I don't know why governments want to promise big dollars up front. Why can't they negotiate a $ amount for each new job created and at the end of the tax year the company (FoxConn) provides proof of full time employment for X number of workers and they can get their credit. No job creation, no credit. I understand there may need to be some credit up front to help cover capital expenditures, but you can't take all of the risk out of it for the company. They need some skin in it too.
1.- Even if you buy an album (or a license ) you cannot legally distribute it.
Nothing was said about distributing anything. Having a digital file on a machine that is accessible to others is not distribution. What if I left a CD on my car seat and the door to the car was unlocked? Is that distribution? My point is that I think the RIAA should have to prove that an MP3 someone owns is "unlicensed"..people have purchased lots of "licenses" over the years for lots of music and they may be the legal owners of a valid license to the contents of a specific MP3. Also, if someone else who "owns a license" to a specific piece of music wants to download someone else's digital copy (because their own copy is on vinyl and they no longer own a turntable), then what is wrong with that?
2.- Why would "RIAA or whomever" had the right to charge money for "all music produced"? Even music produced by non-RIAA artists? Even music produced outside the USA?
To be more specific, I could have said "all music produced to which they have contractual rights assigned to them". If we're talking about the RIAA, then it would be the RIAA catalog. If we're talking about music that is licensed to some other organization, then it would have to be separate payment to that entity. Quite frankly, the whole idea of an artists signing away the rights to their music to an organization will probably go away. The distribution aspect of the business model of those organizations is rapidly disappearing, so they really become a "marketing organization" for an artist..it seems that the free market forces would make it uneconomical for "marketing organiations" to be able to demand total control over the licensing of an artists music because others would be willing/able to do it without that. Maybe they would do it for a cut of some revenue number or some other financial calculation. The business model will just have to change, like everything else.
3.- What makes you think any artist is going to profit from this? That's funny. I wonder how any artist profits from the accounting practices of most record companies right now! Besides, as was stated earlier, I don't think the largest part of an artists compensation will come from recorded music contracts, but from other sources...after all, there weren't any "recorded music contracts" until the 20th century, so artists made it OK before then, and they didn't have the many other options to make money that exist in todays age.
I think the RIAA should be forced to prove that someone *does not have a license* to digital music. I no longer have my "Frampton Comes Alive" album that I bought in the 7th grade, but I paid for it at one time. After all, I bought a license to the music, not an "album" or "cd"..that was only the delivery medium, right? So, if I scratch my new CD, I should be able to mail it to the record company and get a new one at the cost of manufacturing that replacement CD? Obviously, none of this is true in the real world and isn't likely to happen anyway. In fact, I don't want the RIAA (or anyone else) keeping track of my music purchases anyway. So why don't we get off of the concept of "licensing" a single work and just have someone (RIAA or whomever) charge us $20 a year that includes a license to all music produced. $20 a year from everyone is a nice revenue stream and would keep artists compensated fairly..the artists would make their extra millions on tours/t-shirts/endorsements anyway.
People always try to fit legislative issues some kind of logical context. It just doesn't work because the goal of most legislation isn't to do or define something logically. The goals are usually to manage taxation revenues or to try and influence some macroeconomic aspect of the economy. They want to legislate VoIP to raise tax revenues and/or support an industry that has voting clout. It doesn't matter that bits are bits.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know why governments want to promise big dollars up front. Why can't they negotiate a $ amount for each new job created and at the end of the tax year the company (FoxConn) provides proof of full time employment for X number of workers and they can get their credit. No job creation, no credit. I understand there may need to be some credit up front to help cover capital expenditures, but you can't take all of the risk out of it for the company. They need some skin in it too.
1.- Even if you buy an album (or a license ) you cannot legally distribute it.
Nothing was said about distributing anything. Having a digital file on a machine that is accessible to others is not distribution. What if I left a CD on my car seat and the door to the car was unlocked? Is that distribution? My point is that I think the RIAA should have to prove that an MP3 someone owns is "unlicensed"..people have purchased lots of "licenses" over the years for lots of music and they may be the legal owners of a valid license to the contents of a specific MP3. Also, if someone else who "owns a license" to a specific piece of music wants to download someone else's digital copy (because their own copy is on vinyl and they no longer own a turntable), then what is wrong with that?
2.- Why would "RIAA or whomever" had the right to charge money for "all music produced"? Even music produced by non-RIAA artists? Even music produced outside the USA?
To be more specific, I could have said "all music produced to which they have contractual rights assigned to them". If we're talking about the RIAA, then it would be the RIAA catalog. If we're talking about music that is licensed to some other organization, then it would have to be separate payment to that entity. Quite frankly, the whole idea of an artists signing away the rights to their music to an organization will probably go away. The distribution aspect of the business model of those organizations is rapidly disappearing, so they really become a "marketing organization" for an artist..it seems that the free market forces would make it uneconomical for "marketing organiations" to be able to demand total control over the licensing of an artists music because others would be willing/able to do it without that. Maybe they would do it for a cut of some revenue number or some other financial calculation. The business model will just have to change, like everything else.
3.- What makes you think any artist is going to profit from this? That's funny. I wonder how any artist profits from the accounting practices of most record companies right now! Besides, as was stated earlier, I don't think the largest part of an artists compensation will come from recorded music contracts, but from other sources...after all, there weren't any "recorded music contracts" until the 20th century, so artists made it OK before then, and they didn't have the many other options to make money that exist in todays age.
I think the RIAA should be forced to prove that someone *does not have a license* to digital music. I no longer have my "Frampton Comes Alive" album that I bought in the 7th grade, but I paid for it at one time. After all, I bought a license to the music, not an "album" or "cd"..that was only the delivery medium, right? So, if I scratch my new CD, I should be able to mail it to the record company and get a new one at the cost of manufacturing that replacement CD? Obviously, none of this is true in the real world and isn't likely to happen anyway. In fact, I don't want the RIAA (or anyone else) keeping track of my music purchases anyway. So why don't we get off of the concept of "licensing" a single work and just have someone (RIAA or whomever) charge us $20 a year that includes a license to all music produced. $20 a year from everyone is a nice revenue stream and would keep artists compensated fairly..the artists would make their extra millions on tours/t-shirts/endorsements anyway.
People always try to fit legislative issues some kind of logical context. It just doesn't work because the goal of most legislation isn't to do or define something logically. The goals are usually to manage taxation revenues or to try and influence some macroeconomic aspect of the economy. They want to legislate VoIP to raise tax revenues and/or support an industry that has voting clout. It doesn't matter that bits are bits.