boycott-riaa.com - Article: Let's Get a Real Celestial jukebox that PAYS

Let's Get a Real Celestial jukebox that PAYS

Posted by Mike (Shmoo) on March 28, 2008 at 5:06 PM (printer friendly)

Let's Get Real

by George Ziemann -- March 21, 2008

The music wars will never end if someone without a vested interest in the outcome, and yet in full possession of all the facts, does not step forward with a logical, realistic plan that acknowledges the needs of the artists and creators, remembering that these are the only persons the copyright laws were allowed to protect, and offers an incentive to all artists to continue to write and play music.

I've been doing music for a very long time. My vested interest is my love for music. My life experiences and contact with representatives of the music business have led me to the conclusion a love for music and respect for record labels has become mutually exclusive. I have a bias and believe that what is good for the record labels is rarely, if ever, good for music or musicians. As a result, I am almost certainly not to be trusted to devise such a solution.

I'm going to offer one anyway. Tell me what's wrong with it.
Step One -- Put All the Seeds in One Sack

Before anyone even thinks of trying to collect money, an accurate system of measuring what music is being shared needs to be in place, whether the music is shared through legal web sites such as this one or offered without the artists' permission over peer-to-peer.

Create a music repository with the goal of including a high quality copy of every song ever recorded, with lesser quality offered for those who can't hear the difference and just know they can get more songs on their iPod if they're 128k than if they're 256k. Start it with a source copy of everything from all of the major labels, independent labels and every other artist who submits their music and works from there.

The Problem -- Who holds the sack? How about we start out with who doesn't get to hold it.

* Any company owned in whole or in part by any entity listed on the RIAA membership, its board of directors or the boards of any of the member companies.
* The U.S. Copyright Office (we need someone with a grasp of technology)

Any sufficiently technologically advanced entity which can be trusted to report accurate results. The Internet Archive is a non-profit organization with an infrastructure already in place to do this sort of thing. So is Apple, even though its music collection is currently for-profit. But no questions have ever surfaced about the accuracy of what they have reported in terms of files transferred.

The source files could be mirrored to several places which would simply report on the number of file transfers for each file monthly. It takes me about 20 seconds to produce such a summary with the web statistics from this site showing each mp3 file and how many times it was downloaded or streamed during any time period.
Step Two -- Sow the Seeds

This will be the most difficult portion of this idea to accomplish, as it requires the cooperation of musicians in general and the people who write the search functions for p2p software. It also provides an incentive for each of them to participate.

Part 1 -- Reprogram p2p software to look at the repository first and, if the song is listed, return no other results. Since the p2p makes a primary effort to find an authorized copy, this reduces their legal exposure significantly.

Part 2 -- Musicians point all the links to their songs to the repository instead of hosting them themselves or paying others to do so. Even if we never get to the "pay them fairly" part, every artist, big or small, would save money; if we do ever see payouts, everyone's tunes are in the same pile -- all music is created equal.

There's more to this idea, of course, including the question what to do with the record labels' rightful portion of proceeds from music that is out of print because they have determined it has no further commercial value. That's where my bias comes in.

However, until Step One takes place, there's no point in considering collecting money, much less passing it out.

Source: AzOz

User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)


independentm...	Date: March 22, 2008 @ 5:46 PM I wouldn't trust the RIAA or the current Copyright Office either. (Sad that, because the Copyright Office SHOULD be who we could trust to do something like this.) My vote would be for the Internet Archive too if we gotta do this and have a central repository for the music data and to keep track of downloads. They need not handle the actual money themselves, but at least they would be trustworthy enough not to game the system in favor of big players (such as how ASCAP and BMI do in favor of RIAA labels and big name publishers ...an example of how NOT to do such a thing as we are talking about.) Would Harry Fox be trustworthy enough to dole out the funds to the artists? I don't know. But ASCAP and BMI pay songwriters/publishers. We're talking about recordings here, that involves mechanicals. (But ALSO the underlying composition needs considered.) And, with current copyright term limits, songs recorded umpteen dozen years ago would still be eligible for pay under such a voluntary compulsory system of monetized music on the Internet. I'd want to see only songs be eligible that were less than 14 years old (or, ok, I'll even go 28 years if need be, but 75 plus life of the author? NO WAY! Copyright is a LIMITED duration monopoly for the artist/creator.) Until copyright term limits are revised to reflect something sane, all those old works will gobble up all the revenue. At some point things have GOT to fall into the public domain. (And hey! If an artist wants to re-record a song at the end of his original works' copyright term, fine by me! There's nothing to stop him, unless he's already dead or something.) One good thing about a central repository would be that the date of upload to it could serve as a kind of official "date of birth" of the copyright for an individual recording. ------- George, your basic premise is sound IMHO. But there are a ton of details to work out ...and, unfortunately folk like you and I are not king. The RIAA and other big industry players are still sadly gonna get to write the rules. Our real job is gonna be to bitch and scream the whole time and try to thwart as much of the unfairness as possible. But what the hell. It's fun to dream. (Who knows, maybe we CAN write the rules? But if so, its' gonna take something we independents are notoriously bad at by nature ...organizing and conglomerating.)

