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..

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.

No more socialist taxes.

And music can generate alternate income through performance or mechanical synchronization licenses — sometimes earning more than product sales. I’m not seeing a difference.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

I dare you to post that on digg.com

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?

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 .

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.