Slashdot Mirror
TechDirt's Masnick Responds To Warner's Jim Griffin On Choruss
newtley writes "TechDirt's Mike Masnick writes that the Warner Music Choruss licensing scheme amounts to a Bait-And-Switch operation. Not so, says Jim Griffin, the man charged to put it together. Masnick's story is 'factually incorrect in every respect,' he states. But Griffin 'refused to name a single factual mistake,' Masnick says, noting, 'He fails to address the key problems that we outlined: 1. Why is this program even needed when plenty of musicians are coming up with business models that work today and don't need a new mandatory license (er... 'covenant not to sue') plan? 2. Why do we need a new bureaucracy and won't that divert funds? 3. Will the industry continue to try to shut down file sharing sites? 4. Will the industry continue to push a 3 strikes plan?'"
Wow! There are so many "says" and "states" that I almost lost track of what's going on.
Anyhoo, someone said this, maybe it was Masnick, maybe Griffin, maybe someone else:
it's just a covenant for the labels not to sue, rather than a license, it doesn't cover all of the other rightsholders, such as songwriters and the music publishers -- meaning that those who file share will still be wide open to lawsuits from those parties.
I don't think the labels care if other rightsholders get a fair share, they only care about their own pockets and as long as they get paid, they don't sue. Similarly other rightsholders only care about their own pockets, as long as they get paid, they don't sue.
So I guess the question is, will this kind of covenant work? If it will, why not extend to other rightholders?
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
You could almost say there's a Choruss of complaints about this idea.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
> Music files should be free
Because you say so?
YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOUT, WE CAN HEAR YOU JUST FINE! :(
Who cares about the philosophical question of whether or not "professional" music (whatever that is) is such a life necessity that everyone should be taxed to subsidize it?
The bottom line here is the subsidization is fundamentally untenable because it's too inefficient and fraud prone. As for the three strikes alternative, that's just practically unenforceable.
So we're left with your original conclusion, but with more pragmatic reasoning. The content industry is going to have to stop clamoring "you can't compete with free" and start doing just that.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
Certain types of music really can't -be- performed... you'd just be watching a guy walk on stage and press play on a tape...
By the way you speak, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you must be the guy from Mondo Medicals. Amiright? :P
C'mon...while we're printing money for all these other crooks why don't we offer the music industry some. $100B seems to be the going rate. Free music anyone?
YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOUT, WE CAN HEAR YOU JUST FINE! :(
IN CYBERSPACE, NO ONE CAN HEAR YOU SCREAM.
Who cares about the philosophical question of whether or not "professional" music (whatever that is) is such a life necessity that everyone should be taxed to subsidize it?
The bottom line here is the subsidization is fundamentally untenable because it's too inefficient and fraud prone. As for the three strikes alternative, that's just practically unenforceable.
So we're left with your original conclusion, but with more pragmatic reasoning. The content industry is going to have to stop clamoring "you can't compete with free" and start doing just that.
Not only isn't it practical, but it would be fraudulent. Let's say I
If I'm already paying for the music I download, this would constitute double dipping.
If all I do is check email and surf /. and porn on the internet (the kind of stuff most grandmas do with a computer), then I'm not getting any increased value for the extra money (the line isn't faster, or more stable).
Why should I have to pay an extra fee to my ISP so they can pay the RIAA for an empty promise not to sue? It's not a covenant not to sue me, so what do I get out of this deal? A big fat lot of nothing.
If anything, this will just encourage people to download more. The mentality among those of my generation will be "Well, I've already paid for the buffet. Might as well eat all I can." And when they can't find any more to download, they will download an entire ten-pound bag of flour.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
Most grandmas surf /. and porn?
Because economics says so. Or how much do you think you could charge for sunlight, the infinite good that it is?
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
You got it wrong.
To the labels, the labels are a life necessity. If they can get you to pay via a blanket fee then that's OK. If there are (pref. additional) other ways of emptying your wallet then they're OK too, provided your wallet empties into the coffers of the labels. The more you pay, the better.
Perhaps, maybe, if you're lucky, you get some professionally produced music in return. Sometimes even incredibly good stuff.
"I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
Most grandmas surf /. and porn?
HAHAHA! Another falls into my troll-trap!
