The Sharing Society

[Kooperman]

From the NY Times 9-14-03


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 14, 2003
THE SHARING SOCIETY
Whatever Will Be Will Be Free on the Internet
By STEVE LOHR


THE recording industry's long-running battle against online music piracy has come to resemble one of those whack-a-mole arcade games, where the player hammers one rubber rodent's head with a mallet only to see another pop up nearby. Conk one, and up pops another, and so on.

Three years ago, the music industry sued Napster, the first popular music file-sharing network on the Internet. That sent Napster reeling, but other networks for trading copyrighted music — KaZaA, Grokster, Morpheus and others — sprang up. Last week, in the latest swing of the hammer, the Recording Industry Association of America filed 261 lawsuits against individual file sharers, which will surely make some of their estimated 60 million compatriots think twice — for now. Earth Station Five, a company based in the West Bank, surfaced recently with claims of being at war with the industry association. It promises the latest in anonymous Internet file sharing. Its motto: "Resistance is futile."

Since Gutenberg's printing press, new technologies for creating, copying and distributing information have eroded the power of the people, or industries, in control of various media. In the last century, the pattern held true, for example, when recorded music became popular in the early 1900's, radio in the 1920's and cable television in recent years.

But the heritage and design of the Internet present a particularly disruptive technology. Today's global network had its origins in the research culture of academia with its ethos of freely sharing information. And by design, the Internet turns every user in every living room into a mass distributor of just about anything that can be digitized, including film, photography, the written word and, of course, music. Already, Hollywood is trying to curb the next frontier, film swapping. The inevitable advance of technology will make reading on digital tablets more convenient than reading on paper, so the publishers of books, magazines and newspapers have their worries as well. "Nobody is immune," observed Michael J. Wolf, managing partner in charge of the media practice at McKinsey & Company, a consulting firm.

"The cultural and technical principle embedded in today's Internet is that it is neutral in the sense that the people who use it have the power to determine its use, not corporations or the network operators," said Jonathan Zittrain, a co-director of the Berkman Center for the Internet and Society at the Harvard Law School. "The plan for the Internet was to have no plan."

The Net's free-range design, combined with the global proliferation of personal computing and low-cost communications networks, laid the foundation for the surge of innovation and new uses that became so evident by the late 1990's. The World Wide Web is the overarching example, but others include instant messaging, online gaming and peer-to-peer file sharing. And while companies are free to build proprietary products and services in cyberspace, the basic software and communications technology of the Internet lies in the public domain — open for all to use.

It was inevitable, then, that the Internet would eventually force a radical rethinking of intellectual property rights, and the music industry's current travails represent a particularly dramatic example of the mutating rules — though not the only one. Consider, for example, the rise of so-called open-source software. The poster child of open-source projects is GNU Linux, an operating system whose computer code is distributed freely over the Internet and is maintained and debugged by a loose-knit global community of programmers. Linux has become a genuine challenge to Microsoft because programmers around the world can see and modify the underlying source code — instead of jealously guarding it as a trade secret.

That concept of open-source is inseparable from the Internet, because it provides the vehicle for free exchange and widespread distribution — the same idea that is at the heart of file sharing and one that is spreading well beyond the techies. A group, led by Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Stanford Law School, has established a "creative commons" project for collecting and putting creative works including music, film, photography and literature in the public domain, inspired by the open-source software model.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is posting the content of 500 of its courses online this fall, a project called OpenCourseWare. In Britain, a small group of artists and editors has set up a Web site for Jenny Everywhere, an increasingly popular open-source cartoon. Its only requirement is that any "Jenny" cartoon include its license, which states "others may use this property as they wish. All rights reversed."

What all this means for the future of intellectual property, and some businesses, is as unpredictable as the open-source revolution itself. In the music business, it seems remarkable that only a few believe the technology cannot be held in check.

One of those few is David Bowie. "I'm fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years, and authorship and intellectual property is in for such a bashing," Mr. Bowie said in an interview last year. The future of the music industry, he suggests, is that songs are essentially advertisements and artists will have to make a living by performing on tour.

Others fear that, as the futility of technological fixes becomes clearer, the response may be onerous legal restrictions on the Internet and how people use it. "You don't want to break the kneecaps of the Internet to protect one relatively small industry, the recording business," Mr. Lessig, the Stanford professor, said.

William Fisher, a Harvard law professor, offers a solution for the recording industry's Internet challenge, and one that borrows from the past. When radio became popular in the 1920's and 1930's and began broadcasting copyrighted songs, the record companies, singers and bands protested. The answer was to have the radio stations pay the copyright holders and set up a measuring system so the largest payments went for the most popular songs.

