$5 Per Month Fee Proposed For Legal Music P2P 528
sneakyimp writes "Both Wired and Ars Technica have reports on Jim Griffin's proposal that ISPs charge each broadband customer $5 per month to subsidize the ailing music industry. The resulting fund would ostensibly 'compensate songwriters, performers, publishers and music labels.'
Although no specific version of the proposal has been referenced, a number of controversies are inherent to the plan: How is the money really divided? What happens when the MPAA, the Business Software Alliance, and various other industry groups want their own surcharge added? What about the supposed majority of broadband customers who never download illegal music? Griffin discussed the plan further at SXSW . We've previously discussed a similar proposal from the Songwriters Association of Canada.
Stupid. (Score:5, Interesting)
And by paying it, you admit it.
Re:Stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stupid. (Score:5, Informative)
In a typical band, for example, the songwriter would get a lot more than the rest.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Though in contrast, most historical works are known by the writer (Mozart, Bach, etc)
Perhaps the only thing that changed now is how we are introduced to the music. Before recorded sound, the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I download mostly obscure/old music. I'd hate to think that Britney was getting my money instead of the actual performers.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is my understanding that the surcharge DID legalize duplicating music CDs in Canada.
But you are right of course, its just a money grab.
Thanks for nothing. Just say no. (Score:5, Informative)
You say that as if duplicating your CDs was ever against the law, here or in Canada. Copyright is supposed to be a civil matter between private parties about the right to commercially publish works. Applying that to personal coppies has always been a stretch.
I recall some controversy about artists never got their cut of the digital media tax, not even RIAA signed artists, and it hurt local artists [www.cbc.ca]. Looks like it never got better [slashdot.org].
I expect ISP fees to be exactly like that. In effect, they will outlaw what's already allowed and steer yet more money to an industry that has long ago ceased to perform a useful function.
Re:Thanks for nothing. Just say no. (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I am tired of this zero-evidence notion that file sharing will kill the industry. Every time we have heard this line in the past (for video cassettes, cassette tapes, CD-R, etc.), it has been proven false. Let's try it and find out. Once the real evidence is in, then I will be interested in discussing responses.
Re:Thanks for nothing. Just say no. (Score:5, Informative)
They won't. This was the biggest year for the MPAA ever.
Re:Thanks for nothing. Just say no. (Score:5, Insightful)
the thing about the net and the computer is that in one box and connection one have (to go back to about the industrial age) a telegraph, a printing press and a gramophone all hooked together so that the telegraph can feed of stuff to the other ones.
at that time, with a printing press being a room sized device operated by 1 or more person as a full day job, that would be unthinkable. but today, thanks to the wonders of the microprocessor, thats not only possible, but increasingly common place.
thing is that we are still operating with industrial age laws, when the tech have moved on like no-one at that time could have foretold.
yes, riaa and the rest keeps a whole lot of people with work. but was there not cries about loss of work when the assembly line came to be, and continued on to become increasingly automated?
maybe its time we think about alternate ways of distributing resources? ways not hooked on the idea of scarcity in some form or other for other things then physical resources?
maybe the net, and all that it can contain, should be put under some kind of operation similar to a public library? only that said public library to is a creation of a age where books where a scarce resource, turning their content scarce as well. but today the physical book may be scarce, but the content of it do not have to be. the creativity of the human mind, when not directed towards creating a physical construct, have been set free like no time before.
question is, how are those creative minds supposed to live on? as is, we are so used to the physical media that we cant really imagine a world without it. but if one manage to distance oneself from that idea, then what? what alternate paths do then appear?
to re-imagine the way to launch programs in kde, the developers had to stop referring to the launcher as a menu, this because the very word was loaded with images of ordered lists of items, and one could not shake it.
so it may well be that we have to stop talking about copyright, or any other kinds of rights, as these are now loaded words. words that force our minds into preset paths.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported
This whole idea sounds familiar (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA wants the government to mandate payments to them from essentially everybody?
That would be like insurance companies wanting auto insurance to be mandatory.
Or hospitals being in favor of mandatory medical insurance.
Or Microsoft insisting on Windows installed on every PC
Or sports teams wanting every citizen to subsidize their business.
or... wait... what were we talking about again?
