Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Your Rights Online

EFF Lawyer Argues For Compulsory Music Licenses 256

Posted by timothy from the compulsion-bad-freedom-good dept.
An anonymous reader submits "Fred von Lohmann, lead intellectual property lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote an op-ed in the Daily Princetonian urging compulsory licensing of copyrighted music. The system would allow internet users to copy music freely and legally, in exchange for a flat monthly fee to be shared by artists and record labels. He says schools like Princeton might be a good place to test the approach."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EFF Lawyer Argues For Compulsory Music Licenses More

EFF Lawyer Argues For Compulsory Music Licenses

Comments Filter:

  • What about... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Robotech_Master ( 14247 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @06:48AM (#5734654) Homepage Journal
    ...compulsory spell-checker "lcensing"?

  • already in place? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lingqi ( 577227 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @06:49AM (#5734657) Journal
    What about the CDR-tax? can't you consider that a compulsory license?

    Seriously though - has any lawyer gave that any kind of thought? To me it's legalizing music piracy since I already paid for it anyway...

    btw, FP?

    • This is corperate welfare. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by HanzoSan ( 251665 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @07:11AM (#5734738) Homepage Journal


      This is just corperate welfare, and shit like this pisses me off about the USA. We the people cant have welfare, but big rich greedy CEOs get bailed out by the government because they cant keep up with the technology or because they make excuses like 911 hurting them,

      Who gives a damn? They are companies, they are supposed to die in free market capitalism, this country is becoming a plutocracy where monopolies never die, never get broken up and companies become so powerful they rule over us like 1984.

      Heres what I think, I think record companies can adapt or die, period. If they die musicians will make more money anyway, and we will still get free music.

      Musicians can sell 1 million CDs and make not a penny, Musicians can make 1 million cds and make only $50,000, so why should they care if you dont buy their CDs when they make more money selling Tshirts?

      Face it, Musicians make money because of their fans, the ones who pay to see them live, who follow them around buying their T-Shirts. So heres what I think, why not let the musicians sell directly. Most people who download music for free arent fans, they just want free music, but the fans, they are the ones who will support the musicians by going to concerts.

      Musicians can sell new CDs at their concerts, the new CD can be sold at the concert before its on the net, say to about 40-50,000 people at a time for $5-10 each CD, they'd make a fortune.

      50x10= how much?
      • Bands do sell at their concerts, however - the band has to buy the CDS off the record company in order to sell them at the gig. (Those that are with record companies).
        Sometimes the company might setup a stall and sell them themselves.
        In the end, the only way round this is to remove the record companies. After all, they are basically venture capitalists who specialise in entertainment.

      • So heres what I think, why not let the musicians sell directly.

        Many do. Why am I not surprised you've never heard of them? Oh, that's right, without the RIAA marketing cartel doing promotion, most people will never know they exist.

        the fans, they are the ones who will support the musicians by going to concerts

        I live in New York and my favorite band is a relatively unknown act from San Diego. Am I supposed to spend hundreds of dollars to fly out to see them play, or are they supposed to lose thousand

    • Re:already in place? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tinfoil ( 109794 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @07:25AM (#5734804) Homepage Journal
      If we are paying a compulsory fee of x dollars a month on our internet bill, then it would seem it is no longer piracy.

      Granted, I would very much not like having to pay another tax on my bill since I already purchase a large amount of music legally a year. The music industry is behind the times which is making it difficult for them to compete against the instant gratification of the P2P networks. The artist suffers not at the hands of the P2P'er, but at the hands of the dinosaurs running the record companies. Consumers suffer by by being painted a criminal with an overly wide brush, and it seems the only way to prove ourselves is to throw yet more money at a solution that is simply a bandaid fix.

      Fix the real problem. Give people a number of competing services that will allow them to purchase music from any company and give them fair use rights with the music they purchase. A Columbia House for MP3's. My mother-in-law doesn't *want* to steal music. She wants to buy the music, but doesn't want to pay $25 (Canuck) for a song, if she can even find it without special order. She wants to listen to it now, not when FedEx delivers it. She wants to put it in her iPod for when she goes out for a jog so it doesn't skip.

      It's a novell suggestion and one of the best I have heard so far, but the recording industry will most certainly not go for it. They can't martyr themselves if they make file sharing legal.
  • How about compulsory English lessons?

    (checking spelling to avoid hypocrisy...)

  • This is another lie (Score:4, Funny)

    by Mohammed Al-Sahaf ( 665285 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @06:51AM (#5734668)
    We are not afraid of the lawyers. Allah has condemned them. They are stupid. They are stupid... and condemned.

  • Valid in which country...? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mccalli ( 323026 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @06:53AM (#5734674) Homepage
    Not every internet user is in the same country. In which nation will this license be based, and in which court will it be enforced? How will I indicate my acceptence of it?