gdZiemann	Date: March 22, 2008 @ 6:53 PM One good thing about a central repository would be that the date of upload to it could serve as a kind of official "date of birth" of the copyright for an individual recording. Here are some more good things: All files must come from authorized sources (artist or record label) or be added by the repository staff. It takes the people currently seeding p2p out of the loop. No viruses. No bogus files. Shmoo, you're already worrying about copyright and who is to be trusted to pay out the money. What money? First, you've gotta collect all the songs and put them in the same place so that traffic can be accurately recorded, thus producing the mythical level playing field. Like DMusic, only enormous. Or the K-Tel collection of Every Song Ever Recorded, "for only 2000 small payments of $19.95!" except they wouldn't have to deliver a semi full of CDs to your house. Nothing difficult about this step except interference from the record labels, which aren't really looking for a solution, anyway. But we haven't let anyone have access to the seeds yet, so there's nothing for them to complain about. They will be given an opportunity not to participate. They won't like it a bit. Neither would Neilsen. If done properly, it will be completely transparent, results will be compiled in real time, and publicly available to anyone who wants to see them. No payola. No secrets. No barriers to entry.

gdZiemann	Date: March 22, 2008 @ 7:20 PM I'd want to see only songs be eligible that were less than 14 years old (or, ok, I'll even go 28 years if need be) I disagree. This has nothing to do with copyright. If people suddenly started listening to Fats Domino again, your limitation would mean someone could re-do his songs and be eligible for payment, but he wouldn't get paid if people were listening to his version. You are worried about the record labels. As bad as it is, look at SoundExchange. Some record guy recently told me this was the best deal in the business -- 50/45/5. 50 percent of the share earned by a particular song goes to the record label, 45 percent to the featured artist, the other 5 goes into a pool for background vocalists and side musicians. And the songwriters get nothing. On the surface, that really sucks because the record label takes half, no matter what. Unless you are your own record label, in which case your share is 95 percent. That would be artist incentive No. 2.

independentm...	Date: March 22, 2008 @ 7:22 PM "Shmoo, you're already worrying about copyright and who is to be trusted to pay out the money. What money?" "First, you've gotta collect all the songs and put them in the same place so that traffic can be accurately recorded, thus producing the mythical level playing field." Well, the Internet Archive already exists. An aritst/content creator merely has to upload their files. If we're not talking about how the money and copyright comes into play, what's your point? I myself am not all that worried about money from a personal point of view. I know that my band will never make a ton of dough from having our music available online (sure, we get SOME downloads and stuff, but not enough to pay bills.) But regardless, if music is monetized on the web, we'd deserve and expect our fair share, small as it may be. The REASON I'm worried about the money isn't over what little I'd stand to gain myself. I'm worried that the big players (RIAA and etc.) would game the system and fuck it up - just like they did with everything else. Our enemy plays for that $$$ we're talking about and I don't need to tell you that they do everything in their power to keep out the competition. If we DON'T worry "the money" and copyright and etc., it ain't gonna work! We'll just end up with another failure akin to the sorry state of radio. Which is: All RIAA, All The Time! (locals and indies need not apply!) - AND with ASCAP notorious for paying an unfair portion to the biggest name players and ignoring the lesser spun. (Their method of calculating is biased that way, always has been! I believe it has contributed to the problem.) We've GOT to worry about the money.

independentm...	Date: March 22, 2008 @ 7:32 PM And speaking of "the money" ...after a little thought, the problem of who gets it (in the situation where a band records a cover tune) is easily solved when the "seeds are all in one sack". From the revenue raised, songwriter/publisher gets half, artist/label gets half.

independentm...	Date: March 22, 2008 @ 7:42 PM "your limitation would mean someone could re-do his songs and be eligible for payment, but he wouldn't get paid if people were listening to his version." Well yes. Exactly! By all rights, his stuff should be in the public domain by now. So should the works of the Beatles and Elvis. Do we pay Mozart or Bach or whomever the hell wrote "Scarboro Fair" and "O' Danny Boy" for use? There needs to be a limited term to copyright. Since we are dividing money from a pool (all the seeds are in a sack) public domain portions of a work (the song underlying the recording) are null and void for the purpose of figuring payments. Recording a public domain work makes the whole payment the recording artists'.

independentm...	Date: March 22, 2008 @ 7:43 PM Copyright term lengths matter too!

independentm...	Date: March 22, 2008 @ 7:50 PM Originally, copyright was for only 7 years, but I believe that 14 years (+ another 14 if holder bothers to renew) is acceptable as a term limit. But, if known, the author's name should be attached to his song for eternity, even after his other rights have expired. Don't forget. By nature an intellectual work belongs to no-one (unless you keep it a secret) - copyright is an artificial monopoly granted by government/society to encourage creativity. 28 years or so is more than long enough.

independentm...	Date: March 22, 2008 @ 7:57 PM "50/45/5 ...and nothing for the songwriter." Well, that SHOULD be out of the right hand side of the 50/50 split with songwriter on one side and artist on other. "the other 5 goes into a pool for background vocalists and side musicians." Well, I'd go for a further split that gives something to session musicians, but the recording artist should be sharing that money with his fellows and backing artists anyways on terms they agree to before entering the studio.

independentm...	Date: March 22, 2008 @ 8:16 PM Folks, (especially artists and songwriters who may be reading) me and George are bouncing around ideas on something VERY important. Like it or not (and I have been resistant to the whole idea for years) the music industry is seriously considering something akin to what was proposed by Eric Von Lohman (and others) called "Voluntary Compulsory Licensing" (all the seeds in a sack) -- All this is likely to happen! Don't sit on your thumbs. Start considering YOUR position on the issue. Start thinking about having your voice heard when they gather at the table to lay down the rules and hammer out the details. For once in freakin' history, let's get it done RIGHT! (No more failures like ASCAP and radio!) Artists and songwriters. Feel free to chime in! (If not here in this forum, then do it somewhere! After all, it is YOUR creations the music world is arguing about.)

