Decius wrote:
] ] Brad characterizes file-sharing as ripping off artists,
] ] and goes on to say that it is right to condemn people
] ] who get all their music without paying. And yet the EFF
] ] continues to tacitly endorse such file-sharing, running an
] ] ad campaign that says "file-sharing is music to our
] ] ears."
]
] This is a good collection of links. I think the EFF supports
] file sharing because its popular to do so. Calling them on it
] is reasonable. Expecting them to solve all of the problems is
] not. There needs to be a serious effort to organize artists
] outside of the present system. The EFF has made motions in
] that direction, but they always feel a little like political
] stunts. They are too focused on the law and not focused enough
] on the music. We need something that is really music centric
] that works differently. We need a counter example.

We have it. It's called iTunes. It's called Napster 2.0 (although the restrictions here are too whacked). The point is that there are distribution outlets for digital music that DO work. Will you eliminate piracy via P2P? No. You never will now. Just like you'll never eliminate tape trading of Grateful Dead shows.

The EFF's ultra radical stance is not a bad thing. Sometimes you have to stand a little further off balance than you would normally do just so you can make your point crystal clear. I'd rather they endorse file sharing rather than some cockamamee scheme that the RIAA buys into. If anything, maybe people will see this stance and realize that the entire argument of owning intellectual property in perpetuity is bullshit. Maybe owning ANY intellectual property is bullshit.

flynn23 wrote:
] The EFF's ultra radical stance is not a bad thing. Sometimes
] you have to stand a little further off balance than you would
] normally do just so you can make your point crystal clear. I'd
] rather they endorse file sharing rather than some cockamamee
] scheme that the RIAA buys into.

This really speaks to the heart of it, though. You're asked to choose between the EFF's ultra radical stance and the RIAA's ultra radical stance. Am I with the Americans, or the terrorists?

Things like Napster and iTunes operate with the full blessing of the RIAA.

You are right in the sense that independent artists can apparently distribute their music on itunes. Thats progress, maybe. It remains to be seen whether small artists are going to be able to negotiate reasonable percentages, or if we just replaced the RIAA with Apple.
Is the DRM stuff that Apple uses accessible unbundled.... I.E. Can I setup my own itunes store? If not, maybe we should be thinking about a framework that encorporates similar technology in a distributed fashion.

One problem is that they make it very difficult for you to learn about new music unless it comes with the support of the recording industry because you have to buy it before you can listen to it. Their object is to make sure that you listen to what they sell, and that you pay for it.

Independent internet radio holds promise as a way out. Thats why they've put so much effort into setting up fees that are more expensive then the fees that large commercial stations have to pay. Of course, this creates a competitive opportunity for small artists. (Major label's resistance to MTV changed the face of music in the 80's. Thats why normal people remember strange stuff like devo fondly.) I think there should be a central location that points people running small internet radio shows at content they can stream at a more reasonable price. Basically I'm talking about another group that is both a BMI/ASCAP and an RIAA. Which holds both copyrights, but which actually has an interest in making this work, as opposed to stomping on it.

Decius wrote:
] flynn23 wrote:
] ] The EFF's ultra radical stance is not a bad thing. Sometimes
]
] ] you have to stand a little further off balance than you
] would
] ] normally do just so you can make your point crystal clear.
] I'd
] ] rather they endorse file sharing rather than some cockamamee
]
] ] scheme that the RIAA buys into.
]
] This really speaks to the heart of it, though. You're asked to
] choose between the EFF's ultra radical stance and the RIAA's
] ultra radical stance. Am I with the Americans, or the
] terrorists?

surely, there are degrees along this spectrum. But I for one am glad that there is an equally opposing force in this debate. Whether it's realistic or practical is irrelevant. It's equal to the task of matching the might of the RIAA's dogma.

] Things like Napster and iTunes operate with the full blessing
] of the RIAA.

To quote Agent Smith "that is the sound of inevitability." Digital distribution of music (or any other content) has been talked about for decades by the music industry (and other industries). Just because it took someone OUTSIDE that industry to implement it is not suprising, nor unfair.

] You are right in the sense that independent artists can
] apparently distribute their music on itunes. Thats progress,
] maybe. It remains to be seen whether small artists are going
] to be able to negotiate reasonable percentages, or if we just
] replaced the RIAA with Apple.
] Is the DRM stuff that Apple uses accessible unbundled.... I.E.
] Can I setup my own itunes store? If not, maybe we should be
] thinking about a framework that encorporates similar
] technology in a distributed fashion.

It doesn't matter. The point is that there are a field of choices. Each with it's own strengths and weaknesses, but there is more than one. Over the last few years, the number of real distribution choices I've had as a musician has dwindled to less than 3 (5 if you're being technical and we're talking about the whole world). That's not enough.

