Slashdot Mirror
EFF Lawyer Argues For Compulsory Music Licenses
An anonymous reader submits "Fred von Lohmann, lead intellectual property lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote an op-ed in the Daily Princetonian urging compulsory licensing of copyrighted music. The system would allow internet users to copy music freely and legally, in exchange for a flat monthly fee to be shared by artists and record labels. He says schools like Princeton might be a good place to test the approach."
We do it for free now. :P
No I didnt spell check this post...
...compulsory spell-checker "lcensing"?
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
What about the CDR-tax? can't you consider that a compulsory license?
Seriously though - has any lawyer gave that any kind of thought? To me it's legalizing music piracy since I already paid for it anyway...
btw, FP?
My life in the land of the rising sun.
How about compulsory English lessons?
(checking spelling to avoid hypocrisy...)
We are not afraid of the lawyers. Allah has condemned them. They are stupid. They are stupid... and condemned.
Former Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf
To be honest, it sounds like pie in the sky to me.
Cheers,
Ian
Damn Apple stole all the i's
Mr. von Lohman doesn't know what he's talking about. The issue is not that musicians aren't getting paid. Record companies have been ripping off musicians for years and the RIAA couldn't care less. The issue is that the record companies see file sharing as a threat to their profits (it's not) and their monopoly (it is).
As for the "fee" that Mr. von Lohman suggests, it's already been done. There's already been a fee added to blank media (CDs, etc) for precisely the purpose he describes, but that hasn't stopped the record companies from unleashing their lawyers on anyone and everyone.` And very little, probably zero, of that fee ends up in the pockets of artists
The entertainment industry believes they should have absolute, totalitarian, iron-fisted control and consumers should have nothing. No fair use, no ability to share media among different playback devices, nothing.
Every label/artist would not get a cut of the pie, how many people are going to pay this, how much will it be, and how many thousands of indie artists plus the mainstreamers will get this, perfectly split and then of course its a matter of the big labels ever thinking this is fair to them, which they never will. Maybe if all the labels started releasing cheaper CD's and legit non-propritary formatted online distributed versions that where not so overpriced as to be affordable to everyone, then we'd get somewhere. I don't mind them keeping track of what track i just downloaded from an official site and having me pay for that track or the whole album, but make it easy to pay, make it cheap and yet profitable within reason to the band/label and its all good. And screw the idea of having each track keep tabs on how many times you listen to it with your windows/mac only player that is a piece of crap and invades every privacy oriface of yours to satisfy greedy labels.
-meh-
The RIAA and MPAA like to have control over what is distributed, where and when. This model strips them of the control that they have so lovingly gripped since vinyl.
Also, the author talks about fair as if it is something easy to quantify, but fair to you is different from fair to me, and you can bet your ass fair will be different between artists/record companies and the like.
And then you have to get all record companies (big and small) to agree.
Does this apply to movies? Ok, that makes things more complex. What about applications? Games? Books? Fat chance. Nice try, but I can't see it happening.
I'm not even sure I listen to CD's as often as once a year. And even then, the only music I do listen to is on CD's that I actually bought from a store paying real money already. Am I going to have to pay this compulsory tax on my machine(s)? :(
What about other vices that some people have and others don't? Like Internet porn... Hmmm. Maybe a similar payment scheme for that industry would simplify things as well. A simple tax on everyone who uses an ISP since many people use such materials. Then the money could just be divvied up among those whose pictures were being used and deposited into a public kitty (hey, I didn't make up the term) for safekeeping. Then -- voila' -- justice and administrative simplicity in one tight little package.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
If I hear something good, I'll look it up and dl a couple of tracks. If I like it I go pick up the disk. So, I rip it and send it to my laptop and my MD player. I still will always want a hard copy.
But that's just me.
Merk
The fees would be divided up fairly, based on popularity on the file-sharing networks, measured with sampling methods like the Neilsen ratings that respect our privacy while tabulating the P2P "charts."
/. story I read] would try to vote by wasting bandwidth.
I'll be creating a worm to request my most popular song on the internet: These ain't bushes, they're noxious weeds.
This system would kill the internet. Packets with the "Evil bit" [sorry last
When VPNs are outlawed, only outlaws have VPNs.
We dont need a new license. All we really need is for artists to tell music directly to their fans. Fans, you know the ones who go to concerts to see them live? The people who make musicians most of the money they make to begin with.
CD sales arent important, most musicians dont make money selling CD, they make money on tour, if this is how they make money now why should they care about cd sales? If Musicians want to sell music they can sell CDs at their live shows, people would buy them by the thousands and they'd make plenty of money.
If you have 10,000 people at one of your huge concerts, and you sell 10,000 CDs for $5 each, and because theres no middleman you get 100 percent of the cash, you'd take in $50,000 from one concert.
This is FAR FAR more money than you'd make selling CDs even if you sold a million CDs. Most Musicians dont make any money at all from CD sales and when they do they only make around $50,000 per million CDs sold. meaning for each million, you might get $50,000-100,000.
Musicians may sell a million CDs a year, and make about $50,000 a year, or they can make that much in a day selling direct.
I'm betting ICE-T will make plenty of money, but we shall see.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
"The problem is that artists are not getting paid."
I doubt that the artists are the major driving force behind these lawsuits. Indeed, it's the people who own the copyrights who are behind this.
While he mentions there are "many options," I disagree with von Lohmann's "obvious" "right" "answer." (Can you see I'm making bunny ears with my hands?) Frankly, I'm surprised a representative of the EFF would advocate a flat fee to be applied by ISP's to all users - especially universities where many students receive aid to utilize campus equipment and services. How does one justify these fees on a scholorship application?
I can see the Ask Slashdot discussion now.
I think universities are an ideal location for social initiatives, such as the importance of paying for the goods and services you acquire.
every label and artist? where? will some of the money be going to artists and labels in ireland? russia? brasil? what percentage goes where?
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
I'm just kinda curious why these things always get tested in some area where people can actually afford CD's all the time. I mean if you can afford to go to Princeton I think you can buy the latest N'Sync CD.
Why don't they try this at a large public university where a majority of the students receive financial aid?
If I read correctly, he wants to add an extra fixed fee to all internet access bills. What about when movie studios realize the potential, and want to add their fee, because surely people are downloading movies? And then come the book/whatever digital media publishers - next thing you know only a small percentage of your internet access bill is for actual data transfer costs. I don't think ISP's are going to let this sail, either.
And besides, is Joe Sixpack who's never heard of P2P networks or even mp3s going allow his ISP to tax him for this?
now that would be an interesting top 40,000
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
A fee system is a bad idea, stick with something proven. Provide for government payout to musicians. Perhaps make being a musician allows one to qualify for social security benefits immeadiately, thus providing a reasonable return for their efforts.