In a book to be published next year, Mr. Fisher recommends placing a 15 percent tax on Internet access and a 15 percent tax on devices used for storing and copying music and movies like CD-burners, MP3 players and blank CD's.

The funds raised, he estimates, would be about $2.5 billion in 2004, roughly the projected amount the recording industry and Hollywood would lose to online piracy. The music business and Hollywood would get refunds based on what works were the most popular downloads.

"It's not perfect," Mr. Fisher admitted.

Still, it does represent what is not much in evidence today — some sort of middle ground that would compensate rights holders but also move with the march of technology and consumer behavior instead of merely trying to fight it.

"With music file sharing, you have a cultural norm that is being established by what is technologically possible," said Daniel Weitzner, a director at the World Wide Web Consortium. "That is very hard to resist."

[shawners]

15 percent tax??7.48 a month for me, times 12.
90 dollars. I infact rather buy 90 dollars in music cd's. Plus cd-r sales go to the recording industry. Sony cd burner and dvd players go back to sony recording too, same company, different departments. Maybe UNIVERSAL cd burner be a good change=)

[Kooperman]

In the article, David Bowie is right.....their recorded work will be advertisements for their live shows. The record industry, through "creative accounting" has been stealing their royalties anyway......and if new artists or mid-range artists complain about it, they get blackballed by the industry.

[jonnymnemonic]

That's the solution I see evolving, myself. Of course, as more and more is exchanged over the net, the taxes will need to go higher and higher to compensate. We in the U.S. may soon be deciding between universal medical care and "free" music. With all the trillions of dollars in tax cuts the Republicans have pushed through (go rich people! go big business! yeah, right), the bank account is looking mighty empty.

In fact, here's an interesting statistic I read. The congressional budget office predicts deficits and surpluses. Since Bush became president, the CBO (congressional budget office) has shown a decline in that amount (from a massive surplus to a massive deficit) that is SO LARGE that the decline, all by itself, is as much money as ALL the money the U.S. government took in *combined* from 1789 to 1989. Yikes! (The amount was around $8 trillion, we went from projected surplus of 5.6 trillion to projected deficit of 2.5 trillion.)

Not all Bush's fault, to be sure. But a lot of it is. Those tax cuts for the rich, those really affected the projections. And Bush has yet to veto ANY spending bill, and there's a ton of pork for big businesses on every single one, because the republican congress *knows* he won't veto them. When the wolves are guarding the henhouse...

[Kooperman]

Bill Clinton is advising the roster of Democratic presidential hopefuls to drum hard on the fact that he (Clinton), because of his income, gets a tax break, yet many kids are being thrown out of meal programs at school.

[jonnymnemonic]

I seriously wish we could have Clinton back. That man knew how to use the veto stick. He was the master with it. Yeah, there were some stalemates here and there between him and Congress, but he was stubborn enough not to budge and, by and large, he protected the hen house very well. He was the reason we ever had that CBO $5.6 trillion surplus projection that the grand old party has grandly partied away.

This current congress and president seem to me to be like someone with kickass credit who knows he's got six months to live. Spend! Spend it all! And then spend on credit, because what the hell, I'm gonna die anyway! Too bad there's gonna be another generation of people paying the tab on all this, who won't have anything like the life we have been able to have.

[Afn]

Originally posted by Kooperman

1) What all this means for the future of intellectual property, and some businesses, is as unpredictable as the open-source revolution itself. In the music business, it seems remarkable that only a few believe the technology cannot be held in check.

One of those few is David Bowie. "I'm fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years, and authorship and intellectual property is in for such a bashing," Mr. Bowie said in an interview last year. The future of the music industry, he suggests, is 2) that songs are essentially advertisements and artists will have to make a living by performing on tour.

3)In a book to be published next year, Mr. Fisher recommends placing a 15 percent tax on Internet access and a 15 percent tax on devices used for storing and copying music and movies like CD-burners, MP3 players and blank CD's.

The funds raised, he estimates, would be about $2.5 billion in 2004, roughly the projected amount the recording industry and Hollywood would lose to online piracy. The music business and 4) Hollywood would get refunds based on what works were the most popular downloads.

1) Quote me on this, the corporations that have the means today, will have the means tomarrow. If Copyright is no longer profitable, they will collude to invent a system that is.

2) Indentured servants. Just what we have today. Create a hit song that influences culture and win a contract to write songs and perform for death cola.

3) Never will work.

4) a flat based tax would be pro-rated so the major studios would get most of the money, and the independents would have a small percentage of what is collected.


The system that I propose is much better, thought out than a flat rate tax. People want access and lifestyles to support a family and prosper.

