Listen to the Stopped Clock

2d2146a53be4 Nice site http:/0zu.tw/ short url

With all this hoopla over absolute values, what I gather most is that folks won't mind sub-par entertainment in the case that their policy wishes come true, and the only producers with incentive to undertake creative and productive work are those that currently HAVE TO GIVE THEIR STUFF AWAY FOR FREE b/c nobody will buy it.

Well, once again, the issue of priorities comes up. If you ask me to chose between the bill of rights, and the preconceived needs of a certain business sector to NOT evolve and adapt to a changinging market, I will chose to retain my rights.

And I would add that many are underestimating the ingenuity of people to overcome obstacles. A good example is the movie industry, which complained about the VCR. What we are seeing no is more of the same.

Enigma, actually, people have asserted patents over MP3s, although so far those people haven't made a serious effort to stamp out non-commercial uses of the format.

Hey. Tim! read the whole post, carefully:

No it doesn't "just happen" mp3 was perceived as open format, and no one had asserted patnets on the technology, or implemented DRM. Those are the reasons mp3 was successful.

I do realize that after the .mp3 file format become a standard, someone had started asserting patent rights (which has given some very limited traction to the ogg vorbis format, BTW)

Please do--tlee -at- showmeinstitute.org

Since you brought it up--the most fundamental, a priori distinction that a new music lawyer must understand is that in each sound recording there are two copyrights: the copyright in the sound recording, the circle p, and the copyright in the musical work that is embodied in the sound recording, the circle c. The circle p and circle c are frequently owned by different people or companies.


Now you should be able to stop right there and see that if Creative Commons catagorizes their licenses based on FILE TYPE as opposed to COPYRIGHT TYPE, you will probably get the WRONG result much of the time, meaning that there will be no proper treatment of recording and song in the grant of rights. In fact, you will get the wrong result so frequently that it's almost not worth talking about the random instances where you get it right, unless you're drafting for monkeys with dartboards. Which I've never been asked to do.



This is why music lawyers and copyright lawyers find the whole Creative Commons license saga both laughable and scary.



In case it's not obvious--talking about a "mechanical rights" in an "audio" license that doesn't address the circle c copyright is GIBBERISH. First of all, "mechanical right" is kind of a ham handed way to describe the reproduction right of the owner of the copyright in the musical work. It is a term of art, true, but why use an undefined term of art in a license that is to be used largely by laypeople. It is also not a great way to deal with a grant of rights in a global license that is designed to be applicable in any country of the world.



More importantly--why use a term of art applicable to songs in a license for "AUDIO". A fair reading of the CC audio license is that it is intended for recordings. So why talk about mechanicals in a license for recordings?



I'm sure everyone's eyes are glazing over right about now but that is my point. It's not the unified field theory, but it's complex, inside baseball stuff, and the CC license simply does not work.



To coin a phrase: You're fired. Or rather: They're fired. I don't expect you, Tim, to take the time to figure this stuff out, any more than I expect an artist or writer to do the same. But I do expect more--much, much more--of the folk from the Google Law School.



It would have been so easy for the Creative Commons drafters to say "Song License" and "Recording License". They didn't. Now what might have been the cause of that failure? Aside from there being a fine line between stupid and clever. The only answer I can come up with is that they thought they understood, and when they found out they were wrong--which I firmly believe they now know--they are too embarassed to admit it and don't know how to fix it.



The point I am making about what rights the original author retains is more directed (as is the article) at co-writes. Now, trust me enough to tell you that co-writes are very, very, very common in the music industry as any major (or minor) dude will tell you.



The Creative Commons license simply does not address this reality. It's just not there. Without intending to cast aspersions, I will tell you that I think the reason it's not there is that the entire Creative Commons concept would not work, or certainly would not scale, unless all the co-writers agreed to the CC license. And since it's hard to get co-writers to agree on splits much less license terms, why give them the chance?



The point of my article is that no one should co-write with anyone who intends to use a Creative Commons license, in any of its species, unless they too intend to go along with each CC license. The "original author" of a co-written work is ALL the writers. The CC license does not make this distinction. So how can anyone know with certainty what rights each co-writer--i.e., the "original author"--retains unless all co-writers are party to the CC license which doesn't provide for co-writers? Particularly when this issue is not explained at all by Creative Commons or ever addressed in the license. The point I make is that I find it confusing. Maybe you don't, but I do. But I'm just a country lawyer and I'm not as smart as you city fellers.



