How is Choruss not like a Trojan Horse on the technology of education, where Choruss can have control over a network that could theoretically grow tighter?
What will stops grandstandy, RIAA sponsored from legislators from passing a law that uses the logic: "You are not using Choruss, thus you must have students that are infringing, you will be litigated or you will settle"? Sure, there is due process, but this could be an unnecessary hassle on the university.
Will Choruss be able to limit the number of songs downloaded by a specific campus or user? Is it buffet or à la carte? If there is a restriction on the number of songs by campus or user, by what process can users claim they did download the quota or songs Choruss claims they have?
Does Choruss care about they effect they will have on limiting the innovations provided by open wifi networks and its benefits to students such as mobility, convenience, access to all parts of the internet?
Will Choruss's system be independently accounted and audited?
Will Choruss be able to turn on or off access to specific P2P networks, handing a level of control that is above the campus's own IT department? Will Choruss's be able to restrict access to particular artists or songs at the request of labels, publishers, mechanical rights holders, or artists on P2P licenses?
Will Choruss be responsible for any additional IT costs, or be liable for any network downtime, losses of educational related files related to false positives, or damages to a campus's network equipment?
What security measures are in place to prevent hackers from breaking into Choruss's accounting system, exposing private student data?
Has Choruss considered that they might drive students to start sharing music on ad-hoc wifi networks, CD-Rs, or flash drives at "music sharing parties" which will then be untraceable, thus triggering rights holders to engage in Stasi-like activities to discover new methods of unauthorized sharing?
Has Choruss considered that new P2P networks, audio formats, and encryption schemes will pop ut that attempt to evade Choruss's trackers, creating a cat-and-mouse game for Choruss?
Will Choruss have he ability to distinguish downloads between legitimate music stores such as iTunes, Amazon MP3, Napster, Rhapsody, Bleep, Beatport, AmieStreet or EMusic (and others I have left out or have not been developed yet) and what are right now considered illegal P2P networks so students are not double charged? What measure stops Choruss from ignoring these to increase its revenues? What stops Choruss from saying who can and cannot engaged in digital music commerce now and in the future?
Will Choruss be able to track song downloads via web browsers? What about legitimately licensed and monetized streams via iTunes, Real, WMP and other apps that have not yet been developed?
What measures are in place to stop a Choruss partner form claiming false ownership over independently distributed songs, and by what process will content owners be able to dispute false ownership?
What measures are in place to stop Choruss from counting and charging for songs intentionally distributed via P2P by independent labels and artists that are not represented by Choruss partners, and then handing over payment to Choruss partner labels and publishers for this content?
What measures are in place to help Choruss identify between multiple licensing and distribution agreements that could be in place for a single song title? A song can be licensed for sale under a Choruss to one party and for free P2P distribution to another party. What about music licensed under Creative Commons?
What stops an independent label, publisher, or artists not represented by Choruss from suing students?
What will stop Choruss from engage in sharing data with entities like the NSA, DHS, or The Authors Guild, invading further into civili liberties to "stop terrorists," "protect the children," "protect authors," and other political grandstanding opportunities? What measures stops Choruss from being co-opted by the RIAA in order to become even more oppressive?
Why, as proud Americans, do Choruss and its partners believe that its commercial interests are more important than the US's ranking in higher education per capita? They could prove otherwise by shuttering Choruss, making it that much easier for students to afford an education.
How can we trust an industry to fairly divide up the booty when "... the spreadsheets and financial models dictate that suing customers and partners just makes too much sense." http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/08/big-music-will-surrender-but-not-until-at-least-2011/ Is this not the logic of a thug? Sure, Choruss is not the RIAA, but in most consumer's minds, they one and the same. Pay "us" and "we" won't sue. Sounds more like a cartel.
BTW, Weird Harold is good for Techdirt. I don't think there would be any comments in this post if it were not for him. We need to know what the contrarian view is so our points made more concise.
If anyone wants an easy study of Lessig, you can download one of his books as audio for free and listen to it while you drive. http://www.turnstyle.org/FreeCulture/ I am posting this as the 108th comment and have only read half way down the comments (no patience right now).
I remember when I first hear of Google around 1999. My brother told me about it. He said it was a school project done by a couple of college students and that it ran on donations. I thought, cool, well, it is too good to last long and they will probably run out of money. And since it had the two eyes in the logo I misread it and through it was called Goggle (as if you wear them and it help you find stuff).
And are not the supposed customers of a business models allowed to comment on how they would like to me served? Or, should they just vote with their dollars? Apparently, that is not enough anymore, and we need more discussion.
Is it Jarvis's insights that motivated him to start business that will be valuable in the future (news aggregators) or did he just pick a business at random (online content) and then try to bring down everything else that competes with it by claiming the death of newspapers and the rise of Google? That's silly Siegel.
