Slashdot Mirror
Post-copyright: Digital Cash and Compulsory Licensing?
gojomo writes "AaronSw offers a compelling idea: use anonymous transferable digital cash to allocate the monies collected for creators in a compulsory licensing scheme, to avoid some of the potential problems outlined by other compulsory critiques. LawMeme calls it a "Proto Whuffie" but expects fake artists to sign up for the loot. I might call it "voucher socialism" -- but that's not necessarily a bad thing."
Fixing Compulsory Licensing
In a previous post I dashed the world's hopes for a viable compulsory licensing system, no matter how attractive one might seem. Luckily for the world, I'm back to explain how to make a compulsory licensing system that doesn't run into any of those problems using... cryptography!
(To review, the idea for our compulsory licensing system is this: we tax Internet connections and CD/DVD burners a small amount and send the money to the artists. In exchange, they let us download their songs and movies off the Internet. The problem is how to decide which artists should get the money without losing privacy, accuracy, or security.)
Here's the key to my proposal: when you pay the tax you get a vote.
So when you buy a CD or DVD burner, it comes with a short string (a random-looking series of letters and numbers) to type into your computer. (The strings are given to the manufacturers by the government when they pay the tax.) When you pay the bill for your Internet connection, you're emailed another such string. (The string from your email can be handled automatically, and the one in the CD burner box could be made relatively easy to type in.)
The string is a digital gift certificate, worth however much the tax you paid was, but only spendable on donations to artists. Once your computer has the string, it looks at all the songs you've listened to and decides what songs to spend your gift certificate money on. (It knows what you listen to because it's built in to your MP3 player.) If you've listened to one Britney Spears song day and night for the past month and nothing else, it will give all your money to Britney. If you listen to a variety of independent bands, it will split your money among them. (Advanced users can of course customize how their money will be spent, but it's simpler to have the computer choose automatically by default.)
The result is sent anonymously to the government using the string. (The strings will be unique enough that it will be nearly impossible to guess a correct one.) The government checks this against the list of strings they gave out and the list of strings that have already been used to make sure that it's legitimate, and then credits the appropriate accounts.
Does this solve all the problems?
Yes, it's private. The strings are received and sent anonymously. ("But wait," you say, "the Internet providers know who gets what string." OK, if you're really paranoid a solution to this is explained below.) The government can't connect you with your vote.
Yes, it's accurate. The money goes to the artists that the people like and want to support, as chosen by the people themselves. There are a few edge cases. For example, if everyone listens to but hates Jerry Falwell, they might choose not to give him any money, even though they've taken advantage of his work. I think this is an acceptable problem -- the majority of people won't bother to change the defaults and even if they do, hey, it's their money.
Yes, it's secure. The amount of money you have control over is equal to the amount of money you paid in taxes, so the worst-case scenario is that you get your tax money back. There is a chance that everyone will give all their money to themselves, but this can be prevented by only paying out to accounts that meet some higher threshold of cash.
Q: Won't artists will offer to buy people's gift certificates for cash? The artist can spend the gift certificate on themselves and recover their money. (Seth Schoen)
A: The government could make such behavior against the terms of service for having an artist account. To be successful, any such operation would have to be publicized. The government could keep an eye out for such things, send the operator a known gift certificate, see whose account it went into, and shut down the account
Q: Can't operators use this to shut down the account of someone they don't like?
A: The government gift certificate would be indistinguishable from a normal one, s
this is slashdot, remember?
Support Israeli punk bands. Man Alive.
...Who things that "Proto Whuffie" would make a great party drug?
The Human Cow - bringing you scrumtrelescence since 1995
Paying them directly ignores the fact that they need marketing to be viable. This scheme could allow 'fake' artists and other undesirables to leech off the public. Ultimately, and perhaps ironically, the very scheme we've been railing against might be what we've been searching for all along: pay the middleman, who ensures the artists are promoted and paid in the end. The only damaging aspect to this are downloaders who compulse artists to let their music go for free, which helps nobody.
I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.
-- W.C. Fields
This idea is a follow-up yet it's something we should be following very seriously. Right now, a country station gets to pay Madonna/Celine Dion because they sell the most albums. This could change all that!
Yeah, Madonna and Celine aren't what sell today, but what do I know...
This only pays based on CD/DVD burning - whereas most usage would occur when downloaded MP3's are played on the computer itself. I know I haven't burned more than a handful of CD's, instead using my PC as jukebox...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Dear entertainment industry,
Quit trying to come up with new and innovative ways to nickel and dime me to death, thanks.
Although, the potential for a fella like myself to abuse this system for big moolah is too great to ignore.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
The next virus/malicious web script will repeatedly play artists' music on your PC, artificially influencing your "vote" for where the money goes.
-- No sig for you!
I've got a socialist streak this wide {holds arms out as far as they reach}, but as soon as I read "a tax on IP addresses and hard drives" I flinched like an anarcho libertarian. The idea's a non-starter
Thx.
I know what you had for dinner
So why is this really any different from cash and making people pay for a licence?
No. Well...maybe. Actually, yes. It really just depends.
Voucher socialism not a bad thing? Care to explain that comment? I suppose it's not a bad thing if you happen to be one of the free-loaders getting money you don't deserve.
i definitely think this system is a little clunky (any system needs to be as transparent to the consumer as possible) and prone to cheatery, but i like the general sentiment. instead of acting like the RIAA or the fierce P2P pirates, at least this is some constructive thinking that may aid in the end result of creating a workable and fair system.
smd4985
If anonymous transferable digital cash becomes a a reality it can be used for other useful purposes. The future is bright.
voucher "socialism" (food stamps is the classic example) is a good way to not only redistribute spending power but focus it as well. the food stamp program in the u.s. is only partly there to prevent the poor from starving - it's also designed to prop up the agricultural sector. doubt me? food stamps are run by the department of agrictulture, not the department of welfare.
2 1337 4 u!
If he wanted to post the text he should have done it as AC
Dont waste mod points on this greasy groin
It is a bad thing.
That was a fairly neat way of handling the problem. It wouldn't be too hard to build an open protocol for this. One thing: does the government have to be involved? What about if everyone just sets up an independent organization to act as clearinghouse for the id string transactions and monies? If the government got into this, they'd probably use it as another income source, and levy another tax, going to their coffers only.
