(entry last updated: 2003-07-29 20:18:09)
I’m off to Detroit for a couple of days – my job and all that. While I have one night in a hotel with high-speed internet, I’m not sure that I’m going to get to do much here until next week.
Ultimately the Internet is going to be great for music lovers, artists and even the record labels, if they are willing to hang loose while new business models emerge. But right now the RIAA and its congressional water carriers are hitting the wrong notes. It makes no sense to bring thousands of people into the dockets-and maybe the prison system-for turning on a friend to the fuzz tones of the White Stripes or the inspirational melodies of Orrin Hatch without a license. There are better things for prosecutors and the courts to focus on.
Like real national security.
I haven’t been mentioned in a John Dvorak column since the heyday of OS/2 (and, yes, I realize that "heyday" is something of an overstatement) when I sent him an e-mail describing an ironic bit of IBM’s stealth marketing that came my way.
Keven Heller points to John Dvorak’s piece, The Blog Politic Versus Congress, wherein he challenges the blog community to do more than just talk about the copyright problem – starting with the reaction to Conyers-Berman.
What is interesting to me is that the blogging community is all over this bill, but doesn’t seem to be doing much more than complaining and ridiculing it. Is this a useful exercise in activism or a hint at things to come?
[…] But where is the leverage? In the past I’ve complained about the inability of net-heads to make any real impact on politics. The Computer Decency Act, for example, waltzed through Congress without a hitch despite the online grumblings all over the place. The blog community may be different. It’s more politicized than any other online movement, with Democrats, Republicans, and mostly Libertarian variants each yakking loudly and getting re-quoted everywhere. The real influence is still an unknown. It’s possible that this newer form of carping will be just as ineffective.
Kevin has already started a bit of civil disobedience. I can only point to the students that I teach – and note that the circle of those students is increasing as we prepare to start a new class at Cambridge University in the fall.
Part of the problem is that, as Dvorak correctly points out, Conyers-Berman is more of a sop to the sponsors’ consituency than a credible legislative initiative. Yet, he is also right that it’s important to find ways to combat the slide of the rhetoric toward legitimizing the perspectives that Conyers-Berman embody. Aside from re-upping with the EFF and the ACLU, I’m going to have to take a close look at what more I could be doing.
But, there’s also the possibility that it’s the discussion alone that can act to change the political climate, notwithstanding John Dvorak’s contention that it may be just a "new form of carping." At least one thread of this year’s ILaw was organized around the idea that the weblog represents a way for more citizens to participate in political discussions, arguing that society benefits as more citizens elect to participate in the public discourse, rather than passively observing the political process. How one leverages the weblog discussion may not yet be apparent, but it’s certainly the case that there are lots of experiments going on today.
GrokLaw gets a new target to help in its explanation of the GPL: Sun Finds a New Way to be Repulsive
Some nonsense from Slashdot (you can decide who’s being nonsensical): 2191.78 Years for the RIAA to Sue Everyone
este writes “According to an article in the Inquirer, if the RIAA maintains its rate of lawsuit issuance, it will take more than two millenia for them to sue evey P2P file trader. The author accounts for many additional difficulties facing the RIAA in this daunting task.”
The Slashdot comments on speed limit enforcement are particularly illuminating. See also this USA Today article: Internet song swappers say legal threats won’t stop them [pdf]
The interesting thing about the USAToday article is the way that it depicts Jupiter going out of its way to tell the industry that everything’s going to be fine once they embrace digitial distribution. Is Jupiter being disingenuous, helping to get the industry out of the way as soon as possible, or are they trying to find a way to strongarm the rest of the world into agreeing with the RIAA’s perspective that they are a vital piece of the picture?
Here we go again (actually, I haven’t gotten my last check yet!): Labels charged with price-fixing – again
In a unanimous decision, members of the U.S. FTC (Federal Trade Comission) chastised Vivendi Universal and Warner Communications for restricting competition in the sale of “The Three Tenors” – Jose Carreras, Placido Domingo, and Luciano Pavarotti – audio and video products. It seems that PolyGram (a company later bought by Vivendi) conspired with Warner “to curb discounting and advertising to boost sales of recordings that the two companies jointly had distributed based on the tenors’ concert in Paris during the 1998 soccer World Cup.”