Open letter to the RIAA: Illegal file sharing problem solved?

By | August 31, 2009, 6:11am PDT

Summary: Dear RIAA: I know I’ve said some harsh things before, but today I offer you a potential solution to the illegal file sharing problem that has gripped a technologically-advanced world in the worst possible way.

Dear the Recording Industry Association of America (the “RIAA”),

I know I’ve said some harsh things before, and to be honest, I still stick by them. The Family Guy musical sketch describing the characters’ opinions of the FCC could well be replicated here in view of your own organisation.

However, today I offer you a potential solution to the illegal file sharing problem that seems to have gripped the world stage.

In a nutshell, if you live in the United States and are caught downloading illegally, you can consider yourself already bankrupt, as the RIAA will sue you into the ground. However, under new legislation in the UK, instead of hefty fines, the Government could order your ISP to cut off your broadband connection.

This has annoyed the ISPs on this side of the pond because they claim while they provide the service, it is not their job to police how their customers use it.

The problem

I honestly believe that with the price of media at the moment, the vast majority of people would be content in buying media online - provided they could have it there and then in a download. The problem is that many popular items are simply not available online to buy. Granted, this has changed with the Amazon and iTunes wave of technologies and services, but it still isn’t up to scratch.

Also, the peer-to-peer technology and online file sharing is an open Pandora’s Box and now cannot be closed. You can attempt to take random people to court and financially send them back into the Stone Age, but you cannot convict everyone.

The recording and broadcasting industries must change to survive. You cannot sustain the business model you once had because the times have changed, along with the content delivery system and the generation of people.

The solution

In the UK, to effectively raise enough revenue to help roll out super-fast fibre-optic broadband, the Government added a £0.50 “tax” on top of every monthly phone bill. There are roughly 34 million landlines in the UK, so that will generate £17 million a month. Add another £1 to this and you’ll generate (an obvious) £34 million.

The UK’s equivalent to the RIAA is the PRS - the Performing Right Society. Every time a record is played on the radio, the royalties are paid by the radio station to the PRS, who then divide up all the money from that month (or other specified amount of time) and pass on the royalties to the artists. No doubt, this is what the RIAA does also.

So with the £34 million generated each month, the PRS can use the already-available technologies to see what is being downloaded, take some of the money for their own inconvenience and divide the rest up to content creators.

When using torrents, it’s clear to see when you are (or have) downloaded an episode of a popular TV series, so in that case, a small portion of the overall royalties can go back to the creators of the series.

The under-belly

A £1 tax a year sounds harsh to some members of the tax paying community. Over here, the very vast majority of us pay roughly £0.70 a year on paying for the Royal Family which brings in huge revenues from tourists who, quite frankly, could be easily entertained by giving them a balloon on a stick instead. An extra £1 would generate huge revenues and the PRS would be able to do their job much more effectively.

Of course, the numbers can be interchangeable but with a greater population and exchange rate differences, $1 should suffice.

The system works, in a way, very much like the UK’s National Health Service. We all chip in pretty much the same amount of money through taxes, but as you would expect, some people need more treatment than others. Here, we don’t mind doing that because if we switched to the American system then a good proportion of the country simply couldn’t afford medical treatment - even in an emergency.

In conclusion

But because we live in the digital age that we do - we cannot be waiting around for months at a time for the latest Harry Potter film to be released to DVD. So we search alternative sources and download it illegally. Release the online download as soon as the film is out, and then we can buy and watch it there and then. You won’t be losing out in revenue, because at least this way you

a) won’t have people downloading it for free, and

b) when those people are caught, you’re not spending tens of thousands of dollars bringing them to court.

This is why cable companies are bringing popular U.S. television shows to other countries as and when they are broadcast in the U.S. You can’t have a programme floating around the Internet for half a year and expect people to wait patiently until it arrives in their region. No, they’ll turn to the web and they’ll download it for free.

It makes sense, and everybody wins - so do something about it.

Kind regards,

Zack xx

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Zack Whittaker, a criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, Canterbury, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

Disclosure

Zack Whittaker

I worked briefly with Microsoft UK in 2006 but no longer have any connection with the company. Regardless, I remain impartial and unbiased in my views.

I don't hold any stock or shares, investments or industrial secrets in any company, but have signed confidentiality agreements with a number of UK and U.S. organisations, whose names I am not at liberty to disclose.

