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?
Finally, Mr. Griffin takes a personal swipe at me, saying that no "responsible professional" would write what I've been writing. I've the highest respect for Mr. Griffin, who I do believe is very capable and very smart -- and most certainly has the best of intentions with Choruss. 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. If he wants to brush me off as not a "responsible professional," that's fine. I'm willing to let anyone judge me on my work, not on what Griffin says about me. But the very least he could do is actually address the points that I've raised.

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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Weird Harold, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 10:52am

    One thing for sure, anarchy is cheap to maintain.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    R. Miles, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 10:56am

    Be careful what you wish for, Mike!

    You may get the same rhetoric, number-spinning dribble often spewed by Weird Harold when defending a dying business model.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 11:00am

    I look forward to hearing how the Leadership Music Digital Summit goes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 11:13am

    He's probably just going to ignore you and call you a communist for daring to question the almighty MAFIAA.

    That, or he'll punch you in the face. Seems like an appropriate response from someone backed into a corner.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 11:18am

    Re:

    Yet another useless comment, Harold. Thanks for wasting bandwidth.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Weird Harold, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 11:21am

    Re: Re:

    Likewise.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Legalized extortion, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 11:22am

    Legalized extortion

    I'm not going to send my kids to any university that will cost me more money on top of current educational costs. While I was going to school, I never shared music. If I wanted a CD, I'd buy it. If I wanted to listen to music, I had the radio (sometimes internet radio). So why should I have to pay for a) the possibility that I *might* share music, b)something I didn't do, and c)for others who may or may not be sharing.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Cowherd, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 11:29am

    Anarchy

    Thank you W.H. for two things: 1. Succinctness this time. 2. You have revealed your true motivation, and the motivation of Big Music as well by describing the current situation in the world of music enjoyment as "anarchy." You have distilled the state of the business, and the motivation of Big Music to its essence, to the original meaning of the word: "without a ruler (king)." The king is losing his power, his hold of the reins of the music business. The people are taking up arms and taking control of their music listening, no longer content to be told how, and when, and where to get music and how much it will cost. The people are no longer satisfied to be told they can only buy albums, only get the most popular artists, only be able to listen to music by paying penance to the king.
    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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Weird Harold, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 11:30am

    Re: Legalized extortion

    Perhaps you should raise the issue with the university and ask them to take a stand against P2P. If they were a little more in control of the use of their networks, perhaps you wouldn't be facing the issue.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Angry Dude, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 11:34am

    Re:

    You think you know how to troll, boy?

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Weird Harold, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 11:36am

    Re: Re:

    You can keep trolling, I just work with facts and logic. Too many people on here have a koolaid IV installed and can't think past the ends of their own noses. It's actually interesting to watch the flow.

    So carry on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Ryan, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 11:38am

    Re: Re: Legalized extortion

    Why should the university be responsible? Why should students have to pay for the actions of other students? Why is there even a law against file sharing?

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    some old guy, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 11:38am

    Re:

    Harold, for someone who keeps claiming that bandwidth is expensive, you sure seem to be ok with wasting mine.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 11:41am

    Did you contact this guy before you wrote your first article? Did you try to get his point of view? If not, you would be surprised that he would answer your points to others besides you?

    Why should he talk to you? Did you talk to him?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Harold's #2 Fan, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 11:43am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA Ha ha HA hA!!!

    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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Weird Harold, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 12:05pm

    Re: Re:

    When you start paying for it, you will know what it costs.

    Carry on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    lavi d (profile), Mar 19th, 2009 @ 12:12pm

    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"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    AJ, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 12:12pm

    Good troll/Bad troll

    As far as Troll's go, I think Angry Dude is much better. Weird Harold's blatant attempt to prop up a dying business model is just pathetic. The file sharing cat’s already out of the bag, you’re not going to be able to put it back in, we all know it, so either adapt or die. I don’t think Mike necessarily agrees or disagrees with it, but it’s obvious to me he thinks going after your customer base with lawsuits, or creating yet another layer to a dying model, is counter productive.

    I love reading this blog, watching the Troll's get trashed (no offense Angry Dude) is fun!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    ScaredOfTheMan, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 12:16pm

    Go Get Em Mike!

    What a great post, its like Stewart vs Cramer all over again.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Bradley, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 12:28pm

    Don't blame the scapegoat.

    So why should the universities pay for students downloading?

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Mar 19th, 2009 @ 12:30pm

    Re:

    Did you contact this guy before you wrote your first article?

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 12:31pm

    Re: Legalized extortion

    The size of the server might have been an exaggeration but the practice of sharing mp3s (and other media) offline using hard drives is common.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    John Duncan Yoyo, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 12:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Legalized extortion

    I'm just waiting for the schools with big law schools to sue back for wasteing their time and money defending. Given the chance lots of law students gunning for the RIAA may bring it to the ground.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 1:19pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    No, when we start paying for it, we will know the artificially inflated cost that the ISPs put on it. Given that we have seen bandwidth caps experiments that range from a 20GB cap to a 250GB cap for the same class and price of service, it is quite clear that ISPs are trying to see what they can get by with, not representing real costs or limits.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    LostSailor, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 1:21pm

    Facts, not Supposition

    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.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    batch, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 1:39pm

    Re:

    Get bent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 2:03pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You're just a fucking liar, now. Your opinions do not reflect "facts and logic." Maybe you should call it what it is, shit you made up, along with your twisted opinion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 2:10pm

    Re: Facts, not Supposition

    Shill much? For each argument you make regarding this blog, the exact same argument can be made regarding Mr. Griffin. Where is the discussion from the group you're shilling for?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Weird Harold, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 2:13pm

    Re: Re: Facts, not Supposition

    My favorite answer from the koolaid crowd - when someone posts something that questions Mike's logic or "facts", we suddenly all become shills.

