|| Wednesday, 21st September 2011
Across the square to World HQ…
… and morning reading…
When life is hard, and external forces press cruelly against us, what to do? All the good things that we might bring into the world are squeezed out by tendentiousness and argument; the inevitable repercussions of former choices and actions; the necessary and inevitable responsibilities of living in a body within a material environment unable to act for itself: what to do? Well, if our choice of external behavior is severely curtailed, where is our freedom? Perhaps, paying attention to a small intake of breath, with a sense that I am here! And I am present! Then life continues its inexorable press and crush. Nothing has changed. Everything has changed.
11.49 The necessary and inevitable repercussions of former choices and actions can, mostly, be honourably met. This is only a difficulty. The unnecessary and inevitable repercussions that rise to meet us are, well, problematic. One current example in the DGM/KC/RF/Panegyric world is Grooveshark.
In the inbox, an e-letter from Mr. Paul Geller…
… Sr. VP External Effairs Grooveshark: Privately Held; Music industry; January 2010 – Present (1 year 9 months) Greater New York City Area: Oversees all external relationships and communications that reside outside of the revenue generation vertical: PR, Public Policy, Trade Group and Public Interest Group Relations.
Serial entrepreneur with experience in high-tech product design and project management. Founded a consultancy that develops data driven communication platforms for the public sector. Holds trademarks for hip brands in entertainment and pending patents for information organization. Policy buff.
Executive Organization and Oversight, Technical Oversight and High-Tech Project Management, Data Analysis, Online Marketing, Guerilla Marketing, Event Planning and Promotion
According to Geller, Grooveshark is a record company, and one that operates resolutely within a bounds of a DMCA
I wasn’t aware that Grooveshark was a record company. That knowledge, given 43 years of direct experience of dealing with record companies, does not give rise to a new and growing sense of confidence in Grooveshark’s operation.
Mr. Geller writes, inter alia, that: All requests from GrayZone, Robert Fripp, and Declan Colgan have been honored, regardless of their validity.
Declan Panegyric has replied to this…
"All requests from GrayZone, Robert Fripp, and Declan Colgan have been honored, regardless of their validity."
It's that last bit that's almost amusing coming from a representative of a company that operates on a basis that is "100% illegal" - according to a report in The Guardian.
How could any requests to remove that which is being offered illegally be invalid?
As for "quick and permanent relief"…
That would require Grooveshark to cease offering the music illegally, but such illegal offerings - something the company has done on a routine basis & clearly intends to continue doing, despite having the ability to prevent same - are clearly the basis upon which the business is built.
Grooveshark obviously wishes to continue to build its business on such 100% illegal offerings until it is stopped.
I presume the "member of our Content Team" found no evidence that Virgin or EMI granted any license to Grooveshark for King Crimson/Robert Fripp material?
So we know Mr. Ford was, at best, mistaken when he wrote to a member of the pubic making that claim?
I presume the "member of our Content Team" found no evidence to support the subsequent claim by Mr. Custer:
"I am told that King Crimson content has been delivered to us by our label partners."
I guess whoever told Mr. Custer that was also wrong & Mr. Custer must have been wrong when he quoted it on to us?
At the very least you owe EMI an apology. After all, you were accusing the company of facilitating Grooveshark's theft of our copyrighted material.
So, are Mr. Ford & Mr. Custer & whoever was advising Mr. Custer merely cluelesss as to what goes on at Grooveshark or were they deliberately misleading us?
That might sound rude, but given that Grooveshark operates primarily on the theft of other people's copyrighted material, it's not that big a leap suggest there might be liars among the thieves.
Perhaps Mr. Custer will emerge again to lecture us on our: "complete lack of professionalism and diligence" as he so risibly sought to do at the outset of this?
Or perhaps he should look within Grooveshark for a more complete understanding of the terms he accused us of?
What I said to Mr. Ford way back - prompting Mr. Custer's little homily - still applies: "if you care about music, try to find a job that doesn't involve fucking over the musicians whose music you claim to be a fan of."
All we have ever asked Grooveshark to do is to stop its 100% illegal offerings & dissemination of King Crimson & Robert Fripp material.
The fact that the company can, but will not agree to, prevent such further theft tells us all we need to know about the company.
Grooveshark = Copyright theft.
Please note: Robert Fripp often quotes relevant music industry material in his online diary pages to highlight some of the struggles musicians face in trying to get fair recompense for their artistry and work. Should Robert wish to use any of the above such permissions as are necessary are hereby granted by me as author.
12.44 My own reply…
dear mr. geller,
thank you for your response. declan has already addressed this: regardless of their validity.
what you might also be kind enough to do is to take down the fripp & eno, travis & fripp, and jakszyk fripp & collins material.
13.04 E-fury halts. For a while, over lunch.
19.34 To the gym and back to the press of e-flurrying. Enough. An evening practicing ahead.
Search Robert Fripp's diary archive.