Login / Register
 
Why does the blanket fee so frighten?
Subscribe
dalshim
Thread Starter
#1
22nd April 2009
Old 22nd April 2009
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 519

Thread Starter
dalshim is offline
Why does the blanket fee so frighten?

Hi folks,

I did some homework for you. I hope that, this time, some pips will be interested.

Advert: if you ever read one of my 50 previous posts, you already know how bad my english is. So, if you see some non-senses or hazy sentences be sure it come from me. The original text is very smooth and accurate.

ORIGINAL

By Philippe Axel

Why does the blanket fee so frighten?

Government have decided to present the hadopi text again the april 29th.Mrs Alabanel, minister of culture, even envisaged its resignation in case of defeat.

Despite (of) a call to real demonstration on Saturday, April 25th, the opposition of the Internet users and the political opposition, which seems henceforth ready to use this subject of campaign for the European elections, it is apparently not enough to make the president of the republic, very upset after this humilation, change his mind.

But our main problem, when we propose a solution like a "creative contribution, isp's tax or Global/blanket fee/license" is that even the opponents of the repressives solutions have difficulty in realizing this logic.

Because they quickly think at a collectivist system. Here are some answers to the main arguments of those who, often with sincerity, are worried about what they consider in twists as a complete change of paradigm which would question in a too rough way the current balance of the sectors of music and cinema.
And who seem to ignore that, unless eliminating Internet, this new support of communication is going to upset many other sectors although no detailed economic studies measured the calculated incidences, at this time.

In the confusions and the doubt which arouses the digital economy, we have a theoretical certainty which should be logically the base of the reflection of the strategic and economic studies on the subject: the digital file is a "non-rival" good (ndt: duplication is NOT the production, it's not the cd, but the music) And it is enough to understand the natural tendency
of the unity sale towards the stream and the free access. It began with the photography, the video game, the music, then the information, and tomorrow the cinema, the television, the software, the comic strip, the literary edition etc.
All this is going to stretch out towards free on-line, that we want it or not, unless forbidding e-mails with attached files, USB keys, Wifi, the bluetooth, the cables of connection, the engravers and hard disks.
As well as start-up enterprises …

Is the global fee a collectivist concept?

Not more than the general principle of the (ndt: french) copyright, which is the one of the implementation of indirect transfers of resources towards the creation, resulting from lucrative manners which take advantage of the artistic works. Not more thus than the private copy tax organized by Jack Lang (ndt: and in many others countries as well) or decrees Tasca allowing
to finance for half the French cinema today. These measures, actually, supported and fed the market in our country rather than opposed to it. I have still read nobody to propose that the state salarie the artists as the civil servants of the Ministry of Culture. There is thus there an inequitable distrust.
A direct resource assigned to the authors could even feed their activity in the form of auto-entrepreneur, a very interesting status.

Would the global license precipitate the fall of the sales of CD and DVD and cinema entries?

Yes, no doubt for me for CD and DVD, if they are not worked again in depth in their added values, compared to what we can find free of charge on the web. But this fall has already begun for years, simply because these supports are obsolete at the time of the internet. We cannot force the consumer to buy what he does not want to buy any more. We are far from the drying up of
the innovation in the domains of the cultural by-products. There will be consumers attached to objects. And thus physical, well rival objects, to sell for whom will know how to create them and sell them.

For show or cinema entrances, it is to be estimated yet, but the first tendencies are far from being negative.
For the live performance, we know that it is rather positive, even if it is true that the musical CD was upstream to the shows.
Thus, what I call new rites of selections of the artists will have to be born on the web, to bring to the foreground those who among them will motivate the spectators to pay to see them in concert.
For cinema entrances, it will depend on the price of tickets and on the quality of the services
proposed by the exploitant, which will have to be more attractive than the home cinema which risks hardly to still develop in a impressive way next years, in particular by the exploitant, which will have to be more attractive than the home cinema which risks hardly to still develop in a impressive way next years, in particular by new systems of projection or immersifs viewings at home.

Will it be necessary to pay a 30 or 50-€ fee a month to finance everything as Pascal Nègre says it everywhere (ndt: the boss of Universal in france)?

The music and the cinema it is approximately 131 billion a year in the world.
There are 5,3 billion subscribers with Internet ( 1,3 ) + mobile (4 ).
3€ of participation a month only on each of these subscriptions to finance the contents would already report 191 billion by the years, it is more than the total CA of these two combined industries.

