4 ms·

The 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 possibili

The 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 ago
Yes. 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 ago
  Eff 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.

netsp 17y ago

Yes. 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 ago
Eff 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.