What this guy really wants a secure digital vote..
Each cd is assigned a single vote. Each vote carries a value. You want a system with the following constraints:
His scheme is too simple to securely implement these requirements...
It's a good idea but I think it'd cost too much to implement.. and what if i used those cds for copying linux distros? I've paid tax for no purpose
Simon
I doubt Goatse has anything to do with compulsory licensing unless he's running low on bandwidth.
This is an excellent opportunity for the RIAA to leverage a private currency. They could control the cost per unit in US$, and actually charge sub 1 cent prices for certain independant artists, to encourage sales.
There was a good bit on Kuro5hin about this a little while back.
"Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things."
Why should I pay any tax on DVD drives, writable media, ISP service, etc. if I never have and never will download any artists material? All of these items which might have this proposed compulsory licensing fee have legal uses unrelated to the theft, use, or enjoyment of "artists" copyrighted material. For example, most of my HD space, DVD backups, and internet bandwidth is consumed by my own digital pictures.
If people want music, then they should pay for music. Hidden taxes that penalize all for the misbehavior of some seem like a very bad idea.
I guess if this goes through, I will have to sign up as a licensed creator of digital photographs and then assign all these "artists" tax dollars to myself.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Am I the only one who doesn't like the idea of someone being able to monitor what I listen to? (and I don't even listen to Britney - that would be really embarassing!)
--Kobayashi--
Great... Just what we need. Microsoft has already licked the capitalist world. This is an opportunity for them to take over the socialist world too... I'm sure everyone from the janitors on up are licking their chops, smelling fresh Digital Rights Management revinues...
1. How does this differ significantly from a buck a song at iTunes? You see something you like, authorize the payment, you d/l it.
Or, a monthly sub as in emusic.com for (almost) all you can eat.
2. Overly complex.
oh wait...
3. Once your computer has the string, it looks at all the songs you've listened to and decides what songs to spend your gift certificate money on. (It knows what you listen to because it's built in to your MP3 player.) If you've listened to one Britney Spears song day and night for the past month and nothing else, it will give all your money to Britney.
That's how it differs. Pay per listen. No thanks.
"the idea for our compulsory licensing system is this: we tax Internet connections and CD/DVD burners a small amount and send the money to the artists. In exchange, they let us download their songs and movies off the Internet. The problem is how to decide which artists should get the money without losing privacy, accuracy, or security."
For this to work, you'd be sending your money to the RIAA/MPAA member companies, not the artists (since artists certainly don't hold any copyrights anymore).
This scheme is essentially another take on the Canadian CD Levy process (presume guilt, put a levy on blank CDs, give levy money to copyright holders). Given that the $70+ million collected so far for the Canadian CD Levy has yet to be distributed because distribution isn't clear cut, I can't imagine an even more complex system working.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
it's also designed to prop up the agricultural sector
Don't forget about the alcohol and cigarette sector's, cash back from food stamps is one of their revenue sources as well.
How about we just continue to pirate music like we do now? Its been working since Napster.
I stopped reading right here:
:P
If you've listened to one Britney Spears song day and night for the past month and nothing else...
Any human being that would subject themselves to this kind of torture can't be anything but clinically insane. As such, his plan has to be almost as looney.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Why on earth would you want to implement it that way? The idea is to compensate artists for their work, not to force J-Lo to to subsidize whoever it is that posers like to tell themselves they're fans of. I mean, I can't watch Temptation Island and then tell their advertisers to give their money to C-Span.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Why do we need all this. Centralized system, government intervention.
Copyright is no an absolute given god right. It is a temporary monopoly granted by all the people to an individual so that he can make a living doing what he does (music, software, books...). At no point was the copyright intended to prevent people from viewing or listening to the material. The purpose is to give the author some mean of profiting from his work.
In this sense the current situation is not that bad. If you are a scrooge and do not want to pay anything you try to download for free and you get what you get. Quality is pot shot and you do not give anything to the artist. If you are a bit more reasonable don't want to spend hour downloading and want a bit better quality you use a service like Apple iTune Music Store and the artist get something. No need to change anything expect to send the RIAA packing.
for those of you that don't speak IPv4 addr, it resolves to 'slashdot.org'
Support Israeli punk bands. Man Alive.
michael would not know a socialist if one stuck his finges in his anus ... ask CmdrTaco!
He might, it would just be hard to single him out of the crowd...
This proposal isn't the simplest, and probably not the most elegant, but unlike the others it will work without cheating the public. I hope the people building these compulsory licensing systems see the value in that.
Excellent! The RIAA and MPAA will finally have the technological means to realize their ultimate goal--standing up for the rights of the little guy!
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
"Proto Whuffie" would be a good name for a rock band.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Then let's call it tithing.
Any potential mass-market technology is going to have to be at least as easy to use as the current standard.
In the case of music purchases, which is more likely to catch on - something like iTunes, or a Rube Goldberg contraption based around voting and serial numbers?
I'm a systems engineer, but that doesn't mean I'm interested in complicated systems for getting the music I like. I buy CDs at stores or through the mail, because it's easy, the audio quality is perfect, and I can play the discs anywhere.
Is the average consumer going to be willing to put up with a more complex system like the one this article describes? I doubt it.
Like many other schemes I've seen, this one also reduces professional musicians to the equivalent of street buskers: putting their music out and hoping they make a couple of bucks off of it from the generous. If the world suddenly turned into a radically left-wing place overnight, I predict that the quality of music would go way down, very quickly. Professional musicians right now can spend months polishing up their tracks before release, because they can make a living at it. If they're just getting tips, few or none of them could. A lot of them wouldn't even bother to release music at all. I know I wouldn't.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Unless the RIAA has a copyright on Bach and Beethoven this looks like out and out theft to me.
I would be losing money and not getting anything in return.
This is why compulsory licensing schemes are just that, schemes.
There is no way to 'fix' it.
If people want to buy your product they will buy it. Otherwise you don't have a product to sell.
The day you start charging me for thieves else stealing your stuff is the day I consider you no more than a thief yourself.
Fake artists is either an oxymoron or a largely all encompasing group noun. If I were to record myself banging trash cans together I would be just as much of an artist as most of the crap out there. I figure if they have any right to sign up for the loot then I certainly do too. Particularly when by legal standards the non-fake artists are recording silence and claiming they own it.