One of the problems with Yelp is that people try to amuse their friends with bad reviews, and review business that they know that should not use because it does not fit their needs.
I went over to their site to see who is behind this group. http://epic.org/epic/advisory_board.html Not surprised to find someone from Microsoft. Oh, lool, there's' is Ray Ozzie. However, they also have Vint Cerf, Joi Ito and Bruce Schneier as advisers. Wierd.
I am a huge fan of NIN and Radiohead, AND their new business models/Techdirt philosophy, AND The Cure. So, sorry Robert, I need to disagree with you.
I think some artists are too close to their art to properly value it. This is why they have business managers. Taking a chance and being innovative is rare, so we really should not be surprise that most artists who made their name in the music business in the last 50 years are not going readily accept the changes necessary to survive.
The other parts of this program that are alarming are that the settlement grants Google the exclusive rights to sell access to orphaned works in this ebook format and that these terms were negotiated in secrecy. You can check out my post here.
One day, text-to-speech will be good enough for the mainstream of audiobook listeners. And when it is, I will be so happy. And when this happens, Audible.com should hope they have moved into a different business. Audible.com is owned by Amazon, so just shutting down Audible.com when that happens should not be too hard.
There are a ton of books out there that I would buy as an audiobook but the publishers have not chosen to hire the voice talent, production, etc.
The authors want to sell the uses of their books piece-by-piece. But the market is going to demand non-complicated solutions to this need for more audiobooks.
Mike, it is also similar in some ways to the rights that people try to sell as movies. If the story is already in public and is about facts, there is no legal requirement that story rights from a dead person's relative need to be sold, transferred, or granted.
First, The West plunders your people: rape, pillage, and genocide.
Then, The West plunders your labor: slavery and serfdom.
Then The West plunders your land: colonization.
Next, The West plunders your ideas, culture, physics, biology and mathematics: patents and copyright.
The future of freedom is depending on you, BRIC nations, to defy WIPO and any other international IP treaties, as it is the next attempt to enslave us all.
This is partially a network neutrality issue. The right thing for the cable companies to do for long term survival is make the content providers take less money for content. Why? So they can cannibalize their current business model of tiered TV programming, and differentiating TV from internet. They need to be a dumb pipe. Cable TV can and should just be another internet application. The content providers' new business model and source of income will not and should not be based on a business deal with the distributor (ISPs). Distributors (mainly ISP) cannot and should not have control over what content is sent through them because it is a losing game of whack-a-mole.
But of course, none of it will play out like this. There is too much pressure on short term revenues. They will ride it for all it is worth until it is over.
What are the details of this "arrangement"? Did Double Fine sell all of the IP to Vivendi Games? If they did, that is a bad move on Double Fine's part, unless that is standard practice in that industry. Otherwise, why would Double Fine seek a new publisher?
Musicians: your challenge is to compete in the face of business model violation. Technology provides both opportunities and challenges to the status quo. Which one will you leverage?
On the post: Record Labels In Germany Learning That YouTube Has The Leverage
On the post: Jim Griffin Explains Choruss; We're Still Left Wondering Why It's Needed
How is Choruss not like a Trojan Horse on the technology of education, where Choruss can have control over a network that could theoretically grow tighter?
What will stops grandstandy, RIAA sponsored from legislators from passing a law that uses the logic: "You are not using Choruss, thus you must have students that are infringing, you will be litigated or you will settle"? Sure, there is due process, but this could be an unnecessary hassle on the university.
Will Choruss be able to limit the number of songs downloaded by a specific campus or user? Is it buffet or à la carte? If there is a restriction on the number of songs by campus or user, by what process can users claim they did download the quota or songs Choruss claims they have?
Does Choruss care about they effect they will have on limiting the innovations provided by open wifi networks and its benefits to students such as mobility, convenience, access to all parts of the internet?
Will Choruss's system be independently accounted and audited?
Will Choruss be able to turn on or off access to specific P2P networks, handing a level of control that is above the campus's own IT department? Will Choruss's be able to restrict access to particular artists or songs at the request of labels, publishers, mechanical rights holders, or artists on P2P licenses?
Will Choruss be responsible for any additional IT costs, or be liable for any network downtime, losses of educational related files related to false positives, or damages to a campus's network equipment?
What security measures are in place to prevent hackers from breaking into Choruss's accounting system, exposing private student data?
Has Choruss considered that they might drive students to start sharing music on ad-hoc wifi networks, CD-Rs, or flash drives at "music sharing parties" which will then be untraceable, thus triggering rights holders to engage in Stasi-like activities to discover new methods of unauthorized sharing?
Has Choruss considered that new P2P networks, audio formats, and encryption schemes will pop ut that attempt to evade Choruss's trackers, creating a cat-and-mouse game for Choruss?
