Hello , Today I had a discussion about the music and movie scene in general.
We all know that bilions of copies from music albums to movies are being downloaded and uploaded every day.
Know in this discussion this teacher of mine came with this sollution to that.
Solution : Make everything streaming , music and video. Radio and tv! Create a new tax called "entertainment taxes". This tax would be calculated over the amount of music of video you downstreamed. And should be so low that it's nearly free. Things you downstream will be logged onto your "entertainment account". That way it can be exactley calculated how much a certain producer or artist will be paid. If you downstream under a certain amount you pay less then when listening or watching more. Now everybody can listen to anything for a small amount of money.
So no need to copy things since you already have access to it.
What do you think of this sollution?
greetings
Casper
Streaming , the future of music and movies
Who collects the money ?
Who verifies how much ?
What happens if you don't pay ?
Is cost the same in rich & poor countries ?
Which artists get paid royalties ?
How do you get on the royalty list ?
Who keeps the master files on who looks at what ?
If you opt out do you have no access to 'master streaming' ?
Looks like a dirty commie plot to restrict my entertainment choices
Who verifies how much ?
What happens if you don't pay ?
Is cost the same in rich & poor countries ?
Which artists get paid royalties ?
How do you get on the royalty list ?
Who keeps the master files on who looks at what ?
If you opt out do you have no access to 'master streaming' ?
Looks like a dirty commie plot to restrict my entertainment choices
The threat of piracy is overblown. They said the betamax and the cassette tape would be the death nail to the industry. In fact every major technological invovation has been opposed by the industry. There actually is a tax on each cassette tape sold which goes to record labels. I personally hate streaming. Who wants to be locked to your computer? Portability is the trend. I don't watch TV much and in responce to the idiotic tactics of the RIAA suing children, I am not buying any RIAA material. Instead I listen to music from indie labels only and podcasts which are thumbing their nose at the industry by not using any of their material. Solving the piracy problem will not save the entertainment corporations because of the growing number of entertainment alternatives such as emails, message boards, games, podcasts etc. but they can't do anything about that so they go after kids. Don't worry about them. To hell with them. There will always be music and entertainment.
Ok , it was just a thought , not carefully build with every little factor .
The logging part is ment on the source side to count how many times e.g. your track is played ,not to log who listens to it. So that count number times your agreed price = 100% your money then.
But it was just an idea , idea's don't come in a perfect form, they require molding i guess.
cheers,
Casper
The logging part is ment on the source side to count how many times e.g. your track is played ,not to log who listens to it. So that count number times your agreed price = 100% your money then.
But it was just an idea , idea's don't come in a perfect form, they require molding i guess.
cheers,
Casper
I thought it was an interesting idea.. although firstly I can't see the industry going for it as it's too 'communist' - i.e. no motivation to make something really great if the return is unlikely on the investment. Secondly, it would be very hard to enforce properly. On the other hand, the best movies I see these days are pretty low budget, and I listen to mostly independent music, and for these artforms I think it would be actually a pretty good idea (there's a few 'subscription' services already in existence).
As for restricted entertainment choices.. the RIAA and MPAA has been enforcing this for years. Of course you can go and hunt out something interesting, but for the vast majority, bland manufactured rubbish (Britney, Elton and the rest) is the status quo.
As for restricted entertainment choices.. the RIAA and MPAA has been enforcing this for years. Of course you can go and hunt out something interesting, but for the vast majority, bland manufactured rubbish (Britney, Elton and the rest) is the status quo.
it already exists with i-tune and other major companies' download website (at least, they pay amounts to the copyright offices in france).
the question is : how to get on those website, is it reserved for majors, is it at the will of the site manager (i-tune not a record company, everyone could be there), how to verify the downlaods, etc etc...
or is it just another market reserved for major companies ???
the question is : how to get on those website, is it reserved for majors, is it at the will of the site manager (i-tune not a record company, everyone could be there), how to verify the downlaods, etc etc...
or is it just another market reserved for major companies ???
Don't know about these legal issues, but I guess my provider has found out
http://breedband.telenet.be/pctv/
http://breedband.telenet.be/pctv/
Itunes? Arn't you supposed to pay per song?
My suggestion is make everything free, and just pay a entertainment tax.
The record that has to be kept , will be kept by the government since it is there tax.
A much more simple divide-key(don't know a better word) would be possible then.
No more all the money goes to Brithney stuff because of the current dividing-key for rights and so on. And more important , you have access to all , so no need to copy things 10.000 times and sell illegal copies.
quote:
"and how does the copyright offices share between artists..."
Well I don't think it is nessesary for me as an artist to even deal with recordcompanies anymore. You just shoot your track to that master server. And bang , the counter starts counting. How to check this ? Good question.
Well currentley you arn't able to now for sure either how often your song is beeing played. And if you get the right amounth of money. But I can think of a system like the one that banks use. I don't think it gets more sucure than that. Also , you could just listen to your own song and watch your counter go up.
cheers,
Casper
My suggestion is make everything free, and just pay a entertainment tax.
