P2P file sharing is not only not going away, it has become the primary traffic of the Internet. If I have my way, P2P will be the basis of an entirely new wireless network. Existing network service providers are trying to interfere with this development, such as Comcast’s corruption of BitTorrent, or the recent announcement by AT&T that the time is right for content filtering. But in recent months, the major labels have mostly given up on DRM schemes. No matter what they try, it will not work. We shall overcome.
Since the artist deserves to be paid, and the people will always copy, we must find a way to account for both fairly. Some labels are betting on DRM free music sold through approved outlets and effective policing of P2P, but that’s an entirely futile effort. It also is not acceptable to consider such a popular movement and wide portion of society to be criminals. Users cannot be stopped from copying files, so we must give them a way to pay for what they want while acknowledging that not all files will be paid for.
I suggest that we attach payment information to the file, be it movie, music, or anything at all, so that if the user ever decides to, they will be able to pay for it. Some will pay immediately, some never.
For example, a user might acquire music through P2P services. Their music player reads a tag that provides the payment information, but doesn’t have a key that says it has been paid for. After a few listens, the player prompts the user to purchase the music. The user can accept or decline. If they decline, nothing happens, and after a few more plays they are once again encouraged to pay.
It goes on like this from then on, always reminded that they have not paid but still able to use the file(s). When they opt to pay, they can pay whatever they like – one cent or fifteen or ninety-nine or ten dollars or a thousand. Each person values things differently, and they should not be forced to pay more than they perceive it is worth. While not everyone will pay,many more people will be legally exposed to the work and given the opportunity to support the artist if they feel the artist is worth supporting – a truly democratic, decentralized music distribution that enables every artist, from those just starting out to those on the top of the charts, to get paid for their work from day one.
This not only enables everyone to pay for their music of movies or even apps at any time, it enables the long tail and six degrees for even greater profitability for the artist or whoever – it could just as easy point to an account that distributes to multiple persons. This model also accounts for distribution, so the pressure for artists, actors, and production companies to cooperate with labels and distributors is reduced by necessity. It also empowers artists to be more independent, giving them the ability to grow their audience virally while maintaining the ability to draw revenue from their base.
After a file is paid for, the purchase is recorded by their system and they are no longer asked to pay. However, they can donate more at any time. Say you download a track, listen a few times, and pay a few cents for it – I’d say most songs are worth about $.05-$.25. You really get into it, and download the whole album, paying for more songs as you get into them. After a few months you’ve really gotten into the album, so you donate a few more bucks. In time, it becomes one of your favorites, and you send a few more bucks. There’s no way for an artist to profit from this kind of long-term interest and inherent good will currently except for touring and putting out new material. In my system, this kind of repeated payment of small amounts would likely be common.
None of this would be mandatory – some people will steal even when it’s free – but most people are honest people who will be happy to have a way that lets them both support works they like, while freely obtaining and evaluating new works in an easy and legal way, without making them feel like criminals. Some people will set their system to never prompt them to pay, some people will pay for everything. Such is human nature.
The key on your machine that I have mentioned is nothing more than a flag saying you’ve paid – by not altering the file itself, you ensure that all copies show up as unpaid unless there’s a matched key in your system. This of course can be copied, spoofed, or ignored, but what of it? No one’s checking up on you, so you’re only lying to yourself.
This is the fairest, most universal system I can conceive. It accounts for all natural behaviors in a way that is mutually beneficial and democratic. Users are not presumed to be, nor made into, criminals, and the artists that the public feels should be supported will be, whether they are musicians, actors, directors, writers, producers, or whoever. The artists will get better pay with less work, because less people will be sharing in their pie.
The only losing parties are labels and distributors, but those businesses are not core, and not fundamental to what is being attempted – to create and share art and support the artists. In the evolution of society, some businesses are no longer necessary and must naturally pass by the wayside. The persons who constitute them will find other ways to apply their skills and be productive. In the end, it is not about the industry or the business or the company. It is about the people, and all people must be treated fairly and with respect.
January 15, 2008 at 10:12 pm |
You talk about SYSTEM are you talking about a computer? if so you are suggesting that something is installed on your system to recognise when a payment as been made and is some how recorded against the material its related to.
What about when someone reformats their computer this info would be lost, therefore it would have to be a an account user name tolog in on a website where it could be stored but even that would have to search your computer for what you have to verify that you have paid for it to ensure these annoying pop ups do not keep coming up.
But some people have privacy issues with third party software searching for things on their computer.
What about if someone wants to move the music, movies and burn them to a cd/dvd or put it on their mobile phone or ipod or something, how would this system work there would have to be software on the equipment or cd/dvd.
Companies such as apple currently do not want people to be able to move their purchased music to another NON apple players hence people would LOSE all the music and videos they downloaded and paid for, its the same with all the manufacturers at the moment.
January 16, 2008 at 4:15 am |
Nospam, obviously the system that Chaos is suggesting isn’t flawless, and if it were to actually be implemented, the problems you are bringing up would be addressed. But I think that the fundamental issue is whether or not such steps would address the changing role of technology in copyright law and such–and I think it does. Fixing the specific problems of a solution is important, but developing solutions to the core problem is crucial.