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, I hate this one. Also, the others.
They really get the communities riled up every few years, "we need a new stadium or we'll move." "if you build us this new stadium, and give us some free money, we'll move to your town instead of that other town. That sounds like a deal, right?"
Argh. And the stupid city management keeps building them the damn stadiums, instead of saying, "look, we'll help you find a site for it, but you're on your own
Re:This whole idea sounds familiar (Score:4, Interesting)
except the team needs other teams to play and the leagues survive on artificial scarcity of teams and the teams often have trouble obtaining the services of talented players. Our city is Hockey town, we are the permanent home of the International Silver Stick hockey tournament, 65,000 players and coaches participate in the international amature hockey tournament. I doubt there is more than a handfull of NHL hockey players who haven't played hockey in Port Huron, we'll probably loose our third minor-league Hockey team real soon.
Re:This whole idea sounds familiar (Score:4, Insightful)
its interesting how far we have come technologically, but socially we are just differently dressed "romans".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is just that today it's TV and "the mall".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't believe the RIAA "broadband tax" is comparable to the other mechanisms you mention.
Auto insurance of some kind is usually mandatory, in order to protect the victims of accidents.
In many parts of the world, the government runs or requires citizens to have medical insurance coverage. Managing the health of the country's citizens can be compared to managing the education of those s
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The ultimate in marketing is to make your product compulsory.
All of the examples given and the subject of the fine article are about making products compulsory, therefore they are all related in this way.
There is no reason why a free citizen should be compelled to purchase the product of a private company in order to get or do some unrelated thing. It's just wrong. If I were to propose some constitutional amendments, one of them would prohibit this.
If auto insurance and health insurance are that import
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
how about a compromise... (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, let's get a reasonable amount. Like, say, 25 cents a month. Maybe as much as a buck. The BSA and the MPAA can have the same. So can anybody else who feels their Imaginary Property rights are being violated. But in exchange, two conditions:
1) they accept that they can never again object to any form of private, non-commercial copyright infringement in any way, shape, or form, in any jurisdiction this side of the outer rings of Jupiter.
(2)that they are expressly prohibited from producing, distributing, or employing any form of DRM technology in any way shape or form, in any jurisdiction.
Violation of either of these two conditions will result in them having to repay the amount of money they have received from this "statutory license" (or whatever we decide to call it) X 100.
Let me repeat myself. I don't think this is 'fair', but politics, like life, is compromise. I don't think the RIAA deserves this money any more than a mobster "deserves" his protection money. But to be 100% sure that we'd never again have a single case of grandmother being sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars over a dozen top 40 tracks that'll be forgotten in 10 years, and be able to back up my box set of "Band of Brothers" that I paid $150 for, it'd be worth it.
But not at $5/month. I haven't averaged spending $5/month on CDs since about 1993.
Re:how about a compromise... (Score:5, Interesting)
An excellent idea. But let's add opt-in to it. Not everyone pays the protection money automatically - only those who want it. If you don't pay then you aren't covered. Like...insurance, maybe. If you don't download music you don't need it. Just like if you don't drive a car, you don't need car insurance. If you do, then you buy in.
Re:how about a compromise... (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea of us paying something voluntarily, and getting something in fair exchange from the music labels? Completely alien to them, no matter how many reasonable ways we come up with.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
who gets the money? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This just isn't a political reality.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
They certainly get a lot of representation without taxation, for example the blockbuster movie "Forest Gump" made a loss as far as the IRS was told.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Make it voluntary?? (Score:2)
normal price +$5 for music downloads
maybe +$20 for tv & movies?
Its definitely a step in the right direction.
Re:Make it voluntary?? (Score:5, Insightful)
P2P nothing.
If I'm paying you a monthly fee, you are going to be hosting a reliable service. You will have an iTunes music store/Amazon store/whatever.
If I pay you, I'm not putting up with random qualities, names, ID3 tags, missing seeders, etc. I don't care how obscure my tastes, you have to host it for me. That's our deal: I pay, you let me download.
I expect better service than P2P for $5 a month.
And I would pay for that. (Score:5, Interesting)
Just some clarification: I can and do pay for content, and I am far more likely to when I can get it on my terms.