Now for my rant...Even if a means is devised for charging a nominal fee to users and compensating the artist for downloading a song, I doubt that it will have much effect on music piracy. While I there are some, many even, who would be more than happy to follow such a system, I think there is a much larger number who, while they pay lip service to the whole "The RIAA is evil and thats why I download music" mantra, are really only interested in getting the music they want for free. Maybe this would be a good first step since at that point the music industry would be on much stronger ground when lobbying for legislation if they could say, "We are providing the service that consumers say want and yet they are still downloading x number of songs a day."
Von Lohman knows not what he's talking about. The issue is not that musicians aren't getting paid. Record companies have been ripping them off for years and the RIAA couldn't care less. The issue is that the record companies see file sharing as a threat to their profits (it's not) and their monopoly (it is).
As for the "fee" that Mr. von Lohman suggests, it's already been done. There's already been a fee added to blank media (CDs, etc) for precisely the purpose he describes, but that hasn't stopped the record companies from unleashing their lawyers on anyone and everyone.` And very little, probably zero, of that fee ends up in the pockets of artists
The entertainment industry believes they should have absolute, totalitarian, iron-fisted control and consumers should have nothing. No fair use, no ability to share media among different playback devices, nothing.
This is just corperate welfare, and shit like this pisses me off about the USA. We the people cant have welfare, but big rich greedy CEOs get bailed out by the government because they cant keep up with the technology or because they make excuses like 911 hurting them,
Who gives a damn? They are companies, they are supposed to die in free market capitalism, this country is becoming a plutocracy where monopolies never die, never get broken up and companies become so powerful they rule over us like 1984.
Heres what I think, I think record companies can adapt or die, period. If they die musicians will make more money anyway, and we will still get free music.
Musicians can sell 1 million CDs and make not a penny, Musicians can make 1 million cds and make only $50,000, so why should they care if you dont buy their CDs when they make more money selling Tshirts?
Face it, Musicians make money because of their fans, the ones who pay to see them live, who follow them around buying their T-Shirts. So heres what I think, why not let the musicians sell directly. Most people who download music for free arent fans, they just want free music, but the fans, they are the ones who will support the musicians by going to concerts.
Musicians can sell new CDs at their concerts, the new CD can be sold at the concert before its on the net, say to about 40-50,000 people at a time for $5-10 each CD, they'd make a fortune.
50x10= how much?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Huh?
What does the dubious "right" to swap music have got to do with democracy?
BOO! TERRO
Extending this idea further, I'd say software authors should also be illegible for receiving compensation for illegally downloaded software. I'm a software author myself - where can I sign up?
And why not apply the same thing to books and other materials? That way capitalism, at long last, ushers in the delights of the communist state! (someone insert an "in soviet russia" joke here please, I cannot think of a good one)
Getting back to CD's, it seems obvious that the record companies will pretty quickly stop bothering with physical CD's if something like this becomes law. That seems slightly unfair to people without broadband, but that's life. People survived without canned music for thousands of years, so it won't be a real problem.
There's one thing that is good about this proposal though, which is why I guess the EFF is making it: it doesn't actually take away our toys or our freedom, it just targets our money. And that's a real step forwards, unfortunately.
In the spirit of contribution, here's an idea of my own: forbid the sale of intellectual property altogether. It was never "property" to begin with (that's why it needs to "intellectual" qualifier), so property law does not apply. Artists will have to make a living by doing performing (which is hard work, but hey, look at what the rest of us are doing).
The system would allow internet users to copy music freely and legally,
...in exchange for a flat monthly fee to be shared by artists and record labels.
Finally. That would solve our problems.
Doh!
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Why not cutting out the middleman. The RIAA and their foreign counterparts are there because in the past there was no easy way to distribute recordings without having to travel around the world to sell your songs and keeping track of your royalties. With the internet that part is easily solved.
;-)
Besides, recording in itself is made possible for everyone due to computer technologies. You don't have to let your songs pressed at a plant anymore. Simply distribute by means of mp3 or any other audio format which you like. This way the artist finally gets payed a decent amount of royalties without some overgrown organisation eating it all.
If it is possible to test this thing out with decent artists (or popular artists, whichever comes first) it could be considered a correct test and results would actually mean something.
But i'm afraid the record companies won't be jumping up and down with joy to actually test this....
And as far as marketing is considered, the internet has shown to be a remarkably good medium to spread things that are considered good in both the quality and ideology sense of the word.
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
As much as I support EFF and as much as I support musicians right to make money. Selling CDs does not and never has been a source of income for musicians.
Just because we can get music and movies for free online doesnt mean we want to watch all our movies on a tiny computer screen, maybe we want to see it on the big screen in high quality, maybe we want to see musicians live.
People act like piracy killed the movie industry when the VCR was invwnted but it didnt, the theaters stayed open, people started going to the theaters more and more.
Why would Eminem fans suddenly stop going to his concerts just because they can get his music for free? Once they but the CD they have his music, so why do they go to concerts?
I will go see the Matrix 2 because its my favorite movie, not because I cant get it online. I could always get movies illegally, even before there was an internet, I could always steal pay per view, I could always buy illegal VHS tapes, but I still went to the movies.
How many of you people still go to the movies now?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I can name at least 20 non-mainstream bands that I listen to. Some have recording contracts, some just sell CDs off their website. So how do you determine which of these bands gets any of the compulsory license fees? All of them, since they all sell music for profit? Only the ones with record deals? None of them since they are not mainstream? What is the criteria for getting paid? It seems to me that compulsory licensing would never work, since you really can't even decide on who to pay.
It seems that artists should be resigned to the fact that they're already giving away music for free.
Free as in the only way to advertise music is to allow people to hear it, and traditionally radio has been the free to listen media of choice. Top of the Pops and MTV work too, but to the end listener it's all just free to listen music.
I'm sure that they way it all works is that effectively the artist pays to have their music played on the radio. I'd serverely doubt that the music industry would advertise music and not charge it back to the artist.
If they're resigned to giving away their music for free to advertise it - why not just give it away free by seeding a P2P network?? If the musician had to put up their own server for listeners to download music then that could be quite expensive. Then all they need is a simple e-commerce site for their fans to buy the CD. When they buy the CD they're not really paying for the music (which is free) and only a small part of the money goes to pay the hard costs - the rest is basically a bargain with the musician - If I pay for your CD then you'll make more great music, and if I like that then I'll buy it too and continue the cycle.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
The system would allow internet users to copy music freely and legally, in exchange for a flat monthly fee to be shared by artists and record labels. Now explain to me, why we need the record labels there?
