More on the flatrate models

[Rave]

So if you aren't doing your 'job' well, and you haven't registered, your money should go unproportionally to the people who do register?

[Florian Hufsky]

the fact alone that this probably is the only solution that'll get broad acceptance is overwhelming.

[Aloa5]

So if you aren't doing your 'job' well, and you haven't registered, your money should go unproportionally to the people who do register?

Yes. Thats buiseness - isn´t it ? If you want to make money without copyright - what would you have to do ? Just the same: looking on wich way you can get some.

Even when it´s known that you can get money out of a flat without an industry between - just register.......isn´t this a way to lower the might of the industry ? Would not the one or the other going to register and have a look if this works without industry ?

It is a roundabout and a chance for direct marketing and selling. A download IS selling. Without great efforts of pressing CD´s, great marketing and so on you could get some money to start a own career (if you are good enough).

[Rave]

What about all the music that is owned by the labels? If an artist has sold away all of their rights then they don't have them any more and whatever they get will be whatever royalties the labels who own the music decide to give them. You can't circumvent a contract. Most of the money for music in a system like this goes to record labels. If you want it to go to the artists then you have to change other laws first. And I doubt it's possible to pass a law saying what terms a contract is allowed to specify and what it's not.

[Florian Hufsky]

that problem is unrelated to the flatrate model ;9

[Aloa5]

As far as I know no Label owns a track of music. The musicians had just selled the exclusive rights to the labels to make money out of it.

It´s not a great deal just to say that only an artis himself can get something out of a flat. You would not have to change the law - just make the new precise enough.

No one can prevent an artist from giving money to labels. But you can change the system so that you are able to make money without the labels.

Let´s make the money go other ways.
Our times:
consumer -> 1,8 Billion Euro MI Germany -> X Million to artists

Later (perhaps):
consumer -> 1,2 Billion MI -> X Million artists AND
consumer -> 600 Million artists -> X Million MI

The less money can be made out of CD´s and so on the less the MI can make out of it. Flatrate stays still and the artists can pay money for PR and good studio-working to the MI. That´s what they should do originally.

An artist can sell his "soul" to the MI before - or he can try it with P2P and flatrate to make it himself.


ALOA

[Svamp]

I disagree.

First, you're making an assumption that creators must have money. This is far from the truth. Have you ever created something from the joy out of it? Or maybe simply to be praised for it? For fame? Creation is about more than money, it is also about joy.

How many musicians do you think make a living only on their craft today?

Second, I disagree with the view on voluntary support. People want to support the artists they like. I want to, you want to, others want to. I don't need to pay a flat rate to do that.

There are still many ways to sell a service. Live music, cinema, service contracts, merchandising, signed CDs, subscriptions and the more abstract: future creations and the ability to affect. Yes; the promise of future creations will make people invest money. It's just not very pronounced today due to the existing systems. But you can see the beginnings on some sites and free software projects - people donate money out of gratitude and because they support the continued development. I have seen some sites that fund their hosting fees on donations.

As for the flat rate, I don't think that the content providers will agree that a few dinky euros is enough. They'll want more. You won't be able to just put a low level and assume they'll be satisfied because it's a "compromise".

It's not the artists you'll be dealing with. The party you'll be dealing with will be the media industry, they are the ones that hold the power. Just look at all the legislation they are putting through the system, who is really writing the laws here? The media industry won't like your compromise at all. They'll see it as a threat. Again, who do you think holds the power, who has the money here?

Last, the system is still unfeasible. I'll illustrate yet another reason.

Say your casual creator registers a song he has made. How much money will he get for it? Two parts of the equation is the amount of downloads and the total amount of money to distribute, of course. The other parts of the equation are the hard parts.

Does the length matter? Does a longer song deserve more money? If not, you will discourage creators from making long songs. Why put in that extra work if you'll get as much money for a shorter song? And reversed: if a longer song does get more money, you will encourage longer songs.

Do all video clips get as much money? If length is no matter, do you realise what this would mean for movies? A measly "funny clip" that's one minute long will get as much money as a two-hour masterpiece movie! And if you decide to give more money for length, the funny-clip maker could just add empty padding to his files so his clips are longer!

These two examples illustrate a fundamental property of a compensation system. A compensation system will inevitably make decisions, it will inevitably put values on creations. A compensation system will shape art whether you want it or not.

