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…