EFF's New File-Sharing Scheme 244
carpoolio writes "Wednesday at the Future of Music's Music Law Summit, the Electronic Frontier Foundation proposed a new licensing plan so file-sharing sites can operate, and musicians can get paid. The idea is based on the ASCAP/BMI radio music licensing schemes. But still, the RIAA seems happy to continue suing, and wait for iTunes and Napster to catch on more."
No sir, I don't like it. (Score:5, Interesting)
1) In regards to getting artists on board, their solution for people who don't want to participate says to me: don't join, and don't get money while people take your music, and fellow artists get paid for your work. That's harsh. What if the artist has an issue with the collection agency?
2) The payment system: how is this any different than Napster's subscription? It's somehow less expensive (only 5 bucks, estimated), and has access to more songs (everything instead of 500,000 tracks)? How does that work? I understand that most of the costs of distribution will be absorbed by the fact that P2P puts the loads on peers, not a central server, but is this even realistic? I am skeptical.
3) Wait a minute...If you stop paying, do you lose the rights to the music you downloaded? I scanned the document twice, and please correct me if I missed something, but it seems you can only legally use your music if you're still paying out to the industry. That's my primary reason for disliking Napster 2.0, and it's enough to sink this idea, in my mind.
I love the EFF more than butterscotch and jellybeans, but this proposal gives me the creeps.
Orders of magnitude. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not enought to say "we have an alternative scheme." It's probably not even enough to say "we have an alternative scheme by which you can make equivalent money." Instead, you need to credibly be able to say "we have an alternative scheme by which you can make superior money." If you can't do that, you got nuttin.
Hrmm (Score:5, Interesting)
As things stand at the moment, artists without a record contract don't seem to do as well, but in what ways will this change? who will promote them? the artist themselves? or the filesharing system?
Who gets paid? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's odd or precient... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No sir, I don't like it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hrmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Ugress [ugress.com] tried to contact the big record companies without success for a long time. Finally, they said "fuck this" and released the music via Audiogalaxy. Soon a burned CD ended up on the office desk of the Norwegian State Broadcasting company youth music director who gave it the heavies rotation on the Petre A-list. Sony contacted them, and they said piss off, you didn't want us before now we're a hit and can do our own promotion.
I'm sure there are hundres mor of these examples. These two are just for Norway, the last year or so.
Who decides how much music is worth? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why should a quick tinkle on a xylophone be better rewarded than months of work on an orchestral masterpiece?
A better way of capturing music's artistic value is to auction it directly to the interested audience, e.g. using The Digital Art Auction [digitalartauction.com] .
explain to me this (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not avoid the labels altogether? (Score:5, Interesting)
The record labels only exist to market and distribute pop music and those functions can be completely done by other means now. I have found some of the
To take this even one more step off-topic, you can argue that the whole MTV half-time boobie stunt (which has now mutated into a weird free-speech thing)was simply to steal the thunder of the iTMS/Pepsi/arrested-by-the-RIAA commecial. It shows that the labels are not needed and can
All music related marketing and distribution can be done on-line. The old business model is dead and not needed or wanted. The first major band to sign directly with iTMS/Napster/whatever will turn the tide.
Clearly, I need to calm down and have a cup of coffee. Sorry for the early morning rant.
This has a lot of potential (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bad premise (Score:2, Interesting)
"How do we get filesharers to pay up? That's where the market comes in -- those who today are under legal threat will have ample incentive to opt for a simple $5 per month fee. There should be as many mechanisms for payment as the market will support. Some fans could buy it directly through a website (after all, this was what the RIAA had in mind with its "amnesty" program). ISPs could bundle the fee into their price of their broadband services for customers who are interested in music downloading. After all, ISPs would love to be able to advertise a broadband package that includes "downloads of all the music you want." Universities could make it part of the cost of providing network services to students. P2P file-sharing software vendors could bundle the fee into a subscription model for their software, which would neatly remove the cloud of legal uncertainty that has inhibited investment in the P2P software field."
This model is the rough equivalent of a 'tape tax.' However, this model provides several things that a tape tax does not. Transparency is key to making this model work. Reasonably accurate data about which songs are being downloaded will allow all artists to have a level playing field. A tape tax system tends to reward the big artists and ignore the small artists because there is no way to collect data about which artists are being taped the most.
The collection agency must be able to transparently report how much money is collected and who is paid for this scheme to gain acceptance from downloaders and artists. If anyone can go to the collecting agency web site and view their accounts online, then and only then will downloaders and artists think of the downloading rights fee as something worth paying.
Re:A Day Late, $0.99 Short (Score:3, Interesting)
Your Internet comes from somebody who cares (Score:5, Interesting)
* The percentage of downloads that head right to static IPs in dormrooms -- the artists would get paid by them, via their universities (after all, $45 per year per student payment to not have to deal with the RIAA harassing the sysadmin of a univ is a good deal). Besides -- they'd just charge the students via fees anyway.