It is a quick calculation but I remind that Philippe Aigrain made his in a very precise way in his proposition of Creative Contribution .
I thus insite so that all the professionals of these sectors read his book without preconceived idea, study which we can download free of charge.
According to him, the French Internet users should settle a sum from 5 to 7 € in their isp's subscription to help in the technological transformation of the music, but also the cinema.

But once again, it is not about replacing a global recipe by another one by a strict effect of communicating vessels. Because nothing would prevent the record industry from finding the other products to be sold and the cinematographic industry to continue to sell cinema entrances for example. Nothing would prevent them either from continuing to perceive fees of use on the
lucrative manners for the digital radio or the television. Thus a global license would have no vocation to be the unique source of the creators of contents.

On the other hand, it seems necessary to me, and I already underlined it in the propositions at the end of my book in 2007, to study right now an extension of this principle in the other domains which will need transfers of resources by the free access to the non profit exchanges on the web. Not by global compensantion, but once again, by support.



How to redistribute a global fee in a fair way?

ask this question for the web, it's settle it in the same way for the current fees paid by radios and televisions and thus for the SACEM (ndt: association of composers and music publishers to protect copyright and royalties) for example.
For web there are said, not intrusive processes, (watermarking or "tattoos"), which will allow,
not only to redistribute according to the true manners, but in a much finer way and on a plate much wider than today for the radio and the TV. It mean that many artists will be paid. A not intrusive process being a method of drawing of the contents which does not require to establish a file making the link between a content and a private individual, as it will be the case of the files of Hadopi (ndt: french repressive law). Because even if we speak to us of taking in only the IP addresses, within the framework of Hadopi, the IP address will had inevitably to be converted in name and address at one time or another in the process of control and saving of the data in a file after the first warning. Thus, the global fee is much simpler to set up technically than Hadopi, and less problematic in the surveillance. (ndt: P. Axel speak about only one way for file watching.
There are some other)


More to come if I see some interest:

Why not let the market do it by itself?

Why to charge everybody while only 37 % of the Internet users download on the P2P?

Why not let a market of the subscriptions be set up? (uuuhhhrgh, an interesting one)

Why not to count simply on the advertising market which quickly develops on the web?
#2
22nd April 2009
Old 22nd April 2009
  #2
Lives for gear
 
HobbyCore's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 544

HobbyCore is offline
What is this 'global fee'. Can you offer some background? I don't think I'm familiar with it on those terms.
__________________
I am now telling the computer *exactly* what it can do with a life time supply of chocolate.
#3
22nd April 2009
Old 22nd April 2009
  #3
Lives for gear
 
rectifier's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Belgica
Posts: 1,802

rectifier is offline
Great post - thanks for this dalshim

One point I would like to raise - 131 billion per year for music and films. This is a total but doesn't take into account the fact that one movie released - let's say the Batman film vs a college comedy are bringing in wildly different amounts of revenue, how are you going to divide that up with a blanket fee? I'm sure Madonna expects to make 100x as much as a one-hit wonder band or even a band without any hits. That leads me to think that there would be some staggering dynamic calculations being made every day by the organisation dishing out the money provided by the monthly fee and much arguing as a result. Will the artist/film company etc get more if it's downloaded more? Personally i don't use p2p and if there is a blanket fee I would like to get my downloads from a reputable source, will they be able to track everything fairly and will the artist/film company etc be paid according to the number of downloads? This could lead to companies setting up thousands of machines with different ips downloading the same thing to increase the revenue for an artist/film company - false hits.

I'm all for a blanket fee per month but to me it seems to potentially bring about astronomical complications and feuding. Please enlighten me if I have the wrong end of the stick!

merci

dalshim
Thread Starter
#4
22nd April 2009
Old 22nd April 2009
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 519

Thread Starter
dalshim is offline
My pleasure. It was necessary.

Quote:
That leads me to think that there would be some staggering dynamic calculations being made every day by the organisation dishing out the money provided by the monthly fee and much arguing as a result.
Not more than a repressive traking system. According to P. Axel, even less.

Quote:
Will the artist/film company etc get more if it's downloaded more?
It's the whole idea! I don't know how it work in belgium, but in france, the sacem make an ok job, even if the sytem is often a little dark.