If I can help this lame scheeme fall apart by announcing my intention to sign up, let me record that announcement and call it art.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Right. And eveyone knows that it's impossible to abuse such a system... Like selling food stamps for 60 cents on the dollar to buy drugs.
Nope, won't work:
"So when you buy a CD or DVD burner, it comes with a short string (a random-looking series of letters and numbers) to type into your computer. (The strings are given to the manufacturers by the government when they pay the tax.) When you pay the bill for your Internet connection, youa(TM)re emailed another such string. (The string from your email can be handled automatically, and the one in the CD burner box could be made relatively easy to type in.)"
The folks at alstalavista.box.sk are already writing cracks... lol
What is slashdot?
Use anonymous transferable digital cash to host offshore services where the RIAA can touch or even identify you.
You're paying per blank CD and some other stuff and ALLOCATING the money per listen
1. Per listen is the wrong way to go about it.
Britney/Christina fans are probably more likely to listen to their favorite track over, and over, and over and over again, skewing the popularity results. Previously, one CD buy could equal thousands of 'listens' per person.
2. Tax my internet connection, AND blank CD's, to distibute this money out to musicians? As if that's the only reason for being online. Nonsense.
3. So if I never buy a blank CD, but instead just play my downloaded music on the PC...I still get something for nothing. Yeah, that looks good. Blank CD sales plummet, and the only ones paying for all this money redistribution are people who use CD's for other than music.
4. If you want a particular artist, (or s/w developer) to get your money...hey...here's a novel solution. Buy something from them.
A large fraction of computers, writable DVD drives, media, and ISP service is bought and used by companies for everyday business purposes. Under the proposed system it would seem that businesses would be doubly screwed. First, the business suffers from the lost productivity incurred when employees download music for personal use. Second, the business has to pay a tax on this activity as well.
It's no wonder business people vote Republican.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Everywhere I've seen, food stamps are basically replaced with a debit card, which can be used for anything. I sure as fuck hope I'm wrong, 'cause that shit is bad.
conspiracy under every rock
Anyway, I think people are forgetting the real issue here. Here in America we have a market economy, and currently people are "paying" ISPs and CD burner companies rather than record labels to get access to music. There is a moral issue here in that ISPs and CD burner mfgs don't give money to artists, but Record Labels do.
We live in a society where the ubiquitous "content" can no longer be controlled by media distribution, because there is no longer a need for physical "media" on which to transfer the "content". The "media" which is now controllable is the hardware on which the media is played rather than the media itself.
Think of it this way - before you would buy a record player / tape player / ??? player - some small up-front cost. Then you paid someone to give you a device of some sort which the player would be able to convert into movies or sound or whatever. The producer of the 'small device' was able to pay the "content-creator" based on volume sold.
So, what have we now? We've got some companies trying to sell devices which aren't needed to get the content consumers desire. Here's an interesting solution:
ISPs become Record Labels (or Record Labels become ISPs)
Think about it - you pay your ISP to connect to the Internet and then browse as you feel fit. What if the ISPs had to pay each (commercial content) site to which they served based on the amount of traffic to that site? And what if your ISP bill reflected that? Maybe more artists should work out contracts with ISPs to this nature.
*GASP* you say! That means they track where I've been! They will know what content I use!
So you're telling me when you go into Best Buy and plop down $10 (okay, maybe $20) for a CD that's "anonymous"? We (or at least some of us) live in the USA so there is nothing to prevent someone from standing outside the store and knowing that we frequent Best Buy. Also, we don't mind paying "per item" at a grocery store. The same idea of "pay an ISP some fixed amount per month and get as much of all content as I want" would be akin to paying your local grocer a monthly fee but being able to go in and empty the entire place. Hardly equitable, and it definitely seems silly when you think about physical property like food.
Why is it that people seem to think that if it doesn't have mass and can be beamed around over the internet, it's not real and paying for it is silly? Well, that's only part of the problem, so I'll not linger on it.
If you're observant, you will note that this (setting up some arrangement with an ISP type place and distributing obtained funds based on content selected) is not a new concept. Some companies (Apple, for instance) actually already do this, and customers don't have a problem with it.
I could definitely write a dissertation on this topic, but suffice it to say that I understand that people have a problem with the RIAA yapping because they don't get revenue because they have an uncompetitive business model and are resorting to litigation (hrm. sound familiar? It's spelled S-C-O) instead of re-vamping their business practices. However, the RIAA-companies still exist because *somebody* must still be buying their product. If you really want them to change their prices (and I think I read somewhere that one label is dropping prices), STOP BUYING THEIR PRODUCT!
Anyway, that's just a little bit of my thoughts on this insanity.
It's all Econ-101 my friends - supply and demand - oh, wait; they didn't cover stupid litigation in Econ 101 did they ... -Me
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Well, it is, isn't it. Prove me wrong if you can, commie.
Did you miss the the collapse of the Soviet Union and the state it left the satellite nations, Cuba and even the mainland Europe in. Hell, Germany and France are in a recession because of a ridiculous government mandated 35 hour week...
It is a bad thing.
Why? You are aware that most of the countries in the developed world are Socialist, including every one that has a higher standard of living than the US, right?
I think you need to put down your anti-communist propaganda and boldly step into the 1990s.
Sales tax is not progressive. Income tax is potentially a progressive tax although it sure hasn't worked that way in the US in recent years. But upping sales tax is inexcuseable further burden on the poor.
Great.
Socialism: Armed men pass around a bucket and you have to put in everything that you have. The armed men take out what they want and then give what they want to whome they want and everybody is happy or else someone is randomly shot. Sometimes you get to vote on who gets the guns and the 'choice' is given to you by those with the guns.
Socialism is Slavery.
Any solution that involves me paying any type or amount of money is a bad one. Any solution that gives me free shit is a good one. Any solution that makes me pay for everything is hellish. Any solution that gives me all the free shit I could ever want is utopian.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
I think we should re-think the whole idea of "art" and "intellectual property" from the ground up.
Once upon a time, rich people subsidized art. Everyone got to enjoy some of it - Italian fountains come to mind, and the Sistine ceiling, etc. Some was enjoyed only by the owner and his friends - Mona Lisa et al. (Can you tell I'm of Italian origin?)
