By George Ziemann

This article is distributed under the Creative Commons license. It may be freely distributed provided proper attribution is given and it is not used for commercial purposes.

That's where we start.

A new peer-to-peer network must be established which solely contains work that has been given a Creative Commons license of some sort. A network that is established under this principle will only contain works that are directly licensed by the copyright owner for public use.

Therefore, the DMCA does not apply. It is irrelevant.

I am in contact with several people who current have content control for a minimum of 100,000 songs which have already been authorized for such use. They are freely offered by the copyright owner and may be shared freely. No compensation is required, but you cannot use this music for your own profit.

There is probably a legal argument for (or against) offering this content freely and financing such an endeavor with the advertising which may appear in conjunction with it.

Frankly, I don't care and most musicians and other creative people I know agree that we wouldn't complain. As long as you don't charge to access the music.

We are offering the consumers and the world free content. We will bypass our royalties, if necessary, in order to allow our culture to be shared.

But we will not pay for the privilege.
To put it succinctly, the majority of the artists, musicians, etc., in the country have been irreparably damaged by the DMCA. Our art has been suppressed by a minority in the name of greed.

The Creative Commons license allows us to completely bypass the DMCA. It allows our suppressed culture to be recorded as a part of history. I'm not a rap fan myself, but rap is probably the most pointed example of this. WE should be capturing all of it. It will be so helpful in making the world understand what is going on now when 40 years has passed.

Because this should not happen again.

Way back six months ago, when I first began to even care what was going on, Janis Ian wrote an article titled, "The Internet Debacle." In it, she suggested a virtual jukebox, with all of the old out-of-print material, all the new material, everything.

The only problem was that she thought the record labels should run it because they already have the music.

I thought this was a good idea but didn't think we should trust the labels to do it. Six months later, I am absolutely positive that the labels should not have their fingers in it.

My premise was that the PROs (performing rights organizations) -- ASCAP, BMI, SESAC -- should be the ones entrusted with this task. After all, they are in the business of collecting royalties.

Unfortunately, the content of my recent ASCAP publisher's statement indicates that they support the RIAA's stance.

The letter from Marilyn Bergman, ASCAP's current president, I believe, stated that, "while many more vehicles for the dissemination of our music have emerged, this is dramatically offset by a very powerful majority that sees nothing wrong with using our music without paying for it."

As much as I would to dissect this entire statement, think about the "very powerful majority" to which she refers.
Who is this? The consumers? The tens of thousands of musicians whose music is eclipsed and whose market outlets are blocked by rules which apply to virtually no other business activity?

If we are a very powerful majority, the law is in place for the weak minority.
Survival of the fittest is the law of the jungle.

So we can't trust ASCAP, until they publicly offer evidence to the contrary. Everything I've seen in public documents says they're in Hilary Rosen's pocket.

What about NARAS, the Grammy people? I've got this incredible grapevine going that tells me the NARAS voted not to support the RIAA's position. Seems like this would have been big news, were it true.

Haven't seen that on CNN, though. So we can't even trust the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences. They won't even publicly announce the foolishness of the current consumer witch hunt.

I saw a quote in the news from a Student at the University of Maryland. He thinks no one over 40 understands what's going on. That's not true.

Everyone understands it perfectly. They know exactly what's happening. They're busy arguing about legal minutae. They've been doing it for at least three years. They still haven't figured it out. We just can't wait for them.

Kazaa's source code is on the web. The Tech Schools need to get a new P2P net set up for us and we'll start feeding you music. Free, fully authorized. If it's the only thing you use, you can never be shut down or arrested.

There's one catch.

You won't hear our stuff on the radio. There aren't very many Britney Spears hiding in our midst. A lot of it could have used better production. It's kind of raw. Hell, some of us even leave our mistakes in sometimes.

Our music isn't perfect. But it's real.

I can't build a peer-to-peer net. I've got a new watch that tells me what time it is in London but I can't seem to set it. I need you to do that part for me.

While you're working on that, I have something to discuss with the law students.

I'll be back with that soon.

George,
I wish i would of thought of this!
I'll probably write more!

That's why I'm the Wizard.

Okay, there are a few extra rules in the new P2P that need to be instituted. There is a delicate balance here between destroying the RIAA and destroying the people who have helped us survive despite the major labels.

Places like DMusic and GarageBand. This must be an additional benefit of belonging to them. At the same time, we must realize that the need for this exists beyond music.

The medical community also needs a p2P net that will not be disrupted by the music police. They have global health problems to solve (like SARS) and valuable nodes at educational institutions cannot be exorcized from it because someone wanted to hear Madonna.

Therefore, all music provided for this new net must be provided directly by the copyright owner or a representative which acts on the behalf of the copyright owner. Like DMusic and GarageBand. Each person that posts material must be publicly responsible for the content they post. They may remain anonymous online, but there must be a central registry. Otherwise the RIAA is capable of planting their music on the net, allow it to be copied and then sue for possession.

The big problem is the lack of a convention. We can use © to indicate a copyright with one character in a song title. The Creative Commons License has no such symbol on my keyboard.

This is why content input must be controlled. We have thousands upon thousands of free songs to work with. The unauthorized music must not be allowed.

Fortunately, this will be easy at the outset. If you ever heard a band on the radio, they probably don't belong on the new net. I love Carlos Santana's music, for instance.

But someone faces a $150,000 fine for having one of his tunes. Peace and love, Carlos, but we can't let you in without a written authorization.

Bono wants to change the world. But he hasn't even tried to fix his own industry. We can't let him in, either. Unless he asks us nice.

None of us can afford it.

Along with this, there must be a stepped up public awareness and education campaign. We must walk up behind Hilary Rosen and join her fight.

Remove all the unauthorized music. Downloading major label music is theft. The fine is $150,000 per song. They're serious about it. They WILL sue their customers. And their children who are in college.

If we prevent their music from being added, which is exactly what they have requested, the DMCA is irrelevant to the new network.

We will gladly share it with you. We feel that it extends our culture and the value of our music if someone listens to it. We do not believe our music should be hoarded away. To do so will eliminate us from history.

The artists need to make money. This is a problem which must eventually be addressed as well. This will most effectively be done by eliminating the record labels as a middleman. If they would like to provide a service for a reasonable fee, perhaps consideration must be given.

But copyrights should never be signed away to a promotional investor, which is now the only purpose of the labels.

