[Commons-Law] The MiddlePerson Problem...

[Hasit seth]

Hi All,

   Recent Grokster decision awakens us to the need for thinking about
distribution models for music (and any other creative outputs as
such). The players in this great game are media, commerce (the
recording industry) and activist-hobbyists (the
download-for-all/copying-mixing-for-all (d-f-a/c-m-f-a) voices). To me
the commerical recording industry and d-f-a/c-m-f-a both function as
middlepersons with two different objectives.  The recording industry
wants to maximize its revenues per copy and through the volume of
copies paid for.  The d-f-a/c-m-f-a wants to minimize or eliminate the
cost of copying for the end-user because as a middle person
d-f-a/c-m-f-a has no revenue maximization goal of itself (exception
are Grokster types which want to maximize their revenues vicariously
through piggy-back advertising).

    Both these middle persons - recording industry and d-f-a/c-m-f-a -
have no concern for the artists who create music/art.  Both these
sides seek to help either themselves or the end-users but have no role
for the creator.  Why is that then d-f-a/c-m-f-a should be a favored
model over the recording industry? Is there a model possible that
maximizes return for the creator irrespective of whether money is
charged or copying or in some other way? In fact the goal of copyright
would be well served by such a model rather than existing recording
industry or the d-f-a/c-m-f-a models which both fail to reward or spur
creativity.  Any ideas how such a model should be like? or even a
basic question should the artist/creator be entitled to the maximum
return or for that matter any return at all? otherwise let everyone
copy-mix-burn everything since the creator does not need to be
rewarded at all.

Regards,
Hasit Seth