Just tell me where to sign up to the MPAA-sponsored BitTorrent tracker, and I'll pay for it. Here's my wishlist:
I'm not sure how much I would be willing to pay for that service, but it's at least $5/month.
As it is, there's really no service which can quite replace The Pirate Bay.
Distribution (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Distribution (Score:5, Interesting)
> Out of curiosity, what about it doesn't meet that criteria?
How about the bit where they have no content I am interested in, but I still have to pay?
How about the bit that a private group now gains the right to tax all broadband users just
on a suspicion that they might some day download something?
You MIGHT transport my stolen lawn sculptures in your car. Therefore, I want the right to be paid
$2.35 for all users of the public roadways. Now can you see the problem?
Somebody mod parent Troll.
This is ridiculous. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, if we were talking about a $5/mo (or even $10/mo) fee to be able to download and listen to, burn, copy, whatever as much high quality DRM-free music as I want.... well, suffice to say that I'd be too busy clicking links and breaking out my credit card to make this post.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is ridiculous. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you know how many people the **AA has sued so far, it shouldn't be that hard to figure out how many people would need to sign up (and which would need to be excluded) to make the running of such an insurance pool a profitable venture.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is ridiculous. (Score:4, Interesting)
Copyright infringement is a civil matter and there is plenty of insurance for civil lawsuits.
I'm merely proposing one more type of insurance.
Less than $60 a year is a small price to pay for protection from a possible lawsuit or a $X,000 settlement "offer".
Shouldn't I be able to protect myself against such risks?
rm999 said "That's a cool idea, but if it actually happened I would be really bothered. I know this is sad, but I would rather my money go to the RIAA than lawyers/insurance salesmen."
That's okay, we can accomplish the same goal in a slightly different fashion. Form a non-profit organization and a separate non-profit insurance company that the club hires to insure its members. Make a tax deductable donation to the club in return for membership and if you get sued, you can apply to their 'free' insurance program. While we're at it, how about we buddy up with the EFF, make the goal of the organization copyright reform and hire some lobbyists to achieve that goal?
A. Pay a $60 per year RIAA tax for as long as you have broadband
B. Make a $60 per year (or less) tax deductible donation that goes towards protecting you from **AA lawyers and lobbying for a fairer copyright model
Which would you choose?
Of course, this assumes that the **AA doesn't get pimp slapped by the Courts and their unlicensed "investigators" don't get bitch slapped by the States.
$4.99 for RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
$3.99 for Botnet ops (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, it will be the botnet operators that will get the cash. They will become music artists and publishers. They will generate some absolute trash and call it music. Then their botnet of millions of r3-0wn3d computers will be downloading this trash en masse. Their crap will skyrocket to the top ten. They rake in millions. On the bright side, they might give up filling our mailboxes with trash.
So... (Score:4, Informative)
Again? (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe if the $5/mo was a voluntary "add on" fee granting immunity from copyright suits it might work.
Oh, almost forgot to include the obligatory Fuck The RIAA line.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not on DVDs in Canada.
Like a tax... (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple won't like it... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is an utterly ridiculous idea. It taxes those who don't download copyright-infringing files to pay for those who do - and who will probably continue to download much more than $5-worth of tracks, subsidised by others.
Illegal downloaders need to stop freeloading off the rest of us and pay for the things they want.
Illegal downloaders? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, you shouldn't blame the downloaders, blame the uploaders, as they are the enablers of the whole thing.
Did you just arrive from Digg?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Illegal downloaders? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or maybe breaking the law has nothing to do with right and wrong. Copyright, in its current form, is a corrupt and unjust law that actually causes the opposite of its original purpose as defined by the constitution. No one should feel any qualms about breaking it.
Re:Apple won't like it... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm gonna head on over to the pirate bay and download shit right now, just to piss you off.
How about. . .? (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy crap, a ticket to pirate! (Score:2)
IT's like the "We think you are a pirate" tax on the Zune.
Treat me like a criminal and I'm much more likely to actually turn into one.
Sheldon
stimulating the industry? (Score:2)
Ridiculous idea (Score:5, Insightful)
The real issue here is the morality of the fee. Those who are pirates download content worth significantly more than $5. This fee would be no problem to a person who downloads hundreds of songs per month, but a technologically impaired senior who wants to communicate with his children who live in another state/country will also have to pay.