I dont mind a flatfee, but why the hell should we save a monopoly?
If this money were going directly to Musicians I dont think people at slashdot would complain, but we know musicians will NEVER see this money. This is wh y its bullshit, plus its like opening pandoras box, you start off with a small $5 increase on internet feees, which will turn into a $10 increase, then $20, $30, $40, until our internet costs $100 a month like DirectTV or CableTV.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
What does the dubious "right" to swap music have got to do with democracy?
Until we have democracy, that is, rule of the people and not rule of corporations and the rich, I can't consider any laws/regulations to be legitimate.
I also look at the benefit getting free music does for the community - people have access to the music which increases their enjoyment which makes for less stressed people which makes for a more sane community.
Sorry, I guess I'm just a neo-hippie.
Make it an Opt In thing, if you agree to pay for the (free music) server ISPs offer (sorta like cellphone free nights and weekends service), you become immune to all anti piracy laws and the RIAA leaves you alone, if you dont pay, well then you take your chances.
This makes sense to me, as people who download music alot will have to pay the flat fee and people who dont ever download music wont have to pay.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Mr. von Lohman's article has more holes than a Service Pack - as Rudy suggests, he doesn't know what the hell he's talking. Some points from his article:
...and a rather lengthy list of draconian measures... None of these efforts by the recording industry has put a single nickel into the pockets of a musician... And none of these efforts has slowed the spread of peer-to-peer ("P2P") file sharing."
... cadets have been disciplined ...Investment in innovative P2P companies has dried up."
" Suing college students. Forcing ISPs to rat out customers."
Both the ISPs nor the R*AA consider netizens as Consumers, not Customers. Big difference.
"Petitioning Congress for unprecedented vigilante powers.
There is no connection between P2P and paying musicians. All these efforts are by the R*AA and their agenda is to increase their profits, not enriching musicians.
"More Americans have used file-sharing software than voted for the President."
What's the point here? People are apathetic to politics, but they are passionate about sharing files..
"Responding to pressure from the entertainment industry, the University of Wyoming is now monitoring
None of the above is due to file sharing per se.
"Some members of Congress.. have suggested that the answer might be to expel, or even jail, college students."
This ought to be condemned directly, rather than tax ALL internet users.
" The hysteria over P2P has gotten out of hand. "
And OTOH, such articles are contributing to the hysteria!
" The problem is that artists are not getting paid. It is time to address the problem."
And that is not being addressed directly by anyone.
"The right answer is obvious: We need to collect a pool of money from Internet users"
This is a gem! Who is 'We'?? Internet users? RIAA? The govt? The artists?
And how can collecting money be a right answer when the problem is one improper distribution of already collected money?
The rest of Mr. Von's article is so full of wishful and Utopian thinking, one wonders how it made to Slashdot!
If such thinking goes on in the EFF, then the FSF would shortly collect money from GNU and Open Source users to pay programmers! And the most 'popular' and 'numerous' programmers wouldn't have written a line of code! Absurd proposal, IMHO.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Its always about money, but its more about the ability for the record companies to get back to the days when you had to put a nickel in the jukebox to listen to a song. Every time.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Why still feed the shitheads that have been ripping off most artists and us customers for long enough?
..they force me to pay taxes for shit (like those MTV O.S.T's with "fuck-me-dances") i'd never listen too, ...
I'LL PIRATE AND SPREAD EVERY DAMN CD I CAN GET INTO MY FINGERS - NO MATTER WHAT IT IS
What about the CDR-tax anyway? Is it really the time to invent another tax?
Cecil: You'll find one gets more respect as a humble civil servant than as a homicidal maniac (or a clown's sidekick).
:)
Bob: Aha! I knew it! You're still angry that Krusty picked me instead of you.
Cecil: I can't imagine what you mean!
Bob: Oh, come now! You wanted to be Krusty's sidekick since you were five. What about the buffoon lessons? The four years at clown college?
Cecil: I'll thank you not to refer to Princeton that way!
Sorry
Brocklesby Park Cricket Club
So lets give all the big music companies all they want. I mean they'll be able, through carefully crafted lobby campaigns to sway politicians to make sure that they, get most of the money since according to them they loose the most. Oh yeah they'll still charge for music CDs and DVDs and will still want to put taxes on blank media.
So what do we get? A cute nickname: Dolly. And hey with guys like Bush in town any thing is possible.
--
Beeaah, Beaaah, Beahhh...
It probably helps that Ice T has plenty of other (and likely FAR more lucrative) sources of income.
His regular role on Law and Order: SVU alone is probably far more income than he was making in the music industry. Add to that the few movies he's been in.
(I don't really remember which movies those were, but I have to admit he seems to be doing well on L&O:SVU)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Quite simply, this is a terrible idea - the idea of forcing everyone to buy something just because some people 'steal' it is crazy. The economic inefficiency of forced consumption is rediculous - all this will due is make internet use more expensive, and those users who have no interest in digital music will have to sholder the burdon for the rest of us. Moreover, this program will dramaticalyl reduce the incentive for artists to produce quality records - if they get paid either way...
Isn't the Christian Copyright Licensing International something like this already? Churches pay an annual fee so that they can freely print and perform worship songs. Rather than reinvent the wheel, why not look to something that's already in place?
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Even worse, if this tax was added, how would the pie be divided?
The current method of sales of music at least theoretically means that people get to choose what music they wish to purchase. Taxing everyone on the 'net and giving it to record companies would simply mean that listeners couldn't vote with their dollars anymore. It would actually make the problem worse.
This would ultimately become nothing more than a government sponsored recording industry.
Just because Princeton has higher tuition rates doesn't mean that the majority of students don't receive financial aid. If anything, MORE students receive it rather than at a cheaper school because it's needed more.
FYI, Princeton made headlines in NJ in the past year or two for a plan to drastically increase financial aid (which is already pretty good to begin with - A family friend of mine is going to Princeton on a pretty good package.), in order to directly compete with cheaper schools.
Note: You still have to be Really Damn Smart to get in. But Princeton, along with all of the other Ivies, are need-blind. (The exception is Brown - Unless things have changed they are the only non need-blind Ivy - Now THAT is a rich kids' school!)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Yup I think this is a great idea. In the UK anyone who watches TV must pay a licence fee to fund the BBC. This could be taken a step further so we all pay a Music licence they can setup a rating system to monitor cross sections of the country to get these details and distribute the money depending on "usage".
The RIAA is behind the times, and always has been.
I'm not sure if the RIAA was *officially* around when radio became popular, but the record industry at the time tried to get radio made illegal. Their argument? "People will just listen to the radio and we'll never sell another record!" As soon as radio actually made sales HIGHER than before, they embraced it to the point of payola.
