At a panel discussion called 'Mobility, Ubiquity and Monetizing Music,' which will be held tomorrow at the SXSW (South By Southwest) Music And Media Conference in Austin Texas, the focus is expected to be a proposal by one panel member for adding a small monthly surcharge on braodband internet service to pay royalties for music currently being downloaded (illegally) for free. Jim Griffin's plan would see the money divided up among labels, publishers, artists, and songwriters according to download statistics from P2P networks.
Griffiin was responsible for the first commercial release of a song online while head of technology at Geffen Records. Since leaving Geffen he's spent his time working on issues related to digital delivery of various types of media. He'll be joined on the panel by Peter Jenner, manager and former manager of a number of successful recording artits, who describes Griffin's plan as "monetizing the anarchy."
The idea of a subscription licensing fee is hardly new. The Electronic Frontier Foundation made a very public presentation of a similar plan in 2004. What may be new is the recording industry's willingness to listen. With the major labels' lawsuit-driven strategy failing to either resuscitate the nearly dead CD industry. The legal download market hasn't been able to make up for lost CD sales due to a consumer preference for singles rather than complete albums.
The EFF's proposal, as with others that have come since, have generally been criticized by labels and consumers alike, although labels appear be more receptive as they run out of options, and yet have failed to invest in any alternative model of their own. It's also worth noting that it's not substantially different than the mandatory licensing already in place for radio, whether its broadcast terrestrially, using a satellite, or across the internet, except for being directly charged to consumers. However, if they wish to remove labels and radio from the distribution equation this may not be unreasonable.
One sticky point in my mind is the other content distributed on P2P networks. If a precedent is set with a mandatory music license, how many more surcharges could be added for other content from TV shows and movies to ebooks. Before any long term agreement is entered into by ISPs they should make sure the consider all the consequences and leave room to renegotiate in the event other content owners want to work out a similar arrangement.
The idea of a subscription licensing fee is hardly new. The Electronic Frontier Foundation made a very public presentation of a similar plan in 2004. What may be new is the recording industry's willingness to listen. With the major labels' lawsuit-driven strategy failing to either resuscitate the nearly dead CD industry. The legal download market hasn't been able to make up for lost CD sales due to a consumer preference for singles rather than complete albums.
The EFF's proposal, as with others that have come since, have generally been criticized by labels and consumers alike, although labels appear be more receptive as they run out of options, and yet have failed to invest in any alternative model of their own. It's also worth noting that it's not substantially different than the mandatory licensing already in place for radio, whether its broadcast terrestrially, using a satellite, or across the internet, except for being directly charged to consumers. However, if they wish to remove labels and radio from the distribution equation this may not be unreasonable.
One sticky point in my mind is the other content distributed on P2P networks. If a precedent is set with a mandatory music license, how many more surcharges could be added for other content from TV shows and movies to ebooks. Before any long term agreement is entered into by ISPs they should make sure the consider all the consequences and leave room to renegotiate in the event other content owners want to work out a similar arrangement.
