TeleRead territory: Harvard prof’s proposal overlaps with 1992 Computerworld article
Since the early ’90s TeleRead has been pushing for a well-stocked national digtal library system. It would be financed by tax money–at least in part–and would pay by the access. From a TeleRead perspective, I’m glad to see growing interest in approaches similar to the one I advocated in a 1992 Computerworld article. Here is an excerpt from the introduction of Promises to Keep, a new book by Harvard law professor William Fisher:
Chapter 6 outlines the best of the possible solutions to the crisis: an administrative compensation system that would provide an alternative to the increasingly creaky copyright regime. In brief, here’s how such a system would work: The owner of the copyright in an audio or video recording who wished to be compensated when it was used by others would register it with the Copyright Office and would receive, in return, a unique file name, which then would be used to track its distribution, consumption, and modification. The government would raise the money necessary to compensate copyright owners through a tax – most likely, a tax on the devices and services that consumers use to gain access to digital entertainment. Using techniques pioneered by television rating services and performing rights organizations, a government agency would estimate the frequency with which each song and film was listened to or watched. The tax revenues would then be distributed to copyright owners in proportion to the rates with which their registered works were being consumed. Once this alternative regime were in place, copyright law would be reformed to eliminate most of the current prohibitions on the unauthorized reproduction and use of published recorded music and films. The social advantages of such a system, we will see, would be large: consumer convenience; radical expansion of the set of creators who could earn a livelihood from making their work available directly to the public; reduced transaction costs and associated cost savings; elimination of the economic inefficiency and social harms that result when intellectual products are priced above the costs of replicating them; reversal of the concentration of the entertainment industries; and a boost to consumer creativity caused by the abandonment of encryption. The system would certainly not be perfect. Some artists would try to manipulate it to their advantage, it would cause some distortions in consumer behavior, and the officials who administer it might abuse their power. But, on balance, it is the most promising solution of the three models. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of how a variant of this approach might be implemented on a voluntary basis–as either a prelude to or as an alternative to its creation and management by the government.
I have not yet seen the entire book, but look foward to reading it. Meanwhile here are the key words from my Computerworld article: “In all cases, TeleRead would pay fairly. If you wrote a book, for example, your earnings would depend on how often people dialed it up. Of course the network would not need to pay anyone for items already in the public domain–for example, government publications, statistics and old literary classics.” Also see 1994 and 1996 versions of TeleRead, which, of course, has evolved over the years.
Detail: For maximum freedom of expression, TeleRead has always favored private alternatives to government funding–not just tax money alone. At no level should government be able to tell citizens what to publish or read.
(Found via the Lessig blog.)
Leave a Reply