Slashdot Mirror
EFF's New File-Sharing Scheme
carpoolio writes "Wednesday at the Future of Music's Music Law Summit, the Electronic Frontier Foundation proposed a new licensing plan so file-sharing sites can operate, and musicians can get paid. The idea is based on the ASCAP/BMI radio music licensing schemes. But still, the RIAA seems happy to continue suing, and wait for iTunes and Napster to catch on more."
Will it really be the musicians getting paid or the Labels?? If it's like CDs than it will be mostly the labels making the money.
Evolution or ID?
Artists need to be compensated for their work
(except the ones that show you how hard they live on cribs , the show that rubs the consumers face in how much they fleeced you for)
The premise that you could get a significant number of file traders who already know and understand that they are in violation of copyright law to voluntarily cough up five dollars to pay for the 'right' to file share, when not paying has no consequence except the user's guilty conscience, seems to me to be a little more than optimistic.
It is a good step in the right direction to show the record labels new and interesting ways to make money, but in the end any solution must rely on the power of the law to enforce the payment of artists.
I have been pwned because my
The music industry decides what licensing scheme to choose. And they'll surely take the one with which they can squeeze out a maximum of profit out of the hip-hop and goth kids.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
as with ASCAP, etc in the radio market, I'd say it wasn't possible. With that precedent in mind, I think it (or something similar) will happen, just not very quickly because of the politics involved.
1. RIAA is busy [over]reacting to file-sharing
2. RIAA will never be able to stop file-sharing
3. There's gotta be a compromise. Maybe this is it.
Considering their real problem with file sharing is not the loss of money but loss of control over music distribution, anything that tries to tackle their public complaint whilst not addresing their real beef is bound to be rejected. Kudos to the EFF for trying but I think this is still 12 to 24 months ahead of its time. Congressman Boucher and Congresswoman Lofgren to the white courtesy phone please...
The premise for any proposal that promises musicians be paid for every download, seems missplaced. It's the Digital Age, stupid - - - - a mantra that must be repeated 1000 times anyone thinks BMI/ASCAP offer even a remotely legitimate role in our society.
Performance rights can easily be handled through Digital Age Fan Clubs, who better, right? Time for ASCAP/BMI/RIAA/MPAA to disappear. Musicians are doing just fine, thank you.
The Internet is the independent musicians' radio. Why take it away by imposing old business models on it?
Tom
artists still get paid royalties no matter how long it's been released
I'm sure you're trolling, but this is still worth saying: Artists still get paid royalties, but x% of $0 is still $0. It's truly silly to argue that the record labels and artists are losing sales on something that they're not offering for sale.
Music fan: Mr. Record Label, I'm a huge fan of this artist and his music that was published by you in the 1960s. Will you sell me a CD of album XYZ?
Label: We don't offer XYZ for sale, sorry. It costs too much to make all of those back catalog albums available on CD.
Fan: Okay, how about on cassette tape?
Label: We don't have it on cassette, either.
Fan: Vinyl?
Label: Nope.
Fan: 8-track? I think I can scare up a player.
Label: /chortles
Fan: Well, are you ever going to offer it in any format?
Label: Only if there's a market for at least 10,000 copies.
Fan: But there's probably only a few dozen people who might want it right now, and the longer it's unavailable the fewer people will even know about it, much less want it.
Label: /shrugs. That's okay. If so few people want it, it's obviously crap, so you must be stupid to want it. Here, how about we sell you Britney Spears' latest album instead. Millions of people want it, so it's obviously good.
Fan: /stares in disbelief and shakes head
Fan: Well, I see that someone else has digitized it and made it available in MP3 format on Kazaa. I guess I'll get it there.
Label: Thief!
Label (to Congress): See! There's yet another sale we've lost to these P2P filesharing pirates!
In what way does it "promote the progress of science and useful arts" to permit people to lock material away so that no one can get access to it?
This is not intended to be a justification of copyright infringement in general, but the record labels can't seriously claim that they're damaged by sharing of music that they *don't* distribute.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Of course the RIAA is happy with the situation. The new webcasting licenses, which the Copyright Office just finally installed this month, puts all webcasting license administration in the hands of SoundScan, which is an RIAA spinoff. They have completely screwed BMI, ASCAP, every artist, and (of course) you: they get to charge a toll on every passage of a copyrighted work across the Internet. And most important, they get to control the entire IP world, not just collect the money. The structure of the fees means that the RIAA member companies remain an exclusive club of publishers, with no threat from DIY publishers on the more level playing field of the Net. So the rich get richer, and the content-holders get more content (pun intended). This is the most monstrous monopoly yet, with the RIAA owning the rights to control and profit from every IP exchange across any network. The bad guys have won. Unless, perhaps, this EFF proposal (or one like it) can bring power back to the people while keeping content makers (artists) adequately represented in the compensation loop. Send a postal letter to your Congressmember/MP/second-cousin-Prince/UN-minister supporting a fair share plan, before you have to buy RIAA stamps.
--
make install -not war