Notes:

• We can encrypt anything that has digital format. Good encryption cannot be broken at this time without knowing the key.

• It is possible to build an essentially free public-key encryption system that allows us to distribute digital files in encrypted format such that only the intended user can decrypt the file. Here is some commentary, and some issues:
  1. Public-key encryption uses two matching keys: a public key, and a private, secret, key. Files are encrypted with the public key, and decrypted with the private key. Modern encryption techniques cannot currently be broken, even by the government.

  2. A user's public key is posted at a registration site, or sent to a content provider (e.g., music, video, e-books); anyone can see it and use it. The user's secret, private, key is stored on their computer, or playback device. The provider encrypts the data using the public key and sends it without any further protection to the user. The user uses the matching secret key to play the file.

  3. Modern CPUs are generally fast enough to decrypt and uncompress files for each play so the files can be stored in encrypted format.

  4. The user MUST keep their personal secret key a secret, and also not lose it, or the system fails.

  5. Files must be decrypted before they can be played or viewed. Once a file has been decrypted, however, it can ALWAYS be shared in its un-encrypted form. Currently we have no practical, acceptable, way to allow decryption for playing, without also allowing decryption for sharing.

  6. If we control the hardware - that is make laws to enforce particular kinds of decryption equipment, we can do a better job of making it inconvenient to decrypt and share files. However it is still possible, and the public has been clear they are not in favor of hardware restrictions.

• One school of thought suggests that artists have helped us rise above a state of nature by extracting art from raw materials. Historically we could then assign ownership of the art to the person that used the raw materials to create something of greater value, and when ownersip of the art was transferred, money could be transferred back to the artist in the other direction. In the modern world it is possible to make perfect copies , art that uses a digital medium. This raises new ehtical issues.

• Although we still have them, a case can be made that we no longer need giant monolithic music distributors that take a bulk of the profits, and generally treat entering artists badly. We have the technology for artists/producers to directly make their music files available for sale to the public.

• Most "younger" people make use of illegally-downloaded content. Most of them feel it is wrong, but because it is cheap and others do so as well, they are willing to abandon their morals on this issue. This is a bad situation that does not serve us well. A significant subset feel that it is their right to download at will.

• The RIAA brought heavy lawsuits against random targets to discourage downloading, and scare people. Most were guilty, but only as guilty as millions of others. Because of high legal fees, there was no due process of law. In general a target could pay $7,000 to make the problem go away, or $100,000 to maybe prove their innocence. This seems intuitively wrong.

• Many musicians, computer game designers, filmmakers, make great sacrifices in their personal lives to pursue their careers (e.g., leaving their children to travel with their band on publicity tours; living with little money and no medical insurance; working 70-hour weeks in the studio at crunch time). They often feel bad when others who have more money than they do consume their artistic work without paying for it.

• If we don't pay artists, the quality of art goes down, becuase sometimes the best artists will then pursue other careers.

• Almost every even slightly popular movie, song, computer game, and software program ever produced in America is available in, e.g., Chinese superstores, for a dollar. Blu-ray/DVD copies of many $100+ million movies are available before they reach theaters.

• American businesses that have to pay significant licensing fees for software compete directly with Chinese businesses that generally pay nothing for their software.

• If you are a Chinese software company, what are your chances of making money on a software product you hope to sell to other Chinese businesses?

• Consider a proposal based on the data that most "young people" consume illegally-downloaded content.
  1. All households pay a flat, per-individual, tax for each person that has not reached the age of [36], of $100 a year.
  2. All participating music content is provided for free download at government sites.
  3. The money collected from the tax is distributed, with a ceiling, according to popularity of the music selection.
  4. There is precedent in that all people pay school taxes, but not everyone has school children.
  5. It is problematic, but probably somewhat workable, to determine actual popularity of music selections. That is, setting your server to simply repeatedly download "your" song, so you increase your profit, can probably be detected.
  6. Music distributors are elminated; money goes directly to musicians/producers that participate.

• How have streaming services like YouTube Spotify and others handled the downloading of music? Does this benefit society?

• Peer-to-peer file sharing systems make it easy to distribute content without regard to copyright.

• Does the system have to be cheap enough, that it won't pay to cheat? That is, suppose that iTunes charged ten cents a song - would the system stabilize such as to encourage artistic endeavors, but discourage cheating because it is so cheap to do the right thing? To what level can we trust people to do the right thing? What is the cost cutoff?

• Consider that the following music industry stakeholders are all involved in any solution:
  1. Composers / writers.
  2. Performers
  3. Managers
  4. Studios
  5. Producers
  6. Internet/Web music providers
  7. Financial people that get build and maintain a system to get money to art-makers, from art-consumers

• Live bands / performers. Revenue? Is this enough? What about studio bands?

• Should we move toward monthly subscriptions?

• Should we change how soon art becomes public domain?

• Inheritance rights?

• Fair use?

• Modifications to existing music? What happens when you take someone else's song, and modify it slightly, then it becomes popular in its own way? Who gets paid what?

• Do we want to focus on taking the legal system, and expensive lawyers, out of the loop? Currently the law industry makes a great deal of money. They have a stake in the status quo.

• How do we design a system that is ethical? HOW is it ethical?

• What actions would YOU propose?