When people ask me about how to resolve the conflicts over filesharing I usually bring up Voluntary Collective Licensing.
The EFF has a great writeup here: http://www.eff.org/share/collective_lic_wp.php F On 3/29/07, Nelson Pavlosky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What I've told people in the past is that we believe that filesharing should be legal / not prosecuted, but that we must also find ways to fund art in a file-sharing-friendly world. Filesharing should be legal because it is an invaluable resource. I see no reason why physical libraries should be legal and filesharing shouldn't... the p2p networks hold oodles of content that is hard or impossible to find on the market, out of print and censored material, weird indie music that your local box store doesn't sell. A good p2p network is a massively distributed library of Alexandria, where you can find everything ever created by man (as opposed to the limited selection of the iTunes music store for instance), and it's a crime to destroy it. Surely in order to become a good artist you need access to large amounts of diverse art, and p2p can provide that to a degree that no music store can match. Although filesharing can aid the cause of art/music in innumerable ways (including encouraging/educating future artists by giving them access to a wide breadth of material, and providing exposure for artists that aren't in the top 40, etc.), it may have a negative impact on record sales and thereby reduce the profits of artists (although some studies dispute whether there is indeed a negative impact, and most artists don't make any money from CD sales anyway b/c of rotten deals with their labels). Fortunately, there are a number of ways that the industry could adapt to a post-filesharing world, if it were so inclined. Record labels like Magnatune already have interesting business models that allow for filesharing of their music, releasing songs under CC licenses. Collective licensing agencies could license filesharing the way that they license radio, allowing each user to pay a flat fee (perhaps through their ISP) and then share to their heart's content... this could be voluntary if the industry got a clue, or through government intervention. The real problem is that the media corporations enjoy having a monopoly on distribution, and they don't like the decentralized distribution on p2p networks which they cannot control. It's about control, not money, although one does lead to the other. Peace, ~Nelson Pavlosky~ Co-founder, FreeCulture.org Frank Morton-Park wrote: > There's a copyright/RIAA discussion panel tonight for students at Reed > College, and I've been asked to represent the Free Culture chapter here. > > After reading this, I think it may be a good idea to ask all of you what > I've been asking the members here: What should we tell the students > about the new RIAA situation, given from a Free Culture standpoint? > What's our national stance? > > I'd also like to bring up the "open letter to universities" but am not > sure if this would be the right setting. > > Thanks, > Frank Morton-Park > Reed Free Culture > > Fred Benenson wrote: > >> On 3/29/07, *Crosbie Fitch* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> >> At this university X: >> >> 1) No students shall be decimated for RIAA's pleasure. >> >> >> I'm not sure you mean decimated -- unless you mean reduced into 10ths. >> >> 2) All students will assert culpable use of any individual student's >> account >> at any specific time. >> >> >> Does this mean ratting out your roommate if they're filesharing? >> >> 3) No student is permitted to make any monetary settlement, nor is the >> university permitted to do so on their behalf. >> >> >> I think if a student goes against the RIAA they should be entitled to >> attorneys fees, at least, and certainly punitive damages if the RIAA has >> fraudulently filed suit against them. >> >> 4) Any court action must apply to all students as a whole or none at >> all. >> >> >> This is an interesting position, but unless the university is allowed to >> "forget" which user is attached to what IP, I doubt this would fly in >> court. >> >> 5) All students hold that since no-one has yet been found guilty of >> copyright infringement for 'file-sharing' or 'making available', all >> offers >> of monetary settlement in lieu of court action constitute extortion. >> >> >> I have no problem calling it extortion. >> >> >> I dig your intention, but I think there are specific demands we can >> start making at our universities about how they deal with the RIAA's >> threats. Namely refusing to forward the insta-settlements, not logging >> IP addresses, and generally making the RIAA go through the normal legal >> procedures of serving notice and allowing students to defend themselves. >> Right now, after the university denies to forward the insta-settlement >> notices, the RIAA goes ahead and files multiple ex-parte John Doe suits >> and then offers a larger settlement after the court has decided against >> the student without them being present. >> >> Ray Beckerman has a good open letter explaining this here: >> >> http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/03/open-letter-to-universities-whose.html >> < http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/03/open-letter-to-universities-whose.html > >> >> I'd be interested in endorsing, even using this letter, as part of a >> campaign across our chapters. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> Fred Benenson >> President, Free Culture @ NYU >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> <http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> The content of this email message is licensed under a Creative Commons >> Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License, Some Rights Reserved. >> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-- The content of this email message is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License, Some Rights Reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