The patron paid the artist, often subsidizing his entire existence. There was no charge to the public for public art - the masses enjoyed it freely.
Why would it be impossible for wealthy people or masses of poor people like me pooling their resources to again subsize the very creation of art?
When enough of us are hungry for a new song from Norah Jones, we pool our resources and negotiate with Norah, her band, and the techs necessary. They make the music, we pay them, we enjoy the music, we share with the rest of the world. Same for visual arts, literature, etc.
Or, even better, artists support themselves (as most do anyway) by working at other jobs until they demonstrate that they create something a lot of people want. Along the way some patron or patron-group might subsidize some things. Eventually, they are creating and giving away their art - BUT making money by private engagement, much like ex-politicos make their money speaking at a half-million a pop.
You'd get all the music, art, drama, literature, etc. you want - free. But if you want to see/hear the person perform live, you pay for it. Can't make a living that way? Nonsensense. Bill Clinton is making money for the first time in his life (he claims) just from opening his mouth and posing for pics at group gatherings. Already it's claimed that musicians make their money, not from CD sales, but from concerts.
The internet makes most of the middlemen unecessary. The internet makes much of the marketing cheaper. Let's start all over with an internet-based art model and stop trying to fit it all into old paradigms.
Disclaimer: I know this idea is chock-full-a-holes, but my point is that we don't have to "tweak" the old system. It's time for a totally new system. And not just a new system of "payment" but a totally new way of thinking about the relationship among artist/patron/public and about how artists can profit.
computerlady - a brand new Slash-daughter - alone, but no longer invisible, in the
why don't you take a stab at 64.94.110.11 instead?
In a personal capacity and in no way reflecting my employers - I would like to voice my utter disgust with both the moral and technical ignorance you have shown by placing wildcards in the .com and .net TLD domain space.
.com and .net domains, etc, etc) *the* most important service on the internet, you have also abused your power.
/exactly/ where they want to go to get lost.
Despite toying with and potentially breaking (MTAs, NXDOMAIN no longer work, port 25 open on your "sitefinder" box, direct to A record mail delivery not working properly, breaking negative caching on
What you have done is akin to putting advertisements on road signs that mislead people who don't know
The Internet is NOT the World Wide Web; what you have done is NOT merely provide a search facility for people - you have fundamentally broken aspects of the DNS system which were working quite well and there for a good reason.
I would suggest to your Board that having abused your trust, you no longer deem yourself worthy of trust in the SSL certificate arena. I would wager that that business is worth more than a few mispelt URL stats.
it basically outlaws any open source.
,there have been "artists", "Mages", Actors, writers, painters, etc... forever. and 99% of the human history on this planet there has been no copyrights and no tight controls over your "intellectual property" and it did not hurt the human races artistic development at all.
If my mp3' player must talk to my cd drive to the outside servers about my special "string" then me writing my own mp3 player that doesnt do this inane dance makes me an instant felon.
Or how about My OS that doesnt do this BS they dream up? It also would be illegal?
How about telling the artists and money grabbers to simply shut the hell up?
if you aren't writing music and performing to entertain then you are in it for the wrong reasons.
Cripes
All of this is just the loud whining of the greedy no talent types.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Compulsory Licesning is making the government the world's cashier. That should not be. Rather, artists need to market themselves in such a way that people want to pay them, not be forced to pay them.
For example, there's a saxophone player that plays every night by the library. He usually has his sax case opened in front of him, and passersby often give him money.
If he plays what I like, I'll often slip him a dollar. But if he doesn't, then I don't. He's not sitting there on the corner cutting my pockets open and stealing my money.
That's what this compulsory license thing does. It cuts my pockets open and steals my money. I think the record companies need follow the example of Apple. Then maybe they wouldn't lose much money.
They also need to quit gouging their own artists. Pay a man well to do a good job and he'll treat you well (most of the time).
Why isn't there just the simple argument for limited term, non-transferable copyrights? The artists would be able to profit from their artistry for 10 years, and then we can all trade their music like crazy after that. The RIAA couldn't bilk the money from the artists because the artists couldn't give up their copyrights to the publishers, and instead the labels would serve their rightful place as marketers and distributors.
10 years is about right. (I work hard on a song, from a couple of months to even 2 years to get it just right.) Record it, sell copies of it. 10 years later the copyright expires and I stop collecting royalties on a song I wrote a decade earlier.
The two main problems with the current system are that (1) the labels control the musicians through indentured servitude by copyright transfer and (2) the labels control the music choices through narrow distribution channels.
Limited term, non-transferable copyright. It just makes sense.
MORTAR COMBAT!
I dunno, it still seems a lot easier to just illegally copy music than to go through the elaborate generation, signing, negotiation, verification, encrypting, dancing, singing, hulahooping proposed in that scheme.
And what if I don't have a computer? Or maybe I bought a used one...then what?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
All I can say is, get friendly with us military types. We may not be your ideal geek friends but we sure can appreciate
nahh, I've met some of you Militia types and you all are fruity as a nuthouse.
The #1 thing to do when the Sewage hit's the rotating blades is to get as far away from population centers as you can. tiny rural towns are the safe place. the crap wont get there very quickly and you can hide out even further out.
go north, cold country... most people are too stupid to do that.
You don't suppose the Canadian border will the first one they'll close?
All of these ideas depend on middlemen. I realize that there's a need for marketing. But, I don't want to pay for it. The artists I want to hear don't need $3million in advertising to sell $4million in records. There's no way the record labels could be the middlemen. No one likes them, even though they take most of the risks in today's business model.
People want an honest, free-market method without all of the label/distribution overhead. I think a subscription service could cover it. A smart card, like a satellite DSS card would probably do it. I listen to ___ hours of music per month. I'll tolerate ___ minutes of advertisements per day. Set rates accordingly. Download.
$5 for 20 hours of music w/ 1 minute of advertisements per hour.
$10 for 20 hours of music w zero advertisements.
The player plays it once, unless you want to repeat, and then it'll charge ____ against your account. It'd have to be less than the original charge, as there wouldn't be any additional overhead to gain access to the music. These are examples, but that's about as much music as I listen to per month. That's about as much as I'd be willing to pay per month. Allow me to put my card in any electronic device (MP3 player, computer, car stereo, etc.)