    Can't you accept the very basic concept that not everyone agrees with the foregone conclusions that are presented here?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Weird Harold, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 2:16pm

    Re: Clarification

    According to dictionary.com:

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Mar 19th, 2009 @ 2:24pm

    Re: Facts, not Supposition

    Have they specifically said that this is true?

    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...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Normal Tim, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 2:32pm

    Yes We Can...Not

    Yes, we can agree that two intelligent people can have a differing of opinion on a subject, but if they're truly intelligent, they ought to not let one another get bogged down by a political road block and instead find THE RIGHT FUCKING ANSWER!!!

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 2:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Facts, not Supposition

    Whether I agree with this blog or not isn't relevant. What IS relevant, except to narcissists like you, is that each and every argument in the comment can easily be made against Mr. Griffin and Warner. It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with this blog post, or any other blog post. Simply that I find the comment completely disingenuous, and a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 2:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Facts, not Supposition

    But kool-aid is delicious!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    RD, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 3:07pm

    Lets take another look at that

    According to WEIRDHAROLD:

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Luci, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 3:11pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    What facts? What logic? You've yet to provide any facts to support your brand of logic in any of the posts I've seen you trolling in. You're little more than a shill, and the proof of that is in your continued posts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Weird Harold, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 3:35pm

    Re: Lets take another look at that

    Let's get this really freaking straight: I don't work for the RIAA or MIAA or any of their member companies, I am not their shill, they ain't paying the freight. This is all 100% my personal opinion, nothing more and nothing less. The only horse in this race is my own, nothing more. So please, stick the shill part where the sun don't shine, it's a total lie and a massive insult.

    The rest of your comment is just a rant, not founded on anything that one too many trips to Mike's koolaid dispenser.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    Kevin (profile), Mar 19th, 2009 @ 3:43pm

    Re: Lets take another look at that

    Definition in Websters and definition under the terms of law are a two different matters. The only one that matters in the topic at hand is the latter.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 3:50pm

    Re: Re: Clarification

    Dictionary.com is a law reference now?

    I think you'll find the popular and legal definitions to be rather different things.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    RD, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 3:56pm

    REALLY?

    "The rest of your comment is just a rant, not founded on anything that one too many trips to Mike's koolaid dispenser"

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Lucretious, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 5:17pm

    Re:

    Weird Harold doesn't look like an idiot, those of you who continue to respond to his crap do (technically that includes me I suppose).

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    lavi d (profile), Mar 19th, 2009 @ 6:24pm

    Re: Re: Clarification

    You mean like how the RIAA sues people in court for, uh, theft?

    Riiiight.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    RD, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 7:47pm

    Good lord people COME ON!

    "You mean like how the RIAA sues people in court for, uh, theft?"

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Weird Harold, Mar 19th, 2009 @ 9:28pm

    Re: Good lord people COME ON!

    You make it so easy.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Overtkill, Mar 20th, 2009 @ 2:18am

    .....

    This sort of management they expect from ISP's is too expensive for them to enforce as well.

    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. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anal, Mar 20th, 2009 @ 4:17am

    Re: Re:

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Analmouse Coward, Mar 20th, 2009 @ 4:20am

    Re: Re:

    Yes, but where would the fun in that be?, without a devils advocate (troll) we'd all be agreeing instead of researching and stressing out in a bid to prove him wrong.

    Hell, what else are the internets for?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Analmouse Coward, Mar 20th, 2009 @ 4:25am

    Re: Re: Good lord people COME ON!

    Harold, sorry but what?...

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    RD, Mar 20th, 2009 @ 8:16am

    Re: 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."


    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    LostSailor, Mar 20th, 2009 @ 9:08am

    Re: 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.

    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...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    LostSailor, Mar 20th, 2009 @ 9:50am

    Re: Re: Facts, not Supposition

    Again, you nor Griffin have answered any of the specific points raised here.

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    wheatus, Mar 21st, 2009 @ 12:46am

    Harold n LostSailor

    Well, I AM a party to this and I do not want poor ass college kids to get fixed with a tax they have no say over, in order to subsidize me, my art or your baby boom excuse for a business model. An education costs quite enough these days, don't you think? As it is most of these kids only graduate with debt.

    ...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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    wheatus, Mar 21st, 2009 @ 12:53am

    Re: Re: Legalized extortion

    Perhaps you should raise the issue with the RIAA and ask them to take a stand against bad executive decisions. If they were a little more up to date on how to sell their product, perhaps you wouldn't be facing the issue.

    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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    driver49, Mar 25th, 2009 @ 1:16pm

    Masnick -v- Griffin Smackdown

    I don't guess that happened, since you and Griffin were scheduled on different days, huh? Too bad, that would have been an interesting debate.

    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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This