George,
Please stop saying this "Remove all the unauthorized music. Downloading major label music is theft. The fine is
$150,000 per song. They're serious about it. They WILL sue their customers. And their
children who are in college."
Or if you say this, please also tell people that there enforcement is LOW! Saying that to share is illegal is one thing, but to say the consequences is another!
There mouths say they WILL, but there actions show otherwise.
Also, please expound on " We must walk up behind Hilary Rosen and join her fight."
I would ask that all go forward with Georges Idea, i would have that program open Every Day, even if my internet was slow.
Thanks

Also,
Are the 100,000 files on Dmusic?
I will go there and download more to share on kazaa, if that is where you are talking about.

You guys discuss, I'll be back.

I'm going to go personally give Hilary Rosen a final chance to surrender. If she doesn't, we destroy her organization.

Well said!

Okay, Hilary has been challenged. Specifically. I told her she better read this. If she doesn't answer here or in the press, we know the answer.

As far as getting on her team, directive, I completely understand what you are saying. Two days ago, I was asking the elusive "they who control everything" why would couldn't start talking about authorized music instead of piracy.

I was wrong. We need to do both simultaneously. Do not forget that my entire fight against the RIAA has NOT been a personal vendetta.

It is my marketing plan. Six months ago, no one knew my name. Now all of you, and DMusic and GarageBand and Kazaa are turning to me as the unifying force that's going to reshape the music business.

I think my original job, posed to me by my band -- Get Us Noticed -- is going pretty well.

As soon as the new net is established, it's time for someone to come up with some cash for advertising. It won't take much.

We steal the MusicUnited.org commercial, chop it up, and use it as the intro for a 30-second commercial.

We let their stance go for about 15 seconds. The audio can run the entire 30 seconds.

The rest of the video footage should be a screen shot of someone logging into the new network, with big splash pages for free, authorized music that completely contradicts everything the audio track is saying.

We combine Hilary's idea of public education with our vision for the future. The sales decline will increase logarithmically, if it has not begun to accelerate to that degree already.

If that IS the case (the acceleration has already begun), this will be instant death to the labels.

We not only need to tell people that our music is free, we need to constantly remind the public that the RIAA considers their music to be black market goods which possess a potential fine of $150,000 per song.

Sure, they're not going to arrest a lot of people. But at 97 billion a pop, you don't want to be the one. Ask Princeton. Ask Michigan Tech. And the University of Maryland.

Some people still do not understand Hilary's message. According to the law, downloading unauthorized music IS THEFT. You may not agree, but the U.S. Department of Justice does.

If the major label music is allowed in the new network, it is a legal termite which will erode the freedom. Again.

The only music that is entirely safe for file sharing will be the music on the new network. The labels have criminalized the sharing of their own music.

That's fine. Get it? Support it.

The government has been trying to shut down or censor the music industry ever since Elvis moved his pelvis.

I never agreed with that position until now, and only the shut it down part. As we have seen with all sorts of censorship, the government can never stop the truth. They can never control art or music.

But all of you that are so concerned that no one over age 40 understands are the only ones with the real power.

The music demographic ends at age 35. I'm 48. I count much less than you do.

They told you not to listen to their music and cried when sales dropped. Then they pointed at flagging sales near universities as a reason to sue you into buying their product. It is a fear tactic. Nothing more.

You have the power. You have the technology. You have the music.

No, it's not all on DMusic.

But DMusic has more than 4000 acts. I've got 11 songs up for download. Blues Traveler has five, I think, and I don't think they are on an album unless it's the one they just released.

But thumbtack couldn't give me a song count. I'd guess 15,000 to 25,000 songs are there. But DMusic has about 3.5 times more acts than EMI.

GarageBand has many more, although some artists are on both sites. I haven't even talked to Vitaminic yet, and that is very international. Who knows how many thousands of songs are there.

And I've had major label distributors and independent acts making use of such distribution offer music into this pool already or, if not outright offering songs, indicate their acceptance of the need for a new program. Established artists. New artists.

Like I say, I see a minimum of 100,000 songs. But I've only really been looking hard since Monday.

The webcasters are still debating about what is and is not legal. After 3 years.

The challenge has been extended to ASCAP, and through them, hopefully to the Grammy committe and NARAS.

A private response is not acceptable. Post here or in the national media. Today.

The big boys have a hard time with the truth. It's so tough to deal with.

It's been almost an hour. We're still waiting to see what they have to say to their core demographic. Or do they choose to ignore us and promote your arrest?

All i can say, continue Onward!

Also,
As i am seeing on dmusic and elsewhere, please tell them to make MP3's accessable with names of the songs, and not a Number, it is much easier to get them on kazaa if they have titles instead of this number system i have seen on dmusic.
Thanks

this all sounds great in theory, but there's a major obstacle.. someone, somewhere, somehow is going to figure out how to get around whatever method there is of keeping non-authorized material out of the system if it's a p2p system.

filename filtering? didn't work for napster.

a list of authorized files and their checksums? maybe, but someone's going to start renaming files and adding silence at the end to get the right checksum. or make a client patch to get rid of that lock.

asking people nicely? as if.

don't get me wrong, i'm totally in favour of the idea.. but i just know that there are people out there who want to share crappy label stuff no matter what, no matter where.

how do we get around it? anyone know?

Good point

Ashleighj -- GarageBand's CEO just called me a few minutes ago. We're going to start talking nuts and bolts on May 1. Evidently someone is out of the office today.

That's okay. That gives up 6 days to iron out the details.

Part of your answer is accountability. With the overwhelming amount of authorized content available, complete anonymity and invasion of privacy should not be an issue.

Either the P2P should not offer consumers the ability to add music OR those sharing files must make their identity known in order to do so. The identity does not have to be publicly available, but it must be available to those who run the network.

If you are going to post to the net, you must take responsibility for your actions.

Control is in everyone's best interests and it is the reason the DMCA was created. Unfortunately, the DMCA is a mockery of the copyright law.

This is why we start over. Take that source code and fix this.

If people want to find major label music, they can go to Rhapsody or MusicNet and pay $1.50 to $2 to download a song.

but why does it have to p2p..would it be easier just to have a Independent Napster..also what if we all joined together and created our own lobbying group say the IAA. We could have Dmusic, CD baby, Garage Band, MusicDish, IUMA all of them ..we would be a force to reckon with.. and geoge i love your fight and your music...