I was involved with Kent Union, the University of Kent's student union, undertaking voluntary, non-salaried, elected positions between early 2009 and mid-2010.

No other company, body, government department, non-governmental organisation or third sector organisation employs me or pays me a salary in any capacity whatsoever.

As a freelance journalist, whenever expenses are given and taken by a company that is not CBS Interactive, these will be disclosed in each relevant post to ensure transparency.

I currently work with a UK law enforcement unit, but this is an entirely separate position which bears no connection to other work.

(Updated: 23rd October 2011)

Biography

Zack Whittaker

Zack Whittaker, criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, UK, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

After studying criminology at university, though still in his early-20's, he has already had a series unconventional work and voluntary positions. He has worked with researchers studying neurological illnesses like Tourette's syndrome (which he suffers from), has given lectures on the nature of disabilities in the public community, and occasionally ends up speaking on television and radio discussing the events of the day.

He first had academic work published at the age of 22, then still an undergraduate, and has been cited by a wide range of publications: from the Huffington Post, Business Insider, AllThingsDigital, The Atlantic Wire and CBS News.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
99
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Good Idea
voska1 15th Sep 2010
"So we search alternative sources and download it illegally. Release the online download as soon as the film is out, and then we can buy and watch it there and then. You won?t be losing out in revenue,"

I think having DVD available for sale the day the movie comes out would be smart. Just think how many people would have bought Avatar on the way out of the theater, I know I would have!

Instead what we have is movies in theaters that I think might be good but by the time the DVD comes out I've forgotten about movie. That's lost sales.
0 Votes
+ -
I think I'll skip...
rshol 31st Aug 2009
...governments collecting and paying royalties. Its called tolling and every business in the world would like to access governments' ability to use force to collect money for them.

What would be the outcome of such a scheme? Whenever "artists" (and I use the word loosely given what's being released these days -- think anything by Fergie here)feel they are being insufficiently compensated for their "art", they need not produce more or better art, they need only lobby the Government and then you and I, will be required to stump up more cash for the privilege of listening to music.

Better the devil you know (RIAA) than making the Government bill collectors for Slipknot, Miley Cyrus, et al.
0 Votes
+ -
You Nailed It, Pal !
Travasaurus 3rd Sep 2009
I couldn't agree more!

I've never downloaded an illegal song in my life (I'm an "oldies" fan and there just aren't that many of them out there), yet I've spent a fortune on oldies CDs which I've ripped and legally made my own compilations with (for my personal use and nobody else's).

I hate those dirtbags at the RIAA even though I will never have anything to fear from them, just on principle alone.

They (along with the guv'ment vampires known as the IRS) should be relegated to the ash-heap of history as we know it; they're both 1st cousins of lampreys and piranhas.

The Hell with the lot of 'em!
0 Votes
+ -
What is the word I am looking for...
dragosani 31st Aug 2009
NO!

Our government is not here to collect "royalties" for businesses.

If the RIAA want to survive they will need to come up with business plan that provides incentive for their customers to do business with them.
0 Votes
+ -
fully agreed!
Smarty_Pantz 31st Aug 2009
the RIAA Dinosaur is about to go extinct and you want to prop up their outdated, poorly run, and very near death business model with taxes(!?) that the government will collect(!?) on their behalf??

Umm...what-could-go-wrong?

Even the most giant dinosars died in the tar-pits...just give RIAA time to drown.
0 Votes
+ -
True enough
voska1 31st Aug 2009
First they have realize that the freeloaders will never go away. Then they need to realize that there are many of us who want to pay for content and really all it takes is the right price, the ability to get the content conveniently and a little incentive to push the impulse buying button we all have.
0 Votes
+ -
Not that it matters to this administration.
TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827 31st Aug 2009
It would be against the constitution for the Government to act as a collection agency for any corporation (let alone a corrupt enterprise such as the RIAA).

Nope, I will pay for what I want (I don't download, stealing is still stealing even if you take revenue from a corrupt enterprise, two wrongs kind of thing) and won't pay for what I don't want.

Why do you think Amazon and DRM free exists. I was one of the tens (hundreds) of millions who refuse to purchase their DRM infected wares. I now do purchase from Amazon a lot. Corrupt the marketplace with a 3rd party tarriff, they have no incentive to move out of the late 90s.