When recordable cassette tapes were first introduced, the RIAA had a heart attack. Their first reaction was to try and get the things made illegal. Their argument? "People will just record the songs off of the radio, and we'll never sell another record!" Looks like another fallacy they thought up to protect their way of doing buisness.
Now it's the Internet and the use of file sharing. Yes, file sharing of copyrighted work not specifically designated as sharable is technically illegal. But if the RIAA had embraced the MP3 (and other) format(s) early on, there wouldn't be any 'problem' of 'rampant music piracy' going on. Instead they could be making money off of 'music on demand' or something like that.
The RIAA, and the MPAA as well (they said VCRs and video cassettes would doom the movie industry; using the same arguments the RIAA had used against radio and recordable cassettes), have been, and always will be behind the times. That's why they pushed so hard for the DMCA. That's why they're pushing so hard for the CDBTPA. They're fearfull of losing their monopoly on distribution of popular music.
Frankly, with how bad they treat most of their employees (the artists) they should go down the tubes.
Uncle Thursday --Witty saying goes here--
CD's are just ads for tours. The "selling recorded sound to make lots of money" business model is over. No way to reclaim it. Bands would make lots of money on their tours were it not for the RIAA, who steals most of the money from them. The RIAA serves no useful purpose whatsoever. The bottom line is advertisements are to be shared freely. The sellers of tours should want said advertisements to be shared freely. Do you Toyota cares if we download mpegs of their newest commercial? Of course not. It's to their benefit. So, forget the compulsory licenses (who is going to pay them anyway?) and forget the old RIAA business model. The artists need to learn how to make money on tours by themselves. We should start a nonprofit to help them do this.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
I don't think this is the answer...not by a long shot...
.ogg helps to avoid distortion for the real music fan) I also believe that CD's are an advirtisement of a sort as well the final product is the concert, which I don't think musicians take in its proper context these days...but thats a whole other discussion.
A better way would be to reduce the price of CD's so more people will by them...and not care what the hell they do with them after the sale.
The prices for CD's are insane these days and they don't have to be. Places like Newbury Comics in New England where CD's are deeply discounted prove it...
a little Compare for prices:
At the large Music chains the latest Linkin Park disc "Meteora(Special Edition)" is approx $26.99 sale price since it was just released (observed this past weekend at Stawberries, Sam Goody, and HMV)
At Best Buy it was $19.99 a bit better...
At Newbury Comics $16.99 a $10 discount! Which by the way is still $3.00 less than the majors are charging for the standard edition of the disc.
I digress...
The Point is that I firmly believe that the high price of CD's is part of the probelm, and a firm solution will only come from a lower per unit cost. CD's are product, file sharing is advirtising, I'd much rather own a perfect copy that hasn't been distorted in the ripping process(although
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Its a legal music Mafia...perhaps if the US government would work up the balls to start looking into the RIAA and the Music Companies, and realizing that, the music fan might make some progress. RIAA, and the Music companies need to be tried in the same courts, with the same laws as the Organized crime, because it is organized crime...unfortunately its organized crime that owns Congressmen....
Musicians are the Whores and the RIAA is the Pimp...
I would prefer to pay musicians directly for their music personally...in my opinion 50% of the cost of that CD I just bought ought to be ending up in the Musicians Pocket....
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
As far as the record labels are concerned, the problem is that this fee would be a compensation for them for the money they lose to direct digital distribution. Before long, however, direct digital distribution will be the standard means to distribute music. P2P is not just a costly nuisance for the record labels, it is indeed the ultimate threat to their existence. Which is why they will be fighting tooth and nail against such a fee, and against P2P networks in general.
If they had any brains at all, RIAA would realize the importance of getting some money from all (well, most) online users, instead of the $0 they get now. They can either bring some common sense to the world of online music or they can suffer the consequences.
The next generation of P2P will be 500x faster than existing technology, and totally untraceable. DMCA will be irrelevant. All the RIAA sponsored legislation in the world will not put the genie back in the bottle. Any marginally competent programmer could implement it, using commodity hardware & software. I think the only reason it hasn't been widely deployed is because it represents the hackers' WMD program; to be launched at a time of strategic importance. Just wait; you'll all say, "Holy sh-t! I never thought of that!"
As a promotional stunt, I could issue custom-designed playing cards showing various demons of online freedom. Hillary Rosen as queen of clubs, Fritz Hollings as ace of spades, etc.
I fully encourage everyone to rip and broadcast their music on Shoutcast, as an act of Civil Disobience. I have been for 2 years now and going strong....
This suggested system is rife with problems. The intellectual property regime is the only one that makes sense economically. Yes, it may not be perfect. Yes, it is facing some unique problems with the rise of P2P and modern technology, but the arguments for it are every bit as strong today as they were 50 or 100 years ago. It is just harder to enforce, but far from impossible. How can anyone that would suggest that this suggested sampling method is tractable and justifiable say, with a straight face, that we cannot enforce standard IP with similar methods? If you can uniquely identify copyrighted material in a dependable way, then you can certainly control the content with similar methods and hold people accountable (to an extent sufficient to serve as a deterrent to wholesale violation).
So, you're a struggling artist, or the fan of an obscure artist, or, just a scumbag record exec (is there any other kind?) and you want a bigger slice of the compulsory license pie to go to a particular artist (maybe yourself).
So, what to do? Write a little virus, worm, or maybe a trojan P2P app to invade the P2P networks and swap your songs like mad, driving up the popularity in the proposed traffic-monitoring Neilsen-like ratings system, increasing your share of the pie.
If done right, such a scheme could be pretty difficult to distinguish from ordinary human-driven P2P file swapping.
So, in conclusion,
Worst Idea Ever.
I don't listen to the crap that comes out of the RIAA companies, this is what I have been trying to say all along. I listen to stuff by small, independant labels, many of them from places other than the US. Why would I want to subsidize Hollywood?! This is just as bad as the municipalities that use tax money to subsidize their sports teams.
To quickly summarize his article: 1. The RIAA's antiP2P fight hurts many and helps no one, 2. Artists need to be paid, 3. Compulsory licensing pays artists, 4. One method of CL could be an ISP flat fee, 5. Many other CL methods exist (examples given) and could be used...
I haven't burned a CDR for music in a year. It's all either hard drive or CF chips.
I found your post funny (someone should mod it up if it is possible) but it lead me thinking a bit more deeply about the meaning of these things...
What I fear it would lead to would be a couple of known bands getting all the audience, thus end up with loads of money (if the corporate powers let them) and the others (usually the really good ones) would not get a nickle for their effort. People would only listen to what they hear and hear what they pay for. The only real influence in music business would then be the record companies releasing music videos on MTV and selling pay/play contracts to radio stations for the most successful (read: simple and dull) bands..
