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."
...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.
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-
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
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.
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 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 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
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.
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
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....
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...
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
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?
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.
I have a major problem with this. I do not download music. The majority of the music I listen to is on casette tapes. I own perhaps 6 really purchased music CDs. The rest are dupes from casettes that I purchased years ago. I am even in the process of collecting 8-track tapes of real music to convert to CD but I will not share them. I will keep the tapes of the origional music to prove that I purchased them. I have absolutely no desire to pay for someone else's music downloads. Yea, I rant a bit but what the heck, I can afford to. Oh, and I listen to both kinds of music, Country AND Western.
"Get Moose and Squirrel!"
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).
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...
FYI, RIAA was founded in 1952. Radio became popular in the 20's and 30's. Though a lot of radio at that time was not music. It was used for shows, the way that TV is now. In fact a fair number of TV shows started out as radio programs.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
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 =)
- 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.
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.
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
"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.
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.
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".
How ya like dat?
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]
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.
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.
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.