p2pnet.net News Feature:- Jim Griffin has been around the music scene for a long time. He’s currently ceo of Cherry Lane Digital and recently joined the EFF’s (Electronic Frontier Foundation) advisory board.

Before Cherry Lane Digital he started, and for five years ran, the technology department at Geffen Records and in 1994, led the team that distributed the first full-length commercial song on-line.

Griffin is also co-founder of the Pho group whose members meet from Los Angeles to Moscow and beyond for discussion-oriented meals. They’re electronically linked via the famous Pho mailing list.

Not at all incidentally, Griffin has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on file sharing and music licensing.

Read on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

p2pnet: What will your new duties on the EFF’s advisory board entail?

Griffin: Articulate dissent. My EFF experience tells me they enjoy sharp discourse and good discussion. Two things are certain: They didn’t ask me to join them because they agree with me on every issue, nor did they ask because I agree with them on every issue. I feel sure they asked me because it codifies our existing relationship, because the advisory board feels little different from anything we’ve done together before. The EFF is the ACLU for digital issues, and I’m proud to be part of their on-going advocacy and inquiry, but the same it true for my work with the music industry. I like them both, and hope to serve as a bridge to the degree possible.

p2pnet: The on- and off-line mainstream print and electronic press largely see commercial and independent p2p operators as people running illegal operations and whose sole purpose is to swindle the ‘legitimate’ music industry. Is this picture accurate?

Griffin: Such a picture would be obviously inaccurate, nor do I know anyone who believes this, whether in the media industry or those covering it as journalists. I know there are those who single out some p2p networks for criticism. Even the most vocal critics of p2p networks concede the technology is essentially neutral; These critics believe some networks ought be run differently, and they’ve argued their case in court, but none expects or seeks a result that bans the technology. Windows File Sharing technology clearly permits peers on a network to share files, and I can’t remember the last time I heard anyone attack it in the manner you describe, and I can say roughly the same for Google.

p2pnet: Where do you stand on p2p file sharing?

Griffin: I practice and preach its virtues, while striving to avoid its pitfalls. It can be a beautiful honeypot, and it can be a cesspool. I am not overly focused on peered sharing technology. It is merely today’s incarnation of the bionomic nature of networks, a rising tide of digitization that relentlessly forms a shorter path from source to destination for digits. Yesterday it was disc copying, today it’s peered sharing, tomorrow it’s smart buffers like Tivo - p2p sharing is one step in an endless advance of digitization and technology.

p2pnet: Will p2p technologies eventually become one of, if not the, principal means of marketing, selling and distributing music product online?

Griffin: For some, it already is. For others, it is not yet. In general, it is but one powerful advance in digital networking. There will come a time it is not at all the hot topic it is today, but this is its moment and so it’s worth discussing, but we ought not overly focus on p2p.

p2pnet: Are the members of the Big Four record cartel right to sue people for sharing music (which may be infringing copyrights) online?

Griffin: I believe the right monetization point is network operators - wired and wireless - and not network users and not the proprietors of network services such as peered sharing companies. Ironically, network operators bought from lawmakers virtually complete immunity from responsibility for the problems their profit-making operations create. I don’t believe litigation or criminal actions ought be taken against network operators, but I do believe society needs to hold them financially responsible or otherwise address the adverse consequences of networking, amongst which are financial issues related to the rights of artists, creators and stakeholders in knowledge businesses.

As a simple statement, it’s become voluntary - not legally voluntary, not morally voluntary, but technically so - to pay for music, media and all manner of digitized creative endeavor. It’s a choice we make - shall we elect to pay, or will we copy without compensation? If we choose to copy there are more mechanisms than there is room to discuss in these answers, including discs, on-air copying, peered sharing, and so on.

Ultimately, a civilized society cannot long tolerate purely voluntary payment for art, knowledge and creativity any more than it can tolerate purely voluntary compliance with the law itself. Regardless of how compelling a proposition the Bill of Rights may be, we don’t accept the notion that compliance is voluntary, nor do we, for example, accept the notion that radio stations may choose whether or not they pay song writers for the music they use. If these things became purely voluntary, we’d have less of them.

Neither, in my opinion, can a civilized society condition access to art, knowledge and creativity on the size of one’s wallet, or the size of their parents’ wallets. There is too much at stake and it goes to the heart of unlocking the potential of every person and maximizing their contribution to the world and their participation in its democratic process. Libraries stand as strong testimony to our rich heritage of ensuring any person ought be able to read any book, hear any song, watch any movie, and as just one extreme example we guarantee even our worst criminals access to the books they need to attain their freedom and rehabilitation.

