Comments on: EFF solves Big Music’s problems

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 02:50:48 +0000

I agree with what some of the guys before me have said about this. I think EFF is on to something, but there seems to be a flaw in where in the money comes from. I know that if my ISP offered the ability to download everything I want for an extra five dollar fee I would not do it, I already download everything I want. The way I see it is that the internet is just a bunch of bandwith that we all share, and we all pay for. So, what if every file, not just music, that is uploaded onto the net can be tagged or have some sort of license. Whenever somebody downloads that file there will be a system that tracks it, and in the end track how much bandwith people are dedicating to a specific tag. At the end of the month a check proportional to the amount of bandwith dedicated to that file will be sent to the author. Furthermore, anyone will have full access to any work and the ability to modify it. Their patch can then be uploaded under a seperate license, and if somebody wants to use the origianl and the patch they will have to download both, thereby giving credit to both innovators. My dilemma is central to what I believe, the future modulus of how business and transactions work in the world. How and why does the money we pay to get on the internet turn into a collective fund that pays greater to those who contribute more?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:56:33 +0000

food does not equal music in so many ways. That example is horrible.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 01 Mar 2004 23:26:35 +0000

P2P freeloaders will never pay. First of all, what would happen to them if they didn’t ? An independent agency would be powerless to collect anything under a voluntary system.

Get real. If tomorrow, all resturants gave away their food for free, or you could pay for them if you opted to, the VAST majority of people wouldn’t cough up a dime. So… would you want to be a chef in that reallity.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 28 Feb 2004 00:18:00 +0000

The comparison to the early days of radio hits the mark PERFECTLY!

This sounds like a workable formula where the artists will actually get paid; as it stands now the Big Music/RIAA is spending money chasing phantoms, suing pre-teens and are paying nothing to their “Content Providers”.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 26 Feb 2004 05:40:42 +0000

Now that is the best idea I have heard to solve the problem of P2P sharing. Only idiots would scoff at that and the musicians would get their fare share.

But other people should share in the profits, i.e., the ISPs who could get a certain amount a month to help pay for bandwidth.

Big music is missing an important point: P2P is not all the music that is traded. Much is traded by snailmail, much is done by private FTP servers (numbering in the millions world-wide). The can threaten us, sue us and shut down sites, but they will NEVER stop music sharing. The cannot control everyone in the world. And these are just a couple of ways of continuing the sharing. There are others.