gdZiemann	Date: March 23, 2008 @ 8:58 AM the music industry is seriously considering something akin to what was proposed by Eric Von Lohman (and others) called "Voluntary Compulsory Licensing" Well, the problem with their ideas is that none of them involve putting all the seeds in one sack, which makes accurate reporting of what was played impossible. Also, Voluntary and Compulsory are mutually exclusive. It's one or the other. Sticking with the Fats Domino example, if I record a copy of "Blueberry Hill" and by some miracle, it becomes a hit, creating a resurgence of interest in the original, both copies would still earn money based on how many times each one is downloaded. Copyright does not come into play at this point. The idea is a system that pays ALL artists for what is downloaded and streamed over the Internet. If people still listen to Fats' version of his own song, there is no logical reason for denying him his rightful share because of an arbitrary time limit. To do so would screw up the level playing field, inviting other reasons to exclude certain segments of the musical community. The record labels have probably cheated Fats Domino his entire career. God chased him into his own attic during Katrina. Then we've got the Bay City Rollers. For 30 years, they never got paid. You're not going to pay them either. If we're going to snub the old guys that the industry has already kicked to the curb and left to starve, we're no better than the record labels. You pay the music that gets played. All of it. Period. Throw that principle out and this idea dies because that's the level playing field we keep asking for. Fats Domino gets to play as long as people keep listening to his music. Copyright, or lack thereof, comes into play when paying out the proceeds a particular recording of a particular song has earned. If a song is in public domain, that relieves the necessity of paying the publisher or songwriter, although I'd still like to pay the songwriter. If a song was recorded prior to the existence of a sound recording copyright, that relieves the necessity of paying the record label. Since this is a centralized system, each recording could have a specific payout formula. Maybe the songwriting/publishing share of every Mozart and Bach download, for instance, could be directed to a fund for classical musicians or orchestra budgets. An artist could donate his share of a song to a cause, or maybe music education, or whatever. It must not exclude any artists or their work for any reason other than that the repository simply can't find a copy. If for some reason someone doesn't want their music available, public access can be turned off with a checkbox on a data entry screen. Every payout issue can be resolved. Again, the plan is to pay the music that gets played. All of it. You shouldn't be collecting money until there is a demonstrably accurate, reliable system to report the traffic. It should be in place and functioning properly before the public is asked to subsidize it.

independentm...	Date: March 23, 2008 @ 3:31 PM "Voluntary and Compulsory are mutually exclusive. It's one or the other." The "voluntary" is for the artists and creators who'd have to opt in with their works. The "compulsory" part is for everyone who wants access to the works being compelled to pay a $5 per month fee (or whatever is decided) on top of their ISP bill and/or levy on their digital device. ------------- "If people still listen to Fats' version of his own song, there is no logical reason for denying him his rightful share because of an arbitrary time limit." Wow! I can't believe it! George, I actually disagree with you on something. (Rare indeed!) A 'logical reason' is that works should eventually fall into the public domain. By nature's default, if there was no such thing as the copyright bargain, (and at its' heart, it was a bargain struck between society and creators, a social contract if you will... "to promote the useful arts and sciences") ...without copyright, Fat's Domino would have NEVER had the exclusive right to earn from his tunes in the first place. But the copyright bargain WAS made ...and in that bargain was the stipulation of "limited time." MY argument is that once the time is up, the time is up. Don't buy into the RIAA's and Big Media's ploy of continually extending term lengths forever and a day! "To do so would screw up the level playing field, inviting other reasons to exclude certain segments of the musical community." I see it just the opposite! If copyright expired (and SHOULD BE expired) works are in the way, new stuff will have less reason to join the party. I am not snubbing the older artists and creators. I am also very sympathetic to them for the evils done by their record labels. But it is not the music of the present and future that needs robbed to redress old crimes. The labels themselves are who should pay for their own evil-doing. I say hit them hard! "You're not going to pay them either." Well, they (or whomever holds their copyrights) ARE going to get paid because current copyright term lengths are something like life of the author plus a bazillion years despite any sane definition of "limited time". The Digital Jukebox In The Sky didn't exist in their day. It didn't during Bach's day either. But it has a chance of arriving in our day and time. Time marches on and all that. Do we go back in time and give telephone service to George Washington? "Again, the plan is to pay the music that gets played. All of it." If you do that, then NOTHING ever falls into the public domain AND you have created "property" effectively for real out of thin air. Big Media and the RIAA labels will LOVE it. --------------------