If such fee would pass, then I say we should pay $1 to reimburse victims of pedophilia, who were victimized over the internet. And many other types of victims, of course.
My point is obviously that the music industry should have no say in this matter, nor any other industry or company. Or we could flip the coin and make the music industry pay for the rehabilitation of all drug users who snorted coke while listening to Kurt Cobain, or small girls who cannot handle the pressure of looking like Christina Aguilera.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What you are raising is the issue of the morality of taxation. We pay taxes for education, whether we have children or not, because we believe that society as a whole benefits from schools.
That's why taxation is usually progressive.
Re:Ridiculous idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And look how the public education system has turned out. If this were to happen, not only would consumers not be paying according to how much they consume, but the artists (and record labels and everyone else on that side of the equation) can't be compensated based on the value of their product. The MAFIAA and its memb
Re: (Score:2)
Society as a whole does not benefit in any way from the RIAA labels. Society could run along just fine without them. This is for the benefit of private corporations, not the benefit of society as a whole. The money will go to relatively few already-rich people, after being taken from very many people of varying income levels. These corporations are not, in fact, running in any sort of deficit of funds. They're currently profitable. This is simply an attempt t
Re: (Score:2)
So... it's like school tax.
Re: (Score:2)
yes! (Score:2, Funny)
Surcharge (Score:5, Insightful)
The "what if I don't want to" argument is a little weak in my opinion. If you are forced to pay it, I'm guessing you would end up using it (since you are already paying). If I had access to all of the songs on the iTunes Music Store, you can bet I would take advantage of it. I don't now because I don't want to pay for the tracks.
The "what about other groups" argument is fantastic. I don't know how someone could reasonably question how something like this become a precedent, causing every group under the sun to suddenly jump out and demand the same thing.
What I worry about is what happens if this goes into effect and gets challenged. I think it's safe to say that someone could mount a good challenge here in the US based on some law. So if I "take advantage" of this forced fee then it gets ruled illegal, do they get to come after me for all the music I "stole"? Do I have to give up everything I downloaded under the plan?
The "how do we divvy up the loot" question is the worst one. Do we put one group in charge (like the RIAA)? Do we really expect them to be fair to all the artists who aren't a member of their group? Or do only they get paid, thus effectively making the a de-facto monopoly? Does that mean there are "good" artists (who my fee pays for) and "bad" artists (who my fee doesn't, thus I can't download their stuff)? Should we let the government run it, thus making it an entitlement bureaucracy? Does every artist get an even share (good for little guys), or do the big artists get more (they are more popular... after all). Does the medium matter? Does my fee pay for me to have the rights to get free sheet music? Why not? If I'm an artist, can I opt out of this saying "no one downloads my music, despite the fee"?
There are so many unanswered/unanswerable questions for this. I don't know how they can push this with a straight face. I'm guessing most of their answers would be something along the lines of "don't worry about it".
The Canadian media tax doesn't seem to have helped much, or solved any of these questions. Why would the US be any different... just because it's a different medium being taxed?
They see $$$, they want in. They could build a subscription MP3 store (real MP3s), band together, and create a de facto (optional) "music tax" that people could pay and use. They don't need to force it through regulation... unless they aren't really looking out for our interests. That can't be true...
Be sure to write Jim G. a note! (Score:2, Interesting)
So then we can download...... (Score:2)
Why ? Because you are charged for the music.
Even though I never burnt a song onto CD back 10 years ago in Europe, I had to pay extra for each writable CD to cover the piracy fees of the poor music industry. Well, that system was also an introduction into warez and music downloads. Even though I exclusively used CDs for backups, learning about this stupidity quickly made me discover how much stuff is avai
What happen to free market economy? (Score:2, Insightful)
JUST SAY NO (Score:2)
Anyone Surprised at Their Logic (Score:4, Insightful)
Those who think this is a good idea should take note that nowhere in this Jim person's argument does it stipulate that the $5 per month surcharge is blanket authorization to download everything and anything. Your $5 gets you the privilege of still paying $.99 at iTunes, or a $12 per month Rhapsody account or running out to Wal-Mart and plunking down $20 for a CD. The music industry will continue to label the internet the tool of choice for music "thieves", because doing so is necessary to justify the $5 per month stipend.