Yes. We need an organization to represent us. We are the majority of the voice of culture, yet we have no voice in government nor in the laws which govern our works.

It does not have to be P2P.

Frankly I don't care where it is, as long as Senator Hollings and Orrin Hatch and everyone else realize that it's sitting out there and it represents the majority.

They believe that all of the music services that the labels don't own are a threat to all copyright owners.

Well, we own copyrights, too. And right now, we're better off NOT registering our works because it prevents the ability to impose that $150,000 per song punitive damage. But technically, they're still copyrighted.

And if this is not resolved by May 15, I will explain how to do this and still get a copy of your work stored in the Library of Congress in order that it become a part of history.

And it's cheaper than the way it works now.

The Copyright Office is no longer relevant, either.

Ronnie -- And our music?
Cool... Thanks

"Either the P2P should not offer consumers the ability to add music OR those sharing files must make their identity known in order to do so. The identity does not have to be publicly available, but it must be available to those who run the network."

again, i hate to rain on the parade, but i don't think that's going to work.. if it's p2p, users have to be able to add files by the very nature of it. otherwise, what you have is a website like dmusic or mp3.con or garageband or etc..

now, the trickier issue of accountability.. first, it would be a major pain to verify the information, and i've told mp3.con on many occasions that my email address is biteme@noidontwantviagra.net

verification is out.. the sheer ammount of work involved in doing it is bad enough, but we'd lose the majority of people who are legitimately interested if that were the case. even with ligitimate sites, i know i'm very picky when it comes to giving out real info.

so we're left with the IP address. they're using it in the verizon case, so i suppose it's entirely possible to keep a log of what IP address requests what file and then trace it if needed. if the copyright holder complains, we offer the IP address on record, and they can persue the matter further. of course, now we sound like the cheerleaders for the patriot act. "we'll monitor everything and report it any time you ask!" public relations nightmare, everyone will go back to unmonitored kazaa and gnutella and etc.

someone help me find that viable 3rd option.. it's out there somewhere, but i just can't find it.

i should have mentioned.. p2p is deffinitly the way to go. as i'm sure most of us know, with a website you get a huge bill for bandwidth.. with p2p, the people uploading and downloading pay for most of the network's bandwidth (as part of their monthly ISP fee). when the goal is to not require a payment to get or share music, i admire the free websites but we all know it's a constant struggle with funding.

hmmmm.. maybe we need p2p v2.. get rid of the old ideas, come up with a new way.. i'll think on it.

Is there even a viable third option? I'm trying to think of one, but at the moment it seems costly, but here it is. How about lumping all of the independent music sites into one. Call it p2p.net or something. Rely on donations and very limited advertising. Granted, it's hard to say how much you will get in donations for this, and how much bandwidth will be consumed. If it becomes too popular, advertising will completely take over. I've seen it happen to one too many sites. I wouldn't even consider a pay site. The second it became one, I'd stop going there. A premium service could be offered for special features (as long as downloads aren't extensively limited). Something like $5 a month.

Relying on people just isn't enough, yet no one wants to see a bunch of adds, or be bombarded with questions about their personal information. I think we need to ask people to start shaping up too.

The only people who need to verify anything are the ones who choose to upload or offer material.

The downloaders can remain totally anonymous.

Think about the digital jukebox. The consumer picks the songs. They have nothing to do with putting them there.

Our service sites (DMusic, GarageBand) offer us the ability to promote ourselves in more detail with bios, photos, schedules, etc. At the same time, these outlets allow our fans to converse with us directly. We may have to pay for this sort of service, but it should not be a requirement to have music added to the directory.

I agree with kneo24, though. I don't have half the problem on a Mac as I have seen my stockbroker guitarist deal with on Windows, but pop-up ads do not belong.

If you want to put ads along the side of the page, fine. We can close our eyes and listen.

This is part of the rewrite.

"The only people who need to verify anything are the ones who choose to upload or offer material."

a good point, but this would make worse one of the main problems p2p networks face.. leechers. people who download but won't upload. it typically results in horrible download speeds and long long queues.

i mean, it'll work if nobody can think of a better idea.. but i'm just thinking ahead a bit. when there's 1000 people looking for downloads, it won't be a big issue, but if it grows (and i'd certainly hope it does), it'll end up being mass frustration.

as for a website with ads.. it takes a _lot_ of popularity for a site to get advertising funds that are enough to pay for things, if i understand correctly. even yahoo is slowly moving some of their services to pay models.

strange but workable ideas have a way of popping into my mind, so i'll let everyone know if i think of a good solution to these issues.

And they will until there is a completely unified Boycott against buying any music, videos, or what ever Riaa controls and doesn't control. I rightfully owned nearly everything Metallica produced, it was burned in a house fire, it wasn't covered, but I repurchased it, then two years later I was burglarized and guess what stolen again along with an expansive colletion of music covering 1930-2002. Litteraly thousands of dollars. DID RIAA REPLACE IT? NO. DID METALLICA REPLACE THEM? NO. I have purchased alot of over priced music in my life, BUT NO MORE! I am no longer a METALLICA fan, I burned my t-shirts and will NEVER buy any of their anything. And I will never set foot in a music store again either. WHY? BECAUSE: the music industry and riaa has made it unafordable and gotten way too greedy. MP3 swapping was helping sell music and it will again, AS LONG AS YOU ALL QUIT WHINING AND FIGHTING AMONGST YOURSELVES AND B.O.Y.C.O.T.T! duh!

We are not fighting among ourselves.

The musicians and tech-heads are uniting to combine technology and art in an effective manner that is open, legal and affordable. The major label music is not required.

We are merely debating the details that need to be worked out.

The webcasters have been debating this for 3 years with the RIAA. We started this morning.

And while the boycott is a wonderful idea, it is too damn slow.

