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."

Comments

No sir, I don't like it.

[Liselle]

The EFF write-up is pretty solid, and seemed to address all of the questions that came to me as I was reading it. However, I have a few problems with it, and this is only on the first pass:

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.

The concept is simple: the music industry forms a collecting society, which then offers file-sharing music fans the opportunity to "get legit" in exchange for a reasonable regular payment, say $5 per month. So long as they pay, the fans are free to keep doing what they are going to do anyway...

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.

Re:No sir, I don't like it.

[Liselle]

From what I read of the article there was no talk of DRM so you could keep the music. Just depends on the format the music is in that you downloaded.

I wasn't worried about DRM so much as I was RIAA stormtroopers knocking down your door and bagging you for copyright infringment. I am concerned that if you stop paying, you lose legal protection. It's almost like a government-mandated Mafia.

Re:No sir, I don't like it.

[ZackSchil]

I don't think you understand. This proposal involves no DRM, no centralized corporation, no hybrid collection-agency and Peer to Peer network or anything. This suggestion is to simply kindly ask music sharers to pay $5 a month ($60 a year). If written into law, I'm sure most mainstream filesharing programs wouldn't mind integrating with a collection agency's servers to manage payment.

If an artist opts out of the collection agency, they'll continue to receive what they currently receive from online music trading: absolutely nothing. If a user stops paying his fees, he will still own all the music he downloaded while still paying because they'll just be MP3/M4P/FLAC or whatever format he used to download them. Whether it's moral to pay $5 one month, then go on a downloading spree to last several months is up to the user to decide. (Though I doubt it, seeing as the main cause for piracy is the sheer convenience) The whole system is voluntary,

In short: P2P networks stay as they are but optionally hook into a non-profit collection agency. Think of it as a filesharing tax to help artists.

I personally think the plan sounds awesome but leaving payment to the goodwill of music fans makes me think it hasn't a snowball's chance in hell as long as the RIAA maintains its vice grip over the artists' throats.

Re:No sir, I don't like it.

[asdf 101]

I agree with your doubts on the workability of this.

Additionally, I was wondering:

1. If the profits are going to be divvied based on a tracking system, wouldn't a system like that vulnerable to highjacking -- an artist / label setting up multiple download servers transacting between themselves across interchangeable IP address. This is unlike radio, where the control is in the hand of the content pusher and easier to regulate versus here where it is also with content puller too. That duality makes it more vulnerable to hijacking.
2. This would effectively kill the "gatekeepers to the land of distribution" ability of the record-labels -- and that would ensure a serious lack of support from them. The ability of the record-labels is clearly diluted in the age of the internet, but that they still have legality from it. Essentially, atleast in the near term, a solution like this could well plummet to oblivion from lack of a decent library of content in the face of a record-label boycott.
3. There are so many other new solutions coming up that are more bent on driving user choice (versus compulsory / obligatory licensing) and that ensure a more legal regime from incetivizing pay-for-doanloads rather than -- again -- compulsory / obligatory licensing regimes in one form or the other. Incentive driven pay-to-share services that drive consumers to pay will surely be more effective that those that obligate / force them to do so.

I think that the EFF is getting carried away by "rigtheousness" here.

Orders of magnitude.

[mumblestheclown]

There are orders of magnitude diffence in what the artists and the **aas can realistically make under the current scheme compared to what they can make under the EFF scheme.

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.

Hrmm

[acehole]

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?

Re:Hrmm

[nordicfrost]

Well, I can name two artists from Norway doing reasonbly well before getting a record company involved. Ephemera started their own company, did their own promotion, recording and tour arrangement. Huge success, big in Japan even.

Ugress tried to contact the big record companies without success for a long time. Finally, they said "fuck this" and released the music via Audiogalaxy. Soon a burned CD ended up on the office desk of the Norwegian State Broadcasting company youth music director who gave it the heavies rotation on the Petre A-list. Sony contacted them, and they said piss off, you didn't want us before now we're a hit and can do our own promotion.

I'm sure there are hundres mor of these examples. These two are just for Norway, the last year or so.

Who gets paid?

[Arioch of Chaos]

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.

It's odd or precient...

[terraformer]

...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 decides how much music is worth?

[CrosbieFitch]

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 .

Why not avoid the labels altogether?

[GuySmiley]

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.

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 /best/ music on line in the last few years and none of it is available at a music store.

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 /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.

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.

Your Internet comes from somebody who cares

[stomv]

Consider:

* 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 .mp3 files flying by, than the ISP makes a nice little bounty by turning you in to the collection agency.

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.

OK....

[Apreche]

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 problem of distrubution

[B.Smitty]

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.