TripleII
0 Votes
+ -
Government Collecting?
Juergen Hartl 31st Aug 2009
All you - NO government collecting .....
I don't know who you pay your phone/internet
bill to, I do NOT pay it to the government.
How about we do not call it a TAX but a "culture flat rate" would that be ok then? I am in favor
of this idea.
1. It would make the RIAA as we know it
obsolete.
2. it would keep people from going bankrupt over
20 or so songs, because filesharing would either
be not necessary, or it would be legal.
0 Votes
+ -
Invalid.
TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827 31st Aug 2009
The author suggested a Government Tax or Levey to be paid NOT to another Government Office (Like 911, access fees, etc) but instead to a corrupt enterprise. Secondly,

It would make the RIAA as we know it obsolete.

Not a chance. It is in business to make money for it's own pursuits. Next would be enforcement rules and continued rules to make sure every single penny ends up in their coffers.

Thirdly...
it would keep people from going bankrupt over 20 or so songs, because filesharing would either be not necessary, or it would be legal.

NOBODY, not one single person who downloads music over the age of 12 does NOT know they are doing something wrong (most under 12 know it's wrong but basically immune, lol). Too bad, don't download illegal content and don't share your content. Why should I be forced to pay forever for them? Why not everyone pay $5 a month to pay for all the speeders who get nabbed? Why not collect $25/year to go into a pool for all of those folks who need to re-do their first year of college? Where does it stop and when do people have any responsibility to live their own life and reap what they sew (both the good and the bad)?

TripleII
@TripleII

You made some horrible and wrong headed analogies. You said:

"Why should I be forced to pay forever for them? Why not everyone pay $5 a month to pay for all the speeders who get nabbed? Why not collect $25/year to go into a pool for all of those folks who need to re-do their first year of college?"

The reason your thinking is way off base is because you have completely failed to connect the dots with the propose of the laws in relation to the proposed solutions.

First off, speeding; the laws against speeding exist to prevent speeding which can cause injury and death, not to mention destruction of private property. Your proposed solution of having everyone chip in $5 to pay for speeding ticket infractions does nothing to prevent the death and destruction caused by the results of speeding. In short your solution is no solution to the problem itself at all.

Your idea of having everyone chip in to pay for a redo on a blown year of college is so out of sync with the RIAA issue its pretty much impossible to even see where you may be thinking a rational analogy exists. For one, redoing a year of college may be an expense but it has nothing to do with breaking the law, or a problem created by breaking the law. Its simply an expense incurred by someone who presumably didn't try as hard as they should of the first time at a perfectly legal and worthy task. Its impossible to reconcile any meaningful comparison with the RIAA issue so that point is moot.

On the other hand, the issues dealing with the RIAA are legal matters and the reasons for the laws relating to the issue exist is to ensure that creators of content get the pecuniary reimbursement they deserve for their work.

Unlike your ideas, the idea of collecting fees in some way that does reimburse content creators does resolve the problem the particular laws were created to solve.

Unfortunately, too many people don't understand the root of the file sharing problem and if they truly understood it, for real, they may very well change their mind about how it should be dealt with.

The root of the file sharing problem is that human beings are literally hardwired to share and copy things, sharing is particularly prevalent when its not cost anything significant to share. In fact that kind of sharing is usually found to run rampant every time that kind of opportunity exists.

Sharing and copying is one of the human traits that got the human species to where it is today, literally. In times long past one family would find out about his neighbors planting and hunting practices and tools that made him successful and copied what his neighbor did so that his family wouldn't starve.

We consider an education such an important thing in the western world that we demand our children GET an education and get that education paid for by way of taxes. Educating is nothing less then sharing of the highest accord. We have recognized this form of sharing as to be so important that we consider our societies all the stronger for it. While it certainly dosnt apply to higher education there are reams of reasons for that, far too many that should be so obvious it would be far too time consuming and pointless to point them all out.

Mankind has grown and learned and prospered in a far more broad based and general way because of the fact that those who learned the importance of copying and sharing were the ones who became successful and hence it became part of human nature to do just that, particularly when the costs of sharing are low. In those circumstances it is impossible to stop unless you can find a way to change the very nature of human beings around the world. And thats impossible.

The recording and media companies brought this debacle almost entirely, and knowingly upon themselves. What do you think went on when the first CD's were brought in front of them as an example of new technology that could be used for delivery of content? What do you think these executives were told?