I think it's pretty safe to say that anyone TAKING a CC license would have no idea if there were any co-writers or what they thought. The licensee would be pretty innocent, which makes it all the worse.



The way that the music industry has solved the co-writer problem for, oh say a couple hundred years or so, is to have an administration agreement between or among co-owners of copyright that applies during the copyright term. It would have been very simple for Creative Commons to post a simple administration agreement, or even explain the co-writer issues in the license itself. But that would require co-authors to "sign" a click through agreement which is an issue that has kind of a dearth of case law. Or--and here's a shocker--print it out and sign it.



Ooopsie.



So--there is a difference between Creative Commons the organization which I hear receives a lot of cash--and the Creative Commons license. The idea of a gratis license is certainly nothing new, but the idea of empowering Lawrence Lessig by giving away your works is kind of a new, new thing.



These are not arguments, by the way, they are facts. And I'm not the only one bothered by them or keeping an eye on the situation in case government intervention is needed.



An argument would be "I think CC is bad/good because writers should/shouldn't be able to give their works away to help Lessig get grants and here's why..." I take no position on whether the idea of the CC license is good or bad, anymore than I take a position on whether a copyright owner should be able to grant a free license on their own as copyright owners have been able to do for several hundred years before Creative Commons came along. I am trying to understand its effects as drafted--I'm talking facts here. A fact is--the CC license is sloppy and can have unintended consequences, so co-writing songwriters should have an agreement amonst themselves not to use it, just like they can, and frequently do, have an agreement amongst themselves not to license for hygiene products.



The "thug" article was presented at the Future of Music Policy Summit in Washington, DC a few years ago and I can email you a copy offlist if you like.

Chris,

Your article "Carefully Co-writing without Creative Commons" doesn't appear to be a critique of the creative commons license so much as an extended exercise in sneering at the CC license. You tell people to read the license, yet you appear not to have read the license yourself--or if you did, you couldn't be bothered to make a good-faith effort to interpret its terms.

And then there are cases where your criticisms appear to be completely off-base. For example, you state:

The first problem with Creative Commons is there is no Creative Commons "legal code" for a song. Given that Creative Commons and their fellow travelers the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge and other front groups don't have a clue about the music business for one thing and what a song is for another, this is not surprising.

If you look at an actual creative commons license, and you'll find that the word "song" doesn't appear once in it, whereas the word "recording" appears three times, and the license specifically mentions performance royalties, mechanical rights, and statutory royalties. Now, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if those provisions are well-crafted. Maybe they have loopholes big enough to drive a truck through. But if so, you never get around to explaining what they are.

Later in the post, you write:

It is also not clear to me if the "original author" retains any rights under a Creative Commons license. For example, if the "original author" puts the work in what is effectively the public domain, does that mean that the original author can still exploit the work commercially? Or more accurately, why would the "original author" want to exploit the work commercially if everyone else could use it for free? I don't know, but if anyone figures it out, please let me know.

I find it hard to believe you're really unaware of the fact that the Creative Commons license has a non-commercial license option that allows personal use but requires the author's permission to exploit the work commercially. Moreover, the question of which rights are retained by the author is not a mystery--it's spelled out quite clearly in the license itself. Now, maybe you think the terms of the contract reserving rights to the author have loopholes or other problems, but to this non-lawyer's eye, it appears to state pretty clearly which rights are reserved by a CC license. It strikes me as disingenuous to pretend these terms simply don't exist.

In short, it's obvious you don't like the CC license, but it's not clear why. Most of your arguments are at best unsubstantiated and at worst downright misleading.

I can't find your "thugs" article. Do you have a link?

Thanks, Tim, if you're really interested you can find a publications list on my website. This list goes back about 20 years, so pre-dates Lessig. "Justify Your Thug: A Critique of Professor Lessig's Defense of DJ Danger Mouse" ought to be of interest to you, I would imagine.


I would also point you to my blog "Carefully Cowriting without Creative Commons" for a review of the incredibly shoddy legal work that is the CC "deed" or whatever other grandiose term the self-serving have coined for the self-absorbed this week.



I would point out that it appears--appears--to be a misnomer to refer to Lessig as a "lawyer". A "lawyer" is someone who is admitted to practice law in at least one jurisdiction. Lessig's name doesn't show up in the lawyer rolls California, New York or DC. He may be admitted somewhere else, but I have never seen him list the customary bar number on any of his filings in litigation. So it may be more appropriate to refer to him as a "law professor" or as a "law school graduate" as "lawyer" means he took and passed a bar exam. And then there's that nasty bit about taking an oath to uphold the Constitution.



