A Collaborative Distribution Model for Music

April 4, 2009 on 4:23 pm | In Bitmunk, Corporate, Music, Semantic Web, Television, Movies and Video | 1 Comment

The music industry, via Choruss, is shopping a new music licensing model around to universities in the United States. Like some before it, this one attempts to address the still rampant music piracy occurring via peer-to-peer networks by enforcing a pseudo-mandatory collective licensing agreement on every student attending a participating university. There were a number of very interesting parts to the proposal that we would like to work on improving with Choruss and any partner universities. There were also a few propositions that we think are harmful to the industry, artists and fans as a whole.

It should be no surprise that we think that any sort of mandatory collective licensing is a very bad idea, as is the “covenant not to sue” approach that Choruss is currently pursuing. Voluntary collective licensing, as proposed by organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is not a good alternative either.

The basic approach proposed via collective licensing is to allow the general public unfettered access to all types of intellectual property, such music, movies and books. One would be allowed to download copyrighted works via BitTorrent, Limewire, and YouTube without worrying about the copyright-owner filing a lawsuit. ISPs would include a collective licensing charge on your monthly Internet connectivity bill, say $10 for movies, $10 for books, and $10 for music, that would be distributed to copyright owners based on what one downloads.

While this may seem like a good idea at first, the approach is fatally flawed…

1 Comment

  1. I personally say more power to Gary. If the band you mentioned wants to earn more money on You Tube, then they should play music that appeals to the demographic. After all, everybody get’s a kick out of watching a fat dude in glasses dance around. I understand that you’re just using them as an example, but I can say that in all honesty I would rather watch ‘Numa Numa Guy’ over and over, than listen to ‘The Arcade Fire’. Also, imagine the fact that Gary doesn’t make T-shirts, have shows, sell albums (aside from a very trivial e-album) thus, there is no doubt in my mind that he makes way less than that terrible band. I would put Gary right up there with that guy that spilled coffee on his crotch, and sued Burger King for 2 million. Simple, yet effective. And now, he’s rich, and we’re not. And I’ll bet you wish you had thought of it first.

    Comment by john — April 15, 2009 #

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.