Reform in the “Brave Kingdom”
I’ve finished my seminar paper on alternative compensation systems for peer-to-peer file sharing titled Reform in the “Brave Kingdom”. You can read it here (200k PDF). An excerpt:
This article proposes an alternative compensation system for peer-to-peer activity. Licensing under the current regime makes legitimate peer-to-peer distribution of commercial recordings very difficult. A number of law professors have proposed alternative compensation systems. I present an alternative compensation system that, unlike the Fisher, Netanel, and Litman proposals, is simultaneously technically feasible, economically sound, and does not require modifications to international agreements to which the United States is a party.
In short, I propose an “opt-in” system which is limited to noncommercial use of music. Copyright holders will be encouraged to opt in by a large compensation pool and a partial repeal of section 1201. Popularity will be measured based on what files are shared by users. The money will be distributed to copyright holders according to a formula given in the paper, which bases popularity on the number of times peers offer a song for download, correcting for the size of peers’ music collections so that people with more music don’t get more votes.
2 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

RSS Feed
[…] per, and I have no real criticisms of the proposal. If you compare that white paper with this paper of mine, you’ll see that their proposal is similar to m […]
Pingback by joegratz.net » EFF on Alternative Compensation Systems — 24 February 2004 @ 23:40
[…] d to the RIAA’s most recent round of lawsuits, both suggesting the implementation of alternative compensation systems for P2P file sharing. http://www.nytime […]
Pingback by joegratz.net » Terry and Kembrew on the NYT Op-Ed Page — 25 June 2004 @ 17:47