Slashdot Mirror
Kazaa, Verizon Propose Compulsory Music Licensing
akb writes "USA Today is reporting on an interesting new alliance between Kazaa, the dominant file sharing network, and Verizon, a company with revenues of $67 billion. The two companies are floating a proposal to ISPs and the computer and manufacturing industries to lobby to force the music industry to license their music. Royalties would be payed to artists directly, thus circumventing the stranglehold the RIAA has on the music industry."
Sounds like a great idea, and it'd most likely result in Verizon and Kazaa being the sole distributor of said licensed music, making them lots of $.
As long as the RIAA doesn't get to do the fucked up stuff it does now, I'm all for it. As long as it's an open market, so we're not just stuck with one distributor.
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
Not that!
About time someone started sending the money to the people who slave away to make the art.
Do you think that the RIAA is going to give in that easily? They don't want to see their revenue stream go down the drain...the only way something like this will work is if the artists start to make a big statement by not using the RIAA...not too likely as the RIAA has a stranglehold on them too. But it will be interesting to see how fast this issue dissapears.
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Interested in AI? MACR
i've been asking myself this question over and over:
Who does the RIAA benefit? themselves?
oh, when the RIAA was first enacted, it's purpose was to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists.
however, now it seems that the RIAA doesn't even acknowledge the artists anymore.
it's time for RIAA reform, or do away with them completely.
Verizon's plans are a step in the right direction...to help artists make money making music. isn't that what it should all be about?
The business plan amounts to $2B in revenue:
Recording Industry Association of America president Hilary Rosen calls the proposal "the most disingenuous thing I've ever heard. It's ridiculous."
The logical statement:
"It would be like me opening a video store, charging 10 times what others were charging and only offering videos in the Beta format," Guerinot says. "In any business, when you have billions of downloads occurring, you don't say we're going to ignore that market and try to create something else. You serve your customers."
Why the hell is Hillary Rosen in charge anyway? Attempting to change an industry that already exists and is going strong into what you want it to be is stupid. This is a great turnabout though, I'm glad to see some heavy hitters start going against the RIAA. I'd gladly pay $1/mo to download music legit. Assuming the majority of that $1 went to the musicians. I'm paying for the network from my own bandwidth and hard drive space, and I'm glad that Guerinot seems to understand that.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Of course the cost will be passed along to subscribers. How can that not be clear? Only a moron would willing give up $1/user/month and get nothing out of it. The ISPs don't gain anything from this venture. If anything, they lose because it will encourage more Internet activity and increase the bandwith costs. So if anything, the subscribers will pay more than $1/month.
Frankly, I don't understand why I can't just buy the music directly from the artists, at $1/song.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Now that just sounds funny, in a way that tickles my anti-big-bad-corporate-america sensibilities. Basically, over here we've got Kazaa the file-sharing network, and over here we've got Verizon, who, well, we don't know exactly what they do (or we're afraid to say), but they make a hell of a lot of money doing it. And so, we must consider them big, important people with ideas.
Almost like how mafia dons are always referred to as businessmen, without specifying what business exactly they're in.
314-15-9265
Any proposal that includes artists getting paid fairly (more or less) for their work and preventing the RIAA from raping artists is a proposal I support!
Imagine that you were an artist with a song that you published on the Net. Someone takes your song, runs it through a distortion engine and adds bleating goats and calls it their song. It sells a million copies. How do you get your rights?
Your record company and the RIAA could get you your contractually agreed royalty from the goat pirate, but you can't afford to do so on your own.
Goat sex free since 2001
riaa..must be laughing hard at this!
``Recording Industry Association of America president Hilary Rosen calls the proposal "the most disingenuous thing I've ever heard. It's ridiculous."'' Most disgusting thing? Possibly she hasn't looked in the mirror lately: http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/_photos/hilary- rosen.jpg
Once again I turn around and see another deal with the devil.
-RWS
Yeah, actually, I did. And then I read the blurb, and got confused. So, after going back to the title, I realzied that I need to read things more carefully.
Imagine if that were the true title, though. Reminds me of "Max Headroom" but with radios instead of televisions.
*shutters* (either way)
Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.
My first thought: this is far to sane to actually take place. Then I read:
Sooo, let me get this straight: it is riciculous to directly pay the artist who produce the music.
Well, this is very telling. I sincerly hope compulsory license comes to be... it seems about the only way to tame the RIAA beast. Maybe it will even save internet radio.
"Kazaa, Verizon Propose Compulsory Music Listening"
I got an image of being *forced* to listen to whatever music I download...
Sounds like someone pulled their head out of their rump and put it back up where the rest of us are. Good for them. The RIAA does more for itslef than it does for the artist anyway. Wish there was something similiar that could be done in the cinema side of things..
where do I sign?
- f3k
This sounds good (anything that takes power from the RIAA is good), but will it come at some other cost (to the consumer or artist)? As long as this system was universal, ie, any site/group who wanted to distribute music like this could utilize this system over the current distribution methods. Circumvention of the RIAA altogether is impossible due to the massive amount of lobbying power they have, and their unquenched taste for money. They will stoop as low as they go to achieve their aims, and I am HIGHLY doubtful that they would agree to something that took money & power out of their hands and placed it back into the hands of artists. This is somewhat the antithesis of what they have been striving for (which is what exactly, I don't know; total control of music content on & offline?). This seems like a great idea, but the RIAA will have its way with it first. Don't get too exciting, as this proposal could end up in the wastebasket pretty quickly if the RIAA is determined enough to crush it with gobs of money. Unfortunate, but true...
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
Statements like
Who does the RIAA benefit? themselves?
-and-
however, now it seems that the RIAA doesn't even acknowledge the artists anymore.
only go to show what you don't really know:
That is that the RIAA is a secret Iraqui agency working for Saddam Hussein. What seems to be the RIAA's plan to take over the world is really Saddam trying to take over the world. All that money that supposedly goes to the "artists" is really funneled into an Iraqui weapons program. I mean, what really happens to the artists anyway? Just look at people like Vanilla Ice, Weird Al Yankovic and Marky Mark from Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch. THEY were really killed to hide the truth after their money was secretly sent to Saddam. The next thing you know, he'll be commanding all the world's computers using something called "Brilliant Digital Projector..."
Or, it could just be a scheme run by The Brain from Pinky and the Brain.
The "Music Industry" is unlikely grant licences which efectively cuts the royalty payment to themselves.
All eveidence is to the contrary - start back in 1985 or whenever it was that CDs started replacing wax - the wax was more expensive to produce yet CDs cost more that the equivalent 12" LPs. I never heard about artistes getting paid more then.
I also remember the promise of DAT - was supposed to replace casettes . That didn't happen because the "Music Industry" was paranoid about people being able to make perfect copies of LPs.
Then there are all the artistes that get dropped like a bad habit when their records don't sell in sufficient volume to suit the record company ("Music Industry"). Of course, when the artiste wants to break the same contract, they find they can't.
For "Music Industry" read "RIAA" in this instance.
yes I'm rambling - it's 12:20AM and I should be asleep. Bottom line is I can't see this one suceeding unfourtanately.
seriously, why must this always be handled via legislation? We live in a free market society right, if there is a viable business model here it will be found and worked out. It should be obvious to everyone that this genie is out of the bottle.
all this "solution" would do would be to result in a tax on internet use applied to everyone "who benefit(s) from the availability of this content." Essentially this is the same thing as putting a surcharge on blank CDs. Also since it's legislated it would be difficult to change when we discover the bugs.
I know to a slashdot community that thinks the past tense of the word "pay" is "payed" (try paid), the big words those decepticons at the RIAA use can be confusing, so here's some help:
Recording Industry Association of America president Hilary Rosen calls the proposal "the most disingenuous thing I've ever heard. It's ridiculous."
disingenuous Pronunciation: "di-s&n-'jen-y&-w&s Function: adjective Date: 1655 : lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness
Spreading literacy, one blithering idiot at a time.
thus circumventing the stranglehold the RIAA has on the music industry
No! I can not say anything nice about Verizon! I'll seize to be! Curses.. foiled.. gahh.... getting dark...
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
Kazaa lobbyist Phil Corwin says a $1-a-month fee per user on Internet providers alone (it's unclear whether costs would be passed along to subscribers) would generate $2 billion yearly: "We're talking about a modest fee on all the parties who benefit from the availability of this content."
I don't like this idea one bit. It's the same principle that would end up letting a whole host of "fees" into the bill that we get from our ISPs at the end of the month.
It also reminds me of the college tuition bill. The tuition, and then the tens of fees tacked onto the bill, that end up summing at nearly $1000.
Don't let people nickel and dime us to death.
Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.
Recording Industry Association of America president Hilary Rosen calls the proposal "the most disingenuous thing I've ever heard. It's ridiculous." Oh theres a shocker... someone comes up with a decent idea that doesn't involve the RIAA making more money and Rosen calls them disingenuous. Ha, what the hell is the RIAA then? Like they really serve a point by paying the artist pretty much nothing and profiting on other people's work. Yeah whos the insincere bastard here. Ironically this idea, no matter how crazy it is... might just work. I'd be willing to give an extra dollar a month for internet if it meant i could download music without worrying about the RIAA or kazaa using spyware (which I'd hope would dissapear if they actually had real money exchanging hands, that and i'm sure Verizon can spare some change).
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
- the label does promotion for the artist
- the label records the songs
While the labels are almost certainly ripping off the artists, they are doing something, and can't be excluded so easily, I mean no matter what the studio tech has to eat. Of course, all new contracts will simply agree to the label being a "marketing corporation" and getting x% of any revenue generated by the artist anyways.I'd do something interesting, but my server can't handle a slashdotting.
nuff said
i expected to read a nice article that would go into detail about how this proposal would work. i guess you can't expect that much from usa today. oh well. :(
Hardware and manufacturing versus software and content creation.
Oh and before you go and say that wars wouldn't be fought over something as trivial as MP3 copying, remember the root of this whole discussion is who gets consumer dollars and money is always reason enough to go to war.
The paradigm of the music industry for the last 60 years in which there was a high dependence on a middle man "the record company" that promotes and markets your music is now obsolete. With today's technology artists can bypass the middle man completely and sell their music directly to the fans. Problem is the record company is the last to realize they're obsolete. And they will kick, scratch, bite, and play dirty in order the maintain their highly lucrative but irrelevant business model. When you pay $16-20 for CD you're paying the salaries of receptionists, janitors, worthless executives, etc. of the record company- people who have nothing to do with the actual production of the music. I like the new model much better where the music is cheaper and you're directly compensating the artist.
What about all the people that arn't technically minded and don't want to download music? I don't see this working at all, because lets face it, the majority of people want to buy their music in a physical form of a CD with the nice packaging etc, rather than fiddle around on their computer.
Look up the Economics of Elasticity when you get a chance.
