The Bennet Lincoff proposal has been getting a decent bit of play from the “copyright compromise” crowd, and advocates replacing copyright with a renamed “digital transmission right” that covers how digital files are used online.
It’s voluntary, but the unspoken part is of course that if you don’t pay for a license, you’re operating illegally at worst, and immorally at best. The same old story with a different name, it’s all about control, and continuing to make money from past work indefinitely.
He describes his plan in in excruciating detail, but the gist of it is this:
- Rename copyright to “digital transmission right” so that it covers what people do with digital music files, transfer them around (sharing, streaming, etc.).
- Have people “voluntarily” negotiate licenses to these rights with collection organizations, supposedly allowing users of decentralized sharing protocols to pay up.
- Profit! Distribute money around.
Aside from reinforcing the idea that paying to use “rights” is somehow the morally white choice, it’s still yet another impractical attempt to make money off of the wrong thing. It’s based on fundamentally flawed ideas, namely that there is a an ownership applied to content in all forms, indefinitely, and that owners are entitled to financial compensation whenever and however their works are used.
That’s not the way culture works; moreover, it’s a poor proposal for earning money. The “If everybody just paid $1, we’d have millions!” logic only works when “everybody” participates.
It’s impractical, because under Lincoff’s proposal, individual BitTorrent users would need to negotiate licenses with various collecting societies to “legally” share via the protocol. Music files would be encoded with “management” information, allowing an end-user software program to track usage and send data back to the societies. Like every one of these “solutions,” it depends on wresting control of the internet from the people, compelling them to pay these licenses, to use this software, and so on.
It’s an inferior way for an artist to earn money, because as in all of these schemes, money gets paid out to artists based on popularity (determined from something like the aforementioned software). The collected licensing money is a finite number, which means that while each participating artist will get a certain percentage of the funds, the real dollar amounts will rapidly approach zero – a move that places new and independent artists at a significant disadvantage. Lady Gaga makes out great, Amanda Palmer, not so much. Of course, those who administrate the collecting societies get a cut no matter what, so no matter who loses, they win.
Like so many others before him, Bennet here wants to orchestrate a cultural shift that puts his rights-holding organizations back in control. These types of proposals are not solutions, they are desperate handwaving to obscure the fact that the economy has changed so that absolute control over digital content is neither possible nor necessary. Luckily, despite myopic proposals like this one, future-focused musical artists have realized that the best way to proceed is to ignore attempts to reform or enforce legacy “rights” and focus instead on providing a global fanbase with solid reasons to spend their money.
Crosbie Fitch, somewhat of a kindred spirit, evaluates the situation this way:
“[T]here 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.”
…and that’s why I keep writing this stuff.
SteelWolf
January 6th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
someone clearly doesn’t seem to understand the essence of Lincoff’s proposal. Yes, a ‘copyright compromise’ is necessary. That’s certainly not a negative. Use is fundamental. Because music is intangible, because it is a ’service’.. use is fundamental. Paying for use isn’t an alien concept. How’s it “an attempt to make money off the wrong thing?” Hmm. God forbid that a service-oriented cultural commodity should attempt to earn a living from ‘use’ or ’service’. Seriously, did the author of this post actually READ Lincoff’s proposal? And if he did, is he not reading this from a 17th century point of view somehow? “The state is an artificial contruct of the people?”… Um, no, you elected the ’state’. It’s not artists, most of us don’t vote… you put the ’state’ into force. Whenever you realise that the ’state’ (states) have been bought years ago, you’ll begin to understand the real machine. You’ll begin to understand that ‘natural rights’ disappeared when they taught you to believe that you have some kind of ‘choice’. Darling, you are a slave to the system.
Poor Bittorrent users, I mean, why should they need to obtain licenses like the rest of the world would. So impracticle. But, I don’t remember this encoded ‘management’ software when I read the Lincoff proposal.. can you remind me where that was mentioned in his paper? Can’t seem to find it. As far as the wrestling ‘control’ of the internet from the people. The source is actually ‘the people’ who vote and elect and decide not to hold their representatives accountable via the apathetic majority. But, aside from that, this idea of ‘control’ is exactly the opposite of what Lincoff is proposing. “Wrestling control of the internet from the people, compelling them to pay these licenses”. It’s like saying “Wrestling of the land from the peope compelling them to pay for these hamburgers or these vegetables”. Whaaaaa ?
