(1) Would the fee be per person, per connection, per household, or ? Would using a "NAT Router" or "Wireless Router" to share to more users or more computers demand a higher fee?


This is a market problem for the collecting society or societies to address. Any collecting society will have to design "products" (i.e., licenses) that will work in the marketplace, a marketplace where people can choose to go unlicensed if they find the alternative too cumbersome. In that environment, it is likely to be more profitable to be accommodating to customers, rather than to rely on expensive enforcement of unenforceable terms (like trying to distinguish a router from a single machine). So long as the products are reasonably priced and convenient to purchase, there should be little incentive for consumer arbitrage (for example, we all have our own telephones, despite the fact that groups could share a single phone with a flat-rate calling plan).

(2) Would a "Licensed User" still have their rights to download music from a friend, roommate, or co-workers computer?


Yes. The whole notion here is that open P2P sharing is inevitable and is better at providing the most diverse selection of music.

(3) How would these collective royalties for music downloaded from "Public" or "Semi-Public" computers that have more than one user (such as a shared office, computer lab, classroom, technology center, library, or similar enviornment)?


Again, this is a market problem for the collecting society(ies) to solve in designing their products. In many cases, it will be more sensible to license an institution (like a university) as a whole, rather than worrying about the exact number of people involved.

(4) Could a "licensed" user be sued for sharing music by using a temporary use connection such as that of a hotel, motel, airport, classrom, docking port, or similar setup on a different subnet with dynamic IP addressing?


It's impossible to imagine how such a course would be the most profitable one for a collecting society. Their profit center is licensing, not enforcement. It makes no sense to try to hunt down temporary users on shared networks -- it makes much more sense to craft a license that the shared network finds irresistible. Again, so long as the license is widely available and sensibly priced, people will have very little incentive to engage in inconvenient forms of arbitrage (like going to the airport to download music for free). We have many forms of "blanket licenses" that succeed despite leaving plenty of room for arbitrage -- think of cable TV, where the cable company doesn't bother monitoring how many people come over to watch TV at your house, or flat rate phone plans, where the phone company doesn't bother monitoring how many people share the line.

(5) What would the "Eligibility" requirements for money from this royalty pool be? Would this eliminate the definitions of amateur and professional? For example, if these categories of groups recorded a song, would they be eligible?


Everyone would be eligible. ASCAP, BMI and SESAC are a telling model -- virtually all songwriters are members, even if they are relatively unknown. As long as the royalties collected (net of costs) exceed zero, you have an incentive to join the collecting society. This will gather together rights holders very quickly and broadly (as it has with the existing PROs).

(6) Assuming some of the people in #5 are eligible, what must the person do to register their work, to begin royalty payments, if they are not signed with a label or publisher? The reason I asked, is if they need their name on file with the people running the royalty pool to get paid, and odviously they must prove originality, and if they are unsigned and eligible, they must do it somehow.


This will be the chief service (other than collection and payment) that the collecting society(ies) provide to the artist/owner side of the equation. There will have to be a dispute resolution mechanism to arbitrate between competing claims to particular performances and compositions. How do PROs handle this now?

(7) How would these payments work in the case of performers and songwriters who are under 18? Would the payments go to the child, their parents, or ? Additionally, would any of these payments violate child labor laws?


Copyrights vest immediately, irrespective of age. So I see no reason why someone under 18 shouldn't be entitled to join a collecting society and collect royalties directly. There are questions that may arise from a minor's inability to enter into enforceable contractual arrangements, but those issues are no different from dealing with minors in every other commercial setting. [I see no likelihood of violating child labor laws, as no children would be working "for" the collecting society.]

(8) How would the tracking system of popularity work, who would insure that it isn't biased (for example, Indie and unsigned bands getting their fair share, too). Additionally, how would you account for computers that get turned off, are behind NAT Routers or Firewalls, and the like?


