But this future can only come from letting go. Talk of suing and prosecuting users and file traders is madness. Why require a digital network operator to control content and permissions when we offer Mel Karmizan a flat-fee to use whatever he wants, whenever he wants? Why should Clear Channel get essentially free reign over delivering content for a modest flat fee while we refuse to offer a proportionate fee to network users for the same freedom?

At the same time, I think it equally irresponsible for those with licenses, such as some webcasters, to continually whine over fees for compulsories other businesses would covet. When the rate was halved and the whining only increased I wondered if anything other than free - with artists uncompensated - could possibly satisfy those who seek to build businesses with other people's art.

This business of music and art will be rebuilt and grow handsomely on fair, flat actuarial fees that offer bundled price with unbundled choice. It's the way we've addressed every intersection of technology and media since electricity started spreading at the beginning of the last century. Ever since acoustic became electric we've responded with a pool of money and a fair - but not perfect - way of splitting up the spoils: Public address, radio, television, cable, satellite, and now webcasting all benefit from blanket compulsories that actuarially replace actual control.

It's time we licensed digital networks at businesses and college campuses the same way we license restaurants, broadcasters and others for whom control is less efficient than actuarial fees. And it's time we stopped whining over having to pay when this happens. All I can say is "Whoa," and I didn't know "incent" was a word - you learn something every day.

UPDATE
Bob Bellin of MP3Player.com questions Griffin:

"When the rate was halved and the whining only
increased I wondered if anything other than free - with artists
uncompensated - could possibly satisfy those who seek to build businesses
with other people's art."

Jim - I loved your treatise but disagree with you here. Even with the rate halved, it amounted to several times annual revenue for many. As far as the artists are concerned, the total pie due them under the best circumstances, (assuming no rate change) will be a million or so, in aggregate, over the two year length of the CARP decision. I think that the talk about compensating
artists has conceptual merit but no practical implication here, as the payments will likely be comparable to those checks for thirty cents we used to get for phone company credits.

Wouldn't it make sense to allow for a token payment based on a revenue percentage for this CARP period and then reassess if anyone has any real traction?

page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5