Akamai engineering manager David Barrett, who spoke on the record as being opposed to the Warner Music sponsored music tax (more) last month, was fired on April 25, sources say.
Barrett criticized the proposed music tax in an interview with Portfolio Magazine. The relevant text:
David Barrett, engineering manager for peer-to-peer networks at Web content-delivery giant Akamai, says he’s opposed to it on principle. Griffin’s plan, he says, is tantamount to extortion, because it forces everyone to join. “It’s too late to charge people for what they’re already getting for free,” says Barrett. “This is just taxation of a basic, universal service that already exists, for the benefit a distant power that actively harasses the people being taxed without offering them any meaningful representation.”
Warner Music is an Akamai client, and we have heard from one source that they “leaned on” Akamai following Barrett’s statements, and threatened to terminate their business relationship.
We’ve confirmed that Barrett has been terminated, but we have not yet had a chance to speak to him or Akamai about the details of the termination. The timing is certainly suspicious though, to say the least.
Barrett joined Akamai last year as part of the acquisition of Red Swoosh.
See all
Post
ugh… makes me feel all dirty
we use them at work…
Good riddens, I say.
I, for one, enjoy music and I feel as though paying for a commodity is just good capitalism.
You commies want everything to be free, and refuse to accept responsibility.
Why should we HAVE to pay a tax on music? For the same reason we HAVE to pay taxes to build prisons for our safety… schools if we don’t have children…. and roads if we don’t own cars.
As an employee you should know what is out of bounds. In this case…he should have just kept his mouth shut.
Where is the line with speaking out about something being stupid? Taxes on music is stupid. WB getting all huffy about it and MAKING them fire him over the comments is stupid.
@TheHater: He was speaking out against a generic tax for music, not paying for individual songs or albums.
If you’re paying one big tax, which artists exactly does that go to? How is it divvied up? In an environment where the RIAA lawsuit money doesn’t go to any artists, why would you believe for a moment a tax would go to the creators?
We live in the extortion society at this point in the US, why not just take it all the way. It eventually collapses on itself, but it’s not pretty. It has a twist in our current times, and that is that much of it is out in the open for everyone to see. DC has turned into a huge, professional extortion/coercion machine.
We keep feeding it quarters.
He’s a manager, not an engineer, and is more responsible for what he says in public than a regular employee. He was being interviewed on behalf of the company, and what he said had the potential to cost the company business.
@Steve
I understand the mechanics of the proposed tax.
We would have a small annual tax added to our bill for internet access in order to offset the cost of the billions of dollars lost to piracy by the recording industry every year.
$5 a year to save an art form that technology is destroying seems as fair and responsible as paying taxes for services I mentioned in my previous posts.
But the Marxist open source culture the New Web is breeding is hell bent on stealing money from the mouths of struggling artists.
I’ll just add Warner Bros. to the list of companies I boycott for doing stupid things. And the day I’m charged a “tax” for “music” by my ISP is the day I cancel my “service” from that ISP (any ISP)–I won’t pay a fee for something as worthless as music. I’ve never downloaded music–wouldn’t waste my time. Every track I have came from a CD that I bought–tax included. (I haven’t bought a CD since the RIAA started suing its customers a decade or so ago.)
@ The Hater
We pay tax to the government for the services that it provides (if any). Your examples: prisons, (public) schools, and roads are not owned by any corporation. Of course I do not want to (and fortunately do not have to) pay toll for Bay Bridge/San Mateo bridge, if I do not use them.
Note: These bridges are owned by private companies (not by the state).
@TheHater: you’re misunderstanding. No one is proposing musicians get screwed. ASCAP is extorting exorbitant fees from internet radio stations. In fact, terrestrial radio pays much less than internet radio. The recent ruling by the Copyright Board means businesses like Pandora will likely go away– how is that good capitalism or even good for our country? Yeah, throw innovation and jobs out the window, BRILLIANT! Only a commie would think that is a good thing
Also, it is stupid to think Warner would have quit Akamai. There’s just nothing else as complete or reliable as their caching services, which pretty much all of Time Warner uses to push their content to the closest servers (check out where CNN images are sourcing). Empty threat cost a man his job for exercising free speech. Proud day for Amerika.
ASCAP has outlived its usefulness, but if you’ve read “Selling the Dream” by Guy Kawasaki you’ll know that organizations are loathe to close up shop or properly evolve. Where’s the incentive, right?