I can tell you what they were told, that CD's were cheap to produce, yet because of the sterling quality sound you could charge triple what a vinyl LP was selling for at the time. And make no mistake, somebody had to of asked about copying, cassette tapes had been around for ages and VCR's were popular as anything, everyone knew about copying that already existed. What the recording exec's were no doubt told was that while in 1982, CD's were not easy or cheap to copy, but that it would all likely change in the approaching years as computer hardware was already showing signs of moving into the consumer household and as always when it does, things get cheaper, soon much much cheaper.

And the exec's didn't care. They figured a few good years of fleecing the public to the tune of $20+ for a cheap CD when they could only get $5.99 for a vinyl LP was good enough for them and they would worry about the copying in the future when it got there.

And here we are with the RIAA telling the human race they have to change 200000 years of evolution thats turned us into copiers. And of course, thats not going to happen. Not even close.
They run the show here, they pass the laws, they decide the penalties. RIAA owns this country.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree whole heartedly.....
dingers412@... 2nd Sep 2009
Give me a reason to spend my money..
0 Votes
+ -
Let's see.... Banking, insurance, automobiles and now RIAA!

If the recording industry is too stupid or intransigent to innovate, they should go out of business. Taxes to float another dinosaur industry? How 'bout them vinyl records, eh?

On a more practical note, the United States is 39 times the size of Great Britain (including Northern Ireland), and the population density is 8 times higher in the UK. Running fiber to a high rise is one thing, running fiber in most of the U.S., which is rural, even with taxes, is cost prohibitive at this time.

For comparison, Verizon's outlay in non-rural Eastern U.S. is about $24 billion. In the current stimulus the government as provided $7 billion for rural broadband. That should go far (not).

In any case, the knee jerk reaction of tax and spend to every problem, hopefully, at some point, will finally be laid to rest.
0 Votes
+ -
agreed...
endorphine44 31st Aug 2009
"If the recording industry is too stupid or intransigent to innovate, they should go out of business. Taxes to float another dinosaur industry? How 'bout them vinyl records, eh?"

this is supposed to be a free market economy (even though it doesn't resemble that much any more).
The last thing we need is gov't more involved than it is. Gov't is the middle man that has caused our health insurance to cost so much now, I'd hate to see what would happen to entertainment/internet if they got any more control over it.
0 Votes
+ -
Close enough to a free market.
Cayble 13th Sep 2010
@endorphine44

Its like people out there are sometimes forgetful of of what a truly free market means.

A completely free market is one where the restrictions are so non existent that companies in the market place are free to fleece the public and grind their opposition into the ground by whatever means they find available.

I cant be bothered to write the four or five pages it would take to outline the instances where that has happened in "free markets" of the past and how it even still happens today in our current free market but its certainly suffice to say that any restrictions there are in the free market are there because some companies (some huge ones) have repeatedly proved that the more free the market, the worse they behave, to the point of putting their host country at risk in favor of maximizing profit.

So at this point don't blame the government. Blame the greedy corporations who seem to have too frequently gone to extraordinary measures to prove they cant be trusted with the nations well being when they have dollar signs in their eyes.
0 Votes
+ -
Totally agree...
cosuna 31st Aug 2009
...in the 16th century, pirates stole from Spanish ships which were essentially stealing gold and silver via slave labor from Latin America.

The act of piracy created a balance of power between the occupying nations and their rivals. Most governments sanctioned "privateers" (a disguised form of piracy) in order to gain wealth by stealing the "spoils" of Spain.

Today, record and video piracy are really a market response to the "virtual monopolies" created unintentionally by lobbying inspired "copyright" laws.

Just as privateers hid piracy under bogus laws, modern copyright has nothing to do with its name sake, and more with iron fist control of works that are essentially stolen from the community (via focus groups and grassroots movements) and converted into exclusive rights packages, with nothing original whatsoever.

Bands, directors and staff are all victims of the system, but haven't rebelled against it due to the constant infuse of fresh new money.

With the downturn, this system has collapsed just like the banks and insurance system (both also based on "tailor-made" laws).

Time will tell the outcome. Just remember the incredible amount of pirate movies Hollywood outputted over the past decades.
0 Votes
+ -
I pay for my downloads to get legal content.
No More Microsoft Software Ever! 31st Aug 2009
I mean, iTunes only charges my a buck a song. WHY would I want to have my taxes raised to pay for those that DON'T buy legally?

