[The Electrician]

This is a revealing look inside the twisted mind of a virulent "statist". Mr. Fisher evidently never understood the meaning of the word "freedom". He relishes the idea of the word "compulsory", and salivates at the prospect of academics, programmers, and "public-interest groups" (whoever they might be) working together to impose his regime on all of us. His utopian prescription for solving RIAA's litigious tendencies vs. file swappers involves creating a huge new bureaucracy, complete with mandatory government registration, centralized government tracking of all commercial activity, taxes on blank discs, MP3 players, and other devices (and especially Internet access, whether or not the persons who were accessing the net were actually illegally sharing copyrighted material), with the funds thus expropriated to be divvied up under the control of the government amongst the music "creators", middlemen, retailers, etc. (it seems that he intends to pay retailers out of the proceeds of these taxes, even if the retailers are not involved in making a sale! As well as others in the food chain today whose jobs are really no longer needed.).

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.

[Support Free Republic]

She wants to look her best for her subjects.
>	Make a fashion statement. Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[go star go]

There's a scene in one of the Burt Reynolds' movies where he grabs a man by the shirt colar through a door and says "Women love, children love me, dogs love me. You come out here and love me before I kick your a$$!".

[discostu]

Not only is it a frightening scenario, it's dumb. So they'd get a unique file name from the government, then some would be digital bootlegger changes the file name (heck even non-bootleggers would probably change, I'm guess the government issued GUID wouldn't be very intuitive and actually reference the song and artist names) and the first half of his scheme falls apart completely.

This guy should be proud though, he's actually come up with a solution less likely to work than anything the RIAA has proposed, not an easy task.

[fooman]

E*V*I*L

[ProudGOP]

RIAA should face it. Technology has rendered what they do worthless.

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.

[SamAdams76]

I agree. Anybody who views CD players, blank CDs and MP3 players as "targets" for taxation is dangerous as far as I'm concerned. It's pathetic to see the RIAA and its lackeys trying to protect an antiquated business model instead of adapting to the new marketplace.

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.

[MalcolmS]

It doesn't cross his mind that vast numbers of people use ISPs for strictly business purposes, surfing FR, etc, that they use CD burners for backing up data. He wants all those people to be taxed for his musical tastes.

[fooman]

RIAA will require that a little 'shocker' bug will in everyone's ear. If you listen to copyprotected music, you will be zapped.

ZAP!

[TechJunkYard]

The government would tax devices and services used to gain access... 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...

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.

[Prodigal Son]

This fellow with his registration ID. Let me float an idea here.

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.

[Grit]

The more dramatic--but also the best--would be the establishment of a compulsory licensing system.

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"

[The Duke]

All I can say is that RIAA better step carefully - because if they were to mess with somebody with a disposition like mine the way I've heard they've messed with some other folks then there would certainly be hell to pay.

Literally.

[randog]

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.

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?