To: Steve Metalitz -- IIPA.com

Mr. Metalitz,

I am writing to you because it is my belief that you represent the Recording Industry Association of America in some legal capacity. If you are not the proper legal representative, please forward this request for information to the appropriate party.

I am in contact with a number of highly paid professional computer scientists (actually with capital CS), who wish to know if the major labels would like all of their music removed from the P2P net so that they can get back to work without harrassment.

Here is a chunk of information one provided to me:

----------------


Its not that hard to do in practice-

if (banned) then {
zap( target );
}


where- banned comes from your magic banned music directory, file
checksums, and music signatures (like virus signatures). You might have
to create some harvesters on the network, like spammers do with e-mail
addresses.

zap() could be a search and destroy, but a denial of service attack is more fun. Just flood the person requesting the music with correctly formatted, but incorrect answers. Lots of em. So, if someone wants Britney Spears, give them back 20 million incorrect places to download it from. Most p2p users won't put up with that for too long before they find someplace else to play.

---------

You saw Barbara Simmons of the ACM. She seemed kind of annoyed about all of this business and the effect it has had on her work. I think her team would jump on this and help us so she could get back to what she was doing.

We already have someone who does work for NASA. This was his idea.

I've asked this same question in a public forum. I have asked for a definition of the "unauthorized" music.

My original position was that, since there are 64,000 independent acts willingly sharing their music on the net (which no one wants to acknowledge), it is up to us to maintain control. If I am not mistaken, Congress just agreed with me yesterday.

According to the definition I have received so far, "unauthorized music" includes everything from all labels associated with the RIAA.
This would, by definition, unfortunately, include most of the remaining content at mp3.com. To date, my assertion has been that mp3 files are a promotional tool. Many of us use them in this manner. The RIAA's unqualified position is that piracy is destroying the music industry.

And now, I am in the unique position to present what others have referred to as a modest proposal.

We are prepared to give Hilary Rosen what she has been requesting for 3 years. We would like to negotiate the exact terms of our actions, in an effort to resolve the issue in the best interests of the recording industry AND the independent artists who comprise the majority of the copyright owners in the country. The Intellectual Property Owners you represent may own the majority of the copyrights, but you are the minority of copyright owners and you control an unquestioned overwhelming majority of the market for recorded music.

If you use the power of your market position in a specific effort to refuse to negotiate, that would be a collusion of copyrights that would specifically and certainly define an antitrust as explained by David Boies in his counter-claim in the Napster case, if one were to examine the ruling of the 9th District Court in the Napster hearings.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but the judge determined that:
a) The recording industry was a monopoly
b) They were actively pooling their copyrights in an attempt to refuse to negotiate.
c) They got away with it that time. Napster was bad first. The actions were justified.

This is totally different.

I offer a solution to the problem we have all been hearing screamed from the rafters for three years now.

We're tired of listening to it. We're tired of having all of OUR fans called pirates. There are probably ten times as many of us as there are major artists. Charlotte Douglass, the Copyright Office's Principal Legal Advisor, indicated that she was absolutely shocked to learn that GarageBand.com had 64,000 acts alone, not to mention DMusic, with another 4,000 acts and Vitaminic.com, an international site which is now allowing us to offer up to 25 songs for free downloading, as well as a pay-per-download business model for those who choose to avail themselves of this additional promotional opportunity.

And we all own our own copyrights, registered or not.

We would like a voice. We would like to negotiate the end to the litigation.
Or begin a new one.

Please advise to Mr. Brian Corber at the address indicated in the header of this e-mail. He is not retained as my attorney at this time, but I would like him to review any messages from your office. He has provided valuable legal insight to me, as well as several others interested in the resolution of the disruption of the educational networks and the world's enjoyment of the art of music in general.

Let's take the battle for the marketplace out of the courtroom and put it back in the spotlight where it belongs.

We'll solve the RIAA's problem. And everyone else's. All they have to do is ask.

