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

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")