IP: more SMART IDEA FOR E-MUSIC SWAPPING

[David Farber <dfarber@earthlink.net>]

I object to hsave to pay for somethinbg I don't want to ever listen to. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Rob McMillin <rlm@pricegrabber.com>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 08:32:09 
To: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>
Subject: Re: IP: SMART IDEA FOR E-MUSIC SWAPPING

David Farber wrote:

>If I read this right I will have the privalage of being taxed by the media companies for thibgsi have no interest in hearing, watching etc. Bull sh-t. 
>
Dave -- it need not be so. A compulsory license scheme could keep 
Napster afloat and -- gasp -- profitable. At the same time, it could 
issue payouts, not to the RIAA members, but to the Harry Fox Agency (or 
the performing rights organizations, i.e. ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc.), as 
is currently done with radio play. While there are horror stories about 
the PRO's (see

http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/royalty-politics.html

for one position), it can't possibly be as bad as the RIAA's 
shenanigans. For instance, last year, the Dixie Chicks, a leading 
country group, were told by Sony that they had exactly one and only one 
avenue to recover millions in sales revenues that Sony had "forgotten" 
to pay: an expensive, time-consuming lawsuit. Compulsory licenses could 
be based on the number and types of files transferred. This, I think, is 
exactly what the RIAA is terrified of -- being cut out of the revenue 
stream and simultaneously losing control of distribution.

>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: "the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow" <geoff@iconia.com>
>Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 13:11:28 
>To: "Dave E-mail Pamphleteer Farber" <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
>Subject: SMART IDEA FOR E-MUSIC SWAPPING
>
>SMART IDEA FOR E-MUSIC SWAPPING
>
>By BEN SILVERMAN
>
>CRYING foul won't benefit the music industry much longer.
>
>Sooner or later a viable solution to the problem of online music-swapping
>will have to be enacted. The King of the Peer-To-Peer Space thinks it has
>such a solution.
>
>Sharman Networks, the Australian company that operates the wildly popular
>KaZaA file-sharing service, is pushing a proposal that would affect the
>entire technology sector and finally pay out royalties for digital music
>transfers. Thus far reaction to the proposal has been mixed.
>
>"What Sharman Networks appears to be proposing is a compulsory license and
>we would be opposed to that. We believe this is something the market should
>decide," a spokesperson for the Recording Industry Association of America
>told The Post.
>
>Sharman's idea is an Intellectual Property Use Fee (IPUF). It amounts to a
>compulsory license exacted on the entire supply chain of digital music from
>computer makers to Internet service providers to device makers.
>
>"I am absolutely confident that even a low-level of royalty [from the IPUF]
>would produce in its first year a minimum of $1 billion in direct payments
>to artists," Philip Corwin, a partner at Washington, D.C. law firm Butera &
>Andrews and the lead lobbyist for Sharman Networks told The Post.
>
>"When can the record labels produce the first billion in revenue for
>artists?"
>
>The IPUF, Corwin says, is getting keen interest from artists and the tech
>community. Sharman hopes that it can successfully lobby for an in-depth
>study into the viability of the IPUF.
>
>Tech companies meanwhile are quickly finding themselves caught in the
>crossfire between the entertainment industry and file-sharing companies
>thanks to a bill introduced by Senate Commerce Chairman Fritz Hollings
>(Dem - S.C.) that would set federally mandated copyright protection
>standards.
>
>Tech firms say the bill would limit innovation. Capitol Hill insiders say
>the bill doesn't have enough support to pass and Hollings has already moved
>onto a new project; an Internet privacy bill.
>
>Representatives from numerous tech companies refused to comment on the IPUF
>proposal.
>
>But speaking on the condition of anonymity, an executive at one of the
>world's largest computer makers said that Sharman's proposal might be an apt
>middleground.
>
>"We're being dragged into a situation that we have nothing to do with," the
>executive told The Post.
>
>"But it's become clear that we're going to have to take some sort of
>responsibility for enabling the distribution of copyrighted material. If
>that's the case, something like the IPUF is attractive compared to what
>Hollings is proposing."
>
>Corwin, who previously lobbied on behalf of MP3.com, says that the IPUF
>makes sense because so many people are reaping the rewards of online music
>distribution, except the artists themselves. And Corwin says that
>compensating the artists is Sharman's main concern.
>
>"A lot of different parties; computer manufacturers, software providers,
>telecom and broadband companies, and providers of peer-to-peer services are
>benefiting from widespread availabilty of digital music."
>
>"Basically the entire legacy of content from the music business is
>unprotected and everyone is making a buck except the people who created it."
>
>http://www.nypost.com/technology/47329.htm
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>geoff.goodfellow@iconia.com, Prague CZ * tel/mobil +420 (0)603 706 558
>"success is getting what you want & happiness is wanting what you get"
>http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/01/biztech/articles/17drop.html
>
>
>For archives see:
>http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
>


-- 
    http://www.pricegrabber.com
          "We're smarter individually." -- Larry Niven

				   



For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/