] One problem is that they make it very difficult for you to
] learn about new music unless it comes with the support of the
] recording industry because you have to buy it before you can
] listen to it. Their object is to make sure that you listen to
] what they sell, and that you pay for it.

I don't think this is too much to ask to keep the cost at a (relatively) paltry level. Do you try a pack of gum before you spend $.50 on it? Could it be *more* consumer oriented? Yes, but that's a function of the marketplace and will happen in time. Remember when buying broadband Internet access meant you had to know what the hell a T1 was and how to hook up a CSU/DSU? Do you have to even think about any of that today?

] Independent internet radio holds promise as a way out. Thats
] w... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

flynn23 wrote:
] The EFF's ultra radical stance is not a bad thing. Sometimes
] you have to stand a little further off balance than you would
] normally do just so you can make your point crystal clear. I'd
] rather they endorse file sharing rather than some cockamamee
] scheme that the RIAA buys into. If anything, maybe people will
] see this stance and realize that the entire argument of owning
] intellectual property in perpetuity is bullshit. Maybe owning
] ANY intellectual property is bullshit.

This just looks like the right place to hop in this EFF stance thread.. I'll just start my babble here.

Owning IP in perpetuity is bullshit.. However, we must be careful about dismissing the idea of IP ownership as a whole because we think the way it's being used right now sucks. The same framework that makes the RIAA's use of copyright go is also the basis of open licensing al la GPL and Creative Commons. I think thats the key place where you can walk over a line and become ultra radical.. Simply dismissing IP as a whole is like burning down a forrest because you are pissed at a tree house.. Our society is strongly based in law, that's good. Thats not the part of things we want to break down. The concept of IP isn't going anywhere, and we need it.

If I can't take a work and apply some enforceable rule structure that allows me to control its use, not only does it break these closed and restrictive systems we dislike, but it also makes it impossible to enforce open IP systems. Instead of the end-consumers stealing information it's just going to be the big companies stealing innovation. Think SCO. We can be bent over in both directions..

We don't need to completely pull back from the system.. We need to fix the damn system. And the only real way of doing that - if we are to actually buy into our own line of ethics babble - is to setup a system that works better right along side of it. Unfortunately, that's really hard. And all us open framework people work by group think.. "They" can watch "us", and we don't necessarly move faster. Maybe we are just more redundant? shrug.. Its always going to seem like the man is one step ahead. They'll just read the damn blogs.. :) Hopefully we will just be right, and not have our rights gutted before we can prove it.

And then, the one place where I am an extremist comes into play.. I don't give a flying fuck about the law wherever it does something to break my rights to tinker, exercise speech, or any of my other real hot button "I'm-an-American-and-these-are-my-rights" issues. I enjoy breaking law under such circumstances. Its necessary, fun, and patriotic duty! Its really the only time you can do it without being an ethical slob.

That being said, I also think it would be a really bad thing if all intellectual property law as we know it just "went away".. Then we would be getting into Gibson novel territory with s... [ Read More (0.6k in body) ]

Decius wrote:
] ] Brad characterizes file-sharing as ripping off artists,
] ] and goes on to say that it is right to condemn people
] ] who get all their music without paying. And yet the EFF
] ] continues to tacitly endorse such file-sharing, running an
] ] ad campaign that says "file-sharing is music to our
] ] ears."
]
] This is a good collection of links. I think the EFF supports
] file sharing because its popular to do so. Calling them on it
] is reasonable. Expecting them to solve all of the problems is
] not. There needs to be a serious effort to organize artists
] outside of the present system. The EFF has made motions in
] that direction, but they always feel a little like political
] stunts. They are too focused on the law and not focused enough
] on the music. We need something that is really music centric
] that works differently. We need a counter example.

yeah, i agree that this guy got it right... for all it's good deeds and motives, the EFF comes off a bit scatterbrained sometimes. i don't think they're doing anything improper, just weakening themselves by not having a clear voice on these issues.

in my opinion, the only way we're going to get the organization you mention is for the artists to create it themselves. There's already a fairly substantial group of major artists (whose acronym i've now forgotten, alas) who hate RIAA tactics as much as we do. It needs to be them to set up a non-profit collective of artists dedicated to producing music without major label assistance, establishing cross promotion within the community, and mediating (at least) discussions regarding licencing to 3rd party distributors. the average guy-in-a-band who just made some music in his apartment doesn't know dick all about IP law, and shouldn't, but he also shouldn't have to sell the rights to his art in order to make a buck. a community of his already successful peers should be available to work on his behalf to get the music properly licenced, distributed and promoted.