Please be very specific. The technoids -- the really good ones anyhow -- are worse sticklers for detail than the lawyers are.

Personally, I would say that choosing to have the major music banned from the P2P net would not be as much in your best interests as you appear to believe. I would advise careful deliberation. I'm reaching a global audience for $20 a month. I think the Internet is a vast free promotional opportunity.

And so do a lot of us. In order for us to survive, we have to create a playing field which is litigation-free.
You have had three years to devise a new business model. You have not succeeded.

Make a wish and the world will do its best to grant it. But you're not wiping the independents out in the process.

And you only get one wish.

--
George Ziemann
MacWizards Music
1604 N Date Dr.
Tempe AZ 85281
wizard@azoz.com
http://www.azoz.com

MUM -- Musicians United for Music

Even if all the p2p networks were to shut down overnight, all it does is shift piracy back underground for a while. It wont stay underground for long.

No one said anything about shutting down the P2P.

What happened to our guidelines? We were doing so well. You mark either the "legal" music or the "illegal" music and create a self-policing environment.

If we really, really, really want to pick a fight with the industry, it could get real ugly. That's okay, but as we've discussed here earlier, it may not be necessary.

I guess what I'm suggesting is refining the RIAA is theft point of view to downloading is A is NOT theft, but downloading B is. They are simply B by default.

Also, if the standard for pay-per-play was a higher sample rate, which was NOT allowed on the p2p, there would be an easy check for file size.

Nothing has worked so far because it has been all-inclusive. The entire consumer base has been branded as criminals by default. If you tell people that everything is bad, they'll do it just to spite you. Does no one have children?
But when you say this is good and that is bad, the moral people will stick with the moral choice.

These leaves you only looking for the real bad guys. But everyone else will be, too. They could have viruses, trojan horses, etc.

Most of us prefer to be honest, but a prohibition invites rebellion. A choice requires a conscious decision.

Being part of the solution encourages positive action on the part of all for the greater good.

The labels have tons of money. They can fight in court for years.

Or we just create a new game. We really don't have to ask their permission. We are going to create an access control to lock them out.

If that's what they want. I've just got to get back to work and there is no real reason for this to go on any longer.

Let's make a deal. It's called a compromise. In everyone's best interests.

Keep the fight up George!

Also, creating solutions is a great idea, because illegal file sharing will always be around, the RIAA has some kind of crazy view that fighting P2P will work.

They could never ban RIAA acts from P2P cause it's the most requested stuff. I know from gnutella that the RIAA copyrighted songs are the most that gets downloaded although, I've removed my P2P program a long while agao, I used to get creamed and it sucked up too much of my bandwidth and had to give it up. P2P doesn't promot indie artists like it should though.

Well Like I said I don't download I upload my music,and I'm not negotiating anything with the RIAA or the Major Industry or Clear Channel. I say we keep going just like we have been and cause them to collaspe period. We are the ones with the Power no them. They are trying to figure out how to get it back.And as far as bringing in a Guy from NASA those fools can't even make a space shuttle that doesn't explode must less stop piracy or P2P LMFAO.

George is right in the sense that if all "unauthorized" or RIAA controlled music were removed off all P2P networks, the record labels would see thier profits drop like a stone. Very few people in my opinion, espically college students and people with out a disposable income will be highly opposed to spending 15 to 20 dollars on a cd of a band they haven't heard anything of. In the short term I'd say this would be detrimental to the artists that just signed with a recording studio or one that has never recieved much publicity in the past. In the future though, the independent artists on the P2P networks could ultimately surpass the popularity of the current set of popular artists.

On the other hand though, as soon as an independent artist gets popular on the P2P networks, they're going to be targeted hard core by the labels looking for that next big sound to exploit. The artist will have to be made well aware of his rights before going into talks this the labels, and the promise of wealth by thoes labels will be a strong lure to the indies to give up their copyrights in favor of major wealth.