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
What "should" happen is that musicians should be allowed to choose the method of music distribution that best suits their needs, rather than the needs of the record company.
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
It sure didn't work for C. Montgomery Burns
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
We issue all our text, music and video under a Non-commercial/Attribution/Share-alike CC license as a loss-leader on additional non-free, personalized goods and services. Our actual product is membership in an international online community based on certain values, and now we are starting a physical community as well. All this is going very nicely.
No one needs to make money on music or media if their creativity serves some higher purpose with real value. If they are just empty entertainers or pretentious aesthetes, then their useless 'art' is their only product. But then from our view it is also just a waste of time and a distraction from the real purpose of life. So we see no problem and indeed only good results from the meltdown of the obsolete music business model.
om namo bhagavate vasudevaya
These people are like cockroaches; when you turn on the light, they scurry, and then claim you're being unfair. If any college president agrees with this, if any ISP agrees with this, it's proof that they're not smart enough to do their job.
Here's how to "fix" the download problem:
1) Make the downloads available without DRM
2) Charge a low price ($5/album)
3) Make the downloaded version more valuable than the CD... location transparency, ability to download to any device any time, something, more, better.
4) Go back to a model where a lot of new artists can be downloaded for little cost (perhaps $2.50/album). Make albums more than a few years old just as cheap
5) Try to be fair to the artists.
My idea is way better than theirs, and there's almost no overhead, other than servers and bandwidth.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
We need another Maggie...
That would be called 'not signing up with the record company'
The "music industry" ought to be irrelevant by now, but it's not. The technology needed to make a record is CHEAP. The technology to market and distribute the music is easily available via open source software and the internet. The only thing that the music industry can provide an artist is a good producer--but at the price of an awful contract.
The music industry is an unnecessary parasitical middleman. It serves no useful purpose as it milks money both from consumers and artists. Its existence is artificially prolonged by the recent copyright amendments that extend rights so damn long and by the catalog of popular musicians that still depend upon it.
Don't help extend the life of the music industry by paying it tribute.
You can hurt the music industry the most by creating and supporting a technical infrastructure that allows musicians to directly market their product to the consumer (without itunes or amazons). Prices will drop and all sorts of new music will flourish. That is cultural support of the artist.
The parasitical music pirates have it all wrong. They just want to steal without giving back. The key idea is to create a technological garden where musicians and their audience can both profit by the creation of cool new stuff.
Except you bastards will still steal my music.
The RIAA lies. That's all you need to know.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
And there was me thinking it was an attempt at humour.
Since when did produced, professional music become such a life necessity that you get to dictate the cost structure and business model?
If you don't like how they distribute music, Don't BUY IT!
Why is that so damn hard to understand? The value of the music is the nexus of what the artist/studio is willing to sell it for, and what you are willing to pay for it. The "21st Century Definition of a Musician" clearly includes the ability of a musician to refuse to sign a contract with a big studio. Why do you somehow think the artist is being repressed? The artists have heard of the internet too, yet somehow, they keep doing deals with studios! I wonder if somehow, they think studios do things that they will have to spend a lot of time and money to do, like front money for big venues, pay for plane tickets, studio time, etc etc.
I am so sick and tired of the bastille storming attitude regarding music. I've decided to buy the (little) I want, and ignore the rest.
To shake your little fist in the air at the music "man" is just sad and pathetic.
A sig?!? I don't think so.....
I shall repeat:
Musicians DO choose the method of music distribution that best suits their needs! they CHOOSE to sign a contract with a studio rather than using the self publishing route. Musicians have the same inalienable rights as the rest of us, they are fully emancipated.
That some of them choose to go through a studio that has draconian DRM policies is their choice! If you feel strongly about it, then the choice of studio that the musician makes should help you decide if you want to listen to his/her music.
Nothing will work faster at changing polices like lack of money to studio artists.
A sig?!? I don't think so.....
Like a middle-aged person faced with the task of getting in shape, the right approach to combating rampant piracy is obvious, which is not to say that it's easy: they need to get consumers to want to do the right thing (that is behavior that is a win-win-win situation for artists, consumers, and business). They need to provide a compelling value proposition; only then can they harness peer pressure, which is absolutely necessary since people aged 26 and under are very susceptible to "social proof" (note: this is not a slag since it once described me).
