p2pnet.net News:- Compulsory licenses are "not a wise or logical thing to do".

That’s the view of the RIAA’s David Sutphen as quoted in an ArsTechnica post here.

Translated, that means compulsory licenses wouldn’t give the RIAA’s owners, the Big Five music labels, the same kind of flexibility they enjoy at the moment.

Or put another way, all downloads would be at the same rate, meaning the labels wouldn’t be able to charge whatever they like for whatever they want.

Is ‘legal’ legal music sharing worth $ 5 a month to you? – asked Eric Bangeman in the ArsTechnica post.

That’s what the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) suggests in its White Paper Let the Music Play.

"Their proposal … was debated at a music law conference at the Hastings College of the Law," says Bangeman. "The idea goes like this: file-sharers pay the monthly surcharge which would entitle them to share as much music as they wished. The proceeds would then be distributed to the rights-holders of the music, based on frequency of downloads.

"Predictably, the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) was not enthused about the idea:

"David Sutphen, vice president of government relations for the RIAA, immediately pooh-poohed the idea. File sharers still would search out a way to download music for free, he said, and under the proposed system, all music would have the same value, which doesn’t make sense. One-hit wonder Vanilla’s Ice’s ‘Ice Ice Baby,’ for example, would have the same value as The Beatles catalog. He said these types of compulsory licenses are ‘not a wise or logical thing to do’."

But what Sutphen neglected to point out is that a similar structure already exists in the broadcast medium, Bangman continues.

Radio stations currently pay a flat fee to ASCAP and BMI which gives them the right to play their music as often as they like.

"One law professor shot down the RIAA’s contention about valuing different songs, reminding them that under the proposed scenario, payment would be by popularity," he says. "Thus, Vanilla Ice would not be receiving the same royalties as Norah Jones on an ongoing basis."

Most telling in the entire exchange, however, "was the admission from Sutphen that the RIAA’s strategy of suing consumers will not bring about the change in behavior the they so earnestly desire," he adds.

"While asserting the audience that production, promotion, and distribution needs will never entirely disappear, he did admit that ‘record labels will have to change the role that they play,’ and praised the proposal as at least a step in the right direction. Is it too much to hope that the RIAA will take the next step?"

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 26th, 2004 at 10:23 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

HOME

Viewed 1994 times