Big Entertainment Wants to Party Like It's 1996 (Cory Doctorow) | Hacker News Reader

Big Entertainment Wants to Party Like It's 1996 (Cory Doctorow)

internetevolution.com

75 pointsswombat21 comments

'You know what would probably get something done? If the record industry proposed a law through the front door, with public hearings, to find an equitable, simple way to get paid for the use of its material online. A blanket license, say, that users or ISPs could opt into in exchange for access to all the music that's already online, wherever and however they can find it.

Sure, some of the hardcore copyfighters would hate it -- it'd feel too much like a "music tax" for their taste, and they won't rest until the music companies have been killed in vengeance for all the bad stuff they've done since 1996 -- but it'd make the entertainment giants seem reasonable, and it would make anyone who disagreed with them seem unreasonable. They'd have the easy sell: "We want to stop suing your kids, but these crazy infohippies won't let us!" '

I was surprised by this. Is a blanket license really something the activists are wiling to live with? It seems like a terrible compromise to me. It seems like an admission that the record companies deserve a business model.

Seriously, I think that we seriously need to consider letting copyright, or parts of it, die. At least lets speculate about the consequences. Music seems like a good place to experiment. (A)The sky will not fall if music is not made. (B) Music will almost definitely still be made.

The losers are the components of the recording industry. But we are under no moral obligation to keep them in business.

The point is that the record industry is better off working with the public than in secret behind locked doors. The blanket license is simply a single possibility that may be compromised on if there is ever an open discussion.

Yes. Good point. I have no problems with that statement. Working with the public is certainly better than secrecy. I'm just pointing that a music tax is being presented as reasonable. I was surprised the author implied this.

*I'm not personally unwilling to consider it. I think this is a practical problem as much as an ideological one. If this gives us a practical solution without too many negative side effects, I'm all for it. In fact, if anyone can point out an interesting exploration of the topic, I'm interested.

Eff wrote a couple good articles on taxing music.

Collective Licensing Good, ISP tax bad: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/03/monetizing-file-sharin...

A Better Way:http://www.eff.org/wp/better-way-forward-voluntary-collectiv...

Their opinion is basically to create collecting societies. Listeners would pay a monthly fee and get the legal right to use all works by member artists, irrespective of format or distribution method. Artists could choose whether to join or not.

They are saying it would work because it has precedence, and most users would be willing to pay a fair price. The society will be encouraged to charge a fair price by the fact that not doing so will encourage piracy. Fines and legal action will help the societies from non-members.

I think that the general idea is good. I might be willing to pay a monthly fee if I got unrestricted access to music.

> Is a blanket license really something the activists are wiling to live with?

It doesn't matter what the copyright activists want. What matters is what the masses want.

The Ipod is about as much friction as the masses are willing to tolerate, for now.

More than anything, it saddens me how corporations have assumed so much control over our lives -- or that we've ceded it to them.

I am no anti-capitalist, but I want some kind of balance that's definitely tilted in the wrong direction.

And the music industry suing their own customers? Talk about making me pirate just to punish them. Hell, I'll even download Winger now -- just because I can.

Thanks to spydez for the one-page version, btw... original was broken up in 8 pages!

Me and my crazy hacker skills... finding the "print" link. :P

"There was a European version whose provisions were very similar to the Broadcast Flag -- I was allowed to attend these, but only by promising nondisclosure. No problem: I stumped up and down Europe, saying, "There's a crazy, evil DRM thing coming that's really bad and it's so bad they won't even let me tell you about it!" That was a lot simpler than explaining what was wrong with it."

In 1996, he says:

> And most importantly, the laws regulating copyright and technology were almost entirely designed by the entertainment industry. They could write anydamnfoolthing and get it passed in Congress, by the UN, in the EU.

But:

> 1996 is gone, and good riddance.

Yes, but has the legislative climate changed that much? Are we or are we not still in an era when "They could write anydamnfoolthing and get it passed in Congress, by the UN, in the EU"? I think the article offers pretty good evidence that we are still in such a legislative climate.

It looks like 1996 is very much not gone in a very important way.

Really well written article.

'mustache twirling villains' = Gold

Those horrible days when musicians could actually make a living selling their work. Let's not go back there !

If it's a choice between destroying the Internet or destroying the music industry, it is in everybody's interest except the music industry's to destroy the music industry. (And by "music industry", I'm even excluding listeners and to a lesser extent, artists.)

Now, I don't think that's actually the choice we face. But if the music industry wants to turn it into that choice, then the choice is rather clear. That is, even if I take your statement at face value, the clear interest of society would still lie with "keep the Internet and let the musicians hang".

Again, I don't think that's the actual choice we face. But even your exaggeration is not sufficient to win the argument.

No matter what happens, people will continue making music because a whole lot of people like making music. What value do the record companies add to that, which we can't get by other, less harmful means?

> What value do the record companies add to that, which we can't get by other, less harmful means?

If you really want to know, look at my posts. I've answered this very question a number of times. Frankly, the fact that you ask it shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Musicians don't deign to understand what hackers and software developers do. Why, conversely, do hackers think they understand what musicians and record companies do?

Yes, most musicians like to making music. And they get the girls.

yes, when artists got loans to make their records, earned under $1 for a CD that sold for more than $20, and were still expected to repay the loans?

oh wait, thats still how it goes, except the artist cut is lower because CDs sell for less.

No excuse for this, really. Led Zeppelin showed everyone how to do it in 1969. Record your own first record (very much easier to do now), own your masters, and have a good, tough business guy who is unquestionably on your side (Peter Grant).

I find it somehow strange that they structure this as a loan and not as a sale of equity.

Way to miss the point of the article.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com