Anyway, patronage is what happens in a free market (and all other exchanges or commissions of art for money). So it’s not so much a system as a lack of anything that prevents or interferes with it, e.g. a state granted monopoly or a tax.

I propose abolishing monopolies that should never have been granted, and certainly not implementing any taxes to compensate those whose monopolies are no longer effective.

If you institute an Internet or communication tax (a compulsory license fee wrt a new privilege to exclusively transmit original digital works, or any other similar scheme), then just as with copyright you blow a free market for intellectual work out of the water. At least with copyright there was a market for copies, even at monopoly protected prices. With a tax, there isn’t even a market. The money is simply collected and then a tiny fraction doled back out.

So, yes, a tax is great because then anyone can do what they want without fear of prosecution from the cartels (given a tax now pays them for doing pretty much nothing except for being in the right place at the right time).

Ahem. Copyright was wrong to begin with. A tax is doubly wrong. People already had their cultural liberty. It was stolen from them in the 18th century and now those who’ve received it want to be paid forever in exchange for letting the people have it back? Now, that’s RICH.

As I remember from years of reading your posts on PHO, you propose a patronage system whereby fans would support the artists they like most by making direct financial contributions to them. Maybe you’ve used the term “tip jar” as a short hand to describe this.

The digital transmission right, administered as I suggest in my article, would directly and fully allow for implementation of your proposal for a tip jar. It would allow artists and fans to enter into any sort of relationships that they wish. And there would not be any residual right held by publishers and/or labels that could interfere with those relationships.

So, to the extent that you support a patronage system, your proposal and my proposal are in perfect synch. The difference between us is that my proposal also simultaneously enables every other business model involving digital transmissions of music to flourish.

Of the following three views on file-sharing, which is closest to your own?

1) File-sharing should remain illegal, though copyright might need some reform and more appropriate enforcement to address it.
2) File-sharing should be permitted, so it would be best to compensate publishers from an Internet tax (aka compulsory license fee).
3) Monopolies such as copyright shouldn’t apply to the Internet, nor should a tax – a free market will be fine. Sharing and building upon published music is natural.

The results of such a poll might then indicate the likelihood of a2f2a participants ‘building a consensus’ upon any proposal for an Internet tax.

While he approaches things from a different direction to me, and to PPUK, and it’s expressed in slightly different terms, I think I can honestly say that I find very little to dissent to in the proposal – there are only maybe one or two substantive points where we disagree.

Admittedly, those are indeed substantive, however even saying that, it is very interesting and encouraging to see proposals like Bennett’s being introduced to the debate.

The incumbent labels reckon there’s still a couple of centuries left in the first option, ultimately to be superseded by cartel ownership of the Internet (as ACTA prepares the way for).

The signed musicians, hankering for a kinder sugar daddy to cosset them, don’t like the prospect of fending for themselves in a free market. Hence it is they who prefer to take the option of tax that pays them a tiny royalty for their popularity, than a market that pays them for the quality of their product. It also appeals to many music lovers (for whom a tax would be a trivial expense) as it seems to avoid being prosecuted for file-sharing.

The third option seems like hard work and appeals most to the fit and free spirited youth, and those idealists who prioritise principle over appeasement.

All proposals can therefore be categorised into “Monopoly, Tax or Market?”

Monopoly: 3-strikes, HADOPI, DRM/DMCA, etc.
Tax: Bennett Lincolf’s proposal, among many others.
Market: Masnick’s ‘Cwf+RtB’ and Kelly’s ‘1,000 True Fans’.

A consensus that a reproduction monopoly is an ineffective anachronism is an inevitability. However, there is going to be a war of ownership for the Internet, i.e. between the publishing cartel, the state, and the people. The cartel wants to control the Internet whether through their amassed monopolies of copyright or outright ownership. The state also wants to control it and will be very happy for an excuse to tax its use. The people simply want to be at liberty to use it as they wish without having to pay for that liberty, either to publishers or the state.

Three powers pulling in three different directions: The Corporation, The State, and The Individual.

The corporation is an artificial construct of the state’s legislature. The state is an artificial construct of the people. All that remains fundamental to nature is the individual and their natural right and liberty to communicate.

I say the individual and the dissolution of privilege is the horse to back, the proper consensus. However, that’s not necessarily the most likely outcome. Either of the other two powers may well become ascendant, given the people are most pliant to persuasion.

Well, there are a few discussions that do sound like they are beginning to lead towards a consensus, but, personally, I agree with @DA. At the moment, there are simply not enough artists/bands/songwriters on board. Is there any way you could maybe do another out-reach email to the FAC to spark some more interaction from artists?

From what it looks like, nearly everyone here is anti-3-strikes. A lot of people are interested in Bennett Lincolf’s proposal. If it would be possible to frame something as an alternative proposal to 3-strikes that would be more pro-active and beneficial for artists and keep the public on the same team, it looks to me as though Bennett’s proposal might be the basis for a potential consensus statement, maybe?