Dear Jim Griffin: Let's Have An Open Discussion About Choruss
from the we're-waiting... dept
Yesterday, we wrote a highly critical post concerning the details around Choruss, the recording industry's latest plan to get universities or ISPs to hand over a chunk of money in exchange for "covenants not to sue." On a private email list (which has been forwarded to me by a few members of that list), Mr. Griffin responded by claiming that my "report is factually incorrect in every respect."I certainly hope that's true!
The points I've raised are that the industry will continue suing file sharing networks, that they'll still pursue three-strikes policies, and that Choruss will be expensive, diverting a chunk of money away from other legitimate business models, which many musicians have been establishing successfully, by adding yet another middleman. Is he saying all of these assertions are false?
Actually, Griffin doesn't address or refute any of these points at all. With respect to the last one, he actually confirms it, by claiming that Choruss will be costly to run.
The only "factual" point he disputes is a rather minor one: concerning whether the program would also cover publishers and songwriters rather than just the labels. He insists that it will, noting that Warner Music owns one of the largest publishers. That's true, but hardly eases the worries. It just suggests, again, that this is a plan for Warner and its subsidiaries, rather than for building a better system for all stakeholders. And he doesn't explain how the system can cover the necessary rights at the price points being discussed. In fact, by noting how costly the program is to run, and how it will lose money at first, it certainly sounds like he's saying "this program will start out cheap, but then we'll jack up the fees."
He claims that Choruss "cannot credibly be claimed to be a money grab -- the costs will exceed the fees," but that's highly misleading on several accounts. First, as noted, it confirms just how expensive the program will be. Second, if it's a pure money loser, than why would anyone be involved with it at all? Obviously the idea, and the whole reason why Warner Music is backing it, is that it expects this to be a money maker, eventually. Claiming that it's costly simply confirms my original point, that inserting yet another costly middleman is the last thing that we need in the process. And this just suggests that any early pricing is, once again... bait and switch. The eventual prices will have to be increased once people are locked in.
That seems to confirm my initial complaints, rather than show how they're "factually incorrect."
Mr. Griffin, (on a private email list), again tries to refute the claim that they haven't included the stakeholders in the process, by noting:
"the calendar is a clear refutation: The coming week has Choruss at SXSW, a music conference in Nashville and the music educator's conference in Boston. We've done appearances and podcasts with Educause, dozens of public meetings at colleges and a keynote at Digital Music Forum."Yes, after coming up with the plan in back rooms, without input from the actual stakeholders, Griffin has started going out and presenting the plan to others. But there's been no open discussion with those of us worried about the inevitable consequences of his plan. There's been no explanation of why this is actually needed. There's been no attempt to actually respond to the numerous questions that we've raised about the plan and no attempt to bring the actual users into the discussion:
- Why do we even need such a plan when plenty of musicians are showing that they can craft business models on the open market that work?
- How does adding yet another middleman make the music market any more efficient?
- Will the recording industry promise to stop trying to shut down file sharing systems if this program gets adopted?
- Will the recording industry promise to stop pushing for 3 strikes if this program gets adopted?
- How will the program prevent the gaming opportunities, where artists set up scripts to constantly reload/download their songs?
- Why should music be separated out and subsidized while other industries have to come up with their own business models?
- Why should those who don't listen to much music and aren't interested in giving their money to the recording industry be required to participate if their university or ISP decides to make them?
To date, his form of "discussion" has been to have Warner Music PR send me a statement saying that it's "premature" to issue any criticism of his plan. That's not discussion and that's not addressing the many, many questions raised by his plan.
But, there's some good news. That "music conference in Nashville" where he'll be presenting about Choruss next week is the Leadership Music Digital Summit... which I happen to be keynoting. So, I'd love to sit down with Griffin and see if he'll actually answer some of these questions, rather than continue brushing us off as being "factually incorrect in every respect," without actually addressing the fundamental questions raised.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bait and switch, covenant not to sue, jim griffin, licensing, music tax, universities
Companies: choruss, riaa, warner music group
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Listen punk, I've been trolling here since before you were a gleam in your fathers ass. Go find your own turf, before you find out what hurt really is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So carry on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Facts and logic... hoo! Good one! I laughed so hard it brought tears to my eyes.
I, for one, appreciate your masterful satire. Given the degree of subtlety you employ in your humor, it's entirely understandable how some people can mistake your wit for alleged opinions of "fact." Don't worry, I'm not fooled. Anybody with actual thought processes so asinine would likely be some sort of dolt, or retard.
