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."
1) In regards to getting artists on board, their solution for people who don't want to participate says to me: don't join, and don't get money while people take your music, and fellow artists get paid for your work. That's harsh. What if the artist has an issue with the collection agency?
2) The payment system: how is this any different than Napster's subscription? It's somehow less expensive (only 5 bucks, estimated), and has access to more songs (everything instead of 500,000 tracks)? How does that work? I understand that most of the costs of distribution will be absorbed by the fact that P2P puts the loads on peers, not a central server, but is this even realistic? I am skeptical.
3) Wait a minute...If you stop paying, do you lose the rights to the music you downloaded? I scanned the document twice, and please correct me if I missed something, but it seems you can only legally use your music if you're still paying out to the industry. That's my primary reason for disliking Napster 2.0, and it's enough to sink this idea, in my mind.
I love the EFF more than butterscotch and jellybeans, but this proposal gives me the creeps.
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
It's not enought to say "we have an alternative scheme." It's probably not even enough to say "we have an alternative scheme by which you can make equivalent money." Instead, you need to credibly be able to say "we have an alternative scheme by which you can make superior money." If you can't do that, you got nuttin.
Just wondering, if an artist didnt have a record company to promote their music, just how well would they really do?
As things stand at the moment, artists without a record contract don't seem to do as well, but in what ways will this change? who will promote them? the artist themselves? or the filesharing system?
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
Personally, I do not really support this kind of soulution. The problem is that I cannot see how the money can be divided amongst the rights holders in a reasonable way. The same goes for taxes/fees on blank media, by the way. How can anyone know what I download or copy? If they cannot know that they cannot distribute the money fairly and if they can . . . Well, then there are serious privacy implications.
IAAAL - I am actually a lawyer
...but the last article regarding "the edge" has a lot to offer this topic. Why would the RIAA agree to a licensing scheme like this, despite prior precedent in this country and countries like Canada, when they can conspire to control the content with those that control the delivery of said content.
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
The trouble with blanket licensing is that there's no way for punters to say "I like this more than this". If everyone and their dog download a particular ditty for their phone's ring tone, does it make it more valuable than a movie soundtrack which only a few people really love, but love a lot?
Why should a quick tinkle on a xylophone be better rewarded than months of work on an orchestral masterpiece?
A better way of capturing music's artistic value is to auction it directly to the interested audience, e.g. using The Digital Art Auction .
The software and video game industries also continue to show strong growth and profitability. Each one of these industries has taken steps to adapt their business models to the realities of file sharing. In what way did the gaming industry adapt to p2p filesharing?
xb0x
It seems to me that if the bands and recording studios could make distribution agreements directly with iTMS/Napster/etc, the whole RIAA can be avoided and declared irrelevant. As it stands, ~60 cents of the purchase costs goes to the label, of which a few pennies go to the band. Bands could increase their cut 10X and the price per download cut in half. Everybody wins.
/best/ music on line in the last few years and none of it is available at a music store.
/easily/ be done away with. MTV, the sock puppet for the industry, makes money by worshiping the 'stars' promoted by the labels. Heck, when was the last time you saw a music video on MTV? When was the last time you saw a 'music star' actually sing? It is not about music anymore. MTV can can get flushed down the crapper too.
The record labels only exist to market and distribute pop music and those functions can be completely done by other means now. I have found some of the
To take this even one more step off-topic, you can argue that the whole MTV half-time boobie stunt (which has now mutated into a weird free-speech thing)was simply to steal the thunder of the iTMS/Pepsi/arrested-by-the-RIAA commecial. It shows that the labels are not needed and can
All music related marketing and distribution can be done on-line. The old business model is dead and not needed or wanted. The first major band to sign directly with iTMS/Napster/whatever will turn the tide.
Clearly, I need to calm down and have a cup of coffee. Sorry for the early morning rant.
Hey, leave comments about my mother out of this!
Lets hope Riaa will co operate in the name of everyone AND Riaa's survival in an age when hard distribution is no longer so important.
"How do we get filesharers to pay up? That's where the market comes in -- those who today are under legal threat will have ample incentive to opt for a simple $5 per month fee. There should be as many mechanisms for payment as the market will support. Some fans could buy it directly through a website (after all, this was what the RIAA had in mind with its "amnesty" program). ISPs could bundle the fee into their price of their broadband services for customers who are interested in music downloading. After all, ISPs would love to be able to advertise a broadband package that includes "downloads of all the music you want." Universities could make it part of the cost of providing network services to students. P2P file-sharing software vendors could bundle the fee into a subscription model for their software, which would neatly remove the cloud of legal uncertainty that has inhibited investment in the P2P software field."
This model is the rough equivalent of a 'tape tax.' However, this model provides several things that a tape tax does not. Transparency is key to making this model work. Reasonably accurate data about which songs are being downloaded will allow all artists to have a level playing field. A tape tax system tends to reward the big artists and ignore the small artists because there is no way to collect data about which artists are being taped the most.
