Moving towards Option B
Yesterday, I wrote a post commenting on the free-market, negotiate-with-the-copyright-owner option that’s hardly mentioned in news articles and editorials on the internet royalty rate battle. Well, I happened to come across a new story that shows one of these webcasters using that option.
I wrote a post yesterday commenting on an option that webcasters have to deal with the government’s increased royalty rates: Negotiate with record companies and artists directly. In my example, I called this “Option B.” I also commented that this option is hardly ever mentioned in the debate. Well, a few days ago I came across an article that not only mentions the option, but shows an example of a webcaster using it. As reported in “SoundEx touts digital royalty deal” at the Hollywood Reporter:
Some stations are taking matters into their own hands.
Smoothjazz.com, a station in Monterey, Calif., is asking artists to waive their rights to the royalty in exchange for airplay.
and…
Shore [founder of Smoothjazz] contends that stations the size of Smoothjazz that allow artists to sell CDs right off the site help the artist as much as the webcaster.
“Not one artist has said: ‘You’re trying to rip us off,’ ” she said.
It’s up to the artist to decide whether the promotional value of her station is worth forgoing the payment they’d receive through SoundExchange, she explained.
“If they want to waive so we can play them, then they do; if they don’t, they don’t,” she said. “It’s totally up to the artist.”
Here is a webcaster that is going about securing the rights to play her music the right way: by asking for permission. The exposure webcasters give to musicians they play should be used as a negotiating tool, not an excuse or a rationalization for using government power to take away the property rights of music artists.
Tags: [internet radio, webcasters]The essence of the webcaster’s argument
There was some activity in the internet radio royalty rate issue last week. SoundExchange announced that they had made deals with 24 small webcasters. In response, a dozen webcasters released their own statement on the situation. That response contained some of the usual context-dropping statements, but I found one sentence that I think really illustrated what this debate is about.
We have asked for a reasonable, long term solution, not one that is subject to increase at the whim of the record industry every five years.
What they refer to as “whim” is the record industry’s right to control the price of their product: the music. One of the 24 artists that reluctantly signed the SoundExchange agreement added (emphasis mine):
Safroncikas added that he continues to strongly support passage of The Internet Radio Equality Act, HR 2060 in the House, S 1353 in the Senate. “A willing-buyer, willing-seller thoeretical standard cannot work when one entity holds all of the music cards. The rate-setting standard must be ammended,” he added.
What he refers to as the “music cards” is the record company’s property. What both are saying that so long as the record industry is allowed to control its own property and set its own rates, webcasters won’t have any choice but to accept the rates the industry sets. That would be bad, so the government should step in and give the webcasters some help.
I’ve written a lot on this issue, probably more than I should, and I’ve been trying to think of a way to explain why I’m against the Save-Net-Radioers cause and why I believe that most news and editorial coverage on this issue has not been complete and honest. And I got an idea. Ever since my first year of college, I’ve found that pictures and graphs can be very helpful in explaining programming concepts and methods. It allows people to see abstract ideas in a concrete form, which is very helpful when trying to communicate between two people. So, I’m going to try it here. As bad as this makes my writing sound, these two pictures probably present my argument better than I have in all my posts.
Here you can see the webcaster and the artist. The webcaster wants to play the artist’s music and the artist wants his music played by the webcaster. But unfortunately, there is a big obstacle in the way: SoundExchange! Note the “$” symbols next to SoundExchange. Greedy SoundExchange wants to take the webcaster’s money, but not give it to artists. Practically every news article I’ve read this year portrays the issue like this. Under these circumstances, if SoundExchange forces higher royalty rates, the wall between the webcaster and the artist will be insurmountable. But are these the real circumstances?
Here are the real circumstances. The webcaster wants to play music, and he currently has two options. He can use Option A and get the “right” to play the artist’s music by paying the government-set rate. Or, the webcaster can take Option B and get permission to play music directly from the artist.
