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.'"

6 of 236 comments (clear)

  1. Who Says I wanna buy your crap? by DigitalisAkujin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  2. careful by nguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Did They Hire Ex-SCO Staffers? by dcollins · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  4. Re:Complete change of strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:what about TV? by pavera · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:Complete change of strategy by utopianfiat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    +5, Truth