    To be honest, it sounds like pie in the sky to me.

    Cheers,
    Ian

  • Lcenses (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @06:59AM (#5734691)
    Damn Apple stole all the i's

  • He doesn't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rudy_wayne ( 414635 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @06:59AM (#5734692)
    Mr. von Lohman doesn't know what he's talking about. The issue is not that musicians aren't getting paid. Record companies have been ripping off musicians for years and the RIAA couldn't care less. The issue is that the record companies see file sharing as a threat to their profits (it's not) and their monopoly (it is).

    As for the "fee" that Mr. von Lohman suggests, it's already been done. There's already been a fee added to blank media (CDs, etc) for precisely the purpose he describes, but that hasn't stopped the record companies from unleashing their lawyers on anyone and everyone.` And very little, probably zero, of that fee ends up in the pockets of artists

    The entertainment industry believes they should have absolute, totalitarian, iron-fisted control and consumers should have nothing. No fair use, no ability to share media among different playback devices, nothing.

    • Ends and means... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jkrise ( 535370 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @07:40AM (#5734887) Journal
      Mr. von Lohman's article has more holes than a Service Pack - as Rudy suggests, he doesn't know what the hell he's talking. Some points from his article:

      " Suing college students. Forcing ISPs to rat out customers."

      Both the ISPs nor the R*AA consider netizens as Consumers, not Customers. Big difference.

      "Petitioning Congress for unprecedented vigilante powers. ...and a rather lengthy list of draconian measures... None of these efforts by the recording industry has put a single nickel into the pockets of a musician... And none of these efforts has slowed the spread of peer-to-peer ("P2P") file sharing."

      There is no connection between P2P and paying musicians. All these efforts are by the R*AA and their agenda is to increase their profits, not enriching musicians.

      "More Americans have used file-sharing software than voted for the President."

      What's the point here? People are apathetic to politics, but they are passionate about sharing files..

      "Responding to pressure from the entertainment industry, the University of Wyoming is now monitoring ... cadets have been disciplined ...Investment in innovative P2P companies has dried up."
      None of the above is due to file sharing per se.

      "Some members of Congress.. have suggested that the answer might be to expel, or even jail, college students."
      This ought to be condemned directly, rather than tax ALL internet users.

      " The hysteria over P2P has gotten out of hand. "
      And OTOH, such articles are contributing to the hysteria!

      " The problem is that artists are not getting paid. It is time to address the problem."
      And that is not being addressed directly by anyone.

      "The right answer is obvious: We need to collect a pool of money from Internet users"
      This is a gem! Who is 'We'?? Internet users? RIAA? The govt? The artists?
      And how can collecting money be a right answer when the problem is one improper distribution of already collected money?

      The rest of Mr. Von's article is so full of wishful and Utopian thinking, one wonders how it made to Slashdot!

      If such thinking goes on in the EFF, then the FSF would shortly collect money from GNU and Open Source users to pay programmers! And the most 'popular' and 'numerous' programmers wouldn't have written a line of code! Absurd proposal, IMHO.
    • Its always about money, but its more about the ability for the record companies to get back to the days when you had to put a nickel in the jukebox to listen to a song. Every time.

    • I believe Mr. von Lohmann is uniquely qualified to wonder out loud what the P2P solution might be. Whether or not you believe his solution is viable, you cannot claim that he doesn't understand the problem. He probably knows more about it than all of the participants in this discussion put together, and his job is to think about it all the time.

      The EFF and Mr. von Lohmann are probably the P2P communities' best friend right now, and in the realm of law they are the only ones fighting the good fight.

      Perhaps
    • Mr. von Lohman doesn't know what he's talking about. The issue is not that musicians aren't getting paid. Record companies have been ripping off musicians for years and the RIAA couldn't care less. The issue is that the record companies see file sharing as a threat to their profits (it's not) and their monopoly (it is).

      I think von Lohman is a bit more savvy than you're giving him credit for. He knows there's know way in hell the RIAA will go for this, he's with the freaking EFF for God's sake. What I bel

  • Biggest issue with this pipe dream (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Every label/artist would not get a cut of the pie, how many people are going to pay this, how much will it be, and how many thousands of indie artists plus the mainstreamers will get this, perfectly split and then of course its a matter of the big labels ever thinking this is fair to them, which they never will. Maybe if all the labels started releasing cheaper CD's and legit non-propritary formatted online distributed versions that where not so overpriced as to be affordable to everyone, then we'd get s


    • As much as I support EFF and as much as I support musicians right to make money. Selling CDs does not and never has been a source of income for musicians.

      Just because we can get music and movies for free online doesnt mean we want to watch all our movies on a tiny computer screen, maybe we want to see it on the big screen in high quality, maybe we want to see musicians live.

