" Licenses must be granted and neither side has an
unfair advantage since their private negotiations are ultimately refereed by
the government to ensure fairness."
Whitney
How about a Net in which websites are not licensed by the government, but
registered with a non-profit collection agency, monitored by the government
to insure only that it remains both fair and non-profit, (taking the actual
operational bureaucracy OUT of any government hands-on) for the purpose of
acrueing creator compensation for the sending (not the receiving) of the IP
of others. The Government can't shut down unregisterd sites, or force them
to register, but it can require registered IP owners to get compensated
through periodic payments from registered site tolls.
[My special future view]
This will allow, because the yearly registration cost to an individual
website will be utterly bearable (!) it will allow registered fee payers
to, if they want to, also download ANY kind of music for free and be making
enough otherwise to enjoy doing so, without most copyright constraints
being legally applicable.
Unregistered sites will be as open to private copyright lawsuits as they
are now, ...unfortunately. Registration, however, would mean practical
government immunity from most private copyright complaints, because
registered users will already be paying a mutually acceptable scale of
compensations in gross form but calculated by accurate play tabulations.
This could run parallel with any other privately operated per-play or
subscription schemes that are tried, and can actually compete with them by
not eliminating the possibility of wide-spread free music on registered
sites.
Peer to peer transactions without an intermediary website involved should
remain electronic fair use, and consider it the best advertising you don't
have to buy until proven otherwise. Really, we have to see the economic
PROOF in practice against that before we cut it off for good ol' oportunism
alone.
DJ
Negativland
>>>>>To license Napster according to a radio mentality - minimal cost to the
>broadcasters in exchange for great promotional value - would undermine
>any lucrative future for artists and songwriters.
>
>I think it depends to what extent you adopt the "radio mentality." There is
>certainly much to be learned from the interaction between the "circle c"
>PROs and broadcasters. Licenses must be granted and neither side has an
>unfair advantage since their private negotiations are ultimately refereed by
>the government to ensure fairness.
>
>The "circle c" PRO licensing model is a great system for ensuring that
>licenses (and thus dissemination of music) is ubiquitous and also has the
>added benefit of requiring that the composer is paid directly without regard
>to recoupment of their account with the publisher. In the context of
>"circle p" copyrights, this would address what is perhaps the two biggest
>problems faced today - namely, (1) the fact that licenses are simply not
>available on terms that are anywhere near "fair" (which, in itself, IMHO is
>the biggest promoter of "piracy" out there in that it creates a fantastic
>market for either overt infringement, testing the boundaries of fair use or
>using settled principles of fair use to exclude ALL the interested parties
>from the value chain) and (2) with respect to ANY "solution" that does NOT
>require direct payment to the artists without regard to recoupment, only the
>very elite artists will be paid ANYTHING whatsoever.
>
>To the extent that you're talking about the fact that "circle-p" copyright
>owners do not have performance rights other than on the internet, given how
>they've administered their internet-based performance rights it's heard to
>be terribly sympathetic. Unless they had the same restrictions as ASCAP and
>BMI have under their consent decrees there simply would be no radio.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Noah Stone
>To: John Parres; phoATonehouse.com
>Sent: 2/25/01 12:53 PM
>Subject: Re: pho: If it's not being bootlegged it's not a hit.
>
>on 2/24/01 9:04 PM, John Parres wrote:
>
>> "I think you lose some sales, but you're building awareness of the
>artist,"
>> said Kedar Massenburg, chief of Vivendi Universal's Motown Records.
>"The more
>> your awareness of a record, the greater your sales."
>>
>> "If it's not being bootlegged," he said, "it's not a hit."
>
>That Napster may have contributed to the 38.8% offset in single sales is
>an
>indicator that public attitude to music consumption is beginning to
>shift.
>People have begun to experience music as a service (in Napster's case, a
>terribly flawed one - creators were not paid) and some prefer it. As
>the
>services get better and become more plentiful and bandwidth increases,
>etc.,
>consumer preference will shift and CD sales will decline.
>
>In the very near term, there can be a case made for the publicity value
>of
>bootlegging; spreading music around raises awareness and, in turn, CD
>sales.
>But imagine a world 10 years from now - a world in which music service,
>or
>more appropriately, media service has become the predominant method of
>consumption. To be prepared for this future, we have to ensure that
>creators will be remunerated by these services as if these services are
>the
>*only* method of doing business.
>
>To license Napster according to a radio mentality - minimal cost to the
>broadcasters in exchange for great promotional value - would undermine
>any
>lucrative future for artists and songwriters.
>
>I believe the future is interactive. I know the future will be very
>different than the present. The fact that many in the industry (well
>articulated by Massenburg, above) are firmly clutching onto the
>"packaged"
>vine does not bode will for their readiness to swing to the "service"
>vine.*
>I am concerned that terrestrial-centric licensing of online services
>will
>sellout artists' futures.
>
>-Noah
>
>*Tarzan Economics� is a registered trademark of Jim Griffin.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----
>This is the pho mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.
>
>To send a message to the list, email phoATonehouse.com.
>To send a request to majordomo, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put
>your
>request in the body of the message (use request "help" for help).
>To unsubscribe from the list, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put
>"unsubscribe pho" in the body of the message.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This is the pho mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.
>
>To send a message to the list, email phoATonehouse.com.
>To send a request to majordomo, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put your
>request in the body of the message (use request "help" for help).
>To unsubscribe from the list, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put
>"unsubscribe pho" in the body of the message.
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori list archives & other information are at
http://detritus.net/contact/rumori
----------------------------------------------------
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
N© Detritus.net. Sharerights extended to all.