Nightshade
sic semper tyrannis
Premium
join:2002-05-26
Salem, OR
2 edits | Voluntary would make more sense.
It it was voluntary rather than mandatory I would be all for it expect for one thing, what guarantee is there that the money collected will go to the artists?
If the money went directly to the artists and a legal guarantee that I will never be sued for so long as I pay the tax then I would be all for it.
But something tells me this is never going to happen and it is all going to be a pipe dream because the RIAA business model is all about them, never about the artists they are supposed to represent, and the customers who purchase the music that they distribute. Heck RIAA even hasn't given one cent of their lawsuits that they won to the artists. So I am not holding my breath on this one on them doing it right because they never have, and never will. |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Problems with the idea:
1. If it would be voluntary for customers, how would free-riding be prevented? Monitoring everyone's traffic for copyright violations?
2. It would be only a promise not to sue, not compulsory licensing. This means any copyright holder not signing on to the promise could still sue anyone sharing his works.
3. Even if artists end up getting anything instead of nothing, it would be only the artists signed to companies participating in the deal - and that would be only a few big companies. Independent artists would get nothing.
A compulsory licence mandated by law would be a better solution. It would be payable only by sharers who would otherwise be infringing, so internet users not interested in music or movies could opt out. Filesharing sites could easily "go legit" by recording transfers and billing users. The selection or music, formats, etc. would include whatever people might choose to share. |
|
Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA
| reply to Nightshade
said by Nightshade  :If the money went directly to the artists and a legal guarantee that I will never be sued for so long as I pay the tax then I would be all for it. When will people understand that it is the artists via contracts that give the recording companies distribution rights to their work?
I don't know much about the industry and really don't care too but when you make comments like this it's obvious you don't understand why the recording company wants the money. The ARTIST signed the contract that gave the company the rights to collect revenue and as such the artist GAVE UP the right to collect that money themselves and instead end up with the short end of the stick.
This is because in some cases new artists have yet to figure out how to distribute media to the masses successfully, have crappy music but found a sucker at BMG or has NO money to start a career and needs a kick start.
All this hating of the recording industry for the wrong reasons needs to go away. If you're going to be mad at somebody, at least have a good reason and understand it.
--
»www.fairtax.org |
|
Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| Well, I do work in the music industry, as an engineer and producer and I've worked with a number of major artists and the recording industry is far from the innocents that you suggest they are. For starters, some actions against non-industry personnel include price-fixing and damaging the lives of numerous people through their frivolous and poorly investigated lawsuits (dead grandmothers, anyone?).
As far as members of their own industry are concerned, I know several artists and music groups whose careers were completely destroyed in a number of various ways. One group was signed solely because the A&R rep at a major label was afraid that they would be picked up a different label and promoted in competition to a major act already signed by same agent. Once the "rivals" were under a deal memo, they were effectively bound and gagged until the label released any of their material which--surprise!!--they never did. The band eventually broke up amidst a flurry of lawsuits.
Ask any number of independent artists how much fun it is to try and get their music programmed on a station that is owned by a conglomerate like Clearwater...
But to quote Marty DiBergi, enough of my yakkin'. Steve Albini explains far better than I will here...
»www.negativland.com/albini.html |
|