      People act like piracy killed the movie industry when the VCR was invwnted but it didnt, the theaters stayed open, people started go

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • It doesnt go back to major artists it goes back to record companies.

        It costs nothing to produce a CD, and musicians make pennys per CD sold.
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • Well, I think that an important question then is whether it's really worthwhile to sink so much into making the master CD.

            I mean, I could make a movie about the Roman Empire that involved building a perfect replica of Rome... but the cost would be so high that the only POTENTIAL way I could ever make a profit would be to have a never-ending copyright.

            I think that this would be too high a cost to the public. Even if it meant that without it the movie would never get made.

            I'd be happy to have music have sh
      • "As for cheaper CDs???????? I don't know where you are buying CDs, but they are very reasonably priced."

        You consider $18US a reasonable price for a CD? I don't. I think its overpriced by a third.
        • $18 is too much. If you look around at different stores though you can usually find CDs down around the $12 range which is just about what my time is worth to not download and burn it. If you are looking for unusual CDs you should expect to pay more as they could be considered a rare item.
        • You consider $18US a reasonable price for a CD?

          Sure do. Here in the UK, we pay the equivalent of around US$27 for a CD. If CDs still cost $18, then I'd buy a hell of a lot more than I do now...

      • Reasonable. Right. (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Xebikr ( 591462 )

        I don't know where you are buying CDs, but they are very reasonably priced.

        Let's see...
        Picking a store at random [amazon.com]...
        Picking the first movie [imdb.com] that popped into my head...
        DVD is $20.24 [amazon.com]
        VHS is $9.94 [amazon.com]
        Soundtrack on CD is $18.98 [amazon.com]

        What exactly do you consider to be reasonable? For just the music from the movie you pay twice as much as the entire movie on VHS, or for $1.26 more you can get the DVD. We must have different definitions of the word reasonable. Personally, I'd go for the DVD over the cd everyti

      • OK, I hate doing things like this, but let's do some sums.

        Let's say the studio and engineer time required to record an album costs $20,000 - that's about 2 weeks of 9-hour days in a decent studio. As a sound engineer myself, I think that's overpriced. A talented and non-tempremental artist shouldn't need as much studio time - 4 hours' studio time to record a 4-minute track is plenty IMHO.

        Glass mastering is $500, and printing/pressing is $1.00 per CD. These are deliberately inflated - if you're doing a mil
    • I find it odd that everyone refers to this as a "pipe dream" when it's precisely the way all broadcast media works today. It's called performance rights. I think it's exactly what should be used in light of the weird product versus performance entity that online P2P sharing represents.

      If you hear a song on TV, radio, in a restaurant, on a jukebox: artists do indeed get paid for you hearing the music. ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, SOCAN, and numerous other organizations around the world exist precisely to monitor how

  • But I don't listen to music... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NetSettler ( 460623 ) <kent-slashdot@nhplace.com> on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @07:00AM (#5734699) Homepage Journal
    I'm not even sure I listen to CD's as often as once a year. And even then, the only music I do listen to is on CD's that I actually bought from a store paying real money already. Am I going to have to pay this compulsory tax on my machine(s)? :(

    What about other vices that some people have and others don't? Like Internet porn... Hmmm. Maybe a similar payment scheme for that industry would simplify things as well. A simple tax on everyone who uses an ISP since many people use such materials. Then the money could just be divvied up among those whose pictures were being used and deposited into a public kitty (hey, I didn't make up the term) for safekeeping. Then -- voila' -- justice and administrative simplicity in one tight little package.
    • My God! This is communism!

    • I think he means compulsory licensing, not compulsory taxation. In other words, the music industry must offer this service to people.

  • It won’t change me! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TheMerk ( 121882 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @07:02AM (#5734705)
    If I hear something good, I'll look it up and dl a couple of tracks. If I like it I go pick up the disk. So, I rip it and send it to my laptop and my MD player. I still will always want a hard copy.

    But that's just me.

    Merk

  • Wrong answer (Score:4, Interesting)

    by slashd'oh ( 234025 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @07:05AM (#5734717) Homepage
    "The problem is that artists are not getting paid."

    I doubt that the artists are the major driving force behind these lawsuits. Indeed, it's the people who own the copyrights who are behind this.

    While he mentions there are "many options," I disagree with von Lohmann's "obvious" "right" "answer." (Can you see I'm making bunny ears with my hands?) Frankly, I'm surprised a representative of the EFF would advocate a flat fee to be applied by ISP's to all users - especially universities where many students receive aid to utilize campus equipment and services. How does one justify these fees on a scholorship application?

    I can see the Ask Slashdot discussion now.

    I think universities are an ideal location for social initiatives, such as the importance of paying for the goods and services you acquire.