In short, I love your brand of humor, keep it coming!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Carry on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That said, I am not totally opposed to tiered plans based on bandwidth instead of just speed. However, those caps need to be in line with real usage. They also need to be heavily regulated in order to stop cable companies from using caps as an anticompetitive measure against streaming video. Thanks to offerings like Netflix's Watch It Now feature and XBOX Live, streaming video is here to stay. Telcos and cablecos should not be able to abuse bandwidth caps to force users into their own streaming video options, especially since services like U-Verse are using that very same bandwidth for their own offering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A troll isn't a troll until someone responds and becomes the victim. Simply stop responding and he becomes a forlorn douchebag in a very lonely basement somewhere.
Carry on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hell, what else are the internets for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be careful what you wish for, Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That, or he'll punch you in the face. Seems like an appropriate response from someone backed into a corner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legalized extortion
Why should I be forced to pay if I want an education, or if I want my kids to have an education?
I remember hearing stories at a manufacturing plant I worked at years ago where one guy was passing around a 1TB NAT server loaded with mp3s. I didn't bother asking for it. (No, I don't know his name or even what he looks like... It was most likely a rumor).
Let's face it, if it's driven out of schools then it will go somewhere else. What happens next? *Tax* manufacturing companies? Business firms? Any place you work? What about community colleges? Entire neighborhoods? What they want is to become the IRS so they can take all the money they feel they *deserve*. And they won't stop until they get it, even if it's one inch at a time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legalized extortion
It's a nice society where we can all break the law, steal what we want, and then blame the seller for producing the product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Legalized extortion
Oh wait, I know that last one: because the industry has waged a lobbying campaign to buy off politicians to create these laws. It's a nice society where the very rich can buy the government to force everybody to pay them, whether they desire to be customers or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Legalized extortion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Legalized extortion
It's a nice society where multinationals can break the law, steal what they want, and then blame the customer for not buying it, whilst they destroy him with law enforced consumption.
brendan b brown
wheatus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legalized extortion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anarchy
Big Music is grasping at any means to wrench more money from their subjects and maintain control of them. They (and you as their faithful toady) see this loss of control over the distribution channels, and have been thrown into a panic.
Long live anarchy! Down with the king!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why should he talk to you? Did you talk to him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Was I supposed to get permission to express my opinions? As I have made clear, this blog IS the first step in the conversation. Before you start a conversation do you pull everyone aside and chat with them individually first, or do you state your opinion and expect the others to jump in on the conversation?
That said, we have a standing offer to both Griffin and Warner Music to discuss these issues.
If not, you would be surprised that he would answer your points to others besides you?
I didn't complain about his answering the points to others. I complained about him NOT ANSWERING THE POINTS AT ALL. He's free to respond to others if he prefers. But he should address the points.
Why should he talk to you? Did you talk to him?
Yes, I spoke to him right here in an open format. He chose to not respond to the points but to insist they weren't true in a closed format.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clarification
It's a nice society where we can all break the law, steal what we want...
Copyright infringement is not theft. That's why they call it "copyright infringement"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clarification
Steal:
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
I think #2 fits pretty darn good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Clarification
I think you'll find the popular and legal definitions to be rather different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Clarification
Riiiight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good troll/Bad troll
I love reading this blog, watching the Troll's get trashed (no offense Angry Dude) is fun!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go Get Em Mike!
This guy seems to think by wrapping this program up in some vale of legitimacy he and the program what me called out. I am glad you are doing just that Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't blame the scapegoat.
I say we make all telephones companies held accountable for public indecency. After all, I hear people swearing all the time on the phone. Or they slander other companies and people. I'm sure they lie too, so there's fraud.
Also, people do all that on email as well (excepting it would be libel instead of slander), so let's sue anyone who's ever hosted an email account - which is likely the vast majority of all domains.
We should probably sue God too. He made humans, and us humans are the ones who do all the stuff that needs suing against.
Oh, yeah, my point? If you decide to go after those who file share, at least go after those who file share - not the tools they use to file share. Otherwise, we might as well shut down the internet. It's no more responsible than an ISP or a university - and if the law says otherwise, then the law is wrong and that needs to change. We shouldn't change logic to fit some paid politician's idea that was bought by those who want the law changed anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facts, not Supposition
Have they specifically said that this is true? You present this as fact here, and though the previous post was a bit more temperate in that it recognized that this was just a possibility, it too tended to assume this as a fact. But it's not a fact, just your taking the suppositions in the IPW post you linked to yesterday as your own. Now, you're presenting these suppositions as fact.