* That ISPs will market this in with their products. Using lots of bandwidth? The ISP monitors you to determine if you've signed up for their (+$5 for music) plan. If you aren't and you've got lots of
Between universities and ISPs, methinks that there would be payment from the users responsible for the majority of downloaded files. The majority of users? I don't know -- perhaps that as well.
OK.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The business model of the future is the penny arcade/homestarrunner model. Acquire a large loyal fanbase. Actually BE good people who make quality art and gain the trust of your fans. Allow your art to be distributed freely all around the globe without a care in the world. Make money from merchandise, voluntary donations from fans, and "legitimate" advertising (google and PA style advertising NOT weather.com or superbowl style advertising).
The real problem here is this. The RIAA can think of a ton of business models that work considering new technologies. While the organization as a whole is "evil" the people that make it up are not all stupid drones. They know. The thing is that there is no longer a business model which will turn musicians into multi-zillionaires.
Musiciains can live with a new business model and make enough money for food and rent and all that. What they can no longer do is make millions of dollars at the same time some record company also makes millions. It just wont happen anymore. Until the record company accepts that, they are going to keep suing us.
Re:Orders of magnitude. (Score:3, Interesting)
You need to say: we're taking the music anyway, you can't stop us, this way you'll get some money. The rulings on blank video and audio tapes were a recognition that enforcement was impossible. Despite high profile busts etc there are millions of us sharing millions of tracks.
Many people I know buy an album rip it and share it with total strangers without even thinking about it. You can't fight that, it's how we use our music now, the labels that adjust and reposition will survive and prosper, those that persist in seeking legal redress and banging dubious moral drums will dwindle and diminish.
Re:Labor Theory Of Value (Score:2, Interesting)
Marx said, if man could co-operate instead of compete, then we would have all kinds of products, a great variety, instead of just mindless imitations of the same product each trying to undercut & outsell the other.
Malthus read this, rolled his eyeballs & said - yeah and if man was ostrich, then we wouldn't have the notion of private property & we'd all live in peace & harmony & so on...
In a fair market, average American programmers would have secure jobs just as much as the Indian programmers. Do they ?
The problem of distrubution (Score:5, Interesting)
For this to produce 'fair' results, all paying customers would have to be part of the sample group.
Instead, perhaps the distribution of money should be left up to the license purchaser. If I want my $5 this month to go to 'Ice Ice Baby', then so be it!
P2P software & media players could, by default, record downloading & listening habits to form a basic percentage allocation, which I could modify each month, if I felt like it.
Re:No sir, I don't like it. (Score:5, Interesting)
If an artist opts out of the collection agency, they'll continue to receive what they currently receive from online music trading: absolutely nothing. If a user stops paying his fees, he will still own all the music he downloaded while still paying because they'll just be MP3/M4P/FLAC or whatever format he used to download them. Whether it's moral to pay $5 one month, then go on a downloading spree to last several months is up to the user to decide. (Though I doubt it, seeing as the main cause for piracy is the sheer convenience) The whole system is voluntary,
In short: P2P networks stay as they are but optionally hook into a non-profit collection agency. Think of it as a filesharing tax to help artists.
I personally think the plan sounds awesome but leaving payment to the goodwill of music fans makes me think it hasn't a snowball's chance in hell as long as the RIAA maintains its vice grip over the artists' throats.
Re:iTunes works (Score:3, Interesting)
In comparison to iTunes and Napster, I'd prefer the EFF's option. It basically provides a selection from whatever is floating around the internet including less popular and ultra-obscure artists and labels. I also think that a second tier bandwidth price option is not unreasonable (provided that the price itself isn't ludicrus).
Re:No sir, I don't like it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Of note, under the title "What about file sharers who won't pay?" they say:
Copyright holders (and perhaps the collecting society itself) would continue to be entitled to enforce their rights against "free-loaders."
What does that sound like to you?
Re:Who decides how much music is worth? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'ld really like to be able to donate money directly to artists. I downloaded the new Offspring cd (yes, illegally. I'm a bad girl) and it's really good and I would like to give them money for it, but apparently if I buy CD they get less than $1 and the rest of the money goes to the mean RIAA.
I'm pretty sure as long as the RIAA is around though, we're not going to be able to directly give money to artists (at least RIAA artists) because the RIAA doesn't want an option that allows them to be skipped out in being paid. Maybe someday we'll have a fairer system.
$5 a month? Sounds familiar... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a battle to the death (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No sir, I don't like it. (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with your doubts on the workability of this.
Additionally, I was wondering:
I think that the EFF is getting carried away by "rigtheousness" here.
Re:iTunes works (Score:1, Interesting)
My own copyright/filesharing thing is as follows:
1. hear about band.
2. Download album
3. listen to album
4. if I like the album buy or order the cd
5. if not delete the album off my computer
of course few of the bands are in the RIAA so I'm not particularly stressed about getting sued.
ac
Re:No sir, I don't like it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Key word: "optionally". Why would people pay money for a subscription if they can just hop on to another P2P network and get everything for free?