Maybe the UK has more freeloaders than the US. Too bad for you!
Um, if you "add another ?1" to ?0.50, that would be ?1.50, which would result in ?51 million. If you meant "increase the ?0.50 to ?1," you sure didn't say so.

Of course, this kind of thing is why we all love ZDNet bloggers so much, and why we suspect you've got a shrine to Rigoberta Menchu in the staff lounge.
0 Votes
+ -
Solutions abound: motivation lacking
johnfenjackson@... Updated - 31st Aug 2009
The difficulty is not in devising a solution to the problem ... but in persuading the establishment that they stand like King Canute.

If they will not provide consumer value and be eco-friendly then I should be quite happy that the penalty for intransigence be 'death by drowning'.
0 Votes
+ -
How about, no!

What a cluster #!$% the gov't would make of an Art tax.
0 Votes
+ -
why should i pay for music/films i don't download?
0 Votes
+ -
Yes...and no...
PredatorVI 31st Aug 2009
Think about all the taxes we all pay to cover programs that we do not use or don't use proprotionately to our contribution. I definitely don't agree with taxing entertainment and giving anything to the RIAA thugs who would likely use that foot in the door to continue to lobby for more money/influence but be careful about how you argue it.

Tody it might be a few cents per year, but like all other taxes, we can most assuredly watch them rise.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
I mentioned the NHS thing. But think of it in a different way - if you were broke, would you be happy for someone else to pay your medical bills to repair a nearly gangrenous leg?
0 Votes
+ -
Quite a tangent.
TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827 31st Aug 2009
Typically, a broken leg is an accident or not something you actually intend to happen. Downloading content however is a deliberate and conscious decision. You know it the minute you find a song on a P2P network, you are not paying for it but want to enjoy it anyway. So, conceptually, entirely different.

On NHS specifically, the Government can accomplish ONLY two of the following three items at any given time. Usually only 1 applies.
1) Quality
2) Economically
3) Universal

National defense is an example, 1 and 3 apply, 2 is terribly inefficient. The current VA program is a case where #3 applies only. Seriously, name ONE, just ONE single Government run "business" or program where all 3 apply. You can't do it. Not from FDA inspectors to the SEC to Freddy and Fanny to ANYTHING.

We need Government to say "what". Regulate the industry, provide assistance to MAKE SURE that those who are poor through no fault of their own can buy their own private insurance, but keep the Government out of "how".

TripleII
0 Votes
+ -
...as well. So when someone want's plastic surgery
that they do not need for any medical reason they
can get it done on the NHS.

So really conceptually not that different at all!
0 Votes
+ -
Agree to an American NHS???
psquare11 2nd Sep 2009
Hell no.
Zac is too young to have experienced the real consequences of Britain's NHS program. Luckily, as a U.S. citizen I haven't had to either. When he graduates into the real world where he must earn a living, talk to me then about the tax burden for the national health care system.
So what business do I have commenting on Britain's NHS? My British wife, whose family all reside in the U.K. will attest to the fact that for anything short of a medical emergency, the NHS is useless. Her family all have had to take out private insurance to assure treatment when they need it, not when they work their way through some queue. But this is not an option, it is a necessity they pay for on top of onerous taxes.
I'm not saying the U.S. system is perfect, but it's a far cry from the disaster our present politicians would have you believe it to be: Of the @46 million who purportedly have no health insurance, 12 mil. are folks who are already eligible for existing healthcare programs they have not taken advantage of; another +/- 10 mil. are folks who could afford to purchase health ins. plans (income >/=$75K), but have chosen not to buy coverage; another 12 mil. are non-U.S. citizens, many of whom should not be here; and the remaining 12 or so mil. are those who are truly needy. We do not need to overhaul the entire system to get services to them. But you'll never hear this from Obama and his merry band of 32 Czars.
The U.S. problem? too many ambulance chasing lawyers (who litigate malpractice insurance coverage through the roof); too much insurance company bureaucracy (interfering with decisions that should be made by doctors and patients); and ignorant politicians who think centralizing gov't control over everything is the solution to every problem. With good tax incentives, reform of malpractice law, strong and uniform regulations of the insurance industry, and removing illogical state prohibitions against allowing all carriers to offer insurance in every state would go a long way toward increasing free market competition, lowering costs of insurance for both doctors and patients, and expanding coverage for those who cannot afford it now. You can take your NHS and put it "where the sun don't shine."
Interesting plan - But like said in previous responses - flawed. Government involvement makes more of a mess than it is. Straight to Download will work for music except it ridiculous to buy something and not be able to Archive it or use it on multiple devices, but for Movies it will kill the local theaters (Hence the wait for DVD release). Putting ISP's in charge of regulation is ludicrous as well. If the RIAA wants to make it work (Doubtful) they would work with the artists and industry to make all content available for download and distribute it for a competitive price and go after the ones distributing illegally (The source).
0 Votes
+ -
@ least this article makes you laugh""
0 Votes
+ -
I would love a government subsidy
terry flores 31st Aug 2009
to produce filth and dreck like so many other untalented clods. I would be happy to pick up my check at the end of every month, especially after I learn to game the system to get an even bigger share of the payout. I can churn out dreck and filth without much effort or brainsweat, so that gives lots of free time that I could direct to milking the system.

