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."

Comments

already in place?

[lingqi]

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?

Re:already in place?

[Tinfoil]

If we are paying a compulsory fee of x dollars a month on our internet bill, then it would seem it is no longer piracy.

Granted, I would very much not like having to pay another tax on my bill since I already purchase a large amount of music legally a year. The music industry is behind the times which is making it difficult for them to compete against the instant gratification of the P2P networks. The artist suffers not at the hands of the P2P'er, but at the hands of the dinosaurs running the record companies. Consumers suffer by by being painted a criminal with an overly wide brush, and it seems the only way to prove ourselves is to throw yet more money at a solution that is simply a bandaid fix.

Fix the real problem. Give people a number of competing services that will allow them to purchase music from any company and give them fair use rights with the music they purchase. A Columbia House for MP3's. My mother-in-law doesn't *want* to steal music. She wants to buy the music, but doesn't want to pay $25 (Canuck) for a song, if she can even find it without special order. She wants to listen to it now, not when FedEx delivers it. She wants to put it in her iPod for when she goes out for a jog so it doesn't skip.

It's a novell suggestion and one of the best I have heard so far, but the recording industry will most certainly not go for it. They can't martyr themselves if they make file sharing legal.

Valid in which country...?

[mccalli]

Not every internet user is in the same country. In which nation will this license be based, and in which court will it be enforced? How will I indicate my acceptence of it?

To be honest, it sounds like pie in the sky to me.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Valid in which country...?

[cpt kangarooski]

LOL.

When discussing compulsory licenses in the realm of copyright, it isn't compulsory against you, the individual. It's compulsory against copyright holders.

That is, they HAVE to let you cover a song if you pay the fee set by law. Even if they hate you, or would prefer to charge a million, billion dollars. But you certainly don't have to ever take advantage of that, in which case you pay nothing and don't cover the song.

That said, this proposal is not much like current compulsory licenses, so I share your apprehension.

He doesn't get it

[rudy_wayne]

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.

But I don't listen to music...

[NetSettler]

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.

Re:But I don't listen to music...

[JimDabell]

I think he means compulsory licensing, not compulsory taxation. In other words, the music industry must offer this service to people.

Re:But I don't listen to music...

[cpt kangarooski]

No, you're half wrong.

Inherent rights, natural rights -- these things don't come from governments. But there are other rights, artificial rights, positive rights, which do.

Copyright is one of the latter. It has no basis in nature. In fact, it's impossible to reconcile the idea that there is a natural right to absolutely free speech AND a natural copyright, since it's a restriction on free speech.

Particularly since you don't understand what a copyright is. Properly speaking, a copyright is really a limit placed on everyone but the author from fully exerting their free speech. The author doesn't get anything new, he just happens to be the only person who can act freely.

I'd certainly encourage you to take a look at Jefferson's letter of 1813 regarding patents. The man wrote the Declaration, influenced the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and didn't believe that there was a natural right to property. (which is why he changed Locke's 'life, liberty and property' to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness') He certainly didn't think that there was an inherent right to copyrights or patents.

Nor is there any good reason for fhere to be. Why should _I_ respect that. It would severely burden me if that were so, so why would I ever agree to respect such an assertion unless I benefit from it more greatly than I am burdened?

It's easy to see why people might willingly limit their ability to go about killing one another. But not very many people overall benefit directly from copyrights, whereas very many people DO directly benefit from a lack thereof. That is, there's more people in the audience than on stage.

There are still good reasons to have copyrights, but they are WHOLLY artificial, and entirely OPTIONAL. Our society doesn't have to have them. And they were unknown anywhere until the early 18th century, so it's not as though we cannot survive in a civilized society without copyrights. History shows the opposite.

Anyway, go read Jefferson's letter.

It cant be free forever but

[HanzoSan]

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.

Re:It cant be free forever but

[AKnightCowboy]

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.

Tell that to the millions of independent artists out there who don't make squat. The RIAA and recording industry is only good for one thing, covering startup costs and advertising music of a new band. Once a band is successful obviously they don't need the recording industry anymore, but by then they're already hooked into lucrative contracts.

How else would the majority of people ever even learn about most bands if it wasn't for the massive advertising of the recording industry? ICE-T would've been some street thug in jail at this point if he didn't convince some recording industry exec he was worth their time and money to promote. It takes money to promote new artists people. Support the RIAA!!! Quit being thieves or you may never get any new music again except from the occassional "artist" working for free distributing music over the Internet.

