Collective Licensing for Web-Based Music Distribution

Two weeks ago we discussed a proposal from music industry veteran Jim Griffin to implement a monthly fee from ISPs in exchange for the legal distribution of copyrighted music. Now, quinthar brings news that Warner Music Group has hired Griffin with the intention to make that proposal a reality. Warner wants Griffin to establish a collective licensing deal with ISPs that would let the ISPs stop worrying about their legal responsibilities for file-sharing while contributing to a pool of money (potentially up to $20 billion per year) that would be distributed amongst the music industry. "Griffin says that in just the few weeks since Warner began working on this plan, the company has been approached by internet service providers 'who want to discharge their risk.' Eventually, advertising could subsidize the entire system, so that users who don't want to receive ads could pay the fee, and those who don't mind advertising wouldn't pay a dime. 'I.S.P.'s want to distinguish themselves with marketing," Griffin says. "You can only imagine that an I.S.P. that marketed a 'fair trade' network connection would see a marketing advantage.'"

Comments

Complete change of strategy

[aleph42]

That Warner is pushing for that license is a complete change in the major's strategy; I can still remember when they heavily (and illegaly) lobbied against the exact same thing in France a couple years ago.

Of course, this wont be a perfect system, especially if they are the one pushing it; the amount of the fee still has to be debated, and they obviously intend to keep the lion's share in that money. (Even if digital distribution specifically means that they are not needed in the loop anymore (okay, except for marketing; but that should be done through youtube and blogs now)).

But actually, I think that's the best part in this move: even the worst case scenario (the one pushed by the majors :) is acknowledging that:

1) Paying a flat rate is how the internet works (no per unit cost == illogic to have a per unit price), so now everyone can have all the music for the price that they more or less already pay.

2) ISP acting on the content is stupid on many levels. The major's interests are actually opposed to the ISP's on this one, I'm glad that they finaly saw it (let them fight against each other!).

Re:Complete change of strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a fucking shakedown. The MAFIAA is shaking down the ISPs for a percent of the money they earn by providing me with internet service. I do not do file-sharing that involves unlicensed music in any way. So of course the MAFIAA does not deserve to receive any of my hard earned money. What. The. Fuck. Are. They. Injecting. Into. Their. Veins.

Re:Complete change of strategy

[gwait]

What about all the independent musicians? Do you think they will get a share in this tax?

Remember, this isn't collecting royalties, this is the traditional and dying music industry looking for free money.

Why not tax electricity for the RIAA? After all, we all know music pirates have to use electricity to make illegal copies,
therefore all users of electricity must be music pirates! (This is the kind of logic we're talking about here)..

This blanket tax thing is an incredibly bad idea.

Ask Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead how they feel about such a tax, after showing they can make far more money without the "help" of a corrupt and bloated music industry.

Re:Complete change of strategy

[utopianfiat]

Right on AC.
Seriously, I don't see why everyone's got such a hard-on for protecting the music industry. Maybe we're obsessed with this idea of the small musician being able to make it big, maybe we just like the sound of a corporation making money, but seriously, guys, SERIOUSLY.
CUT THIS SHIT OUT. I'm sick and fucking tired of people defending the damn RIAA while they continue to make off with money they didn't earn. Did they compose the song? Is it part of their soul? A creation of their own? No! They sit there and exploit their artists so they can exploit their consumers. It cheapens the value of art, it destroys the beauty of sound, and it fucks us all over in a giant corporatist blood orgy.

Why is it corporatist? The entire legal backing behind a record distribution company- the idea of COPYRIGHT, is a law intended to CREATE a market for something unmarketable. Why can the music industry continue to use old, outdated media (CDs, record stores) when there is a BETTER media around? (FLAC, the internet)
Because we are CORPORATISTS. We feel like we have the right nay the OBLIGATION to protect something someone made up in their heads. Fuck that shit. Music is meant to be enjoyed, not exploited.
Seriously, FUCK that shit.

Re:Complete change of strategy

[cheater512]

But what if I dont want to download their crap?
Do I still need to pay?

Re:Complete change of strategy

[firex726]

Why not tax electricity for the RIAA? After all, we all know music pirates have to use electricity to make illegal copies, therefore all users of electricity must be music pirates! (This is the kind of logic we're talking about here).. HUSH, Before they hear you!

Re:Complete change of strategy

[Hal_Porter]

What about if the music industry was collectivised? If you look at the original idea collectivisation was actually quite good. Everyone would be paid the same and would consume as much as they could. Obviously the implementation of this was flawed in since most "communist" countries were really state capitalist dictatorships.

But a true anarchist collectivisation system might work quite well. I think the proposed system is bad though, since there is no link between the people that consume the music and the people that produce it. E.g. an unpopular musician would get just as much as a popular one. State capitalist collectivisation had the same issues. Lazy farmers were paid as much as hard working ones, so the supply of food dropped dramatically, leading to terrible famine in some cases.

My collectivisation would work like this. Copyright would be abolished and musicians would be free to release what they wanted, but since there were no controls on copying they would not be able to stop buying a copy and then putting it on the internet. However some sort of taxation would tax all internet users and pay a fee to collective, and that would pay a salary to musicians, provided they met production quotas. So far this is the same as the proposed scheme. But I think the missing element is feedback, so I propose that in return for taxation the public would vote on directly on quotas, how much the collective would pay musicians per song of particular genres.

Re:Complete change of strategy

[aleph42]

""
"What about all the independent musicians? Do you think they will get a share in this tax?"
Never said it would be the perfect system. But why would independant music make less money with it? You can still buy CDs of a band you want to support. Same goes for Radiohead.

"Remember, this isn't collecting royalties, this is the traditional and dying music industry looking for free money."
Betting that this system would be prone to corruption is probably realistic, but it doesn't mean it should be how you judge the system itself. I don't see any technical point which would prevent indepent artists to get money this way. Why wouldn't it be like royalties?

"Why not tax electricity for the RIAA?"
Why not indeed (except of course, I think the money should go to the artists, not the RIAA). A global tax (on income, for example), with a fair repartition of the money (proportional to listening) would probably be the perfect way to fund music.
For one thing, it would prevent the arbitrary limitation of music one person can listn to. Of course, music haters would be paying for music lovers, but you are already paying for a lot's of roads, when you only use a few each year. Music haters probably like films or books which music lovers will pay for.
It just happens to be that the correlation betwenn music download and internet use is better than with electricity. I still prefer to tax income, but as a rule, rich people tend to get their way and impose tax which are disjoint from income (value added tax, etc).

Anyways, all I was saying in my post was that the majors seem to have given up on some key points; of course I would prefer them to die compltely. But I'm happy to know that we have "won" on some points (the disck label fighting with ISPs to stop interering on the content would really be a win for us).

If that deserves to be modded "overrated" (good way for the mod not to tell his reason, especially since this was the first moderation of the post), then sorry for not "FUCK THAT SHIT" lood enough... (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=502290&cid=22889900)

Re:Complete change of strategy

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I'm sick and fucking tired of people defending the damn RIAA while they continue to make off with money they didn't earn. Did they compose the song? Is it part of their soul? A creation of their own? No!

You seriously have no clue, do you? They don't have to create anything. A retail outlet doesn't create anything, yet we have no trouble with them selling their goods. Why? Because they bought those goods. The other party made those goods out of raw materials, or bought materials, and the retail outlet bought the goods off them, and sold them. Now, based on what could be loosely described as your "argument", those retail outlets have no right of ownership to the goods they traded with their manufacturers.

This is exactly equivalent to what the RIAA have done. They've traded money (or in this case the potential for money) for the copyright and they've agreed to do all the hard work and bear all the risks. It's a valuable service, it's only utilised by the artist voluntarily, and it helps everyone have a their own customised piece of their culture.

It cheapens the value of art

If by that you mean makes art cheaper and more physically accessible to the masses, then yes, it does. It's ownership doesn't actually affect the sound of the music, the look of the movie, the words of the book, the look of the painting, etc. That would just be idiotic.

it destroys the beauty of sound

Correction: it is idiotic.

and it fucks us all over in a giant corporatist blood orgy

Only if you consider what artists create to be yours immediately. Otherwise, you're not being screwed over at all, because you never had what you supposedly "lost". Besides, what's the alternative? We fuck all the artists over so we can have one giant, short-lived media orgy?

The entire legal backing behind a record distribution company- the idea of COPYRIGHT, is a law intended to CREATE a market for something unmarketable. Why can the music industry continue to use old, outdated media (CDs, record stores) when there is a BETTER media around? (FLAC, the internet)

Not everyone wants an internet-based platform, especially those who can't or don't like to use computers and/or the internet. But then again, lots of people do, so we have things like iTunes as well. Problem solved. Oh wait, I'm guessing you're not referring to iTunes, or any of those stores where you actually have to pay for music. Just in case you didn't know, the "business model" of giving away whatever the consumer wants for free whenever they want it isn't a superior business model, because superior business models require the receiving of significant money. That's more of a "fuck the supplier" model.

The bottom line is that

a) The artist is entitled initially to the work they create, which includes the sale of any of those entitlements
b) Any agreement between an artist and any corporation is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!
c) The RIAA is not screwing you if you don't buy from them
d) The "outdated" business model is still making money, is evolving, and still hasn't been satisfactorily replaced or superseded
e) Calling the business model "outdated" is certainly no reason to breach copyright (and neither is repeating "come on" and "fuck that shit")

Re:Complete change of strategy

[mrbluze]

You seriously have no clue, do you?

It looks like you don't have much of a clue either and, as always, more fingers on your hand are pointing at you than at those you accuse.

The bottom line is that:

• The RIAA behaves like a spoilt child, a bully and, whilst it operates within legal boundaries, it doesn't operate within moral or ethical boundaries. It is exploitative and this is what people are angry about.
• There are no alternatives, really, to the RIAA (as you basically admit in points d and e), so it is a monopoly. Again an unacceptable situation.
• People aren't totally stupid to swallow your talk about business deals and whatever. In essence, ordinary people are angry and have had enough of scheisters and swindlers and usurers and corporate plunderers. Fuck that shit and in your face!

Re:Complete change of strategy

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

It looks like you don't have much of a clue either and, as always, more fingers on your hand are pointing at you than at those you accuse.

I don't get it. How's that?

The RIAA behaves like a spoilt child, a bully and, whilst it operates within legal boundaries, it doesn't operate within moral or ethical boundaries. It is exploitative and this is what people are angry about.

Agreed. I get pretty pissed about it myself. I just get kinda annoyed when people think that it's an excuse to break copyright law, or they equate the RIAA with copyright law, and thereby conclude that we should take them both down simultaneously.

There are no alternatives, really, to the RIAA (as you basically admit in points d and e), so it is a monopoly. Again an unacceptable situation.

No, there are plenty of alternatives to the RIAA. Artists can choose a number of options for distribution including, but not limited to, doing it themselves. We have a number of options for legally obtaining music, including indie labels and CC-licensed music. The only thing we don't have an option of doing is obtaining music the RIAA owns from distribution channels they haven't approved. It's not so much a monopoly as it is a forced bundling of distribution channel and product. You can boycott the product and the distribution channel, or accept them both. There's still plenty of diversity and competition in the market.

People aren't totally stupid to swallow your talk about business deals and whatever. In essence, ordinary people are angry and have had enough of scheisters and swindlers and usurers and corporate plunderers. Fuck that shit and in your face!

Sorry, but are you suggesting that because I use complicated concepts like basic economics, I am a scheister, a swindler, or a usurer? Would you prefer if I avoided using such aloof and intellectual terms as "trading" or "ownership"? I'll keep that in mind for next time. Hell, I already know that the RIAA keeps that in mind when they spew non-stop crap about piracy funding terrorism. I guess they realise that the masses can't actually comprehend the real justifications for copyright, and they need to coddle them with alarmist FUD. Next time, perhaps I'll just follow suit. Whatever breaches the stupidity, you know?

Re:Complete change of strategy

[LuYu]

You play the Devil's advocate well. I will bite.

You seriously have no clue, do you? They don't have to create anything. A retail outlet doesn't create anything, yet we have no trouble with them selling their goods. Why? Because they bought those goods. The other party made those goods out of raw materials, or bought materials, and the retail outlet bought the goods off them, and sold them.

The problem is: information is not a "good" or a "product". It is not a "thing". So, it cannot be analysed in the same manner as physical objects. Lessig's picnic table example is perfect for this. If I take your picnic table from your back yard, I am stealing. If I see you have a picnic table, like the idea, and go and buy one for my yard, what have I "stolen" then? I certainly got the idea from you, but I also have not taken anything from you.

This is exactly equivalent to what the RIAA have done. They've traded money (or in this case the potential for money) for the copyright and they've agreed to do all the hard work and bear all the risks. It's a valuable service, it's only utilised by the artist voluntarily, and it helps everyone have a their own customised piece of their culture.

It is only valuable if artists truly have an alternative. Before the internet, there really was none. It is entirely possible that this sort of blanket taxing on ISPs will return artists to the former situation -- just as with net radio where SoundExchange requires royalties to be collected for all songs regardless of whether the artist is a member or not. This sort of monopoly is unfair to both artists and "consumers" as it denies both the opportunity to exercise their Free Choice.

Not everyone wants an internet-based platform, especially those who can't or don't like to use computers and/or the internet.

This does not mean that internet style distribution should not be used. Phone services are now all packet switched, but most people have no idea. The same could be done with radio. Radio is supposed to go digital. Why not have radio stations stream MP3s or other cacheable data instead of whatever format they use? Why not have car radios that load streams off the internet when they are near wifi hotspots? Why does the radio user have to have any idea about the underlying architecture?

a) The artist is entitled initially to the work they create, which includes the sale of any of those entitlements

Correction: The artist is entitled initially to any money generated by the work they create. If they artist wants to "keep" his work, he can keep his work a secret. If he is going to give it to the public, it will no longer be exclusively his -- it will be a part of our culture.

c) The RIAA is not screwing you if you don't buy from them

If the ISPs start going for this proposal, no one will have a choice: Connecting to the internet will be "buying from them".

e) Calling the business model "outdated" is certainly no reason to breach copyright (and neither is repeating "come on" and "fuck that shit")

Correct enough. However, this "outdated business model" is the cause of copyright violating other more important rights like Free Speech. The increases in the scope and duration of copyright over the last century alone are reason enough to violate it. Following unreasonable laws helps to support arbitrary laws and dictatorial government administration. It is the responsibility of citizens in any Free Society to both question and refuse to obey unreasonable laws. Before the internet, copyright did not conflict significantly with the First Amendment. Now it does.

Are you doing your part? Or are you making it easier for governments and corporations to violate our rights in new and innovative ways?

Re:Complete change of strategy

[mrbluze]

Sorry, but are you suggesting that because I use complicated concepts like basic economics, I am a scheister, a swindler, or a usurer?

Not you, the RIAA and similar organizations.

Would you prefer if I avoided using such aloof and intellectual terms as "trading" or "ownership"?

Point being that we're not talking about trading kilogrammes of potatoes. The discussion is about 'owning' ideas and intellectual property and the transmission thereof. It's being argued widely, in case you didn't notice, that information and ideas (eg: recordings of music/melodies, as opposed to the actual personal and live performance of music) should not be defined in the same way as material objects because they are so easy to replicate at no appreciable cost.

Yes, the RIAA is a target but so is the concept of copyright which, it is argued, is being abused to make unfair profit and hound ordinary people into paying protection money. This why the two are linked, not due the stupidity of anyone.

Re:Complete change of strategy

[h4rm0ny]

All of which is an interesting debate, but not a factor in this push. This is just an extension of the tax on blank media that goes to the music industry. I don't want this and I don't see why I should get dragged into it. But the whole system is dependent on not having some ISP users choosing not to opt in (because if the aim is stopping piracy, how would it work otherwise). Additionally, a system like this would be open to large scale abuse in increasing the power of the big labels, potentially raise prices of actually purchasing music and quite likely require extensive monitoring of your Internet traffic.All of these, but particularly the first and last, are solid reasons why this needs to be shot down now. The issue of whether the RIAA are nice or not can be separated neatly from this one (though I personally think they fall into the category of 'not nice,' myself).

Re:Complete change of strategy

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Not you, the RIAA and similar organizations.

So now the sense of my rhetoric and reasoning is now conditional on the identity of my employers*?

* Which is not anyone with a vested interest in copyright, and they certainly don't pay to spread my opinions (just to head off those trigger-happy witch-hunters who accuse anyone with a contrary opinion of being an RIAA-shill).

Point being that we're not talking about trading kilogrammes of potatoes. The discussion is about 'owning' ideas and intellectual property and the transmission thereof. It's being argued widely, in case you didn't notice, that information and ideas (eg: recordings of music/melodies, as opposed to the actual personal and live performance of music) should not be defined in the same way as material objects because they are so easy to replicate at no appreciable cost.

Fair enough. It's really a matter of opinion and you are entitled to your own. However, I'd like to explain why my opinion is different.

Basically, physical property is already a theoretical concept independent from tangible objects. You may own that kilogram of potatoes, but there is nothing physical in your ownership. If someone steals your potatoes, they don't instantly own them; you still do (you just no longer have possession of them). Just because it's easy to take property doesn't mean that we should align ownership with possession. That would destroy the point of property and negate the vast positives of defining property. It would also be cheaper in terms of enforcement and chances for civil system abuses (ala RIAA lawsuits) to ignore property, but we have decided that those costs are vastly outweighed by the benefits. If as many people were to commit physical theft as people currently commit copyright infringement, I would bet my bottom dollar there would be moves to abolish physical property to be in synch with the fickle nature of possession.

IP is relatively new, and difficult to enforce. Therefore it is not currently as entrenched in our morality, and a community of infringers has been allowed to form in the absence of adequate enforcement. IP could reflect society if society started to support IP law, like we did with the concept of property, and like physical property, we could benefit from it's addition to property law. The current abnormally high rate of abuse once it's refined and enforced properly, like physical property is. To quote the old propaganda "You wouldn't steal a car..."

Yes, the RIAA is a target but so is the concept of copyright which, it is argued, is being abused to make unfair profit and hound ordinary people into paying protection money. This why the two are linked, not due the stupidity of anyone.

So it's not copyright they're complaining about, it's the RIAA, or more specifically, the exploitations by the RIAA of certain holes in the legal system that allows them to demand "protection money". And instead of campaigning to plug those holes, or even call for the RIAA's head on a pike, they've decided to go for copyright, a system that is actually beneficial.

Re:Complete change of strategy

[CmdrGravy]

...that would let the ISPs stop worrying about their legal responsibilities for file-sharing while contributing to a pool of money (potentially up to $20 billion per year) that would be distributed amongst the music industry.

What legal responsibilities ? So far as I'm aware the ISPs have no legal responsibility for what is carried over their networks so this is simply an attempt to extort 'tax' from anyone they think they have a chance of bullying. I really hope the ISPs get themselves some representation to put their side of the argument against all this nonsense coming from the media industries. Last month it was the fantastic plan whereby the BPI told an ISP one of their customers had downloaded something illegal and before you could say Jack Robinson they expected the ISP to terminate the customers contract and ban them from accessing all ISPs.

In fact, as reported by The Guardian yesterday, both the music and movie industries are doing very well at the moment with boths sales and revenue on the increase.

Re:Complete change of strategy

[gronofer]

What about all the independent musicians? Do you think they will get a share in this tax?

What about software developers, movie makers, authors of books, magazines and newspaper articles, photographers, web page authors including bloggers, etc? Don't they deserve a share of the cash too?