January 6th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
hang on… what I mean is, why should one type of ‘user’ be exempt? Why should a Bittorrent user get a ‘free lunch’? It doesn’t matter if i flip burgers or write songs, i still pay my way either way. “Control” is an issue. But, this kind of entry is coming from a parallel cyberspace. (IMO).
January 6th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
@SteelWolf:
You’ve pretty well summed it up for me as well.
I’ve read over Bennett’s posts a few times and seem to come to the same conclusion: Displacing, renaming, or redefining copyright doesn’t get rid of the inherent “legal hooks” that are causing all the problems.
It also does nothing to address…
- the exhorbitant lifespan of “rights” themselves.
- reclaiming lost cultural liberties.
- keeping intrusive tracking of internet users from becoming an “accepted” practice. (…and future abuse.)
- giving any reasonable guarantee of payment to artists. (Given that middlemen of some type are still needed to implement it.)
- the possibility of the scheme being a stepping stone to simply becoming an “internet tax”.
I’m also still confused by the implication that existing copyright agreements can be somehow “replaced”. Surely, those who want to keep the Status Quo, and have the legal “rights” to keep it that way, wouldn’t just throw it all away when asked to.
This means only unsigned artists could participate. The rest of the music industry, and the whole digital dilemma in general, would remain just the way it is now.
January 7th, 2010 at 10:16 am
@Indianna #1/2:
I think you’re missing what SteelWolf is saying. The summary of your posts seems to be you’re agitated because you think SteelWolf is saying “BitTorrent should be exempt”
He’s not! He didn’t say that. He said it is NOT PRACTICAL, meaning from a technological standpoint, it won’t work.
SteelWolf is NOT saying “BitTorrent freeloaders should not have to pay for art” as what your posts imply, both directly and implicitly.
While I like Bennett’s idea of removing liability, it is still, as DA/Steel say, a different version of the current system.
Again WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING DEATH TO COPYRIGHT BECAUSE WE DON’T WANT YOU TO BE PAID!
We are advocating death to copyright in its current form because it is not applicable, it is out dated, impractical, illogical, and down right setup for abuse of everyone except rights holders (aka: collection agencies and labels for the most people) and it WILL PREVENT INDIE ARTISTS FROM ACHIEVING THEIR POTENTIAL!
Please try to not assume every filesharer is simply trying to get content for free! When you state that, directly or implicitly, you sound like you are just reading RIAA pamphlets and not actually informed of realities of today’s digital world, both technically (as the RIAA certainly isn’t technically inclined) and artistically (advantages of using the technology and having total control).
NOTE: With regards to the above paragraph, read carefully, please do NOT reply with “Hey, Kerchoonz IS artistic and is technologically advanced….” read it again if you feel like saying that! “When you state that, directly or implicitly…”
You did above in 1 and 2:
“Why should a Bittorrent user get a ‘free lunch’? It doesn’t matter if i flip burgers or write songs, i still pay my way either way. “Control” is an issue. But, this kind of entry is coming from a parallel cyberspace.”
January 7th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Indiana,
It is extremely difficult to engage you in meaningful discussion as you seem determined to forsake natural rights, history, economics, and logic in an attempt to justify an outmoded business model.
To paraphrase another, in a market where there is no limit on supply and where there is no ability to exclude, price equals the marginal cost. That is, a non-rivalrous, non-excludable market, or a market for infinite goods. Digital music files are such an infinite good, and the marginal cost of their reproduction is zero. Trying to charge for the usage of this good is both futile and bad business. It’s trying to make money off of the wrong thing and is non-viable in the long-term.
I’m not the one hoping for the state to enact a mass tax that allows me to work once and receive a steady income dole for the remainder of my life. As a musician you need to be able to compete in the free market like everybody else, and yes, there is a free market. Whether or not you like it, you are competing with freely shared digital music files every day, and your prices fall short. You need to accept reality and transition to a model that utilizes this, instead of trying to force the massive crackdown Lincoff proposes. Instead of trying to build a new world that lets you run your old business, adapt to the world you have.
