Re: [microsound] let the music play

["tobias c. van Veen" <tobias@xxxxxxxxx>]

< for links check the blogpost:
http://www.quadrantcrossing.org/blog/C1850481384/E733547255/index.html >

Agreed that this is a disappointing proposal on the surface and yet one that
contains hints of its potential not gleaned at the outset. On the one hand,
it specifically states, and as a positive factor, that copyright law doesn't
have to be amended, while many agree that current manifestations of
copyright are *exactly* the problem and issue at stake that should be
challenged. And it limits its case to the US; this is interesting as piracy
is a much more serious issue throughout Asia--not through P2P, but through
CD reduplication plants.

Moreover, I think many would like to see the RIAA and the Big 4 go down.
Culturally they are hegemonic, authoritarian institutions with a long
history of desiccating artists and rerouting payola to construct pop culture
"hits" through coercive tactics and homogenic approaches to art. As noted
their hold on radio has always actively fought against public use of the
airwaves. The RIAA and the Big 4 have never held the public interest in high
esteem. Understandably, they are hierarchical structures that seek to
maintain their socioeconomic power, and until this structure changes, their
mandate will always remain the same. (Guattari noted this in the '80s with
his support of pirate radio--see this essay  from Simon Reynolds, this
interview with Charles Stivale & this critique here). To a degree, I
understand the EFF's tactic: P2P offers a distributed resistance to the Big
4, and by maintaining these networks the potential for the _irrelevance_ of
corporate structure comes to the fore, as music becomes freed from its
traditional channels of distribution. However I think many see no reason to
appease these ailing cultural industries. The rap goes like this: Copyright
law needs to be changed. If the courts won't allow it, the multitudes will
do it for them. The EFF's tactic reeks of paying off the local mafia man..
or, is the EFF simply buying time?

I think many will remain disturbed by the EFF offering 3 billion in net
profit for doing *nothing* -- not having to release music, not having to do
anything to change the contracts that many major label artists (Chuck D,
etc) have spoken out against. It appears that the EFF is wavering over
supporting artists who have turned against the major labels. The structure
of copyright and major label contracts need to change; whatever copyright
will become, it needs to be in the hands of the artist, not the corporate
structure. The question is: how does one go about doing this?

In the long run, perhaps this is only a tactic. Buying time while P2P comes
to reroute the social networks and thus the economic conduits. No doubt the
EFF has written this proposal as a tasty plucking for RIAA lawyers looking
for alternatives and attempting to balance image vs. strongarm strategies
(such as their private SWAT team). However, the EFF risks losing its support
if it is seen as simply bending over to the RIAA. And it also risks putting
into place an omnipresent payola system to a series of corporations that no
longer have to *anything* to appease public interest, nor, even advertise
their cultural product--for their revenues, if implemented as part of
bandwidth, university access, and so on, will be automatic. And that is not
socialist; that is authoritarian.

- tV



> 
> a pretty uninteresting proposal aimed at satisfying the big four RIAA
> members and protecting the companies owning the networks. EFF is
> offering the big four record companies 3 billion dollars in exchange
> for not suing american "file sharers".
> 
> only artists that sell a lot of downloads in a short time will get any
> money ot of it. i.e. commercial teenage music. any other artist (say
> classical) selling the same amount of downloads but over 30 years will
> not show up on the lists and will receive nothing.
> 
> as described it is also wide open to payola-type corruption. the
> accounting system EFF propose is the same as used by american radio.
> 
> non-american artists will, of course, receive nothing. this proposal is
> based on the idea that only americans use the internet, use file
> sharing services and that they are only sharing american music. EFF is
> as out of touch with the real world as the old record companies used to
> be.
> 
> the EU (which later this year will become by far the worlds largest
> internal market if we measure number of consumers with middle-class
> income) can of course setup a comparable system but still this would
> leave any artist or record company outside the geopolitically large
> markets without any possibility of ever being compensated.
> 
> the proposal also fail to collect from the companies that are making
> the profits from "file sharing" and even has the power to stop it if
> they so whish.  the end users are already paying for using "file
> sharing".
> 
> yet EFF for some reason refuse to accept this and instead propose the
> internet users are to pay even more. and the money collected in this
> way is offered the big 4 record companies so they wont sue american
> users and threat those making the real profits from "file sharing" and
> the artists -  i.e. the network owners.
> 
> looks to me like those who control the EFF have economical interests in
> networks/ISP:s.
> 
> 



tobias c. van Veen -----------
http://www.quadrantcrossing.org
http://www.thisistheonlyart.com
--- tobias@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---McGill Communications------
ICQ: 18766209 | AIM: thesaibot


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org