    • I dont mind a flatfee, but why the hell should we save a monopoly?

      If this money were going directly to Musicians I dont think people at slashdot would complain, but we know musicians will NEVER see this money. This is wh y its bullshit, plus its like opening pandoras box, you start off with a small $5 increase on internet feees, which will turn into a $10 increase, then $20, $30, $40, until our internet costs $100 a month like DirectTV or CableTV.

  • where? (Score:2, Redundant)

    by kevin lyda ( 4803 )
    every label and artist? where? will some of the money be going to artists and labels in ireland? russia? brasil? what percentage goes where?

  • Curious (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tmurder ( 661223 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @07:06AM (#5734721)
    I'm just kinda curious why these things always get tested in some area where people can actually afford CD's all the time. I mean if you can afford to go to Princeton I think you can buy the latest N'Sync CD.

    Why don't they try this at a large public university where a majority of the students receive financial aid?

    • Re:Curious (Score:4, Funny)

      by Wordsmith ( 183749 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @07:25AM (#5734799) Homepage
      If you go to Princeton, I hope you're smart enough not to.

    • Take a dose of reality. (Score:3, Informative)

      by Andy Dodd ( 701 )
      Just because Princeton has higher tuition rates doesn't mean that the majority of students don't receive financial aid. If anything, MORE students receive it rather than at a cheaper school because it's needed more.

      FYI, Princeton made headlines in NJ in the past year or two for a plan to drastically increase financial aid (which is already pretty good to begin with - A family friend of mine is going to Princeton on a pretty good package.), in order to directly compete with cheaper schools.

      Note: You stil
      • Umm. I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Two of my siblings, not to mention a good number of friends and peers, went to Princeton so I'm pretty familiar with it. While both of my siblings are smart, I would not say the same of most of the students. I won't deny that if you are clearly lacking the means, Princeton and the other Ivies can and do offer the best financial aid packages. The reality though is that if your parents are more in the middle class, it can be VERY hard to afford Princeto

  • What about other media? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MacroRex ( 548024 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @07:06AM (#5734724)
    If I read correctly, he wants to add an extra fixed fee to all internet access bills. What about when movie studios realize the potential, and want to add their fee, because surely people are downloading movies? And then come the book/whatever digital media publishers - next thing you know only a small percentage of your internet access bill is for actual data transfer costs. I don't think ISP's are going to let this sail, either.

    And besides, is Joe Sixpack who's never heard of P2P networks or even mp3s going allow his ISP to tax him for this?

    • Re:What about other media? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by El Cubano ( 631386 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @07:35AM (#5734858)

      And besides, is Joe Sixpack who's never heard of P2P networks or even mp3s going allow his ISP to tax him for this?

      Sure he will. Joe Sixpack lets himself get taxed for most things he's never heard of or doesn't care about:

      • Taxes on your phone bill to lower the cost of internet access for schools (whether or not you have children in school)
      • Property taxes to fund schools and minucipals services (that you may or may not use, if you send your kids to private school or don't have kids)
      • Health fees at most universities even if the student is already covered by health insurance.
      • Taxes on cigarettes to fund public service announcements to quit smoking (and subsidize tobacco farmers when people actually quit and their crops are not longer in demand)
      • Numerous state and federal taxes on gasoline for road construction and who knows what else
      • High vehicle registration for highway maintenance (when you either don't use the highways or they aren't maintained well)
      • Old airport facility charges on airline tickets and the new September 11th fees for improved security
      • The list goes on and on

      Joe sixpack will just see it and think, "Oh well, another tax. The government must know best for me."

      In reality very few people will be outraged at this. Especially since it will come along in increments of a few dollars at a time, which is no big deal in a relatively strong economy.

      • Taxes on your phone bill to lower the cost of internet access for schools (whether or not you have children in school)
        Property taxes to fund schools and minucipals services (that you may or may not use, if you send your kids to private school or don't have kids)

        The benefit of funding educational programs is not just that YOUR kids get an education, but that ALL kids get an education. There's a net benefit to society when children grow up to be intelligent adults rather than drooling morons.

        Health fees
  • now that would be an interesting top 40,000

  • Wrong way to do it. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mike_mgo ( 589966 )
    While I agree with the premise of compensating the musicians I think that a flat surcharge on all internet users is the wrong way to go for the obvious reason that not everyone is downlaoding copyrighted material.

    Now for my rant...Even if a means is devised for charging a nominal fee to users and compensating the artist for downloading a song, I doubt that it will have much effect on music piracy. While I there are some, many even, who would be more than happy to follow such a system, I think there is a muc

    • A better solution (Score:3, Insightful)

      by HanzoSan ( 251665 )

      Make it an Opt In thing, if you agree to pay for the (free music) server ISPs offer (sorta like cellphone free nights and weekends service), you become immune to all anti piracy laws and the RIAA leaves you alone, if you dont pay, well then you take your chances.

