We need a Few Good Seeds, so grab that torrent and seed it! (I am…)

Official OLPC sound samples page

Internet Archive links

olpc-sound-samples on Mininova (should be on other trackers, as well)

And previously…

8.5 GB of Free, CC-Licensed Samples from the OLPC Project, and OLPC Music Tools

Oh, yeah, and no one need feel guilty about using the samples. That was kind of the idea. (Not to mention, this could be a good sample source for working on projects for the OLPC.)

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.

Music attorney Chris Castle is far more qualified than I am to make such arguments:

Warner Music’s tune of folly 

He points out some of what I did — plus more problems I didn’t. (Hey, there are so many holes in this proposal, it’s impossible to cover them all.)

• The proposal doesn’t calculate what people are listening to
• The plan only covers Warner Brothers
• The plan promises billions to creative people without determining how to split it up or subtracting the cost of implementation
• The plan would require amending the US Copyright Act
• … and that could violate international treaties
• … and it’s a plan for the US while the Web is international
• … and the French defeated a similar plan
• … and ISPs won’t like it
• … and P2P services being targeted won’t cooperate
• … and consumer’s don’t like it

Yeah, I only got part of that list before.

Aside from that, this is a great idea! I think. Actually, I’ve forgotten what the original pros were supposed to be. We’re all free to pirate music for a small fee that violates international law? Uh … great?

Here’s my problem with the pitchforks and rioting response from bloggers: the fear and panic suggests this is something that might happen, when it’s clear governments, lawyers, copyright holders, ISPs, P2P services, music consumers, Internet users, Internet rights advocates, and even other labels are likely to be against it. It’s like people held up a “Don’t tread on me” banner when they should have held up a “Ground control to Major Tom, we’ve got no idea what the *(&$# you’re talking about.” sign.

And that brings up a fundamental question I have:

Just what is it about the Internet that makes it suddenly necessary to have to “consider a variety of raw concepts without prejudice.” I mean, maybe I’m caught in the Old World models here, but couldn’t we try talking about things that aren’t wildly impractical, illegal, and counter to the interests of everyone involved?

Oh, well. Back to talking about music technology on this site. And, hey, if the blog torches and pitchforks helped give a reality check to an out-of-touch exec, maybe that’s not such a bad thing. Have a great weekend. See you Monday with odd sound-making boxes.

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 should really 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 pictures:

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:

• Griffin is freaked out by pay-what-you-will sales schemes. Despite the fact that Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead just had enormous success with voluntary payment schemes — and despite the fact that part of that scheme was charging an unprecedented high price for physical media (the opposite of what everyone has been telling you), Warner’s hired gun is afraid music will become a “tip jar.” Translation: the major labels don’t want artists selling direct to their customers. Ironically, he talks about peer-to-peer services, when that’s not the point. Obviously they want you tipping them, not tipping artists who’ve dumped their contracts.
• They don’t seem to know where the money is going. Griffin specifically doesn’t want government involvement. Bloggers like to call this a tax. But that’s the problem — it’s a tax for whichever labels are involved, and not the labels that aren’t.
• The plan is vague — and three years off. Again, if you read the article: “Bronfman has asked Griffin, formerly Geffen Music’s digital chief, to develop a model that would create a pool of money from user fees to be distributed to artists and copyright holders. Warner has given Griffin a three-year contract to form a new organization to spearhead the plan.” Wait, three years? One label managing the process? A pool — of what? For whom? And that means –
• It’s likely to cause more infighting. That distinction between “artists” and “copyright holders” isn’t just semantic — organizations like ASCAP and BMI collect performance fees that go to publishers and writers, not artists, meaning this whole thing could start a fight between various forms of copyright and different collection agencies. These are the same parties who couldn’t agree about Internet radio; how will they agree about a blanket fee on all Internet use, one that would apply a water utility model to music?
• No one will know what the money represents. I’ve personally spent a lot more than US$5 this month on music. And I’ve consumed quite a lot, too, via radio and Shoutcast streams — some of which are legally licensed, some of which aren’t. Now, instead, all that usage represents $5. How do you know what I downloaded? Or listened to? Or how I’m any different from someone else with $5? How is this more money for labels if I’m spending less?

Oh, yeah, and the story itself is misleading. Take this quote: “Compact disc sales are plummeting as online music downloads skyrocket.” Read that, and you’d assume CD sales are being replaced by music piracy. In fact, online music purchases are skyrocketing.