gdZiemann	Date: March 24, 2008 @ 5:17 AM If you do that, then NOTHING ever falls into the public domain AND you have created "property" effectively for real out of thin air. If people are still listening to a song after it falls into public domain, then the artists who performed it are the ones who created something of value out of thin air. You can still sell copies of music that has fallen into public domain. The copyright considerations just go away, as does the responsibility to pay the songwriter. If sound recordings ever fall into public domain, then you don't have to pay the record label. The Old Testament of The Bible is more than 2,000 years old. There is no copyright. Yet people still buy copies. It still has value. So do Beethoven and The Beatles. In the case of Beethoven, you're not going to find any original recordings. There is no copyright owner left to worry about. Ludwig will not be filing a grievance. If you're using some sort of formula for payment, then the portion of public domain work's earnings which would normally go to copyright owners could roll over back into the fund for payout the next month. Payout is based on $$$ collected divided by how many songs were downloaded each month. Multiply this miniscule number times the downloads/streams for each song. If a song has ceased to have value, no one will listen to it. It will not earn any money. Thus, the monetary value of a song in the system is directly related to its value in the ears of the public, not artificial and arbitrary rules, age or origin. If concern for the music and the artists does not come before concern for the money and who else might get some, then it is no better than the status quo, no closer to the "promote the sciences and the useful arts" idea than iTunes. They keep all that old stuff out, and all the stuff that the labels decided sucked and refused to release, or titles that went out of print because the record label refused to make any more copies. Excluding Fats Domino and The Beatles from eligibility while allowing Britney Spears and Nickleback to cash out simply does not approach putting the music first. I wouldn't pay a dime for such a thing. The music and the artists come first. All of them.

independentm...	Date: March 24, 2008 @ 9:40 AM "You can still sell copies of music that has fallen into public domain." Yes. The creator STILL has the right to make money selling copies of his work after it falls into the public domain ...but SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE! The creator simply no longer has the exclusive right and monopoly over his work. If the seeds are all in one sack, any revenue generated for those that are in the public domain belongs to everyone. The public domain generated revenue should either be added to the kitty for division among the currently copyrighted work creators, OR that revenue should be divided equally among every citizen of the public. George, a copyright MUST expire sometime! Perpetual copyright robs society and invites corruption by the major labels and other big media interests. By natural default, an idea/intellectual work does NOT belong to the creator (unless kept secret) - ONLY via the bargain of copyright does society agree to allow the creator a LIMITED monopoly of his work. Perpetual copyright flies in the face of that! Giving the creator of an expired work a share of the revenue equal to that of a current copyright holder EQUATES to being the same thing as a perpetual copyright. If it is decided to pay royalties (and let's be clear, these ARE a new type of royalties we are talking about) ...if we comply with the intent of copyright and only pay out to current copyright holders, the expired copyright holder STILL has the right to manufacture discs and sell them. (So does anyone else. But that's the way it has always been. See your example given of the Bible.) Ask yourself, does ASCAP collect and distribute revenue for expired copyright tunes played on the radio or performed in public? No. They don't. They are constitutionally barred from doing so, even if they wanted to. And I say it's a good thing! --------------------- Here's an idea! (Not sure if good or bad) Maybe we could take the revenue generated by expired-copyrights and use it to lower everybody's federal tax burden by that amount. Each year, every individual would be able to take an equal deduction on their tax form.

independentm...	Date: March 24, 2008 @ 9:49 AM Fats Domino and the Beatles will always be considered of more value than Brittney and Nickelback. When all 4 acts works have expired, if the copyright holders each decided to put out re-issues of their works, you know darn well who'd get more sales. Allowing copyright to expire does no harm to the more deserving creators in the long run. Time flows. Things do get old. History must run its' course. -------- And consider this: Not allowing expiration of copyright gives a financially successful enough creator reason to sit on his ass and never create again. Copyright is a socially granted temporary incentive. It is NOT a permanent property right.

gdZiemann	Date: March 24, 2008 @ 10:09 AM without copyright, Fats Domino would have NEVER had the exclusive right to earn from his tunes in the first place. From 1895 to 1907, before the first compulsory licensing plan was introduced, only the author of a song was allowed to perform it. An exclusive right for a limited time. Without copyright, Elvis would not have had a career at all. Neither would Frank Sinatra. There would be no American Idol. Half of Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones' catalog would not exist; Eric Clapton would never have been allowed to play the blues. The deal made with copyright was that once you recorded a song or granted someone the right to do so, anyone else could record that song but they had to pay you a few cents for every copy you made. Until webcasting came along, there has never been a provision is U.S. copyright law demanding a payment to record labels. Before 1972, they were not even part of the discussion. For every act that decides to go around the record labels, and for every act that the labels introduce which fail to attract an audience, the labels' significance in the discussion dwindles. There are 200 million internet users. No one seems to be able to sell a million records. If they do, they are proclaimed as a hit, classified as popular, top of the charts and the papparazzi starts stalking them. But 99.5 percent of the potential audience has still ignored them. That's not really very popular. Last consideration to add... Fire this puppy up and legacy acts are still going to cash in. For a while, at the beginning. This disparity is naturally self-correcting. If everyone who wants one downloads a copy of every Beatles song ever recorded in April, who's going to be downloading it in May? End of cash flow unless McCartney records new music. I think that is a very significant element and is easily overlooked. This would indeed provide a short-term, immediate bump for the record labels, just the sort of solution they always embrace, one that makes next quarter's numbers go up. Six months or a year down the road, that evaporates. It might not even take that long. Then people will be looking for something new. EMI is already down to Coldplay and Amy Winehouse. Amy might not last another year and EMI's life expectancy can probably be measured in months as well. I think we can compete on a level playing field. No handicaps. Songs vs. songs. No other consideration on the front end. If I cover a Fats Domino song, I want you to put them right next to each other.

independentm...	Date: March 24, 2008 @ 10:21 AM "From 1895 to 1907, before the first compulsory licensing plan was introduced, only the author of a song was allowed to perform it." That's insane! Don't you mean record or produce sheet music instead of perform?

