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
...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
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
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--
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
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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
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!
- 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.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.
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
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.