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."
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
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
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
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
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--
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.
How about we just continue to pirate music like we do now? Its been working since Napster.
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.
Nope, won't work:
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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...