[Lamourlady]

good article, kooperman!
all i can say is that it will be interesting to see what does come of this...

the basic software and communications technology of the Internet lies in the public domain — open for all to use.

[shawners]

remember ONE IMPORTANT THIng, IF im paying taxes on it, does it mean i dont have to buy anything ever again, Cause i wont.. ILLL KEEP DOWNLoading, and not even buying the albums i like, cause the money is going to the record companies no matter what, are we given a license to download if we pay taxes, or will they profit from the taxes and use it to stop us from downloading?

[anotherjustme]

Originally posted by shawners
remember ONE IMPORTANT THIng, IF im paying taxes on it, does it mean i dont have to buy anything ever again, Cause i wont.. ILLL KEEP DOWNLoading, and not even buying the albums i like, cause the money is going to the record companies no matter what, are we given a license to download if we pay taxes, or will they profit from the taxes and use it to stop us from downloading?

Again, I'm too lazy to type, so I'll use a quote to address your post.:wings

Instead of having those "fat cats" record labels, that are taking advantage of alll the artists that want to break thru, we should make ONE HUGE LABEL, OWNED AND CONTROLED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Now think about it... it will not even use any of the taxpayers money. On the contrary... it will path up many of the budged holes... even artists would finally be treated fair...

[Afn]

Start of Quote:

Originally posted by shawners
remember ONE IMPORTANT THIng, IF im paying taxes on it, 1) does it mean i dont have to buy anything ever again, Cause i wont.. ILLL KEEP DOWNLoading, and not even buying the albums i like, cause the money is going to the record companies no matter what, 2) are we given a license to download if we pay taxes, or will they profit from the taxes and use it to stop us from downloading?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Again, I'm too lazy to type, so I'll use a quote to address your post.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instead of having those "fat cats" record labels, that are taking advantage of alll the artists that want to break thru, we should make ONE HUGE LABEL, OWNED AND 3) CONTROLED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Now think about it... it will not even use any of the taxpayers money. On the contrary...4) it will path up many of the budged holes... even artists would 5) finally be treated fair...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End of Quote


1) Today, things have value, and many things have high value. Technology may change the value we place in things. Meaning, many things 'objects' we pay for today, will have little real value in the future.

2) This brings up an important issue, and a very important issue that is, can you restrict access to and licenese information? Can you create serial numbers to information and for no good reason TO profit from restricting information in return for access? The reasonable person agrees that restriction is amoral. Create everything for the good of society, or do not create it.

3) A universal system, a registry that allows creators, labels and citizens access what society creates for a per download, flat rate universal tax of .03 per download would give every citizen access. creators income, and society a universal library that documents and stores all intelectual property ment for public consumption.

4) It may or may not solve the budget problem, Congress can make any law they want to get out of any crisis.

5) A society that works for everyone. That is all I want, and I speak with passion on this and many other subjects.


:)

[shawners]

trust me, the artist will get screwed if Government gets involved.
I work for the Post office, we use no tax paying dollars. Government would not let people rant and rave about their mothers, or any one for that matter, Government is to control. They have no business being in the music, have you ever seen their parties at the white house with the bands? It looks so awful.
The only thing that can save us, is if the RIAA managed to take their head out of their ass for once.

[jonnymnemonic]

The phrase "Create everything for the good of society, or do not create it" simply doesn't work. You certainly get SOME quality things created with that philosophy. But, by and large, most things would be lost.

Rembrandt's portraits, the Sistine Chapel, all the works of Shakespeare, many MANY other cultural works - they would not exist had their creators not been compensated.

You would still get some stuff, of course. Van Gogh's works (he died poor), Churchill's writings (for what they're worth) because he had enough money that he didn't need to be paid (the same goes for Aristitle and Plato and Pliny - all voluntarily financed by the wealthy).

Remove financial incentive, as an experiement, for, say, 10 years, or 20 years, and you would be stunned at how quickly the music, movie, literary and software development (games, etc) businesses dissolve. There would be a mass exodus to other jobs like you wouldn't believe. You might end up with 1 percent, maybe even 5 percent with luck, of the same number of people doing creative work (without being paid for it) as we have today. That is QUITE a price to pay.

Not to mention, where would all these people find work? Jobs are scarce NOW. Put a few million more people in the unemployment lines and we'd have to raise taxes dramatically to cover that. In effect, we'd be paying them for NOT producing anything rather than paying them for creating works of cultural benefit. Eventually, sure, they'd become street-sweepers and waiters and auto-workers and such, but it'd take a while to absorb that many people into the service industries.

[Afn]

Originally posted by jonnymnemonic
The phrase "Create everything for the good of society, or do not create it" simply doesn't work. You certainly get SOME quality things created with that philosophy. But, by and large, most things would be lost.