As a result of this conundrum - voluntary payment’s unworkability versus the horrors of conditional access - we need to strike a balance that delivers payment and incentive to the rights holder alongside equalized access to art and knowledge, and I believe that balance can be found in actuarial economics, not actual control of content. Many hands make light work of the pools of money needed to monetize media, and pools of money and a fair way to split them up have been the history of the intersection of technology and art.

I don’t think the problems involving networks and media rights holders too much different from the problems involving roads and automobiles, or health care. We can’t, and don’t, control vehicles in a manner than makes them safe, but we address the consequences of transportation through insurance payments, creating pools of money to address the damage that occurs. We can’t make everyone healthy, but we address the consequences through insurance pools. There are many problems that can’t and will not be solved through actual control, but their issues can be addressed through actuarial monetization.

p2pnet: Do you believe law suits are indeed reducing file sharing, as the labels claim?

Griffin: Of course not, and I don’t think anyone seriously claims it does. Certainly some who are deterred from the activity by legal threats, but others are informed by the awareness created by the legal wrangling, and on the whole, worldwide, the law has proven a clumsy and blunt tool for addressing what is a business problem for sharp minds to address.

p2pnet: Do you believe some politicians are actually, or in effect, being paid by the labels to represent their interests? If so, is that acceptable? If not, what can be done about it?

Griffin: Of course it is actually happening and of course it is acceptable. Our United States Supreme Court is clear and I agree with them: Money is speech.

What can you do if you disagree with the labels? There is more money on the side of customers and technology than on the side of media, and history reflects the imbalance that runs counter to your suggestion that record labels’ interests are overly represented in Washington or Brussels or other law making capitols.

p2pnet: Can you foresee circumstances under which Cherry Lane would work with p2p operators such as the members of P2P United?

Griffin: Yes, of course. Cherry Lane is primarily a publisher of music, not a sound recording company. Publishers have licensed every new medium, and I believe it correct to state that the old Napster had a performance license from music publishers. It is rare that music publishers fail to license new technologies, p2p is no exception and Cherry Lane stands eager to work with anyone seeking to license the work of the artists whose interests we represent. Milt Okun, Cherry Lane’s founder, is dedicated to public access to music, education and licensing. I’ve never known Milt to favor any obstacle to music licensing.

p2pnet: If an informal conference could be arranged where various elements of the music industry on all sides of all fences could brain-storm possibilities, would you attend?

Griffin: Demonstrably so. It’s rare I fail to attend these events when invited, and if I have missed one another it was due to a conflict or similar difficulty. I can’t be in two places at once, I travel a lot around the world and I have a wife and son I dearly love and whose well-being dwarfs my other interests.

p2pnet: If such a conference took place, who would you like to see attending?

Griffin: I’d place no conditions on attendance, but dream scenarios like you are envisioning simply aren’t likely. The problem is one of Tarzan economics, of an industry that needs to cling to a vine that keeps it off the jungle floor, but an industry equally committed to grabbing the next vine. It is very difficult to sort out in public all the issues that come with sharing the next vine, and there are obvious legal and common sense reasons it isn’t easy and won’t likely happen in full public view. Like sausage making, it is neither pretty nor all that interesting, and it involves all manner of completely boring discussion that involves more rights holders than the average industry confronts in handling its transitions.

p2pnet: Should (could) an inter-denominational music industry association be formed? If so: Would you join? Who should be members?

Griffin: I’m more a fan of pluralism, where different views are represented by their constituents, than I am a believer that there can be created one world view of anything. Sure, I’d join, but with a smile, knowing it more what we wish were true than that which is possible or practical. Bottom-line: The interests of song writers are different from the interests of performers are different from the interests of the companies that employ them. And so on.

p2pnet: Can storefronts of the kind introduced by Apple, Sony, and (soon) Microsoft effectively serve current or future p2p audiences?

Griffin: They can effectively serve part of the audience, but no one model is either right or wrong for the music business. Indeed, there are many streets in the world that have a media rental shop, a media sales shop and a library in close proximity. All do well. Why? Because different people have different interests. The 14-year-old has time to devote to the library that a 41-year-old does not, and similarly these music storefronts offer convenience, browsing and certainty for a price that works for some and not for others. They can and should thrive, but not to the exclusion of a variety of business models.

p2pnet: What are the prospects for the mp3 codec in the licensed music marketplace?

Griffin: The mp3 codec is the music marketplace. Customers have chosen: They prefer the mp3 format over all others, and it isn’t even a close competition. When they convert their music collections from tangible disk to digital storage, given the choice they prefer mp3 over any and all alternatives. Their behavior speaks for itself, as does Sony’s recent decision to reintroduce mp3 codecs to the devices they wish to compete for the affection of the music player market. Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Creative, iRiver - the list of mp3 codec purveyors is as long as the list of companies offering music players.

This entry was posted on Monday, December 6th, 2004 at 3:16 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

HOME

Viewed 2958 times