Re:Complete change of strategy

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

You play the Devil's advocate well. I will bite.

You play devil's advocate, for your opinion is neither moral nor would be beneficial to people. Therefore, you are advocating a larger devil than I. Of course, what I'm saying I have not justified in any detail, but I resent being called a devil's advocate when my views are all reasoned and reasonable, with the good of everyone (not just copyright holders) in mind.

The problem is: information is not a "good" or a "product". It is not a "thing". So, it cannot be analysed in the same manner as physical objects. Lessig's picnic table example is perfect for this. If I take your picnic table from your back yard, I am stealing. If I see you have a picnic table, like the idea, and go and buy one for my yard, what have I "stolen" then? I certainly got the idea from you, but I also have not taken anything from you.

It could be considered property if we so wish. If you take a picnic you take the value of a picnic table and add it to your own by taking it from the owner. You could feasibly take a leg of the picnic table, and take a portion of that picnic table's worth. When you copy an artwork (not an idea - ideas theoretically shouldn't be worth anything without significant research behind them), you don't steal from the owner of the original copy, you steal from the copyright holder. You slightly loosen the control that copyright guarantees by making that copy. That control is the only thing giving that copyright value, and by loosening it, you deprive the copyright holder of value, like you did with the picnic table. You also illegally gain value yourself, just like with the picnic table. It's actually quite compatible with traditional theft.

It is only valuable if artists truly have an alternative. Before the internet, there really was none. It is entirely possible that this sort of blanket taxing on ISPs will return artists to the former situation -- just as with net radio where SoundExchange requires royalties to be collected for all songs regardless of whether the artist is a member or not.

Fair enough. I didn't say I supported this arrangement. I don't, unless there is some kind of choice in the equation. For example, you can opt in to the fee if you wish to copy music, or else face the usual multi-thousand dollar lawsuits.

This sort of monopoly is unfair to both artists and "consumers" as it denies both the opportunity to exercise their Free Choice.

Currently though, it's not a monopoly.

This does not mean that internet style distribution should not be used.

Of course not. It just means it shouldn't be used exclusively, which it isn't. The RIAA use it as much as is natural with the market the way it is.

Correction: The artist is entitled initially to any money generated by the work they create.

You're wrong. There is no money in anonymous P2P file-sharing, but it significantly degrades the value of the copyright. It'd be a HUGE hole in copyright if there had to be money involved. It'd be like pardoning corruption if there was no exchange of cash, which would mean the RIAA would be able to set politicians up with hookers to pass any law they want, legally.

If they artist wants to "keep" his work, he can keep his work a secret. If he is going to give it to the public, it will no longer be exclusively his -- it will be a part of our culture.

Well, I personally am not comfortable about leaning on artists to keep their work private. I would rather experience it.

However, this "outdated business model" is the cause of copyright violating other more important rights like Free Speech.

Oh, what bullshit. That, and your sig. Give me one example where copyright has limited your ability to express yourself legally. We have fair use for exactly that. No copyright holder is so starved for

Re:Complete change of strategy

[DrLang21]

My temporary solution has been to contact my ISP and make it very very clear that, since I do not download copyrighted music, I will be dropping their service immediately if they accept this proposal from the RIAA. My one comment won't mean much to them, but if they start getting a fair number of them, they might pay attention.

Re:Complete change of strategy

[Curunir_wolf]

Basically, physical property is already a theoretical concept independent from tangible objects. You may own that kilogram of potatoes, but there is nothing physical in your ownership. If someone steals your potatoes, they don't instantly own them; you still do (you just no longer have possession of them). Just because it's easy to take property doesn't mean that we should align ownership with possession. That would destroy the point of property and negate the vast positives of defining property. It would also be cheaper in terms of enforcement and chances for civil system abuses (ala RIAA lawsuits) to ignore property, but we have decided that those costs are vastly outweighed by the benefits. If as many people were to commit physical theft as people currently commit copyright infringement, I would bet my bottom dollar there would be moves to abolish physical property to be in synch with the fickle nature of possession. IP is relatively new, and difficult to enforce. Therefore it is not currently as entrenched in our morality, and a community of infringers has been allowed to form in the absence of adequate enforcement. IP could reflect society if society started to support IP law, like we did with the concept of property, and like physical property, we could benefit from it's addition to property law. The current abnormally high rate of abuse once it's refined and enforced properly, like physical property is. To quote the old propaganda "You wouldn't steal a car..." No, no, and NO! IP (Imaginary Property) is *nothing* like tangible property. It's not property at all, any more than (as Thomas Jefferson analogized) a the flame on your candle is property. Share your flame with me, and we are both enriched and neither of us are deprived.

If you don't make the payments on your IP, it cannot be repossessed. If I have a good memory, I can keep your IP in my head - will you have the courts compel brain surgery against infringers to recover the stolen property? How much is your IP worth? If you make 1 million copies of your $0.99 song, do we tax your IP at a high rate, because you are now worth almost a million dollars?

On the other hand, what about real, tangible property? Can we treat it similar to IP? If it's been 70 years after the death of the builder, can everyone come live in that house? Once that sack of potatoes is in the public domain, can we make potatoes au gratin, even though the original owner made mashed potatoes?

I'm really disgusted with the ludicrous idea that IP should be treated the same as tangible property. It's not the same, and can never be treated the same. You speak of some crazy IP law as something that should be "entrenched in our morality". As long as people have independent thought, that is impossible, because when sharing an idea becomes morally repugnant, we will no longer be human.

I wouldn't steal a car, but if I could give a car to someone that didn't have one simply by pulling it out of my ass at no cost to me, that seems like a really "moral" thing to do. Telling me it's wrong because [Big Corporation] should get something because *I* made a copy of a car just doesn't *feel* right.

Re:Complete change of strategy

[sm62704]

What about "safe harbor"? ISPs aren't liable for file sharing! So why would they fall for this scam?

Re:Complete change of strategy

[gstoddart]

But what if I dont want to download their crap?
Do I still need to pay?

But ... you're lying ... it says right in your nickname -- cheater512.

By virtue of being a human with a connection to the internet, you are by definition pirating music. Therefore, you should be obligated to pay. It's just that simple.

*sigh* Seriously, you make an excellent point, one which I and many others have tried to make over and over again. This presumption that everyone is guilty of piracy and needs to help compensate the RIAA for lost sales is complete and utter bullshit and we need smarter lawmakers to push back and say "no, you're an idiot".

I just bought over $300 in CDs last weekend, and I usually spend $800-$1000/year on CDs -- usually in big chunks. Actual, honest to goodness CDs from artists and labels I really dig. I make a point of buying from them, because I get to find new music, and by supporting them, they'll make more. I get completely infuriated when some wanker says that I need to pay a tax on my internet connection (or blank CDs, or eyeballs) for the massive amount of music I'm not downloading.

I think we should start fining record execs on the presumption that they're snorting blow out of the navels of hookers and luring little girls. It is completely stupid to charge everyone to prop up their business model, and those of us who actually buy music are getting pissed off with subsidizing the people who just download it.

That industry just wants a guaranteed percentage of the GDP entrenched in law so they don't need to do any work any more. This feeling of entitlement they have is really getting tedious. And if every group who figures they're losing money due to file copying on the internet was to ask for this levy, an internet connection would cost a tremendous amount of money.

Cheers

Re:Complete change of strategy

[pennystinker]

Basically, physical property is already a theoretical concept independent from tangible objects. You may own that kilogram of potatoes, but there is nothing physical in your ownership. If someone steals your potatoes, they don't instantly own them; you still do (you just no longer have possession of them). Just because it's easy to take property doesn't mean that we should align ownership with possession. That would destroy the point of property and negate the vast positives of defining property. It would also be cheaper in terms of enforcement and chances for civil system abuses (ala RIAA lawsuits) to ignore property, but we have decided that those costs are vastly outweighed by the benefits. If as many people were to commit physical theft as people currently commit copyright infringement, I would bet my bottom dollar there would be moves to abolish physical property to be in synch with the fickle nature of possession.

A few corrections, and a disagreement:

The laws defining entitlement to physical property is the theoretical concept, physical possession or indisputable control over physical objects is indistinguishable from "ownership" without laws, a society that recognizes them, and enforcement. The necessity of "ownership" of physical objects begins with that our bodies are physical in nature and at least in need of physical support (food, shelter, clothing). Beyond basic physical needs we are in the realm of accumulating wealth. I would say that your claim that we would adjust the laws that govern physical property to be in-line with the rules that could conceivably be applied to non-physical goods is, at best, a straw-man, and at worst deliberately disingenuous.

The interesting thing about the "laws" mentioned before, is that the laws themselves, the very concepts, are NOT governed by the law it encodes! Everyone can own a copy of the law. This is why:

IP is relatively new, and difficult to enforce. Therefore it is not currently as entrenched in our morality, and a community of infringers has been allowed to form in the absence of adequate enforcement. IP could reflect society if society started to support IP law, like we did with the concept of property, and like physical property, we could benefit from it's addition to property law. The current abnormally high rate of abuse once it's refined and enforced properly, like physical property is. To quote the old propaganda "You wouldn't steal a car..."

Is substantially a non-starter. The fact that non-physical, trivially-copyable, inherently shareable "things" (we call them thoughts or ideas in the past, today that expands to cover externalized thoughts and ideas we call, generically, data, but that data can be decoded in special ways to be interpreted as music, images, documents, etc.) that simply do not remotely posses ANY of the characteristics that the objects that the above mentioned laws apply to have always been with us. In short form: we have been in the presence of this problem since the beginning of time. Consider this: I walk into a store and pick up a book and start to read it. A copy (not a perfect copy mind you, but a copy never-the-less) in entering my skull. Now, today you're likely to say: this situation isn't applicable, there are no laws that govern this kind of copying. Imagine the day, not too far off then, in fact, it would be possible to make perfect copies as you read, through either worn external augmentation or embedded technology.

Your argument is one of re-imposing the model of "scarce goods", which is not a good long-term strategy, as it is antithetical to the expansion of the ability of the human brain. Like it or not, computers, and all the external gadgetry we are accumulating are coarse approximations of what the future will hold. Idea copying will be the norm, not the exception. You may then say that, in an analogue to my comments above, having a copy is not the same as ownership, well, eventually, yes, it wil

Re:Complete change of strategy

[gwait]

Exactly!

Don't forget the people who would like to be paid to sit and drink beer too, don't they also deserve free money?

The whole concept seems to be that a given minority (Music Industry Execs - this is NOT musicians working on this) seem to think they are "owed" something, and they want the governments to extract it from everyone.

While it's a nice utopian dream to have everyone independently wealthy so they can do whatever they like,
it's not reality. By then going to the government to force people to pay for their own dream, it crosses the line to unfairness and an abuse of government power.

Re:Complete change of strategy

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

No, no, and NO! IP (Imaginary Property) is *nothing* like tangible property. It's not property at all, any more than (as Thomas Jefferson analogized) a the flame on your candle is property. Share your flame with me, and we are both enriched and neither of us are deprived.

So I guess you're ignoring my well-laid out explanation of why IP isn't particularly distinct from, and could feasibly be analogous to, physical property, and providing us with your own self-serving analogy. Funnily enough, it only doesn't suit my purpose because the value of the flame is so small (due to the infinitesimal effort required to make it, unlike art). If you do make that nigh value-less flame available to the public, you lose whatever profitability you may have been promised when you made it. So yes, you are deprived of value, just like regular stealing. It works better if you take a multimillion dollar movie instead of a flame, because multimillion dollar movies don't pay for themselves.

If I have a good memory, I can keep your IP in my head - will you have the courts compel brain surgery against infringers to recover the stolen property?

No. Next question please. Seriously though, IP's value is like a leaky sieve. You can't prevent it from being copied informally like that, and it simply isn't worth it (for copyright holders or their customers) to enforce that high on the hyperbola.

If you make 1 million copies of your $0.99 song, do we tax your IP at a high rate, because you are now worth almost a million dollars?

I can see you didn't understand me the first time. The more copies you make, the less value your IP has. Copyright-holders basically exchange small chunks of their IP for cash. Every time they distribute a copy, they lose some control over distribution (another copy in the wild), and potential demand for the IP goes down with one less customer. On the flip side, they are compensated for that loss of value with money. That is, assuming people don't pirate the IP.

On the other hand, what about real, tangible property? Can we treat it similar to IP?

Yes, potentially. We could maintain IP of a builder on a property, as per your example. They could claim copyright on the design or the building, and retain some rights over duplication. Typically, that wouldn't happen though, because the market would basically demand that the builder sell their IP rights along with the finished product.

As long as people have independent thought, that is impossible, because when sharing an idea becomes morally repugnant, we will no longer be human.

An idea is not covered by any form of IP. Patents can prevent you from marketing a product using certain ideas (certainly not from conveying or expressing that idea), which someone else has worked hard to come up with and refine (in theory). Art is far more specific.

I wouldn't steal a car, but if I could give a car to someone that didn't have one simply by pulling it out of my ass at no cost to me, that seems like a really "moral" thing to do.

That's the problem, isn't it? It's no cost to you, but it has cost to the people who's livelihoods come from designing cars. Your analogy makes slightly more sense (from an economics perspective) if you replace "pulling it out of my ass" with "breaking into a factory and taking it".

Telling me it's wrong because [Big Corporation] should get something because *I* made a copy of a car just doesn't *feel* right.

And telling me that artists should work for free, regardless of their needs, feels wrong to me.

Re:Complete change of strategy

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The laws defining entitlement to physical property is the theoretical concept, physical possession or indisputable control over physical objects is indistinguishable from "ownership" without laws, a society that recognizes them, and enforcement. The necessity of "ownership" of physical objects begins with that our bodies are physical in nature and at least in need of physical support (food, shelter, clothing). Beyond basic physical needs we are in the realm of accumulating wealth. I would say that your claim that we would adjust the laws that govern physical property to be in-line with the rules that could conceivably be applied to non-physical goods is, at best, a straw-man, and at worst deliberately disingenuous.

You're quite astute, but not quite astute enough. I wasn't actually saying in that paragraph that we should adjust those laws because physical property is just as theoretical. I was saying that the theoretical nature of IP should not be a reason in itself to discount it, because physical property is equivalent in that criterion. I don't presume that that would be enough to make a vacuous argument in favour of IP.

Your argument is one of re-imposing the model of "scarce goods", which is not a good long-term strategy, as it is antithetical to the expansion of the ability of the human brain.

One would hope that with the expansion of the human brain would come other solutions to the marketability problem of art. Right now, all we have is one working system, a couple of highly experimental, barely tested systems, and a large group of people saying the system in place now is crap without any working system to compete with it. I'm not blindly devoted to traditional copyright models, I've just yet to see a system that works any better.

The alternative is draconian.

That's the future, this is now. We can drop copyright law just as easily later, when it becomes a hindrance, as we can now.

Imagine I had a photographic memory could I not recite, word for word the book I read, then sold? I could rewrite a copy of the book, in fact. Then what?

Then you could conceivably be sued for copyright infringement (but I doubt it'd fly). If you just had a word-perfect version in your memory, then good for you. No publisher would be so stupid as to try to sue someone for their thoughts.

You are also making the claim that life under a copyright-based regime is in some way more "moral" then what those file copiers are doing. I could not disagree more, I would say that obsessive control over the way in which ideas are spread and shared is fundamentally amoral.

Ya, so is possessiveness. You should be spreading your wealth as much as you can amongst the poor. Unfortunately, coding that into law means that there is no incentive to work for your possessions, since they'll be gone anyway. It's nice to give, but not nice to be forced to.

Of course, it is perfectly natural then to worry about how folks who traditionally made a living off of selling copies of things will make a living. Firstly, they will adapt. New, really smart folks will find ways to make money off of copies of things, so don't lose too much sleep over that.

If there is all that untapped potential, why haven't they come forward and tried their new ideas? What if the reason for that is that we actually don't currently have the potential to come up with replacements for copyright? What then? Do we just let art die?

The important point is that the future not only won't but has absolutely no obligation to maintain the status quo for "tradition" reasons.

At the same time, it not only won't but has absolutely no obligation to be forced to settle for something significantly worse than status quo.

If we cannot figure out how to realize the value of unfettered copying and wind up with the do

Re:Complete change of strategy

[kabloom]

Griffin says that in just the few weeks since Warner began working on this plan, the company has been approached by internet service providers 'who want to discharge their risk.' ISP's have no liability for copyright infringement, since they're a common carrier. If they think they're at risk now, then clearly the MAFIAA has repeated a lie loudly enough and intensely enough that people think it's the truth.

Re:Complete change of strategy

[Curunir_wolf]

So I guess you're ignoring my well-laid out explanation of why IP isn't particularly distinct from, and could feasibly be analogous to, physical property, and providing us with your own self-serving analogy.

It's not *my* analogy, as I said, it's Thomas Jefferson's, and one that he used when debating the copyrights and patents provisions of the US Constitution. The provisions that have been perverted to ridiculous proportions to support the greed of corporations that became rich by controlling the means of production that they can no longer control.

I wasn't ignoring your explanation - I was trying to point out why it doesn't make sense. Property is tangible. "IP" is a made-up term that the elite try to use to confuse property with government-sanctioned monopolies on reproduction of certain goods. They will never be the same, viewed the same, or treated the same, no matter how many times you try to confuse the issue by using the word "property" to describe these concepts.

If you do make that nigh value-less flame available to the public, you lose whatever profitability you may have been promised when you made it. So yes, you are deprived of value, just like regular stealing. It works better if you take a multimillion dollar movie instead of a flame, because multimillion dollar movies don't pay for themselves.

Not really, because it doesn't matter what was spent to make something, that doesn't give it value. You're never "promised" profitability - it's always a risk. You sound like you think because you put effort into something you should be able to demand something from society. It only has value based on the demand that the market will bear. There are plenty of multimillion dollar movies made that end up worth less than the studios paid for them. So even though they can spend the money, then make copies for $0.25 each, they still wasted their money because they can't find 20 million people that will pay $1 for the movie.

You can't prevent it from being copied informally like that, and it simply isn't worth it (for copyright holders or their customers) to enforce that high on the hyperbola.

But where do you draw the line, then? Think of a possible future where computing power and storage is so advanced that people can upload themselves into an artificial brain and live on after they die. Now they know lots of songs, and they "hear" songs and "see" movies right over the network. What's the difference? Where is the economic mechanism to prevent the sharing among sentient entities?

An idea is not covered by any form of IP. Patents can prevent you from marketing a product using certain ideas (certainly not from conveying or expressing that idea), which someone else has worked hard to come up with and refine (in theory). Art is far more specific.

Tell that to the patent trolls. Again, where is the line? And how do you enforce these laws? Death of the author plus 70 years? How long do we hold up progress so that corporations can reap profits?

Re:Complete change of strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't blame them for trying, they might have a good case. You don't seem to think so. That's a shame.

Why not make everyone RICHER instead of making musicians POORER?

Re:Complete change of strategy

[FrozenFOXX]

I second this. This is complete and total BULLSHIT. There are no if's, and's, or but's, it's JUST bullshit.
 

Re:Complete change of strategy

[English French Man]

Not really, because it doesn't matter what was spent to make something, that doesn't give it value. You're never "promised" profitability - it's always a risk. You sound like you think because you put effort into something you should be able to demand something from society. It only has value based on the demand that the market will bear. There are plenty of multimillion dollar movies made that end up worth less than the studios paid for them. So even though they can spend the money, then make copies for $0.25 each, they still wasted their money because they can't find 20 million people that will pay $1 for the movie.