Obviously, the webcaster is going to go with the option that costs the least amount of time and effort. Option A has been the cheapest and easiest for years, thanks to a low royalty rate that covered all music - regardless of the wishes of the individual who created the music. However, earlier this year the CRB announced that the cost for Option A was going to increase dramatically. That takes away Option A for most webcasters. That sounds bad, but look again. The government action has, in effect, priced themselves out of the market and made negotiation with record companies and artists the only remaining option. I think that negotiation should be the only option anyway, so I’m happy with the decision.
I’m not happy that some webcasters may have to shut down their radio stations. I’ve read a lot of their stories, and I hope many of them can continue. But then again, I’d also like everybody to have easy access to health care, education, clothing, job opportunities, good food, big houses, dating opportunities, fast cars, high-speed internet, and all of the things that help to make life fun and enjoyable. The question is, how do we do that? I think the answer is to allow people to live their lives as they choose without interference from other people or the government. The only role government should play is to protect someone from interference, and then let the chips fall where they may. If internet radio can survive and by dealing directly with music owners, then it will survive. If it doesn’t, then it doesn’t (it’s going to be fine, of course). I think we get in big trouble when we try to use the government to make the “right” outcome occur, whether it’s the promotion of internet radio or any of the other issues listed above.
Tags: [CRB, internet radio, soundexchange]ARI on Net Neutrality
The Ayn Rand Institute just put out a post against the recent increase in activity by those who want net neutrality. It can be read over at the Objectivist Standard.
Tags: [ari, net neutrality]“‘Net neutrality’ is the idea that ISPs should not be able to favor some types of data over others; they must be ‘neutral’ toward all the data they carry. But just as cable companies have a right to apportion their bandwidth between Internet and television data, so Internet providers have a right to apportion their bandwidth between standard and premium Internet data.”
dar-gtd begins
I’ve opened a project on Sourceforge to manage my GTD application. I’ve named it “dar-gtd”. The project page can be seen here. I’ve never used SourceForge to manage a project, but I think it could be fun. I’ve also signed up my little brother as a co-developer.
It will take some time before I post any code up to the project page. I’ve split the project into two main parts, and I’m still working on the beginning of the first half. I probably won’t post anything to the project until I get the first section to the point that it is ready for testing.
Tags: [dar gtd, gtd]Gaming… at the library?
I admit it, I don’t go to libraries very often. I don’t like waiting or asking for books, and I don’t like the atmosphere. What I read, I either buy or borrow.
However, I happened to be at a library today with my wife. As I was asking one of the library employees to look up a couple books (surprise, the library didn’t have them), I saw a kid walk by me carrying two Wii games to the checkout counter.
Again: The kid was carrying two Wii games. Not books. He had two recently-released video games that you’d find in a store today. The library employee told me that they were carrying video games now. I looked around, and sure enough, there was a long shelf carrying the latest XBox 360, PS3, and Wii games. The section was next to their DVD library, which looked to be at least as big as the movie libraries you’ll find in big grocery stores.
Putting aside the issue of how institutions like libraries should be financed, I believe that those in government have a responsibility not to waste tax dollars. I’d like to know what logic was used by local officials when they decided that video games and movies were things that the government should provide.
Tags: [library, video games]A Net in Neutral?
From a post on HOTI today, I came across an article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune titled “A Net in neutral.” HOTI criticized some statistical issues with the article, but I don’t think they hit the article enough. I think the article was inaccurate and a bit biased in the way it presented the net neutrality, and I’ll explain why.
Andrew Odlyzko, a net neutrality advocate, is the central figure in this article. Near the beginning is states (emphasis mine):
But what the slowdown in traffic growth means to Odlyzko is that the debate about the future of the Internet needs to tilt toward encouraging more use, not restricting it.
First, the net neutrality advocates are the people that are trying to add restrictions to internet access, not those that are against net neutrality. Net neutrality, by its definition, is a restriction on what ISPs can do with their own pipes. If an ISP wants to modify the way it handles and prioritizes traffic on its own network, net neutrality would restrict it from doing anything except treating every bit the same. I bet that a net neutrality advocate would say that they want to restrict the ability of ISPs to restrict their networks, but that’s not true. There are all types of restrictions placed on customers by their ISPs that affect the type and quality of the internet access. Most notably, their restriction that demands you pay a fee for the internet access they give you.