This would be consistent with the complete absence of any practical reality in the CC paper. However, the problem goes much further than the ivory tower.



The problem that I have with Lessig, and that senior policy makers also have with Lessig I might add, is that he foists onto an unsuspecting public a extraordinarily poorly thought out "code" that only works--if it works at all--for true, "sing in the shower" amateurs. And that only because it's unlikely to ever be contested by another shower singer.



Yes, it's true that some professional artists have used it, but if you actually look at what they actually did, it's a very, very narrow subset of their work. In fact, I've only been able to find a single work for each of the "big" artists using the "deed". I will definitely hand it to Creative Commons that they have managed to shroud themselves in revolutionary zeal, which is--of course--the PR value that attracts rock stars of a certain age to their "cause".



The people who are helped the most by Creative Commons are...anybody, anybody...Creative Commons. Just ask the MacArthur Foundation. And THAT's the problem I have with the entire crew. Which is, by the way, the same problem I have with certain record companies, publishers, managers--they perpetuate the exploitative practices of the "old days".



One thing I don't have to put up with from old school guys is the sactimonious twaddle spewing from the Lessig-ists. At least the old guys are honest thieves.



I'll take PT Barnum over Larry Lessig any day of the week.

Tim, I've found technical errors in Ed Felten's writing as well, as he tends to simplify things for the lay audience. Putting down an absolute bandwidth limit certainly can be done, and many service providers do. But limiting BitTorrent streams as a separate action is also reasonable, as they move across several end points in an ISP's network and thereby consume more bandwidth than most legitimate applications. Since about 90% of BitTorrent is illegal anyhow, an ISP is probably right to give it very poor service.

I agree with Noel's comments on Lessig completely.

And at a high level, Castle is certainly right that most NN advocates are also anti-DRM; in fact, the only exception I've ever seen is Tim Lee. It seems that NN support is a matter of following the fashion for a certain group of people, and among that group DRM is out of fashion, for stated reasons that are quite similar to those for NN: it's a way of getting back at the "bad corporate people" who want to make profits at the expense of all the pimply-faced download artists of the world.

Upon close inspection, Professor Lessig does not really make substantive arguments. He makes claims to rile up the troops.

I've stated time and time again the sheer absurdity of his history of innovation work. With patent policy, he's even worse. His views on copyright at least allowed Professor Lessig to jump ship from "FOSS is more innovative" to "FOSS preserves culture;" when FOSS proved a tag along phenomenon.

Lets see: my golf clubs, my car, my house, my culture... :)

Note that Professor Lessig is almost entirely ignored in industrialization and innovation policy literature. Nobody really bothers substantively critiquing his work.

Now I say this but I recognize the value Professor Lessig provides: societal commentary. Everyone I've talked to who has seen Professor Lessig present, or studied under him, says that he is sincere and adamant about his beliefs. Nothing wrong with that: it makes him commendable. We benefit, to some extent, because Professor Lessig provides an odd balance. However, it would be a mistake to consider Professor Lessig as a serious innovation scholar rather than a necessary evil.

To MikeT, perhaps you've only read some of my writings, but I'm a very big proponent of reverse engineering, legitimate fair use and maintaining "tailored" IP policies that serve their utilitarian goals. Tell me again though- why are current policies inadequate specifically for you.

I agree with MikeT that it is techies who innovate, not policy makers. Policy is secondary to the innovation that occurs in technological spaces, but as long as there is a field of policy, those who shape it should approach issues with experience rather than with the (unconscious) purpose of deriding its importance and seriousness out of simple amateurishness.

Well, I hope you'll let me know when your critique is published.

Since I don't live on grants, I haven't finished a critique of one of the Grantwriter's books, although I am working on it. I actually do most of it on planes. A lot of smart people agree with Usama bin Laden, too, right?

Chris,

Does any of your serious writing include critiques of Lessig's arguments? If so, where would I find them? If not, don't you think it reflects a somewhat strange set of priorities to spend so much time and energy mocking a guy whose arguments you don't find worthy of serious rebuttal? If his arguments are obviously wrong, why do so many smart people agree with him?