P2P, websites, does this system need to take a tangible form? In other words, could it be nothing more than a coalition of artists aknowledging their music is for free distribition and let the masses handle the rest

Another idea would be to modle it after a program called Bit Torrent. It seems little more than a browser applet. You start with a central server with links to the content, the applet pops up and looks for it. At first it will only find it on the home server but as ppl start to download it, the applet will also upload the content other users requested via the home server. End users can't add content because the applet will only look for stuff a user has clicked on from the home server. Users can't leech because you can't disable uploading while the applet is open. You can decrease upload speed but that also decreases download speed. The guy that I get my recorded TV shows from is hosting this from his hard drive so apparently its not too resource intensive. The only problems I have noticed with it are ppl not keeping the applet open so no one can get the content from them and the fact that you can't minimize to the systray. If it's made to minimize to the tray, more ppl would probably keep it open for longer. It's still a p2p app but end users don't have any way to mess up the system really. It sounds like this might be the third option you need to get this rolling.

aren't files in Bit Torrent only kept up for a short period of time?

On the server, yes, but I'm not sure if thats a decision the program makes or the server administrator. I'm almost sure you could keep them on the home server for as long as you want. It's still worth looking in to.

alright, my apologies for not even acknowledging that it was a good idea

1. Hillary Rosen is not the president or what ever of the RIAA anymore, she resigned (Quiter!)

2. Existing networks are just fine for now, all you have to do is to download and share allot of INDIE music. Now if, just if all the songs on Dmusic, let's say are on multiple peers running Shareaza, then using the magnet links all the artists can have a P2P network helping them to become more knowen, the problem that we face is that we need the p2p user to want the files that we have permission to share, Some of the artists are not that very well knowen and their popularity relies on sites such as this, and word of mouth, If there was a way to have a list of artists catigorised in their music genre, and have rankings and a way that all of the p2p client users can easily access them, then it would work well. But people have to know about sites like Dmusic to find the music at the current time, which we need to change slightly, which means making dmusic more widely knowen. That may cost allot of money thought.

just my 2 cents, kinda got off topic.

mtekk, the only problem is that most people don't know who to search for, or what to search for... if i type in 'indie' or 'independent' as an average user i've gotta find some good resuls quick, or else i've lost interest...

i like the concept behind Bit Torrent, however, i have another idea. since all that's required is an IP by the uploader, ask for that, verify the e-mail address, giving the full consequences of their actions if they post a bad song. The bit torrent applet sounds very easy though, and anyone with the computer programming knowledge should definitely work on that... You've got my 3 songs I have online, just tell me when and where to upload them

Actually, Hilary is still president until the end of this year.

Verified e-mail is a good option. It forces the person to become responsible.

You guys have no idea how well you are doing. I have a punch list of 8 issues which must be addressed. Found it in a book I received today. I'm not going to tell you the name of the book quite yet, but it outlines the 8 traits that will make an effort like this most apt to be successful.

We are already discussing five of them. Keep going, you're all doing wonderfully.

i think all these ideas are great and i would like to say .. my opinion i think there has to be a musician who is a champion for all this.. like david defeating goliath.. if one or two bands that are indie and stay indie get well known. i think that would break it open.. also i mention different sites getting together in a forum thread once but i will say it again .. if this sight would team up with the independent sites that each one could offer each others services... like instead Dmusic selling CDs we can partner with CD baby, instead of having a internet radio maybe team up with garageradio, and get more news from musicdish.. anything instead of spending money and resouces on something new we can partner with a site that already has these services... and george i really want to start an organization that represents independent musicians...it seems that the labels have the money and the power but i know our powers are stronger if we just get together.. maybe charge a fee like five bucks a month so at least someone can represent us. I cant fly to Washington and tell our politicians that i dont believe in this crap but we pooled our money and resources we can get somebody on our side maybe even get investors like certain industries that would benefit from supporting us.

All great ideas. The different sites (like dmusic, cd baby) should partner together to build a "coalition of the willing" of consumers willing to "disarm" the RIAA of its "weapons of mass destruction". The RIAA is not going to surrender their favorite weapon: lawsuits- unless we find away around it. Then they will be in trouble. All the companies are corporations, so they have investors. when sales slump, profits do as well, and stock price goes down. this gets many investors worried. then they may act and force their companies to be more consumer-friendly. It's a possibility.

Ronnie71 -- This is my personal marketing plan, don't forget. Not only does Goliath know I'm out here already, I've been privately in its face almost daily.

I have nothing to lose.
And WE have everything to gain. I already get to speak at the DMCA hearing in a couple of weeks. The copyright office request for comments looks like an open door to discuss my webcasting royalty issue.

Coincidence? Maybe. Perhaps this is Senator McCain's method of determining the answer to my question. Maybe it's just a brilliant stroke of luck.

Either way, I'll be there for that, too. Don't ask me how.

And let's not go to David and Goliath analogies, please. I'm doing really well with the Wizard and the Wicked Witch.

It's actually kind of fun. It's just one more free service that AzOz offers, in conjunction with DMusic and Boycott-RIAA.

No habla payola.

George,
Can u give me some info on the May 5th event, i will make plans to be at UCLA on that day.
Thanks

May 14. UCLA Law School. Moot Court. 9 a.m.

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

I really like what I have read here. I can see a giant lightning bolt headed for the RIAA. The can choose to get out of the way by adapting and integrating with this new p2p or they can stand there like idiots and be struck down. Personally I hope they do the latter. They can't very well hold all those artists hostage if they have no money to enforce the contracts.

A word on this organization to represent the independants though. It was mentioned here some time back that forming such a coallition to fight the RIAA poses the risk that over time it would become what it seeks to destroy. We would have this disaster all over again except this time the beast would be armed _with_ the internet and p2p instead of fighting against them. I'm all for getting a voice in Washington, and I'm not sure how it should be done. I would just like to remind all of you that every social machine ever built seems to grow beyond good sense and decency to one degree or another. Microsoft, the RIAA, and every form of government just to name a few. Your intentions are all good I know, but so were the intentions of the U.S. founding fathers. Look what happened we now have laws like the DMCA, and technologies like Palladium.

Okay, so let me tell you about the book. It's relatively new, since it is ©2003 by Howard Rheingold (Perseus Publishing). It was recommended to me by Brad King at Wired.com. He said to read Chapter 2.

The title of the book is "Smart Mobs - The Next Social Revolution."

In the book (pg. 35), Rheingold refers to the writings of Elinor Ostrom. Ostrom had determined that cooperative efforts that "are able to organize and govern their behavior successfully are marked by the following design principles."

This morning, we started an experiment in cooperative social change. I didn't take the book out of the shrink-wrap until this afternoon, I swear.

Ostrom offers eight design principles. Here are the first five.