I am the pessimist here and sincerely the most fed up with most of the cut'n'paste bands out there on the top whatever lists. They wouldn't even get any better if their bonuses were changed to 'pay/play'.
HOW about "pay for play" or better yet "pay for excellence"? What ever happened to the philosophy of playing for ones own joy and then getting paid if the others liked it too? The royalty system is designed broken and has flipped backwards somehow. The artists should be rewarded for giving something to the people. I don't see myself investing in anything I don't like anytime in the future anyhow. If I listen to music, I do, but it shouldn't mean I should pay for all of it, even the songs I don't really even like that much..
I could write a book but I am not that brilliant with my english so I'll leave it here.
- Voice of Ambience -
- Voice of Ambience -
"As for cheaper CDs???????? I don't know where you are buying CDs, but they are very reasonably priced."
You consider $18US a reasonable price for a CD? I don't. I think its overpriced by a third.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
... the "license" required for brits to watch TV.
In 'murka, yain't gotta have no license to receive any kinda signal!
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
I now purchase indie recordings, as well as artists that just aren't signed by the RIAA. Of those albums, 100% of the companies are not with the RIAA, they're all Israeli.
The point is simple, don't tax me for something I don't do. I won't pay a premium tax to download music, especially as one who never does and only *always* legally buys music.
Phew: rant over =)
Not all music is created for live performance. Not all music is played by a band with a guitarist, a vocalist, a drummer and a bassplayer.
Your idea of a gig based income for musicians, would only be viable if all "bands" had large amounts of "fans", infatuated by their idols.
I listen mostly to "electronic" music, and damned if I'm going to pay for a gig just to see (and smell) a greasy, long haired, slob fondling his laptop on stage, when I can get the same effect out of playing a cd in my livingroom.How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
What better way to ensure that we have an endless supply of quality angst-filled music than to deprive musicians of any livelyhood, and force them to live in rat-infested heroin dens?
Really, any across the board licence will only be diverted by the RIAA. Who will distribute the $$$? The RIAA is already poisoning P2P, so why not a little more to ensure that their newest 'hot artist' gets top $$$ (and pays the RIAA again for the 'privelege')?
It seems like another layer of distraction from the question of why the RIAA gets to hold copyrights in the first place, why copyrights are able to be bought/sold, and the original use/idea of copyright, which was to give creators a LIMITED time to profit off their work.
Solve those problems, revert copyright back to sane limits, and hell, I'll write a folk song about how you saved Music from the Mouse. (Ok, probably not.)
- It does not take into account how different people use the internet differently. Why should I subsidize w4r3zd00dz?
- It does not take into account whose work is being used (because that's impossible to do). If I download an Armoured Angel song from their label's website, why should Britney Spears' marketing organization get paid for it?
I am so disappointed. I hope that von Lohmann's opinion is a tiny minority within EFF.As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I don't know where you are buying CDs, but they are very reasonably priced.
Let's see...
Picking a store at random...
Picking the first movie that popped into my head...
DVD is $20.24
VHS is $9.94
Soundtrack on CD is $18.98
What exactly do you consider to be reasonable? For just the music from the movie you pay twice as much as the entire movie on VHS, or for $1.26 more you can get the DVD. We must have different definitions of the word reasonable. Personally, I'd go for the DVD over the cd everytime.
While it is nice for Princeton to use this need-blind term in their promotional literature, the reality is that admissions at all top schools are heavily skewed towards the wealthy. Even if wealth (i.e. income tax returns, assets etc.) is not directly measured during admissions, the other measurements which are used do almost as good a job at finding and admitting the wealthy (and only the wealthy).
Guess who gets the best SAT scores? The wealthy. Guess who comes from the most prestigious Prep schools, and the non-failing public schools? The wealthy again. Who is most likely to write admissions essays which convey the "right" tone and allude to the "right" experiences. The wealthy.
The few token poor who are admitted for the sake of socio-economic "diversity," no doubt receive a degree, but tend to miss out on a good deal of what makes a top school worthwhile to the elite, because they are sequestered in their rooms, or the library, trying to keep up.
At best it is disingenuous to assert that because a school says that it is need-blind, and because they give a couple of thousand dollars out of $150,000+ to 50% of the students, that is is not a classist enclave of the rich.
Remedies that set up systems (especially legally-mandated ones) to collect and funnel money back to the record labels are just prolonging an inevitable death.
--When you buy proprietary software, you don't get better software. What you get is the right to complain about it.
I may have downloaded a song or two but I really don't care if I can download songs. I don't want to pay so other people can download songs either. I would rather not have the ability to download songs which I would not do because I DON'T WANT SONGS than pay so someone else can get their Back Street Boys fix. I also don't want my ISP to put in a firewall that would take away my ability to use P2P ( which has other uses besides music sharing but will never realize it's potential if it is regulated as a purely piratical technology - the restrictions will make other legitimate uses impossible ) The flat fee is unfair because it forces people who are not consumers of music to pay for it.
Eat at Joe's.
The premisse here is that everybody that uses the internet downloads music. THEY DO NOT.
I do not listen to music on my computer. My speakers are almost always turned off. I resent the idea to have me pay for things I do not use. When I buy empty CD's I pay to the music special intrest while I use my cd's for backup.
I use my internet to download data/software. I use it to browse websites.
The solution is similar to me having to pay for sports tv. When it is part of a channel that I do watch it is ok-ish. If I have to pay for sports because I want to watch another channel as well it is a rip-off.
The morality of the RIAA or from the MP3 entheausiast is not the issue here. Here it is about having everybody pay to appease an organisation that does not necessaraly benefit the community it is said to protect.
The same argument would have me pay money to software companies because so many people use have no license for their software. Another good idea ?
bah,
Gerard
- We all slap down $5/month to a trusted source
- Somebody "in-the-know" persues actions involving music that invite RIAA lawsuits of an idiotic nature (that, or just hook up with one of the already-idiotic lawsuits).
- We push the cash from the fund out, covering legal expense, until the RIAA lawsuit is shown as frivolous, idiotic, and wrong. At the least, we can get precedent, at best... dropping all or part of the DCMA,etc
See, the problem is that the RIAA is at the moment only jumping on those who cannot defend themselves, usually due to lack of money. Even with an idiotic lawsuit, defending oneself costs money, particularly with a large entity that can drag it out, long and painfully.If we can fund an organized resistance, then that will show the RIAA that we, as well, have teeth - and hopefully get the courts to the point where the idiocy of these suits is recognised, rather than having somebody plea down to a minimal legal @ssraping, as opposed to a $9billion bill.