Even the IPW post acknowledges that the "covenant not to sue" is just one possibility, and not necessarily the most likely one (it's more likely that any university would insist on greater protection for themselves and their students that a license would provide), but it does provide an opportunity to spin out frightening scenarios. But please don't mistake imagination for fact, as the form any agreement between something like Choruss and universities or ISPs isn't anywhere near settled yet.
And when you base your arguments on speculation rather than fact, it kinda supports Griffin's point.
Finally, Mr. Griffin takes a personal swipe at me, saying that no "responsible professional" would write what I've been writing. ... But it's a bad plan and he seems unwilling to address the many, many questions raised about it, other than to brush anyone who disagrees with him aside, and focus on talking to friendlier audiences.
Much of the "discussion" in these comment threads is precisely "brushing off" anyone who disagrees (and those are just the more reasoned commenters). It may be a bad plan in your opinion but then any plan that doesn't follow your favored model entirely is labeled a "bad plan." The reaction to any plan like this tends to be along the lines of "why are you bothering, it'll never work, just roll over and accept what I'm advocating as truth."
As Yoda says "do or do not, there is no try." That might work in the Star Wars, but that's not a discussion. The only end point of the discussion you want is complete agreement with you; any program that includes any type of protection of IP rights is unacceptable.
That, and your general disparaging tone when writing about these topics, doesn't really lend itself to dialogue.
I know, I know. You're really just their friend and trying to lend a helping hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Facts, not Supposition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Facts, not Supposition
Can't you accept the very basic concept that not everyone agrees with the foregone conclusions that are presented here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Facts, not Supposition
Honestly, I've never run across anyone who's quite so full of themselves. You seem to believe that yours is the only opinion that matters here, and you try to get us to believe that you only deal in "facts," when, in fact, you only deal in opinion. Yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Facts, not Supposition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Facts, not Supposition
Wait... are you suggesting that there's no money involved? Yes, they have absolutely said that the plan is to get universities to transfer money to the recording industry.
Even the IPW post acknowledges that the "covenant not to sue" is just one possibility
To date, every presentation about the program has been about covenants not to sue. If it's about actual licenses, don't you think they would have said that? Either way, that's really not the main point, is it? Whether it's a license or a covenant, all of the above questions remain.
It seems that you're trying to distract from the actual questions.
And when you base your arguments on speculation rather than fact, it kinda supports Griffin's point.
Huh? Again, you nor Griffin have answered any of the specific points raised here. I can't see how that supports his points at all.
Besides, GRIFFIN himself was the one who brought up covenants not to sue first. To say that we shouldn't discuss that until it's settled is the same ridiculous argument he made originally that it's somehow unfair to criticize until the deal is set in place.
Please. We're talking about exactly what's been proposed. If it changes, that's good, but to suggest we can't talk about it is... just bizarre.
Are you guys REALLY so weak in your support that rather than respond to the actual points the best you can do is scream "you can't talk about that! it's not signed yet!!"
Wow.
Much of the "discussion" in these comment threads is precisely "brushing off" anyone who disagrees (and those are just the more reasoned commenters). It may be a bad plan in your opinion but then any plan that doesn't follow your favored model entirely is labeled a "bad plan." The reaction to any plan like this tends to be along the lines of "why are you bothering, it'll never work, just roll over and accept what I'm advocating as truth."
That's simply wrong and you know it. I've gone over, in rather great detail the numerous problems with the plan. And no one has answered those questions.
This isn't "brushing off."
As Yoda says "do or do not, there is no try." That might work in the Star Wars, but that's not a discussion. The only end point of the discussion you want is complete agreement with you; any program that includes any type of protection of IP rights is unacceptable.
Huh? There's rarely complete agreement with me at all, so I would have to say that you seem to be wrong. People are of course free to disagree and we keep discussing. Did you think that discussion means everyone agrees at the end?
And I've never said that any program that includes IP rights is unacceptable. But I've given reasons why it's generally a bad idea.
Your response shouldn't be to slam me personally, but to actually SHOW WHY IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
I find it quite telling that you chose not to do so.
I wonder why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Facts, not Supposition
Let's not miss the point here, Mike. I never suggested that there is no money involved, but about your assuming as fact that the proposal was fees in exchange for a "covenant not to sue."