Fact is, musicians and music lovers will suffer at the hands of ASCAP– at least, the ones who aren’t Britney or Mariah, etc. Those folks would have had exposure that an open platform like the web provides. But of course, a big publisher like Warner doesn’t want that! Choice? Hell, people might catch on to just how shitty Miley Cyrus’ music really is– clearly bad business for them.
Instead, ASCAP wants to get a pyrrhic victory to wag in front of web distributors, so their terrestrial friends and music publishing backers can continue to live in the craptastic rut they’ve been digging since the dawn of payola.
I feel sorry for Barrett, despite @Joe’s correct point above, but this is the way the music industry plays ball. Say or do something they don’t like and they’ll come after you. If you are working with them, you do what they say or else. There’s no wiggle room and no forgiveness. Personally I’m glad to be out of the business. Now I work on catching criminals instead of trying to figure out how to work with them.
PS @The Hater
Music is neither a road nor a school, and the beneficiaries of the the proposed music tax are for profit corporations not the public. Further, not only do some people not consume online music *MOST* people do not.
Either you work for a label or you are an idiot.
i do solemnly swear that i will never purchase, rent, or lease any copyrighted content that may come under the control of the RIAA or MPAA for as long as i shall live. i further declare that i will never rent any movies from blockbuster or any similiar business that rents movies. i will never go to a movie theater. i will never purchase a music CD. i further declare that should i inadvertently hear or see any of this so called content on the radio or television that i will boycott any and all sponsors that made the content available. period. so help me god. for as long as i shall live.
I can’t wait until we get charged the Local Paper Newspaper Tax, because we’re reading and watching news on the Internet instead of feeding cash to our local paper — Or the Book Tax, because people are downloading books on torrent sites. In a few years we can be charged the Movie Theater and Cable Television tax because people would rather wait until movies and television are on the web.
Be really careful of what you say to reporters on the record, even if you aren’t representing your company in the interview. People get fired all the time for this kind of thing, for a lot more innocent statements than the one this guy made. I had a friend lose his job at an investment bank for having his name appear in article about dating in the WSJ. Sad.
@Jenn
News papers and television have other streams of income, though advertisements…
Perhaps you’re onto something… a good alternative to the music tax would be commercial interruptions during your favorite mp3’s.
@The Hater
You really must work for a label.
Music companies have other streams of revenue too. For example selling recordings. I know this is strange concept, but that’s how they make money. And for the record, the recording industry has revenues of about $10 billion annually worldwide. They are not exactly starving artists…
@The Hater
Music piracy has absolutely nothing to do with this issue.
The Internet and personal computing have fundamentally changed the business of the music industry (and for the better).
Thanks to the Internet artists can both promote and distribute their music directly to consumers.
Personal computing (and all the requisite software and hardware) has lowered the cost of music production. 15 years ago you couldn’t produce an album on your mac!
It makes no sense to subsidize the losses of middlemen whose services have simply been rendered obsolete by technology. It isn’t the first time this has happened to an industry and it won’t be the last.
Sony, EMI, Warner, et al add no value to the art of music and I see no reason to subsidize their revenues.
Kudos to Akamai for having the guts to fire that guy. Basically, he was advocating theft. For someone in his position, he should have known better. Hopefully he will learn his lesson.
Be smart. Follow the old rule of not crapping where you eat. Making a public statement that conflicts with the interest of a big company client is asking for trouble. Another reason why working for corporations sucks. Companies will almost always do what the big revenue provider tells them to do out of fear of losing the revenue. You will be accused of bad judgment and fired. Or in the the case of the Yahoo dissident that was revealed to the Chinese authorities, sent to jail. $$$ rules.
The irony in all of this is that - had Warner just let this past - few would have heard of it or even remember that paragraph from this obscure interview of someone few have heard of…….
BUT NOW
This will get massive publicity and harm both Warner and Alkamai from a PR standpoint
You do NOT have to terminate a person - just put rules in place beforehand as to what they can discuss in an interview.
Look at how Google, Yahoo and MSN strictly micromanages their employees.
They know beforehand what topics they can comment on - you will often see ‘No Comment’ when asked a question because that topic was forbidden
Obviously, David felt the environment was such that he could offer his opinion freely - and only when Warner threatened to pull their business, was he fired.
