Despite all the unsuccessful attempts the RIAA had in seriously reducing piracy across P2P networks, it cannot be eliminated in similar way to how illegal drug dealers cannot be put to a complete end. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, it would be much better to charge ISP subscribers a voluntary $ 5 per month levy for unlimited sharing. The artists would get paid, the customers can freely share and download to their hearts content and there would be no more suing individuals and corporations for illegal music swapping or wasting time and money on developing DRM technology for music. The idea has worked in Canada for consumer CD-Recorder and recordable usage by putting a levy on recorders and blank media and distributing it to the artists.
The levy system would work by collecting money by a central organisation and distributing it out across the artists based on the download popularity. While many musicians would be happy with this approach, David Sutphen, vice president of government relations for the RIAA objects as he claims that it does not make sense to give all music the same value whether from the 60's or new releases. He did call the EFF proposal a "step in the right direction".
|
Perhaps, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The digital-rights group recently proposed the idea of having file sharers pay a monthly surcharge in exchange for the right to share away. The charge would be voluntary and could be levied through the sharers' Internet service provider, software client or university dorm fee. And the money would go to the artists. The idea sparked a spirited debate Wednesday at a music law conference at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law, an event that brought together lawyers, musicians and students, among others. File sharing is still a rampant problem. The millions who use services like Kazaa and Grokster to share music run the risk of getting sued for copyright violations by the Recording Industry Association of America, and the record labels still complain of lost sales. EFF attorney Fred von Lohmann, speaking as part of a panel on peer-to-peer music sharing, proposed that music fans pay a small monthly fee -- perhaps $ 5 -- to share files with impunity, using whatever software they like. The money could be collected by a central organization and then distributed among those who own the rights to the songs, based on popularity. The idea has worked before. Broadcast radio stations paid a similar flat fee to ASCAP and BMI -- organizations representing songwriters, composers and music publishers -- to play their music as much as they wanted, he said. David Sutphen, vice president of government relations for the RIAA, immediately pooh-poohed the idea. File sharers still would search out a way to download music for free, he said, and under the proposed system, all music would have the same value, which doesn't make sense. One-hit wonder Vanilla's Ice's "Ice Ice Baby," for example, would have the same value as The Beatles catalog. Read the full story from Wired news here. |
In my opinion the $ 5 per month charge on the ISP bill looks to be one of the best alternatives for the music industry to do rather than continue their endless fight against P2P file sharing. Not only would the users feel more confident
using online music services, they would have a much larger music selection to
choose from including rare songs not easily obtained in shops or current legal
download services. It would even put an end to incompatibility issues such
as an audio player not being WMA DRM compliant to play downloaded
music.
The only downside I can see with this service is that the Audio-CD would be put on the path to becoming obsolete much like how CDs have made records obsolete in nearly all music stores over just a matter of a few years.
Feel free to discuss and read about file sharing, legal issues and other music services on our Music Downloads, P2P & Legal Issues Forum.
Source: Wired News