To date, every presentation about the program has been about covenants not to sue. If it's about actual licenses, don't you think they would have said that? Either way, that's really not the main point, is it? Whether it's a license or a covenant, all of the above questions remain....
It seems that you're trying to distract from the actual questions.
Funny, that's not what the IPW post said. It specifically said that Griffin would not answer one way or the other, and then went on at great length discussing covenants rather than licenses. You just picked up their ball and ran with it, and are now asserting as fact that it's covenants rather than licenses. By all means, discuss what covenants might mean, but don't assume they are a fact.
As for "every presentation" being about covenants, all your posts on the subject tend to refer to this as "licensing." The only time "covenants not to sue" has come up, that I've seen, is in Mark Luker's EDUCAUSE slide show. Not Griffin, not Warner, but an outside party. Since nothing has been finalized yet, it is intellectually dishonest to assert that covenants are fact and licenses are not.
I'm not trying to distract from the "questions." But if you want to discuss those questions in light of covenants, at least admit that they are only one possible option. Frankly, as far as I can see, from your point of view whether this plan includes licenses or covenants should be irrelevant, but I'm guessing you take the route of claiming the covenants as fact to simply ramp up the hype on the issue.
Huh? Again, you nor Griffin have answered any of the specific points raised here. I can't see how that supports his points at all.
It supports Griffin's point that you're being "factually incorrect."
Besides, GRIFFIN himself was the one who brought up covenants not to sue first. To say that we shouldn't discuss that until it's settled is the same ridiculous argument he made originally that it's somehow unfair to criticize until the deal is set in place.
Where? In the Billboard article you linked to covenants are never mentioned. It is nowhere in Griffin's speech to Digital Music Forum East. It is only mentioned in the Luker presentation. It also mentioned in Lincoff's IPW article, but even he attributes it to Luker, not Griffin. So please show me where Griffin first brought this up. Again, your trying to assert a fact that isn't a fact.
No one, including me, is saying you shouldn't discuss the ramifications of covenants in this context, but don't assert it as fact. What's so hard about this?
Please. We're talking about exactly what's been proposed. If it changes, that's good, but to suggest we can't talk about it is... just bizarre.
Again, you're talking about what might possibly be proposed, not "exactly" what's been proposed...and no one said you can't talk about it, just that when you do talk about it, get your facts straight. What's bizarre is your sloppiness with the facts undermines the credibility of your call for "discussion."
That's simply wrong and you know it. I've gone over, in rather great detail the numerous problems with the plan. And no one has answered those questions....This isn't "brushing off."
Not wrong at all, and that you can't see it it telling. You've raised numerous objections and stated opinions about why you disagree with it. Just as in nearly every post you make here and in responses to comments, any plan that doesn't embrace your ideas is cut down. Even posts about musicians "making it work" frequently damn with faint praise because that musician hasn't implemented the entirety of your ideas and is still trying to monetize digital music.
After a year of reading your posts, I have come to understand that you are a purist, and while you don't object to musicians selling music, in order to meet with your approval, there must be a free component. I have yet to see any evidence of willingness for compromise.
Which, of course, is fine. Your blog, your business. I have never said and am not saying that you shouldn't write or advocate whatever you want. I can even appreciate the hyperbole, though it is often too earnest to be good snark.
I've also enjoyed the back and forth here, generally. But unless I'm banned, I will continue to point out where I think you are being factually wrong, as in this case. I'm only trying to help, Mike.
Huh? There's rarely complete agreement with me at all, so I would have to say that you seem to be wrong.
I never said everyone agreed with you. But you quite frequently label those who disagree as simply "wrong" in their support of getting people to pay for music they download.
And I've never said that any program that includes IP rights is unacceptable. But I've given reasons why it's generally a bad idea.
That's a bit of a stretch. But to be factually correct, you are right that you've never said that any program that includes protection of IP rights is unacceptable. But generally you've not just suggested that it's a "bad idea" but that any effective protection of IP rights is wrong because it's failed in the "market." (Of course, how industries still selling hundreds of billions of dollars worth of protected content has "failed" in a conundrum. Those industries may be facing challenges and troubles, but they've not failed yet.)
Your response shouldn't be to slam me personally, but to actually SHOW WHY IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
I've tried to do that in other threads only to have your responses slam me personally.
I find it quite telling that you chose not to do so....