I’m not trying to play a word-game with “restriction,” I just think that net neutrality is an issue where some context is needed before criticizing the idea of restricting internet access and use. If you start to define who set up and owns the pipes the internet runs on, who provided you with the internet access, and the proper role of government when it comes to private property, you’ll find that the net neutrality advocates are people that are trying to add true restrictions to the internet — restrictions that are enforced by the government that nobody can bypass. If an individual creates a more efficient way to handle the changing traffic demands of the internet, net neutrality advocates say “Nope, can’t do that. We can’t allow you to control what you do with your own computer network.” Who is really the proponent for restrictions on the internet?
The article continues:
He’s referring to congressional debate during the past year over “net neutrality” — the issue of whether everyone’s Internet traffic should be treated equally (as neutrality backers say), or whether high-volume senders of data should be charged more.
Net neutrality is not the issue of whether everyone’s Internet traffic should be treated equally, it is the issue whether everyone’s Internet traffic must be treated equally. If net neutrality advocates want to try to persuade ISPs and their customers that the better way to handle internet traffic is to treat all bits the same, I have no issue with them. I’d disagree, but they’re free to believe and say what they want. Where they cross the line, however, is when they try to use the power of the government to enforce their idea. At that point they are no longer trying to persuade us to the merits of their argument, they are trying to force us to follow their advice. Dropping the government-action part of their crusade might make it easier to gain supporters, but they’re just not presenting their full platform honestly.
For the sake of argument, let’s pretend that we traveled to some sort of Bizarro World where net neutrality advocates were trying to pass legislation that prevented ISPs from treating bits equally. I’d argue against those people for the same reasons as I argue against the net neutrality advocates of this world. This isn’t about how to handle internet traffic as much as it is about the issue of private property.
Tags: [net neutrality]jQuery UI
Today is my wife’s birthday, but I’m the one that got the best present today. While catching up on my RSS reader today, I caught the news that jQuery UI had been released. It’s exactly what I was looking for. I’m a big fan of jQuery and have used it in a lot of places. I chose Yahoo’s YUI framework over jQuery only because it has all of the fancy doo-dads (spelling?) that I didn’t want to code myself, and they were all in one package. If there is going to be a simple jQuery package that has all of the things I need (basic drag-and-dropping, sorting, etc) and doesn’t require me to do all of the things Yahoo’s library was going to force me to do, I’ll go with jQuery. I’m not so far along in my GTD application that I can’t start the javascript pieces over. I’ll be an early-adopter.
I’m still around, by the way, I’m just busy. I’m going to have really big news in the next few weeks.
Tags: [gtd, jquery]GTD application
I’ve written up some initial specs and some basic code to the GTD application I mentioned a few weeks ago. Initially I thought I’d write the application in a similar way to the many I’ve written before, but just in a new PHP framework so I’d learn something. I’ve changed my mind, though, and now I think I’m going to make this site primarily a Javascript / Web 2.0 app. I’ve used AJAX and Javascript a ton at work, but I’ve only built one site that used them as the foundation. Since that site I’ve learned how to use Javascript in much more efficient and logically ways. I’ve often taken the attitude of Javascript as a supplement to a webpage, in that I’d call declare javascript functions and variables on pages whenever it suited my goal. That’s worked for me before, but I think we’re well past the point where Javascript should be coded with the same principles and respect that other languages get.
I think I want the same basic functionality I’ve seen in most GTD applications, but I want to put an emphasis on sharing lists. For example, I want to be able to share my House Chores list with my wife so she can view and add things to the “honey-do” list. Or, if I’m working on a certain project at work, I can send a link that will allow the project manager to see what my plans are for today. I think this functionality exists in other applications, like other applications, but I want to make it work how *I* think is best. And that goes for many other types of functionality. I think there are pros and cons to a lot of GTD applications I’ve tried, so I’m going to look for the pros and implement them in my own way.
For those that are interested, I’m sticking with php/mySql. I thought about going with a PHP Framework, but since the bulk of the PHP will probably be used for security and data retrieval, I’m just going to stick with my own code. When it comes to Javascript, I’m going to try out the YUI library. I’ve been a jQuery guy, but I really like how thorough and solid Yahoo’s libraries are. And if I can get permission, I might SourceForge this project. More details as they happen.
