2 more on Does File Trading Fund Terrorism?

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:22:51 -0500
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: Alexandros Papadopoulos <apapadop () cmu edu>
Subject: Re: [IP] ( a real student speaks) Does File Trading Fund Terrorism?

Alexander is precisely on-target when he asks:

> Since when is this society geared towards extracting as much consumer
> surplus possible for $MEGACORP, and not towards educating, entertaining
> and generally raising the standard of living for the general population?

I would like to point out that $MEGACORP also does NOT safeguard the
creativity or the rights or the income of its own artists: it does't
do so because none of these things make money for it, and money is its
only goal.

This is why, for example, many of the legends of American blues and
jazz have died in poverty, despite their incredible contributions to
our cultural fabric.  There are now various charitable campaigns under
way to raise funds to support those still living: the RIAA et.al. are
conspicuously absent from these, even though what is to them mere pocket
change could support these artists in modest comfort for the rest of
their days.  (I suppose having a third swimming pool is more important to
them than providing medical care to the songwriter whose work paid for it.)

This is why, for example, the retail price of CDs is set with a 400%-500%
markup -- and no, that money doesn't go to the musicians, it goes to
$MEGACORP executives.  (See Courtney Love's article, among others.)

    I am the entertainer
    I come to do my show
    You've heard my latest record
    It's been on the radio
    Ah, it took me years to write it
    They were the best years of my life
    It was a beautiful song
    But it ran too long
    If you're gonna have a hit
    You gotta make it fit
    So they cut it down to 3:05

        -- "The Entertainer", Billy Joel

This is why, for example, the industry refused to embrace new technology
like P2P: doing so would make it even more obvious that the true costs
are far lower than it claims.  (Doubly so when a recording of acceptable
or even fine quality can be created in a basement with $2K of equipment,
c.f. Tracy Chapman.)

This is why, for example, John Fogerty was prevented from performing
HIS OWN SONGS for many years, stifling his once-promising career.
(He deserves much credit for coming back with "Centerfield" and "Blue
Moon Swamp" many years later, but he, and the listening public, were
deprived of what he COULD have done.)

    The little pig knows what to do,
    He's silent and quick, just like Oliver Twist;
    Before it's over, your pocket is clean,
    A four-legged thief paid a visit on you.

    Vanz can't dance
    But he'll steal your money
    Watch him or he'll rob you blind

            -- "Vanz Kant Danz", John Fogerty

This is why, for example, Clear Channel Broadcasting and its ilk now
control much of the airwaves and make no secret that their "formula
for success" is based entirely on marketing: simply put, they play
whatever maximizes revenue.  There is no consideration whatsoever given
to enriching our culture by playing new/diverse music, or to assisting
musicians by presenting their work to the public.

This is why, for example, the RIAA et.al. want free license to hack into
systems: they don't want artists to bypass them and interact with and
sell their work directly to the public, because of course then artists
en masse would realize that there is really very little need for the
"recording industry": they're just middlemen, albeit clever ones who have
figured out how to take the lion's share of the money for themselves.

This is why, for example, the RIAA et.al. completely ignored the Internet
and didn't even make feeble attempts to explore it -- until it
threatened their ability to slurp from the money trough.  Musicians
themselves got there first and continue to explore ways of using it to
promote themselves and spread their music.

This is why, for example, so much of the pop music released today
is pre-processed formulaic homogenized crap: it's not conceived as a
creative effort, it's conceived in the marketing department, and treated
as Product, to be wrapped in hype and sold.

    "Uh, long distance, directory-assistance, area code 212",
    I said, "Hey mama, this is Mr. Rhythm-and-Blues"
    He said hello and put me on hold
    To say the least, the cat was cold
    He said, "Don't call us, child, we'll call you"
    I said, "You got my number?"
    He said, "Yeah, I got it when you walked in the door."

        --- "Don't call us, we'll call you", Sugarloaf

This is why, for example, the RIAA rarely if ever mentions the case of the
Grateful Dead, a band which *encouraged* people to tape their concerts
and trade material -- and which was rewarded for this by a huge and
devoted following.  (Of course, the fact that the music was intriguing
and creative and brilliantly performed also had a little something to
do with it, too.)

