Choruss Pitching Bait and Switch On P2P Music Tax 119
An anonymous reader writes "A few months back, Warner Music Group started pitching universities on the idea of a new program where they would pay a chunk of money to an organization named Choruss to provide 'covenants not to sue' those students for file sharing, leading many in the press to claim that the record labels are looking to license ISPs to let users file share. Even the EFF has called it a 'promising new approach.' However, the details are quite troubling and suggest that the plan is really a bait-and-switch idea." (More below.)
"The industry still plans to demand three strikes and try to shut down file sharing networks, and it's already giving up on lawsuits. So... it's basically going to keep doing everything the same as before, but force your ISP or your university (who in turn will raise your rates) to just hand over a bunch of money. Oh yeah, also, since the 'covenant not to sue' isn't a license and only covers the rights of the record labels, it means that you can still get sued by the publishers or songwriters whose rights aren't covered by the deal at all. Unfortunately, the press is just repeating the claim that this is a 'file sharing license' when the details show it's anything but that. It's just a way to get people and companies to hand over large chunks of money to the record labels."
Protection money? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds to me like a classic mafia protection scheme. /Insert seedy Italian accent/ "You might find your finances in trouble without some.... protection. Pay us and we'll provide that... Else our boss might see to it that you do have an accident."
Make a rod for your own back (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
[the proposal is] so bad that it can be described accurately as a bait-and-switch program designed to make people (1) pay lots of money (2) believing they're now free to file share and then find out that (3) file sharing systems will still be sued out of existence and (4) the users themselves, despite paying, will still be liable for massive lawsuits. It's basically a plan to give the record labels tons of money, handed over by universities (so users have no chance to opt-out) without actually changing anything.
In fact, this would be the universities giving up-front financing for future legal action against file sharers.
K.
I don't trust this... (Score:1, Insightful)
Back to topic. I don't trust this at all. Sure, the EFF is a great group but sometimes they get their ideals all in a mess much like this one. I just hope they aren't getting any monetary value from supporting this claim that it is a "promising new approach."
Either way, it sounds like people will still be sued, just by different individuals.
Re:Protection money? (Score:5, Insightful)
Studios acting like scumbags?!?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
The EFF is wrong on this one (Score:5, Insightful)
Last I checked, the EFF were in strong favor of collective licensing schemes. In my opinion, that approach is completely misguided - either it will require a big-brother like system in order to track usage so as to fairly apportion the proceeds to the artists, or it will lead to even more stagnation as the little innovative guys, the ones who are ultimately responsible for significant changes in culture many years down the road, will never see a penny and cultural development will become glacial.
Ultimately the entire business model needs to be scrapped. We need something akin to the street-performer protocol or some combination of multiple business models that channel people's natural inclination to share stuff they think is cool rather than attempt to fight against it as the current system does.
When Will It Stop? (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I naive in thinking that this insanity has to stop at some point? I don't think the **AA can stem the tide of people discovering and using file sharing, so when will they decide to give up, or better yet, focus its efforts on promoting a new business model? It seems like the spend an awful amount of effort trying to subvert the subversives with little or no net gain. I'm not sure that anything they have done thus far as been remotely effective in combating piracy, so assuming we live in a logical world, wouldn't it behoove them to stop pestering people and try something different???
Why don't they try something different like product bundling. Why not pair it with something everyone enjoys like water. Make some deals to include iTunes codes for a 49 cent download of choice when you buy a bottle of Dasani? Or get an album for free when you buy a 24 pack of Pepsi. The subsidy you get from these other product bundlings would surely generate more revenue than some kid downloading it off the net. There are many ways you can give your stuff away for 'free' and still make some hard cash...
Re:Protection money? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fixed that for ya.
And they wonder why we hate them for scams like this...
