnutella is a little harder to use than Napster, but there also ways to enforce against Gnutella users that you don't have with Napster.

Hehe, that would be funny to watch. I don't think you want to try and fight that battle.

Are Napster and online distribution of music causing the record industry to rethink or change its business models?

It doesn't necessarily change -- it expands. I personally believe people will want to buy CDs for a long time to come, [agreed] but I also believe they want to have subscriptions, kiosks in stores and airports, digital downloads ...

I don't, but then again I'm one of your core customers. At least I used to be.

I believe the expansion is where the conflict and the opportunity arrives. It behooves technology innovators to help develop those concepts in partnership with the music community. It's not accurate to say that the record industry says no.

What is it accurate to say? The record industry says "go for it, we have good lawyers and lots of money?"

There's no question that the industry has been slow to the marketplace, but it's too simplistic to say that the slowness or speed is out of some fear.

Simplicity sells technology. Just something I've noticed. I see fear in all your actions. Most creatures that are panicing don't notice it themselves, but again, those are just my observations.

It's more accurate to say that these are very complex transitions with a lot of interests and players involved -- artists and publishers and distributors and retailers and technology partners. There are a whole host of changes, and new structures that have to be created to move into these worlds.

That's the big problem. There are so many players involved. We need two players. Artists and Fans. Which one are you? We don't need new structures either. We have the Net. It's a new structure, we like it. How much of it have you guys built? How much have you tried to destroy? Can you see why we (I) don't like you (plural)?

It's not necessarily what people always want to hear, but I do believe that it is complex.

You just keep on digging into the unnecessary complexities of the business models you have created. I'll be listening to some music.

It's not whether or not somebody is killing CD sales this week -- it's whether music has value, and is perceived to have value in and of itself by fans, and by technology companies and venture capitalists who are investing in new businesses and have to pay for everything from their server space to their telephone lines to their lunchboxes.

Simplify, simplify. How many venture capitalists do you know that would give money to a company that starts out with the idea "First, we sue everyone with a different business model..." (step three: Profit!)

Paying for the content they are using is not an unreasonable request. I think it's a value quotient, not necessarily a piracy fear, that is also important to consider.

You should search this site. I'm sure somebody will give you a clue as to the nature of supply, demand, and value quotients on the Internet. "Not necessarily a piracy fear", I thought you guys weren't scared?

It goes back to the earlier issue that whether or not the record companies and artists are making money selling CDs is irrelevant to Napster; they are building a business on the backs of artists.

And your business would be built where?

Just because [artists] are making money elsewhere doesn't mean Napster has the right to do this. It's a self-serving argument for Napster.

*COUGH*

No one is arguing Chicken Little here;

Sometimes you should listen to a little pen^H^H^Hchicken. The sky has indeed fallen.

what we are saying is that if that geometric [try exponential] progression is such that music has less and less value, ultimately you do get to a scenario where it's hard for the legitimate businesses to compete. No one says we're there, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we're going.

No it doesn't. Have you ever seen a fifty-year-old rocket crash into the ground? Be patient. Shouldn't be too long now.

It's an artists issue. Cynics say the record industry doesn't like that model because it takes them out of the equation. But it's not true -- artists like it when they have a record that's so successful that they get to stay home for a few months rather than go on tour.

Do artists also like "works for hire"? Here's a link from your page. And here's a link about where you paid to get the law changed. And here's one to a quick rundown on how artists fare with your current business model.

You are limiting the artists' choices. And secondly, a significant part of the meaning of the music is creating the demand for the work.

i.e. Marketing. Yea we've heard of it. I don't remember that in my music appreciation class in college though. Must'a skipped that day after a ragin' Rage show.

And creating that demand for the music and the artist is very much a marketing and promotional function the record company does. The costs associated with that have to be absorbed somewhere.