I'm actually flattered in a weird kind of way that you've read a dozen of my blogs, Tim! I honestly only write them for fun, and serious writing shows up elsewhere.


I know it's difficult seeing one's gods lampooned, but Lessig was the one who jumped up on the white horse to ride out in front of the p2p parade, so I'm sure he's expecting a little mockery to come his way. I'm sure he could care less, he's got the Google money and he's immune. I would doubt that he even cares much about what the Stanford alumni think of him as long as he's got his snout firmly in the Google trough.



If it weren't for the fact that Lessig overtly tries to hurt my friends, I wouldn't mind what he wrote. It would be kind of like reading some of Tim's assumptions about the music industry, just kind of a "Hmmm, another one doesn't get it" and that would be it. No reason to spend any time writing or even thinking about someone's misapprehension, and I wouldn't presume that anyone would care what I thought about it anyway.



But that's not what Lessig does. Lessig hurts people because he provides a perverse normative justification for what Judge Wilson recently referred to as "massive copyright infringement" in yet another case the Lessig boys lost for some poor entrepreneur who's probably going to go broke over it.



I would also point out that I have absolutely no problem with legitimate technologists reverse engineering for the pursuit of knowledge, or even their own personal interests. What has happened, though, is that people like Lessig have taken that legitimate, if not noble, desire and transmogrified it into an excuse to rip off artists and destroy my business. I don't think it's the technology that's destroying the music business, it's using the technology to steal that's destroying the music business--the problem is the choices people make, not the machines. Your freedom to tinker stops at the end of my nose, don't you know.

I believe MSFT created its own digital formats for fear of licensing implications with MP3.

***the fundamental purpose of DRM is to prevent unauthorized devices from accessing content***

Hmmm. Funny, Tim, it sounds like DRM is a goal within itself, as you never explain or qualify it any further than to state its effects on interoperability, at least not directly.

But you're clever Tim. Yes, very clever.

I'm sure you're more than aware that the goal of DRM is not just to "control" interoperability, but to manage the flow of and access to content between online and peripheral services/devices. This in turn supports business models. DRM is merely a mechanism for securing revenue in the process.

The mechanism to what business models you ask? Well, Tim, your answer is that DRM is the mechanism for sub-optimal and impractical business models. I don't care to list the posts you argue this in (basically, all of your posts on DRM), but will point out your argument, which surfaces when all pieces of the puzzle are put together: since artists can make money selling T-shirts and trinkets, DRM does not serve business purposes. Without the qualification of enabling and facillitating business models, the only remaining goal of DRM then becomes to simply cut-off interoperability.

You don't say it directly, but your chain of reasoning, Tim, implies that you want to prove DRM cutting off interoperability as the goal in itself of content and service owners. Such villification, I'm afraid, is simply uncalled for.

Enigma, actually, people have asserted patents over MP3s, although so far those people haven't made a serious effort to stamp out non-commercial uses of the format.

Noel, the fundamental purpose of DRM is to prevent unauthorized devices from accessing content, is it not? And isn't that just another way of saying that its purpose is "to limit interoperability with third party devices?" I don't understand your objection.

Sub-par entertainment? Like "Planet of the Apes" 2002? There are a lot of smelly turds out there today, courtesy of Hollywood. It's not just the free stuff that stinks. If we have it so good now, why all the crap movies?

It blows me away how completely unaware of the industry some folks are. Hence, statements like this: (Tim) The whole point of DRMed formats is to limit interoperability with third party devices.***

When you think of policy in terms of absolute goods and evils, then yes, you can arrive at Tim's conclusions.

But technology, at least in the digital music business, is a facillitator, not an end in itself. Interoperability is not an end in itself. Decentralization is a laughable end in itself (especially when the analysis has absolute no policy basis:)

With all this hoopla over absolute values, what I gather most is that folks won't mind sub-par entertainment in the case that their policy wishes come true, and the only producers with incentive to undertake creative and productive work are those that currently HAVE TO GIVE THEIR STUFF AWAY FOR FREE b/c nobody will buy it.

But the business argument over selling in the unprotected mp3 format shouldn't have anything to do with how you feel about DRM. The reason you sell in mp3, and the reason you sell in Fairplay, Windows Media and any other common format is because�they are common formats. A lot of people use them. It just happens that more people use mp3 than use Windows Media or Fairplay.

No it doesn't "just happen" mp3 is was perceived as open format, and no one had asserted patnets on the technology, or implemented DRM. Those are the reasons mp3 was successful.