If a lot of recording artists put their support behind this proposal, the RIAA might be just a memory in a few years. I like it. Of course the devil is in the details - how to track usage while respecting privacy, how to pay artists...
but it might work...
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
Royalties would be payed to artists directly...
Does this include the royalties that, by law, go to the studio? IIRC, the copyright on a musical recording actually belongs to the studio, not the artist. I know that the majority of the royalties that are mandated by law do not go to the artist. Recording studios are not free, or even cheap, to operate.
Looks to me like a legally impossible plan, and a blatantly stupid on, at that. And USA Today should know better.
What about independent artists that don't have a label yet? Will they get money? NO. This system seems awfully too selective to me; is every arist with a record deal going to get the same amount? It seems that an awful lot of fraud and embezzlement can result from this.
I agree that getting the RIAA out of the loop is a good thing, but how exactly do they propose to pay the artists directly? $1 a month per user is a pretty generic system, and pays no attention whatsoever to how much any particular user downloads or which artists they are listening to.
As problematic as the details would be, I would still prefer a system where I can donate money to the artists whose music I appreciate, preferably through some centralized system. (Other, than the RIAA of course, with a public declartion of exactly how much of the money goes where.)
At first a lot of people would just continue to download and not donate, but there are certain problems inherent in getting any new system started. Once it was considered a social standard to support the artists whose music you listen to I think the system would work very well, and directly reward the creators of art proportionately to how much society values their creations, rather than by how much money was spent on promoting it by the RIAA.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Mandatory shutters? (maybe to keep them from decoding the glow of our CRTs.) I shudder just thinking about it.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
This still presupposes that the consumers of the above items are going to engage in 'illegal' copying.
I think we should adamantly refuse to support any proposal which presupposes guilt - I think it's a dangerous precedent.
MjM
<%=$SomethingHomerSimpsonSaid%>
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
Strange, I thought that the proposal was one of the most rational proposals I have heard yet.
Speaks volumes about character of Hilary Rosen.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
While I find the RIAA practices despicable to say the least, I can't exactly bring myself to trust Verizon or Kazaa, especially the latter.
Im not sure of whether a case of the lesser evil is really going to change things in the music industry.
The RIAA doesn't want the music control being handled by someone else, for obvious reasons. At the same time, they afraid to go into the online market properly for the fear of competition, thus they think that by suing the living crap out of anything online, it will eventually go away.
But trusting Kazaa to provide a music service? The same guys that have done a deal with brilliant digital entertainment?
Why can't a group of artists, group together, make their own online service, and provide it a lower cost than the RIAA? By being legal, this will literally force the RIAA to react with an online service thats cheaper, and thats good for consumers.
But until the RIAA have competition from the artist's themselves (and popular ones), they will continue to fight in the courts. The Kazaa/Verizon idea is a bad idea from the getgo.
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
...especially considering they're getting essentially nothing now, any money is a major change. there was a recent article in rolling stone magazine about how the manager of some pretty big name acts (beck, no doubt, etc) had pulled his artists' songs from the RIAA-backed nonsense thing cos they weren't getting anything out of it. if this gives the artists anything resembling money, expect them to jump for it.
FreeBSD for the impatient.
Kazaa lobbyist Phil Corwin says a $1-a-month fee per user on Internet providers alone (it's unclear whether costs would be passed along to subscribers) would generate $2 billion yearly: "We're talking about a modest fee on all the parties who benefit from the availability of this content."
Uh, NO, you charge the people who are using the service. Why the hell should my grandmother, who has no idea what an MP3 is, pay this fee? Make it $1 per month per file-sharing user. Hell, you could set it up like adult-check, where every P2P app queries the same database before allowing you to login. You pay a buck a month to the database administrators and they distribute the funds where appropriate.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
What the article doesn't expand on is what computer manufacturers and blank CD makers will contribute. Define computer manufacturers first (Gateway, HP, Dell, et al or does that include the guy slapping clones together in his garage?).
And I'm 100% against taxing blank data CDs to pay artists. We distribute our own software on CD-Rs; why should we have to pay artists for distributing our own software? Or why should someone burning Linux distributions have to pay up too? What about the other myriad non-music CD-R uses?
Um. Let's just remember who we're talking about here...Verizon isn't any better than the RIAA when it comes to corporate citizenship...I vaguely recall them suing 2600 for registering verizonsucks.com, and they refused to install DSL in my apartment when they found out one of my computers was running Linux.
Well, almost. This could solve all of our problems and finally losen the RIAA's grip on America's nuts!
We have this already. It's called "the RIAA".
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
My question is this:
Is Kazaa using this as a ploy to make their spyware compulsory?
-Nano.
This should be done ASCAP/BMI style... All internet users pay a fee that is pooled, then the P2P client creators find some way to collect transfer statistics in a privacy-friendly manner, then distribute the funds based on "Internet Playtime".
I would be all for this if it would wipe out all the crap lawsuits.
What we have now: "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- Hunter S Thompson
Compulsory licensing is a great idea. We have that now with radio play and with some kinds of patents. We would apply directly to the artist, or to the artist's designated representative, for a license. Instead of a band making 2 cents an album, it would get all the money.
I have been thinking how society resembles a self-regulating game of "life", in which groups of cells can sometimes change the rules.
Well, corporations have (co-)created laws which support them but obviously do not support our society.
If I am willing to pay 1c per downloaded song and this 1c will go directly to the song author AND the song author is OK with this, then why am I agreeing to a law system which makes me a criminal if I do so?
Corporations are not interested in a thriving society. Their priorities (wealth, expansion, extinguishing competition -- at any cost) make them behave as predatory organisms. They only look at me as a product or consumer.
Shouldn't laws which are found to not support the public be changed? Why is it so easy to create such laws and so hard to undo them?
I know it's a dead horse but enjoy kicking it once in a while... Can someone recommend an effective course of actions which a voter can take to influence existing laws?
The article seemed rather light on details - just how will they decide which artist gets how much? By the info entered (manually) when somebody rips a CD? Hmm, then I guess we'll end up with a *lot* of money going to non-existant artists because people mis-typed their names. Hmm, maybe just a flat fee per "artist"? Then, by all means, I'm an artist, where do I sign up? And what of those net users who are hearing impaired, and cannot listed to music? What about the opera fans who will never in their lives listen to Eminem's latest "song", why should their dollar go to support that?
Until more details can be worked out, I'm afraid that, much as I dislike the RIAA, I cannot support this plan.
Lemon curry?
Copyright laws ARE legislation.
The proposed scheme is just a legislative frame that is more efficient and appropriate to compensate artists in the digital era, than copyright is.
(Let's face it : such a mandatory licensiing scheme would effectively REPLACE CDs within 5 years, and, yes, kill the record industry. But who cares ?)
presumably, artists would be allotted shares of the dollars based on the number of times their tunes were downloaded...lotta opportunity here for a few quick geeks to team up with some musicians, and write the progs to ensure mass downloads...
Actually, in most cases the studios do not own the copyrights for music recorded in them. They just pay for the time -- the studio doesn't earn royalities. In the case of most acts that are signed to major labels, the label owns the masters and the copyright to the sound recordings.
Nonetheless, this still is a problem for a scheme like the one described in the article. If a band has signed a contract with a major label which assigns the copyright of the sound recording to the label, then the band can't license it. They can only license the publishing, if they actually even own that.
There is the rare exception, like Metallica, but most bands on majors (and even many bands on indie labels, especially larger indie labels) don't own their own masters.
I don't know how i feel about Verizon being the good guy.
You should not have to pay $1 WHETHER OR NOT you have any interest in downloading music. Likewise, people buy CDs for many things other than burning music. How about you pay artists directly for downloading their music. They give you high quality sound files. You give them cash. No record companies need apply.
Now artists' rights are being used to justify direct payments and to by pass the RIAA. Very clever.
Don't forget when you listen to the radio there are cumplusary licenses in effect -- but the artists get NO $$$$
Certified Black Helicopter Pilot *** Unwitting Dupe of One World Gov'ment
If somehow we're going to tax the Net and distribute it to musicians (by what formula?), how about another tax to be distributed to writers? And what about visual artists? How about erotic visual artists?
/.'s writers invest in the insightful (hint) public service of posts just like this one!
Let's be honest about it: music is just a branch of the sex industry. (Okay, we still have military music too, but you're downloading that, right?) So if we don't want a tax supporting the sex industry, we should probably disallow erotic artists, whether visual or aural. Still, shouldn't Net users everywhere pay a tax to subsidize the valuable time
___
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Why legislation? Because the music industry is a cartel. In the U.S., there is NO free market in music.
Ok, I've read the comments in the thread over, and I've read the article twice... what am I missing?
how will they decide who gets the money?
What did I miss?
Damnit... do I hate these companies or do I love them? I'm so confused!!!
I'll be honest, we're throwing science against the wall to see what sticks. -Cave Johnson
It would be ideal to have the money from sales go to the artist. I would say this would never happen (because of past history) but $67 billion is a lot of money. I hope they pull it off. Even if it doesn't work out it will be nice to see the music industry shaken up a little. Hopefully the days of record labels raping artists is close to being over.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
...that my ISP will now be on board with tracking what I download and charging me for it? The story sounds a little vague on the details, but an alliance between software, hardware, and bandwidth providers only points to one thing: control of what end users do online.
Encryption to the rescue (I hope)!
Yeah, this is exactly what the industry needs: price controls and mandatory redistribution of wealth according to government policy. That has just worked so very well in the past.
Anything is better than a this proposed tax and commercial welfare system. Well, except perhaps outlawing general purpose computers and network equipment (such as by mandating universal DRM).
This is not about the RIAA.
This is not about the RIAA.
Repeat, ad nauseuem.
The only people I wish to benefit from listening to (say) Radiohead are... Radiohead.
Sure, they will have financial backers. But the the 'closed shop' where the RIAA acts as toll-keeper on music is repellent.
Please, please, please can the RIAA put its head back in the sand and shut up.
--- My dad's political betting
Since kazaa probably has the means to monitor which songs get shared how often, they "could" pay the artists according to sharing popularity. Remains to be seen if they would though.
I don't know about you, but I for one, could do without most of the promotion the labels put out. All the promotion I need is the music not being crap.
Don't say I would never be exposed to any new music either, since I discover most music I like myself, in ways that cost record labels little to nothing. I think artists would be able to pay for recording if they were getting a fair amount of compensation for their work.
In short, greedy labels do nothing nothing for me. Out with them.
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
A creature such as her will never have a hard time finding some special interest groupd to bow before at all our expense.
I'd be more worried that they were going to force us all to listen to Britney & N'Sync!
The ability to monopolize a planet is insignificant next to the power of the source.
I hate to do this, but your word choice was so (unintentionally, I'm sure) odd it needed a comment:
If you say anything nice about Verizon, you'll cease to be. You've been forced to do this, however, because the RIAA has seized control of the music industry, which you alluded to in the quoted text.