I'm hopeful that the ISPs will tell these people to go get bent. There is a very real possibility of a consumer boycott over this issue, especially from the honest customers who do not download music. If my ISP proudly proclaimed they were collecting this fee, I'd go without broadband.
As far as seeking legislative relief, I don't think too many legislators are going to want to be seen with the hot potato of asking consumers to fork over $5 to help the music industry. It's an election year and a down economy, what fool would suggest...aside from Ted Stevens, Pelosi...well, maybe seeking legislative relief isn't such an idle threat. Get ready to write a lot of letters.
Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
-- There should be a license that you pay for only if you're interested, and if you pay this license you're allowed to download music.
By subscribing to the license, you make a legally binding promise to follow certain simple rules that apply for this license.
-- If you also want to make music available for others to download, you indicate this when you subscribe to the license. This again involves a legally binding promise to follow rules that apply for this kind of license.
-- When you make music available for others to download, you must use software that is approved for this purpose. Getting such software approved should be very easy, because the requirements are simple.
One requirement is that this software record and report statistics about how many times each song is downloaded. The money from the license fees gets distributed to artists and music companies based on these statistics.
Another requirement on this software is that it make an automatic check that the software that requests the download displays a currently valid license.
With this scheme, regular Joes who provide music for others have no economic incentive to trick the system. That's important. It means that lots of software can be easily approved.
Music companies do have an incentive to trick the system, so as to inflate their own statistics. Checks against this will be needed. In addition, because of this, the statistics should probably be arranged in such a way that any number of downloads from the same license counts as a single download.
Did the submitter RTFA? (Score:2)
From TFA:
Re: (Score:2)
This means they will demand the right to monitor (or own) all p2p sites.
That "answer" poses more questions than it answers.
Finally figured it out (Score:2)
People need to realize this and just give it up.
Re:Finally figured it out (Score:4, Interesting)
These two points might seem to contradict each other. But they both add up to the fact that we place too much importance on commercial music (which is a different thing from music as an art or an abstract idea.) So I think the parent deserves better than to be called a troll, even if the phrasing of the comment is unfortunate.
Sounds Great (Score:3, Insightful)
Or do you expect me to pay twicT?
Re: (Score:2)
I pay my 5 bucks, and now Steve Jobs will let me download as much as I want from iTunes for free!!! Same with Amazon. Right? Or do you expect me to pay twice?
I think you may be on to something. Online stores - especially iTunes - have increasing leverage with record labels. They have millions of customers, and they're taking away business from traditional CD sales.
Makes the whole one-hour-of-crap-plus-one-good-song-on-a-shiny-piece-of-plastic model harder to sell for $10 a pop when you can get the
$5? I'd go for it (Score:3, Interesting)
If the music I wanted was freely and legally available for download from the internet in lossless un-DRMed form I'd be perfectly willing to sell out $5 per month for access to this music. I currently spend about 10 times that per month for my music acquisitions.
Great idea (Score:2)
Minority/Majority (Score:5, Insightful)
Some other fees they might consider... (Score:4, Funny)
The politicians opponents fee, to compensate them for money that you don't give to their campaigns
The tapped powergrid fee, because you might tap into the power grid at some point
The Emperor's club fee, because you might use the services of an illegal prostitution ring and not get caught (and not be the governor of a large state).
What? You don't do any of these things? Then why should you pay for it? Instead, you should pay a fee to ME, for no particular reason, other than I think you should give me your money whether I've given you anything in return or not!
What about non-RIAA music? (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA will never go for it. (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't infringe copyright. (Score:2)
This is a totally stupid proposal, unless the understanding is that 100% of Americans *do* infringe copyrights. In which case: why is this a crime?
-J
No, and fuck this idea. (Score:2)
Who else gets subsidized later? The MPAA? Movies cost more than music to make. Are they getting a $10 fee? What about authors? A very good PDF is about the same size as an MP3, and OCR is getting pretty good. They get $5 too? I'm sure video games are pirated. That's another $5. Who am I missing? Software companies... hey, Free Software, too! Let's double US Broadband prices in case users infringe on someone's copyrights!
