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

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?

[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.

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 :(

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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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?!

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).

Familiar practice

[NoobixCube]

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

Indeed

[QuantumG]

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

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.

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)?

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.

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.

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.

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?)

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

[ruinevil]

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

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.

-

Re:Complete change of strategy

[cheater512]

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

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.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

Bad premise

[mmcuh]

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

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.

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.