The record that has to be kept , will be kept by the government since it is there tax.
A much more simple divide-key(don't know a better word) would be possible then.
No more all the money goes to Brithney stuff because of the current dividing-key for rights and so on. And more important , you have access to all , so no need to copy things 10.000 times and sell illegal copies.
quote:
"and how does the copyright offices share between artists..."
Well I don't think it is nessesary for me as an artist to even deal with recordcompanies anymore. You just shoot your track to that master server. And bang , the counter starts counting. How to check this ? Good question.
Well currentley you arn't able to now for sure either how often your song is beeing played. And if you get the right amounth of money. But I can think of a system like the one that banks use. I don't think it gets more sucure than that. Also , you could just listen to your own song and watch your counter go up.
cheers,
Casper
not another tax !!!
On the other hand, i would actually get paid for mp3 demos of my stuff (lots of downloads). People who make those funny flash+music available everywhere too. in this case why not
there are already taxes on virgin tapes, cds, TV possession and so on. i think it already goes to the biggest selllers or producers or tv channels, proportionally to their audience.
I do not know how many people would be ready to keep internet access with a tax...
Isn't it like buying a radio, and having to pay a tax to be able to listen to the programs ?
Who would have to pay a tax ? everyone ?
Anyway, you would have to declare yourself to that government (which one???) and match their criteria for eligibility. it is like a copyright office, wich (in france where it originated) is a delegation from the State to a private company to manage the distribution of royalties. I would be more in favor of an independant agency controlling copyright offices.
nb : copyright offices are not record companies : they actually sue record companies to oblige them to pay the royalties to the artists that you can download on their sites (universal is a recent example, they have been sued and had to pay something like 40.000 euros for the broadcasts on their site). copyright office receive the sums paid by radios and tvs when broadcasting copyrighted stuff and share between the artists which have been broadcasted.
Your teacher's idea (which is in debate for years now, since napster if i remember - but no offence in this sentence- it is just tht i know the debate a little) would probably work in a rich industrialized country. If it helps mucisians from continents like Africa who don't earn money because of piracy, non-access to "mtv" etc and because people neither have cd players nor the money to buy cds, why not.
If it breaks down the system where it is the artist who must pay to be brodcasted (big radios have deals with companies, but you can think of sites like garage band, mp3.com etc, where you must pay to be there!).
why not.
you'd really have to trust a government to send its money to an african musican ?? i don't buy that but why not if it happens...
even freeware software providers would get paid at the end
May be i am slowly becoming in favour of that, but i'm pessismistic about it because i've followed the debate about taxes on isps which is a bit like the idea on topic.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: spacef on 2005-04-21 07:35 ]</font>
On the other hand, i would actually get paid for mp3 demos of my stuff (lots of downloads). People who make those funny flash+music available everywhere too. in this case why not
there are already taxes on virgin tapes, cds, TV possession and so on. i think it already goes to the biggest selllers or producers or tv channels, proportionally to their audience.
I do not know how many people would be ready to keep internet access with a tax...
Isn't it like buying a radio, and having to pay a tax to be able to listen to the programs ?
Who would have to pay a tax ? everyone ?
Anyway, you would have to declare yourself to that government (which one???) and match their criteria for eligibility. it is like a copyright office, wich (in france where it originated) is a delegation from the State to a private company to manage the distribution of royalties. I would be more in favor of an independant agency controlling copyright offices.
nb : copyright offices are not record companies : they actually sue record companies to oblige them to pay the royalties to the artists that you can download on their sites (universal is a recent example, they have been sued and had to pay something like 40.000 euros for the broadcasts on their site). copyright office receive the sums paid by radios and tvs when broadcasting copyrighted stuff and share between the artists which have been broadcasted.
Your teacher's idea (which is in debate for years now, since napster if i remember - but no offence in this sentence- it is just tht i know the debate a little) would probably work in a rich industrialized country. If it helps mucisians from continents like Africa who don't earn money because of piracy, non-access to "mtv" etc and because people neither have cd players nor the money to buy cds, why not.
If it breaks down the system where it is the artist who must pay to be brodcasted (big radios have deals with companies, but you can think of sites like garage band, mp3.com etc, where you must pay to be there!).
why not.
you'd really have to trust a government to send its money to an african musican ?? i don't buy that but why not if it happens...
even freeware software providers would get paid at the end
May be i am slowly becoming in favour of that, but i'm pessismistic about it because i've followed the debate about taxes on isps which is a bit like the idea on topic.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: spacef on 2005-04-21 07:35 ]</font>
User pays and to hell with taxes....we're gonna be niche marketed out of our brains. And the less the government has to do with it the better. The structures are in place to collect royalties....which will go as usual to those who become or are made popular in the marketplace. It also means artists better consider the future when they sign contracts.