I wonder why...
I find it telling that you haven't addressed my central point that you are asserting assumptions as fact.
I wonder why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Facts, not Supposition
Obviously, I can't speak for Mr. Griffin (though why he needs to address your questions since you're not a party to any of this is itself a question), in fairness, here's my stab at answering your questions. Not that I expect you to accept any of these answers, but here goes:
* Why do we even need such a plan when plenty of musicians are showing that they can craft business models on the open market that work?
Because piracy is illegal and copyright holders are entitled to enforce their rights. This plan, whatever final form it takes, is attractive because it potentially removes legal liability from students and universities and potentially all customers of ISPs as well as removing a headache from network service providers while addressing the rights of content providers to be compensated for the content they produce. Any of those content providers is quite free to follow the models you advocate and don't have to participate in any blanket licensing system. It's their choice. Isn't that what an open market is all about?
* How does adding yet another middleman make the music market any more efficient?
It is more efficient because it provides a mechanism by which users can pay a small amount as part of their access fees to download and share music however they want without fear of legal penalty and provides a centralized entity to pay content providers. That's certainly more efficient than having to negotiate many licenses and pay many fees.
But if you're talking about overall and mythic general market efficiency, who ever said that was the goal. Maximum efficiency in a market is an abstract ideal that will never be reached. Is this a perfect solution? No. But it is a good experiment. Aren't you in favor of experimenting with different business models in the market to see what works best?
* Will the recording industry promise to stop trying to shut down file sharing systems if this program gets adopted?
I have no idea, since this agreement is proposed between users, their networks, and content providers. I suppose that if file sharing systems operators want to receive the benefit of protection under the agreement, they'll have to become a party. I imagine if they were to pay a fee, they could get in, too. Perhaps the file sharing systems operators should talk to Griffin and Choruss?
* Will the recording industry promise to stop pushing for 3 strikes if this program gets adopted?
Again, since I'm not party to the proposal, I can't say. But if a user's ISP (university or otherwise) is part of the agreement, then the question is moot. If a user elects to opt out (something Griffin discussed in his speech), then I guess they'll have to take their chances. As long as they are made aware of the risks, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
* How will the program prevent the gaming opportunities, where artists set up scripts to constantly reload/download their songs?
Wouldn't matter, since from what I understand, the fees are not based on volume. If there is concern that payments to artists are based on volume, I'll just note that Griffin has pointed out that there is a component here to work with universities and ISPs to study data about downloads. This would be, I think, a fairly easily handled technical issue.
* Why should music be separated out and subsidized while other industries have to come up with their own business models?
Why shouldn't it? Other industries are free to craft the solutions that they see fit. They could follow suit with similar blanket licenses or even talk to Choruss about joining in that model. Are you suggesting that it's somehow unfair that one industry is experimenting with a model that fits that industry?
* Why should those who don't listen to much music and aren't interested in giving their money to the recording industry be required to participate if their university or ISP decides to make them?
Why should student fees that are paid into a general fund support groups or organizations to which they don't belong? That's actually a settled point of law. As long as all students have the opportunity to participate in activities supported by general student fees, there is no unfairness.
As for other ISPs, it's the same principal. Why should my payments to an ISP support others who use more bandwidth than I do? Because you pay for access regardless of how much you use it. Are you suggesting that access to your ISP be metered? That might be a idea, since those who don't do a lot of downloading would contribute far less to the Choruss fund than heavy users.
Choruss seems to be an experiment on the part of the music industry to actually allow legal P2P sharing of music. Aren't you in favor of experimenting with different business models?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes We Can...Not
So, let me put forth a few principles I think any rational person can agree on:
A. Thou shall not punish/charge person A for the actions or possible actions of Person B
B. Thou shall not charge entity A, particularly if it is a public institution in any part paid for by tax dollars, for the actual or only possible actions of select persons that make up that entity
C. Thou shall not espouse factually incorrect rhetoric demonizing a legitimate practice due to select persons abusing said practice (particularly if said abuse is actually helpful to the product/service provider in many cases)
So if we can agree on those three principles, and Lord knows I'll get an argument, how can we agree to encourage or defend Choruss?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets take another look at that
Steal:
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
I think #2 fits pretty darn good.
-------------------------------------
According to a dictionary (which covers a wide range of possible uses of a given word) and you and your Industry Shill friends, of course you would see it as "stealing."
