[IP] more on Filesharing, compulsory licensing, taxing bits
I am strongly against such taxes. Why must I pay for things I have no
interest in hearing.
Dave
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Roger B. Dannenberg" <rbd@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: May 14, 2005 12:53:57 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [IP] Filesharing, compulsory licensing, taxing bits
Reply-To: rbd@xxxxxxxxxx
Since my reply to the RIAA was posted here (see
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05123/497993.stm), I thought this
might be a
good place to get some informed opinions. (I haven't quite figured
out what
this list is all about, so if this discussion is inappropriate here,
please
tell me.)
Trashing the RIAA (as I did) is easy. Imagining a viable structure
for music
commerce in the face of technological change is much more difficult. My
letter led to a lot of one-on-one discussions. One big issue is who
pays for
music? Customers pay for CDs, and prices are pretty much set by the
seller
(modulo anti-trust law). But, at least in the U.S., radio listeners
do not
pay; stations pay composers (but not performers).
Another issue is licensing. In many cases, copyright holders set usage
prices, but "compulsory licensing" sometimes overrides this. For
example, I
can record my own version of "Zippity Doo Dah" and not even Disney
can stop
or fleece me; I just have to pay a fairly small royalty established
long ago
by Congress.
The logical extension of these concepts to the digital age is some
kind of
tax on either bandwidth or storage, with sampling techniques used to
determine who gets paid and perhaps to calibrate the tax rate over time.
Compulsory licensing might be used to force copyright owners to
participate
in such a scheme.
I welcome your comments and insights.
-Roger Dannenberg
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/