1) Group boundaries are clearly defined.
Major label music -- No. Everything else, with permission -- yes.

2) Rules governing the use of collective goods are well matched to local needs and conditions.

The consumers need music. We have some. We will let you listen to it. If we create a cooperative RIAA-free zone, the DMCA is irrelevant and cannot be applied.

3) Most individuals affected by these rules can participate in modifying the rules.

That would be the copyright owners, who the DMCA was designed to protect and has woefully missed its mark. All of us will give away some music for free. Some of us will give away all of our music for free if you will just listen to it. The rock stars would too if any of them besides Janis Ian would admit it.

Yet we put ourselves in the hands of what I refer to as the tech-heads, and no disrespect is intended. I are one.

We know you can take everything if you want. Please allow us to control the offering. It is in all of our best interests.

4) The rights of the community members to devise their own rules is respected by external authorities.

The independent artists have the power to bypass our royalties. The major label artists do not. If we directly license our music, governmental rules and regulations do not apply -- unless we are asked to pay for the privilege.

5) A system for monitoring members' behavior exists; the community members themselves undertake this monitoring.

Kneo24 already stressed this. Any internal monitoring that actually works will prevent the ability, motivation or legal premise of any government regulation or intervention from being justified.

So we're a social experiment. Right out of the book. And a pretty damn new book.

There are 3 more important points, but they are kind of irrelevant until we establish the structure.

And for the hackers...
Steven Levy's "hackers code of ethics" will be respected. It's on page 47 of "Smart Mobs".

We already have agreed on three out of the 4 points.
-- Access to computers should be unlimited and total
-- Always yield to the Hands-On Imperative
-- All information should be free
-- Mistrust authority -- promote decentralization.

I think the only point I have to explain is decentralization. In order to DEcentralize, you have to centralize a little.

So we feed you the music. Perhaps from the readily identifiable sources, depending on how you choose to attack this problem. We'll dump into a central repository or something.

From there, you can decentralize the network into nodes that do whatever. But help us make a good place to stash the tunes and help us keep it together.

We can't do it without the hackers and the tech-heads.

Litheon, this is not sarcastic.

I have to give this up in July. Gotta make some money. I don't want to be in charge of anything except myself.

I've used 2/3 of my alloted time already. I'm just trying to kick-start the world into taking this into their own hands cause I've got shit to do.

You're right. There is a potential for any independent organization to evolve into something like the RIAA.

Like all the heros of my youth that I see standing silently under the Wicked Witch's spell.

I can't promise a happy ending. Just a new start.

I have to give this up in July.
Give what up?

This battle to save music from the RIAA has been my full-time job for six months. It does not pay. But if I had attacked this problem an hour or two at a time, we'd still we arguing whether I knew where the RIAA's "unaccounted units" were. (I still do not.)

Sure, it's more fun than pulling the wings off of flies, but I'm on a deadline. It took about a year and a half to record our CD. I was given 9 months to promote it.

This is my marketing plan, as I have said.

On July 4, I go back to work. I'll be doing sound for Pete Best. And there is a big event coming over Labor Day weekend that I'll talk more about later.

But I won't be able to sit around my computer all day trying to save the world of music.

This is why I'm so impatient about doing something and doing it now. I can only lead the fight as a full time job for about 70 more days.

Look how far we've come. We can make it. We're down to the five-yard line.

All we have to do is push the ball over the goal line. It'll only take one good play at this point. One trump card that Hilary doesn't know we have.

There's plenty of time. But I'm on a deadline.

July 4 is Independents' Day. Remember?

After July 4, it's back to work.

When I wrote my first RIAA statistics article in December, I told Hilary Rosen the real pirates were coming and we were stealing the entire business.

By Independents' Day.

I don't make idle threats.

Sharkface: "P2P, websites, does this system need to take a tangible form? In other words, could it be nothing more than a coalition of artists aknowledging their music is for free distribition and let the masses handle the rest"

gdZiemann: " The consumers need music. We have some. We will let you listen to it. If we create a cooperative RIAA-free zone, the DMCA is irrelevant and cannot be applied."

i was thinking about this at work (my mind wanders off a lot..). and i had started thinking that perhaps the most cost-effective way to do things would be to have a massive database (SQL or something) that lists every song that the copyright holders have authorized for free distribution. we'd have the stats on the front page, 2,000,000 authorized songs or however many. (and it would get that big, one day.) possibly turn it into a semi-promotional vehicle.. have band pages with a short bio, list of authorized songs, stuff like that. we end up with a huge searchable database of "what IS allowed" that anyone can view whenever they like, we spare ourselves the technical near-impossibility of filtering out RIAA material while maintaining the fanbase's privacy, we spare ourselves the bandwidth and storage space that mp3's would require (a lot of text, while this wouldn't be tiny, would still be small enough to be within reason). songs would be added to the database by the copyright holders themselves, and some sort of verification would be involved, while fans would be able to remain anonymous.

BUT... the fanbase would have to search p2p networks, indie websites like dmusic and garageband, etc.. naturally, p2p would be the easy choice for most. therefore, if we have listed the music which is available under creative commons, would the DMCA still apply to our music if it's on the already-existing p2p networks?

if we absolutely have to create a RIAA-free zone to protect outselves from the laws, the magnatude of difficulty raises drasticly. i still haven't figured out how it could be done without sacrificing privacy.

someone mentioned how sometimes the revolution becomes the oppression.. so i can't blame anyone who'd want to stay anonymous. it's the (sad) truth.

(sorry if this seemed disjointed, i'm rushing through lunch break)

Great points Ashleighj.

All we have to do is create this index or make a clearing house that identifies the authorized material. One of the things I screamed about before was to either give us a list of unauthorized songs to avoid or a list of authorized songs, whichever is easiest to create.

The RIAA ignored the request.

But that's where we start. As long as we are collecting an index of songs which have been authorized, either through creative commons or by checking a little box at DMusic or GarageBand that says, the song we are preparing to upload is available for public download (which we have already done, have we not?).

For a brief minute, I'll relax a self-imposed prejudice.

Some RIAA music is authorized, too. But very, very little. They'll come around.

The major artists biggest concern is control. They obviously don't mind giving us some free music, too. They pay to put it on the radio. They'll probably contribute those same songs eventually.

But as long as their entire CD hits the net (which I still believe is pure promotion, not theft), they are going to cry piracy.

