The Register has a whimsical, number-crunching overview of a proposed music and movie distribution/compensation model from Harvard professor William Fisher. What are the benefits? To quote Fisher himself:
Consumers would pay less for more entertainment.Artists would be fairly compensated. The set of artists who made their creations available to the world at large and consequently the range of entertainment products available to consumers would increase.
Musicians would be less dependent on record companies, and filmmakers would be less dependent on studios, for the distribution of their creations.
Both consumers and artists would enjoy greater freedom to modify and redistribute audio and video recordings. Although the prices of consumer electronic equipment and broadband access would increase somewhat, demand for them would rise, thus benefiting the suppliers of those goods and services. Finally, society at large would benefit from a sharp reduction in litigation and other transaction costs.
All this for a flat surcharge of $6/month for all broadband users — whether they use the service or not.
Economists love to monkey with massive monetary systems in order to make them more transparent or more efficient. Fisher, a professor of intellectual property, adds a wonderful layer over this number shuffle, connecting it with industry relationships, incentives and motives that drive its players, some serious detail about the entertainment/media infrastructure, and an honest struggle to find common ground.
It ain’t gonna happen. But walking through Fisher’s detailed proposal (you can download the preview chapter from his upcoming book) is a great education in how jerry-rigged the current music industry model is.