I must disagree with that statement. Artwork have an intrinsic value because of the work of the artist, and we wouldn't have multimillion dollar movies, if said movies were to be free in high definition before hitting theatres, just because too few people would still be going to theatres. And I agree when you say that some movies are worth less than what the studio paid for them. But without IP, no movies would be worth the price paid...

But where do you draw the line, then?
[...]
Again, where is the line? And how do you enforce these laws? Death of the author plus 70 years? How long do we hold up progress so that corporations can reap profits?

Nobody said the laws were correctly chosen here; but this is the heart of the problem, where do you draw the line? How to enforce laws like that. How to make laws that protects the artists, encourages good art, without straining the consumer in a web of unreadable laws that everyone transgresses daily without a second thought.

The laws in this matter are not done properly, they are flawed almost everywhere, and need a complete intelligent rereading now that tools like internet exists. However, they're better than nothing in this matter... And the flawed design of the current business model and law system doesn't mean that it would be better without it. The whole system could be better, but this new collective licensing thing is IMHO a good thing, showing a positive evolution in the system.

Re:Complete change of strategy

[MacWiz]

Change of strategy? I think not.

500 million CDs at an $11 wholesale price = $5.5 billion
200 million internet users x $5 a month = $10.5 billion a year.

50 cents a month is much more reasonable.

Who gets paid? Unknown.
Basis for determining what was played? Unknown.
Level playing field? Doubtful.
Pay the songwriters? SoundExchange doesn't.

Rumsfeld would call those the "known unknowns".

Beyond that, the biggest problem for this enterprise is that it is now attached to Warner Music. Can they be trusted to work with the other labels to oversee a comprehensive digital library?

Wouldn't that be an antirust violation?

For a system, even as poorly described as the one in TFA, to function efficiently and fairly would require several things that not one of the four major record labels has ever demonstrated a capability to do:

1) Honest, transparent accounting -- Every major label is under perpetual audit by its artists. You have to schedule 2 years in advance to get a chance to see how bad they're screwing you.

A couple of years ago, Warner Music's annual report warned stockholders that they might have some problems because their royalty accounting might not fly under the Sarbane-Oxley Act.

2) Accurate statistics -- What the RIAA puts out as statistics each year is meaningless drivel, pumped up (or down) by fantasy "value" (no one pays the "manufacturers suggested retail price"). Neilsen SoundScan tracks sales of a "representative sample" of retail outlets and guesses at the rest. ASCAP has a team of listeners. What they hear is what gets paid.

And it's all a secret. Want to know how many new releases there were last year? That's gonna cost you about $125. How many copies of your last release were actually manufactured? Aw, gee. We forgot to keep track. They can tell you how many boxes they put on the truck, but anything that came before or after that brief moment in the sunlight is like the 7th Level of Scientology.

The entire music industry is based upon bogus statistics. They lie so much to each other that there is a cottage industry selling information back to the labels about their business.

3) Pay the artists -- Dave Marsh has said (paraphrasing) that the purpose of the music industry is (and has always been) to collect every dime possible for the use of music and give as little as possible to the artists who made it for them.

This is why all their numbers are bogus. They've never paid the artists. No logical reason to expect they'll start now.

------

Start with a monthly fee in the 25-50 cents range and the basic idea has potential. If such a thing is to be created, the purpose should be to support the "useful art" of music and provide incentive to those who would write and perform it. It's the kind of thing that the Internet Archive is set up for. Alternatively, drop the DRM and the 99 cent payment and the iTunes Music Store is a good starter database. I'd bet Apple can tell you exactly which songs were downloaded how many times.

Put it in the hands of a record company, or one of its subsidiaries, and it turns out the same as everything else they're involved with -- for exactly the $ame rea$on$.

There is no change in strategy. First, you scream "pirate!" Then you condemn it. Then you take it over or copy it, create access barriers, collect all the money and give as little as possible to the artists.

Nothing new here.

Re:Complete change of strategy

[MacWiz]

I would like to go beyond morely pointing out how bad this is and offer a more rational alternative.

http://www.azoz.com/newsarchive/2008dash03/RealPlan.html

Follow the "Discussion" link at the bottom of the page for a lengthy debate about the details.

Re:Complete change of strategy

[ultranova]

So of course the MAFIAA does not deserve to receive any of my hard earned money. What. The. Fuck. Are. They. Injecting. Into. Their. Veins.

It's not a matter of what they're injecting into their veins, it's a question of what they'll be injecting into you veins if you don't pay. Well, in civilized countries the penalty is imprisonment with no lethal injections, but this is the United States we're talking about.

Re:Complete change of strategy

[pennystinker]

You're quite astute, but not quite astute enough. I wasn't actually saying in that paragraph that we should adjust those laws because physical property is just as theoretical. I was saying that the theoretical nature of IP should not be a reason in itself to discount it, because physical property is equivalent in that criterion. I don't presume that that would be enough to make a vacuous argument in favour of IP.

So it's agreed then, you original argument was a straw man.

One would hope that with the expansion of the human brain would come other solutions to the marketability problem of art.

I see no current, nor future problem marketing art, regardless of the medium. Different media will impose different constraints on how you can market it, no problem.

Right now, all we have is one working system, a couple of highly experimental, barely tested systems, and a large group of people saying the system in place now is crap without any working system to compete with it.

This is another straw man: we have the status quo and the status quo is crap we need another system that can replace the status quo but otherwise be just like the status quo. Firstly, new business models not based on selling copies are emerging. FLOSS is already doing it, a number of musicians are figuring things out. This trend will continue. Saying that there is nothing to compete with it is hyperbole.

I'm not blindly devoted to traditional copyright models, I've just yet to see a system that works any better.

It is happening, RadioHead and Nine Inch Nails are doing rather well with their disintermediated copy selling. No, not everyone will be able to use the same approach as these guys, so what? Selling recordings of music for a living didn't happen until the technology came to be, and it changed the world, we're in another transition. It is happening, bit by bit, but adaptation takes time. There are still musicians out there who, given the chance, would outlaw computers because they can make copies of their recordings. The transition we are in the middle of is the end of days for the "recording artist". It is nobody's fault, but technology has been produced and adopted that undermines old business practices: boo hoo. We have absolutely no obligation to support business models that fail to adapt to new realities. As for "working better", well, that's a subjective measure I can't really address, but I feel rather confident that people will be able to figure out how to exploit the new technologies to make a buck. It is already happening.

That's the future, this is now. We can drop copyright law just as easily later, when it becomes a hindrance, as we can now.

One would expect that, if, new laws were to be written up on copyright that we should expect a reasonable shelf-life for them. If we have some degree of enlightenment on the subject of the nature of "copying" things right now, and that insight is clearly telling us that, at least as far as non-physical entities are concerned, our traditional views on copyright are simply wrong, or perversely misguided, then what is the justification that society sanction the capricious granting of monopoly rights (i.e. the copyright) to individuals who create works exclusively in the medium of "copying". It sounds like a pretty bad deal. If your argument is because we have people making money because of copyright, then you are explicitly asking society to subsidize a set of businesses by exchanging their ability to exploit the extended medium of mind and ideas (i.e.: computers, the Internet, various and growing number of interconnected electronic devices and people and all the emerging technologies that gets us closer and closer to having our minds "on-line") for "tradition's" sake. In short: why should I, or you, be so willing to sacrifice our ability to maximize the utility of the Internet and related and su

Re:Complete change of strategy

[gwait]

Not quite sure about your question - do you mean we should tax everyone, and then give everyone the tax dollars to make everyone richer?
It's interestingly close to the design of a perpetual motion machine, and probably violates some Law of financial thermodynamics.
Taxes above some limit, are known to have a net braking effect on the economy, and therefore tend towards making everyone poorer.
Yes we all collectively agree to build roads, hospitals, infrastructure, health care etc, and that's an acceptable drain on the pocket book.
A welfare system for Music Industry execs is not my idea of a good thing to spend tax dollars on.

(Note how the RIAA are not distributing their hundreds of millions in lawsuit winnings with the musicians they claim to be protecting).

Even limiting the debate to the scope of only the music industry,
should we pay all musicians equally from this new source of revenue?
Should the guy who is totally tone deaf who does covers of Yoko Ono be paid as much as a world class Jazz musician?
Since the government (or some industry group - by proxy) will be in charge of giving out the cash,
how do they decide who gets what?

I prefer a free market solution - if someone thinks your music/art/dog poop sculptures are of value, let them chose with their wallets.

I like the dream of Utopia. Being financially illiterate won't get us there.

Re:Complete change of strategy

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Property is tangible.

Property is not quite as tangible as you think. As I mentioned earlier on this thread, physical property is actually an abstract concept where things are attributed to you, regardless of physical situations. If someone takes your physical property, it actually remains your own physical property, which is contrary to the physical situation, where the other person has possession of it. Possession is tangible, property is not.

What about money? Is money tangible? Do you dispute our ownership of our bank balance? Do you think cash should be worth the ink and paper/plastic it's printed on? Property is not tangible, and therefore, no significant distinction lies between IP and physical property in that category.

They will never be the same, viewed the same, or treated the same, no matter how many times you try to confuse the issue by using the word "property" to describe these concepts.

Property is an abstract concept that we came up with a long time ago. It wasn't handed down from on high (unless you're religious), it was invented from nothing. We are the owners and sole keepers of the concept of property, and thus we can change it and expand it to suit our needs. I have shown that the concept of property and the concept of IP fit the same economic model. In fact, that is actually the point of IP: to fit the economic model of property. Now, you can say that IP shouldn't be property for some reason pertaining to its benefits/costs, but you can't really claim that it doesn't work with property. It does, and we could let it in, and until people provide compelling reasons why it shouldn't be let in, we will continue to think of it as property.

You're never "promised" profitability - it's always a risk.

Pardon me, I simplified confusingly. What I meant to say is that the artist is promised a correlation between popularity and profitability, should he price it well. There is always a risk that no-one will want the product. There shouldn't be risk of people taking it and not paying for it.

But where do you draw the line, then?

Where judges, juries, and common sense dictate. You are well on the other side currently.

And how do you enforce these laws? Death of the author plus 70 years?

That's another debate entirely. I have some ideas and some theories, but unless you insist, I'm not going to exacerbate this debate any further.

How long do we hold up progress so that corporations can reap profits?

It's not and never was about corporations reaping products. That's the very definition of a strawman.

Re:Complete change of strategy

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

So it's agreed then, you original argument was a straw man.

No, a strawman is designed to shift focus away from the issues at hand. It was a rebuttal to another strawman. It's not designed to convince you that IP must be incorporated into property law. If it was, it would be a strawman, but it's not. It was perfectly relevant and to the point, until you read it out of context.

I see no current, nor future problem marketing art, regardless of the medium. Different media will impose different constraints on how you can market it, no problem.

You really see no problem here? Ever heard of the problem of scarcity of art? Scarcity is a major cornerstone of modern economics, and art simply doesn't have it naturally. Without scarcity the only money comes from weak economic aberrations like charity, which while it may work acceptably for a while, it is not at all reliable and not particularly fair (i.e. representative of effort). It's a problem to which we have a solution: copyright. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. If you wish to replace copyright, you must replace it, not just throw it away, and hope something will step into its place.

This is another straw man: we have the status quo and the status quo is crap we need another system that can replace the status quo but otherwise be just like the status quo. Firstly, new business models not based on selling copies are emerging. FLOSS is already doing it, a number of musicians are figuring things out. This trend will continue. Saying that there is nothing to compete with it is hyperbole.

No, this is actually the very heart of the problem. Copyright is only here because we have yet to find something better. Now, copyright is actually damn good, in principle. We offer artists copyrights in exchange for creation. Those copyrights, so long as they are honoured by the community, have value, yet, at the same time, don't cost us anything. Their entire value is derived from the potential of the artist's work. Now, we don't actually force artists to accept copyrights; they can choose to give them up completely. Therefore (and this is the real beauty) any artist who would have created under a copyright-less system will still create, plus many more who need/want the money involved. Copyright, as a system, is actually highly competitive, and can easily be tested side-by-side with any other system.

Not only that, but the free market can actually be used to determine how copyrights are used. Artists can (and do) tap into the market for free(ish) media, and they can compete with all-rights-reserved media. Consumers can decide whether they want the locked down media or the free media, taking into account price, quality, convenience, etc. There's no need as of yet to codify this into law. It's already happening as you point out. Most FOSS licenses (only exception being BSD-style licenses that don't require crediting of the original author) require copyright, but they don't retain all rights. FOSS has proven that even if it can't quite get to the pinnacle of certain software markets, they can still make damn good software, for free. Copyrights can still exist, but the market could potentially determine that reserving software rights is no longer profitable. Similarly with music. Only when we find a way to market all forms and all potential forms of art, while committing them instantly to the public domain, can we replace copyright. It's not the current copyright holder's responsibility to adapt if you want free, illegal, access to their works, it's your responsibility to come up with a better system.

It is nobody's fault, but technology has been produced and adopted that undermines old business practices: boo hoo. We have absolutely no obligation to support business models that fail to adapt to new realities.

It's the pirates' fault for using the technology illegally, and you have an obligation to obey the law. If you don't like the

Re:Complete change of strategy

[freezingweasel]

> Maybe we're obsessed with this idea of the small musician being able to make it big,

I'd be curious to know what the odds are of hitting it big by sending CDs to the music companies, hoping you'll get noticed and then hoping someone will actually care vs spreading random oddball memes around the net. (ie making WOW videos or AMVs with your own songs, Eepy bird / diet coke & mentos making Audio Body known etc. Sadly many devoted musicians have probably been outsold by the Hamsterdance CDs.

Re:Complete change of strategy

[pennystinker]

No, a strawman is designed to shift focus away from the issues at hand

Not to be too picky, but you are referring to a diversion. Feel free to look up strawman argument, but typically is means proposing an argument that is counter to the position held, one you expect to be cut down, like a "straw man" in battle.

Based on your response to my clarification on what was the actual theoretical component of "physical ownership" you seemed rather clear that you were not actually proposing ownership as you originally presented. I think that it is clear from your response that we are actually saying the same thing. Ownership, as you were proposing is a manifestation of a set of theoretical concepts called "laws" and a society that can be either complicit with those laws and/or can be compelled via some form of enforcement to obey these laws.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see anything we need to be discussing regarding this point.

You really see no problem here? Ever heard of the problem of scarcity of art? Scarcity is a major cornerstone of modern economics, and art simply doesn't have it naturally. Without scarcity the only money comes from weak economic aberrations like charity, which while it may work acceptably for a while, it is not at all reliable and not particularly fair (i.e. representative of effort). It's a problem to which we have a solution: copyright. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. If you wish to replace copyright, you must replace it, not just throw it away, and hope something will step into its place.

No, I really see no problem. As far as I can tell, there are scarce resources (people) creating art in multiple media. Some of those media retain the scarcity of their creations (statues, paintings, carvings, installations, books, performances, feel free to add to this), and others can produce or share the products of their work in media that offers no intrinsic limit on the number of copies that can be produced of the work (digital recordings, software, images, movies, etc.) The different media obey different laws. Physical media obeys physical laws, the "Copying" media does not. In both case there are opportunities to be exploited to profit.

As far as fairness, I must take a rather large amount of offense with your contrived protection of entitlements to these "artists" you seem to be representing. Personally, I get paid for my time, most people do. I see no, absolutely none (mind you I USED to think otherwise), justification as to why somebody who produces something copyable is entitle to anything more than payment for their time. Now, feel free to call me an idiot for not exploiting the copyright system to seek my fortunes, but as I have already said: copyright is a contrivance (sure go ahead say all law is a contrivance, that is sure to lead to a far more insightful discussion), it is not a "natural" law based on ability of the individual. It is a particular business model hard-coded into various government documents. You may say that this is a fair-deal agreement to promote the production of more works that can be copyrighted, I beg to differ. In the end we are not going to agree on this. Your other points about "value of copyright" and "it's the only way that works" and so forth I have heard ad-nauseum. I very much used to believe the same arguments, but they simply do not ring true. As far as the proposition that I, or anyone else, need be compelled to replace copyright with something else we can call copyright is simply not true. It certainly is possible (I'm not saying probable) to simply dissolve copyright. If you'd like to see discussion that is more in-depth on this particular issue you should visit the "Question Copyright" web site. It is often described on that site that whatever new law becomes the "replacement" of copyright would support the notion of sharing so profoundly as to require that the law not be referred to as a copyright law. Also, that is

Re:Complete change of strategy

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see anything we need to be discussing regarding this point.

I won't.

No, I really see no problem. As far as I can tell, there are scarce resources (people) creating art in multiple media. Some of those media retain the scarcity of their creations (statues, paintings, carvings, installations, books, performances, feel free to add to this), and others can produce or share the products of their work in media that offers no intrinsic limit on the number of copies that can be produced of the work (digital recordings, software, images, movies, etc.) The different media obey different laws. Physical media obeys physical laws, the "Copying" media does not. In both case there are opportunities to be exploited to profit.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. You seem to be breaking down the problem successfully, but there's crucial analysis missing. Why isn't the non-obedience of "copying" media to "physical laws" a problem? Is it your opinion that because we have so many scarce art forms, there is not enough of a problem with the lack of scarcity of art to justify copyright?

If so, I'd like to point out that all the art media you pointed out (and all the art media you didn't) have both a physical component and an intellectual component in varying proportions. The greater the physical component and the higher the overhead cost of copying, the less it needs copyright protection. At the same time, there is less need for taking them out of copyright, because it's just as hard to make a legitimate copy. A statue, for example, often takes significant raw materials to recreate, plus it requires a skilled hand and lots of time to copy, or at least a prohibitively expensive machine. There's very, very little statue piracy in the world because of that fact. But what exactly is copyright doing wrong then? There's no lawsuits, no snooping of private communication, no potential for a public domain of any significant value. Compare this with a DVD which the physical aspect costs less than a dollar, but the intellectual aspect could cost hundreds of millions of dollars. There, copyright is solving a problem, if you accept that artists deserve money for their work. However, at the same time, that's where copyright's most controversial aspects are concentrated. If you get rid of copyright, there'll be very little change in the statue trade, good or bad, but there'll be huge change in the movie trade, which will be very bad.

As far as fairness, I must take a rather large amount of offense with your contrived protection of entitlements to these "artists" you seem to be representing. Personally, I get paid for my time, most people do. I see no, absolutely none (mind you I USED to think otherwise), justification as to why somebody who produces something copyable is entitle to anything more than payment for their time.

I believe they are entitled to fair payment. By fair, I mean an amount of money that is of the same proportion to demand as any other business. If the money drips in bit by bit, or if they're paid upfront for their time, I don't give a shit. So long as they get their fair amount, I'm happy. I would be slightly upset if we were to remove the ability to enforce licenses like the GPL, but I could certainly live with it. The problem is that the drip method is simply the best we have so far. The free market has spoken.

copyright is a contrivance

All law is a contrivance. Some have been around longer than others, and some are easier to enforce than others, but they all are arbitrary rules we set for ourselves. They don't mirror some divine constant of morality, fairness, or justice, they're just to help us survive and survive relatively comfortably. It is indeed human nature to break copyright, but it's also human nature to break all laws. That's why we have them; if no-one wanted to break them, we wouldn't need them. For some of the o

Re:Complete change of strategy

[LuYu]

You play devil's advocate, for your opinion is neither moral nor would be beneficial to people.