So if you're seizing "to be" (maybe a Hamlet book on tape?), who's got the stranglehold now?
I don't think the music industry could be described as "free market". The scarcity of its product is artificial, determined by copyright law which is the result of a bargain struck by the stakeholders. The major labels have manipulated the current bargain to gain a strangelhold on the industry.
Now that we have new technology that will change the way the bargain works the major labels are looking to tighten their grip and kill off the potential of new competition. Read some Larry Lessig, he refers to them as the dinosaurs looking to kill off the mammals.
The important thing to remember is that this is a bargain between all members of society. Don't believe free market drivel that tells you that you aren't a stakeholder.
Payed is not a word (in English at least).
DROS - Open-Source Robot Software
"Free market" is touted way too often these days. There are numerous assumptions required for a free market to be an operational model, including unlimited resources, low entry barriers, no corruption, etc. The number of situations in which the concept of free market applies poorly if at all is enormous.
.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
KaZaA is proposing one dollar per user as a fee, which is very reasonable, and will apparently generate 2 billion annually -- but where is KaZaA getting that kind of money? Advertising revenues? Don't make me laugh.
This may be a great idea, but there are definite consequences.
The proposal is similar to what's being done with the blank audio cassette levy in the US (see Title 17, section 1004) and the Canadian CD-R Levy (see this random link I found on Google).
But the question is: how does the collected money get back to the artists? There are two ways:
1. Use the BMI or ASCAP system that already exists to pay artists for music rebroadcast.
Of course, this has problems of its own (see ASCAP & BMI -- Protectors of Artists or Shadowy Thieves?). This is unlikely, because the sampling method used to dole out royalties is even less valid for the Internet than it is for rebroadcast and live performances. Additionally, it's unnecessary because they could just...
2. Track actual downloads from the Internet.
Think about it -- to accurately divide a >$2B pie will take a very thorough analysis to get all parties comfortable. It's easy to legislate: either all download sites or sharing systems aggregate their download data in a central database or they will be considered illegally supporting piracy. IMHO this will very shortly be a part of the proposal.
Note that this could use unique IDs, assuring that your actual music listening habits won't be tracked, etc. But do you really believe this will happen, when there's yet another advertising vector to exploit? Think about the metadata that could be gained from this data...the licensing opportunities...the marketing...the potential for privacy intrusion....
Who would control this big usage database in the sky? Who would you trust?
Kazaa has a fame to use whatever spyware and things. So, I personally don't really like anything that comes from "their mouth." How can I trust such a company?
According to Chip.de Sonys copy protection technology could be bypassed altogether by just a Permanant Marker. Apparently the bad data that copy rights the CD is on the outer edge of the CD and blacking the final track appears to completely remove the restriction.
Rapid Nirvana
Why would someone who has no interest in downloading more music have to pay a "music tax" for Internet usage? I have not enough interest in music lately to download it. I have had all the music I need for years before in some format or another over the years.
Any Pay-per-stuff method should be charged according to how much stuff I want to get - not whether I have an internet connection or not.
Since a lot of people read Newspapers on the internet, would we add an "average subscription price" (whatever that is) to the ISP charge instead of subscribing to the newpaper sites on an individual basis?
First non-evil thing to come out of Verizon.
Once again, we find ourselves faced with a large company with far too much power for it's own good (AOL-Time Warner, anyone?), since it seems ovbious that the RIAA will fight this. Yet, this time we're not faced with the Big Bad Wolf. As said by perdida, they're not completely bad. They help artists keep a good hold on what's theirs (though in some cases, this is questionable *cough* LimpBizkit *cough, hack, gag*) and they're paid for their work. However, it isn't right for them to keep a hold on the music industry the way they have been. They keep their hands around money that should go to the artists we care about, money that could be used for new equipment or just building a third pool (depending on your imcome ^_-). Yes, the RIAA deserves this. But, something should be done to make sure they're not left completely out of the circle as well. So, what then? Do we continue allowing them to keep too much power? Or, potentially lose their services?
"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."
I'd go for that.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
We have an RIAA because people can't be trusted. The RIAA monitors usage so songwriters and musicians get the royalites they live on to pay their bills. So who will be the monitors in the new scheme?
From the article: "Kazaa lobbyist Phil Corwin says a $1-a-month fee per user on Internet providers alone (it's unclear whether costs would be passed along to subscribers)"
Of course it will, but I'm more than willing to pay. If it ends these horrible copy protection schemes, I'm for it. If it sends the money to the artist, not the RIAA, I'm for it. It's a scheme people will accept because it's in the background, a reasonable (if not low) price for a good value.
Also from the article: "Hilary Rosen calls the proposal "the most disingenuous thing I've ever heard. It's ridiculous.""
I'd love to hear Hillary's explanation for this one. What's so dangerous? As long as the artists are getting money, the purpose of copyright. They will continue to create music for the rest of us to enjoy and make a living at it.
of how much of the "work" is really yours. If your music could not sell a single copy, but for some reson somone is able to add something to it that now is worth millions, then you still have your original work, it just happens to be worthless.
Imagine a different scenario. Let's say some brilliant mixing artists takes a recording of a busy intersection and somehow turns be honks, beeps and shouted curses and turns it into a hit song, is there really anything owed to the original people honking and cursing?
Admitedly, your goat analogy is a little off the wall, but if somone can make a million from selling goat bleets over your music, it stands to reason he could have made just as much selling goat bleets over ANYONE'S music, so the fact that he happened to chose your is moot. If anything, he will be generating sales for your de-goated original, that you still own, that otherwise you would never have gotten.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
As a tax i dont see any reason why this would be a good idea, but if it were done as an MP3 ISP then it might work.
i ve.com/papers/metro/10.29.98/b owie-9843.html
In fact David Bowie has his own ISP and the incentive of extra content makes it worthwhile for fans to pay more.
http://www.davidbowie.com/
http://www.metroact
Extra content (although secondary to ease of use) is one of the big reasons people choose AOL and it is makes sense for an ISP to restrict the content so that only its subscribers can get it. Or at least get it easily reliably legitimately conveniently and most importantly at high speed!
A bit of added value and a lot of convenience and people dont feel so cheated paying 15 bucks to get the music on a litle plastic disk.
If an ISP can add value and convienience it might just work.
But as a Tax on ISPs it has not a hope in hell.
--
why cant slashdot automatically make valid URLs clickable?
I-I-I-I'm wicked and I'm lazy
Ooooh, don't you wanna save me
http://www.talking-heads.net/lazy.html
- Who distributes the money?
- With a flat fee artists whose work is popular, and therefor downloaded by more people, will not be compensated any more than an artist whose music stinks.
- A tax on DC-Rs? Of all the CDs I've ever burned, only six have contained music.
- A $1.00 "tax" added to my Internet access bill. Okay. Not a bad thing. But wait! What about a $1.00 fee for writers whose books are downloaded? And a $1.00 fee for porn that is downloaded? And what about a $1.00 fee for
... Pretty soon you get a LOT of fees.
- And speaking of fees, why should I pay for services I don't use? Why should you?
I don't like it.Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
I'm an ex-musician and, in case you con't guess, I HATE the parasite, dog-scum, suckin' xxAAs with a passion.
Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen can find a nice place in Hell and burn there in agony for all eternity like the creativity deprived fuck-wited Luddites they are.
God. Just thinking about 'em makes me reach for Piperazine.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I don't know about WINE - but Lopster will support WPNP (WinMX Peer Networking Protocol) in its next release - you can CVS it at the moment and it works great.
We wave the flag of freedom as we conquer and invade.
So:
$1 per month to the musicians
$1 per month to the movie makers
$1 per month to the authors
$1 per month to the television companies
$1 per month to the advertisers because none these will have the advertisements included
$1 to anyone else who can come up with a reason why $1 per month to each of the major software makers because of the warez
$1 to anyone else who can come up with a reason while there content is being traded on the internet
...the socialist nature of this idea is a bit appealing. It is kind of nice to see big industry players thinking outside of the box.
This idea, at first glance, seems less evil than the legistlation and copy distruption that the RIAA and MPAA have been going after.
Given the choice of the MPAA/RIAA regulating my PC into something only slightly more useful than a VCR and including DRM in every IP packet, or paying my ISP an extra dollar so someone else can download music --- I choose to pay $1.
Of course, this is Verizon --- your standard telco. This $1 per month charge will be turned into a healthy profit margin. They'll be happy to add the $1/mo. charge that goes to the artists. They'll even be happier because they get to charge you another $14 per month ($1 to cover the costs of adding another line item to your bill, $4 to cover the extra cost of charging you the original $1, $4 to cover the accounting costs, and another $5 for sending the check to the artists.)
[ And don't forget any local taxes for the service of charging you that extra $15/mo. ]
if only to see these groups do some serious battle.
and here i try so hard to hate both of these companies...
Question
http://www.ironfroggy.com/
Who remembers the DAT tax? Before doing digital audio on computers was made practical by mp3 and cd-r there was DAT. And the music industry clamped down hard to prevent it from becoming a consumer product. So they got a tax placed on DAT media and devices and had a chip implanted in every DAT device to prevent copying.
;)
Thought it was relevant to this, but didn't think the slashdotters would let me do a feature
Anyhoo, here's some reference links
The right way to tax dat by RMS
Phillip Greenspun comments and gave testimony before the Senate.
What happens to the money that the Library of Congress collects.
"...seriously, why must this always be handled via legislation? We live in a free market society right, if there is a viable business model here it will be found and worked out... "
Not in cases like this where the bottomless pockets of the RIAA have the lawmakers that are supposed to represent US in THEIR pockets...
(Stolen sig) Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus", a "Microsoft worm", not a "computer worm
Coming up with a new business model requires thinking. An original idea.
Fuggedaboud id!
These xxAA parasites have opposed EVERY single fuckin' thing since the development of the player piano.
They ain't interested. Whatever it is, they ain't interested.
The fact that they have LOST every fuckin' time and that every loss has gone on to found entire industries doesn't seem to matter to them.
The fact is that if they had won there would be:
NO radio,
NO record players, reel-to-reel or cassete players,
No CDs, never mind the audio recording and reproduction industry,
NO TVs, VCRs or DVDs, never mind the video recording and reproduction industry,
NO advertising industry, never mind the multi-billion dollars that spent every year on the vain hope that something they they flash in front of you eyes will lead to a sale.
These cock suckers have NEVER won a thing. And thank God cause we'd ALL have to sit 'round the porch playing the piano, no matter how badly, and singing along, no matter how off-key, for something to do on a Saturday night.
BUT THE XX-AAS DON'T WANT ANYTHING TO THREATEN THE STATUS QUO AND THEY ARE FUCKIN' PARANOID ABOUT TECHNOLOGY.
The last time an original idea entered the halls of some xxAA, they took it out back, beat it to death with tire irons and dragged the corpse to the highway so it could get run-over by passing motorists.
