p2pnet - rss feed: Listening to the music
p2p news view / p2pnet: Two very important reports have been released recently highlighting the increasing potential for a broadband subscriber based levy for music file sharing in Australia.
The first report was that of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ) showing that Australia had one of the highest per-capita growths in broadband subscriptions between 2004 and 2005. By December 2005, 2,785,000 Australians had broadband access, ranked 17th overall in total broadband subscriptions, the rate represents around 10% of the Australian population.
The second report was the Yearly Sales Data of the Australian Record Industry Association which showed total sales for 2005 to be $547,058,256.
This means that the entire sales of ARIA for 2005 could have been recouped by a broadband levy of $16.37 per month. On the face of it, this may seem a little high and many would argue that it would force some subscribers to go back to dial up internet services, however this represents an absolute maximum cost, there are other options available.
One possibility would be to spread the cost over dial up users, raising their internet access by as little as $3-5 per month could see a tiered payment system whereby all internet users assist with the funding of music but those with a faster connection pay slightly more.
Another option would be to introduce such a levy to compensate for actual losses rather than the entire industry. Taking the sales data of AIRA over the past ten years shows a peak in sales in 2001 of $647,620,000 (a level they realistically have a very limited chance of ever achieving again) with a low in 2005 of $547,058,256 which equates to a total drop over this period of $100,561,744 annually. To recoup just this loss, broadband subscriptions would need to rise only $3.01 per month. The broadband levy could be adjusted annually to ensure the industry is adequately compensated, and as broadband subscriptions rise, the amount paid per connection would most likely drop.
Ideally the money would be collected by a royalty collection society such as APRA, or one specifically developed just to collect internet based fees (given that there are some important policy reasons why ISPs should remain as neutral communication providers).
Methods for dividing up the funds include the use of watermarks to track downloads thus ensuring artists (and record labels) are compensated according to popularity. Another option (although slightly less accurate) would be to sample traffic flows, much in the same way radio broadcasts are sampled to determine the division of funds to artists. Although some would argue that it would be unfair to saddle all broadband consumers with such a levy given that some may not in fact access digital music on the internet, the flow on effect would be to ensure the continued production of CDs, and the continued availability of music on radio and other mediums, something that we all engage in, in one way or another.
This proposal doesn’t include film, which many would argue, should be treated the same way. While this is a topic that could result in a lengthy debate, there are some reasons why music and other media should be treated separately. First of all, music plays a much different role in culture and society than film, it is much more pervasive, and historically more easily and readily shared. Furthermore the production time and costs are significantly different with films often involving hundreds of people and years of production.
In many areas of law, drugs being one example, different remedies and approaches are implemented depending on the nature of the product in question, cannabis for example is treated differently to harder drugs. The same logic should apply to copyrighted works – music, film, and software for that matter, are all very different products, it is a failing of copyright, or perhaps a direct result of vested interests that they are all treated the same.
Today a music broadband levy in Australia is a very real possibility, it would open up income possibilities to all musicians regardless of whether they are signed to a major label, it would ensure artists are adequately compensated and most importantly of all, it would prevent Australia from going down the same path as the United States and many other countries, of individual file sharing prosecutions which do nothing but make lawyers rich and alienate music fans. Most importantly it would also preserve and encourage free speech, the free flow of culture and contribute directly to a democratic and civil society.
JunkGarage - Australia
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:42 am
The idea of socializing music so that artists, be it musicians, singers, or composers are paid from a social fund is a fine idea, as the physical (sale) distribution of music fades in the digital oblivion.
However, passing the money through record companies, music publishers or other leeches is a terrible idea. The money will never reach it’s rightful destination. History teaches that. Also, obsolete industries and products should never be subsidized or sustained with artificial respiration. Just let them die gracefully. History teaches that too.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
May 3rd, 2006 at 1:21 pm
“… individual file sharing prosecutions which do nothing but make lawyers rich and alienate music fans”
individual file sharing lawsuits (they are not prosecutions … the government is not involved) do not make lawyers rich - they never go to court, they are settled by citizens who are outgunned by the record companies and their henchmen. They only make record companies wealthier, as they operate as nice little profit earners. For the price of pro-forma lawyers’ letter, you too can have a $4,000 settlement!
May 3rd, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Exactly …
If such a system were to be implemented in the USA, the RIAA leaches would simply take it all for their own enrichment leaving next to nothing for the music creators.
Want living proof ? Look at their lawsuit campaign. Have you ever heard of any musician getting anything from the settlements ?
In this digital world, the old RIAA distribution model is no longer needed and must pass on like the horse-and-buggy. Musicians and fans must once again come together without being sliced and diced by organisations desparate for control. This whole idea of suing fans (and families) has got to be the lowest order of greed I’ve ever seen. The politicians supporting these actions can not hide. We know who they are and their time will come.
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:49 pm
Compared to the money that gets passed on to the musicians (ie. NOTHING) the lawyers are getting paid - even a pro forma lawyers letter costs money, lawyers are sharks just like the RIAA - they charge in 6 minute incriments, they’re certainly not doing it for free; times the cost of each pro forma letter by 20,000 and I think it is fair to say that lawyers are getting rich off individual lawsuits.