To paraphrase yourself from earlier, “Seriously, did you actually READ Lincoff’s proposal?” Apparently not.
As usual you try to draw comparisons between rivalrous, excludable goods and those that are non-rivalrous and non-excludable. The Lincoff proposal is about trying to charge pedestrians for the smell of coffee emanating from your cafe. Even if something like that were to be enacted, it’s a foolish and impractical way to earn money when you could make far more by simply enticing those pedestrians INTO your shop.
January 7th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
awww, thank you for the economics lesson. I’m not sure where you get some of your ideas. I’m not the one hoping for the state to introduce a ‘mass tax’ either. I’m also not the one hoping for the state to simply abolish copyright. We’re looking for alternatives here. But, Haven’t we all been through the tax and levy discussion before? The focus of my paper was not about a mass tax, it was indeed about website contributions and a potential tax or license on ISPs who are also engaging or acting as music service providers. End of. It had nothing to do with a mass tax. Lincoff’s proposal doesn’t mention ANY tax whatsoever.
This is getting a wee bit silly hearing the same stuff over and over again. Like, the same things have been said 40 threads ago and nearly in every thread. But, let’s make this very clear: Lincoff’s proposal DOES NOT mention a TAX. Lincoff’s proposal isn’t replacing copyright with a new right either. (I had also originally assumed that this was the case, however, it actually isn’t the case. The digital rights transmission idea is not meant to replace copyright. It’s simply creating license scenarios.
Obviously, you would like to believe that I’m unaware of supply/demand, history, natural rights, etc. So, we’ll just not bother with those kinds of comments. However, licensing Bittorrent users is no more ‘impractical’ than licensing websites. It’s the same gig.
Somehow this quote above along with the insistance on calling a license a ‘tax’ leads me to believe that you haven’t read through the proposal. On top of that, nothing stops artists from enticing people into their ’shop’. What a license scenario would do is help encourage the spread of music with an economic incentive for artists (especially new and emerging bands) who are receiving NO compensation from the exchange of their creations under the current bittorrent scenario. Everyone needs to give up a little ‘control’ under the licensing scenario. But, it’s to the benefit of everyone. I believe that this is the point of view that Lincoff’s proposal was written from. I’m wondering why a couple of you are unwilling to recognise it.
@robert I think we have a classic scenario once again whereby somehow you think you have a grasp upon my point of view. Clearly, you don’t! I didn’t insinuate that ‘bittorrent’ users are freeloaders. I asked why should one group be exempt and we know that it’s not difficult to create a license for bittorrent users no more than it’s been impracticle for the BBC to require TV license fees. Strangely enough, I can’t find any place where I’ve said that ‘every filesharer wants to get content for free’. You are confusing my opinion on filesharers with my opinion on websites and services who use content in order to upsell and generate advertising revenues for their own economic benefit and who do not contribute to the creators of that content. Those are entirely different things and you are making assumptions that have nothing to do with my opinions when you state otherwise. However, in the case where licenses are created for the use of digital works, why would it be that bittorent users would be exempt from also making some form of contribution for the use of other people’s content?
January 7th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
(meaning ‘exempt’ simply due to ‘impracticality’ when there is no reason for it to be impracticle. Pretending it would be technically impossible is naive. It would be like you telling your ISP that it is technically impossible for them charge you for their services. Generally, if you don’t pay for their service, they simply cut you off.
January 7th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
@SteelWolf
The public policy you’re advocating (which would substitute an archaic patronage system for copyright) would condemn artists to make their livings as little more than court musician and minstrels. Moreover, under your proposal, songwriters who are not also performers would be left to beg on the street, or wait on tables, I suppose.
It’s narcissistic in the extreme to suggest that artists should return to life as it was lived before the industrial revolution so you can do what you want with what they’ve created.
For my part, I believe that public policy should strongly support both the right and the opportunity of artists to derive ample financial rewards from their contributions to culture and to commerce. By the same token, however, I also believe that the music industry should not have the right to demand that public policy support its desire to do business in a particular way. Policy makers must seek to accommodate the interests of all relevant stakeholders in the digital music marketplace, even you.