The collection agency must be able to transparently report how much money is collected and who is paid for this scheme to gain acceptance from downloaders and artists. If anyone can go to the collecting agency web site and view their accounts online, then and only then will downloaders and artists think of the downloading rights fee as something worth paying.
It's true that iTunes "works" in the sense that people are using it, but as some point out it's just a perpetuation of the same tired "selling discrete amounts of music for a defined price" model, and the artists are really no better off than under the current system. This is my fundamental objection to all these online music stores. Also don't forget the BBC Talking Point which recently aired about these issues. Interestingly, for ages I never saw the BBC post comments which pointed out the "loss of control" factor as being the real thrust of the recording industry's complaint ($DEITY knows, I submitted enough of them) but now they have published a few of these. They took ages to have a talking point on the issue but once they did, and the overwhelmingly anti-RIAA mindset of the readers became clear, it seemed to have a definite effect on their other articles with less use of words like "piracy" and "stealing music" - and less simple rehashing of record industry press releases.
Consider:
.mp3 files flying by, than the ISP makes a nice little bounty by turning you in to the collection agency.
* The percentage of downloads that head right to static IPs in dormrooms -- the artists would get paid by them, via their universities (after all, $45 per year per student payment to not have to deal with the RIAA harassing the sysadmin of a univ is a good deal). Besides -- they'd just charge the students via fees anyway.
* That ISPs will market this in with their products. Using lots of bandwidth? The ISP monitors you to determine if you've signed up for their (+$5 for music) plan. If you aren't and you've got lots of
Between universities and ISPs, methinks that there would be payment from the users responsible for the majority of downloaded files. The majority of users? I don't know -- perhaps that as well.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
That's a pretty good idea. They're just missing one thing. I wont pay. I'll never pay. As long as someone besides the person who writes and performs music is making money from that music I will not pay a half a cent for it. That's all there is to it.
The business model of the future is the penny arcade/homestarrunner model. Acquire a large loyal fanbase. Actually BE good people who make quality art and gain the trust of your fans. Allow your art to be distributed freely all around the globe without a care in the world. Make money from merchandise, voluntary donations from fans, and "legitimate" advertising (google and PA style advertising NOT weather.com or superbowl style advertising).
The real problem here is this. The RIAA can think of a ton of business models that work considering new technologies. While the organization as a whole is "evil" the people that make it up are not all stupid drones. They know. The thing is that there is no longer a business model which will turn musicians into multi-zillionaires.
Musiciains can live with a new business model and make enough money for food and rent and all that. What they can no longer do is make millions of dollars at the same time some record company also makes millions. It just wont happen anymore. Until the record company accepts that, they are going to keep suing us.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Again, you are wandering in the Marx garden of utopia. You say - "In a fair market, blah blah...". There are no fair markets, only free markets. Big difference.
Marx said, if man could co-operate instead of compete, then we would have all kinds of products, a great variety, instead of just mindless imitations of the same product each trying to undercut & outsell the other.
Malthus read this, rolled his eyeballs & said - yeah and if man was ostrich, then we wouldn't have the notion of private property & we'd all live in peace & harmony & so on...
In a fair market, average American programmers would have secure jobs just as much as the Indian programmers. Do they ?
I think using a Nielson-like scheme to determine the value of works is inherently flawed in this system. It relies on sampling a relatively small number of households who have access to a relatively small number of potential choices. This will inherently concentrate value towards the handful of songs and artists preferred by the sample group.
For this to produce 'fair' results, all paying customers would have to be part of the sample group.
Instead, perhaps the distribution of money should be left up to the license purchaser. If I want my $5 this month to go to 'Ice Ice Baby', then so be it!
P2P software & media players could, by default, record downloading & listening habits to form a basic percentage allocation, which I could modify each month, if I felt like it.
Steve Jobs has admitted that Apple is using iTunes to drive iPod sales and iTunes is making no profit
In comparison to iTunes and Napster, I'd prefer the EFF's option. It basically provides a selection from whatever is floating around the internet including less popular and ultra-obscure artists and labels. I also think that a second tier bandwidth price option is not unreasonable (provided that the price itself isn't ludicrus).
Like, free legal downloads for $6 a month. DRM free. The artists get paid. We explain how...? This article is interesting because it breaks down $ amount for revenue lost by *aa and the cost for an agency to collect fees to arrive at this amount.
I am a member and big fan of the EFF, but their treatment of this topic leaves me unimpressed. The RIAA are fighting to maintain the status quo and their increasing irrellevance in the digital age, and they will continue to use any sleazy means at their disposal. Those of us on the other side are fighting to destroy them. I support downhillbattle.
Test 1 2 3 4
As stated in the article ITUNES only has 500,000 songs. 95% of those are utter crap. I can think of about 2 bands that I ever listen to that are on iTunes. I tried it and it doesn't work for me.
My own copyright/filesharing thing is as follows:
1. hear about band.
2. Download album
3. listen to album
4. if I like the album buy or order the cd
5. if not delete the album off my computer
of course few of the bands are in the RIAA so I'm not particularly stressed about getting sued.
ac