Reconciling the need of artists to get paid and citizens to enjoy freedom in the digital age is not going to be easy. Using the best aspects of the market and the technology today, however, it may be possible to do just that. This is a rework of other ideas that might easily be put into practice today, and even on a limited scale could provide an outpost of freedom in a world rocketing toward overregulation.

The need bring the rules of copyright in line with the realities of the digital age is widely accepted, but there is a huge divide of opinion as to how this should happen between the owners of recorded culture and the citizens to whom they sell access. Few of the citizenry currently accept the idea that they have an ethical obligation to pay upwards of $15 for access to a CD when the culture it contains could easily be provided for a few cents worth of electricity. On the other hand, the largest owners of culture (as represented by RIAA, for example) see no reason that citizens should be allowed nearly free access to a CD which cost millions to produce and promote. What both groups claim to understand is that artists should be paid. Unfortunately for most of us, the large culture-owners currently have the political clout to dominate the discussion.

Before the digital age was fully realized, the most powerful owners of culture managed to secure their investment by imposing taxes on the media (DATs) that threatened them. This did not secure payment for artists, but it kept the powerful interests happy and that was enough. The same cannot be done again, however, as no legitimate argument can be made that hard drives and CDR's are largely the tools of "piracy," even if one accepts that definition of sharing. Nor can it be taken seriously that the artists would benefit, even if such were to happen. So the owners of culture have turned their energies toward criminalizing the citizenry and taking control over all digital tools. In the process, they threaten the entire technology industry, eliminating possibilities of innovation. They threaten free speech, shutting down internet radio and limiting other forms of digital broadcast. Of course they also plan to fight free culture, declaring war on P2P and seeking extensions to the terms of copyright. They even threaten those artists in whom they have no interest, re-raising barriers to entry in what many consider a deliberate attempt to stifle future competition. In the face of all of this, the citizenry might readily re-consider a tax upon their storage media, but that is no longer an option. All the resources available now are tied up trying to keep the very worst of the culture-owners' plans from coming to fruition. Even as this happens, many uninformed or disempowered citizens add their money to the power of the culture-owners, buying their entertainment and technology for lack of better solutions. We pay for the creation of future chains.

There is, of course, a way out. Many artists, shunned by the large culture-owners, have discovered the possibilities of the digital age and have been willing to give up control of distribution in the hopes of reaching a willing audience. But the tools to ensure that they can make a living at this have yet to be implemented, and already the large culture-owners have chilled interest in a technological solution and laid the seeds of doubt in the citizenry, some of whom begin to think that giving in to the new regulations really is the only way.

But what if we could voluntarily pay a "tax" on digital recording media or network access, on the promise that profits would reach the appropriate artists? There are some databases where one can pay to access music on the assumption that a portion will reach the artists, but once that music is accessed there is no reason to assume further sharing will necessarily benefit the artists or the database owners, so there are still powerful drives to control the culture. Suppose that a few makers of high-quality CDRs, (and later, providers of high bandwidth access) voluntarily surveyed their customers about their legitimate sharing of culture and distributed a portion of profits accordingly. The donation fund might easily come from a slightly higher cost to the customers, who might reasonably choose to pay that cost to ensure that the needs of their freedom can be preserved without costing the artist her living. Under such circumstances, the technology provider and the artist compliment each other, the work of each improves the interest of the citizen in that of both.

The most important aspect of this idea is not that it is completely new or infallible, but that it could be tried now, with only a minimal effort and minimal risk. A small internet recording label already offering free downloads might offer to sell blank CDR's at a slightly increased price, or a company already selling high quality CDR's might drum up business by offering free music downloads to customers. A group such as evolution radio might combine the two, continuing to broadcast Free music while adding high-quality downloads in exchange for a donation or purchase of blank CD's. An artist might put up a site with their music free for all, and simply ask that those who wish to share it consider choosing a CDR supplier noted for being especially good about making donations. Everyone would be perfectly fair in pointing out that only by purchasing an audio CD directly can a person get perfect quality audio. While no one can promise that this would solve all the problems associated with the new digital age, it would allow us to start small, coming from a place of mutual trust and agreement, rather than the one of hostility and cynicism proposed by the established culture-owners.

--
This idea is an largely extension of one Richard Stallman proposed in 1992, called The Right Way To Tax DAT. Many of its other elements have been floating around the internet for some time.