Let's do it!
Tie the new tax to the long overdue reform of Copyright law.

Reduce Copyright to seven years. Non-renewable. Only distribute the "Artists Compensatory Fee Tax" to artists whose work was still under copyright.

A fair and equitable way of solving the RIAA's and MPAA's problem.
0 Votes
+ -
Whoaaa wait a minute
keshel@... 31st Aug 2009
Whooaaa wait a minute - Copyright laws exist for a reason - What you are saying is that after 7 years that you are in some way entitled to the lifetime work of another?

What about your lifetime works? If you are not an artist, then perhaps the value of your lifetime of work is in your retirement account - how about this, you only get credit for the last 7 years of deposits and interest on your retirement savings - and lets say we mandate that you have to save ohhh 20% of your gross income (before taxes) for your entire 40 or 50 year career - Then we'll take that portion of your retirement savings and interest that you are not entitled to (30 years or so of 20% of your gross income) and we'll distribute it into a fund for people who cannot afford to purchase the music and movies they like. Much Better Plan for those like you who are socialist inclined.
0 Votes
+ -

I do my job I get paid once for it that is it. When I retire it's based off my last 5 year of work for what my pension pays out. Why should content creators get it any better? Should I work a year paid for the rest of my life for the work done in that year? I think not.

As well just because something moves into the public domain doesn't mean the creator can no long profit by it. Take music. A musician/songwriter could easily profit for years by touring even if their content is in the public domain.

7 years seems quite reasonable to me though I'd say a copyright hold should be able to renew it for an addition 7 years but they would have to renew it. It wouldn't be done automatically. Maybe make it 10/10. That's more than reasonable.

Now maybe I'm biased as my creation come in the form of software and really after 7 years if I don't have something new out that fades into the past.
0 Votes
+ -
Alternate solution:
ZDnet Reader 43 31st Aug 2009
Put a tax on people crying "socialism!"
Economic problems: solved!
Thanks, Keshel.
0 Votes
+ -
The Honesty Tax?
Fark 2nd Sep 2009
interesting idea... but no.
0 Votes
+ -
I have never been a big fan of Michael Jackson, so you can imagine what I thought about him having the royalties from the Beatles records. The idea of being able to buy someone else's art and calling it your own, just doesn't sound right.

If the music is good enough to last past a 5-7 year copyright period, then they should be happy that it is going down to posterity in their name. Why should they be paid from this point on any time a song is played. The most expensive part of the Jackson estate is the copyright royalties for other people's music.

Should Bram Stoker's family be paid every time Dracula is read or watched on TV. Why can't they be happy to have their name remembered after they have died. If you look at the ancient Greeks or the Vikings, they wanted to be remembered for their great deeds, not have money when they died.
0 Votes
+ -
Why do you think you can...
Fark 2nd Sep 2009
determine what someone else should be happy with?