      This makes sense to me, as people who download music alot will have to pay the flat fee and people who dont ever download music wont have to pay.

  • Socialist idiocy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by johannesg ( 664142 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @07:13AM (#5734742)
    Yeah, great idea: make everyone pay for the music habits of a few. Hey, here is an even greater idea: why not simply levy a tax over the entire population? I'm sure everyone listens to music (on the radio, in restaurants, in elevators, whether you want it or not), so everyone is sharing some of the guilt over this illicit behaviour! (that's sarcasm...)

    Extending this idea further, I'd say software authors should also be illegible for receiving compensation for illegally downloaded software. I'm a software author myself - where can I sign up?

    And why not apply the same thing to books and other materials? That way capitalism, at long last, ushers in the delights of the communist state! (someone insert an "in soviet russia" joke here please, I cannot think of a good one)

    Getting back to CD's, it seems obvious that the record companies will pretty quickly stop bothering with physical CD's if something like this becomes law. That seems slightly unfair to people without broadband, but that's life. People survived without canned music for thousands of years, so it won't be a real problem.

    There's one thing that is good about this proposal though, which is why I guess the EFF is making it: it doesn't actually take away our toys or our freedom, it just targets our money. And that's a real step forwards, unfortunately.

    In the spirit of contribution, here's an idea of my own: forbid the sale of intellectual property altogether. It was never "property" to begin with (that's why it needs to "intellectual" qualifier), so property law does not apply. Artists will have to make a living by doing performing (which is hard work, but hey, look at what the rest of us are doing).

  • sigh (Score:3, Funny)

    by Joe the Lesser ( 533425 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @07:14AM (#5734744) Homepage Journal
    The system would allow internet users to copy music freely and legally,

    Finally. That would solve our problems.

    ...in exchange for a flat monthly fee to be shared by artists and record labels.

    Doh!

  • Cut out the middleman (Score:4, Informative)

    by Diabolical ( 2110 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @07:14AM (#5734746) Homepage
    Why not cutting out the middleman. The RIAA and their foreign counterparts are there because in the past there was no easy way to distribute recordings without having to travel around the world to sell your songs and keeping track of your royalties. With the internet that part is easily solved.

    Besides, recording in itself is made possible for everyone due to computer technologies. You don't have to let your songs pressed at a plant anymore. Simply distribute by means of mp3 or any other audio format which you like. This way the artist finally gets payed a decent amount of royalties without some overgrown organisation eating it all.

    If it is possible to test this thing out with decent artists (or popular artists, whichever comes first) it could be considered a correct test and results would actually mean something.

    But i'm afraid the record companies won't be jumping up and down with joy to actually test this.... ;-)

    And as far as marketing is considered, the internet has shown to be a remarkably good medium to spread things that are considered good in both the quality and ideology sense of the word.
    • "Why not cutting out the middleman."

      I think it can best be summed up by a quote from the movie Young Guns II. As William H. "Billy the Kid" Bonney put it, "I'll make you famous." The unspoken implication is that that fame will come at the cost of being Billy the Kid's next victim. Some would argue that the price demanded by RIAA members isn't too much different than that demanded by Billy.

      Anyway, as long as the RIAA members control the hype machine, that's the way things will be. They're the ones wh

    • Besides, recording in itself is made possible for everyone due to computer technologies.

      But it still takes studio time and that costs money. Sure, you can use Pro Tools and a Mac to make a recording, but without a proper studio, natural instruments (drums, pianos, guitars) will sound like crap.

      What the record label system does allow is people to make albums. I'm a Dream Theater [dreamtheater.net] fan. They are in the studio for months making their albums. Do you think they would be able to make that album without the record

    • The RIAA and their foreign counterparts are there because in the past there was no easy way to distribute recordings without having to travel around the world to sell your songs and keeping track of your royalties.

      No, the RIAA et al. are there because record publishers and record-player manufacturers couldn't agree on specifications for their products, so they formed a trade association to define and enforce standards (record spins at 45 rpm, the grooves are spaced this far apart, apply this dynamic curve

  • But which musicians get paid? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Arethan ( 223197 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @07:23AM (#5734791) Journal
    I can name at least 20 non-mainstream bands that I listen to. Some have recording contracts, some just sell CDs off their website. So how do you determine which of these bands gets any of the compulsory license fees? All of them, since they all sell music for profit? Only the ones with record deals? None of them since they are not mainstream? What is the criteria for getting paid? It seems to me that compulsory licensing would never work, since you really can't even decide on who to pay.

  • music for free (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nattt ( 568106 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @07:26AM (#5734807)
    It seems that artists should be resigned to the fact that they're already giving away music for free.