But there is a consolation...if it helps. Most Z users don't belong to typical market niches. We'll still have to surf outside the box to meet our needs.
But there is a consolation...if it helps. Most Z users don't belong to typical market niches. We'll still have to surf outside the box to meet our needs.
Another plus perhaps is that you'd finaly see for real on what place in the top100 your track is gonna end. Nowadays those charts are (I think) made up. But then again, that's just a minor plus.
What I'm noticing in my country is that more and more people are getting sued because of uploading songs to others. Peer to Peer is nice , but not if you're getting sued!
Now on the one hand "they" let you buy a computer and getting an internet connection.
The rules on peer to peer networks are often like : "if you'd like to download , then upload first" No upload? then no download.
So a user will maybe think 10 sec about the illigal part of uploading, and as the rules imply , will upload, otherwise no download.
So I can see this thing coming towards us , where government letting you buy equipment to use , but then suing you for using it.
Now about the term "using" ,there can be a long discussion point on that one. But to keep things simple: If you'r device is able to do stuff because it's made that way, then I think it is justified to do these things it can with it.
Even uploading stuff that is. If it were illigal , then the only right way to solve this from a government point of view , is to limit the functionality of a device.
Not by letting big companies sue people for using there computers. It would be more fair for those companies to sue the computercompanies instead of me and you.
cheers ,
Casper
What I'm noticing in my country is that more and more people are getting sued because of uploading songs to others. Peer to Peer is nice , but not if you're getting sued!
Now on the one hand "they" let you buy a computer and getting an internet connection.
The rules on peer to peer networks are often like : "if you'd like to download , then upload first" No upload? then no download.
So a user will maybe think 10 sec about the illigal part of uploading, and as the rules imply , will upload, otherwise no download.
So I can see this thing coming towards us , where government letting you buy equipment to use , but then suing you for using it.
Now about the term "using" ,there can be a long discussion point on that one. But to keep things simple: If you'r device is able to do stuff because it's made that way, then I think it is justified to do these things it can with it.
Even uploading stuff that is. If it were illigal , then the only right way to solve this from a government point of view , is to limit the functionality of a device.
Not by letting big companies sue people for using there computers. It would be more fair for those companies to sue the computercompanies instead of me and you.
cheers ,
Casper
-
hubird
Another plus perhaps is that you'd finaly see for real on what place in the top100 your track is gonna end. Nowadays those charts are (I think) made up. But then again, that's just a minor plus.
What I'm noticing in my country is that more and more people are getting sued because of uploading songs to others. Peer to Peer is nice , but not if you're getting sued!
Now on the one hand "they" let you buy a computer and getting an internet connection.
The rules on peer to peer networks are often like : "if you'd like to download , then upload first" No upload? then no download.
So a user will maybe think 10 sec about the illigal part of uploading, and as the rules imply , will upload, otherwise no download.
So I can see this thing coming towards us , where government letting you buy equipment to use , but then suing you for using it.
Now about the term "using" ,there can be a long discussion point on that one. But to keep things simple: If you'r device is able to do stuff because it's made that way, then I think it is justified to do these things it can with it.
Even uploading stuff that is. If it were illigal , then the only right way to solve this from a government point of view , is to limit the functionality of a device.
Not by letting big companies sue people for using there computers. It would be more fair for those companies to sue the computercompanies instead of me and you.
cheers ,
Casper
What I'm noticing in my country is that more and more people are getting sued because of uploading songs to others. Peer to Peer is nice , but not if you're getting sued!
Now on the one hand "they" let you buy a computer and getting an internet connection.
The rules on peer to peer networks are often like : "if you'd like to download , then upload first" No upload? then no download.
So a user will maybe think 10 sec about the illigal part of uploading, and as the rules imply , will upload, otherwise no download.
So I can see this thing coming towards us , where government letting you buy equipment to use , but then suing you for using it.
Now about the term "using" ,there can be a long discussion point on that one. But to keep things simple: If you'r device is able to do stuff because it's made that way, then I think it is justified to do these things it can with it.
Even uploading stuff that is. If it were illigal , then the only right way to solve this from a government point of view , is to limit the functionality of a device.
Not by letting big companies sue people for using there computers. It would be more fair for those companies to sue the computercompanies instead of me and you.
cheers ,
Casper
-
hubird
not any logic in this, easy to disprove, starting with a knife and ending with a computerOn 2005-04-21 09:06, Casper wrote:
If you'r device is able to do stuff because it's made that way, then I think it is justified to do these things it can with it.
edit: Atom beat me
edit2: whow, something strange happened here, Casper's post was duplicated after my reply, made me thinking that my (first) reply didn't come to 'submit' and was kicked off by At0m's one...??
Casper you could edit your second one by changing it to 'dp' (double post)
I will also
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2005-04-21 09:18 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2005-04-21 09:24 ]</font>