The Grokster Decision: One Year Later → Copyright, as-is, is DEAD. D-E-A-D, *dead*.

The whole system needs to be done by putting some sort of modest tax on blank media, and then using a metric to distribute the spoils to the ARTISTS directly -- who will then need to negotiate contracts with the specialists (producers, marketing promoters) to gain their services.

This strips out the deadwood fatcats sitting there with their hands out saying: "Gimme Gimme" because they have historically held the power through control over distribution (which is what they are fighting to maintain).

The Economy of Ideas
by. J. P. Barlowe
»www.wired.com/wired/arch ··· tml?pg=1
Barlowe was a member of The Grateful Dead, and got rich doing *exactly* what he talks about.

Look, a really simple way to look at it:

There's a historical adage -- The internet treats censorship as noise, and routes around it. It may take time to make the holes needed to route around it, but it does, sooner or later.

Now, consider:
Censorship is someone, usually a government, saying "This we deem dangerous -- therefore, you may not have access to it"

Copyright is someone, usually a business, saying "This you have not paid for ------- therefore, you may not have access to it"

They are functionally the same activity

No, Copyright does not have the moral objection which Censorship does.

No, this is most emphatically NOT the idiotically juvenile "Information should be free". (Data, perhaps, should be free. Information is someone's time spent organizing DATA into a unique worldview from that person. If we don't reward people for taking the time to express that worldview, they won't do so. Or won't do so extensively.)

What this means is simply that the pattern of copyright -- granting CONTROL over information -- is no longer possible. In the future, copyright will be merely the right to be rewarded for some or all of a creation. The pattern and amounts of that reward are yet to be determined. In the future, once you have released something to the body politic, it belongs "to them" to do with as they will. YOU will only be given something in return for doing the giving. (and yes, if you are such a control freak that you are not willing to give up control? Enjoy sitting in a nice, dark little closet with your creations, alone, knowing that you and you alone are the ONLY one with access to them... Because, trust me -- the world CAN and WILL survive without your precious creations).

Control over their product (and not just theirs) is the
real reason for trying to stop p2p use, and not any of
the publicly stated reasons they've given time and time
again.

The Internet has eroded away a considerable degree of
control, and they're now trying to put the genie back
into the bottle. Which is of course a colossal exercise
in futility.

Why should I pay a tax on blank media that goes to the RIAA, or the artists even? That insinuates that 100% of usage on blank media is for some sort of piracy, which is DEAD wrong. What if I'm using those CD's only for other, legal, uses? Then I'm still paying the RIAA or whomever for the privilege of getting to do perfectly legal stuff that has nothing to do with them, their business, or their products. THAT is a racket.

I should not have to pay the RIAA or MPAA or anyone else for the right to record my own stuff.

Blank CD/DVD's are already taxed along with CD/DVD burners ,which is collected and handed over to the RIAA/MPAA.

Well I'm not really sure about the dvd discs,However if one purchased any CDR/RW's and its packaging is labeled music CDR.Then the RIAA gets a cut from it through tax already applied on it.Ask any Canadian how much tax they pay on CDR's to the **AA's.

"Data" CDR'S may or not be taxed by the RIAA,not sure.However in any case we do not need more tax on these items.Why should legitimate use of cdr's for business purposes have to pay this tax?