What About Creating A Digital Transmission Right
Bennett Lincoff has been offered another type of solution for the music industry suffers online for some time. Last year, he has a great job picking from some of the main problems with choruses Jim Griffin’s plan (which in turn we said to begin in January, but we are not yet familiar with all the universities – for not to mention the tens of thousands of students – who are interested in they have signed). However, we do not really have its own proposal on steel aussah.Reader Lincoff Lincoff Wolf sent a copy of the proposal that the Canadian government sent in its open consultation of copyright last year. are in all – of the various proposals, Lincoff could be one of the “least bad” solutions are classified but is very different than it is a good idea of the reason for the proposed Vorschlag.Die a new copyright law would be created in the digital transmission right that the mishmash of copyrights covering, replace the online music (usually copying, distribution and public performance rights) be. Basically, this machine would be all right cover music online broadcasts, and each fee would be paid by the sender, not the transmission. This allowed each download or stream the music they want on their computer, without penalty is not necessary, and obtain a license. However, you would then not be able to share (send), the same music to someone else without permission. But would not that important (the theory), because a large service provider may pay the fee to exempt the individual. In other words, such a system, in theory, could the Pirate Bay or Napster pay duties and users are free to download and transfer via these services. The theory is, of course, of paying for these sites because many other advantages to all users flocking to it for the useful exchange itself: this “right of digital transmission” would be a new right, not a additional duty to be. It would replace the parties now existing duplication, public performance and distribution rights (and, where appropriate, the right of making available and the public’s right). It would no longer exist separate or independent for the purposes of digital transmissions of sound recordings or musical works in verkörperten.Die only course of action that require a license or pay a fee would be the transmission of digital records music. Any shipment that is not subject to the exemption would require approval. This does not mean that the separate payment will be payable for each transmission of each shot, only that no matter how fees are calculated, all non-exempt transfers verlangt.Lizenzen would have been made available by concerns that the industry campaign has failed to recover their revenue based sales model led his informal. The determining factor should or should not, shots had been transferred to digital, not whether transmissions result in sales, sales promotion, or make sales records gehen.Lizenzen would be lost regardless of that records are streamed, downloaded or transmitted by any means yet been invented, whether music or interactive programming non-interactive, or contains what must be issued, or a different record, if service accepts user-generated content, or works as a P2P social, or transfers or other transfers of images from other sites or services. The number of copies needed, transmission and type of transmission technology used does not affect the availability of a Lizenz.Es have many other details, and Lincoff has clearly tried a lot of thought into the proposal and many elements base that people would probably cover the criticism. Compared to our current system, it certainly seems that it is more logical. It certainly did an excellent job describing the only real issue is that of clean manufacturing industry still think, entirely within the old ways that music has been sold. “But the proposal still has many problems. Firstly, it is incredibly complex and not easy to understand. This is also true with copyright regulations. But as a substitute for a complex system with another super is not necessarily good either – especially if the level of complexity is not erforderlich.Zweitens – and this is my big problem – is that it is still a huge nightmare and totally bureaucratic useless amid the enormous economic waste and social development is in the management of licensing, monitoring the use and transfer of contents and the collection and distribution of money. It is the bureaucracy that n is not necessary. We are already seeing over and over and over again that when you take unnecessary bureaucracy, business models can artists who are more directly whether directly between artist and fan, buy the song or between an organization that needs Create artist. It is a much more efficient, so there are many opportunities for artists of various shortages pay, rather than a license quite unnecessary for a great good that has already ruled on the market at a price of zero werden.Sobald you must implement this bureaucratic structure, What really happened so far spent money that could jump to artists (or business partner the artist) is quite necessary in the massive effort to identify the “Library of the Society to keep” working conditions in the environment. This is not a solution that helps musicians. There is a solution, the intermediate bureaucratic hilft.Als Steel Wolf notes in his brief: Personally, I find these dangerous plans, for he thought that there is a sort of “solution”, the content creator, which allows to keep control on digital files, they spread on the internet. These solutions are not, they are handwaving on the fact that the economy, so that absolute control over the content is neither possible nor necessary changes dark. The voluntary aspect of the license is promoting the idea that negotiation is used, and expenses with the holders to attend a “morally” right way, not even the idea that our culture can be moved by this construction haben.Permalink | Comments | Email Story
July 31st, 2010 at 4:24 am
How will they measure things in encrypted anonymous networks?
July 31st, 2010 at 5:19 am
This is totally pointless because it relies on the same idea (ability to control/monitor distribution of media) that traditional royalties rely on and does nothing to address the fact that that model is fundamentally broken on the Internet.
If this could work, then so could any of the traditional royalty collection models.
Total fail.
July 31st, 2010 at 5:48 am
WE DON’T NEED MIDDLEMEN. THEY CONTRIBUTE NOTHING.
What a small and angry worldview this is. “Middlemen” of all sorts:
* Take and absorb risks
* Move and concentrate capital to where it can be used
* Provide specialized services that cannot be easily provided by endpoints
* Aggregate opportunities
* Market and advertise goods
Google is the ultimate middleman. They don’t produce much content of note. They make most of their money advertising things they don’t make and don’t sell. They contribute nothing, apparently.
You may insist that marketing is wholly unnecessary, but it exists for a reason, and it works. A consumer’s experience of a product is fundamentally changed through marketing. Chemically-identical food in a more attractive container tastes better.
People on this site have a funny attitude toward middlemen that are primarily aggregators. When Google uses its aggregation power to marginalize content creators in exchange for some traffic, that’s a good thing – that’s the free market at work and it should be celebrated. When a record company takes risks for a band, advertises, funds the production of their records, and basically sells them fame in exchange for copyrights on their recorded music, they’re an evil greedy middleman that must be stopped.
July 31st, 2010 at 6:47 am
This is just trying to preserve the “we must save the middlemen” approach that seems to dominate everything from medical reform to playing music in a damn club.
WE DON’T NEED MIDDLEMEN. THEY CONTRIBUTE NOTHING.
July 31st, 2010 at 6:48 am
trying to turn the Internet from a 2-way communications system into a broadcast system like cable TV.