My proposal sets out “in excruciating detail” (to use your derisive term to describe the comprehensive scope of my work) a clear, if complicated, roadmap to a solution to the ongoing crisis in the digital music marketplace, a solution that is full, fair and feasible. In this regard, I’m sure you realize that it’s no insult to me when you say I’m a member of the “copyright compromise crowd.”
And one last thing: Contrary to your unsubstantiated assertion that under my proposal “the real dollar amount [for artists] will rapidly approach zero,” artists (and new artists in particular) would do better financially under my proposal than they would under the system that the digital transmission right would replace; and incalculably better than they would do under what you propose.
January 7th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
@SteelWolf and Robert:
The very same basics are being bickered about in practically every thread. We reword and relaunch them, and get the same result: We apparently don’t know what the hell we’re talking about; there’s no point in putting “geekish” technicalities into their proper perspective; copyright just has to stay; and some form of “internet tax” (sorry, “license”!) is simply the only way to fix things.
Einstein did say that “Insanity can be defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”.
I can sum it all up for ya right now…
There are some artists out there who are genuinely not happy with the returns they’ve gotten through the labels, so they’re looking for a way to capitalize on the rights they have (or have coming to them) on their own, thinking they can retain a similar set of commissions and revenue streams to that of the labels, for themselves.
That’s why some won’t allow themselves to absorb any real critique about the current state or applicability of copyright. That’s why some won’t even accept the actual definitions of “Natural Law” and “Free Market”. That’s why some refuse to recognize the Internet for what it is and isn’t.
All that stuff is just too damned inconvenient, and counter-productive to the mission some of them came in with.
And, that’s why a “tax” (or similar compensation scheme) seems to be the only thing they can wrap their heads around, as it would glorify their copyrights with a guaranteed income, and leave much of the Status Quo intact, possibly yielding additional forms of revenue.
It would certainly eliminate the need to learn any of the inconvenient truths in any of this, wouldn’t it?!
Who cares that there would be no guarantees for anyone else in the equation?! Who cares what harm it might cause for the rest of the people, including future musicians, or all the other resources that would have to support it?! Who cares that it might require deep “concessions” on everyone else’s part that might not be recoverable, just to get THEM “something to work with”, whatever that really means?!
And, it doesn’t matter that the labels’ use of this philosophy is proving to be a mistake. These artists think they can revive it to its full potential. To those, I say, “Good luck with that.”
Meanwhile, we’ve heard from a few independents who sincerely don’t give a rat’s ass for the labels or copyright. They simply don’t want to play this game, and are quite optimistic in their plans to play TO the current technology and not against it, and without any desire to create any new laws or other snags for everyone else.
And, they’re quite content to keep the Internet free and functional, as they fully recognize not only the general need, but how beneficial it is to their own promotion.
These independents I’ve just described are already using the free market, and they’re proof that the solution doesn’t have to kill anyone else’s rights or give corporate interference an excuse to be expanded, or even accepted.
Totally makes me think.
January 7th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Bennett, just because a free market existed prior to the 18th century creation of copyright, and it is with copyright’s demise that a free market should be returned to, it doesn’t follow that this requires going back in time to the 17th century, to abandon modern communications technology and like some Quaker movement insist that musicians shun any electronic devices in favour of acoustic lutes and oboes.
Just as The Internet enables the modern artist to self publish their work extremely cheaply, including copying and viral promotion, so it can enable the modern artist’s fans to commission them to produce new works, whether in the recording studio or live. You know how much fans will pay an artist to perform live, so why doubt how much they’ll pay for an artist to perform in studio in exchange for the recording?
The only ones who suffer from the demise of copyright are those publishers and labels that have grown fat from its exploitation and would thus see it continue at any cost.
Artists are in the business of producing art, not mass producing copies. And their fans only want to pay them for their art, not the label for the copy (even if 1% does contribute to paying off the artist’s advance).
