Stephen Hill
|
29
|
 |
|
02-11-2003 08:23 PM ET (US)
|
 |
| Regarding item 14 |
|
Edited by author 03-01-2003 06:54 AM
I can't speak for Bennett Lincoff, but I don't read the implications of that statement the same way at all. Entry into the system he describes is open to large and small creators alike, as long as they register their copyrights and tag their recordings for tracking, and ultimately their fair share of digital transmission revenues collected.
Similarly, as the owner and operator of a very small niche music online service, I can tell you without hesitation that
1) our service could not be duplicated by large companies
2) the requirements imposed by Lincoff's tracking plan would be easy for us to deal with (it would involve adding the relevant codes to our source database and then re-encoding our program files)
3) a system like Lincoff proposes would likely lead to far greater diversity and choice, because small players would have a fair shot at creating their own 'micro-services' and being compensated fairly for the content they transmit.
File sharing between individuals is another story. It would be possible to build P2P networks that only carried properly coded files, but that would not stop others from continuing to operate outside of the system. Nevertheless, I believe that as you say "artists would retain more independent control of their works" under an organized tracking system.
|