I get to pick the programming. I don't want to ever listen to Justin Timberlake. EVER. If some company "suggest" I listen to Justin Timberlake and wants to offer free stuff, I should be given the opportunity. Listen to one Timberlake tune, get a free year of service. (I'd consider it... but only w/ a gun to my head.) Other offers could eliminate commercials, or add free listening.
-- No sig for you!
As I said over on my blog,
I don't see the problems that Mr. Miller raises at LawMeme coming to fruition. I think that Aaron went too far in suggesting that users should be able to determine where their money is spent. They made that decision when they decided what to listen to. The system should be automated to pay the users whose work was played most. Your vote was clicking play.
-R
It's time for a totally new system
You forgot "In my humble opinion,". Your system would support far fewer artists as your Clinton example illustrates. I mean, he only had to become President to become famous enough to have a speaking tour. Under your system there would be fewer, but even richer artists.
An artist should make money from both publishing and performance, in my humble opinion. This will support far more artists and allow for much more variety, allowing each artist to earn according to how many fans it has without requiring a significant base to begin with. An artist can do that today simply by turning their back on the RIAA and using the Internet for such publicity as you describe. They can negotiate directly with their fans for the price of their music that is published via the Internet. Copyright can protect the little guy too. No radical change needed.
Why would it be impossible for wealthy people or masses of poor people like me pooling their resources to again subsize the very creation of art?
What, pray-tell, do you think is happening under the current system if not this?
Much better to eliminate copyright, and give tax-paid high-speed free internet access to the entire population, including "artists". The non-monetary gain of that should more than compensate them - think of the wealth of information they have just been granted access to. I predict that's what Europe will do inside of ten years, if America doesn't go completely totalitarian and decide to nuke us.
(Americans: if any of you think nuking us is a good idea, I remind you that while Europe has less nukes than you, we have better bioweapons.)
What happens if I don't listen to any songs? I've just spent that money, and don't say the gov't gives it back. If that's the case, then the governement is just taking your money, milking it for interest and giving it back. Also note that it's basically holding you hostage in a way. "We'll keep your money in case you do anything like that", seems totaly unfair.
:)
Or.. if I listen to 1 song.. and my neighbour listens to 100 a day? (not that far out.. just a few hours a day worth)
We basically paid the same tax? What would happen?
It's also a little orwellian to me, to have my computer communicate to the gov't what I listen to. Or to anyone for that matter. We'd have a lot of security concerns too. How would the program determine what I've listened to? Couldn't a virus just download the first part of an mp3, play it, and I'd be charged? Or even just make it look like it's beeing played. You can make a virtual sound card/sound recorder quite easily.
We'd also have the fact that some countries will refuse to implement this, and what happens then?
What if I go into the US from canada? listen to a song and come back?.. Or someone from the US goes to Canada?
Also.. to implement this you'd need a way to track who is who in a large database of people and songs, and IPs for that matter.
And another important part.. what if I don't use Windows? And I use Linux to play music? How will I be taxed then? And.. since I'm using linux.. I can always just download a vanilla kernel and not install the program to be taxed with. Or.. even better, just disconnect from the internet.. or people block the program.
The only way to implement this is through hardware, and I for one, will never pay for such a device. Also.. it's not that hard to circumvent hardware protections like that, and I think it'd be preety costly to develop something like that, and would increase hardware prices. And most important of all, people will opt for the hardware without.. how do you convicen hardware makers to put this in? And.. if you force them to, how many people will trust to gov't? how far away are you from communism when you adopt this?
Sorry if it seems a little messy.. I was writing it as I was thinking about it
And that's exactly where you are going to find us militia types maintaining law and order.
Michael just can't pass up a micropayments story. Michael - it just won't work. Give it up.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
- I pay a tax on "media products".
- The government gives me a coupon for this tax.
- I tell the government who to give my tax money to.
How is this complicated, inefficient scenario any better than me directly giving the money to the people I want to? There is no garrentee that this tax money will get to "artists" as I could give all the money to myself. So it is in effect nothing more than a cumbersome charity program. Even if this system worked like he claimed it would with everyone dutifully entering in all their coupons to be reported by their mp3 player, it still has problems (many of which are shared my other compulsory licencing schemes).- Everyone has to pay the tax regardless of whether they use the media to listen to music or not. Most notably, businesses, who would have to pay since they use the internet and backup media just like everyone else.
- Everyone has has the same amount of money to give out. Therefore an avid music fan would end up splitting his coupons between hundreds of good bands. Those more complacent about music (the majority) would still have the same amount of money to give out, an it would likely go to someone who sounded good on the radio. Therefore, independant bands would likely get even less money than they do now, while mass marketed music would get even more.
- What if I listen to music in differnent places. Say I mostly listen to techo on my main computer while I'm coding, but listen to completely different music in my car and in the mp3 player in my living room. Now I am back to manually divying up my coupons, lest all my money go to techo.
- It has a central weakness in the government database system. Anything with that much money at stake would be under heavy attack.
- The government, not individuals decides how much money people should devote to music. This opens more doors for lobbying by the RIAA to increase the music tax.
I have been sceptical about all of the compulsory licencing ideas floating around, but this one has got to be the worst yet. All we need are good internet resources for the discovery and purchase of music, and there would be no need for illegal music sharing. We are starting to the latter with iTunes and what not, but the former needs more work.Moron.
Why should we even bother another 'taxation' scheme that punish people for using storage media other than downloading illegal music, WITHOUT EVEN GOING TO TRIALS? This is just another stupid idea.
So when you buy a CD or DVD burner, it comes with a short string (a random-looking series of letters and numbers) to type into your computer.
Can I use my CueCat?
Funny, I don't remember any talk at all about how much he paid to ticketmaster, or to the RIAA, or to anyone else besides his employees. And certainly he would not be able to play "guaranteed" $35,000 shows if he were not a famous country music star, and that fame was brought him by the old system.
But so what? Many stars are now leaving the old system. They sign with a record company, get as much fame as possible, then dump the old regime to try things on their own. The evolution is happening already. The last thing we need is legislated subsidies to carry an antiquated media system that refuses to evolve with the market.
As Johnny Cash said in that interview: "Give people something they really want to see and they'll save their money for it." This attitude carried him through decades of fame and generations of fans; We'd all be better off not to forget the wisdom of the legend.