Most of the artists here will probably resist this, but can you speak for all independent artists?

Guys, there's nothing to negotiate with them. Don't you understand?

Their only chance is to offer up free tunes and they'll never go for it. If they can't have complete control, they want nothing to do with it.

We can do whatever we want. We pick the music we wish to share and allow the uncontrolled sharing.

Everyone needs to wise up on the Founder's Copyright idea and then there is nothing left for them. They would have to license your music at a reasonable rate. And that means what's reasonable for YOU, not them.

If it seems too much of a risk, just do the Founder's Copyright on the songs you want to protect from the vultures, right before or immediately after they start asking for them.

Either they give us a P2P space that they don't immediately try to shut down or ciminalize, or we simply take them out.

Notice that I didn't say this guy was a NASA employee. He does work for them, however. The scientists are having as much problem with the RIAA as we are. More actually. We just want to play some damn tunes and share them with our fans. The scientists are trying to do something worthwhile and the big boys are in their faces just as bad as ours.

Congress just said it's up to the private sector to solve this. So let's do it. They basically said our right to privacy is more important than the RIAA's right to snoop.

And they are WAY behind the technological curve. You guys ARE the curve. They don't have a clue. By the time they finish discussing the legal implications, this could be done.

Is there any way to apply peer pressure to people sharing major label music without actually harrassing them?

Or do we just declare Hacker's Day and let our more sinister friends have at it? Maybe a warning. An example. A solution from the private sector.

If only 15% of the indies go along with this, we outnumber the big boys. The brave can step forward, the devious can go underground and plant the seeds, and the meek can wait to see how it shakes out. That's Congress' choice.

But don't sign away your copyrights any more. Ever. That's just plain dumb. And that's what they think of us.

Here's how to identify your freely available music.

Do a voice-over intro and include the phrase "Brought to you by a royalty-free America. Fair for Sharing."TM

Only the tunes that have the phrase, or something like it, are fair for share. You should be able to tell legal within the first 10 seconds. There will be no doubt. A "pirated" version won't have the voice-over. If you overlap it into a few measures of the music, it can't be duplicated into another song.

Kind of like the deejays used to do. We called it the "ramp." Just stop talking before you start singing.

Sell t-shirts at the end. Whatever. Be creative. But make the point clearly.

Totally voluntary. Pain-free. Total control.

"Guys, there's nothing to negotiate with them."

Yup. P2P created the informed consumer, and at the same time opened up a channel of piracy for those that will decide not to purchase anything. The labels don't like either of these groups, cannot figure out how to make money from them, and don't care that they are losing more respect with every passing day.

If I negotiate for anything, it's the entire 128kbps mp3 format.

They're the record companies, after all. They think they're better than we are. They need to GET better if they want to sell their products.

Like most people say, at 192k and above, it's hard to tell the difference between mp3 and CD. Why don't they sell that and leave us alone?

We'll go out and throw a free party at the new 128k national mp3 park. We get the whole damn park to ourselves.

George,
I deleted most of my mp3's last night, because garage band said i had to contact artists and ask them if i could share there music, that is stupid and a waste of time. I did download Cornerbands music, which is authorized to share on there. I want to fill my computer with more, but don't know where to get music where i do not have to ask every copyright owner.
What do u suggest, i got about 25 gig just waiting for more files to share. The world needs independent music, and i am here to share it.

meh, the P2P networks were nothing like Napster. I burned what I dled, a few disks worth anyway and removed everything from my drive but I did used to share my own stuff though. I'm just not into anymore, too busy with other things these days. and, too many freeloaders with 14.4 modems. Who'd rather dl than share. so, I seriously dont understand the fuss the RIAA is making over it. 90 percent of the downloaders dont share anyway. not like everyone shares and makes the good stuff available.

so, personally for me, I can live without it.

Some great points.