However, and this is the important bit you and your fellow mouth-breathers should possibly take a look at before you spout off about this subject, is that this whole issue is a legal issue. And the law says its INFRINGEMENT, not theft. Theft is depriving someone of something. Copying something is infringement. One is a criminal act, the other is a civil infraction. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. You and your fellow Industry Apoligitards(tm) just "dont like it" when people copy songs. Too bad, the law doesnt provide for what you do or dont like. It may not be "right" and thats more of a personal and/or moral issue, but that is NOT the same thing when we are discussing legal rights of content owners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lets take another look at that
The rest of your comment is just a rant, not founded on anything that one too many trips to Mike's koolaid dispenser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lets take another look at that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
REALLY?
Really? Truly? I'm 100% WRONG that copyright infringement is a civil law and it does not have the same legal standing as criminal theft? It's a rant not founded on anything?
Really?
Might want to take another pass at that WH. Your ignorance is showing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good lord people COME ON!
Show me ONE case the RIAA has FILED that lists THEFT on the case file. You cant. Infringement has a DIFFERENT LEGAL DEFINITION THAN THEFT. Copyright law is defined through infringement. Get it through your head. You cant sue for something that isnt in the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good lord people COME ON!
They sue for infringement because that is what goes into civil court more easily. Theft they would have to get a DA to file charges in a criminal court. DAs have shown little interest in it (they don't want to get voted out next time by constituents who will think they are just bending over for the music business).
So the RIAA sues for infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good lord people COME ON!
can you tell me one major case where someone has been tried and found guilty in a crimainal court for copyright infringment?
If not then you cannot use this argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
.....
Perhaps ISP's that the RIAA and MPAA expect to play copyright cops should take a page from from the playbook of that small ISP in Louisiana .... (there was a news story floating around a while back about a small ISP in LA, that told the recording industry exec's that if they expected the service provider to police the distribution of copyrighted materials, the small ISP expected the RIAA and MPAA to pay for everything!) ...and turn the tables around on the RIAA and MPAA. Being an admin myself, I understand completely how much these ISP's will hemorrhage cash trying to enforce the issue. In the end, they will have to not one pay for equipment and software, but they will be paying for these systems administrators/engineers to pour through the connection logs of millions of users. Believe me when I say that no log parsing software will be as effective as the recording industry expects. This will simply be a step as they continuing being sue happy.
The IPS's involved should also consider on lobbying in the political arena and play the bad economy card, and say several things related:
1. Spying on their respective user base is unethical and bad for business.
2. Spying on their users will cause users to drop these ISP's like a hot potato, and move to another ISP.
3. Explain to congress that monitoring the connection logs for every user costs a pant load of cash, and is VERY unfair that the recording industry expects these ISP's to pay for it. (as stated above)
The main idea is to keep the recording industry from getting a toe-hold on the idea of something as BS as Choruss. It seems that several major ISP's are game to play ball with the industry.
I for one hope that a company as large as Comcast will tell them to go to hell on this idea. We'll see. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good lord people COME ON!
So the RIAA sues for infringement."
I...I am speechless....you dont even know the law in question, do you? The RIAA doesnt sue for infringement because there is "little interest" in suing in criminal court, they sue for infringement because THAT IS WHAT THE LAW IS. It would be thrown out of criminal court, because the statue is a CIVIL one. With every utterance you spew on these boards you show your ignorance and defending your industry pals with rhetoric and false definitions of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harold n LostSailor
...Do you or Harold actually make anything?
Anarchy doesn't require maintenance, but the independent non physical business models that artists are building do require something...that music actually be made by someone. ....I know it's SUCH a drag! Can WMG Execs make content? Can you do that? If so please show me to your art I NEED to see that!...not the content you control, but rather the content you create.
and Harold, I have only been lurking here for a few days but you are the most irritating hack on any forum, blog or message board I have ever seen.
If you don't already work for a major label I am certain they'd hire you.
copyright management = fail
copyright creation and ownership = win
brendan b brown
wheatus.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Masnick -v- Griffin Smackdown
Personally, I think that the Choruss plan is fundamentally flawed due to its reliance on monolithic institutions like ISPs and the RIAA. And I figure that before too much longer the RIAA will cease to be a factor as its benefactors -- the major labels -- follow their principal product -- CDs -- on the path to extinction.
The Choruss plan is an interesting point of departure, but as Jim himself readily admitted yesterday, it's got a long way to go before it reaches any kind of useful destination.
--PS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]