Jack Valenti and Hillary Rosen are reactionary pond scum who will obstruct and block ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. Their knee-jerk reaction is to jerk their knee of anybody nearby with an idea right in the 'mads.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
How else do you propose to "handle" this? We live in a society of laws, and legislation is how the will of the people is expressed. The laws we currently have are incompatible with music sharing; laws can be changed. You'd prefer ... what? A "market solution"? Do you actually believe that there's a "free market" that exists? It doesn't -- the market metaphor is a way to describe certain mechanisms of exchange, not predicative, provable fact -- and it's certainly got nothing at all in common with any sort of natural law, cretinous Chicago-school idealogues or no.
Just for the record, a $1/month/user surcharge is a goofy stupid idea, but at least it's an idea. Without someone holding a bigger stick than the RIAA's control of virtually all rights to the music that you want to listen too, we're stuck with their ideas.
'jfb
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
I think Verizon and Kazaa are just trying to mess with the RIAA. They are trying to turn the artists against the RIAA and the big labels, while getting publicity and encouraging a different political solution, all while making a buck themselves. I think it is a rather good strategy. It doesn't cost them much money, they get a bit of publicity, and put their enemy (RIAA) on their heels. Rosen's remark was somewhat accurate, though you could tell it was frustrating to her.
There is an interesting balance in the democratic process. We whine and complain about the DMCA, SSSCA, Sonny Bonno act, ect... We say how the big, bad corporations are running government. What is not often pointed out is that other big, bad corporations, and big bad unions, NGOs, government agencies, and even foriegn govenments also get their toes stepped on and have the power to do something about it. While the balance of power will not always fall on our side, sooner or later the balance will shift toward the middle.
Distortion ENGINE? C'mon, really... I know that engine is a catch-all trendy techie word these days, and it DOES fit what you describe under the most general sense of the word, that being "anything used to effect a purpose", but let's specify a bit and call it what you're really talking about.. a FILTER. Far less pretentiously pedantic and vague, don't you think?
</anal rant>
At first blush I would disagree; I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with a "content tax" - or ideally, a "content redistribution." Copyright IP monopoly is a violation of the free market too, but it has beneficial effects so we make that compromise. Since IP monopolies and licensing like Copyright appear to be problematic in their enforcement and perhaps ultimately pernicious for our intellectual and economic development (not to mention basically unenforceable in any way compatible with civil liberties and human rights), by all means, let's consider alternatives for creating an incentive for art.
The problem, however, is how the distribution works. The laws we already have that function this way are a perfect example. They're basically highway robbery - we allow the 5 major companies at the heart of the RIAA and MPAA to collect a tax! They're supposed to distribute the booty to the artists... want to guess how much of it any of them actually see? And do all artists get the same? Or some more than others? Who qualifies as a "content creator" and who doesn't?
It's not pretty. I like the pre-DMCA status quo better (bootleggers are prosecuted, and "recreational" duplication is de facto permitted). As distribution technology gets easier, the content industry revenues gradually attenuate. It's too bad, but I won't lose any sleep - they were ushered in on a technological accident just a few years ago, and they'll be ushered out on one. There's no god-given right to become a billionare selling music. The first technological revolution in the content industry - the phonograph, and the radio - already caused a far worse tragedy, removing the livelihood of many millions of professional musicians. Life will go on.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the net effect of all this that the middle-man is simply cut out of the transaction, and the old "semi-voluntary" model where the audience compensates the artist directly comes back once again.
We're on the road to Tycho.
Legislation is what makes Intellectual Property exist in the first place. It makes sense that changing the legislation could solve the problems with Intellectual Property law enforcement.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Hello!?! Do you have any idea what is the most expensive part of making and selling an album? Marketing, Advertisng and Promotion!!! How is anyone going to know where your album is online? It will be lost in the millions of other artists sites (like we have/had at mp3.com). do you know how most albums get heard and sold? The RADIO!!! and it costs money to get songs on the radio. "Promotion" of one single to radio nationally costs about $250,000. Why do you think the only music on the radio is stuff that is on the major labels? Its so funny, people are sheep- they hear it and then they buy it, but they forget all about it when they say things like "we dont need the record labels, they are just middlemen" ha! You can have the best music in the world, but if no one knows about it, no one is buying it, and you are one starving artist!!! The labels _can and _do serve a good function in this regard, they market and promote well. In most other capacities they just rip bands off, I should know i used to work in the machine.
"thus circumventing the stranglehold the RIAA has on the music industry"
You've got to be kidding... what kind of stranglehold are they talking about? My p2p client seems to work just fine!
I just built a HOME; I *really* like my home, my castle and now have kids. I worked, saved, suffered for better than 20 years to pay it off, but the taxes and "fees" and the local Government (our local Communist party members) are nickel and diming me to death! Why are we allowing ourselves to be taxed so?
Now we allow the Internet to be likewise taxed?
Do we *really* own anything?
Very few of you will ever be able to afford to retire even if you save a million.
Let me know of any legislative or special interest groups who are like minded and worried about our future.
Thx
Compulsory is bad. Verizon is evil. It's bad enough we get charged extra for blank media, but now they want to charge us for blank Internet connections? Verizon's only motivation is to skim off the top of the fees and profit from the bottom with increased bandwidth demand. Verizon's already very good at ripping people off and they already have plenty of protectionary laws keeping it that way. You should feel compelled to just say no anyways, but Verizon's involvement should clinch it.
If society adopts this, I think it will actually do a lot of good. Perhaps people will see the analogy of music and software and we may see licensing of music under some sort of Public license or otherwise creative licensing. There are so many possibilities, but the most positive idea I can think of would be a license similar to that which Vim has. The author of this software supports a noble concept known as charityware:
http://www.vim.org/new.licensedraft.txt
It would be cool to see a "Charity Music License". I know this concept could be completely abused i.e. charityware that promotes Scientology or the like, but it would surely also support some good causes as well.
Under Pressure is a David Bowie song.
But your point that artists are going to be able to protect themselves from plagarism without a money-grubbing distribution monopoly on their side is a good point.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
You can now get blank DVDs for $1.5 a piece or less. They better not do what Canada does with tarrifs now currently FAR higher than manufacturing costs for CDs. There are plenty of legit things people can do with that storage.
You misquote her. Artists pay for the recording and about half of what the record label likes to call "recoupable expenses." The artist pays for this out of their royalties IF the band sells any albums, which 90%(!!!) do not. Recoupable costs are 50% of what it costs to get a song on radio, 50% of touring costs and 100% of wardrobe, stuff like that. General marketing (posters, fliers, stuff you see in the music stores), sales (somone has to convince the record stores to buy X amount of Mary J's new album), distribution (those trucks you see, yeah they carry CDs in them), manufacturing, etc, that is ALL paid for by the label. Oh, its still a scam on the artist, I know that for a fact, I used to work at a few labels, but I am just trying to put it all into perspective. you slashdot folk can be really brainy and also really obtuse.
Speaking from personal experience, I have been collected mp3s since 1995. It all started out as a simple toy, people distribute mp3s in the form of zips and the technology was mostly used by my roomate at the time to archive his collection of pink floyd tapes. For a mere 128kbps, the encoder did its job, and sounds FAR more superior than most encoders that I have heard on the market today.
;-) (If you got this far to read, them hopefully you can laugh at me at my own expense.)
As the years have gone by, I've seen the rise and fall of several mp3 groups such as RNS and APC to name a few. Plauged with internal conflicts (not so much with RNS), groups such as these, as with any quazi-organized band of loosely tied associates, these groups produced and still produce much of the mp3s that are released on the network today.
However, with technolgies readily available, and as the mass public become more mp3-savvy, the encoding of music and as well as other forms of audio content becomes more prevalent. With the help of file sharing technology blooming out of infancy, the once unscalable gnutella network protocols still thrives as more dark fiber become lit up and the last mile requests are fulfilled.
Unfortunately, as technology has progress these past 7 years, I have witness a decrease in mp3 quality as I have seen the increase in filesize as well as bitrate. I will admit, that MOST mp3s that are ripped at 192kbps do sound better than their 128kbps counsins. However, this is not always the case. It has become so common to see files being traded on networks that are so poorly encoded, that it has often become far too annoying to even to bare. Why should I waste my time to download music that sound horrible when I could spend a few bucks to buy the CD that sound great?
Time is much better spent than to stare at a screen hoping that this download will be the one. Similar to the cases of slashdotter that once built their own systems. As most of us have grown these past years and see the technology evolve, time is becoming far more precious than to simply to be spent just to save a few bucks.
But, let's not forget the actual content that we all so much desire. Without quality content, there is no purpose for the hordes of individuals to stockpile gigs after gigs of audio and video content.
I too once gathered hordes and hordes of content, but as I have seen over the years, much of the content that I have gathered have gone to continue to sit on shelves gathering dust. Sure it may have seemed cool at the time to have gotten the latest and greats piece of content at the time so that you could be the envy of all your family and friends, but what does that get you in 3 months? Technology will change, certainly we have seen that as DivX gone through upgrades from version 4.0 to 5.0 in the span of less than one year. What once was cool has now been thrown to the way side as regarded as inefficient and old. And even though the content that we once fell in love at 3:31AM EST as that last byte trickled in after resuming 54 times from that great dump site that you found, what now? What do you have to show for 4 years after the fact? Don't worry, I too must answer this question, and my answer is: nothing at all.
I do believe that I have digressed. However, I will make my point. As quality of mp3s decrease, and the content that it attempts to encapsulate decrease, individuals will eventually find that mp3s will be remembered as yesterday's newspapers. Eventually, one codec will rule them all. LOL
From the article: "...it's unclear whether costs would be passed along to subscribers" You can't buy comedy this good.
Well, after reading it a million times in a thousand slashdot articles, we should all know by now that the artists don't actually own any works they produce.
So, why pay the artists? THEY don't own the song. I have about as much ownership of that song as they do. They could pay me and it would make about as much sense as this scheme.
You're misinformed wrt radio.
Yes, many labels opposed radio in the early days. Capitol Records, though, when they started in the early 40's, began the process of encouraging disc jockeys to play their songs on the radio. Within ten years, Capitol was the dominant label, mainly because they had built up relations with all the radio DJ's and had a much easier time geting their artists on the air, which resulted in higher sales (which they parlayed into being able to sign the bigger artists, such as Sinatra in the 50's).
But they can only hold onto a monopoly as long as there is no viable alternative. Internet distribution of MP3 files is a viable alternative to packaging CDs and selling them through retail chains. Yes, you are correct that many artists who currently have record label contracts are stuck until their contract is up. But their contract will be up some day. Also, there are artists who are powerfull enough to hold onto their rights to digital distribution, which means they can put a foot in each camp and sell CDs through their label as well as selling MP3s through this new thing. Thirdly, there are many artists who do NOT have a record deal who will flock to this distribution model. How these indie bands become popular without a label pushing videos to MTV and paying radio stations for airplay is the missing piece of the puzzle. But if you create a market where tons of good and bad music is available to the public, then "filters" will be created to help you find what you like.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Its about making fans pay for access to new music. why shouldnt a musician be able to take a box to their concert and like a vending machine people download mp3s into their portible players from these boxes.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
We live in a free market society right, if there is a viable business model here it will be found and worked out.