May 4th, 2006 at 12:03 am
I agree with your point that obselete industries should not be subsidised with artificial respiration, however the bigger picture suggests that the socialisation of music is one way to fast track the death of the record industry. By creating a system where the smallest most poverty stricken artist has equal access to a market to make money from their music, the dependence on record labels and in particular their marketing power, means that more and more artists will be in a position to survive without them. The system as it stands ensures that signed artists get paid (albeit very little once their advances & costs are taken out) while unsigned artists struggle to access a wider audience. They dont have access to television, radio or print media; and the continued marginalisation of peer to peer is the record labels way of ensuring they dont have access to a larger audience and will therefore be forever dependent on them. Last I heard Apple and Napster2 for example, would only accept music from signed artists. Also, by implementing a truley democratic system whereby artists are paid according to popularity removes incentives for record labels to bribe radio stations, means that mass marketing creations - “artists” that cant sing, play an instrument or write a song (chosen more often for their hair cut) - are less likely to dominate the industry, and consumers for once will have a real say in which artists “make it” rather than being force fed by the record labels.
It may not be a perfect system but its gotta be better than the one we have now.
May 4th, 2006 at 4:25 am
I do not download commercial music. In fact, I HATE most of it. I do however, download stuff from indy site like dmmusic.com . I have to also agree with the likes of the RIAA and MPAA to a *SMALL* extent that filesharing causes the loss of a few sales. Recording music from the radio wave as well as dubbing cassettes and CD’s also decreases sales somewhat.
The only difference between the radio stations and the Internet is the fact that the Internet is like 50 000 000 radio and TV stations with each catering to a specific taste. It is just like every citizen starting his or her own broadcasting and having an audience around the world. Yes, I agree that thos who entertain rightfully deserve to be paid for their efforts, and Madonna is doing something right.
Madonna has charges very high prices for her concerts, and people still come. Why do they come? Her fans know that they can download her music from the Internet and not pay her a single dime, yet they spend hundreds of bucks to see her. They come because they like her or even adore her! They adore her because she has talent and is well known.
People on the Internet have become well known from just publishing content. When someone has good content that people like, word will get out. More and more people will download that content, and pretty soon, that person will become well known and even rich. What the RIAA, MPAA, and like thugs are afraid of is NOT the lost of sales, but rather the loss of sales in which they get a share. These organizations, like the rest of lamescream media, are making money providing a service that is less and less needed or wanted.
If I were selling a product, service, or was in charge of an alternative political party trying to get noticed, I would produce a movie which would show the information I wanted people to notice in a non-intrusive way such as in a background scene or as a topic of a short conversation. Something like this embedded in a popular online movie would become viral. I am sure any national ad firm would love to have their client’s advertisement in half of all their country’s housholds. They can even enlist millions of people to help them with their advertising campaign for free.
All they have to do is amuse and entertain the people they are trying to reach.
Unfortunately, the people who own the companies that are losing ground to competition do not believe in the free market. These people want the governments of the world to aid them in shutting down the competition. Since these people are the ones who buy advertising time for politicians, these are the people which get the politicians’ ear. Politicians as well as the courts are going to listen to these people and legislate and pass edicts that will make the presentday Internet nearly useless. Hopefully, before this happens, common people will make an investement to get connected to their neighbors. When people get connected to each other, information will flow in spite to what those who own the cartels want.
Think Muninet, FreeWan, and Sneakernet.
William Keeley
May 4th, 2006 at 5:36 am
I dont download commerical music either but would like to see a system in which indie artists could get paid as well as main stream ones while at the same time being able to access a global audience without the backing of mass media corporations.
You can keep your opinions on Madonna particuarly as they relate to her “talent”.
May 4th, 2006 at 6:15 am
If they are talking about subsidizing the music industry, then what about the film, literary and other industries, why only music?? You would be paying hundreds of dollars for your internet just to support industries which produce no physical product.
People who agree to subsidize non-competitive industries are just reinforcing the idea of state subsidy for the cartels.
May 4th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
I think the idea was to support the artists…but of course as it stands now, the cartels control the artiosts content.
May 4th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
The control is absolute. If it wern’t for an ocasional artists, a paid one, that defends the anti-artist system, the system would have come down a long time ago.
May 5th, 2006 at 4:01 am
Free speech? Free flow of culture? You believe that these concepts will be supported by a compulsory music download levy? What are you smoking?
Free speech and culture exists where there is no impediment by law or cost. Your proposal raises both laws and costs to the consumers. Furthermore there is nothing democratic about shoving the cost down the throat of consumers. You want democracy? You got it - by choosing to go and buy the music yourself.
Your levy would increase music consumption leading to a tragedy of the commons scenario - labels and ARIA clamouring for a higher levy due to increased use, poorer families being hit through these levies who can’t afford it and - lets be real here - guaranteeing an income stream for lazy music executives who will not need to worry about introducing new talent if they don’t have to care about where the money will come from - such as demand. Artists will not see one cent from this levy.
May 5th, 2006 at 6:45 am
If pushed into a corner and I had to pick between 19,000 individual law suits or $3 a month on my broadband - I would take the $3 per month any day. You think poorer families would rather pay a $5,000 settlement with the option of maybe paying it again in the future?
I also think music executives are already lazy, they take the most marketable “artist” and are only interested in satisfying the lowest common denomenator of consumer. Who gives a shit if you write unbelievably good songs, have the voice of an angel, or could change the world with your music - if you’re ugly or fat or cant dance you aint got a chance at a record deal.
A levy system would open up the market to those without a major label and those that have signed with a major label have just as much chance of being renumerated as they did with direct CD sales. I’m all for it.
May 8th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
“nother option (although slightly less accurate) would be to sample traffic flows, much in the same way radio broadcasts are sampled to determine the division of funds to artists.”
Worldwide, radio broacast sampling is a myth. The collectives say they do it but that is a big lie. Most radio broadcasts do not even name the song or the songwriter or the country of origin. Some songs are in foreign language. The catalogs include millions of songs. N way a sampling could be done.
BTW, to add salt to the injuyr, the collectives issue no catalogs of the songs they license, so radio stations have no way of knowing what it is they licensed.