Voluntary Collective Licensing as a solution to the copyright wars

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has published a white paper explaining why voluntary collective licensing is the best solution for combining the interests of both creators and users.

We’re quoting the first paragraphs:

“The current battles surrounding peer-to-peer file sharing are a losing proposition for everyone. The record labels continue to face lackluster sales, while the tens of millions of American file sharersâ€”American music fansâ€”are made to feel like criminals. Every day the collateral damage mountsâ€”privacy at risk, innovation stymied, economic growth suppressed, and a few unlucky individuals singled out for legal action by the recording industry. And the litigation campaign against music fans has not put a penny into the pockets of artists.

We need a better way forward.

The Premises

First, artists and copyright holders deserve to be fairly compensated.

Second, file sharing is here to stay. Killing Napster only spawned more decentralized networks. Most evidence suggests that file sharing is at least as popular today as it was before the lawsuits began.

Third, the fans do a better job making music available than the labels. Apple’s iTunes Music Store brags about its inventory of over 500,000 songs. Sounds pretty good, until you realize that the fans have made millions of songs available on KaZaA. If the legal clouds were lifted, the peer-to-peer networks would quickly improve.

Fourth, any solution should minimize government intervention in favor of market forces.

The Proposal: Voluntary Collective Licensing

EFF has spent the past year evaluating alternatives that get artists paid while making file sharing legal. One solution has emerged as the favorite: voluntary collective licensing.

The concept is simple: the music industry forms a collecting society, which then offers file-sharing music fans the opportunity to “get legit” in exchange for a reasonable regular payment, say $5 per month. So long as they pay, the fans are free to keep doing what they are going to do anywayâ€”share the music they love using whatever software they like on whatever computer platform they preferâ€”without fear of lawsuits. The money collected gets divided among rights-holders based on the popularity of their music.

In exchange, file-sharing music fans will be free to download whatever they like, using whatever software works best for them. The more people share, the more money goes to rights-holders. The more competition in applications, the more rapid the innovation and improvement. The more freedom to fans to publish what they care about, the deeper the catalog.”

4 Comments

Crosbie Fitch November 13, 2006 at 8:01 pm

It’s like it’s 2004 all over again. This is old news man. Check the date.

VCL – It’s not voluntary, it’s compulsory – weasel words to make folk think it’s optional.

There’s no free market – it’s up to a central committee (through which all the money goes) to decide how much music is worth, and presumably every artist’s work is valued the same, whether a fart from Madonna or ten year’s work capturing whale song by Joe Bloggs.

Taxation of music by the back-door. Music is not something people should be taxed for.

And how do you decide the difference between music and a capella, and a capella and speech, and speech and instructions, and instructions and software, etc.?

Michel Bauwens November 16, 2006 at 9:35 am

More comments on the voluntary/obligatory aspects of such a global license would be welcome. I actually had a question from the opposite side of Mr. Fitch’s critique: why is it not obligatory?
How could it work if it’s ‘voluntary’?

Crosbie Fitch November 17, 2006 at 1:28 am

It is ‘voluntary’ in that artists/publishers don’t have to participate if they don’t want to, but then they won’t get any money from the license revenue collected from the users of all ISPs – who are consequently immune to prosecution.

If the system WAS opt-in from the users’ point of view then users could choose whether to use a more expensive VCL licensed ISP, or a cheaper one and risk prosecution by the RIAA. Somehow, I think everyone would go for the cheapies.

There is actually already one opt-in ISP called PlayLouderMSP I think. http://www.playloudermsp.com/thedifference.html

Nicholas Bentley April 8, 2007 at 8:12 pm

Maybe the fact that this idea has not gone very far in the last couple of years says something about it! Although Susan Crawford has just brought it up again and still believes it is the answer:

“But it’s clearly the answer, and we’ll get there eventually.”

From reading the EFF blurb the scheme would be voluntary for both rights holders and users but I wonder if it would not lead to yet more confusion for consumers. You pay the sharing license fee and think that you can share music legally but you still would not have permission to share music from artists who have not joined the scheme and how do you identify who is in and who is out?

Even if it could be made to work, is voluntary licensing such as this really peer-to-peer? It would allow some P2P sharing amongst users but in my mind true peer-to-peer is when there is interaction and support between the producer and the consumer.

I believe individual licenses, between creator and consumer, are the true P2P answer and at the same time could allow broader sharing where appropriate.

4 Comments →

Crosbie Fitch November 13, 2006 at 8:01 pm
It’s like it’s 2004 all over again. This is old news man. Check the date.
VCL – It’s not voluntary, it’s compulsory – weasel words to make folk think it’s optional.
There’s no free market – it’s up to a central committee (through which all the money goes) to decide how much music is worth, and presumably every artist’s work is valued the same, whether a fart from Madonna or ten year’s work capturing whale song by Joe Bloggs.
Taxation of music by the back-door. Music is not something people should be taxed for.
And how do you decide the difference between music and a capella, and a capella and speech, and speech and instructions, and instructions and software, etc.?
Michel Bauwens November 16, 2006 at 9:35 am
More comments on the voluntary/obligatory aspects of such a global license would be welcome. I actually had a question from the opposite side of Mr. Fitch’s critique: why is it not obligatory?
How could it work if it’s ‘voluntary’?
Crosbie Fitch November 17, 2006 at 1:28 am
It is ‘voluntary’ in that artists/publishers don’t have to participate if they don’t want to, but then they won’t get any money from the license revenue collected from the users of all ISPs – who are consequently immune to prosecution.
If the system WAS opt-in from the users’ point of view then users could choose whether to use a more expensive VCL licensed ISP, or a cheaper one and risk prosecution by the RIAA. Somehow, I think everyone would go for the cheapies.
There is actually already one opt-in ISP called PlayLouderMSP I think. http://www.playloudermsp.com/thedifference.html
Nicholas Bentley April 8, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Maybe the fact that this idea has not gone very far in the last couple of years says something about it! Although Susan Crawford has just brought it up again and still believes it is the answer:
“But it’s clearly the answer, and we’ll get there eventually.”
From reading the EFF blurb the scheme would be voluntary for both rights holders and users but I wonder if it would not lead to yet more confusion for consumers. You pay the sharing license fee and think that you can share music legally but you still would not have permission to share music from artists who have not joined the scheme and how do you identify who is in and who is out?
Even if it could be made to work, is voluntary licensing such as this really peer-to-peer? It would allow some P2P sharing amongst users but in my mind true peer-to-peer is when there is interaction and support between the producer and the consumer.
I believe individual licenses, between creator and consumer, are the true P2P answer and at the same time could allow broader sharing where appropriate.