[IP] Re: Music industry proposes a piracy surcharge on ISPs

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

________________________________________
From: Bob Frankston [bob37-2@bobf.frankston.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 1:47 PM
To: David Farber; 'ip'
Subject: RE: [IP] Re:   Music industry proposes a piracy surcharge on ISPs

What is a "civil" equivalent of "BS"?

I know there is a precedent in some countries in taxing cassette tapes, for example, on the presumption that their primary purpose is for transporting music and that the state can determine who is worthy of support. Nonetheless this is cultural arrogance in the extreme! What worries me the most is that the record companies may be so out of touch with reality as to take this seriously.

First, technically this is shows a basic inability to understand the very concept of the Internet as an emergent property of our ability to exchange bits using whatever path is available. It's an example of treating the Internet like a railroad with well-defined paths. Even within the railroad model does this mean a $5/month tax on every cell phone and other device that can exchange bits?

"BS" is a perfectly proper response to a proposal that presumes that the purpose of the Internet is to carry music and then presumes to be able to determine what the music is and then force everyone using the Internet to pay for it.

I'm still annoyed that when I connect my cell phone or other SD to my PC it seems to want to fill it with music. Now if I accidently hit the play button my phone it starts playing music not of my choice.

Any why presume music is the only audio content -- what about NPR? Is listening to talk or a podcast not worthy of support compared with {name the musician that annoys you most}? And who determines who is worthy of this largess? How does one become an official state musician?

Who does take this proposal seriously? It goes well beyond the control granted by the DMCA. I can't help but refer to this as another threat to our cultural based on the presumption that we can entrust our civilization to intelligent designers.



-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 11:31
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Re: Music industry proposes a piracy surcharge on ISPs



Clearly I take exception to th 4th pragraph but.. Any way jf

________________________________________

From: Jim Griffin [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]

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 (Dewayne Hendricks)

Date: March 13, 2008 5:47:49 PM EDT

To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <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

 >





-------------------------------------------








-------------------------------------------




-------------------------------------------