Will Choruss have he ability to distinguish downloads between legitimate music stores such as iTunes, Amazon MP3, Napster, Rhapsody, Bleep, Beatport, AmieStreet or EMusic (and others I have left out or have not been developed yet) and what are right now considered illegal P2P networks so students are not double charged? What measure stops Choruss from ignoring these to increase its revenues? What stops Choruss from saying who can and cannot engaged in digital music commerce now and in the future?
Will Choruss be able to track song downloads via web browsers? What about legitimately licensed and monetized streams via iTunes, Real, WMP and other apps that have not yet been developed?
What measures are in place to stop a Choruss partner form claiming false ownership over independently distributed songs, and by what process will content owners be able to dispute false ownership?
What measures are in place to stop Choruss from counting and charging for songs intentionally distributed via P2P by independent labels and artists that are not represented by Choruss partners, and then handing over payment to Choruss partner labels and publishers for this content?
What measures are in place to help Choruss identify between multiple licensing and distribution agreements that could be in place for a single song title? A song can be licensed for sale under a Choruss to one party and for free P2P distribution to another party. What about music licensed under Creative Commons?
What stops an independent label, publisher, or artists not represented by Choruss from suing students?
What will stop Choruss from engage in sharing data with entities like the NSA, DHS, or The Authors Guild, invading further into civili liberties to "stop terrorists," "protect the children," "protect authors," and other political grandstanding opportunities? What measures stops Choruss from being co-opted by the RIAA in order to become even more oppressive?
Why, as proud Americans, do Choruss and its partners believe that its commercial interests are more important than the US's ranking in higher education per capita? They could prove otherwise by shuttering Choruss, making it that much easier for students to afford an education.
How can we trust an industry to fairly divide up the booty when "... the spreadsheets and financial models dictate that suing customers and partners just makes too much sense." http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/08/big-music-will-surrender-but-not-until-at-least-2011/ Is this not the logic of a thug? Sure, Choruss is not the RIAA, but in most consumer's minds, they one and the same. Pay "us" and "we" won't sue. Sounds more like a cartel.
On the post: Musician Called A Copyright Violator On MySpace For Uploading Her Own Music
On the post: Musician Called A Copyright Violator On MySpace For Uploading Her Own Music
On the post: A Look Back At The Worries That Google Would Never Make Money
On the post: Apparently, You're Only Allowed To Comment On Failed Business Models If You Believe In Them
On the post: Apparently, You're Only Allowed To Comment On Failed Business Models If You Believe In Them
On the post: What Would Yelp Be Without The Negativity? Recommendations Instead Of Reviews
On the post: Harlan Ellison Sues Again
On the post: Privacy Group Wants FTC To Shut Down Gmail... Again
On the post: Politicians Jump On Privacy Bandwagon For Purposes Of Publicity
Re:
On the post: The Cure's Robert Smith Continues To Claim Free Doesn't Work
I think some artists are too close to their art to properly value it. This is why they have business managers. Taking a chance and being innovative is rare, so we really should not be surprise that most artists who made their name in the music business in the last 50 years are not going readily accept the changes necessary to survive.
On the post: Google's Ebook Store To Use Failed DRM Strategy
On the post: Time To Scrap All Music Industry Licensing Schemes
All of these middlemen are no longer necessary, and there is no longer a business (or moral) reason to keep them around.
On the post: Authors Guild Continues To Falsely Claim That Reading Aloud On A Kindle Violates Audio Rights
There are a ton of books out there that I would buy as an audiobook but the publishers have not chosen to hire the voice talent, production, etc.
The authors want to sell the uses of their books piece-by-piece. But the market is going to demand non-complicated solutions to this need for more audiobooks.
Mike, it is also similar in some ways to the rights that people try to sell as movies. If the story is already in public and is about facts, there is no legal requirement that story rights from a dead person's relative need to be sold, transferred, or granted.
On the post: India Actively Sharing Knowledge Base Around The World To Stop Bogus Patents
Then, The West plunders your labor: slavery and serfdom.
Then The West plunders your land: colonization.
Next, The West plunders your ideas, culture, physics, biology and mathematics: patents and copyright.
The future of freedom is depending on you, BRIC nations, to defy WIPO and any other international IP treaties, as it is the next attempt to enslave us all.
On the post: Cable Companies Negotiating To Control What TV Shows You Can Watch Online
But of course, none of it will play out like this. There is too much pressure on short term revenues. They will ride it for all it is worth until it is over.
On the post: A Tale Of Two iPhone Apps... And An Irrational Fear Of Piracy
Re: Free is the best advertising
Cars are a scarce good, software is no not.
Any business that is experiencing "piracy" really just has a bad concept of what their business model is. Bing a victim of "piracy" is a choice.
On the post: Activision Threatens EA For Agreeing To Publish Game Activision Dropped
On the post: Dispensing With Some Myths About The Poor Poor Songwriters Decimated By Piracy
Next >>