So the list of authorized songs needs to be verifiable and authentic. Once the list is available, the sharing can take place anywhere, worry free.

With enough authorized material available, the RIAA will be hunting down "pirates" and violating privacy in the name of a weak minority, just as they are today.

The difference is, the government will know it's a minority. Right now, people like Senator Hollings think the RIAA is the only game in town.

But he doesn't realize that this means it's antitrust. So we can't count on them either.

We have to do it.

Hilary Rosen is still there...She plans on leaving at years end...

I love the idea of the education the public. I'd love to help orgranize an effort to do so. Maybe DMusic could branch off into a smaller company that does exactly that? Kind of like Boycott-RIAA, but not exactly.

Yes, thumbtack, I know. That's why we must strike now. Before she gets away.

She's the point thing for this attack on our constitutional rights. She's proud of it. Her exact words... "I'm part of it."

Now she pays the price.

Anyone see the "Foxtrot" cartoon today?

I have a suggestion, hope a new registrant can help. Go to some/the engineers with what you want. I'm looking at: http://www.gnu.org/software/GNUnet/
and to a non-programmer it appears to solve the anonymity and leeches outright.

A problem I see looming for them is their own liability. If their system took off as a piracy tool (bad term!), they themselves could be in serious hot water. In comes this cc-style p2p idea, meaning you might be cut out for eachother.

I'd be willing to bet they could come up with a working system of trust, tying in relavant aspects outlined in "Smart Mobs - The Next Social Revolution," maybe in something as simple as an extention of pgp-style signature networks. Even if they didn't want to, the code is available as a possible starting point. Ultimately I'm big on deferring the specific engineering questions to the people who live off/for answering them.


Obviously the system needs to run on the more popular os's if it's going to go anywhere, but my understanding is that good design is tougher than implimentation.

The more I read about this GNU-net, the more I suspect that the full solution, including to the problem of eliminating users who try to post files illegally, could be handled very easily within their framework, at worst with a few patches to their system of establishing trust and a few central trust authorities that the rest of the p2p folk could tap into.

i'm short of time here, so i only got to glance very briefly at the GNUnet info.. it looks wonderful for privacy issues, but i still don't see how we could adapt it to disallow RIAA material.

the conclusion i was coming to but didn't get it earlier is that if we set up our own p2p network, we have to convince the public to join in. and while we can promise free music legally 'til every last one of us is out of breath, people are going to go where the selection is.

halt there. the word "selection" is VERY misleading.

let's say we start indie-net. let's say it's a huge success and we get a million songs available. and let's say kazaa has 700,000. (i made that number up, i have no idea what it would really be.) you would think that means indie-net has more selection.. but people will keep using kazaa! why? "it has more selection, nothing i've heard of is on indie-net" is probably what we'll be told. selection only counts if someone knows to look for it. if we start indie-net, i fear we'd only be preaching to the already-converted.

people are already using kazaa (and the other p2p's). that's where the audience is. do we tell the audience "hey, come over here!" and hope they follow? i think we have to go where THEY are. if they don't have to go to the trouble of downloading and learning to use new software, it becomes far easier to get them to download our music. we just have to get our band names in their mind, not our software in their computers. it has to be easy for them, and i've found that for a lot of people, computers are not intuitive and every program is a chore in reading help files.

with that in mind, i think creating a website with our database of allowed material is the way to go. the larger it grows, the less "illegal" content there is percentage-wise, and the less power RIAA can hold over p2p networks. the database is public, it can be used for legal defense if RIAA tries to use our mp3's to sue people. "your honor, my client downloaded material that is listed as being approved for sharing by the copyright owner."

but making that huge database won't solve anything at all by itself. we've still got to get the bands' names out there. not to the indie-fans, but to the people in general.

call it a guerella tactic. when you find a cool band on dmusic or garageband or vitaminic, or etc.. think about what person you know might like it. make a cd-r and hand it to them, say "hey, try this out" and save the anti-RIAA sermon for after they've decided they like it. get the average people to begin finding indie bands they like, and they'll spread the word.

because i'm discovering that the sad truth is that people think "oh, punk. blah." when they hear the word "indie". sure, you and i are well aware that there's hip hop, country, hell, even CLASSICAL indie out there. we need to tell people. because punk's not for everyone.

these are the ideas i have for how we can make this work the fastest and costing the least with the desired result. think about it, add to it. and PLEASE look for holes in this "plan" -- the music industry is handing independent musicians the chance of a lifetime on a silver platter, and i'd rather hear about how wrong i am than see us all fail.

We've gotta crack the major media. Yeah, I know, the RIAA owns most of it, too. But not all of it.

But I made my Mom realize that even if she is a law-abiding, church-going, follow-the-rules type, she has a cassette tape she recorded off of the radio.

She's a criminal, too. If I hadn't taken that tape away from her, Hilary could have hit her for a half million. Mom's not too happy about that. She didn't know she did anything wrong. She doesn't break the law as a matter of course.

My six-year-old daughter just downloaded a "Lizzie McGuire" (Hillary Duff) song.

Come and get her.

i thought a court ruled recording from the radio for personal use fell under "fair use"....? i'm leaving for the weekend, i'll catch up with you guys later. ta!

Shhh. Don't tell mom. I just got her on our side. She's in AARP.

Primary thought on the Gnu-net stuff (my apologies if ashleighj and everyone but me is in fact an experienced developer): Instead of worrying about how it is implimented, I'd suggest simply go to people who have experience with this kind of problem with exactly what you want, and get them to suggest how to impliment it or do it for you. "We want a secure, anonymous, anti-leech filesharing system that actively excludes protected material without forcing any kind of DRM on artists or their clients. How do you suggest we do it?" I don't know whether these people would have the answer, though I'd suggest a relevant person have a look into it.

