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.

[internet.news]

It is difficult to organise on the one hand a free service where everybody could
share files and thoughts openly what is important (not only in Kazaa - sharing
your thoughts openly is also important in everydaylife to understand each other better) and on the other hand make it useful or not aggressive to the music industry :(

But you idea is wel and not bad at all: but one question is probably also important:
to buy all the licenses (4million licences for an average 4million users) of all the stuff shared on Kazaa would be really expensive: If you have the money - do it!
It is only good decision for investing you money :) you would get some friends :)

But some other people mention that if everything is on Kazaa, why should I buy
a good CD: On the one hand - for me - I will buy and bought last year a good
cd, to support the artist. Because if the music is good it is worth to support the artist, so HE CAN MAKE FURTHERMORE GOOD MUSIC :)
=> One question here: How great is the percentage the music companies like
Sony get for one sold CD, and how much the percentage each artist gets?
(mail me, if you know it: [email protected])

The other thing why it is worth to buy a cd is the additional info - each cd
has like a small leaflet with a cover - and in some cds there are additional
infos like lyrics or ther interesting good described things :)

and the last thing - if someone wanted to buy music on a cd he or she
has to wait often or sometimes two or three weeks for gettin' the cd when
ordering and if the cd is hard to find :) and not so popular and good sold.
that could be also a reason: If I want to buy the cd NOW and HEAR IT NOW,
but could not buy it IN TIME at AMAZON, or in any shop, only get it on Kazaa
some users will try it where in order to listen to the music :( :) And if the music
companies would make every or nearly every cd available in a short time means
2-3days max. it would be more better :)

So that is what I am thinking now :)
don't worry, these are some of my thoughts I tried to write down :)

thanks anyway, david.

[Faethe]

It is difficult to organise on the one hand a free service where everybody could
share files and thoughts openly what is important (not only in Kazaa - sharing
your thoughts openly is also important in everydaylife to understand each other better) and on the other hand make it useful or not aggressive to the music industry :(

I really understand you not wanting anyone to get hurt out of this - true. I'm not for performing a crusade against people like Weird Al, Alice Cooper, and a bunch of my favs.

What we intend to wage war against is the RIAA, which is a corporation that regulates the flow of cash within the recording industry specificaly. Some RIAA propoganda is that sharing hurts the artists directly. NOT TRUE. What is hurting the artist directly, is that the RIAA is trying to restrict technology, and restrict the invention of new ways to compensate the artists DIRECTLY, outside of itself. If you are an artist, you can sign with Sony, and let the RIAA collect your royalty checks, and then basically make music and sit on your arse. Many do. Or you can do it the old fashioned way, collect royalities from Internet users yourself, sell and market your own stuff, and contribute to new forms of technology that may actually make you more money in the short run than Sony ever could in the long haul.

For more info on this - go directly to the http://eff.org/share. Many many ways are being proposed to compensate artists, directly.


But you idea is wel and not bad at all: but one question is probably also important:
to buy all the licenses (4million licences for an average 4million users) of all the stuff shared on Kazaa would be really expensive: If you have the money - do it!
It is only good decision for investing you money :) you would get some friends :)

A lot of people confuse this. Music is not software. You don't actually own software, you lease it. Thats what the shrinkwrap agreement is inside each box of software you purchase. If you violate the terms of the lease/license, it can actually be revoked. A good way to find this out is to piss off microsoft, which I do not recommend. They have every right to revoke your software and sue you also, if you are using it in such a way that is inconsistent with the license. Of course, what usually happens is they send you a nasty gram instead, like "we understand you are using one copy of Windows Home Edition on every computer in your dorm. Your roomate ratted you out you cheap bastard. Stop it, or Darth Bill will shred all your PRoN. Love, Microsoft."