January 7th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
DevilsAdvocate, that’s a good summing up. One lives in hope that the old artists can be persuaded that a reversion to a free market isn’t a doomsday scenario, but it does take a heck of a lot of time and patience. Sometimes I think it might be better simply to say “Ok, this is a site dedicated to helping artists and fans exchange art and money with each other according to free market principles, i.e. no monopoly, no tax”. In other words it may be better being constructive with artists that are pretty much there already (like Rednex), than spending ages trying to deprogram artists brainwashed by copyright. There’s nothing like artists actually being paid by their fans to debunk all the naysayer’s claims that it can’t happen, that artists will starve without draconian 3-strikes enforcement, or at least a tax.
January 7th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
@Indianna #6/7:
“@robert I think we have a classic scenario once again whereby somehow you think you have a grasp upon my point of view. Clearly, you don’t! I didn’t insinuate that ‘bittorrent’ users are freeloaders.”
So that means there’s no intended attitude with:
“Poor Bittorrent users, I mean, why should they need to obtain licenses like the rest of the world would.”
And DA is correct, you don’t understand the technical side of things well enough to appreciate your requests of licensing through bitTorrent or the like.
And again your analogies are somewhat off.
“Pretending it would be technically impossible is naive. It would be like you telling your ISP that it is technically impossible for them charge you for their services. Generally, if you don’t pay for their service, they simply cut you off.”
No, your lack of understanding of computer networking API’s and the code behind bitTorrent or LimeWire, networking protocols, router protocols, router table management, encryption, hash functions and their purposes, etc.. that is what is naive. You assume people can do anything. “If they can send unpersoned drones to kill people in Pakistan, they can certainly keep track of file transfers through something as complex as bitTorrent, or it’s replacement.
As we have said before, ISP is not the same as power or water or gas. You think it is because you pay and someone else gives you something you use, but you don’t use up the internet! You are COPYING!
This very text you are reading was COPIED from the hosting server(s) to your machine, into the cache of your web browser. You do not know how it arrived there, each packet traveled potentially one of millions of different routes, literally. They are not in a stream, regardless of what TCP/IP claims to be, it is still physically a single packet transferred, like pieces of a letter but each with a destination stamp, and you’d assemble that letter as you received it (a perfect copy of that original letter mind you) with different routes taken for each piece of the letter.
Let me equate it to you this way:
You’re a singer. We’ll let you use the Bel Canto turning method to go above the pissachio, but you cannot use falsetto. You have to reach D above your soprano high C. Again, without falsetto!
If you studied singing you’d know to say that is technically impractical and almost impossible. Maybe C# or D if you strain, but not D. You cannot use open throat either, not that you would risk more than a tone (and a brief one) above the pissachio, as you’d cause damage to your voice. Using the turning technique I’ve hit Bflats below high C and I’ve listened to a fellow student hit high C#. But D is really pushing it, sure you could train for a decade but what good is that? So few write vocal notes that high, it’s not worth the effort.
The point being, it is naive for someone to say “hit this D naturally, not falsetto” just as we’re saying it is impractical to expect every possible file transfer method to support a form of watermarking and register that watermark with some royalty owned database to record license usage.
We’re trying to explain, and I know what DA says, but I’m not giving up on you, you just don’t understand the undertaking you are requesting.
And once this is widespread, you’re going to increase the traffic significantly, hurting the available bandwidth. Let’s hope the routers don’t drop those royalty ID packets, as overwhelmed routers do.
Gosh, we’d have to listen to Bono try to explain that their hosting server dropped too many royalty packets and they need to increase the license fee applied to every site, every music transfer (and how the hell will you decipher the music packets from non music packets? more watermarks? are you going to change the IP standards? All new RFC’s?), everything digital.
Again, we didn’t say impossible, just impractical. We’ve already told you that managing sites, ALL SITES, of different locations, legal issues, router issues, OS issues, throughout the world is a huge and daunting task beyond belief.
Your ideas do not scale well, that’s the geek-speek for networking coming out.
Bennett has good ideas as a compromise, we’re trying to be even more creative, no fixed pricing. We need something that takes into account subjectivity and perceived value.
Estimates by rights holders on how much the license will be per digital transmission (even if “connection” dropped do to DNS? you still get billed? – you’ll piss people off) will only reflect their own desired value.
I wrote a nice rant on p2pnet about this. It’s worth the read!
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/33535#comment-995001
Cheers!
PS NO THERE WAS NO INTENDED CONDESCENDING ATTITUDE PROVIDED, ONLY FRUSTRATION!