They did not even give the option of disciplining him - just FIRING - like he was a replaceable piece of furniture
As a result of TechCruch, this will now make all the social bookmarking sites .
@John
How did Barrett advocate theft? Did you even read the article?
He did not advocate piracy he merely stated the obvious, that many people are now used to getting music for free. And he opposed the notion that those of us who are NOT GUILTY of such theft should pay for those who are.
His words as reported:
“It’s too late to charge people for what they’re already getting for free,” says Barrett. “This is just taxation of a basic, universal service that already exists, for the benefit a distant power that actively harasses the people being taxed without offering them any meaningful representation.”
Imagine one of your neighbors is robbed. Instead of purchasing insurance, or spending his own money to replace his stolen property and improve his home security, he organizes a campaign to tax everyone in the neighborhood to cover his losses and increased security costs. Moreover, the tax amount he proposes actually would pay 10x your neighbor 10X is his actual documented losses.
Ready to sign up for this tax?
@hater
I dare you to post that on digg.com
Whenever at-will employment comes up against freedom of speech, at-will employment wins.
Line to pay your buggy whip tax forms here.
Re @john’s comment about advocating theft . . .
No, a generalized tax on the public by private companies to bail them out from their poor business decisions is not advocating theft.
Such a tax is theft.
Opposing this tax is not supporting filesharing or piracy, it is simply opposition to an unfair and unreasonable tax.
@ Sandeep: Those bridges are owned by the government. The tolling services are provided by a private company working under contract for the government.
Remember David Barret and the Red Swoosh Team where P2P Pirate back in the day when Travis Kalianick ran Scour and Scour was shat down by the record labels .
@TheHater (and like ilk):
“News papers and television have other streams of income, though advertisements…”
Umm…. So do artists. Have you ever been to a concert? Have you ever purchased a band’s t-shirt, and all that other swag they’ve got? They actually make more per swag item than they do per album…
But ya, you’re just missing the point. This issue isn’t about piracy, etc. It’s about a dude who spoke his mind (this is America, right?) and got canned for it.
Always amuses me that companies can fire people for this stupid crap. Freedom of speech out the window once again!!
Why would anyone sign a stupid contract that says they can do this. Wow people sure are desperate in media. Even so I’d argue that the contact itself is illegal and infringes on free speech!
Did any of you read the article?
Barrett had no idea what he was talking about. He’s the one who called it a “tax”. He had no business commenting on something he was not informed about and he had no business to comment when working for a company that makes their living off of Warner Bros and the likes.
I’m glad he got fired. A smug guy who thought he was bigger than he was.
It’s one thing to speak your mind, but his remarks were out of line, misinformed and will now cost Akamai a lot of money.
He should be thrilled to have been fired if he didn’t agree with them. I say go find a company that will let you bash them and their clients and then ask them for a paycheck and bonuses. Oh.. and… good luck with that.
Except it is mostly thought that Music companys get the most profits from CDs
Artist’s are thought to get a small sum from cd/music sales making more money from stuff sold at live appearances/concerts
So going by that viewpoint your harming the Starving Labels
@BeBe M.
You’re right tax isn’t the best description of what we are talking about here.
What we have is a proposal from the music labels to add a non-consensual charge for a product/service to the Internet bills of individual consumers that did not ‘t purchase or use this service.
Generally when I find a non-consensual charge for a product/service I didn’t purchase or use on my bill I call it “fraud” and I report it to the authorities.
@The Hater (Re: #16)
And music can generate alternate income through performance or mechanical synchronization licenses — sometimes earning more than product sales. I’m not seeing a difference.
we live in a childish culture, not a lot different than junior high school… have to accept that, build it into the personal business plan
David is a creme de la creme developer. That’s on top of being just a nice person. He is the one who essentially wrote Swoosh’s (P2P) networking stuff - the same stuff that Akamai effectively bought them for. So it’s Akamai’s loss.
The Hater is clearly a socialist. I am not going French and paying some silly music tax for lazy pointless artists. I’m fed up. I already subsidize swathes of useless talentless hacks like the lazy French farmers, although I have the EU to thank for that.
No more socialist taxes.
