The payment by kazaa of $100-million dollars to the 'record indistry' for the download of 20-billion 'tracks' works out to 0.5 cent per track. It can't possibly be worth the while of the 'record industry' to distibute this trifle to the creators of the original works (even if the 'record industry' already know how many times each artist's work was downloaded), so it's pretty obvious the $100-million will be used instead to fatten the coffers of the 'record industry' and never be seen by the creators of original work. Of course, this sort of theft compounds the theft of downloading the 'tracks' in the first place.
Until purchase or per use royalty is paid directly to the creators of original work, it will never be equitable. If royalty were paid directly to the creators of original work, it would then be up to them to pay for services (e.g., distribution, promotion, etc.) rendered (if the services were actually rendered satisfactorily).
Paying purchase or per use royalty to the creators of original work clearly was impractical/impossible before the advent of computers and computer networks. Nowadays, it should be a simple matter to pay purchase or per use royalty directly to the creators of original work and leave the present 'media companies' out of the royalty payment chain altogether. What are now the 'media companies' could continue to provide their 'services', but they would be paid at the discretion of the creators of original work -- for services actually rendered to the satisfaction of the creators of original work.
If the public and the creators of original works would together petition the (Federal) lawmakers, a 'direct' royalty payment system using the Internet could soon be put in place. The same legislation should also void all existing 'artists contracts' with the 'media companies' as they would have been made superfluous. Contracts with 'media companiees' have always been a bad idea, as demonstrated by the observable fact that they have gone so horribly wrong.
Remember the whole point of copyright and royalty payment is to encourage and reward the creators of original work. Funneling the royalty payment through a third party (e.g., the 'media companies', 'publishers', etc.) was always a bad idea, but it started when there was no other option. The Internet makes it possible to fix this mess rather easily.
Does this legislation apply to software in Set-top boxes and/or cable-modems that reports what is watched or surfed?
Is there legislation that does apply to software that monitors what is watched or surfed by users of set-top boxes and/or cable modems?
Such information is collectable without the explicit knowledge of most digital set-top boxes and cable-modem users, and it is easily traceable to the user's account (i.e., the name and address, etc.) of the watcher/surfer.
Slashdot Mirror
Until purchase or per use royalty is paid directly to the creators of original work, it will never be equitable. If royalty were paid directly to the creators of original work, it would then be up to them to pay for services (e.g., distribution, promotion, etc.) rendered (if the services were actually rendered satisfactorily).
Paying purchase or per use royalty to the creators of original work clearly was impractical/impossible before the advent of computers and computer networks. Nowadays, it should be a simple matter to pay purchase or per use royalty directly to the creators of original work and leave the present 'media companies' out of the royalty payment chain altogether. What are now the 'media companies' could continue to provide their 'services', but they would be paid at the discretion of the creators of original work -- for services actually rendered to the satisfaction of the creators of original work.
If the public and the creators of original works would together petition the (Federal) lawmakers, a 'direct' royalty payment system using the Internet could soon be put in place. The same legislation should also void all existing 'artists contracts' with the 'media companies' as they would have been made superfluous. Contracts with 'media companiees' have always been a bad idea, as demonstrated by the observable fact that they have gone so horribly wrong.
Remember the whole point of copyright and royalty payment is to encourage and reward the creators of original work. Funneling the royalty payment through a third party (e.g., the 'media companies', 'publishers', etc.) was always a bad idea, but it started when there was no other option. The Internet makes it possible to fix this mess rather easily.
Does this legislation apply to software in Set-top boxes and/or cable-modems that reports what is watched or surfed? Is there legislation that does apply to software that monitors what is watched or surfed by users of set-top boxes and/or cable modems? Such information is collectable without the explicit knowledge of most digital set-top boxes and cable-modem users, and it is easily traceable to the user's account (i.e., the name and address, etc.) of the watcher/surfer.