UK consumers, Big Content battle over three-strikes rules December 01, 2008
"Although France's "graduated response" proceedings have attracted the most attention, the UK is in the midst of a consultation of its own on how to involve both content owners and ISPs in some sort of response to P2P file-sharing. The government is pushing a co-regulatory approach that would task industry groups with hashing out the details of such a plan, while the government would make sure that any agreement is fair, competitive, and preserves privacy. With all the responses now in, the UK music industry is clearly pleased that it won't have to pursue 6.5 million copyright infringers on its own. Digital rights groups are... less excited.
The entire consultation is helmed by BERR, the UK agency that handles Business, Enterprise, & Regulatory Reform, and it stems from the famous (in certain circles, anyway) Gowers Review of intellectual property that we covered extensively back in 2006. That report, which took a top-to-bottom look at UK copyright and IP policy, was stuffed with plenty of consumer-friendly ideas, such as no new copyright term extensions. But it also contained good news for rightsholders, such as a suggestion that the government step in if ISPs and rightsholders couldn't agree on how to handle the issue of P2P file-sharing." [ArsTechnica]
Voluntary campus-wide music licenses could stop the lawsuits December 08, 2008
"It takes a special knee-jerk churliness to jackboot the music industry in the proverbial groin every time it comes up with a new idea. Sure, some of these ideas (Hi, DRM-laden CDs!) make one want to spend an afternoon banging head against desk in existential despair over the low collective intelligence of the people in this world who make decisions. But the industry isn't staffed only with fair-use hating zombies and DRM lovers; the occasional human roams the hallways, sometimes hatching new schemes that aren't wholly stupid, ridiculous, or evil. When that happens, it's worth holding one's rhetorical fire until the idea is fully developed, offering encouragement and constructive criticism.
Of course, Internet groin kicks are easier. And think of the traffic! But they're not always helpful, not when you'd like the industry to get up and walk arm-in-arm into the sunset with users rather than lie in the street and issue subpoenas from the gutter." [ArsTechnica]
Masnick on the Music Tax Dec. 15, 2008
"I’m more sympathetic to EFF-style voluntary collective licensing than Mike Masnick is, but I have to say that the case he makes here is pretty compelling. I think this is really the key point:
What you’re doing is setting up a big, centrally planned and operated bureau of music, that officially determines the business model of the recording industry, figures out who gets paid, collects the money and pays some money out. The same record industry that has fought so hard against any innovation remains in charge and will have tremendous sway in setting the “rules.” The plan leaves no room for creativity. It leaves no room for innovation. It’s basically picking the only business model and encoding it in stone. [TechLiberation]
Taxing music at the ISP level: Good idea or bad? Dec 5th
"Warner Music Group has a proposition for U.S. universities, according to Techdirt: buy a blanket license to music downloads through file-sharing services, or be sued.Techdirt thinks that this is a bad idea, and I disagree. Techdirt's criticisms are clear." [CNet]
Lessig’s call for a “simple blanket license” in Remix 01/12/08
"Lessig Remix coverI’m finishing up Stanford Law School professor Lawrence Lessig’s latest book, Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy and wanted to make a brief comment about his call for a “simple blanket license” to solve online music piracy.
Overall, I thought Prof. Lessig made a good case regarding the benefits of “remix culture” and why copyright law should leave breathing room for the various derivative works of amateur creators. On the other hand, Lessig still too often blurs remix culture with “ripoff culture” (i.e., those who aren’t out to create anything new but instead just take something without paying a penny for it).
To solve that latter problem, Lessig again endorses a proposal that William Fisher, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and others have made for collective licensing of all online music, but he fails to drill down into the devilish details. He says, for example, that “by authorizing a simple blanket licensing procedure, whereby users could, for a low fee, buy the right to freely file-share” we could “decriminalize file sharing.” " [TechLiberation]
Techdirt's Mike Masnick On Why a Music Tax Is a Mistake December 11, 2008
"Techdirt founder Mike Masnick has followed the twists and turns of the digital music debate for more than a decade, offering some of the most prescient and lucid information and arguments on the topic anywhere. Today he tackles growing calls for a voluntary music-licensing scheme, pushed most recently by Warner Music Group to universities, that would basically allow file sharing by having ISPs impose a surcharge on all users to be paid out to copyright holders. (A version of this has been done before with blank media like tape cassettes in some markets, including Canada, but this would be a massive expansion of the idea.)
Mike's take is not the final word on the matter, but it should be required reading for anyone interested in understanding where music is today and where it is headed. It is reproduced with permission below in its entirety. As he ably argues, the future of music is often confused with the future of the music business — but they are not the same thing at all. In fact, the interests of the music business, defined primarily as the major recording labels, is arguably one of the biggest impediments to moving music itself forward." [Wired]
Posts