gdZiemann	Date: March 24, 2008 @ 10:31 AM This is not about copyright. It is about music. It is about paying the artists whose music people listen to. It is not about ownership. Owners, should they exist and copyright laws necessitate, must be paid. There's no way around that. However, most musicians have no legal ownership over their work, whether there is a valid, timely copyright or not. If we're not paying them all, then there is no point to beginning.

independentm...	Date: March 24, 2008 @ 10:33 AM "I think we can compete on a level playing field. No handicaps. Songs vs. songs. No other consideration on the front end. If I cover a Fats Domino song, I want you to put them right next to each other." Agreed. Fats' songs are still under copyright though, so... BLUEBERRY HILL Writer(s): LARRY STOCK, A. LEWIS, V. ROSE HFA Song Code: B16105 ...is still eligible for pay until the copyright expires. (Remember, term limits are currently VERY much longer than the original 7 years.) So, your examples are not yet public domain (though they should be.)

gdZiemann	Date: March 24, 2008 @ 10:36 AM Don't you mean record or produce sheet music instead of perform? No, perform was correct.

independentm...	Date: March 24, 2008 @ 10:41 AM You are right it is NOT about ownership. There IS no "owner" of a copyright. A song is not "owned" (I think we both agree on that.) "This is not about copyright. It is about music." But it IS about copyright. Copyright's gonna be at the heart of any 'seeds in one sack' proposal. It can't be avoided without abolition of copyright itself.

gdZiemann	Date: March 24, 2008 @ 10:41 AM Fats' songs are still under copyright though, so... Unless one of the three writers is really Fats Domino, he isn't getting paid, whether the copyright expires in a week or another hundred years. The copyright laws allow him to be cast aside and forgotten. If you don't want to fix that...

independentm...	Date: March 24, 2008 @ 10:45 AM "Don't you mean record or produce sheet music instead of perform? No, perform was correct." Holy crap! Talk about a major unbalance in copyright law! Glad they corrected that blunder. But an overlong or perpetual copyright is just about as bad (albeit for slightly different reasons.)

independentm...	Date: March 24, 2008 @ 10:51 AM That Blueberry Hill example I cited from HFA records is just the songwriter/publisher portion (copyright with a "c") ...the various sound recordings of the tune belong to the record companies. Fat's money due is according to his contracts with the labels. UNLESS he released a version independently on his own. (I do know there were some live recordings of his listed. Maybe he retained his rights as an artist via one of those?)

independentm...	Date: March 24, 2008 @ 10:59 AM Hey George! Be sure to vote for yourself (or for me, lol) in the poll at the top of the page. I'm testing a "widget". Once I voted a test vote for myself, I can't get it to display anything but the result. (I bet I'll have to clear my cookies before it'll let me see the voting choice again. Refreshing did nothing.) If the widget does anything un-agreeably funky, (or has any kind of spyware/adware) I'll have to nuke it. But it appears benign.

independentm...	Date: March 24, 2008 @ 11:05 AM Gotta sign off. B back L8r 2nite.

gdZiemann	Date: March 24, 2008 @ 11:22 AM Copyright's gonna be at the heart of any 'seeds in one sack' proposal. Only for those works to which it applies. I want the artist to get paid. This is separate and distinct from who owns the damn copyright and what we are forced to pay them.

gdZiemann	Date: March 24, 2008 @ 11:28 AM Fat's money due is according to his contracts with the labels. Exactly. That's the problem I'm trying to correct. Money may be due according to the terms of a record contract but we all know it never gets paid without a court order. Give the money to the artists directly, without the label getting it first. Voting widget is an empty box for me.

independentm...	Date: March 24, 2008 @ 3:22 PM oh yeah, mac. widget is a javascript thingy. You can't just give the money to Fats because he signed the damn contract with the label. There's no way in hell you can bypass that. The label holds the copyright on the recording. If wishes were fishes, an artist wouldn't be allowed to sign over his copyright to another entity (such as a label) - but that's how things are. Copyright law is as it is. If you and I were in charge of the seed-sack and tried to bypass the paying the label for the sound recording, the label would sue us (and perhaps the artist) ...and the label would WIN because they are "rightfully" the copyright holder in the eyes of the law. Without a change to the law, the only 'solution' to the problem is to remain independent of the labels in the first place. C'mon George! You know all this stuff! It's only what we've been preaching for years. lol

gdZiemann	Date: March 24, 2008 @ 8:30 PM You can't just give the money to Fats because he signed the damn contract with the label. There's no way in hell you can bypass that. SoundExchange does it. The label gets 50%, the featured artist gets 45%, no matter what their contract says. The songwriter gets nothing, despite what the copyright law says because the copyright law doesn't say anything about the Internet. Record contracts deal with physical sales. These are not sales. New game. New rules. If everyone can agree on the rules and abide by them, it's not necessary to revise copyright law nor to consult it. The copyright owners can agree to any terms which suit them. ---- If you and I were in charge of the seed-sack and tried to bypass the paying the label for the sound recording... That is not what I said. Here is what you're not getting: Copyright owners will demand to be paid a portion of the proceeds for the traffic their holdings earn. As this is a new income source, the exact amount is negotiable. Let's go with 50 percent for the purposes of discussion. The labels, songwriters and copyright owners are paid. Done deal. I want to give the performers of the songs the other 50 percent. If the performer is the songwriter and his own record label, they get 100 percent. I don't understand why you have a problem giving the old dudes their fair share if people continue to listen to them. That's how the record industry treats them. I want no part of such a thing.