Yes, those costs must be absorbed. And we, the fans, would be more than happy to do it. Just let us copy, digitally, our music files (that we bought and paid for) and allow us to take care of that marketing part for you, and that distrubution part for you, and that reproction part for you. You just sell CDs. We'll tell our friends what sucks. And what kicks ass. MP3 is about as good as quality as radio, if you haven't noticed. CD's sound better. They still travel better. They look good on coffee tables. We're not going to stop buying CD (unless you quit fretting and bring us DVD-AUDIO, and yes, it will get broken)

Things will evolve and the industry has always given away music for free, but it's really inappropriate that the only ways that artists should be able to make money off their craft is touring, if in fact people are enjoying their music anyway.

Remember we are paying for that promotion and distrubution so you don't have to. You can take all that money you save and give it straight to the artists. And why don't you give their copyrights back after you stop promoting them? That doesn't seem fair to me, but then again I didn't lobby to have copyright extended for an additional 20 years after death.

Not to mention the whole crop of artists that don't have the ability to tour.

I'm sure studio musicians will still have skills that are useful to somebody. Perhaps they can teach in schools after the sudden revival in the public's taste for live music? I mean, MP3 is great, CDs are better, but you can't beat the real thing. Don't forget that.

What was your reaction when you heard that Napster was sponsoring the Limp Bizkit tour?

I thought Napster must be desperate to have to pay $2 million to get someone to support them.

I think you might have wanted to think about this one for a second or two. Exactly how much did you guys spend last year on Congress? What's the annual promotion budget for New York?

I didn't think it was a thoughtful statement about the long-term economics of the record industry -- it was an anti-establishment, rock 'n' roll publicity thing for them to do.

Yes, and...? You 'member Elvis shaking them hips don'cha? What an anti-establishment, rock n' roll thing for him to do.

There's no question that the multitude of artists who have spoken out against Napster far outweigh this kind of publicity stunt, but I hope that their fans realize that these artists actually care about their work, and care about their art, and care about their ability to keep making it.

No question, eh? No question? Now would that be artists as in "signed, sealed, and delivered on the dotted line" or artists as in "a person skilled in one of the fine arts." I don't remeber seeing that national statistics poll, I must've been asleep at the wheel.

I think if Napster has ideas for alternative business models, they haven't said them yet.

Since when did "put music in the hands of fans" become an alternative business model. What is radio supposed to be? What's MTV for again? What do you guys do?

I don't think it's my place to do that. If people are creating businesses that use other people's work like that, it behooves them to come up with some other scenario at the outset that does the right thing. Where they go from here is the subject of obviously complicated scenarios.

Obviously complicated scenaries, i.e. lawsuits. You've got that part of the business plan down pat. Keep the course.

There are mutual responsibilities, but obviously as this case is in litigation, suffice it to say that Napster has never come up with a scenario. And I don't think anybody in the record industry has any indication that that is a viable option.

The record industry? What's a record? Oh, you mean those big plastic CD's? I remember seeing one of those when I was five (and music never sounded so good, analog is a good way to preserve quality, hint, hint) Of course you don't see it as a viable option, that's the problem.

The business models that MP3.com have put forward are interesting business models. The issue with MP3.com is simply of them not seeking licenses prior to the launching of their system.

So you mean in addition to buying your CD, I have to get some ethereal "license" to listen to it? We are talking about my.mp3.com, right? Try and stay on-topic, that's what the lawsuit is about. That, and bankruptcy.

I do get a particular laugh out of technology entrepreneurs who try and say that the record industry has screwed artists over the years. But what is it, now it's their turn?

Oh, we're doing the screwing all right. But the artists have had enough, if you catch my drift. I get a particular laugh too, haw-hah!

We have gone through an interesting shift here. The RIAA is a trade organization that was never a public entity or necessarily had any public profile. So it's quite a different role for us to all of a sudden respond not just to the music community but to the public itself.

The Internet exposes dark organizations. Have you heard about Echelon? Area51? There's some pictures around here somewhere... Unfortunately the power has shifted. You no longer are dealing with someone coming to you for a resource only you control. Now you have to deal with us, and we control the resources.

But I've learned a lot: A lot of people don't know what record companies do and what they bring to the equation -- helping to develop the talent and create the demand. That's been interesting.

Oh, just wait. This party is just getting started. Most of the players aren't even here yet. We live in interesting times, indeed.

