Slashdot Mirror
Support Grows For Blanket Music Licensing
Anti-Globalism sends in Ars coverage of a speech by Jim Griffin, who is a consultant for Warner, one of the big four music labels. Griffin is encouraging dialog on the idea of blanket licensing of music — a topic heretofore more likely to be heard from the EFF or the Barenaked Ladies. "Taking music without paying for it may not be 'morally voluntary,' Griffin says, but he admits it has become 'functionally voluntary.' No civilized society, he adds, can endure 'purely voluntary payment for art, knowledge, and culture.' So Griffin's job is to help Warner monetize digital music, and he's convinced that the issue of payment for music is nothing less than 'our generation's nuclear power.' Griffin's most intriguing idea, and one he's been pitching for some time now, is a voluntary, blanket music license; essentially, bringing the collection society model to end users. In this model, consumers would pay royalties into a pot (by paying an extra monthly fee to their ISPs, for instance) and would then have access to all the music from all the labels that participate in the scheme."
In other words, the amount of money paid towards works will "liberate" that work for public consumption and the money will go towards the artist to create additional works?
Twinstiq, game news
At least one of the labels is seeing what the future holds: The end of the major music labels.
With an "ISP Tax" they can maintain their businesses as a more or less useless parasite on society, getting large amounts of income and still holding the power of saying who is to become a star and who is not.
Another problem is the small, independent labels, not to mention musicians who manage without a label. Think they'll get any money? Think again. The major labels have decades of experience lobbying government, so who do you think will end up administrating this?
It will also require registering and logging what music is downloaded, which will be a hard task in itself... unless music on the internet is centralized.
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
Um, over my dead body.
Hasn't this idea come up before? With CD-Rs? Someone was proposing that every CD-R purchase was used for illegal music CD copies, so a "music label" tax would be applied to all CD-R purchases.
This is basically the MPAA asking the government to enforce its copyrights yet again. Copyright is a CIVIL matter, not a CRIMINAL matter. The criminal judicial system has no business helping the MPAA enforce its copyrights.
I don't buy music because I don't care about music that much. I listen to online radio stations because I don't have time to manager a personal music collection. I have a small music collection from a few years ago when I had the time to do it. But the last piece of music I obtained was over a year or two ago.
I owe the MPAA $0. Zip. Zero. Nada. And there's no reason for me to pay an ISP tax to them.
If it's done right, perhaps what a person puts into the pool only goes out to the artists he or she listens to. So if you just listen to Radiohead and NIN, your fee (less of course some admin portion) would get split between the two bands (perhaps based on number of listens, perhaps based on actual listening time) and trailer trash skanks won't get any of your money.
Probably not how it'd actually turn out, but this would be the best case scenario for this plan, don't you think?
Christopher S. 'coldacid' Charabaruk -- coldacid.net
What about me? I don't want to pay any sort of music tax. I spend maybe 20 hrs per year choosing to listen to music of my own volition and all of that is from music I purchased in CD format ~10+ years ago. I don't download music and I don't listen to music radio, why would I want to subsidize those who do?
-Billy
Money could be allocated based on measurements of whose work is downloaded most, but that kind of system could be gamed. Another way to do it is to poll the members that have signed up for the scheme to determine how the money should be allocated, but that could also hurt the little guys: you download 200 different artists and you only remember your favorite 20 or so when you fill out the poll. Or a combination could be used. But any fair system is going to handsomely reward the pop princess of the day, like it or not.
(1) They have a guaranteed, mandatory monopoly forever.
(2) And they don't have to produce anything anymore.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
They seem to be careful to emphasize that they see this as voluntary -- a service you sign up for alongside your regular internet service. It's not so much a "tax" as another commenter responded (which applies equally and involuntarily to everyone regardless of interest or opposition), it's a "license" (which applies, in advance, to anyone who indicates they will or might want to participate in an activity like hunting or fishing, regardless of whether they actually do).
This suggests that they will make it very easy and attractive to sign up in the first place, but then make it tedious and difficult to make use of it, and very hard to get out of a contract once agreed to. Moreover, they will use the participation of some people as a weapon against others in their lawsuits -- they will claim not only infringement damages per-song, but also claim that they are undermining their pay service. Damages claimed will surely skyrocket.