Quote:
This could lead to companies setting up thousands of machines with different ips downloading the same thing to increase the revenue for an artist/film company - false hits.
Yes, that's one of the main problems. Some speak about massive polls and then compare the results with the numeric datas... Not sure if it's the right idea...
dalshim
Thread Starter
#5
22nd April 2009
Old 22nd April 2009
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 519

Thread Starter
dalshim is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by HobbyCore View Post
What is this 'global fee'. Can you offer some background? I don't think I'm familiar with it on those terms.
It's an old idea now, from the beginning of the problem. I should also translate the wikipidia page. Licence globale - Wikipédia.
#6
22nd April 2009
Old 22nd April 2009
  #6
Lives for gear
 
HobbyCore's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 544

HobbyCore is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalshim View Post
It's an old idea now, from the beginning of the problem. I should also translate the wikipidia page. Licence globale - Wikipédia.
It's ok, I can read french.

Sounds like social security applied to the internet.
dalshim
Thread Starter
#7
23rd April 2009
Old 23rd April 2009
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 519

Thread Starter
dalshim is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by HobbyCore View Post
It's ok, I can read french.

Sounds like social security applied to the internet.
well, you can call it like that. Of course, how it will be applied and the application itself will be very different. The system will remain mainly a private one. A state/national society will just have to watch files trafic and collect the royalties. I'm not aware of a country without a similar system for broadcast difusion.
dalshim
Thread Starter
#8
23rd April 2009
Old 23rd April 2009
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 519

Thread Starter
dalshim is offline
Why not let the market do it by itself?

The transfers of resources exist even in the most liberal economics systems. We call it in economist's language " to mitigate the failures of the market ". We know that the market is not effective, in particular, in the allocation of the rare resources (salaries) to those who produce intangible, non-rival assets/goods, who are always hurt in the end. It is for this reason that the copyright, the fees exist in all the political systems, and on all the markets of this type, with the transfers of resources defined by the law which accompany them.


Why to charge everybody while only 37 % of the Internet users download on the P2P?


Why we all pay a broadcasting royalty which finances France Culture and France Musique (ndt: state radios) while some people do not listen to these radios?
Why we all pay the tax on private copy for BLANK CDS used sometimes for other matters than music and movies?
Why was a tax for phone operators (ndt: yes, france did it) required by the same government to finance the public broadcasting while their users maybe don't watch France 2 (ndt: state TV)?

Because it is the general principle of the indirect transfers of resources that are set up when the market is failing to finance activities which besides, then benefit to the market.
We should not set (oppose?) the market to the collective, but accept that there is a continuous interdependence.
For example, to finance the creators of contents, it is also a way to support the market of the ISP's and the computer hardware. Because which will be the interest tomorrow to pay broadband subscriptions or nomad listening and recording equipments if there is nothing to listen to, to download or to record?
That is why the ISP's and manufacturers of computer hardware has interest too in these transfers of resources, which create a virtuous economic circle.
dalshim
Thread Starter
#9
23rd April 2009
Old 23rd April 2009
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 519

Thread Starter
dalshim is offline
Why not let a market of the subscriptions be set up?

Some majors indeed decided to test models based on unlimited subscriptions to their catalogs for some euros a month associated with phone operators or FAI. They consider moreover that the global fee is thus useless now. But, it is not satisfactory. For the consumers it restricts the choice to the catalog of a record company, when we like the music, we don't only like Universal music, for example.
Then, these contracts exclude from the musical economy the independent labels and especially, the independent artists.(ndt: more, it will not stop piracy, except if the majors applied the whole global fee concept for their
own profits by locking doors for anyone else, and, of course, it would be a nightmare)



Why not to count simply on the advertising market which quickly develops on the web?


Streaming sites for example, like Deezer, lastFm, Jiwa, spotify or Musicme, have not proved yet that they can finance the creation. Because they did not even prove yet if they are really profitable.

The world advertising Market, any supports, was 428,44 billion in 2007. On internet only 4,7 % = 20,13 billions. (http://www.journaldunet.com/0509/050913marche-pub.shtml)
Let us admit that 10 % benefits to the music, it makes a small cake of 2 billions only to be divided for the whole planet. That is not much … As far as musical sites, there is new one almost every day in the world, what still dilutes the results. I still remember in this sense the statements of Scott Cohen of the magazine The Orchard on the MIDEM on 2008.