Re:It cant be free forever but

[EastCoastSurfer]

This is FAR FAR more money than you'd make selling CDs even if you sold a million CDs.

This is why any musicians(using the term loosely here) that have any sort of business sense become producers/labels ASAP. Now they get cuts on both ends and start to see some real money from their record sales.

Whether or not you like or hate rap, you have to give a lot of those guys credit for the position many of them get themselves into. People like Eminem, Dr. Dre, P. Diddy(or whatever he's calling himself now), etc... saw pretty quickly that the money is in the label and producing and not in just making records. Remember that these guys are the artist, producer, and label and thus have a vested interest to keep the current situation in place.

Re:It cant be free forever but

[macdaddy357]

What the EFF guy doesn't seem to grasp is that the entertainment cartels don't give a F*** whether artists eat or starve. They only care about their Jaguars, their vacation homes on tropical beaches, and their cocaine. They are leeches.

In the future, a new licensing model might help artists get compensated for their work, the very purpose of copyright, but first, we need to get the parasites out of the recording industry. To do that, we must boycott their products.

Re:It cant be free forever but

[zdislaw]

Bands sign to labels who pay for everything up front. CD sales and concert sales all go to pay this back. If you take away what bands make in CD sales, the label will just take more of concert sales. Bands absolutely do not make money touring. Most just make enough to keep the tour going, some, not even that.

I'm not saying don't steal music. I'm just suggest that you try harder to not delude yourself. Be honest with yourself.

Personally I have no problem with stealing music. I also have no problem with a single license that would cover my right to download all I want. I'm not against paying musicians money. I just have no delusions of how profitable it would be for any but the very tiny minority to make a buck selling direct.

If you're talking about independent artists, then I feel that you are being even more idealistic. You have quoted figures of 10,000 people at a concert (all buying CDs? HA!) which eliminates the vast majority of bands anyway. An independent band with no promotions budget will not have even 1,000, likely not even 100 people, at a show. How many CDs would a band likely sell at a 100 person show? Maybe 4 or 5. That's not even enough money to eat and gas up for the drive to the next town.

Most musicians don't make money at all. Don't fool yourself. Tell youself the truth and decide what you want to do.

Curious

[Tmurder]

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?

What about other media?

[MacroRex]

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?

Re:What about other media?

[El Cubano]

And besides, is Joe Sixpack who's never heard of P2P networks or even mp3s going allow his ISP to tax him for this?

Sure he will. Joe Sixpack lets himself get taxed for most things he's never heard of or doesn't care about:

• Taxes on your phone bill to lower the cost of internet access for schools (whether or not you have children in school)
• Property taxes to fund schools and minucipals services (that you may or may not use, if you send your kids to private school or don't have kids)
• Health fees at most universities even if the student is already covered by health insurance.
• Taxes on cigarettes to fund public service announcements to quit smoking (and subsidize tobacco farmers when people actually quit and their crops are not longer in demand)
• Numerous state and federal taxes on gasoline for road construction and who knows what else
• High vehicle registration for highway maintenance (when you either don't use the highways or they aren't maintained well)
• Old airport facility charges on airline tickets and the new September 11th fees for improved security
• The list goes on and on

Joe sixpack will just see it and think, "Oh well, another tax. The government must know best for me."

In reality very few people will be outraged at this. Especially since it will come along in increments of a few dollars at a time, which is no big deal in a relatively strong economy.

Re:What about other media?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Taxes on your phone bill to lower the cost of internet access for PUBLIC schools
2. Property taxes to fund PUBLIC schools and MUNICIPAL services
3. Health fees at most STATE universities even if the student is already covered by health insurance.
4. Taxes on cigarettes to fund public service announcements to quit smoking (and subsidize tobacco farmers when people actually quit and their crops are not longer in demand) [Okay, I'll give you this one... your one example of government funds going to a private corporation that isn't building/maintaining public infrastructure]
5. Numerous state and federal taxes on gasoline for PUBLIC road construction and who knows what else
6. High vehicle registration for PUBLIC highway maintenance
7. Old airport facility charges on airline tickets [erm.... maybe you didn't get the memo, but airline companies can charge what they want for their own services] and the new September 11th fees for improved PUBLIC/government-staffed security

The list goes on and on [What, the list of public/government services that your tax money pays for?]

