Why Not Turn Kazza Into A Snapster? Legally

[Faethe]

This is all from an article posted here

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030724.html

It's LEGAL.

Theory -

1. Kazaalite becomes a corporation with the intent of securing music/movies/multiple user apps for its shareholders

2. Kazaalite then goes forward and purchases (or accepts donations) of everything there is - all the CD'S/DVD's currently in (or out of print). Ownership of said lawfully owned "library" rest souly in Kazaalite - which is a PUBLIC corporation (meaning controlled by its shareholders, which own the corporation).

3. Kazaalite then sets up a network to allow persons, on a closed network, to download from this library, which they own, and therefore may copy, for themselves.

Now - the article suggest that there be a fee of .05 per song or .50 per CD charged in order to maintain the network, and compensate the corporation for services (ie - the tip jar everyone has now for kazaalite).

Stocks can be sold for as little as .01 - but you must own shares in the corporation that owns the material you are downloading.

It is also advisible to keep a large portion of revenues (40%) back for legal. This is currently legal. There is no limit to how many people can own one CD, or Movie - but you must own it. By owning stocks in a corporation that owns the CD - you in effect DO OWN IT and are entitled to copy it for your personal use (movies and multi user apps as well).

As for compensating artists, this is NOT REQUIRED by this strategy - however - a virtual tip jar can be established souly for the artists - that BYPASSES the RIAA and is sent directly to whomever you wish. Ergo - if all of Linkin Parks copyrights are owned by Sony - Fark Sony - send the money to Linkin Park directly - or award Linkin Park Shares in the "Music Fund" which they then can trade or hang onto as long as they like.

So what do you think?

[aserty]

If this happened, what is your prediction on the future of artisits? If they have little or no money (which is what the "tips" would give them) why do they have reason to keep producing?

[J'Pol]

I prefer to keep "stealing", but thanks for the obvious effort you put into this idea.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by aserty@26 July 2003 - 19:55
If this happened, what is your prediction on the future of artisits? If they have little or no money (which is what the "tips" would give them) why do they have reason to keep producing?

Well artist make a small amount of their money via sales of CD's, of course they have touring, advertising and merchandising, which for many artist is the bulk of their income.

As for the idea, not bad if so...
GET TO WORK.

[harrycary]

Yep, touring and merchandising.

It's common knowledge that is where artists truly make money.

I believe all music should be downloaded and burned by individuals for some sort of small fee. It certainly sounds reasonable. But sadly, the existing record companies don't want to give up their huge share of pre-recorded music sales.

I say let the artists tour and actually work for a living.

Maybe that would weed out the crappy artists that some of these companies are marketing to us.

[Faethe]

I would have absolutley no idea where to start with all this. I am flying this past the EFF - hopefully they will respond back, as to whether it is all feasible or not. Moreover - it does prove that there are other ways to do this while staying inside the law. So if all this goes south in a big way for some reason, and the RIAA prevails, then we CAN do something like this, and keep filesharing alive.

As the article states, if the p2p people did migrate into a Snapster, it would kill the RIAA within a year, making it the dominant distibutor for music.

As for the artists - look , its all over anyway. Other ways to compensate them are going to have to be found. The RIAA groups really do hold a lot of hands (and even more balls) and walk them through everything, marketing, distribution, airplay, accounting, etc. In exchange the RIAA groups take most of their profits.

They are going to have to learn how to take care of themselves, or form small co-operatives with other musicians (just like they did before MOTOWN and Sony, Sun, etc.) to pool equipment, marketing, etc. We can 'award' them shares in a Snapster, we can give them the earnings from the tip jar, or we can try to get a tarrif on blank media passed (just like there is in Canada) that goes directly to them.

I think in Canada the artists may possibly get more from the sale of blank media, than they do from their labels (per CD) now anyway. Does anyone know how much they make?

*************

BTW - Reality - if you want me to investigate something likethis for Kazaalite - just e-mail me and wwe can chat about it no problem

[balamm]

Let's not even start with the CD tax again. I spend a minimum $400 a year on blank CD's and have probably burned 3 as music CD's. The rest are all software backup copies and data only.
Why the hell should I continue to support Anne Murray and Celine Dion year after year. I don't even like most Canadian music. And I'm pretty sure if it weren't for the CBC and constant tax handouts, the music might have been of a slightly higher caliber anyway.

[Faethe]

Well sure - there is that - but there are people who like Celine Dion and friends (I am NOT one of them). But there are MANY ways to compensate artists, bandwidth levies, fees from ISP's - eff.org has many ways to go about it.

wizard x just posted this on FARK

Instead of realizing that the industry is changing, they attempted to cling to a nearly 100-year-old business model, and to use litigation to stop a societal shift. It's hasn't worked, it will not work, it would never work. This isn't just about the morality of copyright violation, it's about the whole of western society sliding slowly towards a digital commerce model where non-consumable products are transmitted in electronic form.

I think this sums up the whole problem nicely.

[RealitY]

Nice to see another reader of the EFF, also I agree..

Several people have nominated ISPs as collection points for P2P. Every Internet user gets web access from an ISP, and most have a regular financial relationship with one as well. In exchange for protection from lawsuits, ISPs could sell "licensed" accounts (at an extra charge) to P2P users. Alternatively, they could charge everyone a smaller fee and give their customers blanket protection.

This is one of the best solutions and is directly related to what were doing or not.
Besides I have stated I am willing to pay a small extra monthly fee in order to put this to an end, compinsate the artist, stop the kaos, and have a little piece of mind.

That's REALITY

[Faethe]

If any of you like this idea - I am running this past EFF to see what they think. Please, run your own ideas past them as well. The whole point of Cringely's article is to get people started thinking laterally, as in if this does not work out with with the current challenges, this is a way to survive, and establish something new that is legal and will not go the way of Napster. I loved Napster, and made a lot of friends there, and will do everything in my power to ensure that a great network like that does not go down again.