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
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 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
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.
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
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