This is an ingenious solution, but it presumes that all the parties involved will want to cooperate on standards and information. And that information can be freely exchanged between consumers and businesses and content owners and musicians.
.
First, I doubt musicians or labels will be happy will this arrangement. It will assure listeners that they are "paying for music" when in fact all you are doing is distributing the proceeds from an arbitary tax. Maybe they aren't as greedy as the RIAA, but they will be suspicious of anybody who says that playlists should determine royalties.
Second, it awards amounts on the basis of plays and not likes. Everyone may have downloaded and listened to Britney Spears, but maybe very few like it. I would much prefer a system that allows users to award shares to their favorite artists (although if they like the music, they may play the song more often). Also, there would probably be ways to game the system. Ex: a person could pawn his/her mp3 as by Eminem on a p2p network, when in fact, it belongs to someone else.
Third, it assumes that artists will register with a centralized service. If you look at musiclink, you will see that a large number of musicians just never get around to doing those things.
Fourth, hardware manufacturers may resist imposing a big tax on their hardware, especially if content companies are trying to make this tax as big as possible.
Still, it's an ingenious solution, and it is a method by which compulsory licensing can be implemented without rewarding the incumbents.
As for me, I still think microtipping is the most viable solution. See my essay sharethemusicday.com
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
The current RIAA System:
1. Person 1-9 buys Britney Spears.
2. For their work in getting 9 out of 10 people to buy her cd and making her so popular, record companies get paid.
3. Person 10 buys a little known independent cd direct from artist.
4. Person 1-9 never heard of 10's artist, but 10 has heard of Britney Spears.
The new System:
1. Person 1-9 gives all their digital gift to Britney Spears (including YOU!).
2. For their work in getting 9 out of 10 people to give her all their digital cash and making her so popular, record companies get paid.
3. Person 10 gives all their digital cash to a little known independent artist.
4. Person 1-9 never heard of 10's artist, but 10 has heard of Britney Spears.
In the authors previous post, he states that such Compulsory Tax would run the average family about $50/year and basiclly give them unlimited access to music, video and other artistic productions online.
Now, of that $50 he's allowing 20% to go to "bueracratic overhead" for this knew govt. agency to oversee this monstrosity. So, that leaves $40 to go towards the artists. If we assume that at present the average family's artistic download comprises of 75% music and 25% for all other media then _Music Artists_ would recieve about $30 per family in the US.
Now my point: If this $30/family tax is supposed to be sufficient to fairly compensate the Music Industry artists for their work, then why doesn't the RIAA open shop and allow unlimited downloads for $30/year for all their artists big and small?
What parent wouldn't pay $30/year to give their kids unlimited legal access to their favorite tunes? Certainly $30/year is worth not risking your kid making you the subject of a $$$ lawsuit!
Who needs another bueracratic govt. agency that will be subject to abuse, fraud, and internal waste? This also will not penalise those of us who do not download music and other art from the net, and don't want to be taxed for the behavior of others.
Please, can someone explain why we need to force this down the throat of every American - to give music fans unfettered access to their music - when the music industry, if they choose, can make their works available at rates cheap enough that most people will not steal?
--Aaron Greenberg
Unless the RIAA has a copyright on Bach and Beethoven this looks like out and out theft to me.
Are you talking about the *original* recordings? Sorry, I don't think even the wax cylinder method of audio recording existed yet.
I think the recordings of Bach you see in the record store are more recent interpretations, and are not at all in the public domain.
Artists don't want listeners to think that this share/tax is the only payment that listeners should have to make. Suppose the tax is $30 added to the cost of a mp3 player. YOu have to understand that right now incumbents want consumers to pay that much just for two or three CD's by a single artist. There's no way that they'll be content with that.
A previous poster asked the question of different devices. It assumes that all media playing devices are equipped with the means to measure anonymously frequency of play. Regardless of which scenario is tried, there will be complainers saying that it is not fair. This is a case where a technology solution makes sense, but only if a deity could impose it over the world in one fell swoop. In reality, there are inherent barriers to solutions like this working. Example: if a mp3 player included a compulsory tax, what about car radios? What about music played at restaurants or stadiums? (Because there's 40,000 at the football game, does that make 40,000 listeners of that song)?
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
For 70GB HDD, which is essentially equal to 100 CDs, and the statistical chance that the space has been reused 100 times per HDD lifetime (quite reasonable for let's say 3 years) you will be charged 10,000 times of what you would be charged per CD.
Not bad.
Less is more !
Post-copyright? Hey, why not just try and get the copyright laws repealed? What's the point of all this half-assed sort-of-licensing bullshit?
Either authors own their work or they don't. You repeal copyright, economic value and production will drop 30%, and about two dozen entire industries will stop completely. That's the deal.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
I have no idea of the political leanings of the supporters of the proposed taxes being discussed in this thread, but my bet is they are less likely to be Republicans. As a tax, I would suspect that Republicans would generally be against it. As a means of supporting artists that may have non-family values, I would suspect that Republicans would generally be against it. And given the entertainment industry's general love of Clinton & Democrats, I would suspect that Republicans would generaly be against it.
Too quote a short Wired article on donations: "Artists and execs in the movie and music businesses tend to lean Democratic when it comes time to donate to political parties." A longer article also seems to confirm the Democrat's greater penchant for anti-piracy legislation. Otherwise, I agree that Republican's often stick up for business and are not the best privacy advocates in the world.
What I do know is that businesses put up with a lot of crap in the form of well-intentioned, but deleterious regulations that destroy jobs and drive up prices. An artist's subsidy tax on computer equipment and services for businesses would be an example. Having been through the startup process myself and had friends who started businesses I have seen or experienced a range of dumb regulations that only serve to make it hard to start and run a new business. Most of the crap targets businesses only, so consumers, employees, and the average voter seldom see all the fees, forms, and bureaucratic B.S. perpetrated by Federal, state, and local authorities.
Consumers think that businesses should pay their "fair share of taxes" and that is a understandable, if shortsighted view. In reality, no business pays any taxes, they simply pass them on to the customer or to the shareholder. Yet the taxes are frustrating because they make a business less competative and dealing with the paperwork serves no business purpose.
