|
|
|
 > |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
Posted on 07/11/2003 2:59:05 PM PDT by The Electrician
The Recording Industry Association of America has announced that it will soon bring its formidable legal forces to bear on the individuals who share copyrighted music files through the Internet.
Starting as early as mid-August, it expects to file "thousands" of lawsuits against people who make large numbers of songs available on peer-to-peer networks.
The RIAA is right about three things. First, under current copyright law, the behavior of the file swappers is illegal. Second, partly (although only partly) as a result of the ubiquity of file swapping, the music industry is in crisis. CD sales continue to decline, record company revenue is falling at an accelerating pace, and many music retailers are going out of business. Third, among the groups threatened by this crisis are the creators of music--the composers and performers.
The RIAA now takes the position that the only way to solve the crisis and protect the creators is to sue many individual file swappers, hoping that the threat of both civil and criminal penalties will prompt the millions of people worldwide who currently engage in this behavior to mend their ways. Its new strategy has many disadvantages and perils.
The proposed litigation campaign will be extraordinarily costly. It is likely to be ineffective--as file swappers use proxy servers, offshore Internet sites, and encrypted peer-to-peer systems to avoid detection. And it will further alienate the already disaffected community of music consumers. More importantly, better solutions to the crisis in the music industry are available. The more dramatic--but also the best--would be the establishment of a compulsory licensing system.
In brief, here's how such a system would work:
The creator of a recording would register it with the U.S. Copyright Office and would receive, in return, a unique file name, which would be used to track Internet transmissions of the work. The government would tax devices and services used to gain access to digital entertainment. The primary target of such a tax would be ISP access.
Secondary targets would include CD burners, blank CDs, MP3 players, etc. Using techniques pioneered by American and European performing-rights organizations, a government agency would estimate the frequency with which each song was enjoyed by consumers. Revenue collected from the tax would then be distributed by the government agency to creators in proportion to the rates with which their songs were being consumed.
Once this alternative mechanism for compensating creators was in place, the old one would be dismantled. In other words, copyright law would be reformed to eliminate the current prohibitions on the reproduction, distribution, public performance, adaptation, and encryption circumvention of published music recordings.
The social advantages of such a system would be large. Consumers would pay much less for much more music. Creators would be fairly compensated--indeed, would earn more than under the current regime. The set of musicians who could earn a livelihood by making their work available to the public would increase sharply. And litigation costs would decline dramatically.
To be sure, such a system is not yet ready for immediate implementation. Many technical and administrative issues need to be resolved before it could be launched. But several academics, programmers, and public-interest groups are currently working to address those issues.
The RIAA should join us. Instead of continuing to waste its money and credibility on an unwinnable war against the file-sharing masses, it should cooperate in the design of a solution to the underlying problem that would benefit all of the players in this drama.
biography
William Fisher is a professor at Harvard Law School and is the director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society. He can be reached through his home page.
It's a frightening scenario, but even more frightening is that a person of his position and evident influence would float such an ugly idea. But, then, what did you expect would come out of Harvard?
Guess that the concept of a freedom-based alternative would never have crossed his mind... The RIAA is hardly looking out for the interests of the music creators, and neither is Mr. Fisher's prescription. Rather, it is geared towards greasing the palms of all of the unnecessary intermediaries in the production and distribution of music that is a legacy of the days when physical goods needed to be moved in order to move the music, and pathetically little of the revenue that was generated actually made it into the hands of the performers.
|
|
|
|
> |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
Artists will be paid for live performances. The rest of the leeches in the music industry need to figure out how to suck someone else dry.
In 10 years, nobody is going to be buying music CDs. Nobody. By then, we will be in the age of the multi-terrabyte hard drive. People will be able to store pretty much everything ever recorded on a single disc drive (and send it out wirelessly to their car stereos). Why fuss with a $15.98 CD with 10 songs on it?
People are still willing to pay for their music. But the business model is changing. The days of the $15.98 CD are rapidly coming to an end. I know I'll never pay that much for a CD again.
His formula has everything in common with the Soviet/East German model of central bureaus filled with apparatchiks and secret police and busybodies uber alles, and nothing in common with America's traditions of freedom. How or where do the universities find these neanderthals? (rhetorical question only - clearly the answer is that these petty tyrant wannabe's are home-grown - or, should I say, Ivory Tower-grown)
Oh joy. Another government bureaucracy to be funded.
Consumers would pay much less for much more music. Creators would be fairly compensated--indeed, would earn more than under the current regime.
And this is precisely why the RIAA will reject this idea.
Let's say I write a cool piece of software. It allows me to configure every possible permutation of musical notes of three minutes duration. After accomplishing this task, I get it to print out the results (vast though they would be). I subtract from my pile all songs already written. I haul the results down to the Copyright office and (assuming I can afford the copyright fees) copyright every song that was possible. I get the "official ID number". I post an avertisement in every newspaper in the world, place public announcements in every city proclaiming that "beyond debate and without a doubt, Prodigal Son has written every possible song- therefore all composers of works less than three minutes duration should immediately cease their efforts or risk prosecution".
What would happen? What would happen if someone other than the RIAA did it? What would happen if the RIAA did it? This sounds like a crazy abstract, but with increasing computer power- this is almost bound to happen.
You can debate forever whether copying music is thievery (it likely is). But for the same reason that no one tries to tax the air you breathe, it will be impossible to effectively tax or price digital music because it's value is as close to zero as you can get.
The government would tax devices and services used to gain access to digital entertainment.!! The primary target of such a tax would be ISP access. !?!!
Secondary targets would include CD burners, blank CDs, MP3 players, etc.!!!!
Revenue collected from the tax would then be distributed(!!) by the government agency to creators in proportion to the rates with which their songs were being consumed.!!!!!!
What the F!!!! Is this guy on crack?!
Oh, nevermind..."William Fisher is a professor at Harvard Law School"
You buy a record (CD, tape, whatever), You get the right to play as many cuts as you want as many times as you like. You get the right to loan it to a friend, neighbor (a library gets the right to loan it out to almost anybody).
You could break the record up so just one track is in each piece and loan those out. They could be played on a turntable. You could design a CD player to do the same thing. You could put ten tone arms on a turntable and play each cut at the same time.
The point being that as long as only one instance of the same is being played at a time, it's legal - in perpetuity! Enter technology to make sharing MUCH easier. Legal point doesn't change. You should be able to copy your record (CD etc., whatever) to your computer and stream it to anyONE (person) for non comercial benefit.
Taken a step further, as long as there are fewer instances of a song playing in the universe at any one time than there were "hard" copies (licenses) sold, there's no beef. That pretty much takes care of songs issued before say, 1995.
For the newer stuff? I'll get back to ya, but I'm sure there's some way to give the RIAA what is has coming.
Literally.
So, I can bugger another man's rump and Big Brother isn't going to bother me, but they sure as hell want to know which Village People tune I'm playing at the time?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.