Perhaps I was too hasty in judging your username. However, the suggestion that my position is immoral is incorrect. Society and artists got along without copyright for the last 10,000 years of civilization and before that for the 2 million years of human occupation of this planet. Copyright is neither necessary nor even provably beneficial to human creativity.

As if that were not enough, the internet has demonstrated time and time again that people can and will be very creative for non-fiduciary reasons. People spend hours composing garbage email messages for their friends to (not) read. Wikipedia has arguably created a resource more useful and of higher quality than the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In Japan, there is an entire genre of fiction composed on phones the authors of which had no intention to publish professionally until the publishers contacted them. In 2007, one of those books was the number one book of the year. We are talking about a book composed by a high school student that wanted to impress her friends (of course, it was her parents that were impressed in the end). People here on Slashdot spend hours writing posts on every subject available. Why? They do it because they can. Not for money -- which is the only thing copyright is about.

My position is neither immoral nor harmful (unless you happen to be one of those fat cat record industry execs cashing million dollar checks generated by artists working at McDonald's and Starbucks). In fact, defending copyright is immoral. Copyright is both an anti-free market monopoly and (as currently implemented) a constraint on Free Speech (how can speech be free if it is "owned"). Free Speech is necessary for both democracy and Freedom. Copyright is a prerequisite for neither. So, whose point of view is moral?

If you really have the "good of everyone in mind", you should consider changing your view. Copyright is a relic of feudalism. It is something that monarchs granted to their subjects (which is a polite word for slaves).

It could be considered property if we so wish. If you take a picnic you take the value of a picnic table and add it to your own by taking it from the owner. You could feasibly take a leg of the picnic table, and take a portion of that picnic table's worth.

My argument was about getting the idea of using a picnic table from you and buying my own -- not taking your picnic table. Copyrighted material is not property, so your argument is irrelevant. Even if I give in and argue this point, the reasoning is so flawed that its useless. Would you notice the leg was missing? Would the table even stand? Could I then balance my hamburgers on the leg? Or would someone have to sit on it? This is why information cannot be "property". These realspace arguments are irrational when applied to the inexhaustible resource of information (something that can be reproduced infinitely without reducing or degrading anybody else's supply). Even copyright is tied to copies. The reason for this is that tangible things can be regulated, and ideas cannot. If we start regulating ideas, welcome to 1984 and the Thought Police.

When you copy an artwork . . ., you don't steal from the owner of the original copy, you steal from the copyright holder.

You cannot "steal" a copyrighted work. Stealing or theft requires that the owner be deprived of what he once had without his permission. Copying lacks that essential element of taking something away. If I make a million copies of something, all the other owners still have their copies and so has the copyright owner. When you buy a book, do you own it? Or does the copyright holder "own" it? If the copyright holder "owns" it, why can he no

Re:Complete change of strategy

[utopianfiat]

and neither is repeating "come on" and "fuck that shit"

No, but it did get me a 5, Insightful :)

Who Says I wanna buy your crap?

[DigitalisAkujin]

So now instead of me having the choice of walking into a store and buying a CD I'm forced to?

Who says that just because I use the Internet I ever listen to your music?

Get out of my fucking wallet!

Re:Who Says I wanna buy your crap?

[Stripe7]

I have 10 CD's I listen to. I have have purchased them over the last 10 years. I do not listen to anything else on radio or cable on demand. Why should I have to pay this tax?

Re:Who Says I wanna buy your crap?

[earlymon]

Right on.

And from TFA:

"We're still clinging to the vine of music as a product," Griffin says, calling the industry's plight "Tarzan" economics.

"But we're swinging toward the vine of music as a service. We need to get ready to let go and grab the next vine, which is a pool of money and a fair way to split it up, rather than controlling the quantity and destiny of sound recordings." Pardon me for likening these guys to howler monkeys, but - Tarzan Economics?!?!?

Re:Who Says I wanna buy your crap?

[Gideon Fubar]

There is no way this service could work except as an opt-in, and then it'd have to be at consumer level, not ISP level.

as many have pointed out, there's no reason for a person who never downloads music to be indemnified against music piracy. Of course, the delusional belief that everyone consumes their product (and therefore should pay more for not paying them enough already, a cogent syllogism if ever i did hear one..) is the real problem with the record industry, and i doubt even implementing this system properly will change that.

Re:Who Says I wanna buy your crap?

[QuantumG]

Yeah, I just don't get how they think they're so important when they're barely a $10 billion market (from the article). The self storage industry is $18 billion.. you don't see them clamoring for their own tax, or their own laws.

Re:Who Says I wanna buy your crap?

[wizardforce]

you have a very good point and it illustrates a huge problem with the idea, well actually several: why should those who don't listen to those bands have to pay? >> which leads to the idea of an opt-in system- certain $ amount/month in exchange for exemption from any legal consequences from downloading pretty much any music you want with the earnings being distributed accordingly. but by that system there isn't a need to involve the ISPs at all in fact wtf were they thinking trying a blanket system!!? why couldn't the music companies have set up a service like this by themselves? well they could if they wanted, it's just lazier to get everyone to pay rather than going to the trouble of only charging those who use the service.

Re:Who Says I wanna buy your crap?

[routerl]

I get the impression that whether users can opt out of this fee is up to ISPs. By providing the service (i.e. access to Warner's music library), the ISPs are just making themselves not liable to prosecution over copyright infringement (i.e. copying music). This puts the legal burden of the infringement on the user, where it should be, such that ISPs cannot be pushed around by content creation companies (e.g. Warner). Again, users should be able to opt out of paying the fee if they don't plan on downloading Warner's music (legally).

Nobody is trying to break into your fucking wallet.

Re:Who Says I wanna buy your crap?

[arkane1234]

Either way the ISP is going to be the one handing over the user's information to a court case, it doesn't do anything to keep them out of it. Also, either way the ISP is not doing the downloading of copyright material and any legality against them is just something to frighten and not go through.

Re:Who Says I wanna buy your crap?

[Anonymous Coward]

One more reason America needs a revolution.To finally get rid of companies/politicians that use anything and everything to line their pockets while hurting the average person.

If anything this will tempt more and more people to start pirating.

Sure, go with the ad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Lord knows everyone here will figure out a way to get rid of them and still get all the free stuff they want.

First they came for my mp3s..

[LiquidCoooled]

First they came for my mp3s, but I did not download those, so I did nothing.

Then they came for my tv shows, but I did not download those, so I did nothing.

Then they came for my porn and I was sunk :(

Gurgles

[Anonymous Coward]

of an already dead business model. Fight this bullshit to the very end!

what about TV?

[aleph42]

You do realise that you already do that when watching TV, right?

Because the flat tax you pay for it and that helps fun programs is exactly the same as this one (okay, more advertisement contributes to it, and it's not only for music; but still).

Would you consider that forced buying?

Re:what about TV?

[IgLou]

But why should people who are not accessing the content or paying for the content through something like iTunes have to pay any kind of tax?

In my mind this is no better than extorting ISPs.
Why not address the problem by capping upload limits from customers? I remember my ISP taking people down for hosting websites on their home computer. I can't see that being different.

Re:what about TV?

[ScrewMaster]

You must be from England. There's no flat tax to pay for TV programming here in the U.S. ... most television programs are advertiser-supported, except those that are produced by cable outfits like HBO and Showtime.

Re:what about TV?

[Grave]

The money you pay for cable/satellite TV is almost entirely to support the infrastructure, not the actual television studios, whereas the money you pay for a DVD box set goes back to the studio. However, when you pay for that TV service, you are doing so because you intend to watch television; hence, the studios do get a certain cut of revenue from that paid service. When you pay for internet service, you may intend to listen to music through it, but that is hardly the only (or primary) reason that people get internet service.

The only way I can see a system like this working is if the ISPs and media companies all become a single entity. Hence, you will pay that $250/mo for unlimited* access to television, radio, music, movies, etc delivered through your internet connection.

* Let's not be naive.. such a theoretical monopoly would result in severe limits on what you could get for such a "low" price. They'd probably restrict you to 1GB/mo of "media" traffic unless you upgrade to the $5000/mo plan.

Re:what about TV?

[aleph42]

Okay, I was afraid of making that mistake; (and actually I'm from France, where the tax exists).

Still, here I don't see people complaining about that flat fee just because they don't watch all channels, or because they don't watch them all the time. And of course that's in part because that tax is pretty low, just as the music fee could be (for example, if it was the avarage money spent spent by customer on music per month, or even better, the avarage actually given to artist; plus probably some money for marketing).

Maybe a better example would be Disneyland: you pay to enter, and that pays for the haunted mansion, even if you never go there.

Or a second example: buying a swiss army knife with a can openner, even if you never use it. Of course from your point of veiw it would be logical not to get a can openner, but as a global system it is more economic to "force" everyone to get the can opener, so that price get lower by volume.

Of course this doesn't solve the problem of deciding what artist gets what amount of that money, but it still is a system that economicaly makes sense; charging 99cents on itune for every song does not.

Re:what about TV?

[mdmkolbe]

Maybe a better example would be Disneyland: you pay to enter, and that pays for the haunted mansion, even if you never go there.

This is an example of bundling (i.e. you always have to buy "a" and "b" together). Economically bundling always favors the seller giving them more power and money (the reasons are to complicated to explain here; look it up in an Econ book). It is not illegal, but it can really disadvantage the buyer and when the seller is running a de facto monopoly (as most non-metropolitan, US, broadband ISPs are) they could be hauled up on anti-trust allegations.

For example, most people wouldn't object to the grocery store bundling batteries with their flashlights, but if the water company required you to buy a car with your water service then people would squeal. Here it is all shades of gray depending on how related the items being bundled are and whether the buyer has alternative to buying the bundled items. Personally I think this steps across the line. For me the internet is a utility and I really don't want it to be bundled (e.g. the AOL portal model) with things that I have no intention of using. After all who is to say there shouldn't also be a Slashdot tax on ISPs to pay for running the Slashdot site.

Re:what about TV?

[poetmatt]

So, not to be ad hominem, but lets use your own analogy.

The difference here is between choosing to go to Disneyland (and pay it or not), and being forced to pay for Disneyland. It's not a question of where the money goes, its whether you have the choice of how to spend it. The system doesn't work because the cost will be passed to the consumer, not the ones tossing aside their liability. Additionally, what does this do for non-label artists? There are issues on both sides of the table and why this doesn't work.

Or analogy two: Your choice to buy the swiss army knife or not, are you saying that you should just pay the fee for it, or you can choose to buy it? That is the bigger deal here. It's not where the magic marketing numbers are (which are shown that most people don't click advertising)

I hate to say it, but I would be seriously offended by a "pay for being a criminal" type subscription charge for the reasons above, what it implies, and all it is doing is degrading service. I really hate to support big business but by increasing the cost for the same service that is the same thing as degrading it due to lack of efficiency. Sometimes this happens naturally but artificially like this is just lining MPAA/RIAA/IFPI pockets at the simultaneous expense of every consumer who is legitimately or not using a service.

May as well just label it a "profit charge" and put that into your service bill for anything...except for the reality of just how much backlash that would create. Or maybe they'll try to get it passed by calling it "opt-out" or some garbage.

There are plenty of articles out there about ad revenue, associating things like "just because you watch TV" = money in a media associates pocket are unaccurate as far as ad revenue. Unless someone explicitly provides you a way to track a sale back to a TV ad, you can't really associate a sales increase from strictly an ad (especially if there is more than 1 source of adds, and even with fairly stable business). Reason here is that markets are volatile, and sales is just as volatile. People can change on the drop of a hat, because the sky is blue today, etc in the same way that a stock does. http://techdirt.com/articles/20060504/1941211.shtml provides a decent example of that.

Re:what about TV?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually people complain about having to pay for all the channels all the time. There are laws proposed from time to time to force cable companies to sell individual channels.

Re:what about TV?

[hedwards]

Okay, I was afraid of making that mistake; (and actually I'm from France, where the tax exists). Technically speaking both you and the GP are correct.

We don't have a tax on TV the way that you or the British do, but some tax money is spent on PBS. And there are some taxes on TV which are used primarily to deal with access issues. Such as paying for the right of way for the cables. There was a court case around here by the cable cos., to try and force satellite providers to pay it, but I think that the satellite providers won.

And to some extent there is bickering over that from time to time because of the often progressive nature of public television.

Re:what about TV?

[pavera]

The big difference between an "internet content tax" and the television taxes you guys have over across the pond is that there are hundreds of types of media that are accessible through the internet.

If this were put in place, it would be less than a week before the ISP bill had hundreds of additional charges:
Music Fee $5
Movie Fee $10.50
TV Fee $7
News Fee $12.32
Voice Transmission Fee $3
Software Fee $15
Slashdot Fee $3
Google Fee $6
Photo Fee $5
Book Fee $8

etc, etc, etc, every single industry that has piracy exposure, or distributes anything online would get in on this racket ASAP, and it would suddenly cost $500/mo to get a simple internet connection. Whether you used any of the above services or not.

Personally, I do not download music, I do not listen to any music except for the music I purchased on CDs. I haven't purchased a new CD in nearly 8 years as nothing that has come out has made me the least bit interested. I detest the music industry, and I refuse to give them a dime. If they manage to push this through, I would be forced against my will to give these evil bastards my hard earned money.

Re:what about TV?

[Martin Blank]

Still, here I don't see people complaining about that flat fee just because they don't watch all channels, or because they don't watch them all the time.

Actually, there are people that complain about it. Why should my money to the cable company be supporting the Tagalog-, Vietnamese-, and Chinese-language stations when I not only don't turn to them, but actively remove them from my channel line-up? Why should I be paying for Oxygen or Lifetime if I never watch them? One of the FCC commissioners actually does want to see a la carte programming options so that consumers pay for only that which they want, not subsidizing channels that have total viewerships measured in the tens of thousands -- or less.

Re:what about TV?

[CSMatt]

If he's getting cable Internet access and doesn't watch cable TV at all, then yes. Most cable providers force you to get their TV service if you want their Internet service.

Re:what about TV?

[CSMatt]

But if it's cable TV, then you do pay directly to the networks. Look at your cable bill when it comes in the mail. It should say "Copyright Fee" or something similar that indicates that a small percentage of your bill goes to the networks directly. It's why I don't get cable: my money shouldn't be supporting networks I don't watch.

Re:what about TV?

[definate]

Maybe a better example would be you walk into a shopping mall, but you don't buy anything, but just because you walked into the mall you have to pay for it just in case you stole something, however if you do want to buy something, then you need to pay again.

That's a more accurate description of what is happening.

Re:what about TV?

[CSMatt]

Well, Time Warner and Comcast are already both ISPs and media companies, so that isn't as far fetched as it might sound.

Re:what about TV?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't watch TV. Moron. There are these things called "books" that if you don't read them you don't have to pay for them.

Anyone so stupid as to be unaware that lots of people don't watch TV is too stupid to have their opinion taken seriously in a public debate.

Re:what about TV?

[poetmatt]

ahh Matt, you usually have some good info for me as always. /salute

I don't actually get cable, I happen to live in a place where it's provided but its complementary (and I don't watch TV for the most part anyway). I could see how what you say would tie to the OP's comment, but applying that to basically "internet" seems to be quite a stretch. I understand the difference with radio in that argument.

Re:what about TV?

[CSMatt]

I don't want to see this implemented. I'd much rather see business models that don't depend on distribution control but also don't rely on mandatory payment by everybody - especially non-consumers.

Re:what about TV?

[aleph42]

I know all about bundling, and I hate that PC manufacturers bundle windows with PC.

But saying "bundling always favors the seller giving them more power and money" is not true; for example, you can see cars as a huge bundle of tires, motor, etc; but it actually serves the consumer that it is bundled, because the economical impact of scaling is so big that cars can be made much cheaper than the sum of their gears.

Bundling sometimes translates a reallity about the production and distribution costs to the consumers.

Why does swiss army knife bundle some functions? Because if you add up the cost and difficulties of entirely customzing knives, it does not compensate the savings made by removing the can opener.

Why do I think that this internet license makes sense? Because the cost and difficulies of knowing what every internet user downloads is so high, it's just not doable (part of the cost: I would be protesting in the street if it was the case).

And since the (real) price of music wouldn't be that high, and since few people are interested neither in music, nor in film, video-games, books or any information-related product, I do think that it cold be a good idea.

And no, I don't imply that **AAs have or right to stay on the loop.

As for the repartition of money to artists, why wouldn't statistics work? That's what they do for the radio, IIRC. Get an approximate idea of how much download each artist got, an split the money. Pirate bay statisics or something like that.

Re:what about TV?

[peipas]

Call me flamebait, but this is fucking ridiculous. So you're saying you shouldn't be paying for a service if it's not in its first degree serving you? For example, if you live a few blocks from your workplace, you should not have to pay taxes for a transit system? We are living in a society. The thing to understand is if people start paying a tax for something then they will no longer buy it, and those in the commercial sector realize this if they are considering it. It is more profitable to collect from all than some. How many roads do you think we would have if only those who used them paid?

And for fuck's sake, if you don't listen to music ever, it is the same as a bicyclist who never uses the interstate. And it's fine, but it's not an excuse for avoiding taxes. But honestly, it is an industry adapting. Are you saying it is unreasonable for them to adapt? Music is important to society at large. If you're upset about this, do you have unlimited funds for paying for your content repeatedly? If so, I commend your success.

Re:what about TV?

[Wildclaw]

But saying "bundling always favors the seller giving them more power and money" is not true; for example, you can see cars as a huge bundle of tires, motor, etc; but it actually serves the consumer that it is bundled, because the economical impact of scaling is so big that cars can be made much cheaper than the sum of their gears. Compared to an equivalent big company that deliveries those parts in pieces? The only reason such a company doesn't exist, is because what the consumers are buying isn't the bundled parts, but the construction of a car

Why do I think that this internet license makes sense? Because the cost and difficulies of knowing what every internet user downloads is so high, it's just not doable (part of the cost: I would be protesting in the street if it was the case). But the problem starts right there. If you don't know what each internet user downloads, you can't accuratly divide the money among those who deserve them. It would probably hugely favor those who sell the most via traditional stores and show up in the statistics, while very much hurting those who rely on distribution via the internet.

Re:what about TV?

[felipekk]

Only you forgot that for most of those services, there are other easy ways to generate revenue, and most of them DON'T apply to music. No, I don't want to listen to advertisements while listening some good music!

Re:what about TV?

[sconeu]

For example, if you live a few blocks from your workplace, you should not have to pay taxes for a transit system?

I see. So I have to pay money to a *PRIVATE ENTITY* to protect their profit model, even though I choose not to purchase their product? There's a difference between a transit system, created by the people's elected representatives, for the public good; and this "we want a money tree" mentality of the RIAA.

Re:what about TV?

[peipas]

Is the RIAA imposing the fees? Absolutely not. The ISPs are, which mandates some oversight. What you're suggesting is tantamount to saying that the road shouldn't be built because you're feeding money directly to *XYZ CONSTRUCTION ENTITY*.

Re:what about TV?

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast is NOT a media company.

Re:what about TV?

[slawo]

I don't see the point in your comment.
You compare a state critical utility with a private product/commodity.
I invite you to look for the role of transport channels in your society, then think about it, and finally learn to make a difference between critical infrastructures and leisure products.

Until now the internet does not allow moving raw materials, goods or people. If you don't maintain roads you slowdown your production and distribution, you encourage congestions and further slowdowns, basically you kill your economy.

Even if you live at your work place you need your food, clothes, computers, paper, and other goods produced, processed, and delivered... I doubt you buy food from your neighbors garden.
All you use and consume on a daily basis is transported.

