Slashdot Mirror
Interview with Jim Griffin
mpawlo writes "I just finished a Greplaw interview with Jim Griffin. Griffin, of Pholist fame, gives his thoughts on copyright and digital distribution of music. Learn also why copyright should be renamed copy risk. Griffin was once - at Geffen - behind the online release of a full-length song by Aerosmith. In 1994! He is, however, not a John Perry Barlow School of Thought devotee."
From the interview, concerning DRM systems:
So it seems quite obvious that conditioning access on locks and keys doesn't work today, and is purely a theoretical, hypothetical suggestion that has never proven value in the marketplace.
Sounds like "information wants to be free". In this case free from strange limitations (Yes, you can play that CD on the computer, but it will only work, when it's Windows or Mac. Can you repeat? Linux? What is Linux? Ah, yes I heard something. No, sorry Sir, we don't support it. Oh, one more thing - to make it work during playback every 17 seconds you have to press Ctrl+V+F7). If the DRM-protected file is less useful and flexible than one you've just got from Kazaa, you will use the one from Kazaa. Period.
He argues both that DRM is a concept not a technology, and that the overall costs and balances of DRM ought to be taken into account (the Cable TV argument), and that the financial value of art is in its ability to draw a crowd.
The cost of applying DRM to a given work should be factored (as a negative) into the popularity and therefore take-up of that work. I'm still not convinced that anyone "high up" in the content-protection (**IA) business has figured that out... This ought to be required reading for industry execs.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
There would need to be a way to ensure that even the little guys get some share of them money. Perhaps have a small, flat rate that applies to the first 100 or 1000 or some arbitrarily small number of downloads. Any music producer whose song is downloaded a number of times below that threshhold gets the flat fee. Anybody whose music is downloaded more times gets a percentage, based on statistics, of the remaining pool, which has probably been barely touched by the amount alotted to the small performers.
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
It simply cannot be done. There's always ways round it, and it's kinda futile. Copy protection programs generally only work under Windows/Mac, and can often be disabled, a la the shift key debacle of recent months. If the copy protection is a bit better than that, and can't be disabled, then youc an always use a different OS. I couldn't rip the Dido CD in Windows, but Grip in Linux did it just fine. Even if they were to tighten up on things like even including blocking for Linux (and I don't know how they'd pull that off) then there'd still be ways round it. If you can hear the sound then you can record it, and that's good enough. You can hook a CD player up to a PC and record the audio, or a PC to another PC... you name it. Granted, most people aren't going to go to such lengths - the general public doesn't really care for Linux :) - but there are already systems like Kazaa in place to distribute MP3s, so it only takes one keen person to create the MP3 in the first place, and everyone else is laughing.
The music industry should stop worrying about DRM and all this rubbish. The horse has bolted, the cat is out of the bag, etc etc. The only way people are going to stop pirating CDs and start buying them again is if the record companies start selling good quality music at a fair price.
Here endeth the lesson.
It seems like what you're objecting to here is the idea that government would choose who would get payment, not to any givernment involvement at all, right? Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like you want the government, wether through passage of laws or through its capacity as the enforcer of contracts, to make sure that people pay.
One of the big objections that I see to BMI/ASCAP/RIAA is that regardless of what's played, most of the money goes to the record companies, then the big artists get their cut, and the little artists get nothing. But the little artists don't have the right to opt out. At first blush, it seems like a non-obnoxious micropayment system would be fairer. How do you make your statistics-based system fair to small artists? And what about opting out?
I believe private negotiations can accomplish these tasks just as they have with broadcast radio and television.
And you also said:
So you appear to believe the government should have a place in mandating the payments, even if it isn't involved in setting the rates or collecting or disbursing the money. Actually, the government also has a place in ensuring the payments happen in broadcast radio and television -- it's illegal for me to take broadcast content and deliver it to others (via broadcast or other mechanisms). Also with cable television, the government gets involved in ensuring that cable "theft" is punished.
So, what do you envision the government's role to be in this Internet tax?
In the other examples you mention there's an obvious way for payments to be allocated. In the case of broadcast and cable networks, private entities control the networks and control what they carry (with governmental force behind these controls). That enables them to negotiate with the producers of content and to allocate the payments based on the value the networks perceive. This only works, though, because there are multiple, competing, networks. Each network maximizes its profits by trying to get the most appealing content it can for the lowest price it can. Consumers can opt in or out based on their percepetion of the bundled value. In the case of broadcast networks, they change channels. In the case of cable, they choose which channels to buy.
How can this model be translated into the Internet? Who are the private companies empowered to negotiate with content producers and to control the delivery of content to consumers? The Internet is different in that there are no central points of control, or, at least, that there should not be.
ISPs are the end users' access into the network, and the logical place in which to collect the fees, and users could potentially negotiate the amount of the fee they pay by choosing which ISP to use. However, how would the ISPs determine how to allocate the funds among artists? And why would ISPs want to give *any* money to artists? Would ISPs give money to an artist for the "permission" to "carry' that artist's work? But... the ISPs don't control what content is carried over their wires anyway. The users decide what they send and receive.
The only way for ISPs to make that work would be for them to start taking control of what their users are and are not allowed to send/receive. Massive packet filtering. Even beyond all of the technical issues related to how ISPs would recognize which packets to filter -- particularly if the end users were actively trying to make filtering difficult -- such filtering would make the Internet vastly less useful than it is. It's the freedom of the peer to peer nature of this largest of all networks that makes it what it is, and throwing up thousands of roadblocks would destroy it. Imagine if every township stopped and searched every automobile that drove through, looking for contraband.
In the absence of a set of competing organizations with the ability to control the content made available, I simply don't see what can drive a reasonable allocation of the collected funds.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The copyright licensing schemes only got negotiated on TV&radio because (1) the govt monopolizes broadcast licenses, so the number of broadcasters is low and easy to determine (2) it's very obvious who is transmitting what. Obviously, these don't apply to p2p.
I can see what you mean: monitor and log downloads at the ISP, pay fees to artists, spread the cost across customer subscriptions. Perhaps negotiate a blanket license for the ISPs instead of pay-per-play. Whatever. I just can't see that model working without it being universal and compelled. People would just pick the cheaper no-surcharge ISPs.
Any market-acceptable surcharge would never cover for the "lost money" of music companies. Even my cheapskate broadband can pull down ten bundled albums or a nice quality cinema movie per day. Spread that as thin as you please, and it's still a lot of $$$. Especially with everyone joining in, ecouraged by the hypothetical ISP's "all you can eat" license.
The arguements for bundling mostly have good counter arguements. Sure, it can make sense for a theme park to charge a single admission rather than a per ride fee. They can save a lot of administrative costs. Those who remember Disney's old A through E ticket system, where the consumer often ended up with a bunch of left over A & B tickets, and tired kids who didn't want to ride the Mad Hatter's teacup ride just to use them up, will know the feeling.
But, the LP or CD format itself is bundling. Downloading just the songs you want is a move _away_ from bundling. Paying a flat fee per song looks like bundling on the level of pop music and single tracks, but is a move away from bundling at the album level.
Example: At 99 cents a track, Mike Oldfield's Tubular bells will cost you about 2 dollars for the whole album (2 tracks). Tubular Bells 2 is about 20 dollars, and Tubular Bells 3 is about 16. So, if Mr. Oldfield releases Tubular Bells 4, it will doubtless consist of exactly as many tracks as his agency figures will maximize total return.
Who is John Cabal?