January 16, 2008 at 6:59 am |
I really like this idea – as i had one somewhat close to it awhile back.. The only difference from mine was it didn’t have a pop-up included that kept asking me if i wanted to pay.
If we were to ever get there, i sure hope they’d distribute the stuff in lossless files like FLAC.. Maybe have a few choices.. The thing is, the tags should be able to move from one format to another so if i convert the file to vorbis from flac for a portable player it will still have that buying info tag.
There should be a nice layout “store” so people can easily find and get the music. One that’s similar to iTunes and has a nice High Quality album art download for everyone to get. That way if people want the art embedded or not, they can choose.
Anyways, i really like this choice.. Jamendo is already somewhere around there; which is great, but they still haven’t reached lossless files on the site. Also, the sites not that great, and there’s no set standard for album art size and quality.
Hopefully more people will find this post..
January 16, 2008 at 9:53 am |
You propose a solid plan. What we all have to realize is that in the future music will become increasingly digital and the tangible object (the CD, tape, etc.) will become increasingly marginalized in the future. It’s unreasonable to expect consumers to pay a set price for intangible mp3s when hard drives and computers are so susceptible to failures; your $1000 music library acquired over years of legal downloading may just one day disappear.
To provide a system whereby consumers voluntarily pay for digital music is fitting of the unique circumstances of digital “ownership”. I offer two minor amendments: (1) that artist-suggested song prices are listed, and (2) that links to the artists’ webstores are provided so fans can purchase band merchandise and concert tickets from their media player.
The key is to DE-SYSTEMATIZE the system you provide to make it as free-flowing and consumer-oriented as possible.
Good thoughts!
January 16, 2008 at 6:50 pm |
To address nospam’s points, yes, I would suggest having something installed on your computer that could read the payment tags and link you to a manner of payment, as well as record when you’ve paid – but this would be an open-source component that could be integrated with any other software package, be it your BitTorrent downloader, music player, video player, what have you, not as a stand-alone product (though that also is possible) – in fact, I would suggest this could be integrated into system’s file manager itself but perhaps that’s a silly suggestion.
If someone reformats their machine the keys would be lost, but that’s not really a problem – when you re-download whatever files you want, you can simply tell it to mark them as paid already. It could (and likely would) be as simple as having a third option on the reminder – “Purchase”, “Later”, and “Already Purchased”. You would never require an intermediary (gatekeeper) to search your computer or verify the honesty of your choice. Remember, there’s never a penalty here for not paying, other than perhaps karma, or in your favorite band breaking up because nobody bothers to pay them.
No software would be required to make this system compatible with any sort of file transfer because it’s a “dumb” system, and fully backwards compatible. It is completely neutral to how you use the files or whether you pay for them.
In the end, all I’m really proposing here is that we accept that people will share files, and that people do want to pay for them. The system I describe is to simply attach some simple payment information to each file so you know who to pay and how, and a method of recording what you’ve paid for, for nothing but your own edification.
screamingdefiance is correct in saying that this attempts to address the core problem – that people will always share files, that we have no non-tyrannical or despotic method to ensure people do not share files, and we cannot treat them like criminals for doing something that is inevitable.
The only recourse then is to accept file sharing and take steps to abate it’s negative impacts, the most primary being that there is no reasonable way to pay for the same files while maintaining their utility. This system provides a way to share files without being a criminal, and pay for them without reducing their utility or creating obstacles.
As for Brad’s comments, since this is expected to be direct “artist to consumer” transfer at its origin (consumer to consumer at it’s edges), it will be up to the artist to distribute the file in whatever original format they prefer, hopefully something lossless. The tags themselves would only care who the artist was, and what the song or movie or whatever was – it would be format neutral. If it says you paid for a file, it will understand that includes .mp3 or .flac or .wma or whatever format the file may be found in.
A store, as suggested, would in my imagining be an aggregator like PirateBay or something – the albums or movies are originally posted by the artist or production house, but aggregated at an external site also, and available from any source. We might even imagine using music player with a ’storefront’ (of course, store is a misnomer since you wouldn’t have to purchase anything immediately) that aggregates a wide variety of content, and a built in or external torrent component or program that acquires it for you – say, iTunes with torrents and no requirement to purchase.
I like your amendments, Bunkerstatements. Suggested prices are a good idea, and while I had imagined that the payment info would include their website or store’s address, I hadn’t made that explicit. And yes, the key is to make this a decentralized system that is implemented by the consumer’s own volition on their own machine that doesn’t require any central authority to approve or disprove any actions, only a standard protocol for communication and interpretation of the tags and files.
Thanks everyone for your comments!
January 18, 2008 at 2:01 am |
Here’s the problem. If I want to listen to music or audio it has to play through a speaker of some type. With good enough equipment you can rip right out of whatever port you’re playing the music. Then these files get out for free. There really is no good way to stop it.
June 19, 2008 at 12:04 am |
every industry head needs to take a lesson or two from trent reznor of Nine inch nails. look into how he released the latest album. Entirely free on the bands website, a physical copy of the cd is released in the following months with bonus content. (do not refer to radiohead’s release of in rainbows, as it is a rip off of the same idea, but they have confirmed they wont do it again, most likely because they didnt squeeze the money they wanted out of it.)
being prompted to pay for a song whether it is mandatory or not would be annoying to be honest.