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."
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
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.
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.
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!