Grant, thanks for your interest. I'm glad to hear you're making money with your brain -- I don't hold out much hope of my solution being implemented any time soon, so we would do well to look to your example if we want to make a living...
But let me see if I can address some of your objections.
"1. Unless it's 100% "fire & forget" then the ISP's will bitch & moan about setting it up"
Well, let them bitch and moan. It will be the law to comply. (That said, I'd like to figure out a way to get the government out of the model -- I'm working on an idea for it but I don't quite have it yet.)
"2. Unless it's 100% easy and centralised with automation, it benefits the big boys and not the basement recorders."
That is exactly the idea, that it would be 100% easy. Any random schmuck could get a "tag" for their work simply by registering with the US Copyright Office. Then all they have to do is post it, and if anyone downloads it, they will start collecting royalties. The system would benefit BOTH the big boys AND the basement recorders. (Any system that doesn't benefit the big boys has NO chance of getting implemented in the land of $50m Senate campaigns.)
"3. Packaging the files together into a compressed archive will avoid the TAG searches"
Still working out the details, but my first pass is that the tags would be implemented as part of the IP header and tracked by routing software... file format is unaffected.
"4. Why should I pay for some lame-o who just slurps TAG'd files?"
This is the biggest argument against the model. It is to some degree unjust that users of minimal copyrighted content subsidize those who consume more. But I believe that this small evil is outweighed by the greater good of providing a simple, equitible way for creators to be paid for internet distribution of their work.
"5. What about "self-promotion" - I produce a TAG'd file and stick it up somewhere. I then go to what-ever places I can and start d/l'ing the file. It costs me stuff-all (free if I can "borrow" other people's accounts, etc) but it drives up the amount I get paid."
Another valid point. "Gaming" of the system will be possible. But unlike users of Freenet, people who game this system will NOT be anonymous since the checks have to be mailed somewhere! These people can be targeted with civil or criminal legal action to prevent this sort of behavior.
Sorry if it was unclear. The idea is that the pool of money collected by ISPs would be distributed DIRECTLY TO COPYRIGHT HOLDERS (who in many cases will be artists themselves, though in many cases will also be giant media conglomerates) by performing rights organizations like BMI and ASCAP.
BMI and ASCAP are far from perfect, but they do get money to creators.
I mentioned a similar idea in the article but didn't make a big deal...
The idea is that advertisers could subsidize the licensing fees buy buying end-user eyeballs directly from the ISP...
This becomes a major new source of revenue for ISP's, reduces the cost of bandwidth (possibly to FREE, if you're willing to watch a bunch of ads), and provides advertisers with a much more efficient way to reach customers...
This is a good point. I think I have a solution, but I'm not very happy with it.
Basically, all ISP's would have to implement the system at once. It would have to be legislated that as of Jan 1, 2005 (or something), all ISPs will have to track the "tags". In short, the first of your suggestions: all ISPs would transfer all content.
I'd love to get government out of the model but I haven't figured out a way to do it yet.
Have you, Mr. Coward, tried to make a living from music, writing, movies, or even code, without some sort of corporate sponsor? Trust me, it's a tall order, even now when you can still charge for the physical object containing your ideas. Unless something changes, it's only going to get harder.
This isn't about greed. It's about preserving an incentive for talented people to be creative so that they can devote their efforts to their work without starving.
You and Karma Sink are right, this is a valid objection to the model. But I don't think it makes the suggestion invalid, when you consider the alternatives. And this kind of a subsidy exists elsewhere.
Consider health care. Since sick patients cost a great deal of money to treat, we group everyone together and allow the premiums from healthy patients to offset the incurred by sick ones. We as a society have made the decision that this little injustice is justified by the greater good of making sure sick people don't die.
I would argue, similarly, that causing users of minimal copyrighted content to subsidize users of lots of content is a lesser evil than allowing creators to go completely uncompensated. But I respect that you disagree with this judgement.
Please reread it before you go with the knee-jerk "anything can be hacked" reaction. Of COURSE anyhing can be hacked. I AGREE with you. That's one of the premises the model is based on. The idea is that we need to REMOVE THE INCENTIVE to hack the system. I think my model does so.