When you go to buy a Chevy, you generally know something about General Motors being a decent company.

Define decent for me. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Not a knock on GM, just a question about your example)

When you want to buy a Bruce Springsteen record, you don't think much about Sony Music; that's been deliberate by these companies over the years. As a result, a lot of other people have painted on that blank canvas. If we could do that over, maybe we'd do that differently. But maybe not.

A painting on a black canvas. What an apt metaphor. No wonder it's taken so long to see it clearly.

I cheerfully await a response. I fervently hope that this crosses your desk at some time in the future. I've been harsh, perhaps unnecessarily so, but I hope you can get around my sarcasm and cynicism and see what I have for you here. Don't be afraid to by cynical in response. A little laugh might do us all good at this point. Let's get a conversation going and maybe we can save you some litigation costs.

Thanks,

Roy M. Taylor

a.k.a. Wah

--

over at Salon

The crew have rejected it twice, so I'll burn more karma.
--
To Hilary Rosen. A Retort.

This is a quick dissection of your recent interview with Salon.com. Please respond if you have a moment.

Your quotes are in italics, questions are in bold, my comments are in plain text.

While ultimately I don't think litigation is the right business strategy over the long term,

Would that be 20 years long term? It will take at least that long for a generation to forget.

I do think that Napster is guilty of copyright infringement, and we will have both a favorable court decision and some precedents set for companies that try and commercialize file sharing.

Why is sharing so bad? And I am shocked that you didn't say "commercialize file pirating." Some would call that a Fruedian slip.

There is certainly a lot of intrigue in the notion of file sharing -- for community reasons and for marketing reasons and for putting like people with like-minded interests together.

Nice, it even sounds good coming from you.

Clearly I understand all that.

For some reason I don't believe you.

But those issues really should be divorced from the very unique and specific issue, Does a company have a right to create a system that is so deliberately designed to take other people's work?

Why do we need another divorce? This country needs healing. It needs the power of community. I lost you after "does a company have a right..."

It's interesting in court -- the Napster lawyer tried to make the argument that file-sharing services like Napster actually bring the Internet back to its original purpose and history, which was when university researchers would share their research with their colleagues around the world.

Perish the thought. Please tell me, again, why this is a bad thing for anyone?

That was a very valuable and exciting thing that happened, but there's a principal difference between that activity and what businesses like Napster are engaged in -- it was those professors' works that they themselves were sharing!

Again with the sharing? This is the word we're talking about right? "a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common" That's the bad word?

As a practical matter going forward, lawsuits get a lot of headlines and they raise a lot of passion -- I understand that.

Not yet you don't. I still have three friends that haven't heard about you yet.

But ultimately the future of music on the Internet is not going to be about legalities and litigation, it's going to be about how are we bringing music to fans -- new music,

Yes, it is. But I don't think you know what "we" means yet.

established artists -- what are the new business models that people are adopting and how do you make all the new opportunities win-win.

BY SHARING THE MUSIC. YOU HAVE A FREE RESOURCE. USE IT! I can explain this philosophy in great detail if you like. Click that "user info" button and look for a conversation (still ongoing) with Eric the .5b

I don't think anybody has illusions about controlling all transmissions online.

I do (think some have illusions, not have them myself).

The question is, How do you compete if services available to give it away without regard to the creators are allowed to flourish with such customer-service-friendly tools?

If you ask the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter. Remove the words "without regard to the creators" and you are on the right track. The Net is like that, it doesn't really make sense in most traditional terms.

Gnutella is a little harder to use than Napster, but there also ways to enforce against Gnutella users that you don't have with Napster.

Hehe, that would be funny to watch. I don't think you want to try and fight that battle.

Are Napster and online distribution of music causing the record industry to rethink or change its business models?

It doesn't necessarily change -- it expands. I personally believe people will want to buy CDs for a long time to come, [agreed] but I also believe they want to have subscriptions, kiosks in stores and airports, digital downloads ...

I don't, but then again I'm one of your core customers. At least I used to be.

I believe the expansion is where the conflict and the opportunity arrives. It behooves technology innovators to help develop those concepts in partnership with the music community. It's not accurate to say that the record industry says no.