Steve Jobs and Apple showed how it can work.
The record companies should experiment with sponsoring free, legal download sites in good faith. These sites would feature:
1) works of expired copyright
2) works from amateurs, fledgling professionals, and "past market prime" professionals
3) promotional works from professional artists, including items such as concert tapes
4) promotional works from the record industry, which would compensate the artists for giving away certain material
5) works from professionals who believe in sharing everything
6) works from specialized pros (like many classical musicians) who couldn't make money from selling records anyway
This will only work if the site really offers a cornucopia of good stuff, enough to keep people legitimately occupied for years. Then some people would really get into bands and genres, and would want to investigate what else they had to offer. Here's where the social pressure needs to kick in, so they would tend to buy rather than pirate.
The carrot works better than the stick. Try it guys... it just might work.
And of course those who don't sign up will not get any of the flat tax they charge the universities, or ISP's or any other target of these clowns.
It seems even most signed artists have such a lousy contract that they won't likely see any of this potential cash either.
Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
And there was me thinking it was an attempt at humour.
That's the genius of my evil plan to take over the world. Lull everyone into thinking I'm just a cute, innocent little troll, and then when the time is right! I spring out and take over the world with my rapier-sharp wit!
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
Naw, I never download Metallica. Not worth the disk space of stealing it.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
No they don't. The only choice a musician gets to make is, 1) live in slavery to the labels, 2) starve as a garage band artist, 3) get a 'Real Job', or 4) Combo of #3 & #4. It all depends on whether they want to live a life with creativity or in obscurity. The labels could care less, except that they'd have less 'product' to push.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
These stories are completely Slashdotted. p2pnet.net appears to have completely removed them even though their front page still links to them (same links as the Slashdot post).
Can someone please provide the full text of both articles? Thank you :)
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
The record companies should experiment with sponsoring free, legal download sites in good faith. These sites would feature:
1) works of expired copyright
2) works from amateurs, fledgling professionals, and "past market prime" professionals
3) promotional works from professional artists, including items such as concert tapes
4) promotional works from the record industry, which would compensate the artists for giving away certain material
5) works from professionals who believe in sharing everything
6) works from specialized pros (like many classical musicians) who couldn't make money from selling records anyway
That already happened (just a few examples):
1. http://www.trachtman.org/rollscans/RollListing.php
2. http://garageband.com/
3. http://3hive.com/
4. http://www.apple.com/itunes/freesingle
5. http://last.fm/
6. http://www.classiccat.net/
That's right, instead of selling 20 albums to friends and family only you'll sell 2000 albums to people who've heard of you through friends, and have 3000 copies STOLEN from you! That's a net loss of 1000 albums! *waves hands menacingly* boogity boogity boogity!
"If there is no copyright and the artist doesn't get paid, there will be no more artists!" is the mantra of those who DEMAND copyright remain.
Well, this would predicate that people would WANT artists to produce entertainment, doesn't it (else this is no argument why we should want copyright, is it).
But if that were true, then there would be people paying *even though they didn't ***have*** to* because without paying, the artist would produce no more.
But you say that everyone you know thinks that if it's on the internet it should be free.
A bit of a dichotomy there.
RTFA.
They're trying to make it so that not paying won't be an option. You'll be paying a tax to the RIAA whether you buy/download any music or not.
More than that, they don't promise anything in exchange. This isn't a "pay a tax as a compensation for filesharing", it's "pay a tax, and we still will get you disconnected/sued if we catch you". So it's not even clear what exactly is this payment for.
duh.
and copyright is a monopoly, your hypothesis that the value of music is the nexus of what the studio wants to sell it for and what you want to pay doesn't work in a monopoly: you have one choice: buy it.
NOTE you DO NOT choose "not to buy it", "not buying it" is a non-choice, like choosing not to flap your arms and fly to Hawaii.
I did RTFA, this was strictly in response to the OP who was using the phrase "MUSIC FILES SHOULD BE FREE, PERFORMANCES SHOULD BE PAID FOR, THIS IS THE 21st CENTURY DEFINITION OF A MUSICIAN."
the question of Choruss and compensation plans is a separate point. And certainly one that needs more scrutiny.
A sig?!? I don't think so.....
False dichotomy. I am living proof that you can have both creativity AND obscurity.