This is why, for example, so many second albums sound just like first
albums: it's not because the musicians ran out of creative ideas, it's
because $MEGACORP looked at sales figures for the first one and ordered
up a second one just like it.  (s/album/movie/, s/album/tv show/, etc.)

This is why, for example, concert tickets are priced at obscene levels
and come replete with additional surcharges and fees which have no
purpose other than to fill the coffers at Ticketmaster.

    If you wanna hear a record
    Get the word from Aiden Day
    He picks all the hits to play
    To keep you in your place all day
    Capital Radio
    In tune with nothing
    Don't touch that dial

        --- "Capital Radio One", The Clash

I think (and I don't wish to speak for Alexander) that we are perfectly
willing to support the artists -- we're NOT willing to support the greedy
executives who are standing in the way, and whose usefulness -- thanks to
P2P and other technologies -- is at an end.  What you are witnessing is
NOT an attempt to make it impossible for musicians to make a living; what
you are witnessing is widespread revolt against the vicious, unlimited
greed of $MEGACORP -- and $MEGACORP knows this, is scared out of its
wits by it, and is thus reaching for any handy club to beat the problem
over the head with.  And the DMCA, truly one of the most boneheaded laws
this country has ever passed, makes an excellent tool for this purpose.

But trying to tie file-swapping into terrorism may have been reaching too
far, even for them: it's laughably stupid, self-serving, and cynical,
and only serves to indicate just how desperate $MEGACORP has gotten.
(I suppose they got tired of beating the "intellectual property" drum,
or maybe they realized what an oxymoron that phrase is.)  We are watching
the desperate, dying twitches of an industry that NEEDS to be put out
of our misery so that we can reconnect musicians and listeners in a way
that mutually benefits both.  (Which is why I applaud P2P: by starving
$MEGACORP of revenue, it's helping to kill it.  The sooner, the better.)

The revolution will not be televised, it will be distributed freely
over the Internet via peer-to-peer filesharing.

---Rsk


------ End of Forwarded Message


------ Forwarded Message
From: Jean Camp <jean_camp () harvard edu>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:15:55 -0500
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Four on ( a real student speaks) Does File Trading
FundTerrorism?

>

The student was wrong in saying that there is no value in what is
shared over p2p networks. There is value added by those who are
sharing.

The first, filtering and content selection, is in direct competition
to the media empires: filtering. One justification of the
entertainment empires is the amount of money lost on those acts that
don't make it. In p2p networks the populace is filtering examining
and selecting goods. By observing rather than fighting and then
offering value-added products the music industry could cut losses and
make money.

Filtering is increasingly valuable in an information age and the
peers providing content in a network implement that filtering.

Second the peers implement distribution and conversion to a
preferable format. This is the entire extent of value-added provided
by the entertainment empires during the switch to CDs. Artists need
exposure before all. Exposure without p2p requires radio play, and
that is controlled by the entertainment empires intent on maintaining
their monopoly-given right to choose what we will all be hearing. The
exposure of radio is expensive. Exposure on P2P is free.

The market is broken. It is not the fault of the artists or the music
lovers. When the customers are perceived as the greatest enemy the
market is broken for the producers.

I see no evidence that a supported function p2p system with
microcurrency would be rejected. Right now we are in the worst
situation in terms of the prisoner's dilemma -- both sides (consumers
and producers) are betraying the other. Yet we might note this began
with producers using their government-granted monopoly rights to
prevent their content from being subject to digital distribution with
or without payment. It seems possible that we could move to a
cooperative equilibrium, although all the flames and hostility from
the producers to (let us be honest) THEIR CUSTOMERS is making that
increasingly difficult.

Because of the  extreme hostility of the producers to their consumers
the p2p systems have gone from being a temporary free economy most
expected to see connected to payment to a revolutionary act of
freedom against vicious oppressors. Put a promising young person in
jail for 30 years because he increased the exposure of an artist! We
would not do this a student who has shoplifted all his cd's, even tho
this is undeniably theft.

Stealing has long required taking away. For theft to occur one person
must be left without. P2P systems do not implement direct payment but
provide filtering and exposure.


-- 


------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/