Amusingly, the same arguments used to keep your health care system privatized will be used to keep music downloading illegal. The ironing is delicious.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
I think it's going to go the same route as wedding photography. In the old days, the photographer would shoot your wedding for a small fee or even free, but you had to pay like $20-$100 per print for the pictures. When scanners and color printers became widespread, people just started to make their own prints from the proof sheets. For a while the photographers tried to do things like print "SAMPLE" over the proofs. But now most of them have switched business models. They give you the prints (or a CD) at cost or even for free. But they charge you a substantial fee for shooting the wedding.
If you think about it, it makes a lot more sense than the old way. The cost to the photographer is not the prints, it's the time, effort, and equipment used at the wedding and in post-processing. Once those costs are paid, they can run off as many prints as they want for almost no cost. So all that's happened is that the cost for the customer is now more closely aligned with the cost for the photographer. I can see the same thing happening with music, where most of the artists' revenue comes from live and commissioned performances. The music itself would be distributed at minimal cost or even for free as advertising for the performances.
"It's described as voluntary. As in, you can pay X to the companies which join the scheme, and then get carte blanche to download music. Or you can just not bother, and continue to buy music from the specific artists you prefer. If it was mandatory, then it'd be pretty dubious."
Riiight. My guess is that it will be "voluntary" like expanded basic cable is "voluntary" - you don't *have* to buy it, but it is almost impossible to get basic cable at the super low rates. It's not listed on the web site, the CSR's don't know about it, and you must go up the chain to get it.
So expect the ISP's to tout "Now includes unlimited music downloads!", and then 3 months later your bill goes up 5 bucks. 99% of the folks will just view it as a bump in cable rates and go on with life. Few will know that you can call up the cable company and go back to the original rate - the CSR's won't know what you are talking about, and it won't be on the website. You didn't throw away that insert that comes with the bill, did you?
Alternately, it will be "voluntary" for ISP's to subscribe to it, but the end user doesn't get a choice. Don't like it? Get another ISP. And ALL the ISP's will subscribe to it.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
It's not the same argument at all. There are plenty of places to get free music without paying or downloading it. You just have to live in the past where it came mainly over the radio.
Privatized medicine isn't the sort of panacea that so many people seem to think it is. That's not to say that our system is perfect, but it can certainly be fixed without nationalizing it.
I'd go further and suggest that nationalized medicine wouldn't work in the US. Do you really want a bunch of nut jobs saying you can't access condoms, pregnancy planning or other treatment because it's against their beliefs?
Considering how much support there's been in recent years for abstinence only policies and for replacing scientists with talking heads, I can't imagine anything good coming from nationalizing it.
At least this way some people get a good quality insurance, rather than nobody.
Of course, I'll be modded down for this, I mean an intelligent thought on /., how unseemly.
Even if most music is rubbish. If all companies agreed to it and we received decent versions (ie preferably something like a 256 bit rate mp3 or better) and you can opt in and out of it then yeah why not?
If the system is fair then those who have more of their music listened to would receive more money which sorts out shit artists but unfortunately also under appreciated artists.
First of all, it's blanket schemes like this which have allowed the existence and/or assured the continuation of the various music mafia groups -- RIAA (particularly in its SoundSource guise), ASCAP, and BMI to name three.
Second, these blanket schemes often seem to somehow get manipulated to benefit not those who are better, or even more popular, but those who are best connected
Third, where they do benefit those who are more popular, they do not do so proportionally; the superstar gets an even greater portion of the spoils than his superstardom should indicate, and the little guy gets not the little bit he should but nothing at all.
Fourth, they ain't called the music mafia for nothing -- they're known for their shakedown tactics. With this, in addition to shaking down small restaurant owners with the temerity to host a band, or anyone with an IP address, they'll shake down ISPs as well.
And finally, why the hell should I, as a person who does not listen to music, pay for you music-addicted freaks who can't put your iPod (oh, excuse me, Ogg Vorbis compatible music player) down for 10 seconds without withdrawal pains? You want music, pay for it yourself; you've got no legitimate claim on my money.
...then only artists would get money for music!
That would utter KILL the music copyright industry.
It's hard to know if the music copyright industry actually serves the interests of the artists. It is unquestionably true that the massive marketing muscle of the music copyright industry makes marketed artists "famous." And it unquestionably valuable to the artists. But where the problem begins is where the artists compensate the marketers by assigning [exclusive] copyrights to their music. Marketers have a right to be paid, but I have to disagree with their right to sue without the approval of the artists.