For directive -- We've still got a month. This is going to shake out shortly. Relax. I just did. Take a deep breath. The fight's over.

I agree with SinisterX -- It really should not have been such the big deal it was made out to be in the first place. That's what it's going to go back to.

But there is one other small negotiation point. Joshua Jordan.
He needs his money worse than the record labels do. So do those other 3 college students.

The RIAA better give it back.

*nods* I would GLADLY get back into P2P if I had some way of knowing that the files on there were 100% legal. Perhaps some standarized way of marking the files? Say "Copyright-Free" or "Legal" in the file name in brackets? That way I could pick up the files with a reasonable expectation that the contents thereof were not owned-- or rather, owned by someone who grants permission for it's download.

I think it's a WONDERFUL idea - hell, the technology is out there. Use it.

The RIAA will never go for it though. It's control they want - they don't want people to stop using Kazaa - they want to be able to sue anyone they want anytime they want. The more people break the draconian and ineffable copyright law, the more swords of damocles exist - which gives them power.

Speaking of which, I just re-downloaded Gnucleus. I did a search on "Legal" and the only files that showed up on the search a bunch of "barely legal" porn links, as well as the "Legally Blonde" soundtrack. Searching for "Indie" didn't produce any results. "Independant" didn't either.

I think the best way we can "protect" P2P is by using it in a non-infringing way - so if you upload to P2P, please use the tag "[Indie - Legal]" in your filenames please.

http://www.cs.duke.edu/~justin/copyright/riaa/RIAA-vs-Economy.html

Our thanks to Duke University.

George,
The 2 articles on your website are VERY good. Read them both, and loved them. I am always amazed at the ideas you have, keep up the fight.
Your words were probably the most powerful words at the DMCA hearings, though no body on the comittee heard you.

Yes they did. Charlotte Douglass listened. They took notes at the right places...

$20 billion...
Assistant Secretary of Commerce's concern about a pay for play society...

They got it. I probably did give them far too much to wrap their minds around in a month, much less 10 minutes. But when the transcripts come out and you read it without the drama, the truth is there.

If they go back and read my submission letter (they had not, except for Kasunic), I wouldn't have had to say much at all.

I decided on the spot that there was a much better way to say the same thing.

Who says you can't use pyro indoors?

And you know what? When I went to the top of the hill to see the big dogs, I could see them standing at the fringes, chuckling to one another.

Someone even brought up the term "war." Can you imagine that?

But just like the war we were trying not to compare ourselves to, no one came out to fight. Although Hilary said she didn't want to fight anymore.

She just wants to walk away at the end of the year, content that she has helped integrate the technology and music industries. Humanitarian of the Year.

Not so fast, there...

directive,

There's two ways to get a direct license. 1) You can ask people their permission.
2) Advertise your service.

why not create a P2P app just for Indie artists???? and screw the RIAA's/ copyrighted bullshit? Their music stinks anyway. I'd rather download underground bands and rock music than the hip/hop rap crap thats flooding the RIAA scene right now. Bring back real music and I'll be a happy camper.

why does everyone want to dl today's pop music anyway? I just dont understand it.

*shakes head*

I believe george is working on the very idea now, sinisterx. Hell, there was even an article about it on here and we all had a big discussion about it.

Oh yeah, the software is coming.

July 4 is Independents' Day. I've been saying it since December. We're right on schedule.

That would be so cool. Block the RIAA shit from getting in. They want their crap out of P2P so, why not? wouldn't bother me one bit.

I hope you are smart enough to do something like edonkey did (http: links.)

http://noriaa.the-erm.com

http://tndf.net/

If you live in Tennessee you definetly want to go to the above link.

Looks like there is a SUPER DMAC bill trying to get passed TOMARROW (May 20th)

Get this out. Tell EVERYBODY YOU KNOW!

Weren't you guys talking about bitTorrent before?

I didn't mean erm was off-topic. His post was important.

Opinions on bitTorrent?