Posted on 03/29/2005 9:21:06 AM PST by TommyDale
The problem is not with the concept that musicians and recording companies deserve to be paid. The question is how.
I'm convinced that some new method of distribution will be invented. At the moment I suspect that record companies or distributers will eventually sell licenses directly to internet providers and allow unlimited "free" downloads of compressed music files to the customers of licensed internet providers. Royalties will be distributed based on the number of downloads.
It will also be necessary to produce enhanced products that have file sizes too large for internet downloads. People with good sound or multimedia systems will have to pay for hard copies, which will be encrypted.
I am not sure how I feel about the court taking this case.
It bothers me when the court takes a case on new technology and most of these people can barely understand how a computer works.
Although I understand it concerns principles of law rather than the mechanics of how a computer works I would feel better if those handling these complex issues at least inderstood the basics of the Internet and how it works.
Both you and the library bought your copies. Anyone wanting to read your copy of the book has to wait until you finish with it. Anyone who wants his own copy of the book has to buy it.
Suppose, however, that you or the library could simply print an unlimited number of copies of the book and give them away. Would the author see a dime of royalties from those additional copies?
I write college-level textbooks. Although it is hard to see how your model would work for my books, I will look into it.
I think in a few years that music will be a mass commodity like television that will be distributed like cable or satellite TV. You pay for connection to the hose and someone at the other end distributes the royalties.
That will take care of compressed files. There will always be a market for premium products.
I can see paying a premium directly to your internet provider, like getting HBO, that will allow you access to unlimited music downloads. When the product gets cheap enough, convenient will be better than free.
The whole nature of intellectual property is being radically transformed by technology in a way that has not been seen since Gutenberg invented moveable type. The SCOTUS can't even hope to stand in its way, it would be like trying to declare void the law of gravity.
Record your albums on cassette tapes, then use this:
The BTO PlusDeck2 fits in a 5.25" PC drive slot and comes with the software needed to convert your old tapes to .mp3 files, and can also record .mp3 music files to cassettes. The latter is nice if you have an older car with a tape player.
I just noticed your tagline (Free Books!). I do hope you are aware that there is no such thing as a free book, if by "free" you mean "without cost." Any book worth reading costs someone to produce. The question is, who will pay the cost?
Pay for performance is the answer. That is why "less famous" performers are all for the P2P but "more famous" tend to be against it.
Pavaroti earns income every time he performs in a concert. That is as it should be. I am a musician myself and one of the first things I learned is that a record contract with a big label is not the kind of future to which a musician should aspire.
Record contracts with large labels are almost identical to another icon of our culture: The lottery ticket.
Working musicians by the thousands have discovered a very nicely paying alternative to the big label lottery.
>>
But, I have no sympathy for an industry that has literally dictated what we listen to, to not have seen this issues coming from a mile away, at the first onset of the internet.
You know why the indie label artists like the internet? It's because it is the only way to get money and airplay from an industry that would normally scoff them.
There is a huge amount of talent out there that is not being heard because of the current state of the industry. I'm on the side of the downloaders.<<
What you said! And, FWIW, I am a musician as well.
No, you'd be a terrible geek if you did remember the correct sizes. 8^>
Musicians are going the way of professional athletes. And athletes do not make a major portion of their income from selling tapes of games. They make it from actually playing live. That and periferal stuff like shoe endorsements. Music is going the same way quickly.
Why can't you convert it? I have converted hundreds LPs and Cassettes. Granted, cassettes are easier to convert, with far less hiss and no scratches. Still, I've been doing it for years.
Ok, but why should these people get to protect their work longer than someone who get a patent on some widget that they worked on for years. I will cut the entertainment industry some slack when copyrights and patents have the same shelf life.
I've downloaded SONGS and THEN bought the artist's entire CD - of which 40-50% of a few was noise - not music.
I would agree, but personally I have never enjoyed a live concert of any kind. Don't like the stuffiness of classical concerts, don't like the crappy sound of rock concerts. I like having control of what I hear and when, and how loud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.