Choruss Pitching Bait and Switch On P2P Music Tax

An anonymous reader writes "A few months back, Warner Music Group started pitching universities on the idea of a new program where they would pay a chunk of money to an organization named Choruss to provide 'covenants not to sue' those students for file sharing, leading many in the press to claim that the record labels are looking to license ISPs to let users file share. Even the EFF has called it a 'promising new approach.' However, the details are quite troubling and suggest that the plan is really a bait-and-switch idea." (More below.) "The industry still plans to demand three strikes and try to shut down file sharing networks, and it's already giving up on lawsuits. So... it's basically going to keep doing everything the same as before, but force your ISP or your university (who in turn will raise your rates) to just hand over a bunch of money. Oh yeah, also, since the 'covenant not to sue' isn't a license and only covers the rights of the record labels, it means that you can still get sued by the publishers or songwriters whose rights aren't covered by the deal at all. Unfortunately, the press is just repeating the claim that this is a 'file sharing license' when the details show it's anything but that. It's just a way to get people and companies to hand over large chunks of money to the record labels."

Comments

Protection money?

[arakon]

Sounds to me like a classic mafia protection scheme. /Insert seedy Italian accent/ "You might find your finances in trouble without some.... protection. Pay us and we'll provide that... Else our boss might see to it that you do have an accident."

Re:Protection money?

[techno-vampire]

That was the first thing I thought of, as soon as I read the part about "a covenant not to sue." At this point, I'm finding it hard to understand why the various music companies aren't already up on RICO charges, because they're acting exactly like the type of racketeer that RICO is designed to put away.

Re:Protection money?

[Shakrai]

Sounds to me like a classic mafia protection scheme.

Except the mafia has a lot more to offer you than RIAA. Sure they take your money, but they can also hook you up with gambling, girls, drugs, loan sharking and protection. RIAA doesn't hook you up with anything other than lawyers and shitty music, at least as far as I can tell.

And at least you always know where you stand with Tony Soprano. Can you say that about RIAA? ;)

Re:Protection money?

[jamstar7]

"Pay us off and we'll sue anyway."

Fixed that for ya.

And they wonder why we hate them for scams like this...

Re:Protection money?

[zappepcs]

I agree, money up front for nothing. If student A does no file sharing at all, they are still licensed. Each student/user will be licensed to share files? WTF is that? I don't need a license to share Linux ISO files over P2P networks. How in blue blazes will they determine what connections should be licensed and which should not? This is too cracked of an idea to fathom. Protection money for doing legal activities?

It's time that the RIAA et al simply died.

Re:Protection money?

[Ethanol-fueled]

And they wonder why we hate them for scams like this...

Chorusss. Even the name sounds like some sssslithery sssnake trying to weasel a deal out of you even though he dosen't have any handsss for a handssshake.

Re:Protection money?

[geobeck]

You had such a great snake metaphor going ... and then you stuck a 'weasel' in it.

That's because Jimmy the Snake and Frankie the Weasel are the senior liaison officers for Choruss.

Actually, the name of the group reminded me of a typical show chorus: It's always there making the same annoying background noise, distracting you from what you're trying to listen to.

Obligatory obscure quote...

Oh, we're the boys in the chorus,
We hope you like our show,
We know you're rooting for us,
But now we have to go!

Re:Protection money?

[h4rm0ny]

It's not about protection money. The big labels would love to apply a blanket cost to ISPs to legitimise file sharing of copyrighted materials.

Firstly, administration of the divvying up of funds between artists would be very lucrative for whichever body won such a task, providing plenty of opportunity to charge overhead for staff and resources. This body would almost certainly be the BPI in the UK or the RIAA & MPAA in the USA or made at least made up of the same people and friends of people who are employed in these organisations. Secondly, the selection of which artists earn from the compulsory charges is open to very financially awarding abuse. You can be certain that big labels would be carving off large chunks of the revenue for their star artists and less-publicised artists or independent artists would be getting far less or nothing at all. This power encourages artists to sign with the big labels, rather than act independently. With modern technology and communication, there is far less reason for artists to sign exclusive deals with the big labels so a new way to pressure them to do so is much wanted by groups like the BPI and RIAA. As if the above was not sufficient temptation to the big labels there are further very strong reasons. This enables profit to be made from people who would never buy the music the big labels put out. Musical tastes change as people age and the general rule is that individuals become much choosier in their music purchasing as well as less immersed in mainstream media, thus less subject to buying heavily promoted tracks / albums. A blanket music tax allows the big labels to profit from such people despite changing or lessening purchasing habits. How earnings would be distributed amongst artists is an open question, but as self-proclaimed experts, you would likely see the BPI / RIAA / MPAA having a hand in defining the system and it would probably be based around popular charts despite that not accurately reflecting total purchasing habits. Furthermore (as if we need more reasons), this allows charging for music that has gone out of copyright - a body of work that is, logically, ever increasing.

More than all of this however, is that such an approach eliminates the free market. The proposal prevents artists from exercising their normal legal rights to sue those distributing their work against their wishes (and the proposal does not make sense if it does not do this). In doing so, it forces the BPI and RIAA / MPAA's business model on everyone. There are thus none of the normal controls of the free market on the pricing of recordings or on artists' ability to negotiate with the big labels for better terms.

