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."

Comments

He wants an "internet tax" to support artists

[Julian Morrison]

...which amounts to nationalizing all art. (He who pays the piper, etc.)

Unless you like Soviet hymns to tractor production statistics, that probably isn't such a great idea.

Re:He wants an "internet tax" to support artists

[OneHouse]

Wrong. I am clearly on the record as completely opposed to government compelling such a tax. If you read carefully, I advocate voluntary negotiations that produce blanket licenses. I do not think the government should set the rate, I do not think government should collect the money, I do not think government should be involved in its allocation. I believe private negotiations can accomplish these tasks just as they have with broadcast radio and television.

DRM systems

[gxv]

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.

Concerns For Distribution

[Ironmaus]

Jim Griffin sounds very knowledgeable about this subject but he also spins some serious hippie crap that makes me doubt his theories and opinions.

I have no particular take on QTFairUse. I simply acknowledge, accept and find delight in digits -- especially those carrying art, knowledge and creativity -- bionomically finding the shortest, most efficient and effective path from source to destination.

Yeah, that's the biggest cop out to a serious question ever.

I wish he'd just come out and say it in plain English:

Our path to progress is clear: Tolerate risk, but anticipate its consequences and address them through actuarial means, by pooling fees and allocating their rewards to risk takers such as artists and rights holders. Paying into actuarial network funds should be no more voluntary than ought be automobile insurance.

In other words, everyone should pay a "music listening tax" regardless of how much music they listen to. Those who listen to a lot get great value from the taxation and those who listen to less just...shut up and pay the bill.

As fabulous and socialist as this all sounds, the part about pooling the fees and paying the "risk takers such as artists and rights holders" scares the shit out of me. Are we willing, for the sake of putting rights management out of our minds, to trust a huge payment distribution system to reward our artists? I'm not. I'm terrified that the little guys are going to fall through the cracks. This plan sounds exactly like the payment of royalties for non-profit radio stations--like the one I work for--where we pay a lump sum and the distribution companies like ASCAP dole out the payments based on "play statistics." Massive Habit and Jump Little Children aren't getting a single nickel from what we pay. It's my responsibility as a fan of their music to go outside the payment system that sees them as insignificant and give my money directly to them in the form of CD purchases and show attendance.