3 ms·
'You know what would probably get something done? If the record industry proposed a law through the front door, with public hearings, to find an equitable, simp
by netsp 17y ago
'You know what would probably get something done? If the record industry proposed a law through the front door, with public hearings, to find an equitable, simple way to get paid for the use of its material online. A blanket license, say, that users or ISPs could opt into in exchange for access to all the music that's already online, wherever and however they can find it.
Sure, some of the hardcore copyfighters would hate it -- it'd feel too much like a "music tax" for their taste, and they won't rest until the music companies have been killed in vengeance for all the bad stuff they've done since 1996 -- but it'd make the entertainment giants seem reasonable, and it would make anyone who disagreed with them seem unreasonable. They'd have the easy sell: "We want to stop suing your kids, but these crazy infohippies won't let us!" '
I was surprised by this. Is a blanket license really something the activists are wiling to live with? It seems like a terrible compromise to me. It seems like an admission that the record companies deserve a business model.
Seriously, I think that we seriously need to consider letting copyright, or parts of it, die. At least lets speculate about the consequences. Music seems like a good place to experiment. (A)The sky will not fall if music is not made. (B) Music will almost definitely still be made.
The losers are the components of the recording industry. But we are under no moral obligation to keep them in business.
- TimMontague 17y agoThe point is that the record industry is better off working with the public than in secret behind locked doors. The blanket license is simply a single possibility that may be compromised on if there is ever an open discussion.
- netsp 17y agoYes. Good point. I have no problems with that statement. Working with the public is certainly better than secrecy. I'm just pointing that a music tax is being presented as reasonable. I was surprised the author implied this. *I'm not personally unwilling to consider it. I think this is a practical problem as much as an ideological one. If this gives us a practical solution without too many negative side effects, I'm all for it. In fact, if anyone can point out an interesting exploration of the topic, I'm interested.
- chris11 17y agoEff wrote a couple good articles on taxing music. Collective Licensing Good, ISP tax bad: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/03/monetizing-file-sharing-collective-licensing-good-isp-tax-bad https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/03/monetizing-file-sharin... A Better Way:http://www.eff.org/wp/better-way-forward-voluntary-collective-licensing-music-file-sharing http://www.eff.org/wp/better-way-forward-voluntary-collectiv... Their opinion is basically to create collecting societies. Listeners would pay a monthly fee and get the legal right to use all works by member artists, irrespective of format or distribution method. Artists could choose whether to join or not. They are saying it would work because it has precedence, and most users would be willing to pay a fair price. The society will be encouraged to charge a fair price by the fact that not doing so will encourage piracy. Fines and legal action will help the societies from non-members. I think that the general idea is good. I might be willing to pay a monthly fee if I got unrestricted access to music.
- anamax 17y ago> Is a blanket license really something the activists are wiling to live with? It doesn't matter what the copyright activists want. What matters is what the masses want. The Ipod is about as much friction as the masses are willing to tolerate, for now.