I've prefered to finish my very humble work. It was too easy for not doing it, and P. Axel wrote a great one.

Thanks to all the peoples who tried to understand this loooong page full of broken english. I don't think that the global fee is the ONLY solution, I just hope that somebody will think "hey, maybe there are more than two ways".
To the others, good luck for your war! Ah ah aaaahhh
#10
25th April 2009
Old 25th April 2009
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Volodia's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Paris
Posts: 1,002

Volodia is offline
I know this text but it's highly theorical . The number of internet contracts taken into account includes countries that don't care about western music and movies and would not pay a blanket fee .it considers as well that every mobile phone has an internet contract which is wrong . Asian countries have a different history in terms of copyright . So that changes ( a lot) the calculation of the fee .
And good luck for passing a worldwide law . IMHO there's no chance .

The company in France who wanted to collect an eventual blanket fee is not the sacem but the spedidam ( artists performing rights) . I get some money from them and they have a history of not distributing properly ( not talking about the beginning of the 90's where they wanted to play with the money to make more and LOST IT ALL . all they did was apologize ,they never compensated ) .
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clayphish View Post
HHow did you get the drums to sound so punchy on Bloody Well Right??
Clayton
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Scott View Post
BWR drums? I guess Bob played them punchier.
dalshim
Thread Starter
#11
29th April 2009
Old 29th April 2009
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 519

Thread Starter
dalshim is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volodia View Post
The number of internet contracts taken into account includes countries that don't care about western music and movies and would not pay a blanket fee .it considers as well that every mobile phone has an internet contract which is wrong.
I've seen that and I'm ok. Obviously, the guy is selling his stuff. Now, we must catch his point.

First, he talk about a quick calculation. Then, it's all about the potential. You are paying 30 euros to your isp. As you're honnest, you never downloaded anything, never watched you tube (admit it, it's because the image and sound suck, right?).
Now, for, let's say, 7 euro more, you have the oppurtunity to access easely and legally to all the music existing with a very good sound quality. If you are able to resist to such an offer, you're not human.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Volodia View Post
I know this text but it's highly theorical . The number of internet contracts taken into account includes countries that don't care about western music and movies and would not pay a blanket fee

Maybe you have a different experience than me, but it's not what mine learn to me (I'm talking about first hand experience). For sure, each country have its own music, but they're listen to us too. They just don't pay for it..........


Quote:
Originally Posted by Volodia View Post
Asian countries have a different history in terms of copyright . So that changes ( a lot) the calculation of the fee .
And good luck for passing a worldwide law .

The company in France who wanted to collect an eventual blanket fee is not the sacem but the spedidam ( artists performing rights) . I get some money from them and they have a history of not distributing properly

I wasn't aware of those facts, so thanks. About asian copyright, I don't see why all the countries should have the EXACT same laws. I mean, murder is a crime everywhere, but the law is everywhere different too.

About the spedidam, they wanted? And? It's for this reason that the government should agree?
Also, he never said that it have to be the sacem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volodia View Post
I know this text but it's highly theorical
Yes, it's theory! Only theory. As all things before they became a practice. Also, this text is just a quick summary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volodia View Post
IMHO there's no chance .
Oh, well...

Edit: and about "each countries have its own music, so they will not pay the fee", why don't you imagine that the artists of those countries can get royalties too??? Strange...
#12
29th April 2009
Old 29th April 2009
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Volodia's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Paris
Posts: 1,002

Volodia is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalshim View Post
About the spedidam, they wanted? And? It's for this reason that the government should agree?
Also, he never said that it have to be the sacem.
.
Spedidam is a state agency already entitled by the government to collect "side rights for performing musicians" ,I don't see why the government would create another entity .

Before a blanket fee is created it will require A LOT of work . Huge servers by the record companies to host the tracks (and enable the downloads counts) . Those cost a fortune / year . Deezer with it's 800 M €*of revenue (when taken off the copyrights) isn't profitable . That sum is more than the entire CD sale revenue of the French record Industry .

It's not free . Who's gonna take that charge ?
#13
29th April 2009
Old 29th April 2009
  #13
Gear addict
 
lhm1138's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 497

lhm1138 is offline
Don't see the big deal.