What is it accurate to say? The record industry says "go for it, we have good lawyers and lots of money?"

There's no question that the industry has been slow to the marketplace, but it's too simplistic to say that the slowness or speed is out of some fear.

Simplicity sells technology. Just something I've noticed. I see fear in all your actions. Most creatures that are panicing don't notice it themselves, but again, those are just my observations.

It's more accurate to say that these are very complex transitions with a lot of interests and players involved -- artists and publishers and distributors and retailers and technology partners. There are a whole host of changes, and new structures that have to be created to move into these worlds.

That's the big problems. There are so many players involved. We need two players. Artists and Fans. Which one are you? We don't need new structures either. We have the Net. It's a new structure, how much of it have you guys built? How much have you tried to destroy? Can you see why we (I) don't like you (plural)?

It's not necessarily what people always want to hear, but I do believe that it is complex.

You just keep on digging into the unnecessy complexities of the business models you have created. I'll be listening to some music.

It's not whether or not somebody is killing CD sales this week -- it's whether music has value, and is perceived to have value in and of itself by fans, and by technology companies and venture capitalists who are investing in new businesses and have to pay for everything from their server space to their telephone lines to their lunchboxes.

Simplify, simplify. How many venture capitalists do you know that would give money to a company that starts out with the idea "First, we sue everyone with a different business model..." (step three: Profit!)

Paying for the content they are using is not an unreasonable request. I think it's a value quotient, not necessarily a piracy fear, that is also important to consider.

You should search this site. I'm sure somebody will give you a clue as to the nature of supply, demand, and value quotients on the Internet. "Not necessarily a piracy fear", I thought you guys weren't scared?

It goes back to the earlier issue that whether or not the record companies and artists are making money selling CDs is irrelevant to Napster; they are building a business on the backs of artists.

And your business would be built where?

Just because [artists] are making money elsewhere doesn't mean Napster has the right to do this. It's a self-serving argument for Napster.

*COUGH*

No one is arguing Chicken Little here;

Sometimes you should listen to a little pen^H^H^Hchicken. The sky has indeed fallen.

what we are saying is that if that geometric [try exponential] progression is such that music has less and less value, ultimately you do get to a scenario where it's hard for the legitimate businesses to compete. No one says we're there, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we're going.

No it doesn't. Have you ever seen a fifty-year-old rocket crash into the ground? Be patient. Shouldn't be too long now.

It's an artists issue. Cynics say the record industry doesn't like that model because it takes them out of the equation. But it's not true -- artists like it when they have a record that's so successful that they get to stay home for a few months rather than go on tour.

Do artists also like works for hire? Here's a link from your page. And here's a link about where you paid to get the law changed. And here's one to a quick rundown on how artists fare with your current business model.

You are limiting the artists' choices. And secondly, a significant part of the meaning of the music is creating the demand for the work.

i.e. Marketing. Yea we've heard of it. I don't remember that in my music appreciation class in college though. Must'a skipped that day after a ragin' Rage show.

And creating that demand for the music and the artist is very much a marketing and promotional function the record company does. The costs associated with that have to be absorbed somewhere.

Yes, they do. And we, the fans, would be more than happy to do it. Just let us copy, digitally, our music files (that we bought and paid for) and allow us to take care of that marketing part for you. We'll tell our friends what sucks. And what kicks ass. MP3 is about as good as quality as radio, if you haven't noticed. CD's sound better. They still travel better. They look good on coffee tables. We're not going to stop buying CD (unless you quit fretting and bring us DVD-AUDIO, and yes, it will get broken)

Things will evolve and the industry has always given away music for free, but it's really inappropriate that the only ways that artists should be able to make money off their craft is touring, if in fact people are enjoying their music anyway.

Remember we are paying for that promotion and distrubution so you don't have to. You can take all that money you save and give it straight to the artists. And why don't you give their copyrights back after you stop promoting them? That doesn't seem fair to me, but then again I didn't lobby to have copyright extended for an additional 20 years after death.

Not to mention the whole crop of artists that don't have the ability to tour.