The white paper postulates the use of several redundant methods of sampling, including monitoring what is being shared (ala Big Champagne), monitoring what is being searched for (ala Clip2, back before Kelly Truelove began working for the MPAA/RIAA), and voluntary behavior monitoring (ala Nielsen). I imagine that the technologies for this will advance rapidly as soon as the collecting society(ies) expand the market for such information. As has been exhaustively discussed on Pho, this kind of blended sampling approach should avoid the difficulties posed by any "census" approach (e.g., invasion of privacy, tech mandates, etc) while doing a much better job reflecting the popularity of less-popular works than the current radio play sampling done by ASCAP or BMI.

I'm eager to hear folks' thoughts about all this! I think much of this will and should evolve on the basis of market realities, but it's important to imagine what it may look like in advance.

Fred Von Lohmann

The EFF White Paper may be found at http://www.eff.org/share/collective_lic_wp.php

I just wish the RIAA would die before all this gets implemented. Even though it would be a good thing for the consumers and independent artists (if implemented the way Fred Von Lohmann envisions) Compulsary Licensing will save the recording industry also. I would rather wait a few years for the RIAA to be buried to collect my 35 cents per month in digital royalties.

The way this is gonna happen, I predict, the record labels are gonna have the lions share of any royalties generated.
I think we should push for ONLY the artists (circle "p" copyright holders) and the songwriters (circle "c" copyright holders) to get any of the money. The labels are RECORD labels. They don't get the royalties from radio airplay, (rightfully so) and they don't deserve any of the royalties from downloads either. The record companys get money from selling records. That's enough of the pie in my book.

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

This makes sense. We obviously cannot support it.

LOL...agree with you George, and also, agree with Shmoo.
Great article Tom!

Great idea. The RIAA members still get paid, ASCAP and BMI still pay the majors and everyone else gets squat (in reality, despite the law, just like now, right George?). Other than stopping the lawsuits what has changed?

I can't articulate it, but there's something I don't like about the compulsory licensing scheme. Maybe licensing is necessary if you are a for-profit company (like the big kazaa, or the corporate napster). But it seems to me that freely sharing software apps (kazaa lite, gnutella) should not have to purchase licenses. Is it that the Big Labels would not go for compulsory licensing if all media forms weren't included? Or for-profit online distributors wouldn't stand for free file sharing options?

I still think free sharing is fair use and I don't like the idea of perpetuating the current licensing model.

Even though I was throughly criticized for predicting that compulsory licensing would be the eventual compromise, I must also mention that performing rights societies are only the lesser of two evils.

George, don't worry, CL will happen, and soon. I predict that, unfortunately, it will happen BEFORE copyright reform. And even more unfortunately, it will take away the pressure to get congress to even bother with copyright reform. THAT is the main reason I am leary of it.
I am all for it otherwise.

Shmoo

i agree with carla too

well the committee on econmic development wavers a lot.. but they seem in favor of the DRM model, which is disconcerting, considering their sit and wait attitude, which would be what wippit does. wippit is a paid service 4.10 a month roughly, that provides drm free music via standard p2p protocols.

Copyright reform will never happen. Too many lobbyists. Even if it did, the RIAA and MPAA would make sure the new copyright system was even worse the the existing one, using every politcal trick they have to convince congress that the media industry will be destroyed otherwise.

CL isn't a good idea. Ive listed the reasons before: International differences leading to legal complexities and conflict with forign copyright holders, resistance from what is essentially a physical-goods industry, too many parties with a claim to the money (music, movies, software, TV, books), etc. Im not saying CL isn't going to be implimented. Just that if it is, its not going to work very well. It might make the RIAAs lawsuits stop, but they would just start terrorising people elsewhere.

I don't want you to be right goldenpi. Copyright reform is desparately needed, but may never happen. And I fear the RIAA will have to much say-so about the details of CL to make it much use to anyone but the RIAA.

Now I'm just getting depressed.

Shmoo

Would you trust the people that created the electronic/computerized voting booth? It's the same problem. It's hard to implement one solution without creating ten future problems. The problem here is a lack a visible machinery. If you look at an old grandfather clock you can see each gear moving to the next gear. Today, you can't see the inside of a computer ticking. Therein lies the problem. Whom are you going to trust. Everybody has an agenda. And usually they get up an hour before everyone else to begin their schemes.

Lastly, you don't really know how many times I've been on your computer/server/router this week tracking your habits.

It's all a house of cards!

that's rather cryptic