Making P2P Pay Artists
Online music distribution is here to stay. And although it presents a challenge to old business models, artists and copyright holders can make a living with these new technologies. Online distribution lowers costs and increases exposure; all that is needed are new ways for music lovers to support and pay the artists they love.
Below are short descriptions of several potential payment methods, with links to detailed analyses and examples. To simplify these descriptions, we use an economic metaphor: imagine all the dollars spent on music as a large pie. Until recently, each artist or copyright holder's slice of the pie was defined by the number of copies of physical recordings sold primarily through retail outlets. With the advent of high-quality, low-bandwidth digital recordings, slicing the pie becomes much more interesting - and potentially more rewarding for artists, copyright holders, and consumers alike.
The key is finding a new system for music lovers to compensate artists and copyright holders.
Voluntary Collective Licensing
It sounds obvious: major labels could get together and offer fair, non-discriminatory license terms for their music. This is called "voluntary collective licensing," and it has been keeping radio legal and getting songwriters paid for 70 years. It protects stations from lawsuits while collecting payment for the songs they play.
The record companies could solve the payment problem tomorrow, without changing any laws. Napster asked them to do it in 2001. Kazaa has also tried to get licenses in the past. Both requests were rejected by the major labels at the time, but it's not too late to start the dialogue.
Individual Compulsory Licenses
If artists, songwriters, and copyright holders were required to permit
online copying in return for government-specified fees, companies
could compete to painlessly collect these fees, do the accounting, and
remit them to the artists. The payment to each artist need not
directly reflect what each consumer pays, as long as the total across
all artists and all consumers balances.
Anyone could start such an intermediary company. Some companies might
charge a flat rate per month, some might charge per song or per
bandwidth, some might offer a single lifetime payment. Consumers
would have the option to sign up with whichever of these services was
most convenient or least intrusive for them. Consumers who don't
download music, or don't mind the risk of a lawsuit, would not be
required to buy a license.
Ad Revenue Sharing
Sites like the Internet Underground Music Archive, EMusic.com, and Artistdirect.com provide an online space for fans to listen to music streams, download files, and interact with artists. In the meantime, these fans are viewing advertisements on the site, and the revenues are split between the site and the copyright holders.
Like radio, the money that funds the pie comes from advertisers, not consumers. But unlike radio, artists are rewarded directly. And since these sites often host a page for member artists, other payment methods are possible at the same time. IUMA, for example, compensates artists for both ad views and song downloads.
P2P Subscriptions
P2P software vendors could start charging for their service. Music lovers could pay a flat fee for the software or pay per downloaded song. The funds could be distributed to artists and copyright holders through licensing agreements with studios and labels or through a compulsory license. In 2001, Napster and Bertelsmann AG were considering such a subscription service. Although Napster's legal battles with the recording industry removed it from the playing field, recent attempts at a subscription service (such as Apple's iTunes Music Store) show that consumers are willing to pay for downloaded music.
Digital Patronage and Online Tipping
Direct contribution from music lovers is a very old form of artist
compensation, ranging from a simple passing of the hat to the famed
patronage of Florence's Medici family. As content has moved to
digital form, so has the form of payment. With an online tip jar such
as the Amazon Honor System, artists can ask for donations directly
from their websites, in amounts as small as one dollar. Patronage
sites such as MusicLink have
also emerged, which allow consumers to seek out the musicians and
songwriters they'd like to support. Either way, consumers are given
an easy, secure method to give directly to the artists they admire.
Microrefunds
As a twist on online tip jars, Brad Templeton introduced the
interesting idea of making "opt-out" the default for paying for
copyrighted works. The system, called "microrefunds,"
would collect small fees for each copyrighted work accessed and total
them into a monthly bill. Upon reviewing the bill, charges that seemed
too high or were for songs the consumer did not enjoy could be revoked.
Instead of making a purchasing decision every time they want to
hear a song, consumers could review their charges periodically. The
billing could fit into a P2P subscription system, or as part of a
music service such as the iTunes Music Store.
Bandwidth Levies
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. The latter model would, however, charge people
whether or not they download music.
Media Tariffs
Another place to generate revenue is on the media that people use
to store music, also known as a "media
tariff." Canada and Germany tax all recordable CDs and then
distribute the funds to artists. In the U.S., we have royalty-paid
recordable CDs and data CDs. It's difficult to pay artists
accurately with this system alone, but other data (statistics from P2P
nets, for instance) could be used to make the disbursement of funds
more fair.
Concerts
Tried and true, concerts are a huge
source of revenue for musicians. Some, like the Grateful Dead and
Phish, have built careers around touring while encouraging fans to
tape and trade their music. P2P dovetails into this model nicely,
providing a distribution and promotion system for bands who choose to
make money on the road.
Conclusion
There are many options available to make sure that artists receive fair compensation for their creativity. Today, convoluted and outdated copyright law is being used to claim that 60 million Americans are criminals. It's time to look seriously at the alternatives and start a dialogue with Congress to bring copyright law in tune with the digital age. Click here to read more about making P2P legal.
Links:
- Join EFF
- Making P2P Legal
- Making P2P Pay Artists
- Read more about the Morpheus case
- Ask Congress for public hearings on P2P
- Full page ad. For a print quality size TIFF please e-mail ren@eff.org
- Stealing and Sharing by Jessica Litman
- Send this page to a friend
Media Coverage:
- Recording Industry Withdraws Music Sharing Lawsuit (Sept. 24, 2003)
- File sharing must be made legal (Sept. 12, 2003)
- 'Amnesty' for Music File Sharing Is a Sham (Sept. 10, 2003)
- Why the RIAA's "Amnesty" Offer is a Sham (Sept. 9, 2003)
- Recording Industry Announces Lawsuits Against Music Sharers (Sept. 8, 2003)
- Recording Industry Plans "Amnesty" for Music Sharers (Sept. 5, 2003)
|