That said, gnu-net stood out to me compared to anything else I've seen, excepting the "it's not already done" element. Particularly:

- Expandable in a plugin fashion; file checksums or some other indexing scheme could be designed separately and have a pre-built protocol that could cut down development effort.
http://www.ovmj.org/GNUnet/documentation.php3#design

- Between the initial connections being set up by unique public-key ids, the ability to establish networks of peer-based trust, one might be able to skip file-checksums and control against RIAA/malicious content by a "social" network. I like this, but keep getting stuck with this problem: DMusic trusts Joe Naive Musician trusts Dr. Evil. In an anonymous environment, Mr. Bob easily finds the latest Metallica tune via Dr. Evil. The only solution I can think of is DMusic preiodically tells those that trust them to search for Metallica's "Us and RIAA" and stop trusting anyone who comes back with a positive response.
http://www.ovmj.org/GNUnet/documentation.php3#gnunet.conf.trusted


- The web database means we're stuck with a central authority who may not know about every song we want. I see a possible solution: Standardize the protocol and let the clients connect to whatever databases they choose, (as with freedb or cddb), but separate trusted and untrusted content. The trusted stuff is ecrypted and stored user computers by the main databases (to prevent tampering), as can be done with freenet and gnu-net (http://www.ovmj.org/GNUnet/documentation.php3#gnunet.conf.activemigration). So Ms. User fires up Legal-P2P and anonymously checks into DMusic, Garagebands, and My-Fave-Site. Her sytem is set to allow them to share 15% of her bandwidth and 100MB of drive space. She has no idea what gets in that 100MB, except it's been directed there by the database sites she trusts. When she does a search, she might specify that she only wants content signed by My-Fav-Site or DMusic, etc. She can offer up her own files, but they remain untrusted and unlisted by the central databases, she'd have to go through them in an official way to be "hosted." Alternatively, she can block searches for untrusted content ever passing through her node (as the big db's will naturally have to do, not to become Napster 2). As with gnu-net, she's actually rewarded in bandwidth by allowing more people to use her resources (http://www.ovmj.org/GNUnet/faq.php3#accounting), but only for the trusted stuff. Just to keep things pleasant for non-technical users, sane defaults and an interface similar to Audiogalaxy would be nice.

I could dream up more and more details about why this should work, but at this point I'm into the daydreaming and speculation realm. I hope something like this really does start running soon, I'd be all over it. Sorry if I'm harping on the same idea too much, I'm not actually a sales rep but found a lot of possible answers in one place, wanted to share.

viscix -- Trying to digest. Look at the Grokster/Streamcast ruling (link at the top of the page).

Their legal battle has suddenly been dismantled by Sony's VCRs. In a nutshell:
As long as our primary intent and effort is to provide authorized content, and especially if it is the majority of the content, that use will outweigh any potentially infringing loopholes.

This brings us to Item 6 on Ostrom's list of things successful cooperatives have in common.

6) A graduated system of sanctions is used.

It must be self-policed, with rewards for "good" behavior; penalties for behavior which is not in the best interests of the community.

Look at eBay's feedback system; slashdot's karma system.

So we don't send people to jail, we just put a pirate flag next to their screen name. The rest of us avoid it. If you download from a pirate sharer, your own "score" goes down.

I've read the reports, it looks like there will still be appeals, and meantime there are super-DMCA's getting passed by state. As to 6 and the rating systems - I apologize for using the real definition of trusted, which has been co-opted.

In "good" encryption the trust refers to user trust. The idea is -not- DRM management, since Ms. User can download and play whatever she wants. The idea is she can specifically get files signed by Dmusic and know they aren't actually viruses from dr. evil. Nothing prevents her from passing those with everyone else in the universe, the encryption tools are there so that she can simultaneously say "I got these from Dmusic, so if you trust their signature you don't have to worry that I installed a virus." Like PGP sigatures for email. I can forward the mail and anyone can read it, but if I change what was written people will know.

Okay, I'm still referring to the book here (a vague plan is better than no plan -- and it's just a set of basic principles).

The major problem with most collective system is what Rheingold calls free riders. They take from the system without contributing to it.

In our case, this works in our benefit. We want the majority of the users to be free riders. That's the beauty.

We only have to guard against contraband (major label music). And the major label stuff is still out there on Kazaa anyway. As long as Kazaa survives the legal typhoon, our independent registry is untouchable, since the majority of it IS legal. We police it to keep the illegal stuff out of our directory.

There is still a possibility that Kazaa will actually pull something together for us, too. I've given them the basic outline and they still want to talk to me, so that's promising.

It is in Kazaa's best interest to suddenly provide a massive amount of authorized downloads. This would seriously diffuse the legal battle for them. If the majority of their content was suddenly legal, then our considerations WILL legally outweigh that of the record labels.

Because we are voluntarily acknowledging the promotional value of giving away some crappy mp3 versions of a few tunes.

And come on. We ALL know that the overall quality of the dominating music has dropped severely in the last 5 to 10 years. Even otherwise not-so-bright people I know say the radio sucks.

Once the consumer sees how much there is and how we are NOT like what is on the radio, their interest will go up. And sooner or later, they'll realize that we need them as fans just as much as we need them for money, if not more.

I've been harrassing the Recording Artists Coalition, too. I appealed to their logic. I appealed to their egos. I challenged them. My band can compete with Roger McGuinn on a level playing field. Did it at mp3.com. Passed him going up and coming back down. But if Elton John doesn't want to play the game, we'll help him get his crap off of the field. Permanently. Get on a rocket, man. Blast out of here.

And now, I'm taunting them like I'm taunting Hilary. I've pointed them here. Asked them for their voice. Asked them to tell the truth, however it falls.

Go look at the list. Don't know who actually saw my e-mails, but no one ever wrote. Except Janis Ian.
http://www.recordingartistscoalition.com/artists.html

I don't think that they care what I think. Or you.
mailto:racinfo@recordingartistscoalition.com

As a consumer, think about that before you buy another CD. If you're a musician, think about that the next time you play a cover song to fill out a five-hour bar gig.

Who do you want to promote? Don Henley? Sting? U2? Bruce Springsteen? Santana? Billy Joel?

They've been letting our promotional tool slowly be criminalized in order to allow the record labels to continue to ship out $2 to $4 billion a year in free goods.

When we asked for THEIR support...?

Dared Hilary. There is a possibility she may not be technically competent enough to actually respond to email, so I gave her my phone number a couple of times, too.

Told ASCAP I was calling them and NARAS out. We want to know for sure how deep they are into the RIAA's pocket.

Asked them to come and tell us the truth. Seen Marilyn Bergman make a post yet?
mailto:info@ascap.com

Bury them in e-mail. Make them listen.

I'm against this idea, but here it goes.

We could all be happy if...

If the playing feild were even. I mean really even. P2P is never going to die.

Eventually the RIAA will implode/sue all it's consumers with a computer.