I do realize that after the .mp3 fie format become a standard, someone had started asserting patents rights (which has given some very limited traction to the ogg vorbis format, BTW)

People just don't want DRM. The want free players ,too. Once they have them, it is very hard to go back and raise their price and eliminate their freedoms (beer and speech types here)

Those who want the special legal protection such as the DMCA are doing exactly what those in the labor unions did when they asked (and didn't get) some protection from competition. That is they are asking for: special freedom-limiting laws to protect the interests of a few producers over the interests of consumers. The only difference is that today those asking for the special protections are lawyers and big media companies, not autoworkers.

Doug, how would you propose rewriting or scaling back sections of the DMCA.

Tim wrote: Chris: Humor is fine, but the majority of your blog posts involve either mocking Lessig, insulting him, misrepresenting his arguments, or impugning his motives.***

Yes, I find that Chris provides some relaxing reading:)

Tim, what Chris writes is important, given the aimless and mindless allegiance that Lessig seeks from his followers.

Chris:

Lessig can take care of himself. Just remember to spell his name right, okay?

I'm glad to hear your biz buds are warming up to MP3, and look forward to some interesting products. I know I would greatly welcome major-label back catalog stuff on emusic.com.

Richard:

If DRM simply means encrypting content, I agree that it is perfectly reasonable. If it means overwriting system-level code on a user's computer, then no, it is not reasonable.

And even accepting that DRM-as-encryption is reasonable, there is the question of how much legal protection that encryption should receive. I think the DMCA anti-circumvention provision overrreaches. What do you think?

Richard: If you look in the comments, you'll see that Ed Felten pointed out the same technical errors that I did, and some others I didn't catch. Moreover, I still say Castle's thesis was nonsensical: nothing about NN regulations would prevent broadband ISPs from capping users' bandwidth usage, so if, as he says, P2P applications use more bandwidth than others, a bandwidth cap would allow the ISPs to limit their use without running afoul of the law.

Chris: Humor is fine, but the majority of your blog posts involve either mocking Lessig, insulting him, misrepresenting his arguments, or impugning his motives. At least judging from your last dozen posts or so, you don't seem to find it worth your while to actually engage his arguments and explain why they're wrong. Maybe the readers of your blog would find it enlightening to actually learn what Lessig says and why it's wrong, rather than simply assuming everyone already agrees with you?

Thanks, Doug. Actually, I'm quite amazed at how many people I think of as thought leaders in the music business have contacted me to compliment me on the mp3 piece. (I was actually bracing myself for some angry townsfolk with pitchforks, and it's been quite the opposite.)


Some people have told me that they felt it influenced recent events and decisions within their companies, and that's very gratifying, even it it's not entirely true.



These are, by the way, some of the same people who find the Lessig pieces hilarious. I guess one person's bitterness is another's humor..! I guess a spoonful of sugar, etc.

Tim, your big hate for Castle doesn't make much sense to me. I read his piece about net neutrality and didn't find much to quibble with. Sure, he might have said "IP addresses obtained from DNS and DHCP" instead of DNS addresses, but that's not a major point. And as some companies do buy VPNs under contracts with NSPs that give them extra-special service, on that point he's more accurate than you are. The overall description of streams, packets, the high overhead of BitTorrent, illegal content and all that was right on the mark, actually.

Being a network technologist myself (and a highly skilled one at that) I'm generally appalled at the level of technical insight in lawyerly writing on tech policy, but Castle is nowhere near as clueless as, say, Harold Feld, Art Brodsky, GiGi Sohn, or the Free Press wankers.

Lessig is a menace, and his understanding of the Internet and DRM is way off the mark technically and intellectually. And not so much because he lacks the information - I've critiqued his claims about the Internet and discussed them with his greatness and his acolytes - but because he rejects any information that doesn't conform to his prejudices.

DRM is perfectly reasonable, and any company that wants to implement it should be free to do so, facing all the consequences of the choice, positive and negative. No creative artist has an obligation to Lessig and his minions to abet their sad campaign of selling books and conference speeches to young adults with lingering authority issues. And no creative artist has any more obligation to give his work away for free than do engineers and lawyers.

If you're looking for heroes and role models, you can do a lot better than Lessig.