Or this one: “[the recording industry] has shrunk to a $10 billion business from $15 billion in almost a decade.” That leaves out explosive growth in the 90s that made the business $15 billion in the first place, suggesting that original growth may not have been sustainable. Industry analysts look at those one-dimensional numbers, and isolate the factor of piracy, without considering radical changes in music taste, genre, and consumption at a time when the market is globalizing and becoming more differentiated — that is, no more pop superstars, which is what the majors were built to handle.

So, let’s review things no one seems to want to talk about:

• The industry is still huge and profitable, even if they’re not a great stock investment.
• Online music sales may eclipse physical media in the long term, meaning all this Chicken Little nonsense is going to be meaningless.
• Music consumption patterns are changing, which may have a deeper impact than piracy.
• The real reason to be specific of a plan from one label isn’t that that label is evil — it’s that it may be starting an illogical, empty plan with no allies and no real practical implementation.
• You really can’t assume the industry will act even in its own best interests.

Now, where’s the picture of a kitten that embodies that?

No, I think the one at the top pretty much sums it up.

Updated: Greg Smith points out that Canada has proposed similar taxation, which I suppose is analogous. And it’s even the same amount — $5, on ISPs. (Well, Canadian dollars, but still.)

Interesting to note, however:

• The Canadian plan would be government-controlled. Warner apparently wants individual labels to organize the program.
• The Canadian plan is being organized by songwriters and creators, not labels. That’s a big deal, as US labels would need buy-in from copyright holders.
• Canadian record labels actually think the plan won’t work.

I’m just not convinced this passes the laugh test, as far as plausibility is concerned — not with legal, paid downloads growing, and new signs that a subscription model may also take, plus progress on licensing fees.

Discussions about music distribution, sales, and piracy often return to that time-worn theme of “supporting artists.” Of course, what usually gets left out is what actually supports the artists. Sure, it’s lovely that the industry likes this theme — maybe you imagine an ingenious, talented songwriter lighting candles in her studio — and she’s super cute, too. And you’re stealing money from her. Or worse, you’re actually ripping the livelihood from a toothless guy with his guitar, who sleeps in the mud in rainstorms. (I’m only half joking … fair number of musicians who do actually fit just that description.) But, is the money even getting to them?

Well, artists/writers are increasingly taking matters into their own hands. Why not get that album up on the tracker sites, and be upfront with your listeners about how to have a real relationship that actually gets money directly from listener to audience, without getting hung up on the middleman? The idea’s anything but new, but it is gathering momentum.

This story from Releaselog exaggerates a little with the headline:

The Flashbulb Promotes Piracy

… in fact, the artist in question would still appreciate getting some funding; he (Benn Jordan) just argues that you should pay what you think is appropriate to the artist directly, not Apple, Amazon, or Best Buy. He also happens to be CEO of his label, Alphabasic Records, and wants the same treatment for all of them.

Oh, yeah, and The Flashbulb isn’t “pro-piracy” so much as he is anti-CD (as purchased from big retailers) and anti-iTunes — good reason, seeing as he’s not getting paid.

Short excerpt:

Hello listener…downloader…pirate…pseudo-criminal…

If you can read this, then you’ve more than likely downloaded this album from a peer to peer network or torrent.

You probably expect the rest of this message to tell you that you’re hurting musicians and breaking just about every copyright law in the book. Well, it won’t tell you that…

Want to show your support?
Go here and browse our library of lossless, DRM-free downloads.
Already have that?
Then feel free to donate whatever you want to your favorite artist. 100% will go directly to them.
Hell, you can even donate a penny just to thank the artist.

It’s well worth reading the full letter for the whole argument, including why CD retailers and Apple’s iTunes really aren’t saving the world. I personally still think there’s room for online retailers, but not necessarily with the hegemony Apple commands. And as readers pointed out when elite tracker Oink was raided, many labels use just this tactic: use trackers as promotional tools.

How is it working out so far? Benn answers on his blog:

So after a 5 hour nap, I awake to see that the viral effect of “infringing my own label’s copyrights” has probably surpassed that of a $20,000 promotion budget.

Now it is time to spread the word outside of that torrent network. I want this positive attention to be a smack across the face to those in the recording industry that waste their time harassing people for ripping CDs.

And go give Alphabasic a good listen — Friends of the Site Justin McGrath (yeah, the trash_audio blog completely rocks) and Richard Devine are represented:

Alphabasic

Now, if only we knew WWASD? (What Would Adam Smith Do? Kidding. I heart capitalism.)