Music and Movies are not licensed to individually consumers the way software is, and never will be. This is protected under First Use, which a lot of people confuse with Fair Use. Fair use says that you may copy a movie or a CD for personal use, as many times as you like (Home, Car, Work, etc). First Use says where the copyright holders rights end and yours begin. When you purchase a CD or Movie, you own it. You can put it on your head and dance, play it in a device, throw it around the room, show it to your friends. You own it and the media on it. However, you are not supposed to make copies of it just to give to your friends.

But if you and four friends buy one CD, you all own it. You can each make copies for yourselves. Same thing with Movies. But you must all own it jointly.


But some other people mention that if everything is on Kazaa, why should I buy
a good CD: On the one hand - for me - I will buy and bought last year a good
cd, to support the artist. Because if the music is good it is worth to support the artist, so HE CAN MAKE FURTHERMORE GOOD MUSIC :)
=> One question here: How great is the percentage the music companies like
Sony get for one sold CD, and how much the percentage each artist gets?
(mail me, if you know it: [email protected])

I personally prefer th Snapster model because it destroys the RIAA once and for all, and that to me is exceedingly important, and the opportunity has just presented itself - so why not?

Some estimates are that your average recording artist makes .14 cents per CD. A large band makes $1. http://eff.org should have more info for ya.


The other thing why it is worth to buy a cd is the additional info - each cd
has like a small leaflet with a cover - and in some cds there are additional
infos like lyrics or ther interesting good described things :)

Wouldn't you rather just download all this from the artists website directly? Mabye pay a dollar a month and get all the liner notes you want from the band, as they happen? Stuff you can print out? But yeah I see your point about "Album Art" - some of it is quite beautiful...


and the last thing - if someone wanted to buy music on a cd he or she
has to wait often or sometimes two or three weeks for gettin' the cd when
ordering and if the cd is hard to find :) and not so popular and good sold.
that could be also a reason: If I want to buy the cd NOW and HEAR IT NOW,
but could not buy it IN TIME at AMAZON, or in any shop, only get it on Kazaa
some users will try it where in order to listen to the music :( :) And if the music
companies would make every or nearly every cd available in a short time means
2-3days max. it would be more better :)

I think we are going to be getting rid of CDs alltogether. We will have them to burn on, but they take up space if you have a large music collection. How much easier to purchase insane good quality LAME (this is a codec) MP3's, then burn all you want in whatever order you want? NO ONE can argue that Ipod isn't the coolest MP3 storage device on earth. Plus - this would eliminate all this international shite with "this is only released in France on Wednesdays" nonsense. Just give the money to Weird Al directly and have him send you a poster or t-shirt, CD case or whatever he wants for the cash - he possibly makes more money on that than the CDs at any rate.



thanks anyway, david.

Hey - thank God for people like you that question stuff - its the only way things are going to get better :)

[Faethe]

http://walken.us/Fark2/kittens.jpg

[RealitY]

Originally posted by Faethe@27 July 2003 - 13:59
But if you and four friends buy one CD, you all own it. You can each make copies for yourselves. Same thing with Movies. But you must all own it jointly.
There it is in a NUT SHELL for those that didn't read through it.

I like this idea alot, and it make sense.
I imagine it would take only a small amount of users to start this.

[Faethe]

Hey yeah Reality - Like me and my friends in my home network are going to do this. We all have so much music - and Harddrives are really cheap right now - so you get yourself a 160gb drive with a good cache, and just serve it to your friends. We all own this stuff (well a damn ol lot of it anyways) and it is so much easier just to plug a laptop into the s-video port in a TV. That way we can all share movies too.

If this RIAA crap hits the fan, and people start getting major hassled, yeah everyone needs to start looking for alternatives. This is just one, grabbing stuff off digital streams, broadcasts, etc. is another. Anyone with an Ipod is dangerous, as thats 30 gigs you can bring with you over a buddies house, and they are talking about making ipods even bigger, with video capabilities too. It will never die - we just gotta come up with alternatives to smoke 'em with :)