p2pnet - rss feed: Paying the piper
p2pnet.net Feature:- In the past few days it seems the tide has turned in favour of ordinary people who love music, and against the companies which once controlled it. Yahoo!’s public declaration that it would like to sell unencumbered music in its store coincided with the failure of the BPI - Britain’s answer to the RIAA - to provide solid evidence against the Tiscali users whom the BPI had accused of fileswapping. Regular p2pnet readers won’t have learned much from this - we already know that p2p can’t be stopped and that DRM won’t work - but these truths are now out in the open. The revolution, it seems, will be televised after all.
It’s time, then, for those who care about musicians as well as freedom to offer them a lifeline. As we near the endgame, cries for a levy on internet use – a flat rate ‘ISP tax’ on all users - are getting louder. But while the prospect of being able to continue what we’ve all been doing since Napster without the sword of Damocles dangling above us is very appealing, there are drawbacks to this idea. For one thing, it seems unfair on people who for whatever reason have no interest in sharing. Also, if even a tenth of what the industry claims to have lost because filesharing exists (and one truly shudders to imagine how much they would have lost if two plus two were equal to five) are to be offset by the proceeds of this levy, it is likely to push broadband’s entry cost even further beyond the reach of the least well off people - an unacceptable state of affairs.
However, there are various principles on which most people agree, and which any proposed solution would be foolish to ignore:
Artists should be able to benefit from their work
Listeners are prepared to pay for music
There is a world of difference between offering shares on a p2p program ("sharing the love") and selling illegitimate disk copies.
My proposal is a variant on the levy idea which meets the criticisms and nicely meshes with these common-sense principles. Instead of an ISP tax, I propose a voluntary filesharing license. In other words, you pay for the right to trade files however you like. (My idea is currently focussed on music, but I hope readers will have some suggestions for extending it to other content.)
The license fee would be means-tested like any other progressive tax (and unlike the UK television license it otherwise resembles. The TV license’s flat rate unfairly penalises the hard-up, to such a degree that many accept the risk of evasion and hundreds end up jailed every year - the so-called "crime of poverty". Let’s not repeat that mistake.)
The license would be administered by a body independent of both ISPs and the music industry, whose mandate would include collecting and distributing the money as well as catching license fee evaders. As to the distribution of funds, I propose setting up an artists’ database of available music. This would just be a list of copy-unrestricted songs in circulation and would be entirely separate from any dealings artists have with record labels. The existence and provenance of these recordings would be checked by the licensing authority, which should definitely include some musicians among its personnel. Thereafter, funds would be distributed on the basis of how much material is in circulation, and divided equally between composer and performer (who could of course be the same people).
It is important to draw a distinction between unrestricted files, like MP3s and OGGs, and restricted ones (ones containing DRM or which only have a fleeting existence as part of an audio stream), because the latter cannot be shared. Music which is only available in restricted form wouldn’t count towards an artist’s slice of the pie.
Copyright laws would be amended so that the clauses about unauthorised copying and distribution would not apply to for-free digital distribution in unrestricted formats. Major labels have no cause to get upset about this, as they have so far refused to play in this arena anyway. For smaller labels who already distribute unrestricted files, a deal between label and artist might be in order for a share of the license payback.
On the enforcement side, ISPs would be required by law to make available to the licensing agency certain limited information about the internet usage of unlicensed customers (rather as TV sales have to be registered with TV licensing.) In the first instance only very general information - such as the type of packets most commonly sent and received, and the overall usage pattern - would be revealed. If there was cause for suspicion, further investigation would require dialogue with the user.
Oh, one area where I almost agree with the BPI: evaders would be sanctioned by restriction of their internet speed for a certain length of time, with disconnection as a last resort for non-payers . Profitless copyright infringement is at worst a minor misdemeanour and does not merit jail or even a hefty fine.
