Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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?
Don't take my posts literally; it's just code to control my botnet.
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.
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...
...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.
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?
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.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
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.
God spoke to me.
... if I don't like whats available?
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
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
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).
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.