I thought of this back in the days of Napster (Score:4, Insightful)
Even by the most conservative estimates, it would produce hundreds of millions of dollars per year in royalties. Or they can maintain the status quo and get nearly nothing. If it were me, I would take the money. But what do I know?
Back when the original Napster was under attack, I suggested this as a reasonable plan. Nobody thought the music industry would accept an "all you can eat" plan at such a low price. But today's P2P reality is exactly that at a price of $0. When the music industry finished overplaying their hand, $0 was the only price left on the table. It's like playing "Deal or No Deal", turning down all the offers, holding out for the $1M prize, only to watch the entire board clear, leaving the $.01 prize. Considering where the music industry is today, $5/month from a huge population is no longer a lowball offer.
If it were ridiculously cheap, I would have no problem with throwing some coffee money into music. It would probably renew my interest in the product. As it stands today, I have an Ipod full of ripped CDs I bought over the last 20 years, and I can listen to the classics indefinitely. At $18.95 per disc, I won't be seen in the music store anytime soon.
How much for movies? (Score:4, Insightful)
Movies
Games
Software Applications
TV
Books
Comics
Anime
Audiobooks
Pictures
It adds up. And how are they going to determine who gets how much? Oh I guess I know the answer to that. The collector agency gets the bigger part, and the rest is distributed based on some kind of algorithm that favors the current big coorporations.
Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't listen to RIAA music any more, much less download their crappy tracks, buy them from iTunes, or heaven forbid buy CDs, because I want nothing to do with them whatsoever.
Assessing a $5/mo. fee to every broadband user is the last thing that should happen. 10 years ago, OK, that was something we could have talked about. And did talk about. But the music industry wanted no part of it.
Now it's too late. The world and its musicians and its fans have all moved on.
Let the RIAA die, and rot.
NOW they get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Napster offered multiple times to partner up with the RIAA labels to create a subscription-based model. If they'd have kept just 1/3 of their userbase at $10 a month (highly reasonable) and growth had remained flat (highly unlikely), they'd have pulled in $600mil in the first year, without ever having spent a dime on marketing or distribution. $600mil a year in free money with incredible growth potential, and the RIAA wouldn't have had to lift a finger.
$600mil in revenue in just the first year, for doing nothing. And they said no, shut down Napster, and unleashed the unkillable hydra of gnutella/bittorrent/FastTrack/etc.
NOW the RIAA wants a surcharge? No. You had your chance at the golden egg, and relevancy in the future of music, and you chose instead to cut the goose's throat. We're not going to subsidize you now.
Re:I wonder what.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I wonder what.... (Score:5, Interesting)
We are laying the legal groundwork for that problem right now (albeit unknowingly). With nanomachines on the horizon, it won't be more than 50 years till you will have access to a formulator capable of replicating a car. But someone will still have to design the car in the first place. We will be up against the exact same problems we are now with music. People will be trading atom-level model files for Ferraris over the intarwebs. Toss in your old car, a design file, and a whole lot of power (assuming we haven't hit, or have solved, the peak oil problem by then), and you get a new car.
It will be the end of natural scarcity of manufactured goods, but not the end of scarcity of energy, good design, or the rarer raw materials. While I loathe the current state of Intellectual Monopoly law, it will be necessary to continue to compensate creators (not necessarily labels) for their work, and the fields where the cost of design can be hidden in the price of the manufactured good will dwindle.
The laws that will protect cars 50 years from now are the laws we are using today to attempt to protect music. Maybe cops will ask for "License, registration, and proof of designer royalty payment, please?"
But then, we'll probably just be the computers' pets by then anyway, so no need to worry.
Re:I wonder what.... (Score:5, Funny)
Make mine a flying car.
Well (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:4, Informative)
I wonder what one has to do to qualify as part of this music publishing business? Everyday, I pass subway musicians with decent home burned CDs for sale. I have even bought a few, in fact one of my favorite classical CDs is direct from the musician. They are a part of the "music industry" how do they go about getting their cut?
They're losing money (Score:2)
This is genius, now they'll make free money from every internet connection while saving money by not having to pay all those legal fees. The funny thing is, they could still release every thing with DRM. Then they can just sue you for breaking the DRM (they'd have about the same amount of
Re:How is this different from taxation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Taxation GENERALLY is useful; This is not (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)