Re: : Pakman on Music Fee

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Jim Griffin [griffin () onehouse com]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 7:50 PM
To: David Farber
Subject: RE: [IP] Re:   Pakman on Music Fee

Dave:

I respect David Pakman to the highest degree and would not undertake an
endeavor that punishes him or others who operate lawfully.

Those "wrongdoers" are simply beyond punishment or control; Their behavior
will not change regardless of a fee. It's time we put an end to this
prohibition mentality, and that includes abandoning the notion that it
somehow serves a purpose, whether to shunt people to "good" services like
his or to "punish" those who do wrong.

I passionately support the purpose of copyright, but if your business model
depends on exercising that right to stop others from making copies, or to
get paid when they do, your business model has a grim future in a world
where so many carry a "copying machine" in their pocket (cellphone) and have
another on their desk at home and at work or school.

Indeed, taken to the next logical step, following David's thinking it is
hard to imagine we would expend tax dollars to build and maintain libraries
in a time when book stores are having trouble attracting customers. And
here's news for David and others: Libraries typically lend for no charge
that music which he and others sell and offer as both product and service.
Should they be stopped, too? Or was the Rooseveltian notion of equalizing
access to knowledge, art and culture just a passing fad?

It is time to end this prohibition, including the legal assault on college
students and network users. This truce will only take place during our
lifetimes with the express assent of music rights holders, and many hands
make short work of the money necessary to achieve this end. Ever since the
mid-1800s, when Bourget and Hugo built the French society SACEM, music has
been collectively licensed in hundreds of countries worldwide wherever it
draws a crowd: Restaurants, performance halls, hotel lobbies, beauty shops
and broadcast radio and television. Each has paid for the right to use music
without asking for permission, without the transaction costs of individual
license negotiation, and it is high time to move forward with this approach
for networks.

Sports has led this charge, insinuating itself on the basic tier of cable or
satellite in territories around the world. My friend David Pakman should
take note: Sports on the basic tier of cable, like a music fee, does not
restrict the upsell. There are hundreds of additional media plays that work
better with the basic service layer. Like the free peanuts in the bar, this
approach stimulates without satiating the appetite.

If he seriously believes that BitTorrent users are the same as eMusic or
iTunes customers, he should have another look at the data. His service and
others will be more profitable, not less. Like public radio, music that
"feels free" at the moment of use leads to the use of more music. Those with
more time than money are not likely his audience; People with more money
than time will always shop for music at convenient services like his.
Rental, sales and the public library have co-existed well for a long period
of time, and always will.

End prohibition. You can get a fee from the liquor or the music or the
service or what have you. It's time to move forward.

Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 6:13 PM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Re: Music industry proposes a piracy surcharge on ISPs


________________________________________
From: dpakman () gmail com [dpakman () gmail com] On Behalf Of David Pakman
[david () pakman com]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 9:43 AM
To: David Farber
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Music industry proposes a piracy surcharge on ISPs

Dave,

While it is highly likely that the content industries will ultimately need
to monetize the unauthorized file sharing through some "tax" on ISP usage,
the real problem is how to get there.

Adding such a tax now would immediately penalize the legitimate services and
those of us who do not steal using file sharing networks. In the US,
currently about 40MM people fit into this category, namely they have bought
digital music legally and are not using P2P networks. If forced to pay an
additional $5 or $10 per month to cover ALL illicit media file sharing
(music, games, TV, movies, etc.), why would one ALSO then patronize any of
the well-established (and far better than P2P) legit digital music services
such as iTunes, eMusic, Rhapsody, etc.?

As someone who has invested $30MM+ into building a legit service which
services a half a million paying customers and pays out literally tens of
millions of dollars a year to artists, publishers, and labels, the ISP tax
idea once again rewards the wrong-doers and punishes those of us who have
operated within the bounds of the law.

David

-------
David Pakman
david () pakman com<mailto:david () pakman com>

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 2:05 PM, David Farber
<dave () farber net<mailto:dave () farber net>> wrote:

________________________________________
From: Scott Moskowitz [scott () bluespike com<mailto:scott () bluespike com>]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 1:07 PM
To: David Farber; Jim Griffin
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:   Music industry proposes a piracy surcharge on ISPs

Jim,

I have traveled this road for a long time and I agree with David.

I take exception with the assertion that there is any "threat" to our
culture or the fans. Musicians have decided to perform more and rely
less on compact disc sales -- they are not entitled to any licensing
scheme any more than any other performer -- magicians, comedians, et
al. The Police and Van Halen on Tour in 2008? Copyright protections
last well into the future and so musicians (or, actually the
publishers and copyright owners) are taken care well into that good
night. As for performance rights, you know those are not market
driven and were negotiated with the Department of Justice precisely
because of the threat that large publishers made to the very same
restaurants and stores that now pay a percentage of their revenues,
without any proper accounting for *all* of the folks impacted --- the
squeeky wheels get all of the oil -- mostly.

