At 8:28 PM -0400 8/17/2000, Jeff Kandt wrote:
>On or about 12:57 PM -0400 8/17/00, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
>>I think a voluntary payment system is a fine idea, but I am not
>>sure that your proposal address the right issues. If I understand
>>what you are proposing correctly, your scheme allows a CD buyer to
>>verify that a particular payment server is authorized by the
>>recording artist to collect payments in their behalf. It does this
>>by attaching server an artist URLs and sigs to the downloadable
>>content.
>
>Correct so far, except for the "CD buyer" part; this is for people
>who download their music from the net, even via peer-to-peer
>mechanisms like Napster.
Sorry. That was a slip on my part.
>
>>First, why bother attaching all that info to the content? One can
>>simply set up the servers and let them present signed credentials
>>from the artists.
>
>The reason for attaching the info to the file makes is that it makes
>it a no-brainer to pay for a song. Just right-click on the file in
>the Windows Explorer/Finder and choose "Tip Artist". Or alternately,
>my MP3 player software might support it directly so that I can pay
>based on who I'm actually listening to most.
>
>One of my primary goals is to make this as easy as possible for the
>consumer to send a tip, since the system only works if people are
>willing to do it on a regular basis.
I agree that making it easy is essential. But I still do not think
attaching all the info to the content is needed to make things easy.
First of all, there is no need to have the servers' keys attached. At
most you need the artist's public key or key fingerprint. When the
client software contacts the server, it can get a copy of the
server's key signed by the artist. That lets artists add servers
after the content has been posted. Each artist's signature on the
server key could also have an expiration date to allow artists to
drop a server, say for non payment. You can't do that if the server
keys are in the content.
Under your scheme, each user will need a payment client or an MP3
player that includes a payment feature. It would make more sense to
have just the artist's URL included with the content and create a
protocol to let the payment client download a list of servers from
the artist's site. That might not require more than agreeing on a
file naming convention and file format (e.g.
www.myhotnewband.com/PaymentServerList.asc, which would contain a
signed list of URLs).
>
>>Content is certainly one way to publicize the servers, but their
>>are many other ways. Why depend on the content uploaders to do
>>this?
>
>It would be the content encoders. Once the payment info is attached
>to the file, it will be there no matter how many times it gets
>swapped around. Given a voluntary model, there's no motivation for
>anyone to strip it.
>
>People ripping their own MP3s from CDs is, I think, a temporary
>phenomenon which will go away as soon as everyone realizes what an
>inefficient way of moving bits they are.
>
>It won't be long before music will come straight from the artist in
>a compressed, net-friendly form. If it's the artists creating the
>file, then they'd might as well stamp their contact info on it
>before releasing it to the world.
My disagreement here is over the best way to effect change. There is
significant inertia in the recording industry. New artists still
dream of signing a record contract. Change is coming and I agree that
an effective voluntary payment mechanism could speed change, but it
is a form of circular reasoning to make that change a condition for
introducing the payment system. The likelihood of a new payment
model succeeding must be judged on things as they are now, not as
they will be once the payment system is in place.
>
>
>>Second, it would seem you require the artist's cooperation. Some
>>may not want to cooperate. Maybe that's OK: they don't get paid.
>>But others --perhaps most-- could be barred from cooperating by
>>their record companies. Their contracts may allow the record
>>companies to control all uses of their name and may even give them
>>access to the voluntary payments (if the contracts don't, they soon
>>will.). The record companies may even sue the servers claiming they
>>are interfering with the record companies contractual agreement
>>with the artists.
>
>I address exactly this issue here:
>http://tipster.weblogs.com/discuss/msgReader$31
In the above link you say: "Its a good bet that it will be the
independent (aka small) bands which first adopt Tipster (or whatever
the inevitable voluntary protocol turns out to be, even if it's not
Tipster). The ones with no existing recording contract to slow them
down will be quickest to move to the new model. Whatever success they
have will drive the rest of the industry ..."
Depending on new artists, as you propose, is a very slow and risky
way to introduce a new recorded music payment model. Christine Lavin
once lamented "you can make hundreds of dollars as a folk singer." I
think new, unknown artists will be lucky to make even that much in
voluntary payments. The record companies will cite the trickle of tip
money to induce new artists to sign with them.
>...
>
>>The recording industry can be expected to try to shut down any
>>voluntary payment system, so careful legal design is more of an
>>issue IMHO than cryptographic protocols. A reputable bank as escrow
>>holder and CPA firm should provide enough trust.
>
>The recording industry has no reason to shut down a voluntary
>payment system, since their music won't be a part of it until they
>decide they're missing out on revenues.
>
The recording industry is not that stupid. They can see the threat
almost as clearly as you can. Napster woke them up and have plenty of
lawyers. Expect any voluntary payment system to be sued.
Arnold Reinhold
