Re: [d@DCC] Music licensing would be viable for all (NOT!)

From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_ flora.ca>
To: General Discussion <discuss (at) digital-copyright.ca>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:37:46 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Kristofer Coward wrote:

> Not at all. Even if the money were somehow found to be owing to P2P for
> marketing, it would almost certainly be considred recoupable, and
> deducted from the artists' royalties in accordance with the terms of
> most recording contracts.


  I notice the language here: artists' royalties.  The recording industry
extracts money from the system no matter whether the artists' or other
citizens get screwed or not.  Whether they are screwing/suing music fans
(lawsuits, LpfTPM)  or screwing/suing artists (compulsory licensing,
LpfTPM), the recording industry seems to be able to come out on top.


  An email conversation continued with a few people after Neil and I made
postings.  What solutions are found to the current "problem" really does
seem to depend on what you see the problem is.


  From a strictly legal standpoint the "problem" is that citizens are
ignoring the law and infringing copyright.  A compulsory licensing scheme
would solve that problem by making the activities of citizens legal. The 
court cases would stop.

  I do not equate what is "legal" with what is "right" to be doing.  I
believe that laws should change to conform to social norms and
expectations, not the other way around.


  I see the "problem" as being creators not being able to make money with
their craft.  Some of them are being convinced to turn against the
Internet as if it is the source of the problem.  The source of this
problem is the "superstar" system and business models of the recording
industry, and thus I consider any solution that doesn't address the source
of the problem to be a non-solution.


  A compulsory licensing scheme would legalize Internet activities and may
stop discussions around LpfTPM and other forms of third party
remote-control of ICT, but it does so at the expense of creators and
creativity.  While this is a better option than harming critical
non-commercial social and political citizen communications with LpfTPM, I
simply do not agree that we are stuck with a "lesser of two extreme evils"  
situation.  I don't see creator focused commercial aspects of
communications to be at odds with social and political aspects of
communications : it is the "superstar" system and business models of the
recording industry that are out of step with modern ICT-enabled society.



  I am curious what people in this list think of some of Eben Moglen's
work?  As an example he gave a talk at Harvard Law School where he spoke
about the "culture vultures" who take "94 cents out of the dollar, giving
only 6cents back to the artists", and the "military occupation of the
net".

http://www.canfli.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=64

-- 
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 "Make it legal: don't litigate, use creative licensing" campaign.
 A modern answer to P2P: http://www.flora.ca/makelegal200403.shtml
 Canadian File-sharing Legal Information Network http://www.canfli.org/


--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca