Global license

The diagram of global license was a proposal aiming at n the other hand allowing the exchange of audio-visual contents (except Logiciel S) through Internet of a remuneration Forfait surface. She proposed the institution of a Redevance, creating a system with the manner of what already in France SACEM for the radiophonic diffusions does, by remunerating the Artiste S or their having right with the funds thus collected, as for the Redevance annual contractual related to the possession of a radio until the third quarter of the 20th century.

This proposal belonged to the Bill DADVSI at the time of its passage in first reading in December 2005 with the French National Assembly and gave place to surging debates. She was not finally retained in the final legal text promulgated August 2006.

Private suppliers, whose Last nine could on the other hand propose a partial equivalent (because limited to the catalog Universal) and thus answer of it at the request of the public.

The debate

The problem lies in the fact that any numerical data can be copied in theory ad infinitum, without the use of any matter. The global license thus seeks to find a compromise between this reality, and the need for remunerating the Having right. But that Ci is blocked with another reality: the difficulty in setting up such a system of remuneration.

Arguments of the defenders of the global license

the global license simply amounts extending to Internet already existing provisions for the Radiodiffusion (it is illicit to record radio programs, because those paid only the rights for the diffusion of the contents without the reproduction right not being concerned; in France and Germany, a tax is in addition taken with the source on the supports of recording).

It is impossible to prevent the remote loadings of protected works, unless permanently supervising all the Net surfers in the contempt of individual freedoms. The global license is thus the only means of ensuring the artists a correct income in the future.

the owner of a numeric work is not private pleasure of its copy when that Ci is copied. Concept of Private property, which has a direction with physical goods (ex: a bread rod), does not have any then more really. The global license is presented then in the form of an alternative to the private property ensuring a right remuneration of the artists.

By paying the global license, one pays only work and not its support and its distribution. On the price of an album bought in the record dealer, a very weak share is allocated to the artists (10% or less). On the contrary, the global license is intended of exclusiveness to the artists, giving them a prevalent role compared to the publishers.

Of the punts forms of free diffusion of music on line as Jamendo showed that thanks to Internet there does not need more inevitably the publishers to make emerge new talents, including in pointed fields.

Of multiple realizable methods of distribution of the product of the license was identified: statistics on the remote loading, correlation with the sales of copies/concerts, votes listeners, etc…

the global license makes it possible to avoid the protection of works by DRM which is lived by the consumers like a constraint preventing them from reading the works legally bought on all the supports (Interopérabilité)

Lastly, the access unlimited to all the musical catalog with lower costs makes it possible to make the music accessible to all.

Arguments of the opponents to the global license

On the one hand a reduction in quality of the productions, this system increasing the difficulty in recovering an important artistic investment (film in spectacular, for example). The producers they will not be dissuaded to finance a work in studio of several months like the Sgt. Pepper' S Lonely Hearts Club Band of the Beatles or an expensive film like Amadeus ?

In addition its difficulties of application: if for example the distribution of the collected basket is done with the pro missed by the Téléchargement of works, of the indelicate producers won't he full-time launch robots of remote loading to increase their share artificially?

Thus, the director of FNAC delivers his opinion of the difficulty in the Libération daily newspaper on February 14th, 2007:

" The idea of a global license is not absurd on the principle but it remains completely unrealizable. How to remunerate the have-rights starting from the billion exchanges which are done each month on the sites of P2P? How to distinguish those which download those which do not do it, Trier between the uses of the Net surfers? All that is a nightmare of the reason and is absolutely not conceivable under conditions of equity and justice. It is in the actual position of the things impossible".

Close questions

the debate consisting in determining if it is to better take less on one larger plate or more on a smaller plate is close to that raised in the Années 1980 with the Courbe of Laffer. It is known that this last still did not generate a Consensus.

the concept is close also to what exists with the Internet: a toll moderated for the access to the access road, which gives then access to total freedom of circulation on the highways of information. It acts well, as regards intellectual property, of a change of Paradigme.

Lastly, and although the software is not concerned with the global license, the model of participative exemption from payment of the Free software is very present. A retransmission of the debates on the Parliamentary chain watch this expression used 38 times in only one meeting.

Estimates

If 10 million people downloads on Internet, a global license of 7 euros per month would represent 70 million euros per month , that is to say 840 million euros per annum.

By comparison, the order of magnitude of the annual income declared (right + concerts + right derived) from the 5 to 10 the most sold French artists - cumulating royalty and incomes of spectacles - borders 10 million euros for each one. The incomes decrease then rather quickly (see Loi of Zipf for information) But this calculation does not take obviously counts of them the rights of the other actors of the dies - producers of discs - editors - type-setters authors - distributers; however the artists are not the only links of the die musical to being remunerated by volume.

Alternative

INA proposes since April 2006 a hybrid system: 100.000 works are visionnables free on its site (public service thus assured with the expenses the taxpayer), and each user can if it wishes it to download the contents corresponding in large size for a little more than one euro.

Another alternative, as one can notice it on Jamendo, is to function by voluntary gift, which makes it possible the artist to be remunerated according to the quality of its works, in addition to satisfying the visitor who can choose itself the amount of his disbursement. In fact, if the site receives a great number of visitors, the person who do not spend anything or who spend little are often balanced by the fact that they are numerous to make gifts.

See too

External bonds

Video provision by association Alliance Public Artists.
Communicated Canadian artists for the global license (April 2006)

Random links: