Slashdot Mirror

Ironically this game is proof of that. See also War on Drugs, RIAA, Oil Business.
Basically power corrupts both morality and the ability to learn.

Read this PDF. It's an MIT analysis of how the content industry could move away from a licensing model to a "service" model. Instead of charging people for each CD (or each DRM download), the idea would be to charge people a monthly fee to have access to a huge database of all the music (or other content) that there is. Even though this content would not be restricted or DRM'ed in any way, people would still pay for the service. Why? Because the convenience of the service would make it much more valuable than filesharing networks (where copies may be low quality, not have their meta-tags done properly, etc.). As long as it was priced low enough, had a massive amount of content, and wasn't encumbered (i.e.: as long as it's just as convenient as filesharing networks), people will want to use it, and will be willing to pay for the power and convenience.

Anyways, that's the proposal, and you can read their analysis and see if you agree. It seems quite logical and robust to me. I suspec the recording industry could make as much money as they now do, if not more. They just have to evolve to meet customer demands.

Taxes are increased, and a government body redistributes money to content producers (authors, movie studios, etc.). This would be very similar to how academic research is currently funded. 'Reasonable' prices would be put on content. This would probably mean that Hollywood actors would not longer be able to demand big salaries. For those of us who don't trust the government, perhaps the system could have, on the tax form, an ability to select which artist or content producer you wanted to send some of your tax dollars to. That way, the people could still use their money to fund projects they liked.

Similar to #1, artists are supported by tax-exemption coupons, similar to charitable donations. This is not my idea, please refer to Dean Bakers's text.

As a variant of #1, perhaps an annual awards ceremony could be held where substantial awards are given to the content that was most highly acclaimed, appreciated, and voted for by the public. This system could exist alongside traditional copyright, if the rule was that only works released under creative commons are eligible for these awards. Essentially this would be an incentive to release work into the public.

Perhaps the onus could be put on the people? Instead of legally forcing people to pay for work (via copyright), companies could produce content, and demand a certain fee before it is released into the commons. The people who care would then just pay into an intermediary company, that would negotiate the cost of the work. Yes, I know that the Star Trek fans were not able to save Enterprise via amalgamating their funds... but if this system were fully implemented, people would take a more active role in helping decide what content is created... and perhaps less crap would be produced, since no one would bother buying it.

Donations are always an acceptable model for paying for work. Open source software seems to do well with that model.

Copyrighted works could be considered services instead of products. Basically, we pay for convenient access to a database of works, rather than buying each work one at a time. People pay for timely access to new artistic works, but there is nothing that prevents works from being copied. The viability of this model has been analyzed, I refer you to this MIT report.

Modern technology has made everything in life more rapid... yet copyright still lasts (effectively) forever! Why should Windows 95 be protected for 75 years when it is replaced within 3 years and obsolete within 5 years? Perhaps the timescales should be 'fair.' Like news stories are protected for 2 weeks, movies and video games for 6 years, software for 4 years, books for 10 years. In the current system, the copyright effectively NEVER expires.

No single solution will work for every industry... and indeed many of the proposals I've outlined above are not mutually exclusive. Careful combinations could yield best results. Or perhaps it could be up to the copyright holder what they wanted to select.

Yes, there are people like you who have "cost" the industry money. And there are people (like the other posters) who have spent more money because of file sharing.

Then there are people like me. I've never purchased a CD for myself in my life (although I have bought them as gifts for people). I didn't buy CDs before I started filesharing, I don't buy them now, and I don't think I ever will. I don't like the format (prefer convenience of mp3) and they are too expensive for me (I don't care about music that much).

But although I would never buy a CD, I would probably be willing to pay a reasonable fee (5$/month maybe?) to have access to an online filesharing database that had essentially every song ever made. I am willing to pay to have easy access to high-quality music files, but I'm not willing to pay to have to put up with the inconvenience of a CD or of DRM. As far as I'm concerned, the music industry should realize that music (in a digital age) is a service they are providing, not a product that the consumer is purchasing (if I own the product, why can't I do whatever I want with it, anyway?). We will pay for the service of having easy access to quality, certified digital copies of old and new music. We like new music, and we are willing to pay to have immediate access to it.

I think the industry is losing money to P2P... but not due to lost CD sales. Rather, they are wasting a viable business model. The viability of this business model was evaluated by some folks at MIT. I think there is a lost opportunity here.

I really dislike live music, I prefer studio stuff. But it appears that alot of people really like live music. They are even interested in listening to multiple versions of the same artists doing the same song at different concerts. There is huge potential here that the industry is ignoring. It is doubtful that many people would buy dozens of different CDs of the same music performed at different live concerts. However, these same people might very well download lots of different versions, just to see the difference, or maybe everytime they wanted to listen to a given song they would listen to a different live version of it. The music industry has all these millions of versions of songs that they are not even recording and distributing (even though people want to listen to it) because their distribution model is so archaic.

So what do I propose? I think the music industry could make tons of money by switching from music being a *product* to music being a *service*. You pay 5$/month to have unlimited downloads to a complete archive of everything the industry can pull together. With so much data, the risk of the users downloading and freely distributing it all doesn't really exist. Users will pay the 5$/month to have easy access to all the brand new music and all the archived music. The ease of use would make this very profitable.

This isn't my idea. It is well described and documented in a PDF from MIT. They strongly believe that a download-service business model would work. I tend to agree.

Whether or not AllofMP3.com is in the right, the RIAA strategy is clearly all wrong. http://link.shumans.com/?music

Everyone is talking about the problems. I have written an article entitled The Open Music Model which proposes a solution. It is based upon research I conducted at MIT last year. You can also vote on it at: http://shumans.com/musicvote/

Everyone is talking about the problems. I have written an article entitled The Open Music Model which proposes a solution. It is based upon research I conducted at MIT last year. You can also vote on it at: http://shumans.com/musicvote/