Phish is smart. You can buy sound board recordings of shows a few days after the show in SHN or MP3 for around $10. It is still legal to tape, and you can download the taped shows freely on furthernet or other methods. However, Phish makes the money by providing something superior. They still make money, which means we get more music. And they are on a major label. too.
Anybody see Zwan on SNL this weekend? Um, wow. And not a good wow. Always amuses me that music from 30 yrs ago, if played by a popular musician _today_, suddenly becomes new and cutting edge.
Good idea, you do that.
Boycotting the products of the big-label music industry in protest at their profiteering, mistreatment of artists or whatever other behaviour you don't like is an entirely justified exercise of your power as a consumer in a free market and is ethically unimpeachable.
On the other hand, shouting "boycott the RIAA" and availing yourself of their intellectual property (for which they paid the actual producers - the musicians - in accordance with a contract freely entered into by both parties) anyway through P2P is a simple refusal to accept the consequences of your own actions (e.g. that your assault on the RIAA may have certain costs associated with it, such as lack of access to their products) and is chickenshit.
but a remarkably poor medium for getting paid.
however silly the "tax" proposal from the EFF (and this is not nearly as silly as most of their proposals), the focus on how to get paid from internet distribution is a good sign.
record companies will never be helpful in this debate because they do not sell and distribute music - they sell plastic discs.
putting music on their discs just happens to be a very good way to get people to pay 20 euros for a plastic disc which costs cents to make.
no "record" company will ever consider the internet as anything else than a way to sell plastic discs - or as an evil tool which undermines the sales of their discs.
they should have stayed with vinyl....
I think von Lohman is a bit more savvy than you're giving him credit for. He knows there's know way in hell the RIAA will go for this, he's with the freaking EFF for God's sake. What I believe he's attempting is two things, both of which you address:
Artists vs. Labels
monetary losses vs. loss of monopoly
Under the first point, he tries to divide the artists and the labels, which have somehow united on this issue after being at each other's throats forever. He says we'll make sure we pay both camps, and while he doesn't specify, I have a feeling that he intends a split that is more artist-rich than the typical deal (I'm going off of his comments in the article). This would, ostensibly, bring support of artists around to the side of the artist-sympathetic P2P user. That would be good.
Under the second point, his method would pay the labels back without allowing them to maintain a bit of control of distribution of the music, as you point out. We would have all the freedom we do now, save financial, stealing the record company's ability to concentrate sales in a few low-risk, cookie-cutter artists as they do now. You are correct in pointing out the monopoly angle - people have to consider this issue in the greater context of what the RIAA has done lately, including their destruction of streaming 'net radio. That was all about control - at the time, stream-ripping software wasn't being used all that widely. They didn't want to have to offer payola to a massive group of stations, and that instinct overwhelmed the massive free advertising they would have gotten. Think about that, people, and this issue is clearly not about the money.
If you were to get von Lohman off the record, I guarantee you he knows that the RIAA will never go for this. But he wants them to have to abandon the profit/loss argument so the artists and public (and, God forbid, Congresscritters) realize that this isn't about money - it's about control over artists and over distribution. Getting the artists on board would be key - right now they're the most dim-witted, unwitting shills ever. And I imagine they're more successful than Hillary Rosen was.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Fred doesn't say that all Internet users should pay -- rather, that we should collect a pool of money from Internet users. There are lots of mechanisms for this, including allowing ISPs to opt into bundling the compulsory fee into their line-charges in exchange for elimination of liability for sharing on their net. That way, users who wanted to share music and compensate artists could opt to use a royalty-paid ISP; other users who didn't want to download music would opt for another ISP (and that other ISP would continue to cooperate with the rightsholders to bust people who shared without paying the fee, an activity that would seem a lot less jerky if there was a cheap and legal alternative).
We live in a world of socialized costs. Copyright itself is a socialized cost: a government-created monopoly that exists to support the arts by giving creators limited control over their works. Constiutionally, we're charged with promoting the useful arts and sciences by affording artists a monopoly over their works.
The current structure of that monopoly is untenable. It just doesn't work in the face of Internet file-sharing. This isn't new: the same was true of radio, and the answer is much the same: you can either negotiate to pay for every single track you want to share (which basically means paying a laywer $200/hr to negotiate a $0.25 royalty, over and over again), or you can opt into a levy that gives you access to every song ever recorded.
The CARP royalties for Internet Streaming Radio are an interesting example. While the fees negotiated were *far* too high, the important piece was that the CARP deal allowed anyone to stream any song, and guaranteed that a portion of the fees would be paid directly to the artists, regardless of the terms of the artist's deal with his/her publisher.
The old model of compensating artists doesn't translate into the online world. In order to preserve that model, we need DRM technology, we need to police online communication, we need laws that mandate which devices can be built, we need to ban open source media-players, we need to outlaw circumvention. All of these carry tremendous social costs for every single Internet user, music downloaders or no.
A compulsory license and an optional levy are very different. They allow artists to be compensated for their work, and they don't require any regulation of technology.
"It might work something like this: Internet service providers (including universities) might add a flat monthly surcharge to the fees they charge for Internet access. "
I steal NOTHING. I don't want to pay extra fees on my internet connection bill so others can.
So really, we need to introduce competition. The key to this is retrieving the rights back to the author. This requires key facets:
1. Author guaranteed a set percentage of the gross per sale. Exclusive rights may never be granted to another party, and the author cannot surrender rights to the work. The author cannot prevent the material being published if the royalties are being paid. The work cannot be distributed for free, unless the author consents, or under fair use guidelines.
2. Record labels now split to form publishing houses, marketing services, and VC shops. The VC shops front the authors an advance for a gross percentage of the authors profits. The publisher creates the finished product. The marketing service is paid by the author, for advertising and promoting the work.
3. This solution is aimed at works not considered "works for hire", as defined by the supreme court, and not by the record labels(RIAA) and their bought lobbyists.
This guarantees that the artists get their money, that the labels still have relevance, and brings competition to a previous monopoly. It also prevents works going "out of print" as a new publisher can provide the work, if no one else will, or the author could sell copies themselves.
I'm not going to foray into how long the Author should have the rights for, as that is a separate argument.
For the record, this idea was floated by Hank Barry, CEO of Napster at the time during a senate hearing. Here's an article about it.
I find it odd that everyone refers to this as a "pipe dream" when it's precisely the way all broadcast media works today. It's called performance rights. I think it's exactly what should be used in light of the weird product versus performance entity that online P2P sharing represents.