You're forgetting that the RIAA is a monopoly, so there is no opportunity for another company to enter the market and try this business model to see if it's valid or not. This is why we have antitrust legislation.
Correct me if I'm wrong (please), but wouldn't this create another Artists Alliance, possibly called the Downloading Industry Artist's Alliance (DIAA), another "music industry-benefitting" firm that the real creators, the artists, have little control of and just end up getting the short end of the stick?
If KaZaA wants to go neo-Napster-style and try to charge its members for access, then fine, but to levy Internet access just to extend the artificial scaricity of music is ridiculous.
This sig provides no comical value.
if not worse, and we'd just be trading one set of ignorant asslickers for another. Kazaa has shown such great business acumin with brilliant digital. I'd not trust them to steal from me let alone provide a service I would pay for even if it was decent.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I think this is what we should fight against!
You know it's going to be Celine Dion and Charlie Pride too. Good thing I have a Mac, so that it will break when they make me listen to that junk....
Step 1 - Verizon and Kazaa force compulsory licensing.
Step 2 - Verizon and Kazaa force compulsory music billing.
I pay those blood-sucking-bastards at Verizon too much money as it is. I don't want to see my Internet bill jump another $20 a month for a new licensing/billing scheme. These guys aren't trying to help the community or the artists. They are just trying to make a quick buck. Verizon owns the pipes and Kazaa supplies the software. Of course it's even better for Kazaa since they get to "double-dip" by selling time on their distributed computing network. I don't think this is good news at all.
Oh, its still a scam on the artist, I know that for a fact, I used to work at a few labels, but I am just trying to put it all into perspective. you slashdot folk can be really brainy and also really obtuse.
You're right. I'm not a recording artist (be thankful). However, I do have about 5 books that have been printed by big publishing houses. I can certainly say that my book contracts are nothing like music contracts. I get a fixed percentage per book - that's it. The only recoupable cost is the advance. At signing, I received a (non-recoupable) stipend for purchasing supplies, and there were a few cases where I needed some hardware and the publisher provided them free of cost. My first two books barely sold enough to cover the (small) advance I was paid. Writing Linux books in 1995 was a rather bold move.
Distribution and manufacturing? You gotta be kidding. Compare a $17 CD to a $50 book. Which do you think costs more to ship across country in quantity? Which costs more to make? My books are make in the range of 10k-20k units. Probably harder to make than just stamp a piece of metal, huh? Which costs more to sell? Hell, there's noone reading my books over the (public) airwaves. Maybe I should suggest it for my next book. Funny, I don't see deductions on my royalty statements for advertising or manufacturing or...well..*anything*. I also don't think I'll be going into bankrupcy anytime soon either.
If the labels are really doing these kinds of things, it's no wonder people hate them so much.
Now they will be made to pay for downloading music that they never download nor ever listen????
Didn't Prince have something like this worked out? He's got a online fan club where you can download music and videos. And you can buy CDs directly from him. So...
(The first of two comments.)
There's rampant piracy of software on the 'net, too. So, how about we place a modest fee on everyone's Internet service account, to license all of the software for everyone. The money raised would be distributed amongst the commercial software vendors. Then, downloading any software will be legal.
Just a guess, but the average American on the net probably downloads, buys, or upgrades maybe $10 a month worth of software. That would be a reasonable fee.
Give me a break.
This is ludicrous. This is wrong on so many levels that I fear enumerating them, since I won't even come close to a complete list!
The chief problem:
I don't use commercial software, nor do I pirate it!!! There's no way in hell I would allow myself to be subjected to such a tax!
The proposal from Kazaa and Verizon is dumb for exactly the same reasons. In analogy to the example above, I don't download illegal copies of music!
(The second of two comments.)
:)
I have an idea for how copyright infringment should be dealt with. I'd really like to see feedback. (Unfortunately I'm posting anonymously, so only people searching for nuggets of wisdom from the Trolls will read this.
People who want to copy a set of songs (or hell, software) should obtain a license from the copyright holder. The licenses should preferably be transferable and last for the physical life of the license certificate. Then, you are free to download and use the material in any way consistant with the license, copyright, and fair use.
That's it.
What about the evil pirates? Simple, they should be dealt with just like any other suspected criminal. Given reasonable cause, a warrant should be issued and a search made for unlicensed copyrighted material. The person or company suspected of violating copyright law would then have to be found in violation in a court by a jury of peers.
I can't predict what the results of this would be on the entertainment industry. But, it seems to be the fair way to do things: The artists hopefully get paid, it does not effect in any way people who don't download music, and it imposes negative consequences for violating copyright.
Better yet, as far as I know it works entirely within current American law, and exactly the way the law was intended.
License the music and software for personal use, exactly the way some software is licenced now. Don't prevent unauthorized use by changing every computing device on the planet to protect your bits. Don't tax us all with a fee on every computer.
You say a viable business model will be found because we're in a free market society. Well, what about Microsoft? Sure, it may well be a viable business model, since they have $40 billion in cash, but its success has more to do (at least, for the last 5 or so years) with anti-competitive practices being used illegally to maintain its monopoly. The RIAA is in much the same situation as Microsoft, except that it's an oligopoly. But only in name. They act as one, to keep prices high and to rip off the artists who produce their wealth.
Personally I applaud KaZaA and their efforts, and I intend to support their suggestion. It may not be the final, best answer, but it's a whole lot better than things are now.
In short, this measure helps break up the oligopoly and puts the money where it should go -- in the artists' pockets.
I don't think the music companies should be left completely out of the loop -- and they won't. The market has shown that filesharing increases CD buying. This sounds like a great plan.
Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
Kazaa lobbyist Phil Corwin says a $1-a-month fee per user on Internet providers alone (it's unclear whether costs would be passed along to subscribers) would generate $2 billion yearly: "We're talking about a modest fee on all the parties who benefit from the availability of this content."
:) On top of it, where are all of you /.'ers that advocate a voice with your money? Give up a dollar a month for stuff you don't even use, and how are they going to distribute it? Does Britney get a bigger share because she's a top seller? What about the little guys? Where's your voice now?
It would be passed on to the consumer, it would be inflated by the ISP's due to handling costs and the increase in bandwidth being used.
On top of it, I don't find file-sharing all that damn great of a service. If I want to hear music, I'll turn on the radio, or download some indie stuff. If I want to buy it, I'll buy it. I don't want to pay artists like Britney Spears for her bubble-gum pop, or anybody else for that matter, if I'm not going to listen to it.
"So it's only a buck?"... You can buy alot with a buck.
Geez... Why don't we all just pay a portion of our paycheck to a system where people get to stay home and not work and get paid.... oh, wait...
Snooze and you lose your sushi.
Hysterical dude. I absolutely did, too. I was thinking about music being distributed on one of Verizon's pages. I figured that they would never carry my kind of music (Alien Sex Fiend, Big Black, Wedding Present) so I left the page. Came back and I *swore* the word changed to licensing.
Thanks for speaking up! Guess I'm not entirely nuts..
Intelligent Life on Earth
http://shumans.com/survey-music
not to be obnoxious but yes I do believe a free market exists. and yes laws can be changed, but it is hardly reasonable for the business model of any industry to be enshrined in law. If they can't make money by creating a product that attracts consumers they should go out of business. That's what a free market is. Whether one currently exists or not is up to debate. I just disagree with the idea that the government has any reason to step in here, either on "our" side or the RIAA's. Yes copyright is around because of the law and I believe that violators(for profit) should be prosecuted. But if I dupe a white stripes CD for my own use or my brothers I feel that's my right. Left on their own I believe that someone will figure out a way to produce revenue from file sharing and voila there's your free market. It doesn't need to be a "natural law" to work, it's just how things happen when people are left to their own devices.
What's the best way to tame the best? Revoke its corporate charter. I am certainly no proponent of a generalized corporate death penalty, but the courts should have the Supreme Courts should have the discresionary power to summarily revoke not-for-profit corporate charters based on the history of the organization. The RIAA has a history of legal terrorism against any potential threat. It wields state force as a weapon via the courts in order to maintain the status quo, a strategy irreconsilably at odds with free market capitalism.
What should terrify the RIAA is the possibility that the USSC will pull a Roe v Wade re copyright law; that suddenly out of no where it will take a fish hook to copyright law and essentially disembowl it. That is what Roe v Wade did to abortion laws. There is far more constitutional ground to oppose the DMCA than old anti-abortion laws.....
That ruling on virtual child pornography should have been a wake up call for the RIAA and MPAA because it shows that there is a hardline utilitarian streak to the current USSC. That ruling showed the public that utility matters to most of the justices, especially ones like Scalia that typically rule against big government (which is what the DMCA really is, an excuse to increase police powers).
A good legal argument to use before the USSC against the DMCA is that it violates the first amendment. The bill of rights was ratified AFTER the body of the Constitution. Therefore federal copyright law must be restricted by the first amendment since it came AFTER the clause in Article I, Section 8 establishing IP enforcement powers. Since the provision that "Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech" came after said section, it naturally follows that said section cannot restrict freedom of speech.
(Now what would really be nasty is if the USSC ruled that because local governments and corporations are both chartered by state governments, the states can legally hold not for profits like the RIAA to the provisions of the bill of rights)
The song writers get paid per play by radio stations with moneys distributed by this group which is headed by elected representatives.
Musicians really could use something similar...There the ones getting walked all over by record companies.
We have a system called GEMA here in germany, basically they 'tax' blank audio-cassettes (CDs are being figured out), and the money is supposed to go to the artists. The problem is, that the GEMA is a bureaucracy, and most of the money vanishies into supporting itself, so the evident purpose of the GEMA has become, to support itself ...
One problem (and the reason why you need a bureaucracy of a kind) is: how to distribute the collected money fairly among the artists, the GEMA invests so much into solving it, that hardly any money is left to distribute, which is also a kind of solution.
Also now they got it into their head, not only to tax blank media, but also CD-Burners, Harddisks and whole PCs, and with significant taxes at that. Naturally the PC-Industry isn't happy with that, so there's some haggling going on (basically the PC Industry is putting it off as long as possible, and argues, they should use DRM-solutions).
Another thing is, that they somehow also get a cut for public concerts (don't know why, but it even applies if you hire some band to play at a family occasion if theyre registered with the GEMA, or cover any registered artist) if there is any artist registered with them (i sure know, that i will only hire local Bands if they're not registered with the GEMA, i prefer to hand them the extra money directly instead of investing it in overhead.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
The fair way would be to track what people are downloading, and dole out the money proportionally based on that
The American Society of Composers, Artists, and Publishers solved this scaling problem a long time ago. ASCAP takes a 24-hour sample of each radio station's airplay. Not all radio stations are monitored at the same time.