I'm sure studio musicians will still have skills that are useful to somebody. Perhaps they can teach in schools after the sudden revival in the public's taste for live music? I mean, MP3 is great, CDs are better, but you can't beat the real thing. Don't forget that.

What was your reaction when you heard that Napster was sponsoring the Limp Bizkit tour?

I thought Napster must be desperate to have to pay $2 million to get someone to support them.

I think you might have wanted to think about this one for a second or two. Exactly how much did you guys spend last year on Congress? What's the annual promotion budget for New York?

I didn't think it was a thoughtful statement about the long-term economics of the record industry -- it was an anti-establishment, rock 'n' roll publicity thing for them to do.

Yes, and...? You 'member Elvis shaking them hips don'cha? What an anti-establishment, rock n' rock thing for him to do.

There's no question that the multitude of artists who have spoken out against Napster far outweigh this kind of publicity stunt, but I hope that their fans realize that these artists actually care about their work, and care about their art, and care about their ability to keep making it.

No question, eh? No question? Now would that be artists as in "signed, sealed, and delivered on the dotted line" or artists as in "a person skilled in one of the fine arts." I don't remeber seeing that national statistics poll, I must've been asleep at the wheel.

I think if Napster has ideas for alternative business models, they haven't said them yet.

Since when did "put music in the hands of fans" become an alternative business model. What is radio supposed to be? What's MTV for again?

I don't think it's my place to do that. If people are creating businesses that use other people's work like that, it behooves them to come up with some other scenario at the outset that does the right thing. Where they go from here is the subject of obviously complicated scenarios.

Obviously complicated scenaries, i.e. lawsuits. You've got that part of the business plan down pat. Keep the course.

There are mutual responsibilities, but obviously as this case is in litigation, suffice it to say that Napster has never come up with a scenario. And I don't think anybody in the record industry has any indication that that is a viable option.

The record industry? What's a record? Oh, you mean those big plastic CD's? I remember seeing one of those when I was five (and music never sounded so good, analog is a good way to preserve quality, hint, hint) Of course you don't see it as a viable option, that's the problem.

The business models that MP3.com have put forward are interesting business models. The issue with MP3.com is simply of them not seeking licenses prior to the launching of their system.

So you mean in addition to buying your CD, I have to get some ethereal "license" to listen to it? We are talking about my.mp3.com, right? Try and stay on-topic, that's what the lawsuit is about. That, and bankruptcy.

I do get a particular laugh out of technology entrepreneurs who try and say that the record industry has screwed artists over the years. But what is it, now it's their turn?

Oh, we're doing the screwing all right. But the artists have had enough, if you catch my drift. I get a particular laugh too, haw-hah!

We have gone through an interesting shift here. The RIAA is a trade organization that was never a public entity or necessarily had any public profile. So it's quite a different role for us to all of a sudden respond not just to the music community but to the public itself.

The Internet exposes dark organizations. Have you heard about Echelon? Area51? There's some pictures around here somewhere... Unfortunately the power has shifted. You no longer are dealing with someone coming to you for a resource only you control. Now you have to deal with us, and we control the resources.

But I've learned a lot: A lot of people don't know what record companies do and what they bring to the equation -- helping to develop the talent and create the demand. That's been interesting.

Oh, just wait. This party is just getting started. Most of the players aren't even here yet. We live in interesting times, indeed.

When you go to buy a Chevy, you generally know something about General Motors being a decent company.

Define decent for me. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Not a knock on GM, just a question about your example)

When you want to buy a Bruce Springsteen record, you don't think much about Sony Music; that's been deliberate by these companies over the years. As a result, a lot of other people have painted on that blank canvas. If we could do that over, maybe we'd do that differently. But maybe not.

A painting on a black canvas. What an apt metaphor. No wonder it's taken so long to see it clearly.

I cheerfully await a response. I fervently hope that this crosses your desk at some time in the future. I've been harsh, perhaps unnecessarily so, but I hope you can get around my sarcasm and cynicism and see what I have for you here. Don't be afraid to by cynical in response. A little laugh might do us all good at this point. Let's get a conversation going and maybe we can save you some litigation costs.