I am very against Microsoft doing this idea, I'm less thrilled to have something like the IRS contol it.

a penny per play.

The EASIEST solution is software that would report to a government server what we are playing, and then charge us A PENNY!!!! JUST ONE CENT. I'm not doing it for 2 cents. Or 3. JUST 1

We could contiune playing all the music we want, and trade without being called theives.

All the indie artist would get paid too.

Whala we are all happy.

All book on tape people are happy too. They get money, and who cares if it's avaliable on the web.

$1.00 could get you 100 songs. That's about 8-10 hrs of music by my count.

And bandwidth to this server would be minimal considering 10k could easily hold a playlist with 100 artists, song titles, checksum etc. Maybe a little bigger 20k not big compared to some web pages I've seen. If you wanted to go even smaller we could compress it or something automatically. Perhaps encryption of some sort just to make sure things stay tight.

The video people could get .10 an hour of play.

They won't care if you swap their music/videos. HELL the orignal Audio galaxy could come back up, and I'd be a happy camper.

Record companies would actually post their music to be downloaded, and let you download it for free.

----
then the fun.

The record company would start complaining it's not getting enough money, even though they discover they are making more money than they ever did using the fan's bandwidth. No more jewel cases, just web pages.

A government board for music would be put in place just like it is for oil/gas price fixing.

Well maybe it wouldn't be the BEST idea, but it would be a better idea.

The great thing about this is we are all happy file swappers are no longer theives.

So it costs you $10 bux more a month to listen to songs. That's 1000 songs you could listen to and with the average song being around 3 min that's 3000 min of music. Around 50 - 83 hours of music for just 10 bux.

The record companies wouldn't care if you burned them to cd because they are still getting your/their money.

Indie artsts would get a much better idea how many people liked their music as well. Of course I would only have about $50 to date.

The biggest glitch with this idea is ... if you press skip half way through a song does it count. We'll go for the old 10 second rule, if you skip 10 seconds into a song nope, it doesn't count. Better make it 20 seconds just to be fair.

Of course I'm sure there will be some hackers out there that will try and get around this, but let em. Then we could easily fix the problem.

I'm not against spending $10 a month for guilt free music.

Here's the funny thing I'm not going to spend $10 on a CD that will lead to legal prosicution towards somebody that's a fan.

I have bought a CD from a major record lable since they sued napster.

Money wise I can see it working ... it would take less effort to set this up than a new p2p like we are discussing.

Artists could upload their music to a national database as soon as it's done, and start reaping the rewards.

It would be easy to code a plug-in for winamp that did the job, and xmms wouldn't be hard either.

The biggest benifite would be ... we would all know what the most popluar song in the world is at the time Compiled nightly.

Wow good news for Grokster I guess it might be a happy birthday afterall ...

Erm

That's a poor idea. Why should the government be the one to run something like this? As we all know, the government is in the RIAA's pockets. Why can't a group of artists take up something like this? Or a group of websites that support a whole conglomerate of artists?

Plus, whose to say that the government won't try to do other activities with this besides recording what we listen to? I can see my privcy being eroded away with this one.

Also, how would it be billed? Credit card payment? A fee tacked onto your ISP? Do they send you a bill?

This is a very poor concept, erm.

But erm isn't too far off. Remember, this is a digital jukebox. Even the old jukeboxes at the diners required a dime.

What if you pay ahead? Like a phone card. Buy $10 worth of music and download 1000 songs at your leisure.

Streams don't count. Listening is free. This solves the "what if I only listen to half the song?" question. But if you want an mp3 to use for your own iPod or Rio or whatever, it costs a penny.

Madonna wants $1.49 to download an mp3.
I thought it should be completely free.

One cent seems like a compromise. Sure it's a lot closer to my ideal than Madonna's, but so is most independent music.

Napster offered the majors 5 cents a song. It wasn't good enough. Think of how much money they would have made over the past 3 years. And none of us would feel like the major artists are a bunch of money-grubbing greedy bastards.

Like we do now.

Having a majority of free riders completely defeats the purpose of p2p, what you're describing would better be done by simply making a kinder, gentler mp3.com.

The only benefit to a searchable p2p over regular websites is that in a p2p system, everyone shares the burden, the most popular materials are also the most readily available, and nothing is excluded. To get a RIAA-Free network, you only need to change the "nothing is excluded" part. If you can't do that without eliminting the other benefits, you need another solution.

My whole point about the gnu-net stuff is that you probably can do that, using existing technologies, in such a way that illegal content will be excluded by the social network (as bad language is excluded from polite society without any word-police running around), and good behavior is rewarded. A good model could easily be built that follows very closely the principles I've heard outlined in "Smart Mobs - The Next Social Revolution." But you don't want to design the details here, you want the developers to do it. Otherwise you've got a situation like Dilbert, where the best plan to the principles is thrown out because the engineers have orders to do things the wrong way. Boil it down to the principles and then start taking proposals from the engineers.

So here's what I came up with, for my dream system:

Anonymous & secure
Avoids an enforced central authority
Accountable:
+ Good behavior encouraged by the trust network (trust is like ratings in slashdot, but more robust)
++ Good behavior examples: Sharing files, bandwidth, resources in general, being responsive to queries, maintaining good quality (uncorrupted) files, etc.
++ The trust network is based on interaction, and rewards are increased access to the various resources.
+ Bad behavior discouraged, again based on user network trust rather than a central control
++ Bad: Posting viruses, illegal content, flooding or leeching off the network
++ Again, punishment is loss of access via loss of trusting friends rather than central authority. Designed in a way that who I trust is my choice, and can take into account who they trust, and mostly happens without me doing the work.

Cross platform availability (try not to exclude me or anyone else)

Open / standard protocols, avoids a monopoly on the clients and encourages interoperability, just like TCP/IP and HTML.

Not file-type specific: If I want the latest .greathing file format, there's no need to rewrite the whole system.

That's all I can think of, hope it works.

Linux tech-head at your service.

I write 100% ANSI-compliant C code, use the universal modeling language to prototype my designs, and more than happy to help in developing a *completely* decentralized peer-to-peer application.

I have some good ideas on how to achieve this with check-ins / whatnot.

And I agree with the previous poster - let the developers work out implementation specifics somewhere else. Who's up for a SourceForge project?

dcook32p@htcomp.net - if you want to discuss this with me further