So I call upon governments to quit devolving power to a trade group that is clearly in terminal decline, to end the madness and paranoia that currently criminalises a substantial fraction of their populace, and implement a sane and workable reward system for artists which I’m sure most people will embrace.
Chris Ovenden
[Ovenden is a self-confessed technology freak who says he always ends up writing about culture, or who is perhaps a culture nut continually drawn towards the hi-tech, he plays guitar, makes websites and teaches. Editorships of various on- and offline publications lurk in his past, "and possibly his future".]
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
July 24th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
-= Disclaimer: This is just my opinion. =-
- As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment -
- following this preface is true. In fact -
- I live in a fairy-tale and nothing I -
- say should be taken seriously. -
My only problem with any levy ….
The Artists are STILL not getting compensated.
Remember, Artist does NOT always = Copyrightholder.
In fact, it almost NEVER does.
Copyright holder = Major label … in nearly every case.
And we all know just how well they do when it comes to
compensating the Artist.
All this baloney about the “artist” coming from the record label
is just that .. Baloney.
How many “artists” have been compensated with the extortion
money collected in the lawsuits ?
Are the Industry accountants willing to document just how many
( and EXACTLY WHICH ) “artists” have been compensated through EXISTING blank media levies in Canada and US ?
I doubt it.
Is there a way provided to compensate artists that are outside the
Big Media Cartels ??
Any Levy is pure bull. It allows the Cartels to continue business
as usual.
It’s time to change. Like it or not.
Call me narrow minded if you like.
But, let me ask ….
Just how willing to compromise have the media giants shown
thenselves to be ?
They don’t WANT compromise, they want absolute control . period.
They have proven time and time again they will use ANY means
necessary to get it. Form bullying individual to paying GOVERNMENTS to bully other governments, to buying laws and lawmakers.
There is no compromise from them.
They won’t give.
We should’t either.
If they REALLY want compromise …
1. STOP SUING .. NOW.
Drop every case . EVERY case ..that they are pursuing.
2. STOP USING DRM.
It doesn’t work, it’s a waste of their money, NO CUSTOMER
WANTS IT. If it can be seen or heard, it WILL be copied.
It has been stated many times, on many sites, A REASONABLE
price, and NO DRM wil get customers buying again.
3. STOP LYING.
It is obvious when you compare the most dowloaded, to
the biggest SELLERS that there is NO LOSS OF REVENUE
from P2P. P2P has ZERO effect on sales.. Zero ..Zip ..Nada
Admit it.
Maybe then, we can talk
July 24th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
“P2P has ZERO effect on sales.. Zero ..Zip ..Nada
Admit it.”
if you mean negative effects (aka LOST sales) you are for sure right.
but p2p has effects on sales in a positive way. it leads to more sales!
Regarding your other points: others also don’t like this taxing idea:
http://tinyurl.com/fyjqo
(a blog entry)
July 25th, 2006 at 4:34 am
“It has been stated many times, on many sites, A REASONABLE
price, and NO DRM wil get customers buying again”
Let’s not forget the most important - MAKE SOMETHING WORTH LISTENING TO!!!!
July 25th, 2006 at 11:47 am
It looks like I am not alone with such idea.I tried to push it to Czech goverment,but they never replied.This was some months ago.Now I am waiting for new goverment to push far better changes.
Klimax
July 25th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
Claims BMI it BMI paid out more than $573 million in royalties to American songwriters in 2003.
Can any verify this or is it a plain lie?
July 25th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
I am sure they paid SOMEONE.
I would love to see EXACTLY who was paid.
I doubt very seriously that will happen.
But then again …..
BMI is a songwriters “group”.
They SEEM to be the RIAA of writers.
They are EXPERTS at screwing people with the law.
Mr. Venegas, a regular here has a great deal more expertise than
I in the inner workings of these shady bastards.
If he has some time, I am sure he will explain why BMI is no better
( possibly far worse ) than the RIAA.
July 25th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
I swear to God, if someone tries to muck with my Internet usage, there will be hell to pay.