Thanks,

Roy M. Taylor

a.k.a Wah on /.

--

Speaking of April Fools....Did anyone see this? Here's my retort

--

To Hilary Rosen. A Retort.

This is a quick dissection of your recent interview with Salon.com. Please respond if you have a moment.

Your quotes are in italics, questions are in bold, my comments are in plain text.

While ultimately I don't think litigation is the right business strategy over the long term,

Would that be 20 years long term? It will take at least that long for a generation to forget.

I do think that Napster is guilty of copyright infringement, and we will have both a favorable court decision and some precedents set for companies that try and commercialize file sharing.

Why is sharing so bad? And I am shocked that you didn't say "commercialize file pirating." Some would call that a Fruedian slip.

There is certainly a lot of intrigue in the notion of file sharing -- for community reasons and for marketing reasons and for putting like people with like-minded interests together.

Nice, it even sounds good coming from you.

Clearly I understand all that.

For some reason I don't believe you.

But those issues really should be divorced from the very unique and specific issue, Does a company have a right to create a system that is so deliberately designed to take other people's work?

Why do we need another divorce? This country needs healing. It needs the power of community. I lost you after "does a company have a right..."

It's interesting in court -- the Napster lawyer tried to make the argument that file-sharing services like Napster actually bring the Internet back to its original purpose and history, which was when university researchers would share their research with their colleagues around the world.

Perish the thought. Please tell me, again, why this is a bad thing for anyone?

That was a very valuable and exciting thing that happened, but there's a principal difference between that activity and what businesses like Napster are engaged in -- it was those professors' works that they themselves were sharing!

Again with the sharing? This is the word we're talking about right? "a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common" That's the bad word?

As a practical matter going forward, lawsuits get a lot of headlines and they raise a lot of passion -- I understand that.

Not yet you don't. I still have three friends that haven't heard about you yet.

But ultimately the future of music on the Internet is not going to be about legalities and litigation, it's going to be about how are we bringing music to fans -- new music,

Yes, it is. But I don't think you know what "we" means yet.

established artists -- what are the new business models that people are adopting and how do you make all the new opportunities win-win.

BY SHARING THE MUSIC. YOU HAVE A FREE RESOURCE. USE IT! I can explain this philosophy in great detail if you like. Click that "user info" button and look for a conversation (still ongoing) with Eric the .5b

I don't think anybody has illusions about controlling all transmissions online.

I do (think some have illusions, not have them myself).

The question is, How do you compete if services available to give it away without regard to the creators are allowed to flourish with such customer-service-friendly tools?

If you ask the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter. Remove the words "without regard to the creators" and you are on the right track. The Net is like that, it doesn't really make sense in most traditional terms.

Gnutella is a little harder to use than Napster, but there also ways to enforce against Gnutella users that you don't have with Napster.

Hehe, that would be funny to watch. I don't think you want to try and fight that battle.

Are Napster and online distribution of music causing the record industry to rethink or change its business models?

It doesn't necessarily change -- it expands. I personally believe people will want to buy CDs for a long time to come, [agreed] but I also believe they want to have subscriptions, kiosks in stores and airports, digital downloads ...

I don't, but then again I'm one of your core customers. At least I used to be.

I believe the expansion is where the conflict and the opportunity arrives. It behooves technology innovators to help develop those concepts in partnership with the music community. It's not accurate to say that the record industry says no.

What is it accurate to say? The record industry says "go for it, we have good lawyers and lots of money?"

There's no question that the industry has been slow to the marketplace, but it's too simplistic to say that the slowness or speed is out of some fear.

Simplicity sells technology. Just something I've noticed. I see fear in all your actions. Most creatures that are panicing don't notice it themselves, but again, those are just my observations.

It's more accurate to say that these are very complex transitions with a lot of interests and players involved -- artists and publishers and distributors and retailers and technology partners. There are a whole host of changes, and new structures that have to be created to move into these worlds.

That's the big problems. There are so many players involved. We need two players. Artists and Fans. Which one are you? We don't need new structures either. We have the Net. It's a new structure, how much of it have you guys built? How much have you tried to destroy? Can you see why we (I) don't like you (plural)?

