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."
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.
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
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.
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.
- 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.
The way I see it, all this garbage will end soon. There is absolutely no way to control media- any encryption scheme will be circumvented in no time flat. My belief is that artists will begin to give their music away for free, understanding that if they do not give it away for free it will be gotten for free anyways. Where they will make money is in live performances. I dont care how fat of a pipe you have, there is nothing that can be done to truly replicate a concert experience- no amount of high tech audio and video will ever be the same as being there at the concert.
Artists will encourage people to download their music and give away promo cd's for free to entice people into becoming fans to get them to pay $45-$80 to see the band live. It will be a revolution in the music industry- everything will have turned upside down, but there is no other way. Artists need to make money somehow- except those who do it just for the love of the music, but I'm sure those artists would enjoy a bit of money and fame too.
Just my prediction- who knows what will really happen.
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.
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.
Can someone explain to me how the Kazaa/Verizon deal would not eventually end up being RIAA with a different name? I'd wager that that the artist does not see the $1/month that gets charged, because a processing/admin/overhead fee would get applied against that $1/month, and each year (because of additional compliance costs, infrastructure costs, billing costs etc.) that fee would get just a bit bigger.
Sounds like a take-over bid to me.
Fast, cheap & reliable. Pick two.
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
How would we know how to pay each artist?
I would have no problem with this fee as long as it reasonable. But how is the money distributed is the big issue. Who gets to decide who gets how much and why. Who sits on that pool of money dooling it out. Have you seen a family fighting over an estate?
If this proposal were to go through we would likely have a quasi-governmental agency in charge of talent, giving out money from this pool, while the masses of computer users (perhaps pirates) pay a talent tax so that they can download all they want. How would we measure the traffic? Would this agency try to encode some information into the file to measure how many times something was transferred within Kazaa's network. Would there be a floor amount of money that would be paid to artist because they are part of this consortium? It seems simpler to "Pay the artist" but there will inevitably be a middle man to deal with.
We had to destroy the sig to save the sig.
Give in? No, they're going to put enough companies at odds with their position that they'll be legislated into licensing the music.
The RIAA is somewhat powerful, politically and financially - but going up against the computer (hardware and software) industry, ISPs, the artists themselves and basically everyone who listens to music is a losing battle. They're making a lot of enemies and no allies - politicians are getting heat for siding with the RIAA. The RIAA is completely unnecessary - and by making so much noise, they're causing a lot of people to ask why they exist and why so much money should be being diverted to the RIAA's coffers. It's my prediction that Hilary Rosen is going to be looking for a new job in a few years, because the RIAA is going to go the way of Enron and Andersen. This particular idea may or may not work out, but they're making it clear to everyone that the continued existence of the RIAA is not in the best interest of the artists, the customers or other companies that deal with music in some way.
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?
You make very good points. CD artwork can be replicated- but if prices are lowered to a reasonable level it would be easier to just buy the CD instead of downloading the songs, then cover/artwork, then the artwork on the cd, then assembling it all.
I only buy CDs from DIY artists. I refuse to allow my money to go to the giant record companies knowing that only about ten cents goes to the artist, versus seven out of ten dollars for a DIY cd, subtracting $3 for production costs.
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.
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."
- 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.
But how can you pay the artists directly if they have signed away all their rights to their label?
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.
Touring doesn't HAVE to cost that much money. What really costs money is when tours include crazy pyrotechnics, excessive stage props, backup dancers and singers, etc. Most all of that doesn't matter if you're a real musician. I want to see talented musicians playing intstruments or spinning the turnbtables when I go to concerts. I don't need nor want to see Brittany and her enterouge of 20 backup dancers. I've seen better shows with a guy, his acoustic guitar, and a mic. If you're good enough, they will come. I listen to a ton of jam bands like Phish, and Phil Lesh. Their concerts had special tapers sections for god sakes. Phil Lesh has even released entire tours in .shn and .mp3 formats for FREE. Does this hurt him or his band? Hell no. People come to be live in the crowd of a one in a kind performance. People tour with the bands for whole summers, seeing upwards of 15 or more concerts in a row. These bands get payed because they're are talented and know how to put on a show, as well as how to treat their fans right.
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
Do you think music is nothing more than MTV? Britney Spears is nothing more than a pair of singing, bouncing tits on your TV? Fine, but don't be honest with us, be honest with yourself.
Don't confuse musical creativity (or whatever it passes for in 90% of all music) with anything related to sex. It is possible that a song was written by someone hoping to get laid, but that's not the same thing.
-- Dan
(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.
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.
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!
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.
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...