

Big Entertainment Wants to Party Like It's 1996 (Cory Doctorow) - swombat
http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=175415&print=yes

======
netsp
_'You know what would probably get something done? If the record industry
proposed a law through the front door, with public hearings, to find an
equitable, simple way to get paid for the use of its material online. A
blanket license, say, that users or ISPs could opt into in exchange for access
to all the music that's already online, wherever and however they can find it.

Sure, some of the hardcore copyfighters would hate it -- it'd feel too much
like a "music tax" for their taste, and they won't rest until the music
companies have been killed in vengeance for all the bad stuff they've done
since 1996 -- but it'd make the entertainment giants seem reasonable, and it
would make anyone who disagreed with them seem unreasonable. They'd have the
easy sell: "We want to stop suing your kids, but these crazy infohippies won't
let us!" '_

I was surprised by this. Is a blanket license really something the activists
are wiling to live with? It seems like a terrible compromise to me. It seems
like an admission that the record companies deserve a business model.

Seriously, I think that we seriously need to consider letting copyright, or
parts of it, die. At least lets speculate about the consequences. Music seems
like a good place to experiment. (A)The sky will not fall if music is not
made. (B) Music will almost definitely still be made.

The losers are the components of the recording industry. But we are under no
moral obligation to keep them in business.

~~~
TimMontague
The point is that the record industry is better off working with the public
than in secret behind locked doors. The blanket license is simply a single
possibility that may be compromised on if there is ever an open discussion.

~~~
netsp
Yes. Good point. I have no problems with that statement. Working with the
public is certainly better than secrecy. I'm just pointing that a music tax is
being presented as reasonable. I was surprised the author implied this.

*I'm not personally unwilling to consider it. I think this is a practical problem as much as an ideological one. If this gives us a practical solution without too many negative side effects, I'm all for it. In fact, if anyone can point out an interesting exploration of the topic, I'm interested.

~~~
chris11
Eff wrote a couple good articles on taxing music.

Collective Licensing Good, ISP tax bad:
[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/03/monetizing-file-
sharin...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/03/monetizing-file-sharing-
collective-licensing-good-isp-tax-bad)

A Better Way:[http://www.eff.org/wp/better-way-forward-voluntary-
collectiv...](http://www.eff.org/wp/better-way-forward-voluntary-collective-
licensing-music-file-sharing)

Their opinion is basically to create collecting societies. Listeners would pay
a monthly fee and get the legal right to use all works by member artists,
irrespective of format or distribution method. Artists could choose whether to
join or not.

They are saying it would work because it has precedence, and most users would
be willing to pay a fair price. The society will be encouraged to charge a
fair price by the fact that not doing so will encourage piracy. Fines and
legal action will help the societies from non-members.

I think that the general idea is good. I might be willing to pay a monthly fee
if I got unrestricted access to music.

------
quoderat
More than anything, it saddens me how corporations have assumed so much
control over our lives -- or that we've ceded it to them.

I am no anti-capitalist, but I want some kind of balance that's definitely
tilted in the wrong direction.

And the music industry suing their own customers? Talk about making me pirate
just to punish them. Hell, I'll even download Winger now -- just because I
can.

------
swombat
Thanks to spydez for the one-page version, btw... original was broken up in 8
pages!

~~~
spydez
Me and my crazy hacker skills... finding the "print" link. :P

------
netsp
_"There was a European version whose provisions were very similar to the
Broadcast Flag -- I was allowed to attend these, but only by promising
nondisclosure. No problem: I stumped up and down Europe, saying, "There's a
crazy, evil DRM thing coming that's really bad and it's so bad they won't even
let me tell you about it!" That was a lot simpler than explaining what was
wrong with it."_

------
ggchappell
In 1996, he says:

> And most importantly, the laws regulating copyright and technology were
> almost entirely designed by the entertainment industry. They could write
> anydamnfoolthing and get it passed in Congress, by the UN, in the EU.

But:

> 1996 is gone, and good riddance.

Yes, but has the legislative climate changed that much? Are we or are we not
still in an era when "They could write anydamnfoolthing and get it passed in
Congress, by the UN, in the EU"? I think the article offers pretty good
evidence that we are still in such a legislative climate.

It looks like 1996 is very much _not_ gone in a very important way.

------
nopassrecover
Really well written article.

------
brc
'mustache twirling villains' = Gold

------
azgolfer
Those horrible days when musicians could actually make a living selling their
work. Let's not go back there !

~~~
noodle
yes, when artists got loans to make their records, earned under $1 for a CD
that sold for more than $20, and were still expected to repay the loans?

oh wait, thats still how it goes, except the artist cut is lower because CDs
sell for less.

~~~
azgolfer
No excuse for this, really. Led Zeppelin showed everyone how to do it in 1969.
Record your own first record (very much easier to do now), own your masters,
and have a good, tough business guy who is unquestionably on your side (Peter
Grant).