QuantumG you get it exactly right. Anyone could participate in the system. Creators won't need to work through a major publisher to make money for their work, all they'd need to do is register their work with the Copyright office, get a signature unique to that work, attach it to the file and post it on their website and BAM the checks start rolling in...
I still have to work out the details of the metering tech... I want to implement it in IP, handle everything at the router level, so we don't need to worry about what the end-user may or may not have installed... QuantumG, maybe you could help me work this stuff out? Please email at the address at the top of the article, if you have a chance.
There are a number of ways people could "game" the system to try to generate more income from "tagged" files than they really deserve. But since you have to mail the check somewhere, those people could be the target of civil or criminal legal action. That's the best defense I have against it...
"We all know what people really choose. And no kind of distributed payment system will rectify the fact that one person making the same information and services available for free will put everyone else trying to charge for it out of the running. "
Actually, this proposal does. Since it costs the END USER the same amount whether they get it from a copyrighted, legal source, or from a non-copyrighted OR illegal source, free content exerts no competitive pressure on paid content.
If you give away your stuff for free, the per-MB charges for users are proportionally lower, since the ISP won't have to collect any licensing fees on your behalf.
I'm the author of the article. Thanks for reading it and for the spirited debate. The only way to improve the model is through discussions like this.
To reply to several of your points:
Re "scrambling the tags": you're right, this is a possible exploit against the model, but since the checks have to be MAILED somewhere, there is a target available for civil or criminal legal action. This exploit can be combatted.
As far as "fairness" goes, the idea is that it would be an open system -- any content creator could simply register their content with the copyright office, tag it, and distribute it, and the money will roll in. It benefits startups maybe more than anyone else.
You do raise an important point though with respect to the value of information. A BIG problem with the model is that it requires a stautory rate scheme, where content owners can't set their own prices for their material. I'd like to fix that but I haven't figured out how yet.
Anyway, thanks for your attention -
Pinky
Slashdot Mirror
I am the author of the article ...
...
... file format is unaffected.
Grant, thanks for your interest. I'm glad to hear you're making money with your brain -- I don't hold out much hope of my solution being implemented any time soon, so we would do well to look to your example if we want to make a living
But let me see if I can address some of your objections.
"1. Unless it's 100% "fire & forget" then the ISP's will bitch & moan about setting it up"
Well, let them bitch and moan. It will be the law to comply. (That said, I'd like to figure out a way to get the government out of the model -- I'm working on an idea for it but I don't quite have it yet.)
"2. Unless it's 100% easy and centralised with automation, it benefits the big boys and not the basement recorders."
That is exactly the idea, that it would be 100% easy. Any random schmuck could get a "tag" for their work simply by registering with the US Copyright Office. Then all they have to do is post it, and if anyone downloads it, they will start collecting royalties. The system would benefit BOTH the big boys AND the basement recorders. (Any system that doesn't benefit the big boys has NO chance of getting implemented in the land of $50m Senate campaigns.)
"3. Packaging the files together into a compressed archive will avoid the TAG searches"
Still working out the details, but my first pass is that the tags would be implemented as part of the IP header and tracked by routing software
"4. Why should I pay for some lame-o who just slurps TAG'd files?"
This is the biggest argument against the model. It is to some degree unjust that users of minimal copyrighted content subsidize those who consume more. But I believe that this small evil is outweighed by the greater good of providing a simple, equitible way for creators to be paid for internet distribution of their work.
"5. What about "self-promotion" - I produce a TAG'd file and stick it up somewhere. I then go to what-ever places I can and start d/l'ing the file. It costs me stuff-all (free if I can "borrow" other people's accounts, etc) but it drives up the amount I get paid."
Another valid point. "Gaming" of the system will be possible. But unlike users of Freenet, people who game this system will NOT be anonymous since the checks have to be mailed somewhere! These people can be targeted with civil or criminal legal action to prevent this sort of behavior.
Again, thanks for your interest -
P
Sorry if it was unclear. The idea is that the pool of money collected by ISPs would be distributed DIRECTLY TO COPYRIGHT HOLDERS (who in many cases will be artists themselves, though in many cases will also be giant media conglomerates) by performing rights organizations like BMI and ASCAP.