    Free as in the only way to advertise music is to allow people to hear it, and traditionally radio has been the free to listen media of choice. Top of the Pops and MTV work too, but to the end listener it's all just free to listen music.

    I'm sure that they way it all works is that effectively the artist pays to have their music played on the radio. I'd serverely doubt that the music industry would advertise music and not charge it back to the artist.

    If they're resigned to giving away their music for free to advertise it - why not just give it away free by seeding a P2P network?? If the musician had to put up their own server for listeners to download music then that could be quite expensive. Then all they need is a simple e-commerce site for their fans to buy the CD. When they buy the CD they're not really paying for the music (which is free) and only a small part of the money goes to pay the hard costs - the rest is basically a bargain with the musician - If I pay for your CD then you'll make more great music, and if I like that then I'll buy it too and continue the cycle.

  • Eh? (Score:2)

    by jonr ( 1130 )
    The system would allow internet users to copy music freely and legally, in exchange for a flat monthly fee to be shared by artists and record labels. Now explain to me, why we need the record labels there?

  • Would people really pay? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by billtom ( 126004 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @07:36AM (#5734863)
    I'd like to see something like this just to answer the big question: would people really pay if the price was reasonable?

    I mean, imagine a system that has everything Napster had at it's peak, plus: guarenteed encoding quality (multiple bitrates), good indexing service, very fast servers, complete back catalogue of all the major record labels and most of the minors, and most of the money goes to the artists. And priced at, say, $10 per month.

    But, mind you, all the free P2P systems (Kazaa, et. al.) are still available, and all the content on the pay service is eventually available on the free systems ('cause there's no DRM).

    I think that the big question is, in this hypothetical utopia, would people voluntarily pay (even though they could get it free)? I'm not so sure. Some would, of course, but the majority?

  • And who decides where the money goes? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jack William Bell ( 84469 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @07:37AM (#5734865) Homepage Journal
    I really don't have much problem with this except how do you fairly apportion the revenues? How much goes to the artists and how much to the music companies? Which artists? Which music companies? What criteria do you apply?

    BMI and ASCAP already have a similar system to collect fees for music in public places like bars and dental offices. And they are unfair as hell because they can even collect money from coffee houses where people perform their own music for tips. No-one trusts them to apportion their proceeds fairly, but you don't cross them or they sue you into oblivion.
    • (Ok, part of it is out of blatant self-interest, but...) I've been proposing voluntary tips since CFP99, when everyone at the "debate (read: shouting-match) ignored my pleas in favor of paying many lawyers lots of money to get dubious results. It's sad that this seems to be the only post that mentions voluntary tipping.

      I wish one famous musician would start asking for tips -- not hypothetically, like Courtney Love did in her Salon-rant, but REAL money. I've got a way that has kept the promises others made
  • So lets give all the big music companies all they want. I mean they'll be able, through carefully crafted lobby campaigns to sway politicians to make sure that they, get most of the money since according to them they loose the most. Oh yeah they'll still charge for music CDs and DVDs and will still want to put taxes on blank media.

    So what do we get? A cute nickname: Dolly. And hey with guys like Bush in town any thing is possible.

    --
    Beeaah, Beaaah, Beahhh...

  • No. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mlknowle ( 175506 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @07:50AM (#5734936) Homepage Journal
    Quite simply, this is a terrible idea - the idea of forcing everyone to buy something just because some people 'steal' it is crazy. The economic inefficiency of forced consumption is rediculous - all this will due is make internet use more expensive, and those users who have no interest in digital music will have to sholder the burdon for the rest of us. Moreover, this program will dramaticalyl reduce the incentive for artists to produce quality records - if they get paid either way...
  • Isn't the Christian Copyright Licensing International [ccli.com] something like this already? Churches pay an annual fee so that they can freely print and perform worship songs. Rather than reinvent the wheel, why not look to something that's already in place?

  • How about....? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by haplo21112 ( 184264 ) <haplo AT epithna DOT com> on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @08:20AM (#5735115) Homepage
    I don't think this is the answer...not by a long shot...

    A better way would be to reduce the price of CD's so more people will by them...and not care what the hell they do with them after the sale.

    The prices for CD's are insane these days and they don't have to be. Places like Newbury Comics in New England where CD's are deeply discounted prove it...

    a little Compare for prices:

    At the large Music chains the latest Linkin Park disc "Meteora(Special Edition)" is approx $26.99 sale price since it was just released (observed this past weekend at Stawberries, Sam Goody, and HMV)
    At Best Buy it was $19.99 a bit better...
    At Newbury Comics $16.99 a $10 discount! Which by the way is still $3.00 less than the majors are charging for the standard edition of the disc.

    I digress...

