Comments on: P2P Money Pool http://www.evilgeniuschronicles.org/wordpress/2004/09/24/p2p-money-pool/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=p2p-money-pool A journal of geekery, music and joy Fri, 03 Feb 2012 23:04:56 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Mark http://www.evilgeniuschronicles.org/wordpress/2004/09/24/p2p-money-pool/#comment-578 Mark Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.evilgeniuschronicles.org/wordpress/?p=2010#comment-578 I would certainly like the music industry to take a more realistic view of their industry and to lay off the heavy handed tactics they employ to "deter" piracy, but I'm not really very fond of the idea of funding an industry (particularly an industry as inefficient as the music industry) by mandatory taxation. The difference between being forced to obey absurd protections on copyrighted materials and being forced to pay taxes to support its development is one of degree, not of kind. Of course your point about the bogosity of the recording industries numbers are entirely correct. It is very odd that if I go to a record store and steal a single CD (which has a tangible material cost), it is a misdemeanor and I could maybe be fined $500 for my first offense, but if I download a single song, it's prison time and hundreds of thousands of dollars, even though the tangible effects are very much harder to evaluate. The RIAA wants you to believe a fundamental untruth: that intellectual property (and music in general) is the same as property. But that idea is entirely foreign to the history of law in the US, dating all the way back to the Constitution which thought to give special provisions for patents and copyrights. Let them battle it out in the marketplace. I would certainly like the music industry to take a more realistic view of their industry and to lay off the heavy handed tactics they employ to “deter” piracy, but I’m not really very fond of the idea of funding an industry (particularly an industry as inefficient as the music industry) by mandatory taxation. The difference between being forced to obey absurd protections on copyrighted materials and being forced to pay taxes to support its development is one of degree, not of kind.

Of course your point about the bogosity of the recording industries numbers are entirely correct. It is very odd that if I go to a record store and steal a single CD (which has a tangible material cost), it is a misdemeanor and I could maybe be fined $500 for my first offense, but if I download a single song, it’s prison time and hundreds of thousands of dollars, even though the tangible effects are very much harder to evaluate.

The RIAA wants you to believe a fundamental untruth: that intellectual property (and music in general) is the same as property. But that idea is entirely foreign to the history of law in the US, dating all the way back to the Constitution which thought to give special provisions for patents and copyrights.

Let them battle it out in the marketplace.

]]> By: Dave http://www.evilgeniuschronicles.org/wordpress/2004/09/24/p2p-money-pool/#comment-579 Dave Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.evilgeniuschronicles.org/wordpress/?p=2010#comment-579 <p>Mark, you're too hung up on reflexive anti-tax feelings. Substitute "fee" for tax and it all works the same. This isn't crazy radical stuff, this is how lots of things work. All radio stations pay a broadcast music license fee, and then that big pool of money is divided up on a prorated basis (paid to the composer, not the artists). This is the same kind of thing - throw a $1/month fee on my broadband account, pool them all up, measure who gets downloaded and prorate out that pool of money. I'd gladly pay it to stop people (including myself) from getting sued and overall, they'd eventually end up making more money. In that world, every record label would have the incentive to get more people downloading (or at least buying broadband) and getting their music a higher proportion of downloads. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. </p> Mark, you’re too hung up on reflexive anti-tax feelings. Substitute “fee” for tax and it all works the same. This isn’t crazy radical stuff, this is how lots of things work. All radio stations pay a broadcast music license fee, and then that big pool of money is divided up on a prorated basis (paid to the composer, not the artists). This is the same kind of thing – throw a $1/month fee on my broadband account, pool them all up, measure who gets downloaded and prorate out that pool of money. I’d gladly pay it to stop people (including myself) from getting sued and overall, they’d eventually end up making more money. In that world, every record label would have the incentive to get more people downloading (or at least buying broadband) and getting their music a higher proportion of downloads. That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.evilgeniuschronicles.org/wordpress/2004/09/24/p2p-money-pool/#comment-580 Anonymous Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.evilgeniuschronicles.org/wordpress/?p=2010#comment-580 dave made mention of a register article, that i'd already read and enjoyed - mostly because i was imagining the chill that must have been in the air during the authors talk- best if you read it yourself :) so dave made mention of a register article, that i’d already read and enjoyed – mostly because i was imagining the chill that must have been in the air during the authors talk- best if you read it yourself :) so

]]>