BMI and ASCAP are far from perfect, but they do get money to creators.
P
I mentioned a similar idea in the article but didn't make a big deal ...
The idea is that advertisers could subsidize the licensing fees buy buying end-user eyeballs directly from the ISP...
This becomes a major new source of revenue for ISP's, reduces the cost of bandwidth (possibly to FREE, if you're willing to watch a bunch of ads), and provides advertisers with a much more efficient way to reach customers...
P
This is a good point. I think I have a solution, but I'm not very happy with it.
Basically, all ISP's would have to implement the system at once. It would have to be legislated that as of Jan 1, 2005 (or something), all ISPs will have to track the "tags". In short, the first of your suggestions: all ISPs would transfer all content.
I'd love to get government out of the model but I haven't figured out a way to do it yet.
P
Have you, Mr. Coward, tried to make a living from music, writing, movies, or even code, without some sort of corporate sponsor? Trust me, it's a tall order, even now when you can still charge for the physical object containing your ideas. Unless something changes, it's only going to get harder.
This isn't about greed. It's about preserving an incentive for talented people to be creative so that they can devote their efforts to their work without starving.
P
I am the author of the article ...
You and Karma Sink are right, this is a valid objection to the model. But I don't think it makes the suggestion invalid, when you consider the alternatives. And this kind of a subsidy exists elsewhere.
Consider health care. Since sick patients cost a great deal of money to treat, we group everyone together and allow the premiums from healthy patients to offset the incurred by sick ones. We as a society have made the decision that this little injustice is justified by the greater good of making sure sick people don't die.
I would argue, similarly, that causing users of minimal copyrighted content to subsidize users of lots of content is a lesser evil than allowing creators to go completely uncompensated. But I respect that you disagree with this judgement.
P
I am the author of the article ...
Please reread it before you go with the knee-jerk "anything can be hacked" reaction. Of COURSE anyhing can be hacked. I AGREE with you. That's one of the premises the model is based on. The idea is that we need to REMOVE THE INCENTIVE to hack the system. I think my model does so.
P
YES YES YES!!
...
... I want to implement it in IP, handle everything at the router level, so we don't need to worry about what the end-user may or may not have installed ... QuantumG, maybe you could help me work this stuff out? Please email at the address at the top of the article, if you have a chance.
QuantumG you get it exactly right. Anyone could participate in the system. Creators won't need to work through a major publisher to make money for their work, all they'd need to do is register their work with the Copyright office, get a signature unique to that work, attach it to the file and post it on their website and BAM the checks start rolling in
I still have to work out the details of the metering tech
P
These are all valid objections.
...
There are a number of ways people could "game" the system to try to generate more income from "tagged" files than they really deserve. But since you have to mail the check somewhere, those people could be the target of civil or criminal legal action. That's the best defense I have against it
P
"We all know what people really choose. And no kind of distributed payment system will rectify the fact that one person making the same information and services available for free will put everyone else trying to charge for it out of the running. "
Actually, this proposal does. Since it costs the END USER the same amount whether they get it from a copyrighted, legal source, or from a non-copyrighted OR illegal source, free content exerts no competitive pressure on paid content.
P
If you give away your stuff for free, the per-MB charges for users are proportionally lower, since the ISP won't have to collect any licensing fees on your behalf.
P
I'm the author of the article. Thanks for reading it and for the spirited debate. The only way to improve the model is through discussions like this. To reply to several of your points: Re "scrambling the tags": you're right, this is a possible exploit against the model, but since the checks have to be MAILED somewhere, there is a target available for civil or criminal legal action. This exploit can be combatted. As far as "fairness" goes, the idea is that it would be an open system -- any content creator could simply register their content with the copyright office, tag it, and distribute it, and the money will roll in. It benefits startups maybe more than anyone else. You do raise an important point though with respect to the value of information. A BIG problem with the model is that it requires a stautory rate scheme, where content owners can't set their own prices for their material. I'd like to fix that but I haven't figured out how yet. Anyway, thanks for your attention - Pinky