cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| not that bad of an idea
doesn't sound so bad to me, but there are probably hidden details and flaws throughout it. if this is implemented fully, it could lead to disastorous consequences. if it truly is $5-$10/month for an unlimited music sharing, who would use itunes (or similar) at ~$1/song? or buy ~$20 CDs when they are already paying the piracy 'tax'? i like the idea, but looking at the piracy 'tax' from this point of view makes it seem like it is too good to be true. i'm sure i'm missing details, so my 'analysis' could be entirely wrong. |
|
Millenniumle
join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY
| ...
And where is the incentive to produce? If the industry gets the tax, what incentive does the industry have to produce? 'Cause, hey, they're gettin' paid anyway. If they have only 10 artists producing only twenty songs a year they all get a bigger cut of the multi-billion dollar pie. Movies would seem to be in the same boat. |
|
asdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| With, for example, a statistical sampling approach, those whose files were showing in the sampling as being transmitted a lot would get a bigger part of the pie. If a band never created another song, presumably the amount of transfer of their material would diminish over time and they would get a decreasing piece of the pie. I don't see why they have less incentive to continue to produce new material, for a piece of this pie, than they do for a piece of the pie as it is presently constructed. There are still mechanisms for trying to allocate the pie according to the intensity of interest in their material.
If you mean that the industry is guaranteed a certain size pie and therefore they can just sit back and continue to rake in money on what has already been produced I think there are two counterbalancing forces.
1. This seems to be an argument for making it voluntary with option to opt-out. People, once they consumed what they wanted of presently available material, would start moving to opt-out as they saw themselves getting less and less for their $5 a month.
2. Human beings would still feel the compulsion to create music and to express themselves to their fellow human beings and they would develop an alternative way of creating and distributing what they create if the present industry decided they didn't want to bother cultivating new acts and material. It seems to me the industry still has every interest in maintaining control of new acts and material. If a competing system built up, in place of the present industry, it would start demanding and getting the lions share of the collective licensing pie and the present industry would wither away into insignificance. |
|