But, I could be wrong on all this. After all, I am a moron.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
You are absolutely right. This guy assumes that every CD/DVD burner and Internet connection is used for "stealing" music. Nonsense! I don't "steal" any music, and I don't want to have anything to do with RIAA's or some others' licensing (read ripoff) schemes that they come up with. There are a lot of artists who let me sample their work for free and I'll buy their stuff if I end up liking it.
It's obvious that RIAA and so-called "musicians" and "artists" want a contract with the public and Congress that will somehow get them subsidies and guaranteed cash from taxing (or "licensing" to) everyone on earth. Hell, why not? They can simply sit back and not even have to market their product or even compete. Simply hire bunch of lawyers to bitch about "piracy" and to pitch to Congress (and other governments) to enact more laws that tax everyone - that's all there is to it.
Think about it. Why is this so specific to music? Why not books? software? movies? patents? Hell, why can't I simply write couple of VBScripts and get compensated from taxes paid by everyone? Would I have to sign my soul over to BSA for that? What a bunch of crap! The proposal from the submission is full of holes like MP3 players submitting IDs and data to governments (guess what - I can have my own MP3 player that won't do any of that), to licensing CD/DVD burners (instead of owning them), to some weird definition of "artists" that kind of hint to "musicians" but are so vague they could include anyone.
On top of that, why take free market principles and put them in the government's hands? Because RIAA is a non-competitive cartel, refusing to put out a product that people demand? Because RIAA and "artists" are exempt from market conditions, and their century-old business model has to be saved? Because we have more than enough privacy than to be tracked now by governments, cartels, and ISPs working together against all people?
I'm not saying they shouldn't fight for their copyrights, but their copyrights don't make them or give them god-like powers over everyone.
Why does everyone turn to the government for solutions? To go out on a limb here, maybe the government won't be able to solve all our problems just by introducing another tax (or call it a compulsory voucher if you would like).
1. Record companies brand all media as their own - ie: Sony is the artist on all Sony media. So the votes go to Sony, not a paricular artist.
2. Record companies claim that this is illegal, because of prior contracts. So monies default to the companies, not the artists.
3. Record companies simply rewrite contracts. Much of the artist-related materials (tee shirts, sheet music, etc.) are already "voluntarily" given up by the artists. New contracts simply have artists assign over 97% of the "tax" monies to the company.
4. Record companies currently disimburst funds to artists, and are sued for not giving the proper amounts. Who do you think is going to distribute the monies in this new scheme?
5. The government sees an additional source of revenue, and takes 98% of this "tax" money for things such as "Internet Crime Prevention" and such. Of course, it actually goes into a General Func account, but that's another story...
There is the problem that people will just pay themselves or their friends. If you institute a way to filter this out, there is no difference from other schemes (you only can give money to certain individuals). Nobody wants to pay for things that they don't like.
Another problem is that there isn't really an incentive to redeem the vouchers for one hit wonders, for example.
What's wrong with just buying their cd or songs if you like the artist? I have no problem with limited copyright.
The problem is the business practices of the RIAA and its members. They stifle innovation (musical and technical) and maintain their power through a ogilopoly.
In the future we will see many more self-produced albums, and the power of the RIAA will be somewhat reduced. However, while there is still payola in the radio industry, the RIAA will have some revenue.
Neither party gives a shit about anyone's rights or liberties. All that varies ar their motives. And if you believe anything else given the heaps of evidence, you truly are a moron.
The MP3 player doesn't need to talk to your CD drive. Not participating doesn't make you a felon. The special string is simply a way to vote on what artists should get paid. If you don't want to vote, you don't have to.
How about paying artists from the general treasury and abolishing copyright. Anyone who wants to be an artist can sign up, so long as they are US citizens or permanent residents and can prove that they are full-time artists.
Proof of being an artist would be consist of:
1 - Cannot hold a full-time job (anything over 1,000 hours a year). Anyone with a full-time job should have the money to not require government hand-outs and likely doesn't have all that much free time.
2 - Must show proof of progress. This should be somewhat lax, but not overly. This could be audited much like a tax return. Instead of having to come up with receipts, you'd have to either show them your finished work or your sketchbook/notebook/source code/etc if it's a work in progress.
3 - Your work must be made available to the public (with source code for software). This could be easily done as part of the reporting requirements to get your grant, and the governemnt could run a few (thousand) servers on P2P networks that contain a copy of all work made under the program. Anything that gets popular will quickly be spread out among the network to minimize bandwidth cost.
The size of the grant could be around $15k per annum. This is around minimum wage plus a little for supplies and should be enough to attract many artists who do it to do art (and would entice a lot of bums, but that is why there are reviews). It is small enough to keep the governemnt's tab reasonable (1 million people enrolled would cost $15b a year plus administrative expenses). Cooperatives could be formed (which would form sem-spontaneously among people inclined for such work) to handle projects like movies and software.
Although this is pricey for the government, this would mean consumers would pay just for the cost of media (or cost of bandwidth if downloaded) and would give back to the people more money (easily hundreds of billions in free games, movies, music, and software) than the government will spend on the program because the current system is horribly inefficient and employs an enourmous amount of middlemen and profiteers.
Additionally, the lower prices will push the supply-demand equilibrium to a higher level of use/enjoyment (people will buy 100 $2 CDs or download 2,000 songs/year instead of buying 20 $20 cartel CDs).
Three potential drawbacks are the government censoring material/grants, people freeloading for their grant money, and our Berne Convention agreements.
As far as freeloading goes, a reporting/auditing system much like our tax system would handle that. Having to keep semi-detailed logbooks or a record of your artistic activities isn't a bad tradeoff for a small but steady income.
Government censorship is an issue, but it's no worse than our current corporate censorship, and it's not like if the government doesn't give you a grant, you can't do art. It just means you won't be paid (much like today and corporations). The law should be written in such protect against censorship, but governments often flout their own laws or work around them.
As far as the Berne convention goes, that's what our $400B a year military is for. Just tear that piece of paper up and tell the rest of the world "If you don't like it, then discuss it with our army." (Probably diplomatic means will work quite well, since the Berne convention hurts the rest of the world, so resorting to tearning up the treaty might not be necessary).
On first reading, it looks like an excellent scheme. Unfortunately, there are so many reasons why it wouldn't work in real life.
In order for it to work, society would have to be more perfect than it is now; but if society was perfect enough for such a system to be able to work, it wouldn't be needed anyway.
