Artists Unchained: Volunteer

How do you pay for something without paying money?

You pay "in kind" with service. The hosting of an artist's compressed file for sharing via P2P could be considered as providing a service, and this service could be seen as "payment" as such, directly proportional to the extension of the home approval period. This is hosting a file on P2P in return for rights to use it. This gives a basis of "business" transaction or agreement. It is not free, the fan is "paying"!

Control of hard copy: The downloader (licensee) can make hard copies and hand them out, but these hard copies can not be duplicated by others (i.e. a CD hard copy given freely to another can not be ripped) as these hard copies would technically remain the property of the one giving them away (i.e. a loaner, in the same way a bank owns your credit card and can ask for it back at any time) and the copyrighted material on them can not be given away (the licensee does not have the right to do that).

[X]

(Disclaimer: This is not the actual contact, it is a list of points to be considered. It is written in plain english, and not legal mumbo jumbo.)

• 'Free'. A person should be allowed to download, copy (downloading is making a copy), and distribute the artwork for 'free'. There should be no charge as long as a person passes it around without asking or receiving any money for the copy. They are not allowed to charge for the copies - or if provision for charging is allowed a cut of the amount charged is owed to the artist.
• No begging: Giving away stuff for free is all well and good, but collecting 'donations' could be considered begging (which can, and has been, banned in some cases). However, as the a person has sought and specifically downloaded a file, it is not unsolicited, they have looked for it specifically. Therefore, perhaps the artwork should be offered on some form indefinite approval (for the term of their life)?
• indefinite approval:In essence this is similar to goods offered for '28 days home approval' except it is a lot longer (if business can do this why can't we?).. This means that a person is free to use the artwork for as long as they wish, in fact for their entire lifetime, and any copies they make and pass on are also on 'indefinite approval' for the period equal to the recipients life. Once a person 'settles up' they become a 'full' licensee (no longer on approval). Settling up is considered to be completing the transaction. Therefore it is not a donation but a 'sale'. Also those who receive a copy for a full licensee are still receiving the copy on 'indefinite approval'. A person can settle up, for example, as soon as they download the artwork, on the very next day, or a month, year or decade later, even on their death bed or in their will.
• Cost. A set cost is probably needed so perhaps $1 plus 'tip'. Tip is relative to the enjoyment of the artwork and judged by the fan. Much as a patron can tip a waiter, waitress or bar staff, what ever they like.
• Patron of the Arts: There should also be a provision for 'installments' to allow a fan to become a patron of the arts and make regular (or irregular) payments for as long as they wish. These would be considered a gift. Perhaps written of by rich folks as a tax deductible (? - Better than the government getting it :p), Also those who are self employed and doing a self assessment could put it down as a tax wright off (?)
• No returns: This may be obvious but 'no returns'. If you can try it out for free and then you go an buy it (settle up) you have then brought it 'as is' and no comebacks (credit cards may be a problem - need clarification).

Notes: Two part licence? Perhaps your can share the files while using the artwork on approval, but only a full licensee can make a physical copy or hard copy CD, DVD or print. Hard drive and flash drive would be ok? Or perhaps the those on approval must have the zipped file in their P2P share folder - once they pay they can remove it if they so wish? Or is paying for the artwork granting a new licence, or activating clauses?

Any thoughts on this, and ideas of how to make a workable system are more welcome (after all that's what this sit is all about!). Other thoughts;

• The idea of software source code modification is similar to artwork modification (for example: montage were images are concerned and samples used in music.). In this analogy 'source code' when applied to artwork implies the actually working file the artist used to create the artwork - so instead of a .jpg it would be a .psd. This may be possible, but some working files come from powerful profession software and are out of the reach of most. However, modifying an image or taking a small part from the finished file (i.e. the jpeg not the psd) may be possible and count as modification.
• May need more that one licence depending on what an artist wishes to do with it. Maybe samples and pieces of image are ok if it creates a new and original artwork.
• The final AUL may be a layer above the GPL (is this possible), and have the GPL covering the underlying software (if the software used to create the artwork was Open Source) and the AUL covering the work created with the software (the software covered by the GPL). This would mean the source code of the artwork file is open source. and the image could not be converted into a proprietary format (in effect, an image created by GIMP into a special future file format could one be opened on GIMP or other open source software). This provision could be waived, or relaxed to allow opening on proprietary software but not modification? (Just considering all options).

[X]

If going with a 'like for like' licence agreement idea: VAT/ Sale tax. Looking at the EU directive for VAT in relation to internet delivered information; it doesn't seem to cover files downloaded from P2P, as there transmission/ download sites are static and one (registered) place.

As the file is uploaded by the artists in very small numbers and rapidly duplicates and disseminates into the P2P network, and this is all done for 'free' via a mutual exchange, transmission is not from one place (rather a small transmission and then millions of repeaters all over the globe). The fiels are then hosted all over the globe for free. Further, when someone downloads the file via P2P they are downloading from people all over the globe at once. There is no one place.

So where's the point of sale for VAT?

I would assume it would be the 'donation button' is hosted, or relative to the person making the income?

If so, then Pay Pal (europe) is licensed as a Luxembourg credit institution, so european VAT, and claim the remainder as 'income' to the tax man.

Does this mean that any 'sale', i.e. each and every donation made through a web site via Pay Pal is subject to VAT and then the remainder income tax? (probably about 40% of the 'donation').

[X]

Hosting files for extension: No profit made. No tax due (correct?)

[X]

The mutual exchange of file hosting and advertising for extension of licence is a closed system and considered a non-profit endeavour (like for like, if assigned a monetary value, it would be a 1:1 ratio). Is this exempt from tax?

If it is, what about a donation button, or gift button on a web site. Seeing as the licence is already paid for via non-profit mutual exchange, then a 'gift' is not for the artwork (as the artwork is being paid for continually).

As this is a gift, does it come under inheritance tax, in the case of the donator dying.

Tax Free gift: Apparently in the UK first £3,000 worth of gifts is tax free, and then up to £250 to as many individuals as you like. The donor is responsible for paying the tax.

Ironic: A busker (not a beggar) could be tax as the donations are obviously for the music being played. Payment for the performance. However, if this scenario is true, then under this scheme the performance is not paid for with money and benefits the 'busker' in no material way. An analogy would be that a person says thank you and leaves no money, however when down the pub the grateful listener is happy to see the busker and buys them a pint.

Hmm, I wonder if an artist using this system can apply to become a 'charity' or non-profit :P

Government: The downloader who makes a hard copy will still have to buy the disk, printer, ink, paper which is all taxable. Even if they don;t make hard copies, using this system will most likely purchase a huge hard drive to house all those compressed files in addition to uncompressed media file, and purchase bigger broadband, which are both taxable.

Further: It will benefit society as a whole, as it will drive broadband and technology take up, bring down the cost of getting music and art to the point where even the poorest can afford it (or get a hard copy of a fiend without fear of punishment), contribute to cutting carbon dioxide emission due to less goods traveling by road (a cake of 100 CD is much more compact that 100 music CDs, and downloading has no mass) and people not using their car to go to the store to buy music, increasing freedom of speech, it gives art back to the people, art becomes representative of the society that makes it, all society's people are represented, all access becomes equal, and it all generally benefits society to a huge degree. A more efficient, artistic and happy community, fulfilling is obligations to the environment and getting technology to all.

It moves artistic endeavour out of the business world and back to social and sharing (the AUL licence it to stop business taking advantage of social interactions).

On the negative side big media will have your balls, and you will be out by the next election ;)

[X]