Voluntary payings and above mentioned ways are the way of not accepting the worth of this services

A compensation system is the way of defining the worth of the creations. Who are you to decide the worth of creations?

A compensation system will not create money, the same amount of money will still be circling around. I want to give the choice to the common man, not put it at the hands of a monolithic system.

[Rave]

Well said, Svamp. I agree with all of those points.

As far as I know no Label owns a track of music. The musicians had just selled the exclusive rights to the labels to make money out of it.

Selling exclusive right permanently as part of your contract results in 'ownership' of the creation by the label. If you sell all of the rights then what do you have left? Nothing.

[Aloa5]

First, you're making an assumption that creators must have money. This is far from the truth. Have you ever created something from the joy out of it? Or maybe simply to be praised for it? For fame? Creation is about more than money, it is also about joy.

You just simplify things.

"creating"
- music
- software (games, learning)
- books
- newspaper

Ever looked in the past ? Before any copyright ? Coding two years a game - for joy ? Writing months on a book - only for honor ?

Life is so easy to describe.

How many musicians do you think make a living only on their craft today?

And how many programmers - and book-writers , I know. And THATS a reason - I see.
And because of that: no problem at all. You can not make a living out of it ? So you need not the litte money at all.
Nice.

Life is so simple.

Second, I disagree with the view on voluntary support. People want to support the artists they like. I want to, you want to, others want to. I don't need to pay a flat rate to do that.

Really great.
(german - Floh can read it): http://oe1.orf.at/highlights/65794.html

John Buckman, founding magnatune in 2003, says that one of 42 downloading from his side albums is paying voluntary ( 2,5% ). And I would say that people look there for music, wich really like free music and this model/idea - not the mainstream. The percentage would crash. And no word about the costs of "professional" music-creations.

And no word about books in a digital future. And no word about software-developing.

Easy and simple ?

the promise of future creations will make people invest money. It's just not very pronounced today due to the existing systems. But you can see the beginnings on some sites and free software projects - people donate money out of gratitude and because they support the continued development. I have seen some sites that fund their hosting fees on donations.

I saw them too - you see it above.

They will invest - and sign CD´s when no CD´s will exist in the digital future.


Yes I think, that creaters have to get money. It is unworthy to say NO to that but wanting to benefit from it. That is lowest level of social thinking.

We don´t have to pay people wich are helping the mothers and grandpa´s at home - surgery. We don´t have to pay people looking after their childs. ....it was all done at every time for honor and joy and was never paid. Why should we ever think about it !

A great future - and a great society! And no word about economy and quality.

ALOA

[Ole Husgaard]

First, you're making an assumption that creators must have money. This is far from the truth. Have you ever created something from the joy out of it? Or maybe simply to be praised for it? For fame? Creation is about more than money, it is also about joy.

You just simplify things.

I hear this argument a lot when I discuss with copyright apologists. They seem to like the fact that the details of copyright law are so complicated that most people cannot understand it, and often try to make the discussion more complicated to tear down their opponent's arguments or make it appear as if they do not understand.

But copyright doesn't has to be so complicated.

Originally it wasn't. The reason it has become so complicated is because again and again it has been nessesary to patch the copyright system to keep it running when new disruptive technologies are invented.

I see the flat rate we discuss here as just another attempt to patch a non-working copyright system. It won't do the fundamental repair that the copyright system really needs.

[Florian Hufsky]

Could you open another thread with your views on the fundamental repair the copyright needs? i'd really like to hear about it.

though i still think that the only realistic way to achieve our goals is a step-by-step approach. and a flatrate seems like the way that'd get the most consenus by all involved parties (artists, industry, pirates).

[Svamp]

the fact alone that this probably is the only solution that'll get broad acceptance is overwhelming.

Don't make assumptions like that. Look at the Swedish PP, we have always been against flat rate, broadband taxes etc and we gained 0,63% in the general election on nine months! Just give us another four years.

[Florian Hufsky]

even if the pirates get 4-6% on an european level we need other parties to support our cause.

[Aloa5]

But copyright doesn't has to be so complicated.

I think that we have a great misanderstanding here. Not the copyright law is difficult.


But nearly always when I read about "no copyright - no restrictions - no flatrate" I see someone talking about music.