This whole music tax proposal was just Warner Music giving Wall Street something to bite on and it worked because their stock has nearly double since the story broke. Mostly smoke and mirrors because everyone knows the management and accounting aspect of this alone makes it unrealistic
First, I think that those who say a fee added to an ISP’s bill could be compared to the toll on a bridge is quite a stretch. You have to use the bridge to get to the other side. You don’t have to use the ISP to get music. And if you do and pay for your music, as I do from approved download stores, why should I have to pay an additional fee for that right? I spend hundreds of dollars a year on digital downloads through Beatport and iTunes. I get to write that off as a business expense, but at the end of the day, the artist gets paid. I don’t feel I should have to pay a use fee when I already pay the ISP for access and the download store for the purchase. Not everyone downloads from P2P, so why should I be penalized for the actions of others?
I drive into Manhattan on occasion and take the Sprain Pkway to the Cross County to 87/Major Deegan and then the Third Avenue Bridge, purposely to avoid the toll on the Henry Hudson. My city and state taxes pay for those public roadways. If I want to take the bridge and pay the toll, it’s a choice. I can do one or the other and shouldn’t be forced into paying for more convenient access after I’ve already paid my taxes for the “free” access.
Do we need to pay taxes to keep the road free of debris and maintain infrastructure? Yes. Do we need to pay a government mandated fee for access to music through our ISP? No, because it is not the same. Music does not serve the public in the same way as the Federal or state highway systems.
Anyone who is calling for the organization of a representative body to collect this fee and distribute isn’t aware of the problems Sound Exchange is having actually finding the artists to distribute it to. And, organizations like Sound Exchange take something off the top of those revenues in order to pay the salaries and infrastructure costs of being Sound Exchange, without the artists having a say in the process.
On the Pho List, I’ve read from some against Sound Exchange believe the organization does not represent artists fairly and that the labels take a lion’s share of the revenue this organization collects. I’m not an artist and am not privy to the inner workings of Sound Exchange, but that’s pretty much the argument as I understand it.
And, what’s up with people calling other people communist for supporting Open Source? Open Source companies still compete with each other. Why use Joomla when you can use Mambo? Why use Movable Type when you can use Wordpress? They make their money off servicing corporate clients who need services, not the everyday user who downloads the source code for his/her blog. And, there’s a whole cottage industry of CMS theme designers that wouldn’t exist without Open Source. Just because it’s open doesn’t mean it’s free. They find ways to make money on the service and not the source code, just like artists make money on merch and touring and music is essentially free. Look at Radiohead, for example. They gave their music away free and then packaged and sold a limited edition boxed set with all the bells and whistles. Not every artist can do that, but they can try.
My question is then, what’s more communist, setting up another government backed regulatory body to try and collect and disburse revenues with little oversight and bloated bureaucracy, or allowing private businesses to run the ship and have open competition? I kind of like the fact that you can register your domain name with one of many domain registrars. I think that system works fine and is fair. Why pay Network Solutions $30 when you can pay GoDaddy $10 and get the same service?
Electric companies can hire one of a hundred collection agencies to go out and collect the money from consumers who don’t pay the bill. Why should music be any different? Why should artists be forced to sign up with one service, when open competition is healthier for the market? Where there is competition there is quality of service based on price. You don’t like one, you can move to another.
As far as freedom of speech is concerned, employees are not protected by freedom of speech. If someone at Apple was found to say something unauthorized, they’d be gone in seconds, and people would say: “well, that’s the culture at Apple.” So, I don’t feel sympathy for this engineer, because he is supposed to pass any commentary through the company’s legal counsel or PR department. His personal opinion’s when he is speaking as a representative of the company was a no no. Do I think he should have been fired? No. But maybe there are other circumstance of him doing things we don’t know about. Until the full story is known, all we can do is just speculate.
Tony Z.
well you can always strike the internet organize huge labor unions virtual and use the voice of what I buy or what I refuse to buy to speak. So in this case accept no taxation without representation. that is all.
Well…This is another glaring example of a weak management and a comany with no say in the industry.
They claim to open the gates to the internet but stop free speech which the the building block of the Internet.
Imagine using the internet for researching on resolving critical illnessess or doing school homework and paying the music industry for the same?
Tomorrow the legislature will say that the porn industry is thriving and demand a similar fee. Should the school children pay for the same?( despite parental locks)
Simply because the engines cannot block software people should pay.
Its like marijuana & Amsterdam. Since we cannot control the legislature accepts it and puts a fee.
Its clear that both parties needs to clean their acts. A lot more thoughts seem to flow and statements to make. Best reserved for another day..