They did it with blank tapes and CDR. Won't benefit everyone, but won't impede those who want to use filesharing to their advantage.
#14
29th April 2009
Old 29th April 2009
  #14
Lives for gear
 
spaceman's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere between France and Absurdistan
Posts: 2,211

spaceman is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by lhm1138 View Post
They did it with blank tapes and CDR. Won't benefit everyone, but won't impede those who want to use filesharing to their advantage.
Actually , it's different from that blank tapes tax. This blanket tax thing completely legalizes filesharing. It's basically, pay 5$ a month, and download and upload all the music of the world (and fllms too).
I'm still highly sceptical about it...
__________________
"most people are fools, most authority is malignant, God does not exist, and everything is wrong"' Ted Nelson
How a certain company will soon own not only your mind but your body as well.
"I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions, they want Google to tell them what they should be doing next." E.Schmidt from Google
dalshim
Thread Starter
#15
29th April 2009
Old 29th April 2009
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 519

Thread Starter
dalshim is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volodia View Post
Spedidam is a state agency already entitled by the government to collect "side rights for performing musicians" ,I don't see why the government would create another entity .
Because we need a different control and redistributive system for the blanket fee, with different peoples, skills and organization.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volodia View Post
Huge servers by the record companies to host the tracks (and enable the downloads counts) . Those cost a fortune / year .
yes and no. We need a real study here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volodia View Post
Deezer with it's 800 M €*of revenue (when taken off the copyrights) isn't profitable . That sum is more than the entire CD sale revenue of the French record Industry .
Deezer? But you compare the incomparable. Deezer is a streaming service living from ads. Axel is very clear about this model being a dead-end.

There are 18M of internet subscriptions in france, today, and it will grow. Just count. The amount of money that the blanket fee could generate is ridiculously crazy. Much more than deezer, internet's adds or cd sales revenue...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volodia View Post
It's not free . Who's gonna take that charge ?
... And much more than the sacem budget.
If you want to be protected, you have to submit your work to the sacem and you pay for it, right? It's the same here. Add the % from the fee itself, and let's see.

Let's see, because at this time, nobody had the possibility to did the real groundwork. Governements have it, but it's not the wish of peoples, who don't care about us and are badly informed, of politicians who own the power because it's one more problem to face, with much more complex answers than hadopi, of ISP's (we all know why) and the majors just begin to really dig the question.


Quote:
Originally Posted by spaceman View Post
I'm still highly sceptical about it...
It's normal to be sceptical. It's fresh, adventurous, and difficult to put in place. Myself, I'm not a dead hard believer, but I'm highly curious too.

We are waiting for real studies, preferably by the governements. With Lawyers, informaticians, economists, record industry actors, internet specialists and such working together with the states benediction and financement.

It will never happen if the people remain unaware of our problems, and don't ask for real solutions.
#16
1st May 2009
Old 1st May 2009
  #16
Lives for gear
 
spaceman's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere between France and Absurdistan
Posts: 2,211

spaceman is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalshim View Post
It's normal to be sceptical. It's fresh, adventurous, and difficult to put in place. Myself, I'm not a dead hard believer, but I'm highly curious too.
Actually, i'm more sceptical now, than a few years before. When i started hearing about it first, i thought "ok, i'm not crazy about this, but if it really works, it might be the only solution". But then i started asking some serious questions about it in many forums where the concept is pushed like the Messiah, and for many questions NOBODY could ever answer them, even the guys that put themselves as "big experts" on p2p. Yet they kept pushing it.

The "licence globale" is not a concept like any other, we have to be VERY careful with it, because once it's put in place, if we find out that it doesn't really works, it's over, finito, kaput. Because you can't go back. Once it's put in place , it will kill and replace every music sales service existing on the market.

The fact that there isn't a single really detailed and precise proposition available on the net, on how it could work, makes even more sceptical. If after all these years , nobody is able to come up with a solid proposition (technically, administratively, etc) , makes me think that it's like pushing a fantasy.
dalshim
Thread Starter
#17
1st May 2009
Old 1st May 2009
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 519

Thread Starter
dalshim is offline
I understand, but we don't care about the so-called big experts.

Once again, it's not needed to all let go like kamikaze. Just a real long and serious study mandated by the governement. Myself, it's all I ask and all I argue.
Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
VegasMusician / Rap + Hip Hop engineering & production
10
hduncan / So much gear, so little time!
44
heisleyamor / So much gear, so little time!
14

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.