This is not an educational topic per se, but the comment does concern the general topic of copyright and appropriate compensation to content producers.
My interest in technology has expanded my interest in music. Most of the music I listen to moves through one of my computers. This interface adds an added dimension because of the potential social network that can be connected to this music. When I purchase something from iTunes, the recommendations alert me to similar artists who may interest me. I am actually more interested in services such as last.fm or mashups such as pandorafm. These sources provide a variety of services that deepen my interest in the music I listen to and the artists who create this content.
It appears that the RIAA intends to increase the royalties demanded of internet radio services. I learned of this because the increase costs threaten the continuation of Pandora. This increase is anticipated to be especially damaging to what were previously regarded as a special category described as small webcasters (e.g., Rogueamoeba). As I read the law, it appears the minimum fee is $500. The cost per performance is about a tenth of a cent. It doesn’t sound like much, but those offering services at the low end typically do not collect money (there may be an occasional request for a donation).
Copyright is such a complex issue to me because different media work in different ways and because the problem is not necessarily that an opportunity exists, but that individuals might inappropriately take advantage of that opportunity (e.g., capturing a personal copy from what was intended as a one time experience). Differences in how we tend to respond to media are interesting. Theoretically, producers may benefit from different exposure models, but such differences are difficult to document. There is a concept I teach in the intro psychology section on motivation that would seem to apply. For example, Maslow’s hierarchy differentiates deficiency needs and growth needs. Responding to a deficiency need reduces the need to respond again. In contrast, responding to a growth need potentially increases the motive to respond again. Music often seems to function like a growth need. Finding a song or artist that you like increases willingness to listen to that same song or artist again. Hence, it has been argued that listening to an occasional song via internet radio increases rather than decreases sales for quality material. Access to most video and text material in most cases operates like a deficiency need. If I have the opportunity to view a movie or read a book for free, there are only a few rare cases in which that opportunity would increase my desire to then purchase that resource and certainly the general impact would be to reduce sales. I guess I believe that producers should have the right to control access to their creative works, but at least in the case of music I would think certain forms of free exposure would offer a financial advantage.