Kazaa and Verizon could do something similar, by setting up some high-capacity super-nodes and logging all downloads started through those super-nodes. It wouldn't catch all downloads, but it would catch a significant sample from which Kazaa could compile relevant statistics and cut checks to ASCAP, SESAC, and BMI.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Since I already buy physical copies of my music legally (on CD), I don't see why I should be forced to pay for it again.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
If I'm not into MP3s and stuff, I shouldn't have to pay it. Instead, they should offer a "tier 2" ISP service like cable does. A lot of people would be willing to pay more $5/month or more for such a service, but if I don't want it I shouldn't have to pay for it (which a lot of other people have suggested, but I didn't see anybody draw the cable analogy. Just my $0.02)
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I am a firm beliver in file sharing. All data shows that most people are honest and will pay a fair value for what they use. I have a huge CD collection, so do many of my friends. I however am not that careful with my CD's and as a result have mp3'd many of them at the 360k options so I can have them with me and burn new cd's. Although, I rarely do that anymore except for road trips. I have no problem at all paying for what I listen to and like. I too expect to get paid for my work, I put effort, time, energy and (yes) ego, into what I do (a software and web systems developer) that I expect to get paid. Artists deserve to get paid and if my voice will help this alliance, help the artist get what they deserve, I want to know how and where to help. I am willing to pay for each and every song I download and save (the key being save and in high quality, not at 128k and only while I am a member). I can't speak for everyone, but it would be nice to know and hear from and voice with others who feel the same way.
So this amounts to either the ISP agrees to tax their users accross-the-board, or they add billing for users who elect to use P2P-type protocols (of course you can always tunnel over XXX etc etc).
Already here in belgium the basic cable ISP doesn't let me run a server (block incoming SYN, NAT etc). If I start having to fork out extra to 'enable' ftp, irc, ntp, ??? WTF? what if I want to play protocol-architect with friends far-afield? yikes.
Oh, here's a wild idea: make the Kazaa network fee-paying! BwahahahaHaHaHAAAAA!
This can't be implemented until Kazaa has an accurate way of determining who the content providers are. This is a HUGE license management nightmare. Not to mention all the tracking that would need to go on to determine how many downloads are going on. Remember this isn't just about Music. Images, software, Movies, documents, all types of media are being shared everyday.
People use Kazaa because it's architecture is efficient to quickly find and download content while distributing the storage and searching. Adding all the License management and tracking required to get the content providers their due, will totally change what Kazaa is today. And I believe the needed overhead will be overly cumbersome to turn users away.
And Who is going to have access to all this download tracking information? *cringe*
I like the idea, because it works on many levels. It is probably the only way that the only way that any money would be consistently collected for artists. It will permit people to use the technology without an artificial restraint on what they can and cannot do. It is applicable to other media that can be easily traded, such as Movies, Literature, and perhaps even Videogames.
But this does have some problems. The one good thing about the capitalisim is that it is a pure meritocracy. People vote with their dollars. That is why despite the horrible things you hear about Walmart, they make money. Or why you always hear horrible things about a politician who is consistently re-elected. Under this system the problem becomes one of fairly distributing the money collected from this sort of fee.
The fairest way to distribute the funds would be to track what people are downloading and from where, and use the data collected to divide up the money. If one file accounts for 3% of all mp3 downloads, then it gets 3% of the collected funds. This sounds good on the surface, but lets see what can go wrong.
First, you are relying on the accuracy of the stats. There is no way to ensure that the stats are not artifically inflated. Second, collecting those stats would rely on a Napster like system of servers. It would be impossible to get useful information from a true peer to peer setup. Third, there are privacy issues in tracking what people are downloading. Almost I do not think that anyone cares for the idea of any company or organization being able to figure out what you are downloading and from where.
Still, once you work past those issues, the idea is still a good one.
END COMMUNICATION
It's not the same as the tax on music cd-r's. It doesn't presuppose "guilt." It presupposes that people will be copying music, and legitimizes it. There can be no presupposition of guilt if no crime is committed.
My current feelings: What a GREAT idea. I think these guys are on the right track, and it's nice to see another big player trying to level the playing field. I'm sure they will gain huge support from consumers. I'm also sure they expect to make a few bucks while they're at it. ;)
I don't like the thought of a "tax", though. Tax money isn't always used for what it's original intent was. Maybe that should be more like "never". Then you have corruption where the money gets siphoned into someone's pocket. Also, everyone gets lumped into the same pot where everyone pays, but not everyone benefits or wants that benefit. Not everyone will want to download music via the Internet.
When you also figure in that someday billions of devices will be plugged into the Internet, it's very likely that a lot of people won't even surf the web but still will have Internet access to hook their devices up (for whatever reason). Making these people pay a music tax is not reasonable.
You also have the problem of other industries jumping on the bandwagon once the precedence has been set. Suppose the e-book industry decides that there is way too much piracy going on - so they would also like an Internet tax levied on everyone. Personally, I've never bought an e-book and can't say I have any plans to buy one currently. Why should I pay a tax on that?
I like the idea of www.emusic.com. Download all you want for a fixed price. Call it a "user fee" if you wish. Often that's an alternative to high taxes. In this case, it's the principle that I'm focusing on, not the one dollar.
One final opinion - I think taxing CDRs is _ridiculous_. In my honest opinion, it's the only really viable backup solution for me. Why would I pay a music tax?
...Something's brewing and it ain't a good thing? I know all this is "for the greater good" to help fight the RIAA, but the entire situation with Kazaa is starting to feel decidedly AOLish and it give me the willies. I feel the need to scrub myself incesently with lemon scented wetnaps whenever I hear about them anymore...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
As a small ISP myself, I have two words for this idea: Like Hell!. And as someone who only rips music he owns, I have the same two words for the idea that I should pay for someone else's music.
for the music inustry to charge us for songs we didn't listen to, to give it to artists that had nothing to do with the songs we did download.
Compulsory licensing, where the copyright holder has to license on statutory terms, is reasonable. But taxing the Internet to support the music industry is not. It's important to distinguish between the two.
Though, I doubt this would benefit my favorite bands, one in particular, of which, I've quite a few mp3s of their music.
;P
I also have albums for over half of the mp3s I have, and will eventually get around to buying the others.
Actually, most of my favorite bands can't tour the US. They tour everywhere else. All of Europe, Russia, Japan, South America, etc.
They can't get into the US. Why? The RIAA. Unless you're filled with silicon implants and plastic appendages, don't expect to break into the US market with any ease nowadays.
(Talent? No, no, you see, we have people who will write your songs for you, and give you these fun dances to do on stage!)
The royalty that the RIAA has been insisting on collecting via webcasting etc. has been based on the mechanical reproduction license. That money doesn't go to the artist, but to those who engineered and mastered the recording (ie the record label). If a compulsory license system is created, the RIAA will still be getting paid. Are Verizon and Kazaa taking this into account? I don't see the RIAA accepting compulsory license fees for the mechanical reproduction license without a *BIG* fight.
DMCA - Chilling free speech since 1998.
I think there are two problems here that we are not thinking about: we have reduced all music to the three-minute song, and we are implicitly giving the composer/writer's performance preference over all other possible performances by distributing music principally in recording and not in score.
As to the first item: yes, it can be longer than three minutes; however, our indiscriminate use of "song" applied to everything indicates that we are normally thinking about a composition with a solo singer or small vocal ensemble, and a small accompaniment, usually consisting of guitar, synthesizer, and drums. What ever happened to instrumental music, or cyclical sequences of shorter pieces? True, they are not unheard-of in recent work, but lately we seem to be exhausting ourselves turning endlessly in the circle of the short, highly-emotional lyric, without paying attention to the expressive possibilities of other forms.
As to the second item: yes, CDs are easier to use than scores without musical education, but the view of music you get from recordings and the view you get from performance are totally different. I am not saying that we should not record music; in fact, I came to know most of the music I love through recordings. But, the music I love most is the music I have performed myself (I am a fair singer and mediocre pianist and have some woodwind experience), with one or two exceptions. With score in hand I was able to get inside the music, see what makes it tick, and then hear it anew when I made the sounds themselves. In addition, with a CD, I must accept all interpretive decisions the performers make, but if I have a score, I can make my own (and they may be different than someone else's). Make the effort and learn to read music, and to play an instrument or sing, or both.
Mutatis mutandis, the same may be said about jazz, and the differences here are more in favor of performance. Jazz often is skeletal; a melody is there, but the performer has to ornament it, and each performer's take is different. The same also goes for rhythm and harmony, depending on the piece.
What do we do with musique concrete and other such things for which there is no score? I haven't worked on that one yet, since they don't really agree with me, but it would appear that to be preserved, they must be preserved exclusively in recordings.
And anyway, music for which you have the score is open-source. :)
Point #1: The Primary reason people download media via P2P is the convenience. The technology and infrastructure now exists for people to easily find and retrieve the media they want. This is what most consumers buy PC's for!
Point #2: Most people would be willing to pay some small fee to download media. Especially if there was some added value over the current no-pay methods. (Which are pretty f'n smart...)
Point #3: The media industry does not have the vision or smarts to keep up with the possibilities provided by changes in technology. This is why P2P has exploded, and has been pioneered by individuals or small groups of programmers. Consumers demand added value for their dollars spent. If they can't get it from the current providers of media, they will look somewhere else.
My point? The media industry MUST provide a better alternative, or people will obviously find their own solutions...
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Take a look at the dead? Althought they were the top money making tour for years on end - there is only one way they got there - album sales and word of mouth. So buy a CD from a band you like. I am an aspiring musician - I aspire to do it all the time... I need to eat too.
How can you people so enthusiastically endorse this deal? It was less than a week ago that Kazaa was being bashed for installing spyware and Verizon is yet another telco (have you ever met a telco you liked?). This isn't about the artists, the money or the copyright issue. This is a powerplay to take the RIAA's spot. Note that instead of having the RIAA inbetween consumers and artists, Kazaa and Verizon would be between consumers and artists - meaning that nothing would change but the players. I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy, but I'd rather stick with the evil I already know.
Hey now, that sounds pretty good. Thanks for the recipe! I think I'll print that one out!
But Guerinot isn't ready to dismiss it out of hand: "Any model that starts to accommodate monetizing the artists is worth looking into."
MONETIZING!?
What the hell is wrong with 'paying'? Why is it that buisiness community has to constantly make up stupid longer words to use instead of already existing ones?
It's not big, and it's not clever.
Don't say 'leverage' when you mean 'lever'.
Don't say 'burglarized' when you mean 'burgled'
Don't say 'monetized' when you mean 'paid'
Really, it's not that difficult...