What about this?
A group of unsigned artists get together and rent a managed, secure server. The server puts out signed digital audio files and value added extras - but you have to pay a fee to download them. The fee, enforced using cryptographic methods, goes to the artists, and covers the cost of producing the music and maintaining the server. {I am not sure whether or not it would be worthwhile to offer a CD burning service; some people might prefer to order a custom CD rather than place their computer effectively out of commission while downloading and burning, but this would need to be investigated in practice.}
Thanks to digital signing, punters get to differentiate between "unofficial" copies {which could be of inferior quality or infested with malware} and the "real thing". Nobody can make a profit offering other people's music for paid download, because they would not have the correct signing keys - and punters would be wary of inferior copies. The small cost of an assured download would outweigh the risk associated with downloading unofficial files {which might well be slower, and therefore more expensive, if hosted from a generic home ADSL connection, which is all anyone is going to be able to afford to give away; and who's going to pay for a dodgy copy when a pure one is only a little bit more?}
I think such a system would certainly cut out the organised piracy, which undoubtedly diverts funds from artists. Casual copiers might just as likely have gone without, had they not been able to obtain a free copy easily. Beside all which, users are less likely to resent compensating artists directly than lining the pockets of a middleman.
There is probably room within such a system for a middleman to make a slim profit, providing services to bands who for one reason or another can't co-operate directly to run servers. If artists retain their own copyrights, such intermediaries {they probably deserve a whole new name, but ICBB to think of one right now} conceivably could compete to promote artists to listeners; licencing tracks to offer for download from preconfigured servers and collecting fees on behalf of artists, who would be paid monolithically. The market self-regulates because of the crossover points between legal and illegal copying being more common, and between directly and indirectly serving files.
If it works, then nobody has anything to lose except the fatcat executives at the record companies. And they are NOT NECESSARY!
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I think this is an interesting idea particularly if you apply with the concept that the government is using this mechanism to fund _infrastructure_.
Right now, tax dollars pay for substantial amounts of material(i.e. textbooks) that is not freely available. That same money could be focused on materials that would become freely available.
I can see why the major information monopolies(i.e. Microsoft/Intel) would want something like this if they were to consider it carefully. Much of the value of this type of free information would eventually get capitalized as higher values for their property(i.e. as the web becomes more rich, more folks buy computers).
Personally, I'd like to see this idea tried in a pilot program first funded by a major foundation or as an adjunct to the National Endowment for the Arts.
I have my hesitations here, but this strikes me as a worthwhile experiment.
... we tax Internet connections and CD/DVD burners a small amount ... The problem is how to decide which artists should get the money...
WRONG! The problem is weasles like you think you have a right to steal
my money for something I don't use or want. What gives you the gaul to
think you have a right to tax my ISP use or computer equipment. DON"T
TELL ME IT"S ONLY A SMALL AMOUNT!
Aaron, wake up. This idea is moronic. First of all - I really don't like the idea of anyone keeping track of what I do on the Internet, let alone allowing my computer to report my listening habits to the government like you suggest in your weblog: "(It knows what you listen to because it's built in to your MP3 player.)". My listening habits are my business - and no I don't down load music from p2p systems, I rip it from used CDs that I buy myself. What's next??? Maybe my browser should send in reports too?
Besides that, it doesn't seem technically practical... how is any such system going to prevent reuse of the strings?? There is a major scalability issue there.
How is this system going to prevent duplicate strings from being issued?? Do you really think that you can get all of the ISPs in America to agree on how to do something?? That is one reason we have multiple ISPs - because they don't agree on how to do things. Furthermore, you would be putting the final nail in the coffin for Mom and Pop ISPs because you're a lunatic if you think the government is going to pay for the implementation, I know small ISPs wouldn't be able to and I don't think the RIAA could foot the bill - although it would be fun to watch them try.
Keeping track of how much each string was worth sounds like a nightmare too.
Are you going to let the government decide who is an "artist" as well?? It sure sounds like you are intending to.
Anarchism is generally communal on a grass roots level. In that sense, it is more closely aligned with small 'c' communism. I'm speaking here of the most common anarchism, of the Spanish Revolution in 1936, of the uprisings in Paris in 1867 and 1968, and of the anarchism prevalent in Argentina currently, in Montreal, and most other places.
When you move towards a more 'right' type of anarchism, you begin to think of libertarianism, which can be thought of as anarchism with a hefty faith in individualist capitalism welded on top. Libertarianism is, I think, unique to the United States, and generally rejected by black/red anarchists.
You have to keep in mind that the history of anarchism, like communism, is a reaction to the working conditions / social order resulting from the industrial revolution. On this very essential point, libertarianism is at great odds with it's brother anarchism.
Anarchists fought for workers right to a 8 hour work day, and 5 day work week, as well as unionization. Even though you might think of anarchists as the ultimate individualists, their history is very organized.
Pure libertarianist thought, on the other hand, seems to be a form of capitalist fundamentalism where unions and workers rights need not be mentioned. Since everyone is perfectly capable of taking care of themselves alone, there is no need for government interference, such as the minimum wage. For me, it's difficult to differentiate the libertarian utopia from a cage full of tigers.
_khl
Put down the crack pipe. Step away from the keyboard. Place your hands and feet on the yellow discs and wait there for your ride, they will arrive shortly..
leave verisign out of this
lol
Support Israeli punk bands. Man Alive.
Notice I said many anarchists, because I know there are many crypto- and rational anarchists, as well as Randists and other breeds, who are right-wing, rather than the communal/communist sorts who make up the (debatable) majority. And I really only included them to be complete. So let me say this: Many anarchists are right-wing, many are left-wing, and even more split their views oddly along the spectrum. And falling on the no-forced-organization end of the spectrum doesn't mean you can't join an organization... Just that you don't want to be forced to. I love unions, for instance, but I dislike the idea that in order to work certain places I have to join certain unions. I do understand why, though... I'm not arguing with you, just making that distinction.
The music labels collude together to not publish any musicians who will not forfeit their copyrights to them. We seem unable to stop the collusion with antitrust laws and so on -- the only other viable alternative is to make copyright a non-transferable property. It's not "real" property anyway, so whatever laws we decide upon it are fine, since we "invented" the whole nonsense anyway.
MORTAR COMBAT!