Interview with Jim Griffin

mpawlo writes "I just finished a Greplaw interview with Jim Griffin. Griffin, of Pholist fame, gives his thoughts on copyright and digital distribution of music. Learn also why copyright should be renamed copy risk. Griffin was once - at Geffen - behind the online release of a full-length song by Aerosmith. In 1994! He is, however, not a John Perry Barlow School of Thought devotee."

He wants an "internet tax" to support artists

[Julian Morrison]

...which amounts to nationalizing all art. (He who pays the piper, etc.)

Unless you like Soviet hymns to tractor production statistics, that probably isn't such a great idea.

Re:He wants an "internet tax" to support artists

[GospelHead821]

It isn't strictly a national industry. He compares the process to that of automobile insurance - and that is a private industry. As long as there is an accountable entity responsible for the collection and fair disbursement of the funds associated with the creation, distribution, and purchase of music, then it doesn't have to be a governmental entity at all.

Concerns For Distribution

[Ironmaus]

Jim Griffin sounds very knowledgeable about this subject but he also spins some serious hippie crap that makes me doubt his theories and opinions.

I have no particular take on QTFairUse. I simply acknowledge, accept and find delight in digits -- especially those carrying art, knowledge and creativity -- bionomically finding the shortest, most efficient and effective path from source to destination.

Yeah, that's the biggest cop out to a serious question ever.

I wish he'd just come out and say it in plain English:

Our path to progress is clear: Tolerate risk, but anticipate its consequences and address them through actuarial means, by pooling fees and allocating their rewards to risk takers such as artists and rights holders. Paying into actuarial network funds should be no more voluntary than ought be automobile insurance.

In other words, everyone should pay a "music listening tax" regardless of how much music they listen to. Those who listen to a lot get great value from the taxation and those who listen to less just...shut up and pay the bill.

As fabulous and socialist as this all sounds, the part about pooling the fees and paying the "risk takers such as artists and rights holders" scares the shit out of me. Are we willing, for the sake of putting rights management out of our minds, to trust a huge payment distribution system to reward our artists? I'm not. I'm terrified that the little guys are going to fall through the cracks. This plan sounds exactly like the payment of royalties for non-profit radio stations--like the one [kser.org] I work for--where we pay a lump sum and the distribution companies like ASCAP dole out the payments based on "play statistics." Massive Habit [massivehabit.com] and Jump Little Children [jumplittlechildren.com] aren't getting a single nickel from what we pay. It's my responsibility as a fan of their music to go outside the payment system that sees them as insignificant and give my money directly to them in the form of CD purchases and show attendance.

Re:He wants an "internet tax" to support artists

[mabu]

IMO, the problem with "art" is that it becomes less creative expression and more financial transaction when money is the motivating factor.

We all want artists to be supported in their efforts, but I think part of what composes the integrity of many forms of creative expression is the lack of a clear subsidizing/transactional relationship.

In other words, true artists could care less about DRM.

The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions ..

[leoaugust]

We can replace the entire music business worldwide for less than it costs to complain about the fee, and all media can be compensated for at a fee that integrates well with monthly wireless or wired fees. This is hardly revolutionary:

I might sound simplistic, but isn't this the road to socialism - Compensating all media when most of them deserve to die an unsung death?

1. On this road the first step in the journey of a thousand steps is day n when it will be "at a cost less than it costs to complain."
2. The second step is on day n+1 when some wiseguy will come up and talk about not leaving money on the table and making it "cost just about equal to what it costs to complain."
3. On day n+m another high flyer will come and say let us test the market and make it "cost just a little more than it costs to complain."
4. On day n+m+1 a MBA will come and say let us just "let those who can pay pay more than it costs to complain."
5. Then the RIAA will come ....
6. And waiting like a Vulture for his day, Darl McBride will come and say ....

Americans pay a TV tax, too

[Theatetus]

Every time we buy a product that was advertised on TV, the cost of the TV advertisements is being passed on to us. Fortunately for Americans, thanks to the free market that money goes to corporate boards that aren't accountable to us, rather than to some silly "public broadcasting concern".