On the other hand racketing the population because you believe your life shouldn't change is typical of any failed state. The music industry failed to provide its services through an extremely efficient and popular medium and now pays the consequences.
The internet in the northern america is slow and unadapted... a contention rate of 100:1 is irrational on a 10 Mbps line. In Canada there is nearly no Broadband, most traffic is caped so when you need to download your DB from work or your Debian DVDs you have to suffer being last in line, on a 100:1 line there are 99 people surfing the web who take precedence on you. Basically you pay an irrationally high price for a 12 Mbps connection and get less than 0.1Mbps.

Adding additional charges to the primitive and unadapted infrastructure will only slowdown the adoption of the internet, and slowdown the associated economy (the internet is a transport channel).

The music industry had its chance but ignored it... Apple made the move (with unadapted pricing but this is another problem). There is no reason to keep an obsolete infrastructure alive at the expense of the rest of the current and future economy.

A much more adapted analogy would be: Let's create an additional VAT tax in all capitalist countries to give some money to communism because it failed on its own.

Re:what about TV?

[Anonymous Coward]

The television license in France is used to pay for public not private broadcasters.

Re:what about TV?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

On the other hand, you have the opportunity to grab whatever you want and not face any legal/moral repercussions.

Re:what about TV?

[aleph42]

But saying "bundling always favors the seller giving them more power and money" is not true; for example, you can see cars as a huge bundle of tires, motor, etc; but it actually serves the consumer that it is bundled, because the economical impact of scaling is so big that cars can be made much cheaper than the sum of their gears. Compared to an equivalent big company that deliveries those parts in pieces? The only reason such a company doesn't exist, is because what the consumers are buying isn't the bundled parts, but the construction of a car If you were buying the construction of the car, the sum of the price of the pieces would be a lot cheaper than the price of the car (and you can buy them. They're just expensive). Why is it the contrary? Because there is a cost associated to distributing a thousand different pieces, which is significantly bigger than selling the same number of complete cars (overstock problem, for one). (there are other reason, but this one exists and I think it is the biggest; in thcase of coputers, it is not the case)

Why do I think that this internet license makes sense? Because the cost and difficulies of knowing what every internet user downloads is so high, it's just not doable (part of the cost: I would be protesting in the street if it was the case). But the problem starts right there. If you don't know what each internet user downloads, you can't accuratly divide the money among those who deserve them. It would probably hugely favor those who sell the most via traditional stores and show up in the statistics, while very much hurting those who rely on distribution via the internet. ???
You don't speak at all about my suggestion of using piratebay statistics or the like; maybe you've missed it? Or maybe you are referring to the tax on blank media, where of course piratebay statistics are not useable (they were thinking about copies from CD to CD).

By the way, using statistics is how they repay royalies from the radio IIRC. Of course, the radio system is flawed by the fact that someone decides what music get on the radio or not, but you don't have that problem on the internet. The way I see it, any torrent site or emule-like software would be added to the statistics if he provided them; then you add a control organism to check that they don't lie, with IRS-style surprise inspection. That would be as good as any public institution (like the IRS), and fair for the artists as far as I can see.

Re:what about TV?

[slawo]

The money from the TV Tax in France is used to maintain an independent set of public channels. I agree that that quality of the programs is not perfect but it's still much better than most of the cable channels I have in North America. The news are much better, provide a better world coverage and are more balanced than in the US. And you don't have so many useless commercials (In the US you pay for commercials with some content interrupting the flow from time to time).

These public channels provide all the basic and minimum information and entertainment that is required by an educated population and expected from a strong public system.

On the other hand policing artificial taxes to keep obsolete companies alive is certainly not what you expect from any strong government. It's like making you pay an additional tax to keep at least 1 horse for 10 citizens because that was the proportion of horses used before the automobile.

Well, reality check: since the invention of the engine horses became a niche market for horse riders and collectors. It would be scandalous to make everyone pay to just keep the horse market artificially alive. The same applies to all the impacted industries which have not taken the opportunity the internet provides.

Maybe a better example would be Disneyland: you pay to enter, and that pays for the haunted mansion, even if you never go there. Yes you pay for the package you buy... But the cost is balanced: an average customer will use x attractions, so you pay for x +-(aimed profit margin) unsuccessful attractions are removed the most successful ones stay. Also you don't pay an additional tax on your ticket for the Roller coaster Association of America because Disneyland provides better family attractions than the 6 flags

buying a swiss army knife with a can openner, even if you never use it. This has nothing to do. The Victorinox company creates products designed to be multi functional. The Swiss army requires some of the tools and other people/geeks/punters who always find a need for it. If you are not interested by the features you can buy an Opinel, these are good enough knives.
Having to pay a tax for a failed business model doesn't provide any additional functionality to my internet connection, it just hurts the consumer, the independent artists and the internet economy in general.

If you believe the music industry should get money for failing to use the internet as a distribution channel you create a situation where you reward laziness and inactivity. You discourage innovation and risk taking. You slowdown adoption rate of the internet and at the same time the resulting business and services growth.
Even worst you create a precedent where anyone can claim rights to a tax on your internet connection. The post office and UPS for loss of profit because people stop using mail and now switched to e-mails, the publication industry because people prefer to surf the news and read documentations online instead of buying paper publications... Lazy people get very dishonest when big money is involved... and 20 billion $ is big enough for the big 4.

And if you really want to pay the artists for their music buy directly from them, look for fair music sites. Most important go to their concerts... At least you really get what the artist does and you can buy as much merchandising as you like afterwards...

Re:what about TV?

[kaizokuace]

thats like going to a pick-a-part. You gotta pay like 2 to 5 bux to get in regardless of pulling parts. And then pay for parts on top of that.

Re:what about TV?

[definate]

You think? You reckon companies which don't receive revenues from this deal are not going to try and sue you/your ISP?

There never were any moral repercussions, supply a product at a competitive price, and people will pay for it. If you don't someone will copy your work and will supply it for a competitive price.

Re:what about TV?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

You think? You reckon companies which don't receive revenues from this deal are not going to try and sue you/your ISP?

Isn't that the point of collective licensing?

There never were any moral repercussions, supply a product at a competitive price, and people will pay for it. If you don't someone will copy your work and will supply it for a competitive price.

However, taking whatever you want from shop windows (as in the analogy of the GP), does have both legal and moral repercussions.

Re:what about TV?

[FictionPimp]

Even if the music industry was not a private company (and not a public service), the fact remains that 99% of the music out there does no public service (unlike a transit system). In fact, if some "musicians" died in a fire, the world would be a better place. Unless you can explain to me the value of Lil John, the current generation of sound a like rock music, etc. You want to fund music with my tax dollars? Fine. Lets fund real creative music. Not this crap the industry pumps out to disaffected youth.

Re:what about TV?

[FictionPimp]

Think about this. What incentive would there be to actually produce music. If this tax is out there, I can download all I want for 'free'. Because I'm paying for that right. Thus the record industry will only get money from me via that tax. They have no incentive to produce anything I actually like. No matter what they produce, or even if anyone listens to it, they get paid. The quality of music would degrade even further. Why would anyone with an internet connection buy music again?

Re:what about TV?

[Wildclaw]

If you were buying the construction of the car, the sum of the price of the pieces would be a lot cheaper than the price of the car (and you can buy them. They're just expensive). Why is it the contrary? Because there is a cost associated to distributing a thousand different pieces, which is significantly bigger than selling the same number of complete cars (overstock problem, for one). (there are other reason, but this one exists and I think it is the biggest; in thcase of coputers, it is not the case) True.

You don't speak at all about my suggestion of using piratebay statistics or the like; maybe you've missed it? O Doh. I miseed it. :)

However, in the end it comes back to the fact that statistics are very good at lying. Your suggestions of IRS style inspections are interesting, but that fails to account that the internet isn't a single country. What if most of your population are using services that are located in other countries? As there are a lot of countries, there is a fairly good chance that is the case. Not to mention, that if something like that happened, you would have bot nets and dedicated servers as well as fans that just downloaded things so they could increase the statistics.

If you want to do something like that, it is probably just as easy to just monitor the downloads of your own population, or you could let the user select which things he wants to sponsor with the "tax". I prefer the last one as it is far closer to a free market. You could even create software that helped a user keep track of things he watch so he could allocate as he feels is fair.

There is also the problem with different pricings. If businesses gets money dependent on how many download or watchings of something, you will basically get businesses that will try to optimize creation cost vs number of views. And that gets even more complicated when dealing with different product types such as software vs video vs music vs books.

Finally, what about a family vs someone who lives alone. Should the one living alone pay the same fee as family who have four family members that all consume information via the internet.

All in all, it is a really messy problem.

Re:what about TV?

[UID30]

If this were put in place, it would be less than a week before the ISP bill had hundreds of additional charges:
Music Fee $5
Movie Fee $10.50
TV Fee $7 ... You've hit the nail on the head. The proposed solution is too media-specific and will only open the door to endless non-governmental "taxes" on internet connections in the future.

Re:what about TV?

[bleh-of-the-huns]

Your whole argument is completely off....

You are comparing public services to a private entity. Road building is run by the feds and the local governments with subsidies from FHWA (part of the DOT). Your taxes go to funding that yes, but your taxes do not go towards funding private roads. The RIAA/MPAA are essentially private roads in your argument, and if you plan to use them, you have to pay, but if you don't, you do not have to pay.... And no, I am not talking about public/private partnership built toll roads, thats a while different ballgame.

I will not pay a single sent to any entity. Agreements may be put in place by the various ISP's with the entertainment industry, but from that will come new competition, ISP's that will be more then happy to not charge you the fee to steal back customers from those who will.

In fact, I would go back to dialup before I pay any "tax" to the entertainment industry, because I barely listen to any of that crap (and the stuff I am willing to listen to I will purchase). There will be no freeloading off my wallet.

Re:what about TV?

[mdmkolbe]

But saying "bundling always favors the seller giving them more power and money" is not true; for example, you can see cars as a huge bundle of tires, motor, etc; but it actually serves the consumer that it is bundled, because the economical impact of scaling is so big that cars can be made much cheaper than the sum of their gears.

I'll grant that, but ...

Because the cost and difficulies of knowing what every internet user downloads is so high, it's just not doable (part of the cost: I would be protesting in the street if it was the case).

... this is way off. ISPs tracking peoples downloads and blanket (i.e. bundled) music taxes are not the only options. For example, iTunes is able to keep track of who downloads what quite well without the help of ISPs. Even with blanket pricing the ISPs still have to keep logging information for non-music related police investigations so there is no economic improvement there, but blanket pricing would reduce competition which incurs an economic cost.

This is all just a protection racket: "Nice ISP you have there, wouldn't it be terrible if someone were to sue you for hosting pirated content."

Re:what about TV?

[DrLang21]

but it still is a system that economicaly makes sense; charging 99cents on itune for every song does not. How does charging 99 cents per song on iTunes not make good economic sense? It's a clear cut system that divides up money to artists/studios based on how much music they individually sell. The studios don't like iTunes of course because they're used to being able to rape record stores into getting a mediocre profit (at best) from a whole album. They're still making a ton of money from it though.

Re:what about TV?

[Secret Agent X23]

But saying "bundling always favors the seller giving them more power and money" is not true; for example, you can see cars as a huge bundle of tires, motor, etc; but it actually serves the consumer that it is bundled, because the economical impact of scaling is so big that cars can be made much cheaper than the sum of their gears.

I don't think a car is a "bundle" in any meaningful way, in the context of this discussion. You don't have a complete car capable of fulfilling its intended purpose unless you have the tires, motor, etc. People think of a complete car as a single item. The way I see it, a better car analogy would go like this: Basic internet access would be like the car. Music access via the internet would be like an option such as a factory CD player.

Why does swiss army knife bundle some functions? Because if you add up the cost and difficulties of entirely customzing knives, it does not compensate the savings made by removing the can opener.

A lot of people are willing to pay to have the multifunctionality. I have a couple of Swiss army knives and I love'em. But -- and this is a big but -- I wouldn't want the Swiss army knife to be my only choice for a knife.

Re:what about TV?

[SecretSquirrel321]

But, I already pay for a music subscription server - it's called "Rhapsody" (listen.com)! My fees to Rhapsody already go to the music companies. So why should the RIAA collect AGAIN from me? JP

Re:what about TV?

[definate]

Isn't that the point of collective licensing?

Yes, that's part of collective licensing. However, which businesses get the money? How much does each business get? If every business is entitled, I'm going to start millions of businesses representing random garage bands, and get my piece of the action.

However, taking whatever you want from shop windows (as in the analogy of the GP), does have both legal and moral repercussions.

So I amend the analogy to a shop, but instead of possible theft, you have possible seemingly identical duplication.

Re:what about TV?

[bentcd]

This is an example of bundling (i.e. you always have to buy "a" and "b" together). Economically bundling always favors the seller giving them more power and money (the reasons are to complicated to explain here; look it up in an Econ book). It is not illegal, but it can really disadvantage the buyer and when the seller is running a de facto monopoly (as most non-metropolitan, US, broadband ISPs are) they could be hauled up on anti-trust allegations. In Norway, bundling is actually illegal if the products in the bundle are dissimilar (e.g. you can bundle four bottles of coca-cola, but not a book to go with them since books and soft drinks are very different types of product), unless you can also buy the bundled items separately at roughly the same price. I believe the intent is to prevent monopolists from leveraging their monopolies into other markets through clever bundling.

Of course, bundling still happens from time to time and only sometimes do the authorities care enough to do something about it. I think this is in the category of "things that we ignore so long as nobody complains too much". Kinder eggs are still around, for example. The legality of bundling an iPhone with a telco subscription is probably about to get tested. It is probably illegal. Of course, IANAL.

Re:what about TV?

[sconeu]

There's also a difference between "For the Public Good" and "To ensure the MAFIAA an eternal revenue stream".

Re:what about TV?

[Jflatnote]

Neither analogy works very well. Although you suggest that "paytax to portion of music industry (not everyone is represented by RIAA):whether you actually wanted their music or not" is equivalent to "pay to enter Disneyland:whether you intend to enter the haunted mansion or not," or "buy swiss army knife with can opener:even if you don't need a can opener." However, there are a nubmer of ways that those anologies don't work. First, the problem is alternatives. I do not have to buy a swiss army knife to get the functionality of knife. I could buy a buck knife or spiderco, or even a leatherman in a number of different configurations and styles. I could also buy a swiss army knife without a can opener. Maybe I don't want to go to Disneyland at all, but want to visit a tea shop in LA. A download tax would require me to pay Disneyland for my cisit to the tea shop. The music tax would force my to pay Equinox even when buying a non-folding knife. Another commenter mentions bundling, but bundling is the selling of multiple products together as one. The music tax would be selling a number of sellers as if they are one. And, as well covered in other comments, RIAA isn't everyone.

Re:what about TV?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do I think that this internet license makes sense? Because the cost and difficulies of knowing what every internet user downloads is so high, it's just not doable (part of the cost: I would be protesting in the street if it was the case).

And since the (real) price of music wouldn't be that high, and since few people are interested neither in music, nor in film, video-games, books or any information-related product, I do think that it cold be a good idea.

I keep hearing that 5% of users/subscribers are taking up 95% of the bandwidth with their filesharing. Granted, I'm just regurgitating statistics I heard somewhere, and can provide no source for.

It doesn't really matter how many people have any interest in music/film/etc. It matters more how people have interest in trying to cheat the system and download these things for free. If only 5% are guilty of it, why would you want to penalize the remaining 95%?

I think a more rational approach is for the ISP's should be charging based on a graduated rate structure. The more data you transfer, the more your internet service will cost. Illegal file-sharing will dry up overnight.

Re:what about TV?

[pavera]

well there are other ways to generate revenue with music as well. The point is this is being crammed down our throats because of piracy. If you don't think books, movies, tv shows, and basically every other form of media can make the same piracy claim as the music industry you are deluded. All of these industries would love to grab a solid recurring revenue stream that they don't have now.

Sure Google, Slashdot and others would be a bit of a stretch, but I wouldn't put it past any of the big news sites to try this.

Re:what about TV?

[jasen666]

And if I'm paying a monthly music tax, you better believe I'm going to run my bittorrent 24/7.
If those fuckers are making me pay, I'm getting my money's worth plus some.

Re:what about TV?

[michaelepley]

Actually, bundling (also known as tying) is illegal under certain circumstances. The guidelines (not so much rules) generally disallow bundling in monopoly situations, at least where the products being tied are not typically related or purchased together. This would seem to apply in this case: most ISPs (cable and telephone operators) operate under local monopolies, and internet service and music are not particularly strongly related.

For example, the Microsoft anti-trust case was essentially about tying their OS to the web browser; Microsoft was found to be abusing its monopoly position to advance their web browser, in a market (at the time) where they were not typically purchased or even distributed together, web browsers being relatively new and distributed freely (i.e. Netscape). And these products were quite a bit more related.

Re:what about TV?

[toriver]

Isn't that the point of collective licensing?

But this is not collective licensing, it's yet another badly disguised attack on independent music (i.e. non-RIAA companies and independent artists):

1) User, learing he can download music freely, downloads music from struggling indie artist.
2) ISP pays "protection fee" to RIAA
3) RIAA pays some Big Four artist
4) Struggling indie artist quits for a paying job and we are left with the cocaine-snorting crap-shovelers.

Re:what about TV?

[HTH NE1]

Before I read the article, I was about to say that the summary seems to point at making ISPs pay to avoid their liability--a liability that doesn't exist due to safe harbor provisions in the DMCA. Not users mind you, but ISPs. Users would still get sued.

As the summary was written and with the selected quotation from the article.

The article however makes it clear that it is intended to allow end users to download freely, and that is clear in direct quotations of those interviewed for the article.

So I'm left wondering why Soulskill has such a spin in his summary.

Re:what about TV?

[quoll]

Maybe Soulskill doesn't want to download music.

I pay through the nose for a high speed connection, but I've have never used to download any music except the occasional song from the ITMS. Most of the time that I'm listening to anything, it's a podcast. So why would I want to spend more money every month for the right to download something I don't want? Oh, and if I don't want to pay it, then they're proposing the option of having watch advertising to make up for it.

Am I unique here? Surely not?

Re:what about TV?

[aleph42]

Thank you so much for answering!

All in all, it is a really messy problem. Not that much; actually I think it is pretty much the same thing as paying royalties, which is implemented without anyone saying it's the end of civilisation or the music industry (like we hear for p2p).
Let's consider each point:

1) More than one country is involved.
This is why copyright is enforced as a set of international treaties, with sanctions from the World Trade Organization when someone doesn't comply. Of course if a country doesn't fear the WTO (like China currently), you have a problem; but there is no way around that, whatever the system.

2) People can fool statistics; fans or artists can download just to raise the artist's revenue.
This is somewhat akin to the problem of voting on websites. I think that if it is addressed the same way, you can make it unprofitable for the artist (cost of banwidth and trouble of changing ip). If enough fans are going through that trouble to give a few cents each to an artist, then maybe he deserves it (anyways, superfans will still buy the "collector packs" from their favourite artists; I know I do). And if the artist rents a botnet, then he would probably make more money ripping credit cards.
Anyways, if there still is a possible abuse, that's where IRS-style inspections (or traffic analisys) come in effect: not perfect, but enough to make the tax system work okay.

3) Buisnesses optimizing cost/viewing.
Necessary when there is a given system to retribute work; it's a good thing if the system is good.

4) Family or individuals are indistinguishables.
Same for DVD sales.
Other small problems are the direct equivalent of standard distribution system problems.