independentm...	Date: March 24, 2008 @ 10:16 PM "SoundExchange does it. The label gets 50%, the featured artist gets 45%, no matter what their contract says." But only if the copyright hasn't expired. And, Sound Exchange is for streaming internet radio, NOT downloads. The 'seeds in the sack' would primarily be downloads. (You and I know that under the hood there is no real difference between a download and a streamed file, but the powers-that-be do make a distinction.) Downloads are (perhaps wrongly) treated the same as recordings on physical media (CD's, vinyl, cassette, etc.) -- NO royalty has been established for the artist/performer beyond what the label pays them via the contract. So, you see. Copyright still applies. You can't just bypass it. (Much as we may wish we could.) You'd have to get Congress to declare a download as equal to (or akin) to a stream. --------------------- I'm just saying that after a copyright expires, it's over. Royalties are no longer due to the artist or songwriter or label under ANY of the various models. (ASCAP, HFA, or SoundExchange) After expiration, copyright then belongs to EVERYBODY. That's what's called the Public Domain! And I am saying that copyright term limits are too damn long. That's all. I'm not wanting to "screw" the legacy artists per se. (Besides, virtually everything they ever recorded is STILL under copyright due to the ever expanded term limits via Sony Bono and other Acts.) But don't worry, there's little chance in hell of getting term limits shortened. There's too many powerful rich media interests making too much money from aged copyrights. We don't realistically stand a chance against all that wealth. Right or wrong. We've got what we've got. sigh might as well exploit it. (NOTE: I previously granted to the Public Domain the publishing on several songs I wrote over 24 years ago because I believe in the ideal of sane copyright term limits. So, I'm not a hypocrite on that score.) ------------ Hey George, this is a very interesting discussion we've been having. Wish some other folk would chime in.

gdZiemann	Date: March 25, 2008 @ 8:29 AM I don't think there is any consideration in the SoundExchange rules for copyright. They pay whatever gets played. Downloads are NOT treated the same as recordings on physical media. That's why we can make cover tunes, give them away on the Internet and not worry about paying the songwriter. The copyright owners can make any kind of a deal they find convenient. When Congress steps in, that voluntary compulsory idea you mentioned at the beginning gets turned around and becomes compulsory for the copyright owner. That's how the mechanical royalty thing works. Congress says we pay everyone 9.5 cents for every physical copy you make of someone's song. You don't have to consult the songwriter and ask permission to do this. They can't hold out for 12 cents and refuse to allow you to record and sell the song. They have to take the compulsory rate. There is no compulsory rate established in regards to the sound recording copyrights. If you want to use pre-existing recordings for a compilation album, a television show or movie sountrack, you have to negotiate each use with the copyright owners. Example: WKRP in Cincinnati -- Music was licensed for television broadcast. DVDs had not yet been invented, so no terms were included for future DVD sales. As a result, if the people that own WKRP want to put out DVDs (and they did want to), they have to negotiate the payment for each song included. The owners of the sound recording copyrights can refuse, ask for exorbitant prices, or they can be reasonable. This is not radio, Shmoo. People are not going to download the same songs five times a day. Hypothetical 200 million Internet users. They're going to give you a dollar for access. If everyone downloads one song and stops, the person's dollar should go toward the song that was downloaded. I downloaded "Blueberry Hill" because I like the way Fats Domino plays that song. The record label did not influence my decision, I didn't give a thought to who actually wrote it, whether the copyright was still valid, or what the terms of Fats Domino's contracts were, whether he gained back the sound recording rights or anything else. I like the way the man plays piano. Personally, I'd like to give our portulent friend the whole damn dollar. If I had chosen a Radiohead or Nine Inch Nails song, that's what would happen, no matter how you broke it down. They get the songwriter share (probably the publishing share that goes with it), the record label share and the artist share. The performer's share is above and beyond any pre-existing contractural agreement. The record label's share does not have to apply to money the artists owe the label (recoupable) for advances and services. The realistic solution is to divide up that dollar. 41% for the record label; 41% for the artists; 5% for the songwriter; 5% for the publisher; 8 percent for the backup singers and session players. You can juggle those percentages around until everyone agrees. The exact numbers don't matter. This is a database, remember. In addition to the mp3s, the database holds a record for each song, that identifies who's who in the zoo for that particular song. If you want to apply conditions or a test based on copyright before you send Harry Fox his dime, that's fine. So who gets it instead? Same with the record label royalty. What if the record label no longer exists? What if the record labels destroyed the masters and stopped selling the work? What if the record label never commercially released the work? What if, what if, what if... And each condition, no matter how complex can be resolved by finding the correct answer to "who gets it instead?" When you get to the artist's share, the first test should be: Is the artist alive? If yes, give him his damn 41 cents. Back to reality -- We're gonna download more than one song. If I download 100 songs, Fats' share of my dollar is down to less than half a cent. Even if I go back and hunt for "Ain't That a Shame," he won't get a whole penny. If I'm the only one to ever download it, we're looking at 20 billion downloads and Fats' share of the $200 million is still the 4/10 of one cent that he got from me. Radiohead would get a penny if I downloaded one of theirs. Some people are going to download 100 songs a day until their iPods are full. Some people are going to download 200 songs a day until they've loaded up every hard drive they can get their hands on. Until that point, each individual download will be of almost no value, you'll need a big audience to make any bucks, but almost $100 million would go directly to the artists. Every month. That is incentive that does not currently exist. I would be happy to receive a penny for every time someone downloads one of my song. Napster offered a nickle. Nine years ago. But once everyone who wants one has a copy of "Blueberry Hill" or Sgt. Pepper's, once the iPods and the hard drives are full, there will be fewer downloads overall. This will make the value of each individual download increase, favoring new music that people do not yet have. Theoretically, this should provide enough incentive to create an explosion of new music, which will reduce the value again. You'll get an ebb and flow. Old stuff will see occasional resurgences. This is much more fair than ASCAP's "pay what we hear" method, less prone to manipulation than radio airplay, better than SoundExchange because it remembers the songwriters, better than a record contract because the artists get paid, better than iTunes because the artists get paid a better percentage, more accurate in reflecting what people are listening to this month than any Billboard chart or Neilsen report. It complies with all existing copyright laws and even takes into account some imaginary ones the record labels believe exist.