Making deals with RIAA... (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA's bag of dirty tricks has been well-documented. Dealing with them is like negotiating a price for an HIV-positive hooker. There is no price that makes it worth it, not even free. Just tell them where they can go f*ck themselves because you're not going to bother with it. As the fees are likely going to be astronomical one way or the other, I know where I would have wanted my tuition to go -- towards a legal defense fund and not to the RIAA.
Re:When Will It Stop? (Score:3, Insightful)
too late. The federal government beat them to it.
Nothing to See Here,Just Move Along... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet another death rattle from an obsolete industry.
Not really even news unless you actually believe the music industry will be a viable entity a couple years from now.
No one wants to pay a middleman anymore.No news there. Obsolete business practices and outright lies don't qualify the industry as a "pay here" cash box anymore.
Music is free. Get over it,get a haircut and get a REAL job. The industries mewling is just like all the Buggywhip manufacturers that cried unfair when the automobile came.
Don't pay for music unless it's live in front of you and the artist gets the money(less any overhead). To the artists rooted into the industry, get out now while you still can. To every artist not in the industry, stay away it's a con game you can never win complete with extortion, swindling and theft.
Lets hear it for the powerful new future of music now that the industry lies bleeding!
Re:Studios acting like scumbags?!?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, some friends and I have a student run store at our college, and we import a lot of food from Mexico to avoid corn syrup. Aside from the higher caloric content per sweetness, I don't know of conclusive evidence it's worse for you (aside from mercury contamination), but boy does it taste worse.
Ironic isn't it? Paying more to buy Mexican products because they're higher quality.
Re:Where does the money go? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the MAFIAA doing all this hard and expensive work. You think running a nationwide/worldwide mob is cheap?
I know you're being sarcastic, but the real problem is that law enforcement is doing all this hard and expensive work. Tying up the courts and sending the police to your door, all to keep a failed business model afloat. Now the RIAA is so confident in their enforcement connections that they're trying to set up an extortion model to get more money. This is a classic example of taxpayer money distributed upward to the deep pockets.
Here's a random idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Make a rod for your own back (Score:2, Insightful)
In fact, this would be the universities giving up-front financing for future legal action against file sharers.
jup, just like the USA did with the taliban: give them weapons and money first to later be fucked by them.
it's like karate: use your enemy's strength against himself.
how lame to fall for that, dear universities ;)
Re:Protection money? (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly, administration of the divvying up of funds between artists would be very lucrative for whichever body won such a task, providing plenty of opportunity to charge overhead for staff and resources. This body would almost certainly be the BPI in the UK or the RIAA & MPAA in the USA or made at least made up of the same people and friends of people who are employed in these organisations. Secondly, the selection of which artists earn from the compulsory charges is open to very financially awarding abuse. You can be certain that big labels would be carving off large chunks of the revenue for their star artists and less-publicised artists or independent artists would be getting far less or nothing at all. This power encourages artists to sign with the big labels, rather than act independently. With modern technology and communication, there is far less reason for artists to sign exclusive deals with the big labels so a new way to pressure them to do so is much wanted by groups like the BPI and RIAA. As if the above was not sufficient temptation to the big labels there are further very strong reasons. This enables profit to be made from people who would never buy the music the big labels put out. Musical tastes change as people age and the general rule is that individuals become much choosier in their music purchasing as well as less immersed in mainstream media, thus less subject to buying heavily promoted tracks / albums. A blanket music tax allows the big labels to profit from such people despite changing or lessening purchasing habits. How earnings would be distributed amongst artists is an open question, but as self-proclaimed experts, you would likely see the BPI / RIAA / MPAA having a hand in defining the system and it would probably be based around popular charts despite that not accurately reflecting total purchasing habits. Furthermore (as if we need more reasons), this allows charging for music that has gone out of copyright - a body of work that is, logically, ever increasing.
More than all of this however, is that such an approach eliminates the free market. The proposal prevents artists from exercising their normal legal rights to sue those distributing their work against their wishes (and the proposal does not make sense if it does not do this). In doing so, it forces the BPI and RIAA / MPAA's business model on everyone. There are thus none of the normal controls of the free market on the pricing of recordings or on artists' ability to negotiate with the big labels for better terms.
