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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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-$80 to see the band live. It will be a revolution in the music industry- everything will have turned upside down, but there is no other way. Artists need to make money somehow- except those who do it just for the love of the music, but I'm sure those artists would enjoy a bit of money and fame too.
Just my prediction- who knows what will really happen.
This still presupposes that the consumers of the above items are going to engage in 'illegal' copying.
I think we should adamantly refuse to support any proposal which presupposes guilt - I think it's a dangerous precedent.
MjM
<%=$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.
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
Artists will be able to make money off albums, but they will have to do it the right way. They will have to make you want to buy the album. Include original artwork etc (take a look at old records, some of the artwork that was on the sleeves of those is probably worth more than the album itself. People also like to have original copies. Artists can make money off albums, but they're going to have to cost a lot less. That's where self recording comes in. The technology availible today should alow most artists to make a record their own albums well enough to get popular, and then be able to use that money to sign the recording company, not the other way arround.
However, I do agree that the real test of artists will be in their performances. That's where they will need to make their money.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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"
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....
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)
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.
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...
Well, yeah... But it's a rather grand assumption to suggest that I like to work, but I haven't found anyone who'll pay me to do nothing.
Concerts are not charities for bands, they're social events that go way beyond the band...
What? You're saying that these are social events that go way beyond the band. I.e., people go to concerts because they are social events, not because of the band. This is good news for people like Britney that, despite having no talent, will still be able to earn plenty of money by providing a social event to the public.
No more naive then expecting people to continue to pay $20 for something they can download for free.
Sounds good to an outsider, but run this up on someone who it's going to affect and they're likely to have some different opinions.
Yeah, they're used to rolling in money and for the most part doing very little. Now they'll probably earn less and might actually have to work. Bummer. Sounds almost like MY life.