Quote:




Hi folks,

I did some homework for you. I hope that, this time, some pips will be interested.

Advert: if you ever read one of my 50 previous posts, you already know how bad my english is. So, if you see some non-senses or hazy sentences be sure it come from me. The original text is very smooth and accurate.

ORIGINAL

By Philippe Axel

Why does the blanket fee so frighten?

Government have decided to present the hadopi text again the april 29th.Mrs Alabanel, minister of culture, even envisaged its resignation in case of defeat.

Despite (of) a call to real demonstration on Saturday, April 25th, the opposition of the Internet users and the political opposition, which seems henceforth ready to use this subject of campaign for the European elections, it is apparently not enough to make the president of the republic, very upset after this humilation, change his mind.

But our main problem, when we propose a solution like a "creative contribution, isp's tax or Global/blanket fee/license" is that even the opponents of the repressives solutions have difficulty in realizing this logic.

Because they quickly think at a collectivist system. Here are some answers to the main arguments of those who, often with sincerity, are worried about what they consider in twists as a complete change of paradigm which would question in a too rough way the current balance of the sectors of music and cinema.
And who seem to ignore that, unless eliminating Internet, this new support of communication is going to upset many other sectors although no detailed economic studies measured the calculated incidences, at this time.

In the confusions and the doubt which arouses the digital economy, we have a theoretical certainty which should be logically the base of the reflection of the strategic and economic studies on the subject: the digital file is a "non-rival" good (ndt: duplication is NOT the production, it's not the cd, but the music) And it is enough to understand the natural tendency
of the unity sale towards the stream and the free access. It began with the photography, the video game, the music, then the information, and tomorrow the cinema, the television, the software, the comic strip, the literary edition etc.
All this is going to stretch out towards free on-line, that we want it or not, unless forbidding e-mails with attached files, USB keys, Wifi, the bluetooth, the cables of connection, the engravers and hard disks.
As well as start-up enterprises …

Is the global fee a collectivist concept?

Not more than the general principle of the (ndt: french) copyright, which is the one of the implementation of indirect transfers of resources towards the creation, resulting from lucrative manners which take advantage of the artistic works. Not more thus than the private copy tax organized by Jack Lang (ndt: and in many others countries as well) or decrees Tasca allowing
to finance for half the French cinema today. These measures, actually, supported and fed the market in our country rather than opposed to it. I have still read nobody to propose that the state salarie the artists as the civil servants of the Ministry of Culture. There is thus there an inequitable distrust.
A direct resource assigned to the authors could even feed their activity in the form of auto-entrepreneur, a very interesting status.

Would the global license precipitate the fall of the sales of CD and DVD and cinema entries?

Yes, no doubt for me for CD and DVD, if they are not worked again in depth in their added values, compared to what we can find free of charge on the web. But this fall has already begun for years, simply because these supports are obsolete at the time of the internet. We cannot force the consumer to buy what he does not want to buy any more. We are far from the drying up of
the innovation in the domains of the cultural by-products. There will be consumers attached to objects. And thus physical, well rival objects, to sell for whom will know how to create them and sell them.

For show or cinema entrances, it is to be estimated yet, but the first tendencies are far from being negative.
For the live performance, we know that it is rather positive, even if it is true that the musical CD was upstream to the shows.
Thus, what I call new rites of selections of the artists will have to be born on the web, to bring to the foreground those who among them will motivate the spectators to pay to see them in concert.
For cinema entrances, it will depend on the price of tickets and on the quality of the services
proposed by the exploitant, which will have to be more attractive than the home cinema which risks hardly to still develop in a impressive way next years, in particular by the exploitant, which will have to be more attractive than the home cinema which risks hardly to still develop in a impressive way next years, in particular by new systems of projection or immersifs viewings at home.

Will it be necessary to pay a 30 or 50-€ fee a month to finance everything as Pascal Nègre says it everywhere (ndt: the boss of Universal in france)?

The music and the cinema it is approximately 131 billion a year in the world.
There are 5,3 billion subscribers with Internet ( 1,3 ) + mobile (4 ).
3€ of participation a month only on each of these subscriptions to finance the contents would already report 191 billion by the years, it is more than the total CA of these two combined industries.

It is a quick calculation but I remind that Philippe Aigrain made his in a very precise way in his proposition of Creative Contribution .
I thus insite so that all the professionals of these sectors read his book without preconceived idea, study which we can download free of charge.
According to him, the French Internet users should settle a sum from 5 to 7 € in their isp's subscription to help in the technological transformation of the music, but also the cinema.

But once again, it is not about replacing a global recipe by another one by a strict effect of communicating vessels. Because nothing would prevent the record industry from finding the other products to be sold and the cinematographic industry to continue to sell cinema entrances for example. Nothing would prevent them either from continuing to perceive fees of use on the
lucrative manners for the digital radio or the television. Thus a global license would have no vocation to be the unique source of the creators of contents.

On the other hand, it seems necessary to me, and I already underlined it in the propositions at the end of my book in 2007, to study right now an extension of this principle in the other domains which will need transfers of resources by the free access to the non profit exchanges on the web. Not by global compensantion, but once again, by support.



How to redistribute a global fee in a fair way?

ask this question for the web, it's settle it in the same way for the current fees paid by radios and televisions and thus for the SACEM (ndt: association of composers and music publishers to protect copyright and royalties) for example.
For web there are said, not intrusive processes, (watermarking or "tattoos"), which will allow,
not only to redistribute according to the true manners, but in a much finer way and on a plate much wider than today for the radio and the TV. It mean that many artists will be paid. A not intrusive process being a method of drawing of the contents which does not require to establish a file making the link between a content and a private individual, as it will be the case of the files of Hadopi (ndt: french repressive law). Because even if we speak to us of taking in only the IP addresses, within the framework of Hadopi, the IP address will had inevitably to be converted in name and address at one time or another in the process of control and saving of the data in a file after the first warning. Thus, the global fee is much simpler to set up technically than Hadopi, and less problematic in the surveillance. (ndt: P. Axel speak about only one way for file watching.
There are some other)


More to come if I see some interest:

Why not let the market do it by itself?

Why to charge everybody while only 37 % of the Internet users download on the P2P?

Why not let a market of the subscriptions be set up? (uuuhhhrgh, an interesting one)

Why not to count simply on the advertising market which quickly develops on the web?