In short, compulsory charging of ISPs for file-sharing is Christmas for the big lables if this ever goes through. A permanent entitlement to our money regardless of what they produce or if we want it. Indeed, they get paid for what other people do.
What is the phrase I'm looking for, oh yes... "It's a trap!"
H.
Re:Where does the money go? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is not a flaw in the Constitution. It is a law of nature. Culture and language change. If one defines a set of ideas at a given point in time, the cultural environment, language and society will change over time changing the context entirely. In addition, you will have wicked people, like the RIAA, trying constantly to find ways to circumvent those ideas for their personal gain.
For an example, look at how effective this "intellectual property" campaign has been. In 1776, if one used the term "intellectual property", the individual would have been laughed out of the English speaking world. These days, however, I have had people claim that they still "own" a copy of a book that I have purchased. I really do not care who the author is. The book is obviously mine, including all the words contained within it.
The results of this assault on the original meaning of the Constitution are obvious. In 1776, if a person published a book and copyrighted it, that person would have no way to restrict access to that book. The author would have no control over access at all whatsoever. In fact, the mere suggestion that the author could restrict access to the book would be considered as ludicrous as charging people to breathe.
Today, however, it is considered totally correct to use copyright restrict people's access to works. It is accepted that "downloading" a book is a violation of copyright by most people. Not only that, but many people believe that this monopoly privilege is a Natural Right, like the Right to Free Speech. In 1776, no one would have thought of restricting access to a work. In fact, copyright only really regulated reproduction and distribution. So, in reality, downloading should never have been a violation of copyright, and if it were not for an obscure computer software lawsuit (Mai v. Peak), it never would have been. Is that when we went from restricting distribution to restricting access to knowledge?
Therefore, the cultural context has changed, and even the Oracle at Delphi could not have predicted these events with sufficient clarity to allow the Founding Fathers to draft a document that would withstand the wicked cunning of generations of lawyers and the unfathomable stupidity of the general public. Oh, and do not forget to add the inability of the French to understand the Freedom that the US introduced into the Western cultural sphere. That misunderstanding led to the creation of the Berne Convention -- the biggest train wreck in the history of Intellectual Freedom.
So, instead of criticising the Constitution, you might consider trying to understand what the Founding Fathers were thinking back then and helping your friends understand. Certain contextual issues cannot be reversed (the fact that copying is now a necessary part of all non-face-to-face communication comes to mind). But understanding that ideas like "intellectual property", "sharing == theft", "downloading == stealing", etcetera, are completely wrong is a step in the right direction.
In short, we are wrong for allowing ourselves to be manipulated into being unable to understand our own Freedom by crooked entities like the RIAA.
Re:The EFF is wrong on this one (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty shocking approach taken by EFF. Guess it too has fallen prey to the incorrect assumption that the RIAA represents the totality of music when in fact they represent a small number of deep pockets in the business.
I think it is more like the EFF just cannot go so far as to say that the record industry is just an anti-Constitutional cabal of criminals hell bent on stealing from society, and that "illegitimate" file sharing is actually Constitutionally protected Free Speech. They see the law on the books and try to apply it as it is written. The fact is that Title 17 has been violating the Constitution since 1978 (when the 1976 Copyright Act took effect), and it is difficult for lawyers to take such a bold step and call a spade a spade. Even Lessig believes that access to works should be restricted for the purpose of artists profits.
The Constitution never said anything about securing profits for artists. "Exclusive Right" was supposed to mean the artists were the only ones to profit from their work, not that they deserved to profit from their work, nor that they could stop people from sharing their work. If artists could restrict sharing of works based on copyright, why is it that we have libraries today?
Already illegality exists for RIAA (Score:1, Insightful)
Using unlicensed investigators in Texas.
Criminal John Doe suits dropped and the names used in civil suits.
Falsification of evidence.
Lying to the court.
etc.