A one-size-fits all scheme is likely unrealistic, but I think we’d be wise to pay heed to consumer trends and new models for of access/distribution — particularly when up-and-coming generations know no product scarcity and have largely abandoned lawful avenues of media acquisition.

The finer points of any such solution is above my pay grade. For the moment anyway.

Thanks for those articulate comments. A celestial jukebox certainly is compelling. We are moving in that direction on different fronts. You mention subscription services and I have been a Napster to Go subscriber from the first month they launched. Increasingly we’ll see Internet radio in cars via WiFi and WiMax, and that gives you a lot of listening flexibility.

The key is to make sure the songwriters and performing artists don’t get shafted. You mention the content industry, and as they are members I obviously have a focus on them, but we also have individual members and that is where the focus is for this series. I’m told that my Napster service doesn’t pay artists that much, and in fact there are some that don’t participate. I wonder how a celestial jukebox could possibly return reasonable value for creators. If it were truly voluntary, however, there would clearly be many who would find it valuable and they could join it, and others (The Beatles, perhaps?) could opt not to and sell in other ways. There we get close to my focus on making sure copyright owners get market value.

You obviously have focused on music and are a musician yourself. But I am serious when I point out that any precedent set for music would be applied to other industries. Do we want a celestial book jukebox? Would that just include inexpensive paperbacks or would it also have extremely expensive textbooks? The price varies dramatically on those because of (1) the resources required to produce them and (2) the size of the potential audience. A flat-price all-you-could-eat jukebox approach would kill a lot of the publishing industry. And would Amazon have invented the amazing Kindle reader if it knew it couldn’t sell e-books for the device? And we haven’t mentioned video games, photography, TV and motion pictures, graphic arts, even needlepoint and cross-stitch patterns.

Our current system is complicated, but so-called “simple solutions” such as blanket licensing introduce many new problems, and they have to be addressed BEFORE we create such a system because it will be too late once it’s up and running.

I’d be curious to read a more official reaction from FMC on this series.

I think what some folks aren’t seeing in this entire debate is that blanket voluntary licensing will probably be more successful when applied when and if the subscription access model teks off.

I envision a future where broadband access will be wireless and ubiquitous — in your car, your portable device, every room in your house — which will make the idea of owning a discrete audio or visual file irrelevant. With proper economics of scale, subscription access would result in more money than the entire content industry currently takes in from the sale of individual files and physical items. Of course, real-world tokens will still exist, they just won’t be mass-produced, which means premium prices and another revenue stream for content producers.

The only thing the content industry stands to lose in this vision is possibly on the branding side. But there is plenty of opportunity to inject value into this system through artist pages, and things we haven’t even thought of yet. Maybe a Princess Leia-style hologram?!?

Alas, the technology isn’t there yet, and consumers aren’t wuite able to make that logical leap from “ownership” to “access.”

I do agree, Patrick, that losing the ability to price art based on perceived market value, but something’s gotta give here. It’s clear that the old way of selling creative content isn’t working out; new ideas must be entertained. Better to bring in the widest possible range of paying consumers than to permanently lose any means through which to monetize music/film.

FYI, this is my personal take on things, and doesn’t necessarily represent the views of my employer, Future of Music Coalition. I’m just a high volume, 100% legal musician/consumer who wants his celestial jukebox!

I think Neal from your remark that, is if I understood you correctly, he may have been talking about you…”infringing downloaders” This entire article
by Patrick is excellent. No one has the right to use an artist work. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates
have designed systems and software that have turned music into poor sounding compressed audio and forced all artist into the new digital world of music distribution. I for one as an artist would like the same respect and protection that we give to Jobs and Gates for their so-called creative efforts.
Patrick your series was a great read! Artist have always been subjected to others thinking they can just use their work in anyway they please. Perhaps those that believe it is their right to just literally steel someone’s artistic creation would not mind if I steel their weekly paycheck since they feel that the rewards for my work are not neccessary then their working reward is not neccessary either.

I’ll say just one more thing: We need to fight those who want to dictate to us. It’s clear that you are already dong that. Thanks:)