Difference between revisions of "Archive:Savethe"

From FreeCulture.org
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 53: Line 53:
 
== BETTER SOLUTIONS ==
 
== BETTER SOLUTIONS ==
  
(this is where DHB comes in)
+
'''What's this bill really about?'''
  
'''There's a Better Solution for FIlesharing"
+
Instead of developing innovative ways to take advantage of the opportunities that filesharing technology presents, the music industry is asking Congress to solve a business challenge with lawsuits and regulations.
  
Since sharing music seems like it's here to stay, why not just legalize it in such a way that musicians and labels get paid? Voluntary Collective Licensing (VCL) is a proposal for a simple and practical system where you pay a flat fee for "all-you-can-eat" downloads and the money gets divided up to musicians and labels according to popularity. It would only cost you $5 a month, and unlike pay-per-song stores like iTunes (which take 35% of each sale) all of that money would go directly to musicians and record labels. This means that thousands more musicians would be able to make a decent living and everyone would be free to share music without having to worry about getting sued. Check out VCL and take a look at the diagram below.
+
'''So what should we do about fIlesharing?"
  
 +
Filesharing is here to stay.  But creative solutions would let us legalize and monetize peer-to-peer so that musicians and record labels are fairly compensated and the public can retain its access to the largest, richest music library that's ever been created.  Voluntary Collective Licensing (VCL) is a proposal for a simple and practical system where you pay a flat fee for "all-you-can-eat" downloads and the money gets divided up to musicians and labels according to popularity. It would only cost you $5 a month, and unlike pay-per-song stores like iTunes (which take 35% of each sale) all of that money would go directly to musicians and record labels. This means that thousands more musicians would be able to make a decent living and everyone would be free to share music without having to worry about getting sued. Check out VCL and take a look at the diagram below.
  
 +
'''What about pornography?'''
  
Let's lay all the solutions out there so that they can't pin us to one bad one. Let's also frame Hollywood as being lazy, frame the congressional solution as being a quick fix to deeper business model woes. Fixing a business model requires much more time (not counting suing people into oblivion) and creativity than calling up your senator.
+
The record companies argue that we should ban filesharing as a way to combat pornography. Not only is this line of reasoning hypocritical from an industry that profits by marketting sexually explicit material to children, but it's also nonsensical.  Peer-to-peer networks account for a tiny fraction of the pornography that's avialable online. It would make more sense to ban web browsers, but if the music industry proposed this, they would simply be laughed at.
 
 
'''This Does Nothing to Stop Child Pornography'''
 
  
 
==Why you gotta write your congresscritters==
 
==Why you gotta write your congresscritters==
 
It only takes one senator to put a hold on it so that it doesn't go straight to the senate floor for a vote.
 
It only takes one senator to put a hold on it so that it doesn't go straight to the senate floor for a vote.

Revision as of 20:02, 26 June 2004

Save The [ ]

OVERALL RHETORIC

Hollywood Has Bought Off Congress

-Details of campaign donations



REASONS WHY INDUCE ACT IS BAD

The bill is too broad

-Could outlaw the ipod

-Links to the fake legal complaints

It stifles technological innovation

-Who will create a new device if it could be misconstrued to "induce" copyright infringement?

May make bad business sense

-The movie industry attacked the VCR the same way the music industry attacks p2p and then videos became the primary revenue source.

What the heck does 'induce' mean anyway?

-The answer: it is very vague, and that's exactly what Hollywood and the RIAA wants. Dictionary definition. -Creation of a new legal doctrine -This is not what the US has historically done, even for much worse crimes against society (speeding in cars that "tempt" you with high MPH ratings, assault riffles, etc.)

Even if the bill does what it says it does, it is still wrong

At its most basic, this bill wants to take out Sony v. Universal. Re-hashing of why Sony decision was sound. COMPLETED by CC and CIS guys (waiting to be emailed to Jake)


Not as strong (let's make them stronger):

Restricts Free Speech

-

Wastes Taxpayer Money

-Do we have info on how this would be enforced? re: enforcement, doesn't this law just create liability? The enforcement piece of things is taken care of by the pirate act and HR 4077, I think.


BETTER SOLUTIONS

What's this bill really about?

Instead of developing innovative ways to take advantage of the opportunities that filesharing technology presents, the music industry is asking Congress to solve a business challenge with lawsuits and regulations.

So what should we do about fIlesharing?"

Filesharing is here to stay. But creative solutions would let us legalize and monetize peer-to-peer so that musicians and record labels are fairly compensated and the public can retain its access to the largest, richest music library that's ever been created. Voluntary Collective Licensing (VCL) is a proposal for a simple and practical system where you pay a flat fee for "all-you-can-eat" downloads and the money gets divided up to musicians and labels according to popularity. It would only cost you $5 a month, and unlike pay-per-song stores like iTunes (which take 35% of each sale) all of that money would go directly to musicians and record labels. This means that thousands more musicians would be able to make a decent living and everyone would be free to share music without having to worry about getting sued. Check out VCL and take a look at the diagram below.

What about pornography?

The record companies argue that we should ban filesharing as a way to combat pornography. Not only is this line of reasoning hypocritical from an industry that profits by marketting sexually explicit material to children, but it's also nonsensical. Peer-to-peer networks account for a tiny fraction of the pornography that's avialable online. It would make more sense to ban web browsers, but if the music industry proposed this, they would simply be laughed at.

Why you gotta write your congresscritters

It only takes one senator to put a hold on it so that it doesn't go straight to the senate floor for a vote.