Should Musicians compensated for P2P-Downloads?
 

P2P networks like Napster or WinMX have extended our access to musik and made it possible to discover new genres etc. But if the distribution of musik in the future happens primarily per P2P-networks, how can artists get encouraged to produce new music? Raymond Ku, Associate Professor of Law on Seton Hall University, New Jersey, proposes, that congress should enact an law, called Digital Recording Act. Musicdownloads would be complete legalized but this act imposes in exchange for this statutory levies on subscriptions for Internet service, the sales of computer, audio, and video equipment on the rate of 1 to 2 percent of the selling price. This money shold disbursed on musicians, songwriteres and componists (not on labels) based on the popularity of their works, measured by downloadfrquency on P2P-Networks. He said: "The DRA could easily provide a source of revenue for musicians ans songwriteres instead of copyright."
Found: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=266964

Whats your opinion? Shold statuatory levies imposed in exchange for the legalisation of P2P-Networks.

"The DRA is superior to copyright because it encourages creation while providing information about consumer preferences without the market-distorting effects of a private property regime."

Small point: while I am not against the DRA and believe it is an idea whose time has certainly come, being essentially the first postulated reaction of the pioneers of P2P to the lamenting of certain artists and recording companies, the (now ancient) argument that artists need encouragement to create new work is a weak one, and the fear that artists would somehow stop creating new work even in a world where it would become virtually impossible to generate capital through its creation (which is a very unlikely scenario) is unfounded and slightly hysterical.

Certainly many musicians are hardcore capitalists, but I submit that very few musicians need a promised reward dangled like a carrot in front of them in order to create. That carrot is a spiritual muse, if you will, that's been firmly in place since the dawn of time. That carrot is in fact also the inexorable impetus of the financial machines that have been built up around the production of music, largely by the hands of non-artists seeking to take advantage of it.

Further, in regard to any and all of the musicians which would or already do feel their creativity effected negatively by the existence of P2P sharing, I think it's quite possible the world would be a better place if they did stop creating new work. There would be a paradigm shift away from music designed specifically to be a commercial object, and I would consider that a renaissance.

You may call me an idealist.

Ditto
 

I call you a wise man instead. :ND:

I couldn't have said it better. Well, I couldn't have said it even closely as well. :p :BL:

- tg ;)

inasmuch as there isn't evidence to suggest anyone's losing money because of file sharing, that to the contrary profits are up at 3 of the 5 major music conglomerates, i find it hard to support a business model that exists on handouts as there are plenty of ways for artists to make money besides selling cds from stores, even if that aspect of the industry ever fades. i can’t support a so called “net tax” for musicians.

regardless whether artists are paid directly for their recorded songs or if those songs become mostly promotional devices for the other aspects of the music business like cabaret acts and stadium shows, there will always be excellent artists making music for appreciative listeners. if it's in you and it has to find expression, it will. recorded music won’t disappear because home taping keeps improving, there may even be more of it – and you’ll certainly hear more of it.

p2p isn't killing the music business and it's definitely not killing the music. it is changing the business, one that’s been long overdue for change, so that’s a positive thing. it's removing several parasitical layers from an ugly and ossified bureaucracy that's all too often damaging to the artists and the listeners. if the government doesn’t get in the way (an increasingly unlikely scenario) the ability for artists of every stripe to contact their audience directly using peer-to-peer clients will revolutionize the creation of culture. as the tribe “talks to itself”, there will be no one moderating the discussion save each ones own heart and mind.

while the old record company guys find themselves new fields of endeavor, those artists whose work resonates most deeply within the community will find their compensation better than ever.

- js.

"statutory levies on subscriptions for Internet service, the sales of computer, audio, and video equipment on the rate of 1 to 2 percent of the selling price"

I'd have an issue with trying to run a web hosting service (web sites, or whatever) and having to pay a tax on my access, and servers, to support the entertainment industry.

I'm not in favor of blanket taxes or surcharges to support an industry that is alienating their userbase.

Very good comments Jack. :tu:

P2P is much about empowerment of people. The first two years of p2p have seen people getting the power to access the global content resources beyond the narrow commercial distribution channels. As the software will evolve and the artists will get more involved in the p2p scene the formula will inevitably start to work the other way too. The artists will get the power to reach global audiences from their living rooms without any help from the labels, just like Jack describes.

To get an idea how a new kind of creative interplay between artists and audiences is already emerging around p2p, check this Wired story on Brazil's Re:combo movement:
Many of our board members are also already doing and publishing their own mixes which are creative works in themselves. Activities like these are all serving art and artists whatever the old distribution parasites say.

- tg ;)