To that end, I don't believe copyrights, and especially the rights to sue for violation or infringement of copyrights, should not be transferable. If this were to happen, I believe sanity could be restored to the whole problem of the industrialized copyright where a copyright can extend to 99 years after the death of the artist ostensibly to take care of the families of the artists which we know is utter crap since it is not the 'families' but the copyright industrialists who are collecting the royalties on copyrighted material. So while the duration of copyright is still tied to the status of the creator, it is still all about the copyright holder, more specifically, the copyright industrialists who aren't creating anything at all. This goes well beyond the intent of copyrights which, as far as I understand it to be, intended to allow an author to benefit from his works exclusively for a limited time. Instead these extensions of copyright are serving and is in fact the basis of the copyright industry.
And while many artists dream of becoming the next "big thing" I would argue that they don't deserve it. The best art has always been for the sake of good art and should always be for that reason. There's nothing wrong with being the next "big thing" if it happens to go that way and your work merits such recognition on its own. But the damage caused by the marketing muscle of the copyright industrialists has also caused the truly deserving to be ignored by thrusting the likes of B.Spears or whatever the current bubble-gum-pop-artist-of-the-day may be. So now the copyright industrialists have succeeded in creating an environment owned by them and controlled by them, and the price of admission into their world is that they must own everything you create... your life's blood. (Prince learned this all too well didn't he?)
So much of this whole issue could be cleared up by taking away the ability to transfer copyright and leaving it, and derivative works forever in the hands of the original creator. Would their still be a "music industry?" Yup! There certainly would. And would they find ways to keep abusing artists? Most likely. But when the right to sue is removed from the industry and placed squarely in the hands of the artists, I think we would see a different kind of industry emerge... and one that would be a lot more friendly to the fans. (Imagine how the public could turn on an artist the moment a lawsuit is filed against a fan... the fans would fall away and "fame" would become notoriety and disappear.)
Why is sanity so hard to achieve and so easy to lose?
Not really. The music I like I'm willing to pay for, so that the artists and the labels I like know I support them and then they make more good music that I like and will buy.
I realize most people would just as soon download for free from the internet. I place a lot of value on my music, and I think the people who make it deserve to get paid.
Of course, once I buy the CD, I'm going to rip it to MP3, play it on my iPod, make mixed CDs, and generally use the music the way I see fit.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Sean Kennedy's great sci-fi radio novella Tales From The Afternow follows your basic wanderer-traversing-the-post-apocalypse-wastelands story line. But it's not the apocalypse part of the story that makes your hair stand on end.
Before the apocalypse the major media conglomerates created a joint discount card. Use your discount card and you get 75% off retail. See a $10 movie for $2.50. Buy a $20 DVD for $5. MP3s, books, magazines, paintings, it applies to nearly all media.
Of course everyone signed up. Two years later the card becomes a legal requirement. Want to see a movie? Download music? Watch TV? Get a book from the library? You need your card, otherwise you're locked out. If you commit piracy, your license is revoked and you're cut off from all media.
In the totalitarian post-apocalypse world, the license is required for anything involving information, and any unregulated use of information is illegal. Private ownership of a microphone or a camera is illegal. Speaking English requires the license. "There used to be a time people could sing openly without being worried about licensing. There used to be a time when you'd be able to a read a book or tell a story. Of course the books are gone. And you can still lose your license by telling stories. Its dangerous business being creative."
Just sayin'.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Companies like Warner really shouldnt be surprised that people place no monetary value on music when they themselves are pumping it out at such low quality/high quantity that the actual value of it is not far off a flat zero.
The present system financially rewards the moronic and supresses meaningful creativity through the demand on musicians to whore themselves. til that is fixed its pointless people standing around scratching their heads wondering why people arent paying for music.
I really would like to see somebody make the leap and extend that argument to defend downloading movies. Anyone care to make the leap?
I don't think we are talking much of a leap here. I know lots of people that go to the movies every weekend; I don't think I know anyone that buys a CD per week anymore (or a concert for that matter).
No civilized society, he adds, can endure 'purely voluntary payment for art, knowledge, and culture.'
When I go to the Symphony, and listen to "Pictures at an Exhibition", I'm voluntarily paying to listen to a piece that I probably have half a dozen copies of already.
Is the logic here that the symphony isn't culture, or that it's not art, or that it's not civilized?
And what is better? Is it music as it was a hundred years ago or music as it is now?
Sorry, no. Modern music is crap because the music industry operates very differently now than it did in the 50s, 60s, 70s, or 80s. Any good music that's out there doesn't get publicized by the big labels.