A dollar a month is more than I've ever paid for music. As a non-consumer of the trash pumped out by the general population of musicians out there, the proposed surcharge will buy me nothing of value and therefore is wrong. I say that the RIAA should be taxed and the proceeds given to artists (of which I am one) ---- this because the plan as I read it so far doesn't disallow taxing people who don't want to be taxed for a service that will not benefit them.
First off, compensating the musicians directly is hardly a new idea. there are a hundred variants of
it.
the only thing that is new is that some one with
some juice is taking the idea seriously.
Musicians should just band together and market their own music through an online co-operative.
Get some of the big name dinosaurs like Mick, and
Paul, to seed the venture, and build up a catalouge of new music.
Once everyone goes there to get online music, the record companies will have to cut a deal on
the co-ops terms to sell the old music too.
one thing don't replicate the old recording industry with a bunch of fat cat execs and
try to enrich a small group of people.
Get the music to the people cheaply.
let them copy it.
if it's cheap enough you could rapidly convince
even greedy geek types who don't give a shit about anything except gaming and pirating tunes
that file swapping ain't cool.
you just push a few keys, just like when you
push a few buttons to get a soda out of the vending
machine.
Of course it's unclear, because in this current market of heavy competition among ISP's for clients there's not a single ISP who can afford to pay for this, unless there's a law forcing them to do it.
Basically, this is a music tax, no matter how you spin it, no matter whether it's the music companies or the artists getting the money.
On a slightly different tack, I love music, and I hope artists get paid what they're worth, but let's get real.
I write software for a living. Last year, maybe 100-150K people used my software which is probably like a small time album sale. This coming year, we're doing deals where 2-3 million people will be using our software across the year.
Shouldn't *I* be paid outrageous sums of money just like these artists too?
Go, Springboard, Go!
alex
--- Wherever you go, everyone is always connected...
Ha Ha ha ha ha hahahahahahaha oh, oh, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ROFL Ha Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha hahahahaha... ha... ha... ahhhhhhhhh. America, the country that practically invented the internet is now destroying it because of corporate pigs trying to cash in. And you know what? i don't even care, i don't live in America so it doesn't concern me. And the best thing of all is - none of this matters because the ideals of the internet will live on free though newer projects such as wireless P2P networks. Damn, i hope we declare war on the US soon, otherwise they will infect Tony (dumb shit) with their evil laws.
Guess what, i hit the karma barrier, so you can mod me down as much as you like, i don't care.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Consumer wants music. He selects any P2P file sharing service he wants (since they ALL have access to the same body of music - that is, ALL of it that is available from its peers) and then pays, say $5/month as a subscription fee. The file sharing service takes their five bucks and keeps a list of how many times any particular file is downloaded. They send a report to the music licensing companies, ASCAP and BMI along with the artists' share of the subscription fees. The licensing companies then dole out the money to the artists in exactly the same way that they do now for radio/tv broadcasts. If you don't subscribe, you don't pay for music. If you do subscribe then you have your choice of user bases and software user interfaces. I personally would prefer to use a service with NO banner ads, lots of "hip" subscribers (one that had lots of DJs signed up would be preferable, wouldn't it?) and an uncluttered, utilitarian software client. If someone else preferred cutesy interfaces, or targeted marketing, then let them have that too. Why is Verizon involved with this at all except to lend more credence to the idea. I think that all this talk about "taxing" ISPs to pay for music piracy is a little premature (modem tax, anyone?). I expect to have to pay for music, but I sure as hell don't want to sign up with 10 different music sharing services just because the major labels aligned with different p2p companies and I like a few artists on each label. The only thing preventing my dream from becoming a reality is that there is no legislation that says the industry MUST provide license to the file swapping service providers. So they don't license, and the music is only available in stores, you lose. There IS already legislation that says the industry must license to broadcasters, so how is this different?? It's only a matter of time before congress takes this out of the RIAAs hands and gives the power back to the people.
alex
--- Wherever you go, everyone is always connected...
I too think this idea is ridiculous. Here is why:
asuume you got the tax levied. Now how do you
distribute it to artists. You can't track usage
(otherwise you could stop current p2p flood), and
if you pretend you can then you'll be swamped with
lawsuits from artists who claim that usage of their art was undercounted.
Now then, how do we distributed the dough? Given
that the proposal is to use the legilative approach, my guess is this will result in a disaster just like NEA. You'll get boards and committees and shadowy money flow. My guess is
that in the end most artists will see as much
money as they do now.
Personally I think the solution is to prohibit
assignment of intellectual property so that only
its creators ever have any rights to their own
work. The artists aren't that different from other
IP creators such as inventors. Inventors go to
venture capitalists or angel investors, develop
a business and possibly cash in. Artists should
record their works using an equivalent venture
capitalist system, then hire marketing people and
get their works out to the public. No need for
RIAA and no need for universal taxes. Once each
artist is their own label, and there is real
competition, then prices will come down to a
point where buying a CD is cheaper than paying for
a CD-R disk and download bandwidth. At that point
p2p problem is solved.
"Direct to the artists", right. How would that work, exactly, when the vast majority of artists don't own any rights to "their" music?
And how exactly would the money be split up? Based on the tracks downloaded? No, they can't monitor that reliably (given that 90% of the music that I download is mislabelled, truncated, badly encoded or fucked up radio edits). They'll use the same model as for radio play: it'll be based on the number of albums sold, it will go via the labels, and it will be given (grudingly) only to those artists who have the financial clout to demand what they're owed.
Foreign artists will get nothing, regardless of how many US citizens download their music. Independent artists will get nothing. Artists who distribute their own music online will be in the worst position of all! I don't listen to Angry Young White Guy rawk, nor do I listen to la Spears. But any tax on my internet connection will go mostly to them, simply because a lot of teenagers do what they're told to by the marketing $$$ and purchase their albums.
And now let's talk about the free market economy. If the music industry becomes supported by a tax, then what exactly is their incentive to even pretend to give a damn about producing actual music?
The situation is bad enough as it is, what with them controlling the means of production and distribution, but they still have to persuade us to buy the stuff. And they already assert that they have a right to receive an ever increasing revenue stream (viz their hissy fits every time sales slump), and Congress and the courts seems to agree (the DMCA talks about "promoting commerce" more than "protecting rights holders", and the Elcomsoft judge agrees that it's all about the money). How much more government mandated guaranteed revenue do they need?
That's a rhetorical question, by the way. Anyone outside the industry would say "none", anyone inside it would say "we deserve to have all the money in the world, while the rest of you die cold and hungry in the gutter, wishing you were us". I guess it'll come down to which of us our elected (ha ha) representatives (ah hahaha) choose to actually represent.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Superficially, taxes are annoying simply because we have to pay them, and I have no love of paying taxes any more than I have love of paying RIAA for music.
However, a free market which is unregulated will almost by definition fail; The very reason that markets work so well, namely that they rely on selfish agents also points to their flaw (namely that they rely on selfish agents). The classic (and perhaps somewhat outdated) example of this is a lighthouse: A particular shipping firm might decide to install a lighthouse for their personal benefit; however doing so carries benefits for other shipping firms as well. You want a system which builds lighthouses whenever the total benefit to society exceeds the total cost: not that they are built when the selfish benefit exceeds the selfish cost. Legaslation is the only way to distort the market away from it's "natural" form into a more ideal market.
So, I'm all for an efficient government (which we don't have), but paranoia against legaslation is also counterproductive.
Intellectual property laws were introduced to foster creativity. If that same goals can be achieved by a more direct means (a tax on internet users), without the cost that IP brings (namely that art/knowledge is selfishly withheld even though the cost of distribution is virtually nil), then
I'm all for!
--Eamon
Just believe me, thinking involves not just believing anyone.
Knowing KaZaa and Verizon, if this plan ever did go through, then KaZaa and Verizon would have a stranglehold on the music industry, rather than the RIAA. And knowing KaZaa and Verizon, it won't mean much at all to us. They're both just as evil as the RIAA.
The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC
this is the part where the RIAA begins chanting "sue! sue! sue! sue! sue!", isn't it?
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
Some of us have been saying how for quite some time here (I won't repeat my rant, look at previous comments if curious). Suffice it to say, the problem is the bottleneck in the (antiquated, insecure, 1950s) payment system everyone assumes will be their only choice, ever.
JMR
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
Britney Spears gives Aural Sex!!
...Kazaa, the dominant file sharing network
except that direct Connect has over three times as much data on its decentralised network, but doesn't shove its marketing in your face to the extent that Kazaa does.
"The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994
The RIAA is not the labels.
Um. OK. But really, the RIAA IS the labels. It's a trade association whose most important members are Warner Brothers, EMI, Sony, BMG and Universal. These just happen to be the 5 biggest labels, comprising like 96% of all published music. Oh yeah, and over 800 other labels too.
So. I would propose that an association is made up of its members, wouldn't you?
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
We don't live in a free market society. We live in a heavily legislated society where the most effective way of conducting competition can be in the courtroom. We live in a society where branding and commercials and spin form the basis of our spending decisions. It is extremely hard to enter a fully consolidated market.
It's imperfect. But until the courtrooms start to reject more cases, and lawmakers start to limit the right to sue, this is what we're stuck with.
Stop the brainwash
I can just picture the RIAA rolling over and playing dead on this issue. I mean, they don't really care about money or anything. Sorry, but Verizona and Kazaa are in no position to take on the RIAA. Verizon may be big, but how much of their business are they willing to put behind this to make it fly? Whereas this IS the record companys' businesses. They're going to put everything they have against this. Sorry, I don't see Verizon willing to put up that big a fight.
They claim that they are losing money due to file sharing but can't prove it. In fact, the opposite can be proven (like with that band Wilco, sorry I don't have a link to that article.) So Kazaa proposes more file sharing, plus generating $2 billion(the RIAA will likely get some cut of it, although it will apparently go mostly to artists). They get much increased record sales and a cut of the $1 billion. Where does Hillary see a problem? I'd have no problem paying $1, or even $10 per month if I knew Kazaa's music base would remain consistent and accessible.
Frankly, I don't understand why I can't just buy the music directly from the artists, at $1/song.
That would be great., wouldn't it?
Artists go heavily into debt recording at company studios. They're "lent" the money, but they have to pay it back. There are plenty of horror stories of artists selling half a million albums but not making a profit because of that "borrowed" money.
I produced a compilation CD for a noncommercial radio station and was very pleased to get a track from Ani di Franco. She owns all of her own music through Righteous Babe. Somebody should ask her what she thinks of all this. She definitely proves the superfluous role of the big record companies.
So absolutely, let's be able to reward the artists directly, not the parasites who perpetuate rock star dreams that so very frequently turn into nightmares for artists.
People also pay for roads they never drive on, and many other public services they never use. The difference in this case is these aren't public services. They aren't necessarily available to everyone, and the money made from them isn't going into the right pockets. This is essentially a tax, but the revenue isn't going to the government, it's going to private citizens/businesses, whatever.
Although, they might handle it better than the government who just gave 10 billion to corporate farms so food prices will be lower and small farms can all go broke, wheee!