If you hear a song on TV, radio, in a restaurant, on a jukebox: artists do indeed get paid for you hearing the music. ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, SOCAN, and numerous other organizations around the world exist precisely to monitor how much of whose music is heard by whom, how often, in what capacity, etc. The Internet - and in particular P2P sharing - could be monitored in this exact way. In fact Napster would have been the easiest of the P2P tools to perform this kind of tracking, and for producing exactly the "P2P Charts" this guy was talking about.
Additionally: the logging for radio play (including XM / Sirius) is now much more precise thanx to organizations like BDS (Broadcast Data Systems) which actually reads in the coding on all CD's ever played on any radio station so that even if I have only one tiny indie recording, and it gets played only one time on one tiny station: I get paid. It used to be much more arbitrary and artists didn't see a dime. All of that is much more tightly monitored now.
As it sits right now: part of your cable bill (or satellite, or XM Radio or whatever) already does go to numerous performing rights organizations, in a very coordinated way. I don't see why people think this is a pipe dream: it already exists! It's just one more method of logging for these organizations (who are, by the way, non-profit.)
Blanket licensing is what should have been used in the first place. Instead: labels and the RIAA see the files as physical goods, instead of the potentially transient files they usually are in the hands of most consumers.
$0.02
ad
Because I can! [Brainrub.com]
I had hoped an "EFF lawyer" would be more clued-in. What a disappointment, but also an effective reminder that an organization that comes up with some good ideas and solutions can't be relied upon for them.
No Laughing Allowed!
1st generation P2P: Napster had centralized servers that facilitated the transfers. RIAA responds by attacking the single point of failure.
Result: Game over, Napster.
2nd generation P2P: Gnutella, Kazaa, etc. distribute the server function among the clients.
Result: Lack of centralized server means RIAA must expend vast resources on "The Mother of all [legal] Battles" in a desperate search for potential defendants. Harassment campaign is marginally effective at a tactical level, but a strategic failure.
3rd generation P2P: 802.11b-equipped laptops & PDAs operate in cars, speculatively downloading wildcard or keyword-match files from peers who happen to be in range at the moment. File selection is limited, but (to the dismay of RIAA) the most popular content is still available and transfer speed is sky-high. Home machines get the files when your car parks in the garage and is therefore within range of the home wireless network. Cheapie FM modulators allow laptop users to replace lame FM radio with their MP3 collections.
Result: Lack of ISP and limited range mean enforcement is a joke. Just try to figure out which car in a traffic jam is spewing out Metallica songs! Sales of Pringles reach record levels as urban high-rise apartment dwellers start hoarding the cans to make antennas.
Even if not totally effective, the "shock and awe" value of 3GP2P would be a real wakeup call for RIAA.
This dude apparently knows nothing about the recording industry. Artists are TODAY frequently screwed? Bullshit. Artists have been fucked over by the record industry since it was four guys with a vinyl lathe in their mom's garage. Record labels are NOT and NEVER HAVE BEEN about artist development. They're about the fuckstick label owner making money, end of story.
What really pisses me off about the RIAA's bullshit is that fact that they hide behind the artists when trying to convince people that they're losing money. "Oh, our poor artists can't afford to eat!" Well, dipshits, they might be able to if you didn't take 80% of THEIR profits.
I have a better idea than the one presented here. Instead of giving money to the record labels at all, let's give the money directly to the artists. If the record labels are as commited as they say they are to protecting the rights of their artists, they will JUMP at that chance. But they're no, so they won't. Makes me sad I'm a musician, really.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
a fee set by the Library of Congress.
for all copyright works. No thanks.
The fundamental problem is the power of copyright to begin with. 100 year "protection" makes a mokery of the intention to expand the public domain. Work you have published by any "major" publisher will not enter the public daomain in your lifetime. The vast majority of published work loses it relavancy in 20 years or so. Those works not published by "major" publishers has no chance of ever seeing the shelf in a mall or bookstore. I don't even want to think of how bad things can get with the DMCA. The problem is that government has made copyright much stronger than it needs to be in order to promote the usefull arts and expand the public domain.
The answer is not to give Government more power to screw things up further. A compulory license would eliminate the choices we have which could be used reasonably if copyrights lasted say, fourteen years. What would happen to the General Public License? Would I have to pay some kind of fee in order to copy works which the author explicily states I have the right to copy modify and republish? Who's to say what kind of fee is reasonable? I see a bonanza of licensing fees for all machines that have the ability to act as a press, a clear first amendment violation, requiring an army of inspectors to distribute and enforce. The end result might look like the awful system of licensing and revenue generation that governs liquor today. The FCC's inablility to share the specturm, which belongs to nature, does not inspire confidence in the Federal Government's ability to share my works.
The answer is 180 degrees away from compusory licensing fees. The answer is to get Government out of publishing as much as possible. Protecting copyright in it's current form is not a worthwhile endeavor. There is a certian amount of money people are willing to pay for copyrighted works. As independent music lables continue to grow, we are seeing that money is indeed making it's way more into artists hands despite technology improvements. Reducing the power of copyright will reduce the power of big publishers who have proven to care less about their artists. Their model is so obsolete that current copyright law is unable to prop them up. The super copyright law proposed, with it's requirements of central control, is exactly what the RIAA and it's members would like to manipulate.
Think, people, think!
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Smart enough not to Buy NSync or smart enough to not go to Princeton? Ever heard "U Mass" by the Pixies? Princeton = (UMass)(c)^2.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
>Internet service providers (including universities) >might add a flat monthly surcharge to the fees >they charge for Internet access. Suppose I don't download music at all. Why do I have to pay the fee? Because I might do it? Also, If someone downloads 100s per month, shouldn't he pay more than someone who downloads 10?
Besides, recording in itself is made possible for everyone due to computer technologies.
Depends on the genre...Some people have always prefered analog and never stopped recording that way (e.g. henry rollins, who hauls a 24-track analog unit on the road to record live shows). It is also worth noting that we're in a bit of a garage band renaissance. The White Stripes recorded their last album on equipment that pre-dates the rolling stones, did it with only a week's studio time, and only provided copies to music critics on vinyl.
Regardless of what you think of their music, they are a band getting major radio and MTV airplay, and they didn't use computer recording.
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
Somebody has to front the money for music videos. They aren't cheap, ya know!
People are definately correct, the recording and music industry is way behind the times when it comes to P2P networks and the internet. Instead of fighting something that is here to stay, I think everybody involved with the industry needs to think of ways to embrace this cultural shift.
I don't think it would be a bad idea to give people choices between pay-services that allow people to download music at their leisure. In the age of broadband internet and the ability for people to get music and video inside their home instantly is far more preferable than going out to a Best Buy or shopping center to pay for a CD when you only want to hear several songs off of it. Thats like McDonalds only selling a 'Hamburger' option where you are forced to buy every different burger they sell when you obviously only want one or two of them.