It's not necessarily what people always want to hear, but I do believe that it is complex.

You just keep on digging into the unnecessy complexities of the business models you have created. I'll be listening to some music.

It's not whether or not somebody is killing CD sales this week -- it's whether music has value, and is perceived to have value in and of itself by fans, and by technology companies and venture capitalists who are investing in new businesses and have to pay for everything from their server space to their telephone lines to their lunchboxes.

Simplify, simplify. How many venture capitalists do you know that would give money to a company that starts out with the idea "First, we sue everyone with a different business model..." (step three: Profit!)

Paying for the content they are using is not an unreasonable request. I think it's a value quotient, not necessarily a piracy fear, that is also important to consider.

You should search this site. I'm sure somebody will give you a clue as to the nature of supply, demand, and value quotients on the Internet. "Not necessarily a piracy fear", I thought you guys weren't scared?

It goes back to the earlier issue that whether or not the record companies and artists are making money selling CDs is irrelevant to Napster; they are building a business on the backs of artists.

And your business would be built where?

Just because [artists] are making money elsewhere doesn't mean Napster has the right to do this. It's a self-serving argument for Napster.

*COUGH*

No one is arguing Chicken Little here;

Sometimes you should listen to a little pen^H^H^Hchicken. The sky has indeed fallen.

what we are saying is that if that geometric [try exponential] progression is such that music has less and less value, ultimately you do get to a scenario where it's hard for the legitimate businesses to compete. No one says we're there, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we're going.

No it doesn't. Have you ever seen a fifty-year-old rocket crash into the ground? Be patient. Shouldn't be too long now.

It's an artists issue. Cynics say the record industry doesn't like that model because it takes them out of the equation. But it's not true -- artists like it when they have a record that's so successful that they get to stay home for a few months rather than go on tour.

Do artists also like works for hire? Here's a link from your page. And here's a link about where you paid to get the law changed. And here's one to a quick rundown on how artists fare with your current business model.

You are limiting the artists' choices. And secondly, a significant part of the meaning of the music is creating the demand for the work.

i.e. Marketing. Yea we've heard of it. I don't remember that in my music appreciation class in college though. Must'a skipped that day after a ragin' Rage show.

And creating that demand for the music and the artist is very much a marketing and promotional function the record company does. The costs associated with that have to be absorbed somewhere.

Yes, they do. And we, the fans, would be more than happy to do it. Just let us copy, digitally, our music files (that we bought and paid for) and allow us to take care of that marketing part for you. We'll tell our friends what sucks. And what kicks ass. MP3 is about as good as quality as radio, if you haven't noticed. CD's sound better. They still travel better. They look good on coffee tables. We're not going to stop buying CD (unless you quit fretting and bring us DVD-AUDIO, and yes, it will get broken)

Things will evolve and the industry has always given away music for free, but it's really inappropriate that the only ways that artists should be able to make money off their craft is touring, if in fact people are enjoying their music anyway.

Remember we are paying for that promotion and distrubution so you don't have to. You can take all that money you save and give it straight to the artists. And why don't you give their copyrights back after you stop promoting them? That doesn't seem fair to me, but then again I didn't lobby to have copyright extended for an additional 20 years after death.

Not to mention the whole crop of artists that don't have the ability to tour.

I'm sure studio musicians will still have skills that are useful to somebody. Perhaps they can teach in schools after the sudden revival in the public's taste for live music? I mean, MP3 is great, CDs are better, but you can't beat the real thing. Don't forget that.

What was your reaction when you heard that Napster was sponsoring the Limp Bizkit tour?

I thought Napster must be desperate to have to pay $2 million to get someone to support them.

I think you might have wanted to think about this one for a second or two. Exactly how much did you guys spend last year on Congress? What's the annual promotion budget for New York?

I didn't think it was a thoughtful statement about the long-term economics of the record industry -- it was an anti-establishment, rock 'n' roll publicity thing for them to do.

Yes, and...? You 'member Elvis shaking them hips don'cha? What an anti-establishment, rock n' rock thing for him to do.

