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
] 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.

No no no no. The idea that everytime your work of art is 'experienced' you get paid (BMI/ASCAP) is as anachronistic as the patron model of the labels. To extend that idea is to say that at some point, when mankind can tap into people's brains directly, that BMI should collect a penny when you think of "No Sleep til Brooklyn". It doesn't work in a society that is filled with content experience, as well as the fact that today's methods of creating content are so post-modern as to heavily rely on the sampling and manipulation of others content (think sampling, turntables, and sonic manipulation). We don't 'create' today as much as we manipulate things already created. Is that still creation? Yes. It is. So you can easily extend this argument to say that I can take any P Diddy song, change one bit of the bitstream, and voila! It's mine. Who's to say whether that changed bit is any more important or less important than changing all the bits? Should P Diddy get paid for that? No.

People who think that we can somehow adapt yesterday's models to embrace today's technology are fools (imo). Warfare didn't stay the same as technology matured. Communications didn't stay the same as technology matured. The economy hasn't stayed the same as technology has matured. Basic tenants might survive, but their perspective is totally changed by this process. We are KIDDING OURSELVES if we think that we can just tweek these things and all will be well. The way that we create, publish, distribute, and even perform music is radically different than any other time in history. Stop looking behind us and start looking forward.

RE: [Politech] Reply to EFF over its position on RIAA, file swapping [ip]