January 7th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
@Bennett:
Let me just say, and I don’t mean to sound disingenuous, but whether intentional or not, your first paragraph comes off totally as if it came straight from the George W. Bush “War on Terror” Propaganda Machine. It uniquely combines classic corporate spin, misinformation and fear mongering, and I’ll tell you why…
First off, we need to keep a proper perspective here. You can’t label Natural Law as “archaic”. It exists, and does still trump a helluva lot of other laws. That’s because it’s the BASIS for law, and represents all the things law is supposed to PROTECT. It’s very unlikely that Natural Law will ever become obsolete.
Copyright, on the other hand, is a PRIVILEGE that was introduced as a way of temporarily supressing certain natural laws, for the benefit of publishing. The LAWS that enable copyright are currently proving to be a problem and the constant efforts of the IP Industry to extend and reinforce the privilege are just causing more problems. This is mostly because attempts to strengthen the rights of IP holders is seriously infringing on things outside their realm.
It is the privilege of copyright that is becoming obsolete, as it can no longer be fully realized today. The Internet could possibly be said to have defeated it.
You then go on to paint the ultimate picture of some “worst scenario” as the consequence for re-adopting a free market strategy, when nothing in your retort or your original posts refutes the viability of such a plan in any way.
How are we to see this as anything more than complete, willful and sensational spin doctoring?
And, to top it off, there doesn’t seem to be any “proposal” contained in SteelWolf’s post! He basically just critiqued yours. (But I’ll leave him to clarify that one.)
Because the rest of what you said in #8 appears to be more rhetoric directed at a proposal that wasn’t presented, I’ll just add…
I can’t find anything in your posts that addresses a few of my original questions when you first came in, and I think they deserve to be addressed. Here’s a couple:
1) In order for something like your scheme to work, ALL music entering the Internet would have to be part of the plan, whether covered by an existing copyright or not. What about the ones holding all the current rights?? Will they simply “relinquish” or “sell off” what they already and legally own? (For that matter, who would they sell it to?) Why would they?
Perhaps I’m missing a very simple answer to that, but this is where I admit to not knowing enough about the copyright mechanism to just “see it”.
2) How does this really propose to get filesharing off the hook, when all existing “rights holders” (whether under current copyright or any other alternative) will still insist that all uploaders are infringing the rights to distribution?
3) What kind of “management data” could possibly be appended to a torrent file that wouldn’t open up the whole DPI/tracking/privacy can of worms?
January 8th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
That post summed everything up. Well said.
@Robert, Bennet, etc.
You’re right, there was no proposal in my post. The truth is that no proposal is necessary. You have everything you need right now: a free market, talented artists, and fans willing to spend money. Frankly, if you can’t think of a way to make money with that you don’t deserve to be in this business at all.
January 8th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
This is a true story which just happened today:
How to get a man to use a snowblower….take 1 female and have her operate it. It brings the male species out to “show” her how it’s done. Female retreats to warm house and laughs (while looking out the window) at the neanderthal. (It is wonderful to be a cave dweller!)
(Why am I telling you this story?… well, just because I thought it was amusing.)
But, anyway @steelwolfe, robert, DA etc:
The truth is, there actually DOES need to be a solution whether or not Steelwolf believes this to be the case or not. Pretending that artists and songwriters can survive or make a living without some form of PR & marketing investment of time and money simply doesn’t cut it. When you make these broad statements about ‘labels’ and ‘publishers’ being the only ones who stand to lose, you are competely misinformed. Either way you define this idea of selling ‘the recordings’ directly to fans, there is still a marketing endeavour which costs more than producing a record and an entire line-up of costs and manoevers to work through which, without a solution regarding ‘fair use, fair play & fair compensation’ for creators and their fans, will leave artists as paupers and buskers in the end… here’s why I believe this to be the case:
Let’s pretend that I’m an artist who is just starting out (non-established or even emerging, but, simply at the first rung of the ladder). Meanwhile, let’s use the free market ’sell your recordings to fans’ scenario. Let’s say the artist starts by doing support gigs for a year and then starts to get headline gigs in some pubs, clubs and small venues. (He’ll probably barely cover his costs and if he has a band, he may not even break even. But, he treads on, etc.) Once he’s been able to reach a certain level of following, he may decide to produce a record to sell directly to his fans (the one’s who are willing to spend the money to have the recordings first).