Wrong way to do it.

[mike_mgo]

While I agree with the premise of compensating the musicians I think that a flat surcharge on all internet users is the wrong way to go for the obvious reason that not everyone is downlaoding copyrighted material.

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."

This is corperate welfare.

[HanzoSan]

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?

Re:This is corperate welfare.

[Ryan C.]

Many do. Why am I not surprised you've never heard of them? Oh, that's right, without the RIAA marketing cartel doing promotion, most people will never know they exist.

This is a circular argument. The record companies have to lose their stranglehold on legal music distribution before we can test the theory.

I live in New York and my favorite band is a relatively unknown act from San Diego...

I think it would work something like this: Bands release music for free, people (like you) listen to it and develop a liking for the band. When a band "makes it" is when they have enough fans to tour. Before that, they squeak by on local gigs. Like now.

How does the band get 40-50,000 fans to begin with? By virtue of their talent alone? Right.

There's this new "Internet" thing now. You should check it out, it's pretty neat.

-Ryan C.

Re:Fuck the Corporations

[Eric Ass Raymond]

till this world is back in the hands of the people - till we have something that we haven't ever really had - democracy

Huh?

What does the dubious "right" to swap music have got to do with democracy?

Socialist idiocy

[johannesg]

Yeah, great idea: make everyone pay for the music habits of a few. Hey, here is an even greater idea: why not simply levy a tax over the entire population? I'm sure everyone listens to music (on the radio, in restaurants, in elevators, whether you want it or not), so everyone is sharing some of the guilt over this illicit behaviour! (that's sarcasm...)

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).

Re:Socialist idiocy

[RobotRunAmok]

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).

So you won't buy my book, but you'll pay to come over here and watch me *write* it?

Dude, you ARE a strange one. But hey, a living's a living, right?

Show starts at 3AM Eastern. See ya then! (Bring your own popcorn.)

Why defend corperate welfare?

[HanzoSan]

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?

Re:Biggest issue with this pipe dream

[clifyt]

Thats the problem.

In Canada, they give taxes back to major artists for their CDR sales. Who gets 90% of all the money? Celion Dion and Bryan Adams -- Folks that don't need it and folks that aren't generally the target of most peoples 'piracy' efforts.

The big guys will get the cut and this will be run by the major labels and they will do anything they can to not to give it to any of the other labels.

As for cheaper CDs???????? I don't know where you are buying CDs, but they are very reasonably priced. Should we make EVERYTHING affordable so that those that can't buy them can now buy them? How bout a sliding scale? If you make $0-$7500 you pay $2 a CD because 'thats how much it really costs' (noting the sarcasm), $7501 - $15000 and you pay $7 because you can aford it. $15001 - $29000 ya pay $15 and over that, you pay $25 a disc because you need to subsudize everyone.

Seriously, if folks know how much it cost to produce a CD (and I'm not talkin garage or punk that can be recorded in a day -- but dumb ass /.'rs always use these as an example because they personally don't like slick music), ya wouldn't be bitching about the cost. Considering most CDs never make a profit, most popular CDs are subsudizing other less popular ones. Unless of course, you'd like less choice...its just as much of a socalist scheme as a sliding scale pricing, but on that allows more choice to the consumer. Personally I like overly slicked musics that take forever to get right and HATE punk crap that sounds like they were ultimately trying to make sure every first take was captured (I've played in these bands before and got bored by their work ethics).

clif
sonikmatter.com

But which musicians get paid?

[Arethan]

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.

music for free

[nattt]

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.

A better solution

[HanzoSan]

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.

Ends and means...

[jkrise]

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:

" 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. ...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."

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 ... cadets have been disciplined ...Investment in innovative P2P companies has dried up."
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.

Hello: Monopolized Sheep-Market

[Wizri]

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...

This guy is an IP lawyer???

[FallLine]

The right answer is obvious: We need to collect a pool of money from Internet users, and agree on a fair way to divide it among the artists and copyright owners. Copyright lawyers call this a "compulsory license." 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. Part of these fees would be remitted to the record labels, while some would be paid directly to the artists (who today frequently are victims of unfair contracts and crooked royalty accounting). 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." Having paid the fee, fans could engage in private, noncommercial file-sharing without worrying about being hunted down like criminals.