If I build a building in a year, should I only be able to get rent on the room for a year? By your logic, once the 'thing' is done, it's open to the public.
Artists should dump their money grubbing labels, and go digital. Share their music for a fee on their site. Let the artist decide. Some who are in it for art others who are in it for money. Let them do as they see fit and dump the labels.
0 Votes
+ -
artists need the labels.
pfyearwood 31st Aug 2009
It is the labels who own the studios, engineers, and other facilities that make mass production of the CDs and movies possible. Yes, the Garth Brooks, Chers and Speilbergs have the money to take the ideas from concept to distribution on their own. Yes, a person can produce their own sound with the hardware and software of the current technology. But, the newbies don't have the clout to be heard or seen without the labels/studios to back them. True, it is a crapshoot either way. Acts like the Beatles, Elvis, Michael Jackson, and James Brown would still be doing small night clubs and dives if they had not caught the eye and ear of some label executive who took a chance. And all the people who were never seen or known but made the albums possible, wanted to get paid for their work. It is only after the "Starving Artist" becomes the "Ego Maniac" that they have the clout to ignore the studies. And look at how many of them died of drugs and deranged fans.

Paul
0 Votes
+ -
Not a solution.
greymoon 31st Aug 2009
Uh Zack, downloading files is not illegal, providing files you don't own the copyright is a copyright infringement. A minor play on words to you evidently but in a court of law words and their meaning are everything, you'll learn that eventually if you stay in school.

Why isn't your solution a solution? Because rewarding the RIAA for their tactics (which is basically stealing your culture) will only result in more mis-behavior, something you will learn when you have childeren.

IN FACT COPYRIGHT LAWS ARE A CONTRACT BETWEEN SOCIETY AND THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER. In exchange for limited exclusivity the copyright holders are to make available their content for public domain. This isn't happening. The content copyright holders have proven time and time again they will lobby for the laws to be changed when what should become public domain comes of age and they will lose control. So they change the law (again) to lengthen it and thus break their contract with the public.

It is they who are stealing, not the file sharing public at large. They are stealing your cultures future and now you want to pay them to do it? Poppycock.

Heh, their propaganda has worked its evil on your way of thinking. Open your eyes young man or they will control what your eyes can see.
0 Votes
+ -
RIAA has abused the law
devils_advocate 31st Aug 2009
Look, file sharing has always involved files with lower sample rates, aka, files that don't actually represent the original work. They do not actually compete with the work itself, which is why people will download an mp3 and then go out and buy the original record or CD. So ALL of the court cases are based on incorrect legal principles - they should all be voided. File sharing is the same as radio - which is why this solution makes sense.
0 Votes
+ -
Socialized downloading?
Steve Goldman 31st Aug 2009
Is that what I'm hearing? Let me get this straight, everyone pays more tax so the governing body can use it to provide a service that we would otherwise have to pay for individually to private companies. Yup, sounds like Socialism.

Zach, you should bear in mind that in the US socialism is a four letter word in most circles. I would be careful how you use it as you're going to make more enemies than friends. Just look at how popular Obama is with his health care bill.
0 Votes
+ -
...throw out the current, abusive copyright laws, especially the DMCA, and replace them with something true to the spirit of the original copyright law, which was designed specifically to protect individuals from the abuses of wealthy publishing houses. Restore the duration of copyright protection to the original 28-year maximum, and criminalize the use of DRM, just like any other type of hacking. That's government intervention that us ordinary people could believe in!
0 Votes
+ -
I've made this mistake myself in the past - not fully fact-checking.

In the US, there is no direct equivalent to the PRS - the RIAA is the industry body, but they do no collections of royalties from radio plays. In fact, the USA is one of the few countries where radio stations pay NO ROYALTIES WHATSOEVER for playing songs on the radio.

PRS is the Perfoming Rights Society. PRS licenses are for licensing establishments, individuals and businesses to host performances in their venues. PRS licenses the writer?s performance rights and collects royalties. If your music's being performed in public, you should be a member - otherwise, don't bother.

PPL (Phonographic Performance Limited) licenses the right to perform sound recordings. They only have select, direct members.

MCPS is the society in the UK which distributes mechanical royalties - every time a CD is pressed, a mechanical is paid. They the writer?s copyright for sound recordings. (Every time an MP3 is downloaded, a mechanical is paid as well... you've got to love the irony of that - a mechanical tax for a digital file!))


When songs are played on the radio, the station pays for that via a fee to PPL. In the States, there's no similar instituation - the Harry Fox Agency (amongst others) cover the songwriter copyrights, but there's none for radio play or other similar public performance.

Bemuso has a good matrix showing all the various UK collection agencies and what categories they cover: http://www.bemuso.com/musicbiz/collectionsocieties.html (it's a minefield out there!)