Steps he takes: he must first a) pay for the recordings up front b) pay for the marketing in order to sell his recordings to his fans. (He can either take a loan, find investment, find a label, or take the risk somehow privately.
Once artist has done those two things, he must then sell his recordings for enough in order to a) cover the costs of production and marketing b) make a ‘profit’ to live from and c) perhaps get a return for whoever may have helped him or invested in the band in order for them to make the record and market it (or pay off bank loan, etc.) Because he is selling his recordings to his fans directly, he must wait until the amount that he is looking for is reached before he can ‘release’ his recordings otherwise, if he sells portions of the recordings gradually to each fan over time, what is the advantage to the fan who bought the ‘recordings’ first? (essentially, there wouldn’t be any advantage because every person who buys these recordings after the first person bought them would essentially be buying ‘copies’ and why would they need to buy copies if they can get them for free via a bittorrent client?) You may say, well, that’s good either way because even if only a few fans actually buy the recordings, those recordings will at least be out there being copied/shared and the artist can then tour more and his fans who share his music will pay for live gigs. So, the artist invests more time and money into internet marketing. He decides that since he’s had so many downloads, he will go on tour (But, how does the artist know where to go play the gigs?) he’s had 1 million downloads in Australia and 1 million in Canada, 40k from Thailand, 20k from Belarus, 500k from Chicago (etc. etc. except he doesn’t know about any of this data because it’s not available to him) so, he spent his time touring in the UK because he didn’t know where his fanbase came from and he wouldn’t be able to afford to tour around the world anyway. He eventually goes bankrupt not knowing where these ‘new’ fans are who liked his music and got it for free even though his first fan base bought his recordings directly. Since he’s sold his recordings directly to his fans, he’s not using traditional digital distribution (itunes, et al) because he’s already sold his ‘recordings’ and he’s unable to reach his new potential fanbase because it’s financially not viable.
But, hang on a minute, you might say that he should have targeted his marketing to a territory or an area that he could control. For example, market to the UK. (e.g. tour in the UK, get radio play in the UK, sell your t-shirts in the UK) But, with bittorrent, the audience is worldwide. Those new fans are not going to be able to access your shows, for example. And if you tell me that you agree that the marketing should be more targeted, then you’ll be agreeing with me that most music is only accessed or listened to if there has been marketing exposure and therefore, bittorent is nothing more than a distribution system and not this phenonomenal ‘marketing’ system that many a p2p advocate claims it to be. In other words, this is not a chicken/egg scenario because in order for a non-established artist to cover all these costs, he’d better win the lottery or have investors (or label money) behind him and even then, it’s not necessarily economically viable without any means of targeting where those bittorrent downloads are coming from and sense (according to Crosbie Fitch) there is theoretically no longer a market for ‘copies’, that income stream would be just as good as dead, right?
@robert Sometimes I think you’re being so technically minded that you’re no earthly good (K.I.S.S. = Keep it simple sherlock) See the forest as well as the many trees. Here is a very simple non-technical way which avoids API integration, watermarking and even privacy issues, ok… so, bear with me below:
In order to implement a license for bittorrent users, the licenses simply need to be created because, at the moment, they don’t exist!!! P2p/ bittorrent users could theoretically simply opt-in for the license via their ISP. This would mean that the only people who would be considered ‘infringers’ out there would be people who don’t opt-in (and this would basically lump all music into the same boat be it signed, unsigned, major, independent,etc.) A license would theoretically get rid of this ‘copyright infringement’ problem that we have currently. ONLY people who don’t opt-in would be potential infringers.
