![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mdlbearIt's been pointed out to me that I really need to write more about my thoughts on distribution royalties. With luck I may have some time this evening; until then people will have to settle for an old essay I've recently dug out of my "incomplete" file, Forward to the Past, and the following brief notes:
The problem of electronic distribution of copyrighted material, which is currently causing so much bad blood between Web users and file-sharers on the one hand and the music and film industries on the other hand, is a solved problem, and has been for ninety years! That's when ASCAP was founded, to collect those royalties.
The key is the compulsory license, which allows anyone to broadcast a song on radio or record and sell copies of a song, just by paying a small fee. The fee ranges from a high of about $.16 (if I remember correctly) per copy for a recording, down to something that works out to about $.0007 (yes, that's seven hundredths of a cent) per audience member for a broadcast.
I note in passing that a recently proposed law, which is intended to make file sharing a felony, in essence values shared songs at $250/copy.
My contention is that sharing compressed (and hence degraded rather than exact copies) music files on the Internet is a lot more like broadcasting than like recording, and that the right thing is to set the fees accordingly.
The other factor is to consider just how many songs an average user -- or even a well-connected user -- can share, compared to what even a small radio station can share. If I saturate my 128Kb/s DSL upload capability I can ship a three-minute song (compressed to 3MB -- that's 24 Mb) in about, um, 3 minutes. A T1 like is about 10 times faster, and a cable modem with nobody else sharing the cable (fat chance!) 100 times faster.
So Joe Pirate sharing files full blast on his cable connection is roughly the equivalent of a radio station with an audience of 100. Yes, I know that there's a difference: Joe Pirate lets everyone in his "audience" pick the songs they download, while a radio station, even if it takes requests, sends the same songs to everyone in its audience. That's probably what frightens the big record companies: people can choose the music they're getting rather than having their choices made for them.
Anyway, that's the short version. Comments welcome -- especially on the numbers, which I haven't checked recently.
The problem of electronic distribution of copyrighted material, which is currently causing so much bad blood between Web users and file-sharers on the one hand and the music and film industries on the other hand, is a solved problem, and has been for ninety years! That's when ASCAP was founded, to collect those royalties.
The key is the compulsory license, which allows anyone to broadcast a song on radio or record and sell copies of a song, just by paying a small fee. The fee ranges from a high of about $.16 (if I remember correctly) per copy for a recording, down to something that works out to about $.0007 (yes, that's seven hundredths of a cent) per audience member for a broadcast.
I note in passing that a recently proposed law, which is intended to make file sharing a felony, in essence values shared songs at $250/copy.
My contention is that sharing compressed (and hence degraded rather than exact copies) music files on the Internet is a lot more like broadcasting than like recording, and that the right thing is to set the fees accordingly.
The other factor is to consider just how many songs an average user -- or even a well-connected user -- can share, compared to what even a small radio station can share. If I saturate my 128Kb/s DSL upload capability I can ship a three-minute song (compressed to 3MB -- that's 24 Mb) in about, um, 3 minutes. A T1 like is about 10 times faster, and a cable modem with nobody else sharing the cable (fat chance!) 100 times faster.
So Joe Pirate sharing files full blast on his cable connection is roughly the equivalent of a radio station with an audience of 100. Yes, I know that there's a difference: Joe Pirate lets everyone in his "audience" pick the songs they download, while a radio station, even if it takes requests, sends the same songs to everyone in its audience. That's probably what frightens the big record companies: people can choose the music they're getting rather than having their choices made for them.
Anyway, that's the short version. Comments welcome -- especially on the numbers, which I haven't checked recently.
DMCA
Date: 2003-08-04 04:43 am (UTC)1) You're not recording your own show for rebroadcast,
2) you're not letting your audience pick the songs you play with a time delay of anything less than 2 hours,
3) you're not playing more than 2 songs from the same album or 4 songs from the same artist in a 2 hour period.
Yay stupidity. I had the idea of digitally signing OGG and MP3 files in some kind of non-encrypted DRM system to make it easier for alternate licenses to be granted by copyright holders for specific stations... but for that to happen, there would have to be at least one other payment clearinghouse that accepted a smaller chunk of a smaller piece of the pie, in addition to BMI, SESCAM, and ASCAP.
(the reason: BMI/SESCAM/ASCAP behave as though the compulsory license is the only license available. It's obviously not, as the copyright holder can license under any terms they wish -- it's just currently an accounting nightmare to keep track of what's been played, who listened to it, how much is owed, etc, when there's no specific identification of any alternative licensing schemata that can be plugged into the license-accounting framework.)
Re: DMCA
Date: 2003-08-04 08:20 am (UTC)It's good to have the idea out there, but the current implementation of that idea is simply wrong.
Re: DMCA
Date: 2003-08-04 08:31 am (UTC)Bargaining chip for broadcasters.
In addition, having an end-run around it would also allow those who have good work, but no exposure, to increase the value of playing their work to those who would otherwise not play it. "I offer anyone a royalty-free broadcast right to this specific work, requestable by listeners, report statistics to this URL on no less than a monthly basis. Perpetual license, have fun."
And then cryptographically sign the license (and the hash of the file it's attached to), so it can be audited, accounted for, and tracked appropriately.
(This is not to discount your statement that the current implementation is simpletely completely wrong -- but if you're given a tool, you can either complain about how the tool isn't the right one for the job, or you can pick a job that the tool can be useful for and then create a tool to fill in the gaps.)