Slashdot Mirror
Unlimited Legal Music Downloads for $3.95 a Month?
fishmasta writes "I'm at a major university studying the music industry, so we get to regularly talk to executives in the major labels. In a recent talk with someone working at Warner Bros, she brought up an idea they want to try where all file sharing is legalized by paying $4-5 a month through an ISP, all downloads are permanent, and you can get them from any source, and do what you want with them. It seems like some in the industry are starting to 'get it.' I was just wondering what Slashdot thinks of this idea. Would you be willing to pay a small fee each month if you could get all the music you want and have no legal liability?"
El-Man has another take on that subject replacing "unlimited" with a set number of licenses: "I believe that people are basically honest (maybe a failing, but it's how I feel), and are quite happy to pay for something of value. With music downloads, the only solution the recording industry has come up with is wrapping digital files with onerous, incompatible DRM systems, suing those whom they say have illegally distributed music (what is it, 13000 people and counting? Surely the courts have better things to do!), and generally not doing themselves or music lovers any good. How about a system, whereby a user can purchase a license for [n] amount of digital music files? Numbers can be, 10, 50, 100, 200, etc. Doesn't matter what the files are, as long as the number is not exceeded. There'd be a lot of details to thrash out, but is this something that is ultimately workable?"
If you were an executive of a medium-to-large sized record company, how would you handle the potential of the Internet?
If you were an executive of a medium-to-large sized record company, how would you handle the potential of the Internet?
This is precisely the system we have in Canada, through a levy on blank media.
The EFF calls it Voluntary Collective Licensing of Music File Sharing.
It has many similarities to what is described in the article, and I think it is a solution that is best for everyone. Lawrence Lessig, in Free Culture (a great, freely downloadable book on related subjects), calls it a chimera. It is wrong to rob the artists, but it is also wrong for the RIAA to treat their fans as criminals. The solution is in the middle, and I think the collective licensing idea is it.
But I don't see how the artists can make money from such a scheme after the labels take 90% of the profits?
They'll make the same they do from CD sales, which is nearly zero. If an artist makes money it's from licensing, publishing, merchandise and touring.
>I think the cd levy thing is true in Canada, but I've never heard about it in the US before. Can someone provide a source?
The US has it too. "Data" CDs don't have the tax. "Music" CDs do. The difference is one bit in the header, and a few bucks at checkout time.
The name of the law taxing music CDs (and DAT tapes, etc) is AHRA - Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, an amendment to the U.S. federal Copyright Act of 1976. It's often called the "DAT tax", but it applies to music CD-Rs too.
http://drmwatch.webopedia.com/TERM/A/AHRA.html
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/truth
http://www.eff.org/cafe/cafe_case_analysis.html
In Finland there is also a levy on all blank media, but beginning from this year downloading from non-authorized sources became illegal nevertheless. Now we just continue to pay for the privilege which we can't even legally use. Big hooray for the EUCD (European Union Copyright Directive), or at least our implementation of it.
This law was mostly forced on the parliament by our beloved culture minister (former Miss Finland), who insisted that the copyright law should promote just the copyright holders' interests, consumer rights are out of scope and should be addressed in consumer rights legislation (which is likely not going to be modified in near future at all).
The payment would not actually be tied to which music you found worthwhile enough to pay for
Sure, it may not be very accurate distributing your $5 payment to the right artists, but in aggregate such a system is surprisingly accurate. Nielsen Soundscan already tracks paid downloads. It wouldn't be hard for them to track popularity of P2P downloads too.
No where does it state that the copier must own an original. When the Copyright review board last reviewed the CD levy the board specifically stated that the language was written such that making copies of borrowed works was legal. The Act was changed to allow copying in exchange for the CD levy. Furthure the board stated that all copies of music, on any medium (not just CDs), regardless of source where legal even if that source was illegal. However, it is not legal to make a copy for someone else. It is not legal to share music, as the host of the music is making the copy not the person who will use the copy. (See statements from Copyright board.) It is not legal to pay (with cash, barter, or other form of trade) someone to make a copy on your behave, or pay for the priviledge of making a personal copy.
So copy away Canada! And do it quickly. The CIRA has tried hard to change the Act to prevent copying while keeping the CD levy.
It would make sense to go through ASCAP, BMI, and/or SESAC - the organizations that collect and distribute performance royalties (royalties for radio play and any public use of music). They already have an infrastructure built up for this sort of thing, and their methods are generally regarded as fair.