In the current proposal with Digital Britain, (for example, under 3-strikes) p2p users who violate copyright will be warned and potentially cut-off.) However, If a bittorrent user held a license, he could simply write back to his ISP and say “I have a license to use that content. What’s the problem?” Simples
It doesn’t actually have to be technical. It can actually be made simple and the idea being that p2p users would benefit and simply be making a low-cost contribution in exchange for copying files amongst each other. The license would be for p2p users who want to be allowed to share copyright material via bittorrent. Let’s say that it’s a per household opt-in (similar to the BBC TV license). Obviously, it wouldn’t need to cost anything near what the BBC license costs. But, let’s put a price tag of around $2/month per household which allows you to share any music you want. So, when you share, the tracker counts the seeds and leeches for every track out there. It doesn’t need to be traced back to you becaue the data is being recorded. Joe Tracker administrator reports the downloads of each file. The money that was obtained from the license is divided and distributed to each artist from that pool of money that was contributed via those license fees. Small artist gets his portion of the overall sum based upon how many times his music was downloaded and big artist does as well. For the artists that are dead or simply didn’t bother to register for their data to be collected, their money is held for a period of say 1 year and otherwise, that money is distributed out to the entire database of artists from that period and no ‘black box’ is created. Reports could be made quarterly or bi-annually. Simples…
January 16th, 2010 at 11:43 am
@robert : (a non-technical scenario without the need for watermarking, software, etc.)
In order to implement a license for bittorrent users, the licenses simply need to be created because, at the moment, they don’t exist!!! P2p/ bittorrent users could theoretically simply opt-in for the license via their ISP. This would mean that the only people who would be considered ‘infringers’ out there would be people who don’t opt-in (and this would basically lump all music into the same boat be it signed, unsigned, major, independent,etc.) A license would theoretically get rid of this ‘copyright infringement’ problem that we have currently. ONLY people who don’t opt-in would be potential infringers.
In the current proposal with Digital Britain, (for example, under 3-strikes) p2p users who violate copyright will be warned and potentially cut-off.) However, If a bittorrent user held a license, he could simply write back to his ISP and say “I have a license to use that content. What’s the problem?” Simples
It doesn’t actually have to be technical. It can actually be made simple and the idea being that p2p users would benefit and simply be making a low-cost contribution in exchange for copying files amongst each other. The license would be for p2p users who want to be allowed to share copyright material via bittorrent. Let’s say that it’s a per household opt-in (similar to the BBC TV license). Obviously, it wouldn’t need to cost anything near what the BBC license costs. But, let’s put a price tag of around $2/month per household which allows you to share any music you want. So, when you share, the tracker counts the seeds and leeches for every track out there. It doesn’t need to be traced back to you becaue the data is being recorded. Joe Tracker administrator reports the downloads of each file. The money that was obtained from the license is divided and distributed to each artist from that pool of money that was contributed via those license fees. Small artist gets his portion of the overall sum based upon how many times his music was downloaded and big artist does as well. For the artists that are dead or simply didn’t bother to register for their data to be collected, their money is held for a period of say 1 year and otherwise, that money is distributed out to the entire database of artists from that period and no ‘black box’ is created. Reports could be made quarterly or bi-annually. Simples…
January 17th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Of course, all that goes off of the idea that NOT oping to pay for such a license is “wrong,” a woefully incorrect assumption I called out in the article.
January 17th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
@steelwolf no, it means that not opting-in simply means that you don’t plan to or want to share via that particular method (e.g. bittorrent). It wouldn’t make it wrong not to opt-in. Although there are a lot of people who do use p2p, not everybody does. Out of the population of internauts, isn’t it only something like 20%? (It may be less as these figures are always exagerated). This number might rise in the case where the music industry finally granted licenses to p2p. (personally, I think it would be a good thing. Lifting the ’stigma’ and negativity and opening the people up who run the trackers to be able to perhaps generate better revenues.
So, not opting in wouldn’t be ‘wrong’, it would simply mean that the person has opted not to use p2p for sharing other people’s works and this comment no. 16 was directed at robert in simple terms to explain that there wouldn’t be any need to invade privacy or use proprietory software to gather data, etc.
January 18th, 2010 at 7:01 am
Exactly, so if you do not opt-in and DO continue to share via p2p, you’re behaving “wrongly.” Again, this is based on horribly flawed assumptions that I addressed in the article. There is no “morality question” in sharing, simply a failed business model. Nobody “owes” artists money, it is the artist’s job to find ways to convince people to spend money on them. And no, this doesn’t mean buying new laws in an attempt to protect legacy systems.