There's no question that the multitude of artists who have spoken out against Napster far outweigh this kind of publicity stunt, but I hope that their fans realize that these artists actually care about their work, and care about their art, and care about their ability to keep making it.

No question, eh? No question? Now would that be artists as in "signed, sealed, and delivered on the dotted line" or artists as in "a person skilled in one of the fine arts." I don't remeber seeing that national statistics poll, I must've been asleep at the wheel.

I think if Napster has ideas for alternative business models, they haven't said them yet.

Since when did "put music in the hands of fans" become an alternative business model. What is radio supposed to be? What's MTV for again?

I don't think it's my place to do that. If people are creating businesses that use other people's work like that, it behooves them to come up with some other scenario at the outset that does the right thing. Where they go from here is the subject of obviously complicated scenarios.

Obviously complicated scenaries, i.e. lawsuits. You've got that part of the business plan down pat. Keep the course.

There are mutual responsibilities, but obviously as this case is in litigation, suffice it to say that Napster has never come up with a scenario. And I don't think anybody in the record industry has any indication that that is a viable option.

The record industry? What's a record? Oh, you mean those big plastic CD's? I remember seeing one of those when I was five (and music never sounded so good, analog is a good way to preserve quality, hint, hint) Of course you don't see it as a viable option, that's the problem.

The business models that MP3.com have put forward are interesting business models. The issue with MP3.com is simply of them not seeking licenses prior to the launching of their system.

So you mean in addition to buying your CD, I have to get some ethereal "license" to listen to it? We are talking about my.mp3.com, right? Try and stay on-topic, that's what the lawsuit is about. That, and bankruptcy.

I do get a particular laugh out of technology entrepreneurs who try and say that the record industry has screwed artists over the years. But what is it, now it's their turn?

Oh, we're doing the screwing all right. But the artists have had enough, if you catch my drift. I get a particular laugh too, haw-hah!

We have gone through an interesting shift here. The RIAA is a trade organization that was never a public entity or necessarily had any public profile. So it's quite a different role for us to all of a sudden respond not just to the music community but to the public itself.

The Internet exposes dark organizations. Have you heard about Echelon? Area51? There's some pictures around here somewhere... Unfortunately the power has shifted. You no longer are dealing with someone coming to you for a resource only you control. Now you have to deal with us, and we control the resources.

But I've learned a lot: A lot of people don't know what record companies do and what they bring to the equation -- helping to develop the talent and create the demand. That's been interesting.

Oh, just wait. This party is just getting started. Most of the players aren't even here yet. We live in interesting times, indeed.

When you go to buy a Chevy, you generally know something about General Motors being a decent company.

Define decent for me. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Not a knock on GM, just a question about your example)

When you want to buy a Bruce Springsteen record, you don't think much about Sony Music; that's been deliberate by these companies over the years. As a result, a lot of other people have painted on that blank canvas. If we could do that over, maybe we'd do that differently. But maybe not.

A painting on a black canvas. What an apt metaphor. No wonder it's taken so long to see it clearly.

I cheerfully await a response. I fervently hope that this crosses your desk at some time in the future. I've been harsh, perhaps unnecessarily so, but I hope you can get around my sarcasm and cynicism and see what I have for you here. Don't be afraid to by cynical in response. A little laugh might do us all good at this point. Let's get a conversation going and maybe we can save you some litigation costs.

Thanks,

Roy M. Taylor

a.k.a Wah on /.
--

ANDREESSEN, MARC
LOS GATOS, CA 95032 AOL 08/30/1999 $1,000 Kerrey, Bob
___

Can be found here and here

Can be found here and here

Oh, more numbers. The NEA contributed $1,853,390 during that same cycle, 95% of it to Democrats. That's the PAC itself to Federal candidates, and doesn't count individual members donating on their own. That's almost UAW-scale of $1,915,460 for the same cycle (98% to Democrats). The aforementioned numbers all come from opensecrets.org, a VERY slow site...

In 1996, 40% of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention came from the NEA, as reported in an Investor's Business Daily article.

Please don't claim that teachers do not have clout -- not if you want anybody to take you seriously.