gdZiemann	Date: March 25, 2008 @ 8:48 AM You can't just give the money to Fats because he signed the damn contract with the label. There's no way in hell you can bypass that. Sure you can. You go to New Orleans, find the big yellow house that says "Fats Domino" and hand him the money. This has nothing to do with record sales. His contract does not apply any more than if the city of New Orleans threw a benefit concert for him -- unless such a thing is specifically addressed within the contract. If the parties which must be paid are satisfied and you have still managed to put money aside for the artists, there is nothing to stop you from giving it to them.

independentm...	Date: March 25, 2008 @ 9:57 AM "I don't think there is any consideration in the SoundExchange rules for copyright. They pay whatever gets played." You are wrong here. There's every consideration. It was the Copyright board itself that granted Sound Exchange its' charter. Think of Sound Exchange as the ASCAP of satellite radio and broadcasts on the Internet. (That's what it is) ----------------- "That's how the mechanical royalty thing works. Congress says we pay everyone 9.5 cents for every physical copy you make of someone's song." Correct. A totally different thing. You go to Harry Fox to get the compulsory license (or the copyright holder directly for permission to use the song.) HFA is ALSO who you go to for permanent digital downloads (DPD's), limited use digital downloads, on-demand streaming licenses. ------------- "There is no compulsory rate established in regards to the sound recording copyrights. If you want to use pre-existing recordings for a compilation album, a television show or movie sountrack, you have to negotiate each use with the copyright owners." Correct! Part of the EFF's white paper proposal is in effect to create that kind of license. ----------------- "This is much more fair than ASCAP's "pay what we hear" method, less prone to manipulation than radio airplay, better than SoundExchange because it remembers the songwriters, better than a record contract because the artists get paid, better than iTunes because the artists get paid a better percentage, more accurate in reflecting what people are listening to this month than any Billboard chart or Neilsen report." I agree with ya there. ------------ But, I say again: You can't just give the money to Fats because he signed the damn contract with the label. There's no way in hell you can bypass that. The LABEL is still gonna get want its' perceived share and will sue if it doesn't get it.

independentm...	Date: March 25, 2008 @ 10:10 AM Hey George. What do you think of this? Van Morrison hates cover tunes! Here's an argument against allowing lengthy copyright. (One that bit me directly this morning!) That damn song is 40 years old! It came out the year I was born. Under current copyright law there is not a damn thing I can do about his DMCA take-down request. (Other than bitch and scream.) Still want to allow artists their copyright beyond a sane period of 28 years? The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Sonny Bono Act, or pejoratively as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act – extended copyright terms in the United States by 20 years. Van Morrison can now unfairly send his silly DMCA notices for 70 years AFTER he is in the grave. How the hell does THAT benefit the public?

gdZiemann	Date: March 25, 2008 @ 1:22 PM You can't just give the money to Fats because he signed the damn contract with the label. There's no way in hell you can bypass that. I can give Fats Domino money for no reason at all. I've given money directly to artists, either in large bundles of cash put directly into their little paws or wired from my bank account into theirs. So don't tell me you can't give the artists money. And if we're not paying the artists, don't bother collecting the dollar from anyone. So we're back to square one. No one gets anything. I can live with that, too. It's a lot less math. Re: Van Morrison Read it. Commented on it. It's not an argument for or against the term of the copyright because there is no copyright violation. It's a good argument for punishing those copyright owners who intentionally and repeatedly use false accusations to abuse the system. I think Van Morrison, or his record label, needs to pay YOU a fine for casting aspersions on the authenticity of your work. And everyone else they falsely accuse. $1000 a pop for each lie.

independentm...	Date: March 25, 2008 @ 6:09 PM "So don't tell me you can't give the artists money." Yup, YOU or I can give anyone money we want, but if there is money gathered by having all the seeds in a sack (as per what we are talking about) THAT money is not OURS to give. That money would be held in trust by whatever collection/reporting agency is appointed. That money would belong to the artists and songwriters (or their duly licensed labels/publishers) who have valid non-expired copyrights. I'm not going to comment publicly any more about the Van Morrison DMCA take-down until council advises it wise to do so. (So e-mail me on that matter if you need to.)