Rembrandt's portraits, the Sistine Chapel, all the works of Shakespeare, many MANY other cultural works -1) they would not exist had their creators not been compensated.

You would still get some stuff, of course. Van Gogh's works (he died poor), Churchill's writings (for what they're worth) because he had enough money that he didn't need to be paid (the same goes for Aristitle and Plato and Pliny - 2) all voluntarily financed by the wealthy).

Remove financial incentive, as an experiement, for, say, 10 years, or 20 years, and you would be stunned at how quickly the music, movie, literary and software development (games, etc) 3) businesses dissolve. There would be a mass exodus to other jobs like you wouldn't believe. You might end up with 1 percent, maybe even 5 percent with luck, of the same number of people doing creative work (without being paid for it) as we have today. That is QUITE a price to pay.

4) Not to mention, where would all these people find work? Jobs are scarce NOW. Put a few million more people in the unemployment lines and we'd have to raise taxes dramatically to cover that. In effect, we'd be paying them for NOT producing anything rather than paying them for creating works of cultural benefit. 5) Eventually, sure, they'd become street-sweepers and waiters and auto-workers and such, but it'd take a while to absorb that many people into the 6) service industries.

1) Your claim is that if works of art were commodity priced, or priced at .03 per work, there would be no incentive to produce art. There is no financial incentive to add content on the www web, but millions add and produce content with no request for payment.

Work will still be produced, less work overall, but as the world becomes more connected, the best free work, will be viewed payment or not.

2) Yes, the wealthy did support the arts community, as the wealthy do today. Most of PBS content is bought\sponsored by corporations. What ever you buy, you tend to own.

3) We do not need as many people to produce the products that we need in society today. Thus re-training, prisons and unemployment is comon.

4) Works progress administration, during the great depression made some of the best well crafted public buildings in America, and employing people who otherwise would not have work.

Today, many of these buildings are still standing and in active use.

There are many professions that thanks to technology are obsolete. The question is, does society play the game, "You Loose", and create a society where the average citizen is lucky to win the "job lottery" or "housing lottery", and millions do not win, and have no chance of winning access.

5) Overgeneralization, the real issue is what do we do with people who are displaced by technology or ecconomic factors, that have homes, payments and children and no hope of attaining the means (income, CASH) to keep the kids fed and in a home, not a homeless shelter. (9-11, Content Industries, fuel crunch, war, ect.)

6) Add the word 'Automated' to service industries, and very few will have jobs as we 'de-job' society for automated and robotic processes.

There is nothing stopping a great depression in 2004 or 2008, for example. The problems we have are very serious, even in a depression, some work will be produced, and people who are not made homeless or loose right to access electricity, will still have millions of web sites and information available online, all competing with pre-paid entertainment.

:)

[anotherjustme]

Originally posted by Afn
, Congress can make any law they want to get out of any crisis.

I have to make you really well aware, and try to make you realize of the power of internet.
Before it, they could do whatever they wanted. Let's say you and all of the ppl that you know felt that what they did was wrong. And there were many "groups" like your, feeling the same way, all togheter it could be even 70-80% of all citizens in a given country. Now because you wouldn't know that there is more ppl that feel the same way as you do, you would give up thinking,"I can't do anything by myself"... that was before...
Now the internet gave us the power to comunicate. To see that you're not alone, that someone is making decisions against everything that people stand for.

Originally posted by Afn
5) A society that works for everyone. That is all I want, and I speak with passion on this and many other subjects.

This is an ultimate goal of human kind.
Now I'd like to tell you something, that not everyone is aware of (especially Americans)
Do you remeber something called "Comunism"? I know that most americans assotiate this word with this "Bad eastern Europe system". You gotta think this way, because you lived in the times that your government, tried to "program" your mind to think this way. But do you know what is the real ideology behind Comunism? Probably not, so let me tell you...
The real idea that was called "comunism" was, to create a society, that does not have better or worse people. The idea was..."we're all humans... Either you're a doctor, or a construction worker... you're needed and have same oportunities in life... I'll build a home for you, and you'll heal me when I'm sick".
You see... it was something that could be beatiful. But it didn't work, because once some people got into positions with power, they began taking advantage of it, for their own gain. It's human nature, that's why it couldn't work.

Now on the other hand, we have Capitalism. Which basically says... "you can do all that you can afford". Hence it's a very similar thing... only now people that had power were those that had the most money...

I said that, because I still belive that this "Perfect society" could become a real thing. And the key is, to have system that would combine ideas of "Comunism" and "Capitalism"...
But that was just a side note, and I don't think it will hapen for 10-20 generations after us.