this obviously can't happen on a scale like RIAA can manage, because, the money just isn't there... the revenue model can't be trivial at all. The key point in all this is that the artists get to keep the rights, agreeing only to allow the organization they join to manage those rights for as long as they appear to be doing a good job. i think it could be made to work, with the collective taking only enough to cover it's operating expenses and passing the rest back to the artists who retain all the rights they ought to.

again though, this will only happen if the artists do it for themselves... there's no huge profits in it, so it has to be done for the sake of the art, which is a tough thing to pull off.

inignoct wrote:
] yeah, i agree that this guy got it right... for all it's good
] deeds and motives, the EFF comes off a bit scatterbrained
] sometimes. i don't think they're doing anything improper,
] just weakening themselves by not having a clear voice on these
] issues.

Yeah, I think when they said "sue the file sharers" they were playing a little fast and loose with their rhetoric. I don't think they really meant that. I'm glad, however, that people in this community are critical of them. They need constructive criticism.

] In my opinion, the only way we're going to get the
] organization you mention is for the artists to create it
] themselves.

I recall having this conversation about the issue with a friend of a friend in Sacramento whose husband is a musician. Its like she expected her husband to be taken care of from a business perspective while simultaneously arguing that her husband could not understand business. "He's an artist."

So much of business has to do with connecting people who are creative: Scientists, engineers, musicians... with the networks of people needed to bring their products to market. As long a musicians remain clueless about this stuff they are going to need some slick pimp to come turn them out, and they are going to continue to get taken advantage of. I think that they have to become more savvy, but someone is going to have to lead that movement, and those that understand how to use this medium to do this stuff right are going to have to educate them.

Musicians, and also engineers and other creators, ultimately need to become more like consultants. People who can bargain as well as create.

Unfortunately, its a really hard game to play. A lot of the really really good artists are also the ones that are really really serious. Those people are looking to pay rent and they aren't fucking around. They usually don't seem to be into experimenting with business models even if it seems to make sense. Once these people make it, if they do, it seems like they just join the ranks of the pimps. Who is altruistic? The only reason we care is because we see this problem getting to the point where it is screwing up our culture. (Man, I am really getting jaded lately...)

] The key point in all this is that
] the artists get to keep the rights, agreeing only to allow the
] organization they join to manage those rights for as long as
] they appear to be doing a good job.

IP contracts take as much IP rights away from creators as allowed by law. This occurs in music, engineering... Every field. This is because IP creators don't hire lawyers. Businessmen hire lawyers. Contracts reflect the perspective of those who are writing them. You gunna argue with it? Everyone else signed it! Its industry standard!

Again the real issue is that the creators need to learn to be business savvy...

Another thing that concerns me, though, is that artists usually don't respect the public domain. They believe in perpetual copyright too... Even if you get the artists free from the pimps, you've got another fight to get the people free from the artists...

Decius wrote:
] Musicians, and also engineers and other creators, ultimately
] need to become more like consultants. People who can bargain
] as well as create.

hear hear. but it doesn't need to be all of them, necessarily, just enough to be a resource for the rest. a resource which has the artistic concerns up on the scale.

] Who is altruistic? The only reason we care is because we see this
] problem getting to the point where it is screwing up our culture.
] (Man, I am really getting jaded lately...)

i think a lot of artists are altruistic, implicitly. they care more about the art itself than about any particular profit model or distribution agreement (which is, as you say, why they get fucked as it stands). People who care about the art as art generally want to get it seen by people because they think it has signifigance, hopefully enough to attach some monetary value to it so they can keep creating. If you take these people, the ones of them who've been at it a while and know the ropes, from a business perspective, who still care about art but create less of it these days, you've got the makings of a group like i mentioned. willing to do the work because it benefits Art (capital 'A' intended) by fairly compensating creators as well as establishing methods of distribution and marketing which fit into the revised business environment.

] Another thing that concerns me, though, is that artists
] usually don't respect the public domain. They believe in
] perpetual copyright too... Even if you get the artists free
] from the pimps, you've got another fight to get the people
] free from the artists...

perhaps. i'm not sure i'd agree with 'usually', or that most artists feel this way. i could be wrong. as i said above, i think most artists are in it for the art (the "right reason" as i consider it), and are less concerned with endless guaranteed profit. some, of course, want perpetual copyright so that no one can ever "damage" or "misuse" their precious art. Which is just as stupid an argument. But, i don't necessarily feel like it needs to be all or nothing. If you're the kind of artist who doesn't want to agree to let this group of people manage your rights for you, or if you think you deserve more money than their model provides, fine, have at it, do something else. Choice is always good right? At least, choice is something really nonexistent at the moment as far as the music world is concerned. It's slowly changing tho.