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."
...Who things that "Proto Whuffie" would make a great party drug?
The Human Cow - bringing you scrumtrelescence since 1995
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
Then let's call it tithing.
I can't watch Temptation Island and then tell their advertisers to give their money to C-Span.
I'd be willing to watch Temptation Island, DC, where all the participants were members of Congress.
I wouldn't be very tempted myself, however.
-- 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.
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.
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