What?
How about a couple of vegetarian recipes please, RecipeTroll? I'm not vegetarian myself, but we have to throw a dinner party in a couple of weeks at which two of the guests are.
Actually, when artists make money, it is because of the tour. They make very little from CD sales.
Check back in some of the other stories relating to the music industry--you'll find those links. My other source comes from the Dan Rather interview of the Dixie Chicks.
It's like, what if Lex Luthor jumped up with a plan to save Metropolis from certain doom. Passing legislation is a lenghty, cash-consuming process that yeilds little fruit unless the law is written specifically to give you money.
I'd love to see a draft copy of whatever they're proposing. I have a terrible suspicion that the equivalient of 'wireless network' appears more than once.
Compulsory licensing of the *ability* to get music? Crazy. This is basically saying that *everyone* is an internet pirate. Besides, is this a worldwide plan or what?
They are a local band that has been doing moderately well. With a name like track10, it would be hard to find much of their music on a file sharing program. You would be flooded with hits of albumns that people were too lazy to put the correct titles on.
I was just glad after reading the headline that I no longer use a Verizon phone! Just imagine being forced to listen to Celine Dion in the background of every call you make! :-)
This is an absurd plan.
1. It's not a compulsory licensing system, it's compulsory payment system (in other words, it's a TAX).
2. How do you decide who get's paid? If I create an mp3 of noise and put it on the net, do I get paid?
3. It will be even more difficult for artists just starting up...they won't get paid at all until someone (with a lot of power) decides they get paid. Artists will be ripped off like never before.
4. Where do we stop? If we are taxed for MP3s, why not have a tax for illegally traded pictures? Or electronic books? Or movies? Or software?
5. You will need a lot of very highly paid people to administer such a system of course.
6. This will be nice for ISPs too because it will drive bandwidth utilization, which will allow them to collect even more revenues (once they switch to a usage based billing model...which is certainly going to happen eventually).
Ridiculous...this is far worse than the RIAA!
But wait, the RIAA is not happy with just a slightly increased revenue. They feel that if a new technology comes out and people open their wallets, the money should be poured directly into the RIAA. Which would be fine if the RIAA was doing anything for the service. If this plan works, all they have to do is license their music - no additional production costs, no need to market it, no R&D. Their cost of entering this is zero, they get a piece of the new pie, they can still munch on their traditional pie, they can still screw artists as much as they want, and their revenue is practically guaranteed to go up. Why wouldn't they accept this offer?
Because they see a bigger fish. If there was an RIAA-sanctioned digital content delivery mechanism that protected their intellectual property while moving the content to a subscription-based service, the RIAA could get a huge piece of that pie on a monthly basis. Plus, since the technology would be so limiting, they'd push customers towards buying CDs (as if we should now have to buy a CD and then rent the same content in order to space-shift it).
Greed is their big problem. If the RIAA would sit back and realize that they will make more money by just selling licenses and collecting royalties, the P2P applications would suddenly become legitimate - meaning they'd start behaving like proper applications without spyware and pop-up ads all over the place. There would be at least $2 billion floating around for the artists and the RIAA every so often. CD sales would not decline unless the RIAA made a lot of bad PR moves or much of the music they crank out really sucked (as has been the case recently). It's a win-win-win-win situation (RIAA, ISPs/P2Ps, Artists, Consumers). But the RIAA wants a "win everything"-lose-lose-"pay-per-listen" situation.
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
Why the hell should I pay an extra dollar a month for something I don't use?
And, for those that say "it's only a dollar"... Next year it'll be two dollars, the next year more dollars.
Unlike the "information wants to be free" crowd of wet behind the ears college idealists; I buy my music.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
1: forces anyone who releases a given product to allow its distribution in a format they might, for whatever reason, deem undesirable.
2: means a regulatory body and not the market set the prices for licensing. what kind of body is going to decide how much one of britney spears' tunes is going to be worth, versus wesley willis' latest release?
Similarly, even though I've technically downloaded some "illegal" MP3s, I had/have no intention of ever buying the whole albums from which they came (you know that phenomenon where you only like ONE song on the whole thing and it's not worth $20 to buy three minutes of good stuff and 45 minutes of junk?)...
...OR I had NO access to the hard copies (for real; it's hard to get Bollywood soundtrack music where I live), so nobody lost ANY sales -- which is the part Valenti, Rosen and friends just don't...get. Wish they'd take an object lesson somewhere here.
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
Not that it isn't perfectly true for the music business, if not more so. But we might as well try to get the quotes right.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Make the legislation worldwide too- or welcome it in Britain. I really dont object to paying an internet music "tax". Anyway- the fact that it would go directly to musicians and not line fat cat pockets is a bonus. I am a musician myself outside of hours - and I happily put my music on file-sharing systems. A £1(Im a brit) per user per month guarantees me much more than my TV License, or my NTL Subscription. Maybe we could extend it to allow movies to be downloaded too. Although I would also rather see it as an opt-in.. Maybe the tax is there if you wish to have file-sharing software on your machine(not dissimilar to TV License). Though I would not be willing to pay any more than around £5/Month. I also think that the selection I get downloading music is far better than my local HMV- which happens to be Oxford Street(biggest music stores in UK). I might not want to listen to talent-scouts selection. As for advertising- artists will have a continual stream, therefore giving them better resources to continue to produce music and advertise themselves. I think publishers have far too much power over what we listen to/view/play. Anyway to finalise- I would so far see it as the most beneficial tax I have ever paid. Given that my council tax only seems to go to washing the graffiti of Maccy D's HQ and non-responsive emergency services.
OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
oh you mean you would rather not support hillary's monoply? it's about time that this has happened. and, now it's time to show the music managers where the power actually is, and allow the artists to make a living. further reading: http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue6_2/odlyzko/ index.html
Why can't we have (besides the fact that **AA's don't like it) services that offer downloads for a subscription fee, but host all the files themselves? Sure, that does mean they have more costs, and maybe their service will be more expensive. But perhaps some people would prefer that over getting some crappy rip encoded with some crappy software that dumbed down the quality a bit to tighten the file. Compulsory licensing should be just as applicable to this business model, to allow it to be a viable choice in the market and see if it will make it in the market.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Maybe it will even save internet radio.
You haven't been paying attention to the problems with internet radio, then.
It's not that the RIAA is not allowing internet radio stations to license their works, it's that the proposed royalty rates (which are due to be accepted by Congress with a week, so give your local Congresscritter's office a phone call today if you care!) are amounting to what currently pases for 5 to 10 times the actual revenue taken in by even the more popular webcasters. Compulsory licensing doesn't help you if the rates are set too high...
A quick summary, sensibly titled Give me the story in 90 seconds is available, and information on who to contact and what to tell them can also be found at SaveInternetRadio.org
Jay (=
(Who mailed his letters off last week...)
I think Kazaa is missing something here. If filesharing was to be totally legitimized by a coalition of ISPs setting aside funds like radio stations to pay artists --which seems amazingly sensible-- then it would be much more logical from the ISP's position to use NNTP for their wholesale music distribution than P2P for obvious bandwidth reasons. Rather than letting the users suck up the net bandwidth that the ISP pays for, they'd obviously want their users hooking up locally. I don't see where Kazaa would still have a roll.
From my experience, many ISPs don't offer full news services precisely because they think there are a lot of legal issues they don't want to get into with the binary groups. If an agreeable rate not unlike that paid by radio stations was reached which legitimized file sharing, then it seems obvious that NNTP to big ISP hosted RAID drives with months of retention would be the way to do the distribution rather than having users rely so heavily on P2P. A few hundred terrabytes of disk space may seem like a big costs at first, but compare the cost of distributing all that data locally rather than letting users go connect with who-knows-where in some other hemisphere. Sounds like a great scam for big ISPs really if they could pull it off. Users would still pay for their bandwidth, but they wouldn't really be using much of the ISPs actual pipe to the net.
Besides, using NNTP, you could have it relatively organized to the extent that you could have moderated groups along the lines you'd find in record stores or a library. It just sounds like Kazaa is asking for a solution so big it will make itself irrelevant which is fine with me. It still doesn't work under Wine, does it?
Thanks.
Thanks for the link to the correction.
Life at Sea
Another good indie band that has all their recorded songs (3) available for download. They gave me a free CD at their show too. I have probably paid over $50 to see them live numerous times, not counting the alcohol I consumed while at the shows. I think indie bands should get a commission off beer. no?
How strange it is to be anything at all
Ms. Rosen is probably having kittens right now. Technology brought the uncaring, monolithic companies back down to Earth, where the rest of us live; surely it can do it again.
If the artists were getting the money I'd be glad to pay for downloading music. As long as when I buy a song I get to do what I want with it and in any format I choose. (I'm not renting it I'm buying it, why is that such a difficult concept?) Artists deserve the compensation for their work not those greedy fat cat bastards and bastardettes at the RIAA. When RIAA gets the money then you can be sure everybody else gets screwed all the way down the line. Until the artists get the $$$ I'm more than happy to continue not paying. Try and stop me!
You shouldn't pay taxes. In Canada, we pay 15% tax on goods(which is on top of the CDN$25K you HAVE to PAY the gov't in income taxes if you make above $50K and are not married).
Who the hell knows what dirty politicians do with our money. I can pretty much bet that our money is being spent on strippers, bachelor parties, and "escort services"...later written as "expenses";)
And every year they complain about lack of taxes... k2
So how do you determine who gets the royalties? Do I produce 200,000 1-second mp3's and get compensated because I hired a few buddies to download them? What method is used to keep track of royalty payments? If the artists are getting compensated, how can they regulate this without abuse?
If the record industry is getting compensated, what about the movie industry? If the movie industry is getting compennsated, how about the book industry? Gaming? Software? Porn? etc etc
Imporssible to regulate fairly, and will be tossed out. The free market and TCP/IP will decide for us, naturally.
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8
they want access to the data stream what's being downloaded, shared, search terms, etc. they will then use that data to sell to marketing corps.
I don't think we're talking about a tax (or a surcharge) here, but a subscription fee for a p2p service like Napster used to be.
:)
Perhaps you shuld read the story and think again?
They're proposing a $1 tax on all internet users.
Presumably to be followed by additional taxes to compensate film makers, authors, software companies etc etc, not forgetting the tax because the government wants more money and taxing internet use has become an established trend
More a pause for thought.
.sig. I'll amend my .sig with a couple of leading dashes on a seperate line to prevent any confusion in future.
The WTC casualties were very highly publicised and originally vastly overestimated. The Afghan casualties have hardly been mentioned at all.
By the way, the "Really, it's not that difficult" was part of my posting, not my
Darn. now I've changed it the length is too long - changing (3000-3400) to ~3200.
But the proposal here was to include a payment to artists in ISP charges. Since I need an ISP, I'd then have no choice.
If it's a separate voluntary network, then I have no problems with it.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10