July 26th, 2006 at 4:58 am
Fuck `em then. Keep sharing & don’t worry about the artists. I dont’t think the majority of them are worrying about your plight. If no music is ever made again, there’s enough to listen to for the rest of your life. People, like corporatiosn & the artists, DO NOT WANT TO PAY FOR ANYTHING. We like stuff for free. Even if they call it theft & try to make us feel immoral, fuck them.
They’ve stolen billions. If you’ve shared or downloaded a few files, you haven’t stolen anything. & even if you do think you have, in the general scheme of things, I doubt you’re going to hell.
Unless hell is run by musicians…
July 26th, 2006 at 5:01 am
Maybe the Czech is in the mail!!
LOL.
July 26th, 2006 at 11:47 am
“All taxes are evil & support the theiving state.”
Do you have a suggestion for paying public education, policemen, public hospitals, the military, the government. the courts, etc?
“Artists don’t have a “right” to benefit from their work. If no one wants to pay for it, sorry, don’t make any more.”
Who says no one wants to pay for artist’s work? As a matter of fact people do want to pay for something to get more of that something, such as art, education, museums, security, etc. ? Actually is is dis
And what if people want to pay through their government?
Now, if your governments is like most governmnets, you probably have a valid beef but the solution is to fix government, not end government. Of course the problem here is people’s apathy, as most people want their government problems to just go away on their own or are waiting for the politicians and others to fix things up. The problem being that the politicians and others want to keep things as they are because they have figured out how to milk the people under the current system.
Now, if you had stated “most politicians are evil” you may have been right.
Just my comments.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
July 26th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
BMI is a songwriters “group”.
Actually they are a “publisher” group money collectiion organization.
Almost all the money collected is paid to publisher and almot all the monet collected by publishers go to publisher bank accounts and stay there.
For many years (up to present) up 27 songs allegedly (at least one was not composed by my father - it was stolen from some unknown songwriter) composed by my father were listed in BMI’s repertoire, placed there mostly by a pulisher (Peermusic, one of the big ones) who obtained most of the the songs, using their own words in a confidential letter we got our hands on, “without the author suspecting”. Many of these the songs were performed widely on radio here in Puerto Rico under a BMI license. My father, I believe, never received a cent from that. We heirs also did not receive a cent from those performances either for a period of over 12 years, from the music publishers.
The stories I hear from other songwriters are just as bad. They hardly ever see any of the money collected by the alleged “songwriter societies, the collectives”. No one audits th publisher’s accounting either.
The entire publisher-collectives arrngement is just a scheme with these major characteristis:
- The repertoire of the so called songwriter collectives is not given to licensees. So they actually get a blind license. They cannot see what they get.
- The paperwork and alleged sampling is all “secret”.
- The accounting at the collective and at the publishers is also all “secret”.
- How money disbursed is all “secret”.
- The allegedly competing collectives (ASCAP and BMI) share directors from the same publisher companies. Clearly there is collusion here and not competition as is claimed.
In the meantime, all the songwriters get is the shaft.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
July 28th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
” Artists don’t have a “right” to benefit from their work. If no one wants to pay for it, sorry, don’t make any more. ”
Yes, ARTISTS do.
But, as pointed out many times, because of one sided contracts
and monopolistic, cartel-like control, The record labels prevent
the artists from being paid. The LABELS do not have a god-given
right to get rich as “middlemen”.
Every time you read an RIAA sponsored propoganda piece,
replace the word ‘artist’ with the word ‘Copyright Holder’
The COPYRIGHT HOLDER is the one the labels are protecting.
In public, the RIAA mouthpieces say .. ‘artist’. In COURT however,
in front of judges, they ALWAYS say Copyright holder.
Why is that ???
The LABELS hold the copyrights.
Why don’t they say that publicly ??
They need us to just assume that Copyright Holder = Artist.
They don’t want us to know that this is one of their biggest,
and most damaging lies.