5) Differences between books/music/etc.
That's actually the biggest problem. Right now, putting a price on everything and using advertising means you can affect ratio of the budget between books and music; it's not the case if you have one license for music, one for film, and even worse, none for books (which is what was proposed in France when the law was drafted).
I think the best is to fix an "entertainment" budget by law, then let statistics decide for the ratio between entertainments. Of course some cost more to produce than others, but that's also true of films; yet they cost the same price to view.
Deciding the "entertainment budget" by law is rigid, prone to lobbying, etc, and would be like soviet Russia if it was applied at each level (state deciding of what artists to fund). But if it's one big number to decide, I really think its okay (no artist per artist problem). And international pressure can force it to be x% of GPD or whatever.

That leaves the problem of linking download statistics to revenue without penalizing books or movies which are so different in file size. For example, an author shouldn't be able to raise his revenue tenfold by making ten different "books" for each chapter. This is an open question; I think the best would be a ratio between file size and revenue, fixed by law for each type of entertainment (1M for a book, 1G for a film...).
But since I'm optimist, I think that it will still be a good thing for artists, the same way theater are still a good thing for film-makers altough low budget and high budget film cost the same to view.

Sorry for the long post!

Most of your questions were actually those I asked myslef when such a license was proposed in France, so I got time to think about it.
The bottom line is: it wouldn't be a perfect system, but most flaws exist in already accepted systems, and on the contrary the gains are huge because the logic of the medium is better taken into account.

You (or anyone) can email me about this if posting on old slashdot threads becomes a bother :)
gmail address: semirealblade

Re:what about TV?

[aleph42]

What you are saying is that right now, only 5% of users fully use the potential of the internet for entertainment. They are like scientists who used their company-issued occiloscope to play video-games: it was illegal, because a system was not builded that let everyone benefit from that tehcnological progress.

Once p2p becomes legal, the 95% of people not yet using it will have the possibility to get entertainment in a way which is better even than an unlimited itune, and the additional public will mean the blanket tax will make sense.

A better analogy: you point is like saying that a close road shouldn't be reopened, because the only traffic it gets is the loonies which drive there although it's closed.

Re:what about TV?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what I am saying is I haven't purchased more than two CD's a year for the past 15 years, because it's not in my budget to do so. So don't force a tax upon me, under the assumption that since I am not purchasing CD's, that I must be illegally downloading music. A tax such as this, effectively forces me to pay for a steady quantity of music that I would otherwise not be purchasing.

This fee has to be aimed at the people causing the problem. Since most of the bandwidth is being used by p2p traffic, then charge those people accordingly. If I decide to go online and download music, then my bandwidth fee should rise in proportion to the amount of bandwidth I used. I don't see why I should have to pay the same amount as someone feasting off of the all-you-can-eat menu.

By implementing a graduated rate structure, the people using the most bandwidth will be hit the hardest. So, people like my parents, who are in their mid 60's, recently retired and now living on a fixed income, who merely use the internet to email the same tired old jokes back and forth to their friends, and who have no idea what p2p even stands for, are not required to purchase music on a regular basis.

It would be no different than your phone bill; The more you talk, the more expensive it gets. If you want to freely download music over the internet, then fine - you pay for it. And if the cost of it is prohibitive of you doing so, then the illegal filesharing problem has been solved. Otherwise, like the first poster said, "keep out of my wallet".

Re:what about TV?

[aleph42]

And if the cost of it is prohibitive of you doing so, then the illegal filesharing problem has been solved. . This is again a mistake about the illegal nature of p2p.

Yes, it is illegal now, and that is why your parents don't know about it (no ads for an illegal thing).
But if this license existed, it would be legal to "eat all you want", which means that making the price prohibitive for big downloader would actually be a problem.

You explain how you don't consume any music; and how that would be illogical for you to pay for an illimited amount of it.
Someone already compared this to "bundeling", that is forcing you to buy 2 products at the same time (here, web access and p2p for music). My answer was that, since it's too impractical to separate the 2 products, bundeling is actually justified.
(you can see the whole conversation here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=502290&cid=22890492 ). In France, we actually have a flat tax to pay when possessing a TV, which helps fund public TV programs. Nobody complains that this pays for programs they don't watch.

But I agree with you that the license would be a bad thing if it only covered music; I think it should pay for all entertainment (books, films, etc). Then you would be paying for your neighboor's music, but he would be paying for your books or videogames.
See the details there: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=502290&cid=22908842

Somebody said that this tax was like taxing electricity; I say that wouldn't be such a bad idea, but the fact is that the correlation between p2p and internet acess is better than with electricity acess. But of course I would prefer an income based tax.

careful

[nguy]

They aren't quite clear about what you get for that fee. On the one hand, they talk about "access to a database of all music", but then they talk about freeing the ISPs from liability. This might well mean that for your fee, the only thing you can legally do is "access" music in Windows-only formats from an unreliable and poorly maintained RIAA server, whose notion of "all music" is limited to top-20 stuff.

In any case, any proposal like this should have a clear and well-defined path in it towards dismantling the RIAA and making its members obsolete; a world in which music can be shared and distributed freely does not require record companies in the traditional sense. The only thing these people still can hold on to should be the old copyrights they managed to obtain from less lucky artists.

Re:careful

[hedwards]

The description of the plan looks more like corporate piracy than anything else.

It appears that one would pay them a fee, and be able to trade any songs at all, including those produced by indie artists and the money would go back to the RIAA affiliated outfits.

On top of which since the music appears to originate from copies that the general populace rips, there's no assurance of any sort that I won't end up with another copy of CCR's Sweet home Alabama in a low quality encoding.

The price point is good, but they're going to have to give some indication of how the money is being distributed and how much of it is going to independent labels. Preferably provide a centralized tag server and quality ranking system for that sort of thing to have even a small chance of utility.

Re:careful

[Symbha]

If I understand correctly, and IANAL, ISPs have no liability for the traffic in the first place due to common carrier status. That is of course, unless you are Comcast et. al, and are treating different kinds of content differently, in which case you can no longer claim common carrier.

Hrm

[Auckerman]

I buy all my music off iTunes and eMusic, I'll opt out thank you very much. They way I get my music is much cheaper than this idea. Quite frankly, I can't think of the last time I bought music of a Warner owned label, so they don't deserve a dime of my money.

$20 billion...?

[dafrazzman]

An interesting side-effect of this plan, but I'm sure they'll put it to good use. Plus, it's not like $20 billion would be better spent anywhere else, right?

I want my cut!

[cbc1920]

This is quite possibly the worst idea the record companies have ever come up with. I would be very surprised if any ISPs ever give in. I can see it now:

Monthly internet bill:
50.00 - connection fee
5.00 - music extortion fee
5.50 - movies extortion fee
8.25 - television extortion fee
3.00 - print media extortion fee
4.00 - software warez extortion fee
2.00 - images possibly out of copyright
4.00 - independent music fee
3.00 - documentaries fee
2.50 - guitar tabs/sheet music
3.00 - song lyrics
2.00 - spambot fee (just in case I'm a node)
7.00 - fee for everyone else wanting my pound of flesh

total: $100 per month, and I think I'm being quite generous

Where will this stop? If the record labels get their fee, I want my fee for everyone that downloaded that one picture from my blog that I told you that you shouldn't save but you did anyways. You can just send me those $.02 per subscriber per month, or I'll take a flat fee of $3,000,000 - thanks.

Re:I want my cut!

[noidentity]

And no way to waive these fees if you just casually surf the web and check e-mail. Looks like they just hit on the perfect idea to get paid without having to do a fucking thing. FUCK THE RIAA.

Re:I want my cut!

[screenmachinetp]

To put some gasoline on that fire; THEY'RE DOING IT NOW! Didn't the Inet start out FREE! May as well make it a piece of pie too, and get some! Because present day music industry had their cut through the mediums thus far, they're gonna get it through the Inet medium, too.

Re:I want my cut!

[Talinom]

If they do this I will feel compelled to download * from the internet, just because. Things on my list to download would be:

Every damn Metallica album. Why? Because it would piss them off badly.
And then I would buy the new NiN CD.
Every version of MS Windows ever made. Why? To piss off the BSA.
And then I'd switch full time to my Linux partition.
Mac OS X, and I don't even own a Mac yet.
Every song on iTunes. Even if I hated it.
And once that is all done I'll only surf the internet at work.

Will business be exempt from the taxes because they are not consumers and supposedly don't pirate stuff? If they have to pay I'm using work's OC3 till my hard drive explodes.

Re:I want my cut!

[slashqwerty]

This is quite possibly the worst idea the record companies have ever come up with.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation proposed this idea years ago. The record labels opposed it back then. It was a bad idea when it first came up and it's still a bad idea now (at least the EFF proposal was voluntary).

Re:I want my cut!

[John Hasler]

> Didn't the Inet start out FREE!

No.

Re:I want my cut!

[msormune]

So for $100 a month you can download as much warez'n'stuff as possible, or just plain misuse your Internet access as much as you want? Where do I sign up?

Re:I want my cut!

[aussiedood]

Wait a second. To me $100 per month sounds like a good deal.
I currently pay around $50 for my cable internet and $100 for dish, then there's bills for netflix, audible, and my music and book purchases on Amazon, let's say the total is about $250 per month.
In the scenario you provide, I could cancel everything but my internet service, and use an over the air antenna for local TV. Everything else I would download from the net (with the exception of physical books from Amazon).
Granted, this wouldn't be the same scenario for everyone, but I bet that most people would come close to spending $100 per month on all the things you list above.
Count me in!!

this is great!

[stokessd]

I for one am all for a $5 fee to allow me to pirate (all I can eat) all the time. Now I occasionally feel a pang of guilt (I lie down and the feeling passes) when I'm stealing some sweet music. After this nominal fee I'm good to go for full tilt piracy. After all this fee is paid because I'm a pirate, right?

Sheldon

Re:this is great!

[Idiot with a gun]

That's not what it is, it's a fee to free the ISP's from the legal responsibilities of their services being used for piracy. The pirate still could be sued under these terms, and legal users are in effect being charged twice.

Re:this is great!

[elronxenu]

So ... what are the ISPs paying for, if they aren't the ones being sued and they aren't the ones sharing the music?

I can see it like through a crystal ball ... the first user of one of these ISPs who gets sued, their lawyer is going to demand an accounting of all the ISP fees - and since the user is paying the fee (indirectly), the user is entitled to the benefit of indemnification.

Re:this is great!

[click2005]

The pirate still could be sued under these terms, and legal users are in effect being charged twice.

Thats what I thought at first, the RIAA would be penalizing people who aren't pirates.

but... from the article..

a controversial plan to bundle a monthly fee into consumers' internet-service bills for unlimited access to music.
Warner's plan would have consumers pay an additional fee--maybe $5 a month--bundled into their monthly internet-access bill in exchange for the right to freely download, upload, copy, and share music without restrictions.

It seems like in exchange for this monthly fee you get access to legal downloads. The idea is hopefully to try to use advertising to pay for it, giving users the option to pay a fee for non-ad music.

I'm sure it'll be low quality mp3s but its a start.

The fee is going to be variable depending on where you live (so Brits will end up paying the US rate * 3 or something).

Re:this is great!

[Idiot with a gun]

Ah, I stand corrected then.

Re:this is great!

[Just Some Guy]

That's not what it is, it's a fee to free the ISP's from the legal responsibilities of their services being used for piracy.

What legal responsibilities? The only ISPs with any liability are the ones stupid enough to attempt content filtering, thus removing their DMCA "safe harbor" protection. The others are no more obligated than a phone company who carries an "illegal" conversation.

Unless.... Could this be Comcast's way of making sure everyone is playing on their level by making all their competitors as financially inefficient as they are?

Re:this is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, as an ISP under that "safe harbor", all I'm obligated to do is say "it ain't on my servers" - end of conversation. I've said it many times. The RIAA and MPAA don't bother to send ISP's notices any more as it is a total waste of time.

Re:this is great!

[toriver]

Protection racket.

I mean the old Mafia has been doing it for years, it was just a question of time before the new MAAFIA also got on the act.

CD-R Tax anyone?

[zoltamatron]

This stinks like the CD-R tax in canada except that now EVERYONE must pay a surcharge. What a bunch of crap.

Re:CD-R Tax anyone?

[mea37]

Ah, but not everyone. From the summary:

"You can only imagine that an I.S.P. that marketed a 'fair trade' network connection would see a marketing advantage."

Well, you can imagine it all you like; but that will be up to the market.

For my part: if my ISP signs on (and can't or doesn't provide for an opt-out), then I'm changing ISP's. If I can find no ISP that meets my requirement, I'll do wtihout broadband. I will not pay extortion to the record labels in compensation for illegal activity in which I don't engage, especially knowing that the real victims of such activity (the artists) won't get anything for it, either directly (through increased fees) or indirectly (by tolerating ads).

Everyone opposed to this deal: do the same thing. Make sure the competitive advantage goes to ISP's that don't sign on for this garbage. Don't say "yeah, I don't like it, but I'll put up with it"; either stay with it because you think it's good, or get away from it.

Think you can't live without your ISP? Nonsense. Your ISP can't live without you (collectively). Don't let them bolster the labels' interest, for their perceived benefit, at your expense.

The labels can scheme all they want, but this is a case where the market truly has the power.

Did They Hire Ex-SCO Staffers?

[dcollins]

Seriously, this is so exponentially insane the first thing I thought of was SCO.

- "The company has been approached by internet service providers 'who want to discharge their risk.'" Fuckin' bullshit. Total horseshit. Lies, lies, lies. Classic smokescreen to try to create some kind of peer pressure. There is no risk. There are no such ISPs. That's why they must go nameless.

- What ISP would open themselves to this kind of blackmail? Wouldn't that be an obvious signal to the movie industry, the book publishing industry, the software industry, "come get in line and bilk us for money, we're weak and easily intimidated"?

- "Eventually, advertising could subsidize the entire system, so that users who don't want to receive ads could pay the fee, and those who don't mind advertising wouldn't pay a dime." What the fuck? How do those ads get on my system from the ISP? Across Firefox? Through my email? In my WOW packets? Take over my OS? WTF is that?

This guy should be in protective custody, under observation for a few weeks. He's clearly lost his grip on reality and must be a danger to himself. But then, that didn't stop SCO.

Re:Did They Hire Ex-SCO Staffers?

[TubeSteak]

FTFA:

Warner's plan would have consumers pay an additional fee--maybe $5 a month--bundled into their monthly internet-access bill in exchange for the right to freely download, upload, copy, and share music without restrictions. What?
There has to be a catch.
No way they'll allow one person to sign up for this and share out the entire catalog, to the entire world, with Warner's blessing.

Re:Did They Hire Ex-SCO Staffers?

[Reziac]

I'd guess it was more like some ISP got sent a bunch of John Doe notices (of the sort NewYorkCountryLawyer has been fighting) and said to the RIAA cartel, "See here, this is getting ridiculous, why don't we try to work together instead?" and made some sort of revenue-sharing offer to the RIAA cartel. Who thought it sounded like a grand way to get a guaranteed revenue stream at absolutely no cost to themselves.

While I think the basic concept is all right (would I pay $5/mo. to download whatever the hell I want, without risk? Sure!), I don't think it should be *imposed* on everyone, since as many here have noted, not everyone wants the industry's general run of kark. And what's to prevent every content industry from wanting a piece of this new pie? as other posts note, the bill could get ridiculous, even if you're actually using most of it.

Re:Did They Hire Ex-SCO Staffers?

[QuantumRiff]

but would you be paying an extra $5 a month so that you can download all your music, or would you be paying so that it was still illegal, but the RIAA would not sue your ISP, but only you!? Don't count on them doing the "right" thing. Also, I'm curious, would this be considered "taxes and fees" so that the prices would stay the same, IE, $40/month + taxes and fees (they never say its $10)

Re:Did They Hire Ex-SCO Staffers?

[Reziac]

Per TFA, this fee would let you download, share, and generally do what folks are already doing, with the legal risk removed.

But as you say, I'll believe that they're totally indemnifying everyone, at every level, when I see it in cast-iron legalese.

The ad-supported filesharing client (implied by TFA) is really a better idea, in that there's no cash outlay (unless you want to pay the small fee to get rid of the ads) and you'd only pay if you actually used the service. And they could hardly complain if you shared files in an RIAA-supplied client!

Piracy and Freedom

[Deliveranc3]

"You can only imagine that an I.S.P. that marketed a 'fair trade' network connection would see a marketing advantage.'"

First off 0%... more cost? Dude I have encryption...

Second, the current lawsuits don't really affect many people outside the U.S. we're not scared to go on pirating in the open, MPAA might be able to pull this off if they could catch all the people with I.P.'s listed in bittorrent.

3rd. Hello Extortion won't you come join the already failing U.S. internet push...

This whole thing is a blatant attempt to push a clause of the ISPs being responsible for content... which they are NOT. The legalization of accessing unsecured wireless networks proves it's not constitutional to monitor the communications to the degree that is required.

Finally to ensure that piracy of smaller labels and major labels that choose not to join this group doesn't take place would require monitoring of internet communication, bye bye privacy.

Fair distribution?

[SeekerDarksteel]

I'd be much less repulsed by this idea if I had any belief that the fees would be distributed in a fair fashion. As someone who listens to a fair deal of indie stuff (and virtually no major label stuff), I'm concerned that there's no way in hell anyone not on a major label would get to see a dime of the money. (Not that anyone ON a major label will see a dime of the money either, what with the soul-stealing contracts they make bands sign).

Ultimately then, it becomes about subsidizing an industry in a manner that provides absolutely no incentive for any major label to make desirable music. They can produce whatever they want and take the flat fee, preventing us from voting with our wallet. As a result, music would become even more controlled by the major labels than it already is now. And that's a particularly disgusting thought.

Re:Fair distribution?

[Mr. Roadkill]

I'd be much less repulsed by this idea if I had any belief that the fees would be distributed in a fair fashion. As someone who listens to a fair deal of indie stuff (and virtually no major label stuff), I'm concerned that there's no way in hell anyone not on a major label would get to see a dime of the money.

Yup, no different from licencing fees in other areas, like APRA's "MUSIC IN THE WORKPLACE" and "Background Music" public performance licences.

At least they're up-front about how they're going to figure out what to pay to whom, though:
http://www.amcos.com.au/music-users/Licences/all_about_licences/faq.asp
From that page:

We distribute small business licence fees according to our analysis of radio playlists. APRA regards these playlists as representative of background music performed in small businesses, restaurants and hotels. Commercial radio stations in Australia provide APRA with a full census of the works they broadcast, while community radio is sampled. APRA also receives regular logs from television stations and analyses these for distribution purposes.

You can bet that that's probably how any internet-piracy levy would work, and from memory it's similar to how the media levies in some countries are arrived at.

What's the alternative?
Well, in the case of small businesses it could be as simple as a "black box" provided by the local rights management agency that plays music pulled off the net and phones home details of what was played and how much. That wouldn't necessarily involve an increase in the licence fees either, although there might be a cost associated with the provision of the infrastructure behind all that. In the case of P2P stuff and a pirate-tax on net connections, it'd involve P2P software "sanctioned" by the rights management organisations that would report back with details of what was being downloaded so payments could be properly apportioned. Maybe that could be managed through details from central rights management organisation P2P trackers rather than per-client phoning home.

So... either the payments get apportioned out in a way that might or might not be representative of reality, or you have full reporting and auditing of what *actually* happens. Neither look particularly palatable, do they?

