April 2005

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

« Little Debate before the House Passed the PDEA | Main | Bootlegging - P2P Style »

September 30, 2004


Actually, that's 4,280, not 400,280. This strengthens your argument that lawsuits against infringers aren't going to get us there, especially since the monthly cost of the risk of getting sued by the RIAA is about $0.54:


You can get around the free rider problem for any public good by making contribution mandatory (i.e., a tax). That solution raises its own problems, but free riding among United States citizens isn't one of them. (Free riding by downloaders in other countries is, though.)

After I posted I realized the obvious error, 400000 would actually be quite a lot. To your next point, is there any hope you see for voluntary collective licensing? Why propose such an apparently unworkable solution? Is there any solution to the free rider problem but a tax (involuntary collective licensing), a tax that presumably would have to be imposed on sharers and non-sharers alike?

I have corrected the numerical error in the blog to accurately relfect the number of RIAA lawsuits to date - 4,280.

It's like an insurance premium, which is also voluntary.
Each person evaluates the cost of the premium and the risk of not taking it out and decides whether it's worth it.

Judging by Joe's post, though, it sounds like the proposed figure is a factor of 100 or so too high. $0.50/month for immunity to RIAA lawsuits for p2p filesharing ? That sounds like a reasonable deal to me, and with millions of filesharers (did I see 60 000 000 somewhere ?) a reasonable income stream for the music companies.

Oh, and the reason it's more attractive than the current offerings from online music stores is because of the selection - the online stores made a big deal over having reached 1 000 000 tracks. They're mostly constrained to music from one or two labels.

The comments to this entry are closed.