In short, compulsory charging of ISPs for file-sharing is Christmas for the big lables if this ever goes through. A permanent entitlement to our money regardless of what they produce or if we want it. Indeed, they get paid for what other people do.

What is the phrase I'm looking for, oh yes... "It's a trap!"

H.

Make a rod for your own back

[Keith_Beef]

From the article:

[the proposal is] so bad that it can be described accurately as a bait-and-switch program designed to make people (1) pay lots of money (2) believing they're now free to file share and then find out that (3) file sharing systems will still be sued out of existence and (4) the users themselves, despite paying, will still be liable for massive lawsuits. It's basically a plan to give the record labels tons of money, handed over by universities (so users have no chance to opt-out) without actually changing anything.

In fact, this would be the universities giving up-front financing for future legal action against file sharers.

K.

Where does the money go?

[MrEricSir]

Let me guess: the artists don't get a dime.

Re:Where does the money go?

[noidentity]

Let me guess: the artists don't get a dime.

And why should they? It's the MAFIAA doing all this hard and expensive work. You think running a nationwide/worldwide mob is cheap?

Re:Where does the money go?

[TheRaven64]

Bah! These people give organised crime a bad name.

Re:Where does the money go?

[Ironchew]

It's the MAFIAA doing all this hard and expensive work. You think running a nationwide/worldwide mob is cheap?

I know you're being sarcastic, but the real problem is that law enforcement is doing all this hard and expensive work. Tying up the courts and sending the police to your door, all to keep a failed business model afloat. Now the RIAA is so confident in their enforcement connections that they're trying to set up an extortion model to get more money. This is a classic example of taxpayer money distributed upward to the deep pockets.

Re:Where does the money go?

[LuYu]

That is not a flaw in the Constitution. It is a law of nature. Culture and language change. If one defines a set of ideas at a given point in time, the cultural environment, language and society will change over time changing the context entirely. In addition, you will have wicked people, like the RIAA, trying constantly to find ways to circumvent those ideas for their personal gain.

For an example, look at how effective this "intellectual property" campaign has been. In 1776, if one used the term "intellectual property", the individual would have been laughed out of the English speaking world. These days, however, I have had people claim that they still "own" a copy of a book that I have purchased. I really do not care who the author is. The book is obviously mine, including all the words contained within it.

The results of this assault on the original meaning of the Constitution are obvious. In 1776, if a person published a book and copyrighted it, that person would have no way to restrict access to that book. The author would have no control over access at all whatsoever. In fact, the mere suggestion that the author could restrict access to the book would be considered as ludicrous as charging people to breathe.

Today, however, it is considered totally correct to use copyright restrict people's access to works. It is accepted that "downloading" a book is a violation of copyright by most people. Not only that, but many people believe that this monopoly privilege is a Natural Right, like the Right to Free Speech. In 1776, no one would have thought of restricting access to a work. In fact, copyright only really regulated reproduction and distribution. So, in reality, downloading should never have been a violation of copyright, and if it were not for an obscure computer software lawsuit (Mai v. Peak), it never would have been. Is that when we went from restricting distribution to restricting access to knowledge?

Therefore, the cultural context has changed, and even the Oracle at Delphi could not have predicted these events with sufficient clarity to allow the Founding Fathers to draft a document that would withstand the wicked cunning of generations of lawyers and the unfathomable stupidity of the general public. Oh, and do not forget to add the inability of the French to understand the Freedom that the US introduced into the Western cultural sphere. That misunderstanding led to the creation of the Berne Convention -- the biggest train wreck in the history of Intellectual Freedom.

So, instead of criticising the Constitution, you might consider trying to understand what the Founding Fathers were thinking back then and helping your friends understand. Certain contextual issues cannot be reversed (the fact that copying is now a necessary part of all non-face-to-face communication comes to mind). But understanding that ideas like "intellectual property", "sharing == theft", "downloading == stealing", etcetera, are completely wrong is a step in the right direction.

In short, we are wrong for allowing ourselves to be manipulated into being unable to understand our own Freedom by crooked entities like the RIAA.

Studios acting like scumbags?!?!?

[elrous0]

You know, it's too bad that both political parties in the U.S. are in these scumbags' back pockets (Democrats because they need that Hollywood cash, Republicans because they need that big corporation cash). It would be nice to have at least ONE politician I could vote for who would tell these legalized extortionists where to shove it.

The EFF is wrong on this one

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Last I checked, the EFF were in strong favor of collective licensing schemes. In my opinion, that approach is completely misguided - either it will require a big-brother like system in order to track usage so as to fairly apportion the proceeds to the artists, or it will lead to even more stagnation as the little innovative guys, the ones who are ultimately responsible for significant changes in culture many years down the road, will never see a penny and cultural development will become glacial.

Ultimately the entire business model needs to be scrapped. We need something akin to the street-performer protocol or some combination of multiple business models that channel people's natural inclination to share stuff they think is cool rather than attempt to fight against it as the current system does.