When does stating disagreement about something constitute making malicious statements? One answer it seems is when you criticise the music industry for its actions against people who download music.Here’s a topic that’s providing more ammunition for the argument that suing people – and for that matter, generally threatening people – for saying and doing things contrary to one’s corporate interests is probably not ‘good PR’.
In fact, if I had the time and motivation to find a foolproof way of quantifying an organisation’s reputation, I could probably come up with something like ‘Wilby’s Law’: ‘Given the constant of an environment in which information may be openly exchanged (such as the blogosphere), the extent of a party’s propensity to repress opinion and/or action contrary to its interests is in inverse proportion to the extent of its public esteem’.
The formula is demonstrated yet again this week in the New Music Strategies blog maintained by my UCE colleague Andrew Dubber.
In this case, the ‘party with the propensity’ is Paul Birch, board member of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry and the British Phonographic Industry.
The opinion he is seeking to repress is generally the ‘indiscriminate criticism of the Recording Industry Association of America’ and, in particular, this link to the Download Squad that could somehow be reached by surfing from Dubber’s blog.
The extent of the RIAA’s public esteem, or apparent lack of it, is evidenced by the responses that have been posted on Dubber’s blog – and elsewhere – to the dialogue between Dubber and Birch. Birch threatens to complain to the University of Central England because Dubber has allowed discussion on his blog about the legitimacy of the RIAA’s actions against individuals who download music or share music files.
Here’s a taste of Birch’s comments:
You might argue that your professional blog is your opinion alone, however you are interwoven into the views and policy of the University of Central England and I think that puts you in an exposed positon (sic) Andrew.
And
If you persist then I shall make a formal complaint to the University.
Your choice.
One less objective than myself might paraphrase this, ‘Nice job you’ve got there – you wouldn’t want anything to happen to it, would you?’
music downloads Andrew Dubber RIAA UCE blogs reputation litigation free speech
1 comment:
Interesting. Dubber's blog has been suspended. I wonder who requested that?
Here is the dialogue between Paul Birch and Andrew Dubber:
Andrew
Looking at your site I do think allowing indiscriminate criticism of the RIAA is inappropriate for a Government funded institution.
Paul
_______________________
Hi Paul,
You might be right, but I’m not a government funded institution, and nor do I consider my criticism of the RIAA indiscriminate.
However, if you find something that’s factually incorrect, I’d be more than happy to amend it.
Thanks for checking out the site.
Cheers,
Andrew
_______________________
Let’s talk about it when we next meet-up, as I don’t intend to write a thesis on the subject.
However, I stand by my assertion.
Regards
Paul
_______________________
Fair enough. But if you do happen to stumble across something that you have a particular problem with, if you could point it out to me, that would be most helpful.
Look forward to catching up.
_______________________
Andrew, Well I am in regular contact with the RIAA and both they and the IFPI are subject to hate mail as a consequence of hubcap, our litigation against consumers for illegally downloading our copyrights.
This manifests itself into individual members of our RIAA management being singled-out for malicious statements and blogs on the internet. As an example you probably saw the case earlier in the week of a Chinese Laundry in the United States being sued for $54M for loosing a pair of trousers, belonging to a lawyer. If you take a look at the criticism on your blog of the RIAA by one of the contributors, they are engaging in a similar malicious prosecution in the US courts but go further and make a number of assertions through your blog that gives credibility to illegal downloading.
I am not concerned that people decide to take out law-suits against our organisations; we have the resources to deal with that. What does concern me however is the repeating of malicious falsehoods that occur in a number of internet blog, and are re-reported as having validity contribute widely to the assertion that right is on the side of wrong-doing.
You might argue that your professional blog is your opinion alone, however you are interwoven into the views and policy of the University of Central England and I think that puts you in an exposed positon Andrew.
It might not be nice to be sued by the RIAA and potentially put in a position of being made bankrupt; neither is issuing redundancy notices to hard working staff. People don’t have to download; they do however have to work. Consumers that enjoy music have a lot of options and enjoying it free on the radio is at least one of them, with last FM and You Tube there is near on demand service free at the point of use. But stealing isn’t clever, but presumably most people don’t really wish to steal, and only share because it is so easy and seems harmless/victimless. If people need to affirmatively hide their activities, then there is an understanding of wrongdoing. I feel that your blog underpins the misuse of our copyright and attacks our trade associations.
There are very serious allegations made in this anti-RIAA link on your blog, and I don’t think its appropriate that you link to them.
Paul
_______________________
2 questions, then please Paul:
1) Which link?
2) Would you be willing for me to post this email to the blog to present a counterbalance to the anti-RIAA position?
_______________________
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/06/06/
riaa-extortion-and-conspiracy-in-the-same-sentence
Above is the link, I am not sure how I navigated to it from your blog.
I am willing for you to publicise anything I say here, but I think that what is more desirable is to take down links from your site that promote this hatred of the recording Industry, because the assumption is that by linking to them that you support the extreme view heralded. That might be unfair to you by the way as you may or may not hold those views. I can only seek to reason with those views but my argument about biting the hand that feeds it is I feel valid. I respect everyone’s right to dissent but I am anxious that Individual managers within our trade association have the right not to be publicly hounded.
Best wishes
Paul
_______________________
I remember that article. I can see how it would be seen as undesirable PR for the RIAA, but I’m not at all convinced it either represents an extreme view or promotes the hounding of individual managers represented by the recording industry association.
In fact, from my time online reading articles about the music industry, I would say it’s about par for the course. Most independent commentators take the position that the suing of individuals by the RIAA has been a public relations disaster, and that rather than deter illegal activity, they have simply turned the record-buying public against them. If someone is taking a countersuit against the organisation, I’m afraid that’s comment-worthy. As it happens, I think I remember hearing that the case was thrown out, but I’d have to check the facts.
The way I see it is this: what I’m linking to is opinion about a news story. It’s genuine news and it’s legitimate opinion. You may not agree, but I don’t see anything there that warrants a take-down notice.
I would never endorse hate speech or the encouragement of the victimisation of any individual no matter what their job. That link doesn’t even come close to either of those things.
More importantly, as someone who comments about the industry, only linking to items that echo the official position of the major label organisations would pretty much make my site valueless to its readers.
Download Squad, the source of that article, is pretty much uniformly interesting, relevant and linkworthy. I don’t think this was an exception.
But I think it’s important that both sides are put, so I’ll post this email exchange up on the site. If there’s anything else you’d like to say on this, then pop it in a reply to this email, and I’ll leave it at that.
I think it’s great that you’re willing to have this discussion in public. Much appreciated.
_______________________
Andrew
It expresses opinion, it’s not factual. If you persist then I shall make a formal complaint to the University.
Your choice.
Paul
Post a Comment