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.

This is another lie

[Mohammed Al-Sahaf]

We are not afraid of the lawyers. Allah has condemned them. They are stupid. They are stupid... and condemned.

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.

Lcenses

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn Apple stole all the i's

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.

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.

Wrong answer

[slashd'oh]

"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.

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?

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.

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: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.)

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.