What I'm seeing these days is that teenagers are listening to the music I listened to as a kid, because the music of their own generation is crap.
>You miss my point. Up until about 100 years ago at most, musicians made their money off their own performances, not others playing their music.
Well, you have a point, but if you research a bit, you might find numerous parallels today, with the sheet-music publishing situation 100 years ago.
Go back a little further, and it was quite common for artists to simply "have their needs met by benefactors" in exchange for their art.
I would do this. If I could have a comfortable home and plenty of food and plenty of freedom to travel, and of course, artistic freedom, I'd be happy to never *touch* money. But then, my needs are simple, and all I really want in life is a pleasant place to live, with a very good acoustic space large enough for a grand piano (and I want the piano).
I'd pretty much do nothing but play the piano every day, all day, composing music, until I die. Everything I do for money, is essentially nothing but a means to this end. And I'd seriously live without money if I could have that kind of, let's say, Renaissance situation.
Any wealthy mistresses out there who want to be my patron?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
you have this backwards, like copyright (copywrong) pundits you don't understand why people go to cinemas. People don't go to cinemas to see a movie alone, however they will watch a movie at home on their own, the reason for going to a cinema is for social events, with friends and colleges or (shock horror) to take a girl on a date. I don't really know many people who will go to a cinema on their own, even for a movie they want to see.
Problems with cinema's are three fold,
1. overpricing, this is because cinemas are charged so much by license holders that ticket sales alone barely cover the cost of operation. Charges for cinemas are so high the copyright holders can make back the cost of production and distribution in just a matter of weeks at worst (the biggest movies can make back the cost of production in single weekend) but yet maintain a 70+ year copyright control over it.
2. Cleanliness, I don't like going to cinema's even with friends or a date because they are dirty, smelly and the staff are just unfriendly. I didn't realise just how bad Australian cinemas were until I went to one in Thailand, ticket was 160 Baht or AU$5 (back to point 1, the copyright holders cant gouge the Thai's like they can with the Aussies) snacks were only 99B or AU$3.30, the lobby and cinema were well maintained and kept clean and staff were friendly (granted this was in the tourist area of Phuket where Farang (white foreigners) make up a significant portion of their business), whilst I could have gotten the same movie off a street vendor for 50B (less than AU$2) it just wasn't the same when taking a girl to see a movie. The movie in question was Indiana Jones 4 so at AU$2 I still would have felt ripped off which leads me into point number 3
3. Quality of movies. Most of the films I've seen recently haven't been worth spending the bandwidth on to download (Indi 4, Clone Wars, Anything with Will Ferrell in it) let alone an A$16 ticket let alone sitting though 1/2 an hour of ads and obnoxious copyright warnings. This is the biggest reason that cinema sales are down in AU, above cost and cleanliness is the fact that movies aren't worth seeing and we get better entertainment out of seeing local musicians and comedians perform in clubs and pubs or going to an actual theatre (plays, with actors from a theatrical society that is grateful for your patronage and doesnt treat you like a criminal).
I'd happily pay an entertainment tax so long as an "Industry Association" doest control it, part of my tax already supports the arts with includes the ABC(Australian Broadcasting Corporation, advertisement free public broadcaster that produces local content and broadcasts many BBC shows) and the AFI (Australian Film Industry) which pays for Aussie films to be produced and distributed (like The Castle, The Dish and Kokoda). Hell I'd pay the MGM and the other movie studios directly (not the RIAA or any RIAA like organisation) if it gave me unlimited access to the movies and shows I want to watch, when I want to watch them, ad free (I'm paying) and DRM free. But the "Industry" doesn't want to do this because they've had a good scam going, being able to set prices and no competition, but the average people have a vested interest in seeing this gravy train end. I can say that I've paid to see more live acts (mostly amateur comedy) in the last 3 months than I've downloaded movies.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
In a way Canada already does this.
For some time now Canadians have been paying a fee on every ipod, on every piece of digital media (CDR's and DVD-R's etc...) due to the supposed copying of music. These fees were then supposed to go to the Canadian version of the RIAA, which would then in turn disperse the monies to the artists.
That is my understanding anyway. I wonder how that is working? I wonder if a single cent has ever made it to the artists themselves, or if this has just been basically filling the lobbyist's war chest for lawsuits and paying off political officials.
By my tone you can probably guess how I think it will turn out.
I am not sure these blanket schemes are the way to go. Perhaps if the wording was stronger and the enforcement more profound, then perhaps.