gdZiemann	Date: March 25, 2008 @ 9:07 PM if there is money gathered by having all the seeds in a sack (as per what we are talking about) THAT money is not OURS to give. It is if the copyright owners agree to the arrangement. They get half -- $100 million a month for doing little more than they did yesterday. The artists get the other half. The alternative is 100 percent of $0 because if you do not agree to the terms, then we uncheck the "publicly available" option. You have opted out. That song will not earn any "plays" in the system; it will not earn any money; it does not exist. Problem solved.

independentm...	Date: March 25, 2008 @ 9:23 PM Ah... It's fun to dream. (Let's hope they let folks like us at the table when negotiations on all this starts in earnest.) :)

independentm...	Date: March 25, 2008 @ 9:34 PM hmm... Since you say you gotta opt-in (or out) why not beat them all to the punch? How much space have you got on your server? Go ahead and set up the database, invite all the tunes in the world to the party and charge everyone $5 per month for download access. (Take yourself a minimal percentage operations fee off the top, something like .001 percent. lol, even then you'd be a millionare!) That way, there's no need to go through the "proper channels" and as you say: "Problem solved." ;)

gdZiemann	Date: March 26, 2008 @ 5:15 AM Go ahead and set up the database, invite all the tunes in the world to the party and charge everyone $5 per month for download access. Well that was kinda where I started. You put all the seeds in one sack. When we get to paying out money, the artists are going to get paid. All of them. That was Step One, which we've been hung up on for a week and about 10 feet of discussion, barely touching the hardest question of all -- who holds the bag of seeds? Step Two involves planting the seeds -- linking to the repository. When that's working, we'll think about collecting fees. It's bad enough that, in an effort to pay the artists, the side effect is a new income source for the labels. But $5 x 200 million internet users x 12 months is more income than the entire industry had last year at the wholesale level. And they wouldn't have to make one new record all year. That would be the opposite of incentive. Let's try $1. That's still $2.4 billion a year. That's more than they make from iTunes in a year. A lot more. Maybe a quarter.

RaidHHI	Date: March 27, 2008 @ 4:41 AM "It takes the people currently seeding p2p out of the loop. No viruses. No bogus files." Hahaha... So you say. You must live in a cave or something. Legitimate software you purchase has been known to carry a mickey or two. But go ahead, let the artists/labels whatever encode the tune for you, the drm crap on Itunes sounds fucking great compared to our vbr mp3s, /sarcasm.

gdZiemann	Date: March 27, 2008 @ 5:47 AM Legitimate software you purchase has been known to carry a mickey or two. Maybe the stuff you buy. Not any software I've ever purchased. You must live in a cave or something. Living in Arizona, where it's already in the 90s, the subterranean dwelling offers a tremendous savings in both heating and cooling costs. But we are having a hard time getting the wireless connection to penetrate down to level 3. No, I don't live in a cave. I use a Mac and common sense, a combination which has not only prevented viruses, but also grants an immunity to RIAA lawsuits. But go ahead, let the artists/labels whatever encode the tune for you They can provide a master, but repository staff will do the encoding. On a Mac. The viruses and bogus files I'm concerned with come from the record labels. the drm crap on Itunes sounds fucking great compared to our vbr mp3s This has already been addressed. "Create a music repository with the goal of including a high quality copy of every song ever recorded, with lesser quality offered for those who can't hear the difference." There will be no DRM. If you want, you can have a 24-bit file at a 48 kHz sample rate. The less discerning ear can downgrade to a CD-quality 16-bit, 44.1 kHz file. For portability and those who can't tell the difference, mp3s can be offered at several levels of quality, from 300k down to 96k.

NDK	Date: March 28, 2008 @ 8:55 AM This is a most interesting discussion and is as important as you both say it is. I would like to suggest that you post it as a coherent plan with points and steps of a proposal and then each question posted But generally speaking it seems to me you're heading in the right direction. I for one would support such a system as a songwriter/copyright owner and also as a musician. I think putting a new system in place is the way to go. Just set it up and get people signing on board. There are enough people out there who would participate. All the problems can be resolved.

gdZiemann	Date: March 28, 2008 @ 9:43 AM I for one would support such a system as a songwriter/copyright owner and also as a musician. In the five years I've been writing at this site, that is the perspective I have always taken. I've got PA (word and music) and SR (sound recording) copyrights. I've only got a handful. The major labels have millions of them. And yet, there are millions of us, each with our own little batch. Our output probably surpasses that of the major labels every year.

independentm...	Date: March 28, 2008 @ 6:04 PM But, we have NO REPRESENTATION when it comes to bargaining at the table over the rules. What sucks is that if we independent artists all got together and formed a collective, we'd no longer be independent. f**kin' catch 22 man!

gdZiemann	Date: March 28, 2008 @ 10:33 PM What sucks is that if we independent artists all got together and formed a collective, we'd no longer be independent. When the 13 colonies all got together and formed a collective, it marked the beginning of their independence, not the end of it. They did not ask for a seat at the table. They did not bargain over rules.

independentm...	Date: March 28, 2008 @ 11:37 PM Hey! leflaw (or somebody) bumped this article back to the top and changed the title from George's original "Let's Get Real"

independentm...	Date: March 29, 2008 @ 5:44 AM Oh, BTW. I'm got rid of that silly off-site poll from widgetbox.com (it was just something I was experimenting with) and I'm sure Jack or Lawrence could whip up a better functioning one using java or something in a jiffy anyways if we wanted/needed it.

RaidHHI	Date: March 29, 2008 @ 4:38 PM I couldn't vote between the two of you. You both make good points.