[TankGirl]

First of all, thanks Ramona for an interesting article which has already inspired some excellent responses.

I agree that the proposed system with lump charging from ISPs and copyright tagging / transfer metering technology is not realistic for the various reasons pointed out by mike, Mazer and Jack.

Mazer:
Okay, this guy paints an accurate portrait of history in the first half of his article, but the second half is pure fantasy. (Sounds to me like one of those guys who started smoking pot when he turned 40.)

Ditto. It is a dream of regaining global control over copyrights in the post-p2p Internet. We are already beyond that point both technologically and socially. The perception has already changed: from today's p2p user's viewpoint Devon Copley is effectively proposing spyware designed to serve the interests of existing copyright industry. It will never fly.

mike4947:
I for one don't want my ISP logging what kind of music I download and selling the results to the highest bidder.

Privacy and security are key issues in the development of new p2p technology. Applications like Groove are already empowering corporate users to establish arbitrary p2p peer groups and transfer whatever they wish between each other. There are no peepholes or reporting facilities for outsiders, copyright holders or not - expect the same to happen in consumer applications in a year or two.

JackSpratts:
i'd use a hack just to keep my isp from logging my downloads, even IF the content was "free" (i use one now - adaware). there is no way in hell i'd willingly support a system that monitored me and my familly.
christ, it never fails to amaze me how easilly people give up their hard won freedoms and anonymity. also isps would figure out a way in about a minute to penalize big downloaders - they'd offer "discounts" or such to people who keep the d/ls low, thus jacking up the price for everyone else.

que'lle bonehead.

there is no business model that covers this now. we're at a historical shift.

it was a brief technological accident that allowed a troubador to perform once and get paid forever. for all time prior to edison, performances couldn't be stored. to get paid each time you had to perform... each time.

that brief accident is over now.

you can still record if you want, and it may make sense to do it in order to expose people to your work and get them in the door at concerts. artists have done that for years. armstrong said his records were nothing but commercials for his live shows - he hated the record company and his dependence on it.

well now you don't need the record company and that alone makes the internet the artists' best friend.

but to get paid, you'll have to perform...each time.

just like everyone else on the planet.

What a damned good piece of writing, Jack - right on the money!

The idea of performing is closely linked to the ideas of uniqueness, originality and authenticity - all of which I see highly relevant for the new economies to emerge from p2p technology. A live performance represents maximal authenticity in music: by buying a ticket to a live show you are buying a moment of shared physical presence with the artist and an unique one-time presentation of his/her art. There is nothing in the new p2p technology to threaten this source of income for the artists - on the contrary. The popularity of mechanical copies will just make live performances more popular and valuable. Dedicated fans would also surely be willing to pay for personalized deluxe album editions from their favorite artists even if they could get the public content from p2p networks for free. If signed albums sound too old-fashioned just think about a personalized video clip attached to the album where the artist dedicates the album to you. Here again we have the idea of a real performance - even if a brief one - as a basis for payment.

- tg