Umm what a stupid socialist-like idea. Firstly, who gets to decide how big the total pie, i.e., total dollars, that we split up should be? If P2P distribution is to replace CD sales (a not entirely improbable assertion giving that pricing model), then we could all expect to at least, say, 30 bucks a month if the industry is to maintain its revenues. I doubt the guy would really suggest this much, but then he's short changing the industry on the aggregate. Secondly, who says that all music should be priced the same (his sampling method would certainly suggest this) or even close to it? There are many problems with this. For instance, if someone were to produce a good parody of, say, the Saddam Hussein (something timely), its popularity on P2P might easily exceed the most popular music (e.g., Britney Spheres) and thus be compensated proportionally higher than everything else, even though in all probability no one would actually pay actual cash for it if they were given the option. In other words, people would be spending "virtual money" in ways wildly different than they would real money precisely because it doesn't have much of a consequence for them personally. The real price would be borne at the end of the year and by the population at large, but not on the individuals that are incurring the cost. Thirdly, it would create a free rider syndrome on the aggregate sense too. In other words, music fans may dramatically expand and alter their purchasing habits since they have no cost. Rather than prioritizing their "purchases", like they do in the real world on their favorite music, they just download everything they might like. So rather then seeing the best artists awarded (even as far as the individual is concerned), you reward relative mediocrity. Fourthly, why should those with the most free time and the relatively little earnings (e.g., college students) get the biggest vote while those that are really contributing (e.g., working) get relatively little?

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).

Re:Cut out the middleman

[Erasmus Darwin]

"Why not cutting out the middleman."

I think it can best be summed up by a quote from the movie Young Guns II. As William H. "Billy the Kid" Bonney put it, "I'll make you famous." The unspoken implication is that that fame will come at the cost of being Billy the Kid's next victim. Some would argue that the price demanded by RIAA members isn't too much different than that demanded by Billy.

Anyway, as long as the RIAA members control the hype machine, that's the way things will be. They're the ones who theoretically take talented musicians and transform them into superstars and household names. And, for better or worse, they set things up so that they own as much of that finished product as possible.

Now some of the hype control they wield is legitimate. Some isn't. Spending money to put up a billboard promoting a new act? That's just plain old capitalistic advertising. Using independent promotion as a thinly disguised payola to get radio play? Now they're subverting a limited resource (the radio spectrum) that should be better serving the public good.

However, even if you remove the "bad" means of hype that they have, you've still a system that's biased toward money. A 30 second primetime commercial showing Billy Corgan's distinctive bald head that informs people about his new band Zwan is going to do more than a couple lines out on the web somewhere. The Internet provides an new and wonderful outlet for many of the smaller guys, but it isn't the panacea to the advertising/marketing problem that you're making it out to be.

Now I'm not completely pessimistic. I do believe there will be some Internet success stories. I just don't think it will completely blow the middlemen out of the water.

And What About The Legal Listeners

[chayim]

I strongly object to this one. As an avid music fan who usually buys tens of albums a year, there's a reason that I haven't bought any in 2003 and only 10 in 2002, quite frankly the product sucks. The onset of manufactured music leaves me with nothing more to own. The Beatles or Floyd albums which I frequently buy now cost approximately 33% more than they did in 1999 (albeit according to my findings only).
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 =)

Horrible Idea

[Sloppy]

The right answer is obvious: We need to collect a pool of money from Internet users, and agree on a fair way to divide it among the artists and copyright owners. Copyright lawyers call this a "compulsory license." 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.

The last thing we need is another unfair tax. And this proposal would be deeply unfair, for two reasons:

1. It does not take into account how different people use the internet differently. Why should I subsidize w4r3zd00dz?
2. 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.

But I don't really download music

[A55M0NKEY]

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.

Re:Fine, you do that

[macdaddy357]

The last time I bought a CD, it was one of those "copy protected" ones that won't play in a computer. My computer is my primary player. The recording industry made a mistake by presuming me a thief. It cost them my patronage as a customer. I suspect that there are millions like me who don't buy CDs, and don't use P2P networks either. You shouldn't assume that the ones yelling, "Boycott the RIAA" are "pirates".

Taking advantage of the Situation

[tdk2fe]

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.

Let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

[EchelonZero]

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.

this could work if

[hhknighter]

the world was perfect, and RIAA didn't exist.

As many /.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.

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.