    The Point is that I firmly believe that the high price of CD's is part of the probelm, and a firm solution will only come from a lower per unit cost. CD's are product, file sharing is advirtising, I'd much rather own a perfect copy that hasn't been distorted in the ripping process(although .ogg helps to avoid distortion for the real music fan) I also believe that CD's are an advirtisement of a sort as well the final product is the concert, which I don't think musicians take in its proper context these days...but thats a whole other discussion.
    • At the large Music chains the latest Linkin Park disc "Meteora(Special Edition)" is approx $26.99 sale price since it was just released (observed this past weekend at Stawberries, Sam Goody, and HMV)
      At Best Buy it was $19.99 a bit better...
      At Newbury Comics $16.99 a $10 discount! Which by the way is still $3.00 less than the majors are charging for the standard edition of the disc.

      Which HMV? I bought it in Toronto and there the Special Edition was 19.99 and that was true for all the stores I went to.

      Mayb
  • Its a legal music Mafia...perhaps if the US government would work up the balls to start looking into the RIAA and the Music Companies, and realizing that, the music fan might make some progress. RIAA, and the Music companies need to be tried in the same courts, with the same laws as the Organized crime, because it is organized crime...unfortunately its organized crime that owns Congressmen....

    Musicians are the Whores and the RIAA is the Pimp...

    I would prefer to pay musicians directly for their music pers

  • This guy is an IP lawyer??? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FallLine ( 12211 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @08:38AM (#5735226)
    The right answer is obvious: We need to collect a pool of money from Internet users, and agree on a fair way to divide it among the artists and copyright owners. Copyright lawyers call this a "compulsory license." It might work something like this: Internet service providers (including universities) might add a flat monthly surcharge to the fees they charge for Internet access. Part of these fees would be remitted to the record labels, while some would be paid directly to the artists (who today frequently are victims of unfair contracts and crooked royalty accounting). The fees would be divided up fairly, based on popularity on the file-sharing networks, measured with sampling methods like the Neilsen ratings that respect our privacy while tabulating the P2P "charts." Having paid the fee, fans could engage in private, noncommercial file-sharing without worrying about being hunted down like criminals.
    Umm what a stupid socialist-like idea. Firstly, who gets to decide how big the total pie, i.e., total dollars, that we split up should be? If P2P distribution is to replace CD sales (a not entirely improbable assertion giving that pricing model), then we could all expect to at least, say, 30 bucks a month if the industry is to maintain its revenues. I doubt the guy would really suggest this much, but then he's short changing the industry on the aggregate. Secondly, who says that all music should be priced the same (his sampling method would certainly suggest this) or even close to it? There are many problems with this. For instance, if someone were to produce a good parody of, say, the Saddam Hussein (something timely), its popularity on P2P might easily exceed the most popular music (e.g., Britney Spheres) and thus be compensated proportionally higher than everything else, even though in all probability no one would actually pay actual cash for it if they were given the option. In other words, people would be spending "virtual money" in ways wildly different than they would real money precisely because it doesn't have much of a consequence for them personally. The real price would be borne at the end of the year and by the population at large, but not on the individuals that are incurring the cost. Thirdly, it would create a free rider syndrome on the aggregate sense too. In other words, music fans may dramatically expand and alter their purchasing habits since they have no cost. Rather than prioritizing their "purchases", like they do in the real world on their favorite music, they just download everything they might like. So rather then seeing the best artists awarded (even as far as the individual is concerned), you reward relative mediocrity. Fourthly, why should those with the most free time and the relatively little earnings (e.g., college students) get the biggest vote while those that are really contributing (e.g., working) get relatively little?

    This suggested system is rife with problems. The intellectual property regime is the only one that makes sense economically. Yes, it may not be perfect. Yes, it is facing some unique problems with the rise of P2P and modern technology, but the arguments for it are every bit as strong today as they were 50 or 100 years ago. It is just harder to enforce, but far from impossible. How can anyone that would suggest that this suggested sampling method is tractable and justifiable say, with a straight face, that we cannot enforce standard IP with similar methods? If you can uniquely identify copyrighted material in a dependable way, then you can certainly control the content with similar methods and hold people accountable (to an extent sufficient to serve as a deterrent to wholesale violation).
    • What the hell are you talking about?

      There is no IP regime. And compulsory licensing of a different sort (basically fixing the fee that can be charged by artists) already exists.

      Besides -- copyright exists to serve a social purpose, not a private one. I think that there are problems with this, but hardly to the extent that you're spouting off.

      Could you perhaps clarify what you mean, maybe after taking a look at the current law?

      • There is no IP regime.

        What do you mean there is no IP regime? There is BY definition. That is the status quo.

        And compulsory licensing of a different sort (basically fixing the fee that can be charged by artists) already exists.