Given that situation, what's the best possible outcome? Ironically, it may well be for the rights holders or their anointed representatives (RIAA, MPAA, APRA/AMCOS, et al) to keep their grubby little hands off our internet connections and continue tracking down and prosecuting anyone they can catch. At the same time, they should also be trying to get the music industry to find ways of distributing music that are convenient for purchasers and which don't impinge on fair and traditional personal use of that material. Unfortunately, for many people piracy is more convenient and provides a product that's "better" from their POV than getting the product legally - and it's not necessarily just about the money, given the kind of DRM "thou shalt play this on nowt but the approved devices" bullshit that some of the commercial offerings are infested with.

Re:Fair distribution?

[Just Some Guy]

I'd be much less repulsed by this idea if I had any belief that the fees would be distributed in a fair fashion.

I wouldn't. I don't make unauthorized copies of their crap and I don't want to be fined for doing so. There are no overriding considerations beyond me being held responsible for potential violations. Well, screw them. If this happens, I will never pay anyone for music again: not Wal-Mart, not iTunes, not Sirius, no one. If I've been convicted of taking music for free and forced to pay the price, then I'm gonna do it.

Re:Fair distribution?

[Just Some Guy]

Yup, no different from licencing fees in other areas, like APRA's "MUSIC IN THE WORKPLACE" and "Background Music" public performance licences.

Completely different. By analogy, this new scam would bill all of your customers for access to music in your business, whether or not you even had a radio.

extortion

[Anonymous Coward]

extortion plain and simple

Pay WHO exactly ?

[Eth1csGrad1ent]

I'm in Australia. My ISP is in Australia. I listen to Australian bands. US bands. English bands.
Jazz, rock, hard rock, pop culture and some classical stuff too. Actually pretty much a mix of everything from EVERYWHERE.

Who do I pay for the privelage of not getting sued ?
Who does my ISP pay ?

RIAA ? The Australian version of RIAA? Anyone who claims to be a music distributor ? All of the above ??

This is straight "all your monies are belong to us" crap, that has nothing to do with finding a solution, and everything to do with ONE foreign (from my perspective) organisation trying to extort even more of my money from me.

What risks?

[eric76]

Just what risks do ISPs have for the file sharing by their customers?

THe last I heard, ISPs have a safe harbor as long as they just act as a conduit.

As such, any ISP that worries about their liabilities for the issue are wasting their time on nothing. To the best of my knowledge, there are no risks for the ISPs.

Re:What risks?

[KlomDark]

Very good point. The term for it is Common Carrier Status. Modify nothing passing across your network and you are a common carrier. Unlike Comcast, who lost that when they started playing around with packet delivery.

Re:What risks?

[eric76]

I don't believe that most, if any, ISPs would qualify as a common carrier.

The safe harbor is in copyright law.

Distribution of monies?

[Pennidren]

Even if this idea wasn't insane, the problem still lies in how the money would be distributed amongst the "music industry". I don't listen to mainstream tunes very often. I don't want my money going there.

Re:Distribution of monies?

[Anonymous Freak]

Not to mention that it has already been shown that the money from file-sharing lawsuits has gone to the "music industry", not "musicians". At least some miniscule fraction of a cent of a CD sale or legal digital purchase (iTunes, Amazon, etc,) goes to the musicians.

I can just see this as the music industry's way of making money, while telling individual musicians "Hey, sales of your album are down..."

What are those people smoking?

[Whuffo]

This is just another ploy to continue their game. Those record companies and their lapdogs have made a lot of money by controlling the distribution of music. That worked well when distribution was difficult and they could control it - but this is a brave new world where music is digital and it can be distributed across the world as digital data at very low cost and out of the control of those who profited from scarcity previously.

Much like the surcharge on cassettes or recordable CDs, they'll take the cash and insist on more and more. It's all for the artists, but the artists never see any of the money - instead, the labels continue to figure out ways to cut the artist's share even more.

This will go on and on and they'll never be satisfied. The only real answer it to say NO and put these leeches out of their misery. Will our corporate overlords have the backbone to do this? I don't know...

what if I don't?

[sleigher]

If my ISP charges me for music that I am NOT downloading I promise I will steal every album known to man 1000 times. I mean make 1000 copies of every album known to man.......

Superb!

[mashuren]

I'd gladly pay an extra few bucks a month for my internet if it means I have carte blanche to torrent as much music as I want without having to worry about getting sued (and if it means my ISP would stop throttling my bandwidth - I'm sick of having to reset my modem every other day.)

Hmm. Well.

[spacefiddle]

After careful consideration, sir, I've come to the conclusion that your system sucks.

Did anyone else fall over laughing at that "$20bn a year" bit? How'd they arrive at that carefully calculated number: "gee, i'd sure like 20 billyun dollarz lol." Honestly, if the major ISPs have any brains left at all (debatable, i realize), i don't see them going for this. "Hey can you be the bad guys, charge your customers more, sell them on it, and pass most of the profits on to us? Kthxbye."

I expect the RIAA and their ilk are just going to get weirder and more invasive like this as time goes on, especially if they perceive their powers fading. They say they love a free market, but they love a captive audience more.

Re:Hmm. Well.

[Skeetskeetskeet]

It was actually 20 BAZILLION dollars, but that isn't an actual figure yet, though using the tax money they will lobby congress to make it an actual amount.

In Canada

[future assassin]

This fucking idea is so crazy that it just might pass. Thank god I live in Canada where I only have to pay to music companies when ever I want to back up my photos onto a cd from a new photo shoot.

Wait a minute?!

Racketeering

[Anonymous Coward]

Racketeering. "Nice ISP ya got dare. Be ah shame
if somepin' were ta happen to et."

LAWL

[Anonymous Coward]

Like artists would ever see a penny. The major labels don't give the money they get from the shack downs of illegal downloaders. So clearly the artists wouldn't see a penny of the 20 billion. Like Michael Geist(www.michaelgeist.ca) said when the Songwriters Association of Canada raised the issuse of a 5 dollar levy rate. Of course then the RIAA will demand money then the europe content providers, PC game creators then MPAA, pORN producers, and soon everyone will have a 200 dollar internet bill regardless of what they download.

Familiar practice

[NoobixCube]

We in the business like to call this a "protection racket".

Re:Familiar practice

[Cycloid Torus]

I dimly recall certain statutes which should resolve any such interesting "offers". All said and done this should prove entertaining at the least, though only remunerative to the legal blokes..

Re:Familiar practice

[AnalogDiehard]

We in the business like to call this a "protection racket".

"Nice ISP you have there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it."

Indeed

[QuantumG]

And what about the deaf, will they have to pay this tax, err, I mean, collective licensing?

Re:overrated moderation should have limits.

[QuantumG]

And if this is offtopic, pray tell me where I should say that. Umm, nowhere. There is no recourse for bad moderation.. except the meta-moderation system, which seems to do nothing.

Get over it.

Royalties? Where?

[HalAtWork]

I intend on distributing my music through the web, how can I get in on those payments?

Woah, woah... This smells

[stratjakt]

I thought the plan was to gather a monthly fee, and in exchange we do whatever the fuck we want, and the industry pisses off to count their money.

Whats this advertisement supported stuff? How are you going to feed ads into my p2p app, or download of choice? The only scheme I could think of is one where they force me to watch ads, and if I don't watch enough, I get a bill.

What this is, is charging everybody for a service nobody wants. This is akin to Comcast dumping some dipshit golf channel into basic cable, and charging everybody for it. In fact, that's exactly what it is. A dumbass online "music channel" I don't want, and I surely don't want to pay for.

I want to know which ISPs aren't going to pony up to this new extortion racket, so I can recommend them and switch if needed.

No, they still don't get it, not even close.

The death rattle...

[TysonPeppler]

...of a dying industry.

Honestly, the music landscape is changing; the format is changing. It isn't a bad thing that corporations will have to find other sources of revenue due to society changing the way it obtains/listens to/communicates the media of music.

There may be less money in music after the dust has settled but extortion is not the answer. Diversify or fall.

Its interesting. Usually changes in industry require new technologies - new hardware technologies. Think digital cameras vs film. Alot of film corporations (agfa, konica) no longer exist in that aftermath. This is subtlety different; it is a change in social thinking. If 80% of kids pirate, then it should not be considered pirating. It should be legalized and the new way of doing things. There are new ways to make money from this.

Where will the corporations put the money gained from isps? Obviously into new lawsuits.

Re:The death rattle...

[CSMatt]

Think digital cameras vs film. Alot of film corporations (agfa, konica) no longer exist in that aftermath. And yet the big two film companies (Kodak, Fugifilm) had the sense to invest heavily in the digital camera market with cameras, memory cards, and developing kiosks.

The lesson here is that, if you want to keep your business afloat, you need to invest in new technologies when it becomes clear that they will disrupt the current model. The RIAA missed its chance when it sued Napster instead of working with them.

ISPs legal responsibilities?

[trawg]

Do they actually have any? Surely their responsibilities begin and end with complying with law enforcement requests to provide details of users suspected of copyright infringement.

Sort of sounds like a scare tactic; I can't imagine ISPs falling for it - aren't they 'common carriers' specifically so the responsibility for what people do with their network _doesn't_ fall on them?

Re:ISPs legal responsibilities?

[kent_eh]

If the ISPs can give varying levels of priority to traffic with different destinations, or characteristics, or "agreements" (I.E.:the opposite of net neutrality) then I should think that the ISPs become nothing like common carriers, and have full liability for everything that they permit thru their pipes...

If the ISPs start collecting for music downloads, then one might expect them to learn how to differentiate between music and lolcats pictures.
And as soon as they demonstrate that ability, then every organization (government, trade cartel, extremist religon...) will require them to intercept, log, and shut down anything that the those groups finds objectionable.

Is that really in the ISPs interests? Or anyones interest (except wannabe totalitarian governments and control freaks)?

Re:ISPs legal responsibilities?

[Red Flayer]

Sort of sounds like a scare tactic; I can't imagine ISPs falling for it - aren't they 'common carriers' specifically so the responsibility for what people do with their network _doesn't_ fall on them?

ISPs are not common carriers. The reason they are not responsible for what people do on their netwoirk is that they supposedly cannot monitor what is being done on their network.

Record Industry = Idiots

[link5280]

Record Industry -------- "I'm with stupid" Seriously this is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Our business model sucks so every subscriber on the internet must pay for our shitty practices. When and where does the revolt start!

Alternative proposals

[Anonymous Coward]

"Eventually, advertising could subsidize the entire system, so that users who don't want to receive ads could pay the fee, and those who don't mind advertising wouldn't pay a dime."

This proposal shows a phenomenal lack of understanding of just what the Internet is and how it works. Clearly some people in the MAFIAA think that "The Internet" is web-pages, served up by your ISP.

I can only imagine what their other plans could be: For cracking down on movie piracy, you could have cinema projectors built to muck up the image on the screen so that viewers in the audience would only be able to see the picture clearly if they wear polarised glasses.

You might get FM radio stations with no ads, provided you put a dollar into the slot each day, and an inspector has to unlock it and empty it out the money every month.

Or how about newspapers where certain pages are glued together, and you need to cut them along a particular line to open the pages without tearing them. You need to send them your credit card number and phone them with your newspaper's serial number to find out which line to cut on.

And I'm starting to wonder if all of that fresh air should be taxed, too.

Actually, I think that it is very bright on ....

[WindBourne]

their part. They have been losing customers. Not because of theft, but because they put out trash. So, they are changing from an oligopoly with a somewhat competitive approach to a tax based approach, in which they get paid NO MATTER what the industry does. I suspect that it will be structured based on number of songs that they have, rather than what is being downloaded. If if based on downloaded, then find a dynamic IP isp, and have their own systems download in auto mode. IOW, they rack up the charges themselves. In fact, they could cut a deal with a company like QWest or MSN and sit in the front, be given IPs to use and simply request music, but discard it as it comes in. You would be surprised at how accommodating some of these companies can be where money is involved.

No. Just no.

[symbolset]

And then there were a few providers who wouldn't pay. They set up a new network where this practice was prohibited, at the time called the Othernet. Since it was a new network they could use the open technologies of the Internet, but avoid the chains of legacy technology like IP v4.

This proved to be the revolution that transformed intellectual property. Because the Othernet required secure Onion Routing protocols and packets protected by public key encryption fast ASICs to make the requirement fast and reliable were developed. The logic from these ASICs became embedded in the logic for Othernet core routers. The features were found to be popular on Internet and intranet routers as well, and so became an industry standard feature no vendor could avoid.

On the Othernet it was impossible to determine who sent what to whom. Naturally this became a haven for the criminal element, the disaffected and the insane. Here also though was a channel for open discussion free from fear of oppression. The Othernet begat Radio Free Othernet and the numerous cells responsible for the October Rebellion culminating in the Halloween event referred to in your history books as "the day they hanged the lawyers."

The market for the classic Internet shrivelled as its proprietors folded one by one. Eventually the last desperate holdouts were absorbed into the Othernet. Although the official name for the network is still the Othernet for casual purposes it is now referred to as the Internet.

who needs net neutrality with this plan

[fishyfool]

not the ISP's, they are indemnified with this plan. this just makes it convenient to ask congress to rid the scourge of neutrality from the net.

Re:who needs net neutrality with this plan

[John Hasler]

> not the ISP's, they are indemnified with this plan.

They are fully protected now by the DMCA. This plan gives them nothing.

Nope, it's not -- Re:Complete change of strategy

[infonography]

If you look back you will see that the record industry made cassette makers pay a surcharge on their production. not much to notice and they just added it to the price to the consumer. This is just the same tactic all over again. Instead of leaching off media producers they are gonna stick it to AOL and the other big ones. This way the get a cut off every person on the internet.

FOREVER

A step in the right direction...

[Anonymous Coward]

While this plan is obviously deeply flawed since it assumes everyone on the internet is pirating music, I see it as a step in the right direction. The music industry is clearly becoming aware that they have a flawed business model and are attempting to generate new solutions. Why not try an opt in system first? $5/month for access to a nearly complete music library without DRM would be a reasonable price. I would sign up for that service in a heart beat. Not only that, but it would nearly eliminate the those expensive legal bills from going after old women and children.

No no, a thousand times no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why in blue blazes should I pay for music I will never, ever download? That's beyond insane. It's actively evil. Fuck the music industry. I don't download any fucking music. If your hand comes anywhere near my wallet, I'll cut it the fuck off.

If RadioHead or NIN would act quickly

[CrazyJim1]

Famous artists could have their own distribution models set up merely because they have a good name. All they'd have to do is sign out contracts with indie music they endorse.

Re:If RadioHead or NIN would act quickly

[Reziac]

Actually, that's a good thought -- let indie bands piggyback on successful acts (much as they do at concerts!) It could work like this:

Go to the NIN site, see endorsements for a dozen new indie bands, with an array of download options much like NIN is presently offering. And NIN takes a small cut (say 10% of sales) of the piggybackers' income, in trade for increasing their visibility beyond any hope they'd ever have even with a big-label contract.

Who do I get a refund from...

[Bubbahyde]

... if I don't like whats available?

WHAT THE FUCK

[definate]

This is the most retarded business idea I have ever seen.

How is it decided who gets the money, what are we paying for?

This is just another way of passing the costs on to us, however this time we don't get a valuable product in return, and there is no incentive to produce. This will inevitably cripple the music industry more than file sharing could ever do, and it will hurt the ISP industry as well (Unless it's voluntary, in which case it won't last long, since there are significant economic incentives to not do it).

I can't believe someone even considered this.

No legitimate business would ever consider this, only Government would consider a revenue stream like this.

This is pissing me off heaps right now, and I haven't even read the article. I hope this is another one of those "Slashdot went crazy and badly worded the article" moments.

Someone needs to smack them over the head with the wealth of nations followed by free to choose.

Dumbest Idea Ever

[Anonymous Coward]

This is hands-down the dumbest idea I have ever heard in my life. Who would buy into this bullshit idea? As if there is any organization trustworthy and capable enough to disseminate this protection money (that ISPs will never pay anyway) in a way that is either fair or beneficial for the economics of the entertainment industry?

I mean does anyone else see how they're just sneaking in bullshit language to cover up the fact that this is protection money, and probably a way to get their foot in the door to get ISPs to become contractually obligated to do things for the Mafiaa that US courts would not have compelled them to do without an explicit agreement?

This really is the stupidest most bullshit idea ever proposed. I've never seen anything worse in my life.

WTF?!

we yes but ....

[taniwha]

what if I've already bought your crap and don't want to pay for it again? (I own ~1000 CDs I've bought each one, I don't download music but I use the internet heavily, why should I pay a tax like this?)

If only Time-Warner owned an ISP...

[ruinevil]

Oh wait... they own a couple.. AOL and Roadrunner.

Re:If only Time-Warner owned an ISP...

[ruinevil]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_Runner_(ISP)

All the music they say you can have?

[inTheLoo]

No thanks. The goal is not to give you music for money, it's to continue their control the industry. The pieces will invariably include:

• A choice of non free OS "support" Windows and OSX if those companies pay their fees.
• Block of all competition. Like the RIAA record store of old it's their way or no way.
• The same kind of shit you hear on the radio already.
• Ever increasing fees to remain advertisement free. Once they have you paying, you will never see the end of it.

They have already tried this shit on college campuses and it failed dismally. Their software sucked and so did the music selection. The vast majority of students ignored the service to purchase CDs, download really free music and trade music without the RIAA's help. The RIAA simply can't compete and that's why their members companies revenues are crashing at 15% per year.

The world is rushing to embrace alternate lables and artists who are putting the fun back into music. No one wants to give money to people who are suing their friends. The world is going to party on without them.

Re:overrated moderation should have limits.

[CSMatt]

I don't remember meta-moderating anyone with a modifier of "overrated" or seeing a "Score X: Overrated" indicator on any posts. I'm pretty sure that the meta-modder would see "Rating: [original rating]" even if "Overrated" had a majority of the points in the post. Then again, I don't really know how Slashdot operates.

Re:Common Carrier

[Anonymous Coward]

ISP's are already protected by their Common Carrier status.
There's a reason for this - and it's because the ISP's cannot easily monitor traffic that flows across its network. It's the same way the postal service couldn't easily read the letters of all the mail it delivers.

Wouldn't it be easier setting up a website similar to Amazon where people can pay $X/month for "all they can download" DRM-free music?
Everytime a song/album is downloaded the system keeps track of it, and at the end of the month the artist gets paid for the number of times their music has been downloaded?
You could even allow for independant artists to upload and distribute their music through your network.

$20 billion

[Alsee]

Great idea!

The entire music industry gross revenues are about $14 billion. So what we'll do is hand the RIAA $20 billion pure profit for sitting back and not doing any work in particular on top of them continuing to collecting most of the $14 billion they get now minus whatever speculative amount legal P2P might actually diminish those $14 billion revenues.

I'm glad to see we've finally found a fair solution.

-

What about an 'opt-in' version of this?

[big_paul76]

Allow me to propose a counter-offer: Anybody who wants to voluntarily pay X $$ per month tacked onto their ISP bill, they can commit as many acts of non-commercial copyright infringement that they like. That is, anyone who pays the fee/levy/whatever gets blanket immunity from RIAA lawsuits.

Anybody who isn't interested, well, they can choose to continue with the current status quo.

Let me start the negotiation for what that amount per month should be with my offer of $1 per month.

UltraTrap?

[TaoPhoenix]

... and Comcast began playing around with filtering ... at the behest of content interests, right? Could this remotely be a deep trap to trick ISP's into losing their common status?