Nothing about economy theories and a complete umbrella around brain-services. I don´t see a concept for all but very inconsistent statements wich come to an end when remarked one problem after the other - - ending in the same way "it´s not that complicated but you are just not believing".

I believe in facts and nothing else counts. As in every section of economy and society we talk about a lot of people wich are involved. I will never make any experiments with lifes of others - and even less when the argumentation is "believe me, it´s all easy" .

Even "encryption and time-of-live-counter" for software to justify "NO" ? (even this means DRM - I didn´t understood this point - perhaps someone can help me)

There are a lot of holes in the argumentation. And inconsistence is a sign of going in a wrong way. Economically and (whats worse) socially.

Greetz
ALOA

[Svamp]

You just simplify things.

"creating"
- music
- software (games, learning)
- books
- newspaper

Ever looked in the past ? Before any copyright ? Coding two years a game - for joy ? Writing months on a book - only for honor ?

Life is so easy to describe.

You simplify things. I merely said that creation is about more than money. People do not just create to fill their pockets or in a hope to get rich. Many create and share for free.

I have looked at the past. I guess we didn't have music, art or books before copyright. Right?

That aside, we're not advocating abolished copyright. We're advocating a weakened copyright, with free private copying. There are still many ways to earn money with a weakened copyright.

And how many programmers - and book-writers , I know. And THATS a reason - I see.
And because of that: no problem at all. You can not make a living out of it ? So you need not the litte money at all.
Nice.

Life is so simple.

Oh yes, life is so simple when you can respond to arguments by rolling your eyes. Keep your sanctimonious attitude to yourself.

If you're claiming the money in your flatrate to be "little", you're pretty much saying it won't make much of a difference anyway. What's the bloody point then?

Really great.
(german - Floh can read it): http://oe1.orf.at/highlights/65794.html

John Buckman, founding magnatune in 2003, says that one of 42 downloading from his side albums is paying voluntary ( 2,5% ). And I would say that people look there for music, wich really like free music and this model/idea - not the mainstream. The percentage would crash. And no word about the costs of "professional" music-creations.

And no word about books in a digital future. And no word about software-developing.

Easy and simple ?

2.5% is not nearly as bad as you make it sound. This means that for 42 listeners, you have one who buys the music. Maybe some of them hated the music, some didn't want to listen to it twice, some didn't regard it as worth the money. Maybe many of these are students or from other low-income groups. How big percentage of radio listeners do you think buy the song they hear? How big percentage would he get from one CD if he signed with a record label?

Also, this is a very new business model. When people understand it more, they may become more willing to spend money. The public is still very ignorant to the new opportunities, 1 in 42 is very fine if enough people would try it out. This is just the beginning.

Copying is free. It doesn't matter if it is only one person in a hundred that buys after listening, since one person could download a hundred albums in one day. She won't have any more money to spend just because she listens to more music. The same amount of money is still going around, a reformed copyright will just change the distribution. The same amount of money is still going around, only with a weakened copyright people get the choice and the power to direct the money to what they want to support. This would be the end of today's record industry. This is the possibility for massively more support for creators directly.

Music has never been as cheap to produce as it is today. One person with a computer can do it! This would only be possible with very expensive equipment in the past.

As for "words" on books and software development, they're not fundamentally different. I've already covered these to some extent. Software has an advantage in that they can sell upgrades to the software, not only new issues, and they can sell more direct services.

I saw them too - you see it above.

They will invest - and sign CD´s when no CD´s will exist in the digital future.


Yes I think, that creaters have to get money. It is unworthy to say NO to that but wanting to benefit from it. That is lowest level of social thinking.

We don´t have to pay people wich are helping the mothers and grandpa´s at home - surgery. We don´t have to pay people looking after their childs. ....it was all done at every time for honor and joy and was never paid. Why should we ever think about it !

A great future - and a great society! And no word about economy and quality.

And all your grand proclamations are resting on the assumption that a compensation system is viable. I notice you've conveniently ignored my very condemning argument against compensation systems in the previous post, I'd hoped you'd realised the inherent problems with such a system.

I see a future where more control is given to the individual instead of being in the hands of corporations, organisations, governments or some system. I see a future where the distinction between producer and consumer fades away, where everyone creates and shares. I see a future where knowledge and culture is more free, and becomes richer for it. I see a more democratized future.