Hey Chris:

I ask if maybe you have it in you to rachet down the bitterness a bit, and you spend an entire 7-paragraph post pointing out how much more dirty and evil the tactics of the "other side" are. You're a prisoner of hate, man! Maybe if I was in a darker mood I would engage you in your pissing match, but instead I'll just compliment you - again - on recognizing that the industry has more to gain from endorsing the MP3 format than from continuing to shun it.

"I do wish Castle would rachet down the bitterness toward the tech community a few notches, but he would probably say the same about my feelings toward the entertainment biz."





Hey Doug, we call these "jokes". But then machines don't come with a sense of humor, right? I guess humor doesn't scale. (That's a joke, too, fyi.)







You have to admit that when Lessig tells us that he wishes his students thought of him as a "god" (his words, not mine), he is just BEGGING to be lampooned.







I know it's hard to take when the gods we worship turn out to put their pants on one leg at a time and have warts of their own, so I don't blame you for getting weepy about having it pointed out to you. But just because I think Lessig is disingenous and kind of funny doesn't make me meanspirited. I bear him no animus.







And if I might correct you: publishing photos and home addresses of the children of copyright enforcement officials is meanspirited, maybe actionable and possibly criminal. That's the kind of thing your side does at the fringe. Poking fun is...well, just poking fun. I can take it if you can.







However, I will give you this: If it wasn't clear before the debacle in France and the Swedish situation, there is a war on between Lessig and his followers and the creative community. It costs the MacArthur Foundation and others who fund the Lessig effort a lot of money--well over $7 million from the foundations alone by my count. I couldn't agree more.






As far as being "factually incorrect" goes, one thing I have learned about the radical fringe in tech is that they, and maybe "you", are always as prepared to spin as anyone. I'm a student of the game and always take comments from sources before going live with anything complex, or complex to me. I make a sustained and abiding effort to understand the other side, which is more than I can say for the other side.






But then I try to avoid the "neener neener neener" school of geeky intelligence. Although I do appreciate that sense of frustration when you read something that a person who is clearly intelligent has written and it just takes too long to unpack and correct than you have to write it down. That would be almost everything Lessig has written about the music business and that is regurgitated uncritically by his acolytes. It's not that he's dumb or "clueless", it's that he's not informed.

As I was reading this CNBC was reporting on cableTV (as psuedo-news) that the "The Institute for Policy Innovation" (founded by former Republican congressman Richard K. Armey) has released a study perpurting to show how badly piracy is hurting the economy. CNBC news also had a clip of NBC Universal chief executive Bob Wright on this topic.

Unfortunately, I also see that the Washington Post (9/29/2006) is also reguritating this story as psuedo-news.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...




The Post writes "Seeking another weapon in its war on piracy, the movie industry hopes to wow lawmakers today with a study that says the economic impact of illegal DVD and Internet film distribution may be as much as three times what was previously estimated.

Noel writes:

He would probably say the same thing about you regarding policy and business. How many times have you tried to justify DRM free business models!!!

Noel, I'm curious why defending what you believe and backing it up with examples and data is the equivalent of being factually incorrect about technology, as Castle has been.

Wonderful, now check the revenues of MP3 v other music formats with the leading online music services.

That's a ridiculous statement, and you know it. First of all, in places where MP3s are sold, they do quite well. eMusic and AllofMp3 shows that. However, your statement is the equivalent of someone selling mainframes looking at the low price of PCs back in the day and saying "check how much revenue PCs bring in compared to mainframes."

Props to Castle for realizing that doing the right thing for "his people" means making his peace with the unprotected format that the industry has tried so hard to suppress for the past 10 years. If the industry had made their peace with MP3 back in the late 1990s, Napster and illicit file sharing would not have been the only game in town for years, and perhaps the digital transition would have been far less painful for the music business.

I do wish Castle would rachet down the bitterness toward the tech community a few notches, but he would probably say the same about my feelings toward the entertainment biz.

***Chris Castle is a technically clueless lawyer***

He would probably say the same thing about you regarding policy and business.

How many times have you tried to justify DRM free business models!!! To say there is stretched effort there is an understatement.

I hand it to you though: perhaps nobody has as many analogies for FOSS as you do Tim. But again, you understand FOSS as purely an analogy.

Also, nobody can use so many definitions of the word monopoly in one paragraph like you can.

***it's occurred to Castle that it's not a coincidence that MP3 is more widely deployed than FairPlay and Windows Media***

Wonderful, now check the revenues of MP3 v other music formats with the leading online music services.