Slashdot Mirror
$5 Per Month Fee Proposed For Legal Music P2P
sneakyimp writes "Both Wired and Ars Technica have reports on Jim Griffin's proposal that ISPs charge each broadband customer $5 per month to subsidize the ailing music industry. The resulting fund would ostensibly 'compensate songwriters, performers, publishers and music labels.'
Although no specific version of the proposal has been referenced, a number of controversies are inherent to the plan: How is the money really divided? What happens when the MPAA, the Business Software Alliance, and various other industry groups want their own surcharge added? What about the supposed majority of broadband customers who never download illegal music? Griffin discussed the plan further at SXSW . We've previously discussed a similar proposal from the Songwriters Association of Canada.
Presumes you're a criminal otherwise.
And by paying it, you admit it.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
The solution:
-- There should be a license that you pay for only if you're interested, and if you pay this license you're allowed to download music.
By subscribing to the license, you make a legally binding promise to follow certain simple rules that apply for this license.
-- If you also want to make music available for others to download, you indicate this when you subscribe to the license. This again involves a legally binding promise to follow rules that apply for this kind of license.
-- When you make music available for others to download, you must use software that is approved for this purpose. Getting such software approved should be very easy, because the requirements are simple.
One requirement is that this software record and report statistics about how many times each song is downloaded. The money from the license fees gets distributed to artists and music companies based on these statistics.
Another requirement on this software is that it make an automatic check that the software that requests the download displays a currently valid license.
With this scheme, regular Joes who provide music for others have no economic incentive to trick the system. That's important. It means that lots of software can be easily approved.
Music companies do have an incentive to trick the system, so as to inflate their own statistics. Checks against this will be needed. In addition, because of this, the statistics should probably be arranged in such a way that any number of downloads from the same license counts as a single download.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
I wonder what would happen if someone figured out how to torrent a car.
We are laying the legal groundwork for that problem right now (albeit unknowingly). With nanomachines on the horizon, it won't be more than 50 years till you will have access to a formulator capable of replicating a car. But someone will still have to design the car in the first place. We will be up against the exact same problems we are now with music. People will be trading atom-level model files for Ferraris over the intarwebs. Toss in your old car, a design file, and a whole lot of power (assuming we haven't hit, or have solved, the peak oil problem by then), and you get a new car.
It will be the end of natural scarcity of manufactured goods, but not the end of scarcity of energy, good design, or the rarer raw materials. While I loathe the current state of Intellectual Monopoly law, it will be necessary to continue to compensate creators (not necessarily labels) for their work, and the fields where the cost of design can be hidden in the price of the manufactured good will dwindle.
The laws that will protect cars 50 years from now are the laws we are using today to attempt to protect music. Maybe cops will ask for "License, registration, and proof of designer royalty payment, please?"
But then, we'll probably just be the computers' pets by then anyway, so no need to worry.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
> This actually seems like a modern, cost effective and fair distribution model to me.
> Out of curiosity, what about it doesn't meet that criteria?
How about the bit where they have no content I am interested in, but I still have to pay?
How about the bit that a private group now gains the right to tax all broadband users just
on a suspicion that they might some day download something?
You MIGHT transport my stolen lawn sculptures in your car. Therefore, I want the right to be paid
$2.35 for all users of the public roadways. Now can you see the problem?
Somebody mod parent Troll.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
If you know how many people the **AA has sued so far, it shouldn't be that hard to figure out how many people would need to sign up (and which would need to be excluded) to make the running of such an insurance pool a profitable venture.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Just some clarification: I can and do pay for content, and I am far more likely to when I can get it on my terms.
Just tell me where to sign up to the MPAA-sponsored BitTorrent tracker, and I'll pay for it. Here's my wishlist:
I'm not sure how much I would be willing to pay for that service, but it's at least $5/month.
As it is, there's really no service which can quite replace The Pirate Bay.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
How about this: First of all, I don't think this is "fair" in any sense, but to end all the copyright nonsense these days I'd be willing to entertain this.
First of all, let's get a reasonable amount. Like, say, 25 cents a month. Maybe as much as a buck. The BSA and the MPAA can have the same. So can anybody else who feels their Imaginary Property rights are being violated. But in exchange, two conditions:
1) they accept that they can never again object to any form of private, non-commercial copyright infringement in any way, shape, or form, in any jurisdiction this side of the outer rings of Jupiter.
(2)that they are expressly prohibited from producing, distributing, or employing any form of DRM technology in any way shape or form, in any jurisdiction.
Violation of either of these two conditions will result in them having to repay the amount of money they have received from this "statutory license" (or whatever we decide to call it) X 100.
Let me repeat myself. I don't think this is 'fair', but politics, like life, is compromise. I don't think the RIAA deserves this money any more than a mobster "deserves" his protection money. But to be 100% sure that we'd never again have a single case of grandmother being sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars over a dozen top 40 tracks that'll be forgotten in 10 years, and be able to back up my box set of "Band of Brothers" that I paid $150 for, it'd be worth it.
But not at $5/month. I haven't averaged spending $5/month on CDs since about 1993.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
Copyright infringement is a civil matter and there is plenty of insurance for civil lawsuits.
I'm merely proposing one more type of insurance. Participating in such a scheme would be tantamount to an admission of guilt. Why? The **AA has already wrongly sued several people.
Less than $60 a year is a small price to pay for protection from a possible lawsuit or a $X,000 settlement "offer".
Shouldn't I be able to protect myself against such risks? The RIAA would prosecute to the fullest any person with this insurance instead of extending settlement offers like they do now, so calculating the insurance based on current settlement values would not work. The RIAA doesn't know shit about the people they send Pre-Settlement Letters to. You forward the letter to your insurer and let their lawyers deal with it. This is how car insurance works, how medical malpractice insurance works, etc etc etc. Judges would not look kindly on it either and would likely approve the maximum possible penalties, which as I'm sure you know are ludicrous and could probably easily bankrupt the insurer. You are assuming this goes to trial, which defeats the purpose of the **AA sending out Pre-Settlement Letters. But if it makes you happy, your insurance policy can have a "go to trial" clause setting out a fee structure for legal services.
rm999 said "That's a cool idea, but if it actually happened I would be really bothered. I know this is sad, but I would rather my money go to the RIAA than lawyers/insurance salesmen."
That's okay, we can accomplish the same goal in a slightly different fashion. Form a non-profit organization and a separate non-profit insurance company that the club hires to insure its members. Make a tax deductable donation to the club in return for membership and if you get sued, you can apply to their 'free' insurance program. While we're at it, how about we buddy up with the EFF, make the goal of the organization copyright reform and hire some lobbyists to achieve that goal?
A. Pay a $60 per year RIAA tax for as long as you have broadband
B. Make a $60 per year (or less) tax deductible donation that goes towards protecting you from **AA lawyers and lobbying for a fairer copyright model
Which would you choose?
Of course, this assumes that the **AA doesn't get pimp slapped by the Courts and their unlicensed "investigators" don't get bitch slapped by the States.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!