Tags: [gtd]Fantasy Football
The 2007 NFL football season started tonight with the Colts against the Saints. Normally I wouldn’t care too much, but this is the third year of our company’s fantasy football league. I take it seriously — probably too seriously — and it’s completely changed the way I watch NFL games. Rather than root for a team or even a specific player, I root for certain things to happen. Tonight’s game is a good example of this.
I have Peyton Manning, and my opponent this week has Reggie Wayne. This is a problem for me, because Wayne is probably Manning’s best receiver and the most likely recipient of any touchdown he throws. And since her team is probably better than mine right now, I need to make up points somewhere. So here is how tonight worked for me.
Mannning threw a touchdown to Marvin Harrison, and I was happy. Points for me! Then on the next Indy possession, Wayne fumbled. Negative points for my opponent, so good for me! Then Manning finally threw a touchdown to Wayne. Points for both of us. Then Manning threw a second touchdown to Wayne, which is very bad for me. I need to make up points, and a three-touchdown game is what I expect from Manning. A two-touchdown game from Wayne is better than expected, so now I’m even further behind than I was before. So, to summarize, I was happy when Indy got a touchdown, then I was ecstatic when Indy fumbled the ball, then I was disappointed that Indy got another touchdown, and then I was angry that Indy scored a third passing touchdown.
If you’ve never played fantasy football, maybe this should be your warning never to try it. Don’t be like me.
Tags: [fantasy football]iPhone hacking
Last week, a teenager named George Hotz announced that he had a hack for the iPhone that allowed it be run on the TMobile network. Apple and AT&T have an exclusive deal that forces US iPhone customers to get service through AT&T’s network, but instructions Hotz has posted on his personal blogs gives customers instructions to move their iPhone to another phone network. Hotz was praised for his work by many media outlets and bloggers, with many praising his work as a way to give customers what they want. Finally, iPhone customers can leave AT&T’s horrible network and make their own decision. Great, right?
Well, I don’t think so. I think that Apple and AT&T have a legitimate argument against Hotz that his actions have violated their rights to their respective property. For Apple, that property is control over the iPhone. Apple created the device, and they should be able to decide who they want to sell it to or through. For AT&T, that’s control over property they’ve obtained through a deal with another company. AT&T signed a deal with Apple to be the exclusive dealer of service for Apple’s phone. These two companies made a deal to work exclusively with one another, and they should be able to so without being interference from the government, from thieves, or from hackers. Hotz’s actions may seem innocent, but they will cause real damage to a relationship between two big companies.
When I refer to Hotz’s “actions,” I’m talking about his decision to post the hacking instructions on his blog, not the actual hacking of the iPhone. If Hotz had just hacked his own iPhone and used it on his TMobile network, AT&T and Apple wouldn’t even know about it, let alone face any real damage. Damage was done when he posted the instructions on his blog, though. Those posts damaged the ability for AT&T and Apple to use their property as they saw fit — which is something that the government should protect.
Many people will say, “I bought my iPhone, I should get to do what I want with it.” That’s right, but only in a certain context. If we’re just talking about the physical device packaged in a box you purchased at a store, then yes, you own that device. However, if the context is who owns the right to the iPhone brand, the right to decide who sells iPhones, and the right to the software that is released with an iPhone, then no, Apple owns the iPhone. Those are the rights Hotz’s actions damaged. Now it doesn’t matter that Apple wants to make an exclusive deal with AT&T with their own property, and why? Because hackers say that the iPhone should be open.
Hotz is not the only person doing this. Another company has announced that they have software that will unlock the iPhone, without the soldering that Hotz’s hack requires. I don’t think that Apple and Hotz are going to sue a teenager, but I think they should go to the courts to stop these types of companies from violating their ability to control their own property. If people want Apple to use other networks, they should ask. If people want better prices and better network performance from AT&T, they should ask. Negotiate. Sign petitions, show that there is a big demand for better service. Just don’t take from them.
Tags: [george hotz, hacking, iPhone]