The issue I have, and we have personally discussed this, is the lack
of an appropriate accounting mechanism that is fair and transparent
to the artists and the consumer. Over 10 years on and the copyright
owners seem to have missed the success of the Arctic Monkeys and any
number of bands that have figured out ways to get people to pay -
fiund your audience. Mandate fair accounting and perhaps the interest
in such "taxes" -- you may call it what you wish -- can be offered
as, well, a subscription service? But, even that business model (ie,
subscription services & satellite radio) is proving more difficult
that you first suggested when we first discussed this very topic
(1999?).

You know I am a firm believer in the rights of artists and invented
digital watermarks out of my passion and experience in the music
business. I have been suspect of the digital rights management
schemes that have been tried over and over again ... And, the music
did not stop ...

Sincerely,
Scott Moskowitz
http://www.bluespike.com/

to even suggest that a solution from the publishing industry, under
Department of Justice consent decree, no less, is fair game.
On Mar 14, 2008, at 11:31 AM, David Farber wrote:

> Clearly I take exception to th 4th pragraph but.. Any way jf
> ________________________________________
> From: Jim Griffin [griffin () onehouse com<mailto:griffin () onehouse com>]
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 10:46 AM
> To: David Farber
> Subject: RE: [IP] Music industry proposes a piracy surcharge on ISPs
>
> Dave:
>
> I am singled out in the article but did not cooperate with it and
> do not
> think it fully reflects the concept.
>
> But let me be clear that it is not contemplated as a tax, has nothing
> whatsoever to do with government and is voluntary for the ISPs.
>
> It is in many ways similar to music licensing for radio,
> restaurants or
> hotel lobbies, and is a time-honored way to bring a resolution to
> the legal
> struggles that are even now seeing students and network users sued.
>
> If you think discourse is personally calling something "bullsh_t"
> at the top
> of an article, then I have little further interest in your comments
> or this
> list (which I have enjoyed for many years), but if you're
> interested in a
> civil discussion I am game for that.
>
> Absent some form of licensing, you're for continuing the current
> ruinous
> course that threatens both culture and many of its fans. I don't
> believe
> that, so I think collective licensing discussions are in order. If
> for a
> couple bucks a month we can enable unfettered innovation with music on
> networks and allow access to *all* music on an equitable basis,
> including
> P2P and whatever else will follow, I think it a fair price to pay.
>
> Jim Griffin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net<mailto:dave () farber net>]
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9:57 AM
> To: ip
> Subject: [IP] Music industry proposes a piracy surcharge on ISPs
>
> Personally this is BULL-SH_t.   Dave
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: dewayne () warpspeed com<mailto:dewayne () warpspeed com> (Dewayne
Hendricks)
> Date: March 13, 2008 5:47:49 PM EDT
> To: Dewayne-Net Technology List
<xyzzy () warpspeed com<mailto:xyzzy () warpspeed com>>
> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Music industry proposes a piracy surcharge
> on ISPs
>
> Music industry proposes a piracy surcharge on ISPs Wired Magazine
> By Frank
> Rose
>
> Digital-strategy consultant Jim Griffin thinks ISPs should be made to
> collect a music surcharge from broadband users to compensate the
> copyright
> holders.
>
> Having failed to stop piracy by suing internet users, the music
> industry is
> for the first time seriously considering a file sharing surcharge that
> internet service providers would collect from users.
>
> In recent months, some of the major labels have warmed to a pitch
> by Jim
> Griffin, one of the idea's chief proponents, to seek an extra fee on
> broadband connections and to use the money to compensate rights
> holders for
> music that's shared online. Griffin, who consults on digital
> strategy for
> three of the four majors, will argue his case at what promises to be a
> heated discussion Friday at South by Southwest.
>
> "It's monetizing the anarchy," says Peter Jenner, head of the
> International
> Music Manager's Forum, who plans to join Griffin on the panel.
>
> Griffin's idea is to collect a fee from internet service providers --
> something like $5 per user per month -- and put it into a pool that
> would be
> used to compensate songwriters, performers, publishers and music
> labels. A
> collecting agency would divvy up the money according to artists'
> popularity
> on P2P sites, just as ASCAP and BMI pay songwriters for broadcasts
> and live
> performances of their work.
>
> <http://telephonyonline.com/external.html?q=http://www.wired.com/
> entertainme
> nt/music/news/2008/03/music_levy
> >
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



--
.......................................
David Pakman
david@pakman .com

-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com