 |
It seems Warner exec Jim Griffin was unprepared for the rancor of the Interwebs, because he’s backpedaling on a proposal to create a blanket fee for ISPs on music. All of that was just part of a “dynamic conversation,” says Griffin in a statement, and “It would be unfortunate if a creative and fruitful dialogue were sidetracked by a rush to judgment about what was simply my own illustrative example of one of many concepts I have in this space.”
Yes, indeed — it’d be unfortunate if a discussion of a hair-brained scheme with no plan for implementation or investment from any of the stakeholders were derailed by the fact that it was a hair-brained scheme with no plan for implementation or investment from any of the stakeholders.
See some excellent coverage and analysis from CNet News.com’s Greg Sandoval.
And as Sandoval notes, “What happens is that people hear the word “tax” and objective analysis goes out the window. People condemn and vilify. Out comes the torches and pitchforks.” That lack of objectivity is what frustrated me yesterday, even without being a specialist on the legal details
Of course, I disagree with Griffin about what happens to the “dynamic conversation” when people bring out the pitchforks. He says people lose the opportunity to “consider a variety of raw concepts without prejudice.” I say they lose the opportunity to consider just how out of touch with reality his proposal is.
© Peter Kirn for Create Digital Music, 2008. | Permalink | One comment
Add to del.icio.us
Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under News.
I’ll never fully understand technology bloggers when it comes to music policy. Here’s an obviously stupid idea: Warner Brothers, the label, comes up with a scheme to add a surcharge to ISP bills to allow, supposedly, “legal” use of music file sharing services. Stupid, yes.
Here’s the response from Michael Arrington (Techcrunch): “It’s clearly good for the music labels, who are facing their imminent extinction.” He claims that this is the plan the “labels” (actually one label) don’t want you to know (except that they’re sitting down for long interviews with Conde Nast Portfolio).
Gizmodo’s Matt Buchanan just regurgitates and further oversimplifies Arrington’s argument, and adds a picture of a kitten at gunpoint, concluding: “And as Arrington points out, it would basically freeze innovation in the industry, meaning labels would be able to ream them that much harder. Not to mention, thanks to the fine print, we’d probably no longer own our music. But that’s the whole point.”
Apparently, “imminent extinction” means multi-billion dollar industry. (In fairness, the industry often — inexplicably — argues the same thing. I wish I were part of an “extinct” multi-billion dollar industry.) And apparently you can’t even talk about the issue of how music will be distributed and paid for without focusing on the desire of said industry to destroy your life and the fact that it’s still completely doomed.
And we’ve already seen Arringtonisms like recordings are worth nothing, and musicians actually owe websites cash for promotion (the Web 2.0 Payola plan, evidently).
But what happened to the obviously stupid idea? I agree with these sites that the plan is bad — I just think, ironically, it’s bad for even more reasons than they think. I’m not actually sure anyone read the original source — I think they were too busy being enraged, or looking for appropriate kitty picture:
Fee for All: Jim Griffin will lead Warner Music’s fight to tame the Web’s lawless music frontier.
Forget about artists. Forget about copyright holders. Screw the musicians. This is ridiculously stupid even for the labels, partly because they’re unlikely to agree on the idea — meaning the idea is extinct on arrival. “Freeze innovation”? I guess — if the labels actually pursue this. But the blogosphere has become so rabidly anti-label, it’s fighting them instead of pointing out the planet-sized holes in the logic we’re being fed:
© Peter Kirn for Create Digital Music, 2008. | Permalink | 3 comments
Add to del.icio.us
Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under News.
Our friend Florian Grote is giving a workshop at STEIM in Amsterdam on Pure Data, the open source patching environment that’s a close cousin to Max/MSP. Florian tells us there are a couple of spots left for anyone near STEIM. The workshop is geared for composers, live performers who want to create their own instruments, and installation/visual artists interested in working with GEM’s visual capabilities.
The workshop will start with a thorough, two-day introduction to creative audio work in Pd, and then expand its focus on the GEM extension library for Pd. With GEM, sophisticated tools for visualization are available directly inside Pd, and their handling is not different from the audio-related elements. This enables Pd users to seamlessly integrate their own visuals into their musical performances or installations, as well as to get creative with the user interfaces for their instruments.
Cost is EUR200. There’s also a class blog, which I’ll be watching closely to make up for not being out there.
Pure Data & GEM Workshop @ STEIM
© Peter Kirn for Create Digital Music, 2008. | Permalink | No comment
Add to del.icio.us
Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Asides.