Rewarding the Creation of Cultural Works
Assume that there are two realities – one where the Gary Brolsma’s of the world are given 10 times more monetary compensation and the other where The Arcade Fire’s of the world are rewarded 10 times more. We know that compensation drives behavior to a large degree and so if there is a great expenditure of capital on the Gary Brolsma’s of the world – that will eventually be the pinnacle of cultural expression. Which reality is more culturally rich? Which one would you want to live in?
The point here is not only which one you would choose to compensate, but the idea that you should be given the choice in the first place. Collective Licensing takes the choice away from you and assumes that because you saw it, that you would like to pay for it.
Most rational people want to live in a world that is culturally rich, one that rewards good work with fair compensation. Finding the right amount of compensation is a delicate act that should not be overly-simplified to a one-view-one-purchase model that Collective Licensing proposes. We should be given the choice to spend, instead of it being legislated at us.
What we have mentioned to this point is an ideal scenario, which is not what Choruss is proposing. Choruss is composed of only a part of the total music, movie and book industries. Choruss currently represents Warner, EMI and Sony Music Entertainment. Their plan is not one where P2P becomes legalized, but one where their member companies agree to not sue the students that sign up for the service. This approach is called a “covenant not to sue” – which basically means that you are free to download content from 3 of the 4 major labels. Unfortunately, that doesn’t include anything else – no movies, no books, no software, no pictures. What is even worse is that students may start to think that the music industry approves of downloading any type of copyrighted content, which is not the case.
Under Choruss’ plan, a student could find themselves at the end of a lawsuit, even though they have paid the University’s P2P fee.
There is a better way to address this problem…
I personally say more power to Gary. If the band you mentioned wants to earn more money on You Tube, then they should play music that appeals to the demographic. After all, everybody get’s a kick out of watching a fat dude in glasses dance around. I understand that you’re just using them as an example, but I can say that in all honesty I would rather watch ‘Numa Numa Guy’ over and over, than listen to ‘The Arcade Fire’. Also, imagine the fact that Gary doesn’t make T-shirts, have shows, sell albums (aside from a very trivial e-album) thus, there is no doubt in my mind that he makes way less than that terrible band. I would put Gary right up there with that guy that spilled coffee on his crotch, and sued Burger King for 2 million. Simple, yet effective. And now, he’s rich, and we’re not. And I’ll bet you wish you had thought of it first.