Putting 10 - 15 songs on a CD and selling it on a physical medium is wasteful, when you have a medium that requires a much smaller overhead and upkeep, and when consumers are only interested in a fraction of what is offered on a CD. Imagine how cheap it would be for labels / artists to distribute their music via the internet. I don't think a lot of people would object to paying a small fee per song, and because the overhead cost is greatly reduced, you could charge pennies per song and still be making a profit.
As for artists relying on the RIAA to promote them, look at most of the popular internet trends. I don't remember seeing any advertisements for Napster or Kazaa, but certainly anyone with a computer and an internet connection is familiar with those services. Because of the connectivity and interaction between people the internet allows, the phrase "word of mouth" takes on a much larger meaning than it used to. And if artists and labels embrace the internet rather than attack it, they could take advantage of this wonderful medium and still make a profit.
I am not against paying for the music I listen to through the system currently in place. I AM however, very against giving my money to large corporations that seem to think they have the right to mandate laws that force me to buy their product.
I am tired of listening to the RIAA bitch and whine about how they are just trying to protect the copyright holders. The copyright holders don't need protection, they need to bring their business model out of the stone age and adapt to a new market.
If every time the market for a certain product went through a drastic change, and the companies in those markets simply refused to adapt. And instead used the government to revert the market back to the way they were used to operating. Where would we be?
If you don't stop reading this right now you owe me $1,000. Send check or money order too...
While I do agree that the musicians should take home the majority of the profits, eliminating all revenue from the record companies might hurt musicians' ability to tour. Think about: who pays for the arena, mics, monitors, stage crew, and concert promotion? Don't record companies make it possible for Dave Matthew to have sold out arena tours? If you kill off their revenue, how would artists be able to go on the road and support themselves directly? More to the point, why would record companies care to do this?
Granted, musicians don't have to go the lavish route and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a show; just perform at smaller venues. But if the line of thinking in the previous paragraph is true, it could signal an end to 20,000+ concerts tours for many artists.
I'm in general agreement that the record companies are blood sucking, murderous bastards, though.
Why share the fees with the record labels, if they are not involved in the download process?
I'll pay my fees direct to the artist, or any valid middleman service. OK, great. Done deal.
Artists can pay record labels for producing and promoting CDs. That's what they do. If I'm not downloading music from a record label, that label has no right to my money.
(WARNING: Rant/Rant/Rant)
Is the fact that file swapping is not limited to music. You have people swapping films, books, TV shows, photographs, newspapers, fonts, computer sofware, pr0n - you name it. Every one of those industries is going to throw a shitfit about it if the music industry starts getting this subsidy and they get shut out. Mind you, those other "IP" (repugnant concept - that you can own a thought) industries themselves are only slightly less evil in that regard than record companies. There are hefty markups across the board - MAJOR-LEAGUE in the software industry.
(Sorry, this is headed towards an open-source rant)
Windows is $100-200. Office is $300-800, Photoshop is $600 and upgrades are a hefty $150. They use patents, trade secrets, shifting libraries, proprietary file formats, bundling, misuse of the courts system and even flat out bribery to ensure that software X keeps it's user base. They probably would spit on you and sue you into oblivion if you proposed a system like this to compensate them for "piracy".
The motion picture industry has to be in worse shape business-model-wise than the music industry. It's based on printing expensive film prints and distributing them in series throughout the world at varying times. The damn Region Code system is a flawed product of this miserable business model and is completely unparallelled in the music industry (I personally recieved a shipment of CDs from Poland that worked just happy on any CD player of mine). I hope the EU succeeds in banning the system, it would force the motion picture industry to adapt their business around world realities instead of heavy-handed nonsense.
Steve Jobs said it best: "Piracy" is a social issue, but he should have clarified this more. The social issue is that companies with copyrights aren't meeting minds with consumers and used their cash heaps to outlaw consumer choice (I personally regard laws that are bought and paid for as invalid and even criminal acts in themselves, but I'm no billionare to buy congress to make laws up like you-know-who), and brand people criminals/throw them in jail/maintain their monopolies. It's out of hand.
The proposal will be workable only if it can be applied to all "piratable" works. Will his proposal also extend to software, e-books, video, etc.?
the world was perfect, and RIAA didn't exist.
/.ers already pointed out, RIAA or any intermediates are not needed in this process. Anyone with business sense will hire a web dev for a system like this. RIAA or intermediates must in some way provide an ultimate download system that will overshadow any others. Keep in mind that RIAA does not have a wide reach of audiences. Their allies? Lobbied politicians, not actual consumers. Any average fan looking for his/her favorite artist, will go to fan sites and artists official site, not RIAA.
As many
Not only that, RIAA must also venture forth to a new era: an era full of competitors. They will no longer be the Microsoft of music business. Current artists might have contracts that bind themselves to RIAA, fairly or unfairly. A new system of distribution, the grand selling point of RIAA, is now separated into viable outside sources no longer under RIAA's control. New artists and existing ones will have greater options, including using themselves as a distribution channel. Aside from that, a company, or even an individual, could provide massive exposure for any artists through their web system. This will all be possible as long as binding contracts do not exist.
From another point of view, why would RIAA go along with the new trend? They are the king, if not dictator, of the current business. They represent the many mainstream artists. Why adapt and lose the throne? Why give up their options and choices so consumers have more? They are the consumer's primary source, and all they have to do is outlaw, cut out, the secondary source at which people are getting from, P2P. In fact, for people without rights to their mp3s, they are effectively paying for a number of CDs with their entire life savings. 97 bill, that's around 5.7 billion CDs sold, nevermind they will never obtain that much, that's what they are valued as.
Last note, a flat fee? Technically I already feel like paying a flat fee. Every CD is around 14-17. Not all songs are worthwhile on a CD, and some are just outright awful. Consumers prefer to get only their favorite song. With CDs, your only option (in a world without P2P), is to shell out that 14-17 bucks for it. Download option also means fiercer competition among artists. To attract fans, they must output more appealing music.
Why should all internet users be forced to pay for music they don't een necessarily want so some people can get unlimited music a fraction of its value. This is basically socialism. The part about giving some of the money to the artists directly undermines free market as well. By bypassing the copyright owner in favor of the original creator, who as already been compensated by the new copyright holder based on free market dictates, you are doubly rewarding the artist and penalizing the risk taker. This is more socialism. The legal action taken by the RIAA is the only way to protect their copyrighted works in a free market system.
Vote for Pedro
Why would I want a welfare check when I can work?
I dont want a welfare check, they arent easy to get do to welfare reform, and I am willinng to do jobs that are given to the third world, maybe you arent.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac