TechDirt's Masnick Responds To Warner's Jim Griffin On Choruss 81
newtley writes "TechDirt's Mike Masnick writes that the Warner Music Choruss licensing scheme amounts to a Bait-And-Switch operation. Not so, says Jim Griffin, the man charged to put it together. Masnick's story is 'factually incorrect in every respect,' he states. But Griffin 'refused to name a single factual mistake,' Masnick says, noting, 'He fails to address the key problems that we outlined: 1. Why is this program even needed when plenty of musicians are coming up with business models that work today and don't need a new mandatory license (er... 'covenant not to sue') plan? 2. Why do we need a new bureaucracy and won't that divert funds? 3. Will the industry continue to try to shut down file sharing sites? 4. Will the industry continue to push a 3 strikes plan?'"
Re:Who Says What? (Score:5, Insightful)
So I guess the question is, will this kind of covenant work? If it will, why not extend to other rightholders?
I think the right question might just be "huh?" As in, what are these people even talking about?
Why should universities or ISPs be asked to pay some kind of license fee or buy into any kind of "covenant"? It's... hell, I don't know, like Coca Cola asking a toll road to pay them part of the toll on the chance that someone might be smuggling cola from Mexico on that road. No, I don't think what I said made sense, but it makes as much sense as this plan.
I understand the record industry is in favor of plans that require other people pay them money. I'd like to propose that ISPs charge everyone a fee on top of the monthly service and then pay that money to me. That'd be great as far as I'm concerned, but why should anyone else go for it?
Re:Three strikes plan? (Score:5, Insightful)
YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOUT, WE CAN HEAR YOU JUST FINE! :(
Who cares about the philosophical question of whether or not "professional" music (whatever that is) is such a life necessity that everyone should be taxed to subsidize it?
The bottom line here is the subsidization is fundamentally untenable because it's too inefficient and fraud prone. As for the three strikes alternative, that's just practically unenforceable.
So we're left with your original conclusion, but with more pragmatic reasoning. The content industry is going to have to stop clamoring "you can't compete with free" and start doing just that.
Re:Three strikes plan? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't pay tribute to a dying industry. (Score:4, Insightful)
The "music industry" ought to be irrelevant by now, but it's not. The technology needed to make a record is CHEAP. The technology to market and distribute the music is easily available via open source software and the internet. The only thing that the music industry can provide an artist is a good producer--but at the price of an awful contract.
The music industry is an unnecessary parasitical middleman. It serves no useful purpose as it milks money both from consumers and artists. Its existence is artificially prolonged by the recent copyright amendments that extend rights so damn long and by the catalog of popular musicians that still depend upon it.
Don't help extend the life of the music industry by paying it tribute.
You can hurt the music industry the most by creating and supporting a technical infrastructure that allows musicians to directly market their product to the consumer (without itunes or amazons). Prices will drop and all sorts of new music will flourish. That is cultural support of the artist.
The parasitical music pirates have it all wrong. They just want to steal without giving back. The key idea is to create a technological garden where musicians and their audience can both profit by the creation of cool new stuff.
Re:Cockroaches (Score:1, Insightful)
Two questions:
1. In your scenario, is there any way to prove that people will still purchase music in high amounts once high capacity filesharing is combined with user friendly programs and no threat of legal action? I am talking transparent torrents, a website like Wikipedia of band information with download links next to all text.
You certainly seem to affirm that very strongly, but I would like to see some clear evidence as well, because if it turns out they don't, it's a bit late to go back to the old model, and the music industry people who trusted you would be fucked (not that I suspect you would care). But evidence would clearly be helpful.
2. In your scenario, what would the solution be if someone places an enormous number of albums on a website and charges for it? Should this be illegal? If you respond that music providers have to compete and so lower their prices, then competition would drive the cost down to the cost of hosting plus the cost of providing a nice and user friendly site, which leaves nothing for music producers.
I'll withhold responding to the "cockroaches" label with a "retarded clown" until I've seen your reply.
Re:Who Says What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. Music sharing has NOTHING to do with universities except that it often happens there. At most, the schools might take steps to educate students and discourage this behavior. They don't owe the record companies a thing.
This is especially heinous because college is already so expensive. We need to be looking for ways to make it more affordable to those who are looking to learn. This would increase tuition and distract schools from their mission of education.
Re:Three strikes plan? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when did produced, professional music become such a life necessity that you get to dictate the cost structure and business model?
If you don't like how they distribute music, Don't BUY IT!
Why is that so damn hard to understand? The value of the music is the nexus of what the artist/studio is willing to sell it for, and what you are willing to pay for it. The "21st Century Definition of a Musician" clearly includes the ability of a musician to refuse to sign a contract with a big studio. Why do you somehow think the artist is being repressed? The artists have heard of the internet too, yet somehow, they keep doing deals with studios! I wonder if somehow, they think studios do things that they will have to spend a lot of time and money to do, like front money for big venues, pay for plane tickets, studio time, etc etc.
I am so sick and tired of the bastille storming attitude regarding music. I've decided to buy the (little) I want, and ignore the rest.
To shake your little fist in the air at the music "man" is just sad and pathetic.
Re:Another blind alley from the RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't even have to be free, just reasonably priced. The record companies are sitting on piles of old blues and jazz music that you can not find unless you frequent dusty old record stores (as in vinyl records) and garage sales. Put those up for a low price. Even at twenty five cents a track they'll make money. Even if the stuff has fallen into the public domain, people would still pay for the convenience of being able to find the music easily and already in a digital format. So what if you won't have gold and platinum volume sales. It's practically free money for them. The cost to host that kind of service is almost nothing. The biggest cost will be converting from album to digital, and that can be mostly automated with modern equipment and is a one time cost.