Re:Common Carrier

[fremean]

How dare you be logical.

Such an idea couldn't possibly work! Someone could pay the $X, download our entire collection and share it all on bittorrent for everyone else!!
</mode>

TBH, I think that's a great idea - I havn't downloaded a single mp3 in over 3 years (sorry, but nothing good has come out recently - yes that's how bad your music is, I won't even go to the effort of downloading it for free). Making me pay $x per month on my ISP bill would be wrong - unless you were giving it to the porn industry.

However, if you made a site with a monthly subscription that let you download limitless or X per month songs (be reasonable about it - remember you have to compete with free) and made it easy to search/use with no DRM. People will generally prefer to use such a site as it'll be faster and easier then most of the other methods of downloading such files.

Re:overrated moderation should have limits.

[aleph42]

You're making a small confusion there: I'm not trying to get a recourse fo a moderation, but to change the general rules that govern moderation and meta-moderation to make them mor fair (in the future, and for everyone).

When I was asking "where" I should say that, I ment like a slashdot thread designed to speak about slashdot (Ã la "village pump" of Wikipedia), or some kind of forum (a mail to the editors is not enough; I'm trying to get support in the community).

This is just raising costs across the board.

[Steauengeglase]

So will this mean that Ma Bell can charge customers for breakage -er a P2P tax processing fee?

Sounds like a nice setup for everyone except the suckers, I mean consumers.

Re:This is just raising costs across the board.

[Steauengeglase]

I meant to say music tax, not p2p tax. Sorry about that one.

Re:overrated moderation should have limits.

[aleph42]

Then again, I don't really know how Slashdot operates.

That's part of the problem, isn't it? Like for example, why don't you when you get a token or not?

I know that the sourcecode is released at slashcode, but I guess the specific rules (like displaying the score of overrated comments in meta-mod) an't be inffered from it.

I don't like the idea BUT

[TheLink]

I don't like it but I might think it's tolerable if:
1) The fee charged is low (doesn't affect cost of internet access that much) , and can be different on a per country basis.
2) It allows ISPs to cache the content without being sued - this means ISPs can start having "Super Peers" for seeding P2P stuff in their networks.

The ISP can then throttle P2P connections that go to other ISPs, except those for their Super Peers, and prioritize inter-isp traffic to their Super Peers, and Super Peer traffic to their customers.

This would be a lot more bandwidth efficient. And the P2P users could get their torrent downloads faster or at the same speed without affecting the other users as much.

This already happens with TV

[enjoyoutdoors]

My family only watches an international channel. Yet I must pay for, and subsidize, a program of "standard channels", even though I do not use them, in order to get the international channel (which is charged seperately) . All of the providers (Cable and Satallite) all do this. I have no choice.

Re:This already happens with TV

[DrLang21]

This may change soon if the FCC gets its way with its a-la-carte proposal.

Big Fat Paulie

[Comatose51]

How is this different from the "protection money" Big Fat Paulie wants me to pay in return for not lighting my shop on fire? I get free music in return? Well Paulie said that I'm protected from the other criminals in return.

Re:Royalties? Where?

[BlueStrat]

I intend on distributing my music through the web, how can I get in on those payments?

I believe Steve Albini has the procedure for that outlined here:

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

In other words, if you're not signed to a major label, fugettaboutit!

You think they want to share any money with the competition?

Cheers!

Strat

How Does One Opt Out?

[LuYu]

Of course, this wont be a perfect system, especially if they are the one pushing it; the amount of the fee still has to be debated, and they obviously intend to keep the lion's share in that money. (Even if digital distribution specifically means that they are not needed in the loop anymore (okay, except for marketing; but that should be done through youtube and blogs now)).

Even if they do implement this system in some sort of ideal way, it still does not solve the caveat emptor problem. How can people who are sick of the RIAA and their tactics manage not to pay them?

Market controls only work when the buyers have a choice. Once again, the RIAA is trying to force people to pay. Their business model is based on government enforced extortion, and anybody who pays them is funding the record industry's theft from society and countless individuals who have been unfairly sued.

If the artists get paid, I am all for it. But I am in no way inclined to compensate a bunch of brainless MBA's who studied How to Rip Off Artists for Dummies in college.

not good

[suck_burners_rice]

Reminds me of something The Disney Channel did years ago. It used to be a "premium" channel that you specifically had to order. In an effort to massively increase the number of subscribers, they convinced the cable companies to charge everyone $5 extra each month and to include The Disney Channel with the standard cable package. Now the music industry wants to charge all Internet users for music downloaded by a small subset of the Internet's users. (Charge ISPs, the ISPs will charge the users.) And then it's still not legal to download music -- all this extra money does is give the ISPs peace of mind that the music companies won't sue them. It doesn't make any sense.

Biggest Problem

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The biggest problem here is that it won't solve anything. People want more access to art, but they don't want to pay for it. The RIAA wants to be paid fairly for all the unauthorised accesses to the art they produce. The two are incompatible. Either we'll have a super-inflated internet connection price (and be screwed over), the RIAA will be screwed over (as they are being now by pirates), or both parties will be screwed over simultaneously to a lesser extent (which is essentially what is happening now with piracy, lawsuits, restrictions, etc).

Wow, another sdrawkcab idea!

[rychanwr3]

So, would deaf Internet users also be taxed by this? Or would ISP's instead have to check out each customers history also into the plan...pfft

Paid fairly????

[Anonymous Coward]

10% for marketing, 10% for distribution channel would be *fair*. But it's not fair when they add 15% breakages, tell you where you spend your money for the work (ooh, it's our subsidiary!!!) tells you when your music is good enough when your contract is done and so on.

Nowt velvet here

Not any more

[rastoboy29]

If they'd come up with this ten years ago, I might have folded and agreed it was a good idea.

But not now.  They've not earned this.  They've earned something else.

Expect this to get some traction on Capitol Hill, however.

Oh but yes

[Anonymous Coward]

And then there were a few providers who wouldn't pay. They set up a new network where this practice was prohibited, at the time called the Othernet. They and their customers were sued endlessly, and Othernet-Internet gateways were crushed mercilessly. He who controls the wires controls the network. He who controls the network controls the content.

The RIAA's license fee proved to be the revolution that transformed intellectual property. Because the original Internet was an open system, it wasn't possible to tell what information was being pirated. So the RIAA members squabbled over their share of the license fee, arguing over which artists were being pirated most frequently. The Secure Internet initiative attempted to solve this problem by requiring all packets to be encrypted and signed with a certificate identifying the sender. The hardware required to verify packet signatures became a de jure standard no vendor could avoid.

On the Secure Internet it was easy to determine who sent what to whom. Naturally this destroyed online anonymity and privacy, but two billion Facebook and Google users had long ago decided that they didn't care about either. The Secure Internet was a network controlled by the Government authorities who ran the central Digital Rights Management system, issuing the required certificates to users. Like television in the 20th century, the Internet had become the bread and circuses that kept the population satisfied, providing the illusion of freedom and democracy while oppressing both. The revolution would not be online.

The market for the non-Secure Internet shrivelled as the major corporations withdrew their support for it. When support was widespread, major routing hubs in China and the USA started blocking non-Secure traffic. The last desperate holdouts - "tin foil hats", they called them - were off the network forever. It had only taken a decade to change the nature of the network completely, and the common man never noticed. He'd never cared about that technical shit anyway, although it was strange that his Internet bill kept increasing.

The RIAA are still in business today. Most of their revenue now comes from microroyalty payments, levied whenever anyone transfers one of their files across the network. The 2020 "final copyright extension" guarantees them an income forever. It's the same with the MPAA.. did you know that the first Mickey Mouse film is still in copyright, more than a hundred years after it was made?

Re:overrated moderation should have limits.

[QuantumG]

I think here is about the best you'll get.

I am deaf, why do I have to pay?

[ielmira]

Being a a deaf person, it owudl seem to me rather unfair, as there is absolutely no way I could make use of any downloaded music. How will they accomadate me?

They Have Nothing I want

[John Hasler]

> It seems like in exchange for this monthly fee you get access to legal downloads.

They have absolutely nothing I want. I mean that literally.

They haven't thought this through

[giafly]

• Every Web Page will come with "Elevator Music" to qualify for a slice of the cake.
• Want an IM client on your desktop? "de dah de dum di dum di dah" it whispers, just loud enough to count as a tune.
• Here's a spam email, "DE! DAH! DE! DAH! DE! DAH!", paying for itself from your subscription fee.

It's a safe bet that there will be nothing left for the real musicians.

Re:No. Just no.

[John Hasler]

You don't quite understand. They want a Federal law requiring the ISPs to collect the fee and hand it over to them.

Microsoft Tax vs Music Tax

[Edgester]

Hmmmm. Microsoft Tax vs Music Tax. Which one is more evil? I'd say the Music Tax. At least I can opt-out of the MS tax.

Devil's Advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to argue the other side of this, what they are proposing is not a tax. It's a market based solution. As I understand it, they are proposing that ISPs pay the record labels some amount in return for that ISP's users being granted the right to download any of the labels' music. The ISPs would presumably pass this cost along to the users as a monthly fee, or whatever. No one is saying that the government is going to mandate that ISPs pay this. So if there are a sufficient number of people who are opposed to this - either because they don't download the labels' music, or just on principle - there would exist an ISP who doesn't charge the fee and doesn't indemnify their users from copyright infringement lawsuits. More likely, some ISP will pay the labels and NOT charge their customers any additional fee, choosing to eat the cost in order to gain market share. The business of being an ISP is going to get more and more competitive as fiber, WiMAX, WiFI meshes, 4G phone service, etc., impinge on the market share of cable and phone companies.

In a capitalist market, you only have the right to buy exactly what you want only IF there's financial benefit to someone else in selling it to you.

Bad premise

[mmcuh]

The insane part here is that ISPs have some sort of "legal responsibility for file-sharing" in the first place.

How about this...

[Tikkun]

...we break up all the music labels, throw their executives in the slammer for racketeering, shut down every corporate radio station that takes payola, then have the government sponsor a nationwide renaissance in audio artwork. Just imagine the music that artists could make if they weren't trying to copy some artist that just hit it big copying another artist that is copying the Beatles. Why, we might even hear taleted artists when we sponsor their training from a young age into college.

Fortunately, this will never happen because people must have their new Nickelback album.

Protex with a boycott.

[Anonymous Coward]

First, I used to download music in the Napster days. I stopped a long time ago. I downloaded mainly because the music I downloaded was old and hard to find. I have about 100 CDs and a radio with stations that take requests. So I don't really need new music.

Second, I don't need the speed I have now except to get some sites faster ( the AT&T rep sold it as "you need this speed to watch youtube", not really, I can use a youtube capture program to download it and watch it from my machine, a bit inconvenient but workable ).

If this proposal actually passes, and I'm sure that talk of the ISPs wanting this is pure propaganda, I will downgrade my connection to the next lowest speed so I pay the same.

Enough people do this and the ISPs will get the hint that this is a direct transfer from them to the music industry.

Another broken idea from the music industry

[rnturn]

My ISP provides a connection to the internet for me. They don't force me to use some damned AOL-like portal. I run my own servers (web/mail) so I don't have to connect to their mail service to gather my email. So... where are all these advertisements that are intended to subsidize the music industry supposed to be coming from? I can't see how I'd even be seeing them. Yet I'm possibly going to have to pay to avoid seeing them.

Yet another proposal for dipping into my wallet coming from an industry that still has no idea how the Internet is supposed to work. I'm having trouble figuring out who further from understanding this: the RIAA or Ted Stevens.

Don't want it, won't pay

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't purchased a RIAA CD in so long I can't remember when it last was - but over 10 years at least. I've got all the music I want, have everything in MP3 format that I already purchased several times (cassette, album, CD, replaced CD)... I've got stuff that I collected from the Net which was non-RIAA crap...

The one CD that I did purchase was of a guy who's performance some friends of mine sponsored - he rocked, so I gladly gave him $15 for 30 songs on the CD... Great stuff, and he's a nice guy too so I'm happy to support him (Mike Beck - you ROCK!).

I don't trade music because I have everything I want already. And the top 40 drivel that's out now is absolutely worthless so I'll never collect that crap.

I don't listen to the radio - once Clear Channel grabbed everything and I couldn't switch between channels during commercials, it became a waste of time to even have it on. When driving I listen to the never-ending automated AM-based traffic report. When I'm not in the area, I have my iPod filled with about 5 months worth of music and podcasts to listen to - so there's no need for the radio either...

Don't even get me going on that satellite crap... I'm not paying a monthly subscription to listen to stuff which I already have on my iPod. And from what I understand - some of the channels have ads on them - fuck that. If I were to pay for it, that means I don't want ANY ads at all, but they're shoving some in little by little...

If my ISP were to put such a tax on my bill, I'd refuse to pay it. I'd call them every single month and demand it to be removed. Let those fucks prove that I'm pirating music. As for "marketing" the fact that they're charging everyone for something - whether they use it or not, that's stupid. I'd use that as the trigger to NOT subscribe to their service.

What about commercial accounts? I'm using the service for business - not for some supposed bullshit entertainment value, do I have to pay?

Where does this crap end? What about the movie fools? The ebook writers? Who wouldn't be able to latch on to this gravy train?

The long and the short of it is that the music "industry" is dead. We don't need the RIAA for distribution any longer. If they want to sell their wares, that's fine - but they aren't going to be able to do it for $1.00/song any longer. They're going to have to accept the fact that the songs aren't worth the same amount after they've been out for 6 months or longer. I've always said that I'd be willing to pay on a sliding scale:

* $0.80 for a "new song" Released today to 6 mos

* $0.50 for a recent song. 6 mos, 1 day to 1 yr

* $0.30 for an old song. 1yr 1 day to 3 years

* $0.20 for anything older than 3 years.

That's it. If someone had to pay 20 cents for a song, why the fuck would they want to pirate it? Why not just get a new fresh copy if your computer crashed and you didn't have a backup? Who would even want to go to a friend and say "hey dude, I'm too cheap to spend 20 cents on a song, can I score a copy from you?"

Geezus, it might actually help them to PROMOTE the music they do have... Someone would hear a song, and pay the 20 cents to pick up a copy of the thing... That alone would be a gazillion percent better in sales than they're doing now.

At this point, everyone knows they're scamming us by charging $15 for a CD, and we don't want to pay that price.... If they want to rip us off, we'll return the favor. We'll simply go in on a CD with some friends, and then everyone shares the content so we get to the price point we want. Is it "legal", maybe not. But morally it's the correct thing to do... eye for an eye and all that...

The sooner the RIAA gets the picture and moves on, the better...

a database of all known music.

[gloryhallelujah]

Or a database of all approved music?
Maybe a database of all music they care to know about.
Perhaps.
Something important to keep in mind here is it's not just the issue of lost revenue from lost sales.
With the advent of P2P sharing they no longer know what the opinion leaders want.
Big Music wants to know what you listen to.
Big Music NEEDS to know what you listen to.
Big Music wants to sell their knowledge of your buying habits.
Big Music is lost without it.
That may be a good thing.

I THINK THIS IS TOTAL GENIUS

[oldbamboo]

Isn't this how things are done in Radio, more or less? It's all out in the open. The music, and it's success is tracked, so the artists get a fair proportion of whetever revenues are generated by their songs. The ISP's pay the recording artists (or more specifically their robot overlord management) for the provision of the indexed catalogue of media, and you and I download songs, non-DRM'ed at a whim. I Love it, provided the cost is nominal.
The big difference is, radio does songs, and that's it, the Internet does video too, and does it well, so any effort would have to be undertaken across the arts, not just music.
Seriously, for my money, this is the best idea ever. Advertising is an absolute fact of life in the modern, capitalist world. And we know, because WE forced their hand on this, and away from DRM, by being very demanding consumers, who are always one step ahead of them, WE KNOW, that if they screw it up, we'll just start hacking the system until it works.
Count me in, as a long-standing conmsumer of the BBC's television, this can work.

Moderate piracy

[Bobb Sledd]

OK, I keep seeing one extreme to the other: "I never buy music" or "I only have 10 CD's and don't need anymore" or "$5? Sure! Now I can pirate all I want!"

Well how about me. I download a song from Shareazaa once in awhile. I'm a musician, and sometimes I need to hear an example of what I am going to play. Yes, I probably should pay for it, and when I can't find it on Shareazaa, I go to iTunes.

But we're talking maybe two or three songs a month! It's not a huge number! Certainly not worth $5 a month for me. Even if I were perfectly clean, iTunes still only makes $3/mo from me.

Just covering the middle ground here, and saying it's still a bad idea.

Painful Withdrawal

[carrier lost]

Every time the entertainment industry comes up with another idea designed to force the money-spigot wide open, it reeks of the desperation of a junky trying to get one last hit.

These bastards have sat on their asses for over fifty years, reaming artists and raping customers and enjoying tons of cash.

Those days are over, but the junkies can't conceive of a world in which they don't get their easy fix.

It's repugnant.

Can you spell E X T O R T I O N ?

[Kazoo the Clown]

Nice little ISP business you got here. It'd be a real SHAME if something were to happen to it...

ISP Legal Responsibilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh, the only legal responsibility ISPs have is to respond to warrants and subpoenas. They're not financially liable for any infringement. Perhaps this idea would be better suited to a national (global?) content subscription database. ISPs aren't currently financially motivated to care about piracy. Labels and artists could opt-out of (or into) the database, and people who don't use the Internet for media could opt-out of the subscription.

I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an ISP and if the music industry wants to use my network to distribute their music - I want the to pay me!

Worse than doing nothing?

[freezingweasel]

Could acknowledging the possibility of liability inherently cost ISPs safe harbor be definition? (ie accepting any deal is taken as an admission that you've done something that denies that protection?) For that matter, is it possible some major ISPs are already unprotected as a result of recent over-collaberation (spying on citizens w/o warrants)? Could snooping itself (outside of warrants) count as a "not-just-a-conduit" disqualifying action?

Re:overrated moderation should have limits.

[aleph42]

Thanks for the answer; but of course the code slashdot uses is distinct from the way it is used. Actually I'm sure the code allows to do what I'm asking for.

I could confirm this time that speaking about the mod system guarantees you an "offtopic" modding, yet it has to be on topic *somewhere*. I think the best would be a "meta" forum for slashdot.

It's up to us to save our art and music industry

[elucido]

It's simple. We don't need an RIAA or a record company. We don't need Apples Itunes with their pre-selected music programming.

I say, if you people are serious, create your own business models, create your own distribution models, and design it into the web itself, design it into the internet itself, design it into linux itself, into windows itself, and through the design revolution you get the protocol revolution which brings the licenses like creative commons, and that brings the business models which generate the profits to allow us to save the music industry while getting rich in the process.

There's money to be made, Google shows us this, and so does Youtube.

Artist stock exchange is the answer.

[elucido]

We need to simply treat the bands as corporations, and buy and sell stocks in our favorite bands.

Here is an example of how it could work Hollywood Stock Exchange

The Hollywood Stock Exchange idea should be applied to bands as well. Through the prediction markets we can save the arts. We can bet on stuff like album sales, we can bet on anything related to the functioning of the band or the artist. It's a prediction market.

Just as gambling is a sure business model, prediction and speculation is even more sure, because the business model is based on the very model our economy functions on. New bands can issue an IPO of sorts and receive initial investment by the fans who discover them, the original fans along with the band will then get rich together if the band sells a lot of albums.

No need to have record companies, no need to have an RIAA, no need to even care about album sales really.