Finally, the topic of a blanket tax has been mooted and dismissed several times before. It's inherently unworkable, because people like msyelf - who spend many hundreds of pounds a year (if not thousands) buying niche music on vinyl and CD - actively shun digital downloads as they're inferior and effectively like agreeing to purchase a sub-standard quality product for the same price as the equivalent work on a physical medium.

And why would anybody normally do that? The digital music business is a ridiculous pretence. The Emperor's New Clothes spring to mind - everybody's afraid to point out the glaringly obvious for fear of sending the house of cards tumbling down.

With digital mdia, you often have a diminished set of usage rights compared to buying the same thing on CD or DVD. Quite often your second sale rights are removed or infringed upon and there's no guarantee of future compatibility. Who would buy any other type of product if that same set of restrictions were imposed?
0 Votes
+ -
A Tax - Baloney
keshel@... 31st Aug 2009
Why would I want to pay a tax because someone else can't wait 6 months for a show to come to their region? - What Baloney! The right answer if it involves the Government is to support the RIAA's filing of lawsuits and make the courts available to prosecute - The only problem I really have with the RIAA's approach is this situation where they targeted a single mom who now has a Million $ plus judgement for 40 songs - that's out of hand. Something like $3,000 would have been more than sufficient to make the point.
A better solution is to simply bring the fines down to misdemeanor level and also involve everyone in th telecomm chain in policing such theft.

It's ridiculous to have individuals fined hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars for what amounts to a misdemeanor. The RIAA seems to think it has a God-given right to exhorbitant fees and propping up of old business models. Get a clue.

Make the fine 10x the real cost... so a $1 song costs the $10 and a $10 movie costs $100... those caught for multiple thefts will learn to stop, esp. if their parents are involved.

But I agree with making the content available online and in very reasonable time. Stop trying to milk it for every nickel and dime. Go global, reap the increase in revenue and stop the indignant b.s. and the war on 'fair use'.
This wouldn't work, independent artists would never get paid and more crappy music from the RIAA gets made.
In an era where athletes, musicians, and various other entertainers make millions, and steel workers, soldiers, police, and others who perform life threatening jobs make a pittance, I could care less about their piracy complaints. What ever happened to the beleif that art was for the masses? So long live the pirate, take what you can and give nothing back, just like the corporate bast*rds, who destroyed our economy, received a bailout, and then spent the bailout money for bonuses, for destroying our economy.
0 Votes
+ -
No thanks, I don't want to pay for you.
No_Ax_to_Grind 31st Aug 2009
Or your viewing habits.
0 Votes
+ -
Amen!
Fark 2nd Sep 2009
I'm not paying for ANYONE but me to enjoy a luxury item. Music is not a NEED its a WANT. You want it - then you pay for it. Can't pay... TFB!
This is what is catagorized as a really bad idea.

Um, there is also fee on radio stations for playing music. The sad thing is the artists wnd writers do not get a penny of it. Only the big corporations.
0 Votes
+ -
Downloading..Viewing?
swampcat@... 31st Aug 2009
Unless I missed something new, and I'll admit, it has happened before, There is no way to know if a bit stream is a download to keep, or a download to view.

Some argue that viewing is the same as keeping. That puts anyone who visits the wrong URL, either by mistake, or any other quirk, at legal jeopardy. There are countless clips that are perfectly legal to "keep or view", and there is absolutely no way for RIIA, or anyone else to distinguish the difference in the activity...unless they inspect the hard drive in question.

If someone has information on some new divining technology, a system that can determine the intent of the viewer. I would be interested to know.

Don't misunderstand. I am aware that things change continually, and I am certainly not privy to it all. So, if anyone has information to something new, I have a receptive ear. I, for one don't want more government, and I want to continue to be able to view clips that are intended to be freely available to the public.
0 Votes
+ -
Good Idea
voska1 15th Sep 2010
"So we search alternative sources and download it illegally. Release the online download as soon as the film is out, and then we can buy and watch it there and then. You won?t be losing out in revenue,"

I think having DVD available for sale the day the movie comes out would be smart. Just think how many people would have bought Avatar on the way out of the theater, I know I would have!

Instead what we have is movies in theaters that I think might be good but by the time the DVD comes out I've forgotten about movie. That's lost sales.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix