Interesting People mailing list archives
Pacman or sheet music and ESPN strong-arming
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 08:23:38 -0700
________________________________________ From: Bob Frankston [bob37-2 () bobf frankston com] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 10:53 AM To: David Farber; 'ip' Subject: Pacman or sheet music and ESPN strong-arming The more I read through this the more annoyed I am because it shows so many basic misunderstandings and so much hostility to the idea marketplace and twists history to make false comparisons. Let’s not forget all those sheet-music companies put out of business by record companies – if this idea has any merit shouldn’t it apply to people who write music? And what about video game artists who worry about people stealing their software or copying it? It would help to start with some basic understanding of the Internet and not confuse it with the accidental property of today’s prototype that one seems to “access”. In the future the Internet will be totally decentralized with no place to put such a meter ESPN is an apt example. It seems to be actively hostile to the very concept of the Internet and is trying to extend its strong-arm tactics from "cable" to the Internet. Your ability to watch a sporting event depends on your accidental selection of ISP. The word “truce” is used as a synonym for “surrender” here – is a 50% discount on a ransom fee a bargain? -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 09:44 To: ip Subject: [IP] Re: : Pakman on Music Fee ________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------- 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
Current thread:
- Pacman or sheet music and ESPN strong-arming David Farber (Mar 16)