        Of what sort? Explain. You mean CD-R taxes? They're of limited scope; they're not designed with the understanding that they can potentially be a replacement for the existing sales model. The IP owners can charge whatever they please for their IP, i.e., CDs. The artists ma

        • Well, IP is just a field of law. Copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. And some associated fields are important in regards to it.

          But something like a trade secret isn't property. It's a limit on how businesses can compete with one another, i.e. a limit on the use of unfair business practices.

          Lawyers use the term IP but it's a real misnomer. The law doesn't actually treat things in that manner.

          As for compulsory licensing, no I don't mean CDR levies. I mean compulsory licensing as described i
  • I don't listen to the crap that comes out of the RIAA companies, this is what I have been trying to say all along. I listen to stuff by small, independant labels, many of them from places other than the US. Why would I want to subsidize Hollywood?! This is just as bad as the municipalities that use tax money to subsidize their sports teams.

  • His flat fee is just one way to implement C.L.'s (Score:4, Informative)

    by geekotourist ( 80163 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @08:48AM (#5735298) Journal
    I think some are misreading his essay as saying the "obvious right answer" = the ISP flat fee. Actually his "right answer" = compulsory licenses, with flat fees as one possible way to do this.

    To quickly summarize his article: 1. The RIAA's antiP2P fight hurts many and helps no one, 2. Artists need to be paid, 3. Compulsory licensing pays artists, 4. One method of CL could be an ISP flat fee, 5. Many other CL methods exist (examples given) and could be used...

  • ... the "license" required for brits to watch TV.

    In 'murka, yain't gotta have no license to receive any kinda signal!
  • I strongly object to this one. As an avid music fan who usually buys tens of albums a year, there's a reason that I haven't bought any in 2003 and only 10 in 2002, quite frankly the product sucks. The onset of manufactured music leaves me with nothing more to own. The Beatles or Floyd albums which I frequently buy now cost approximately 33% more than they did in 1999 (albeit according to my findings only).
    I now purchase indie recordings, as well as artists that just aren't signed by the RIAA. Of those a
  • I believe this is a great idea, but we need to insure that artists get nothing.

    What better way to ensure that we have an endless supply of quality angst-filled music than to deprive musicians of any livelyhood, and force them to live in rat-infested heroin dens?

    Really, any across the board licence will only be diverted by the RIAA. Who will distribute the $$$? The RIAA is already poisoning P2P, so why not a little more to ensure that their newest 'hot artist' gets top $$$ (and pays the RIAA again for th

  • Horrible Idea (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2003 @09:29AM (#5735601) Homepage Journal
    The right answer is obvious: We need to collect a pool of money from Internet users, and agree on a fair way to divide it among the artists and copyright owners. Copyright lawyers call this a "compulsory license." It might work something like this: Internet service providers (including universities) might add a flat monthly surcharge to the fees they charge for Internet access.
    The last thing we need is another unfair tax. And this proposal would be deeply unfair, for two reasons:
    1. It does not take into account how different people use the internet differently. Why should I subsidize w4r3zd00dz?
    2. It does not take into account whose work is being used (because that's impossible to do). If I download an Armoured Angel song from their label's website, why should Britney Spears' marketing organization get paid for it?
    I am so disappointed. I hope that von Lohmann's opinion is a tiny minority within EFF.
  • I may have downloaded a song or two but I really don't care if I can download songs. I don't want to pay so other people can download songs either. I would rather not have the ability to download songs which I would not do because I DON'T WANT SONGS than pay so someone else can get their Back Street Boys fix. I also don't want my ISP to put in a firewall that would take away my ability to use P2P ( which has other uses besides music sharing but will never realize it's potential if it is regulated as a pu
    • We all slap down $5/month to a trusted source
    • Somebody "in-the-know" persues actions involving music that invite RIAA lawsuits of an idiotic nature (that, or just hook up with one of the already-idiotic lawsuits).
    • We push the cash from the fund out, covering legal expense, until the RIAA lawsuit is shown as frivolous, idiotic, and wrong. At the least, we can get precedent, at best... dropping all or part of the DCMA,etc

    See, the problem is that the RIAA is at the moment only jumping on those who cannot de

  • Phish is smart. You can buy sound board recordings of shows a few days after the show in SHN or MP3 for around $10. It is still legal to tape, and you can download the taped shows freely on furthernet or other methods. However, Phish makes the money by providing something superior. They still make money, which means we get more music. And they are on a major label. too.
  • Fred doesn't say that all Internet users should pay -- rather, that we should collect a pool of money from Internet users. There are lots of mechanisms for this, including allowing ISPs to opt into bundling the compulsory fee into their line-charges in exchange for elimination of liability for sharing on their net. That way, users who wanted to share music and compensate artists could opt to use a royalty-paid ISP; other users who didn't want to download music would opt for another ISP (and that other ISP w

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close