Peer-to-peer interaction is not really inside the economic system and therefore can't really be seen as interacting with business models at large. It's a social construct, not an economic construct. It's a good objection, actually. Having dinner with friends at one's house does not interact with the market of restaurants - there is not even competition between house meals and restaurants because they're completely disconnected - I guess I take it for granted that peer-to-peer and business models for the creative industries have a similar relation which is, given the current political debate climate, perhaps uncareful.
I don't think that the public digital library, or that libraries at large, hinder innovation, but putting up specialised mandatory revenue streams do risk deincentivising potential subscribers to voluntary revenue stream models from signing up to them. I see a clear distinction between the funding coming from an earmarked payment or from a general tax, though.
The Left Party proposal is, to my understanding, the exact same model as for the Swedish biblioteksersättning (public lending right) which all in all is not so bad - the money that is put into the revenue stream is not actually collected /for/ the revenue stream but a general tax that is later distributed where society feels it makes most use of itself. That is different from, say, the flatrate solution or extended collective license solution in which it is supposed that every individual pays a predetermined amount of money that is earmarked for the revenue fund. The reasoning of the potential subscriber is, I guess, presumed to be something along the lines of "if I already paid a predetermined amount of money for the purpose of supporting the creative workers, why should I sign up to a second scheme that makes me pay yet another predetermined amount of money for the purpose of supporting the creative workers? That would be like me paying twice for the same thing."
I think that line of reasoning would be especially common when it comes to mass produced media and culture. Political intervention or solutions that have a chance of creating that solution would, I guess, be of a greater support to now marginalised culture since the paying audience would be more inclined to go into several payment schemes there. That's actually not so bad, if cultural policy is meant to encourage cultural diversity. :/
Taking money from the general tax fund /is/ a planned economy solution since you're removing some of the straint of money making from the market and putting the responsibility for revenues on the state.
Peer-to-peer interaction is not really inside the economic system and therefore can't really be seen as interacting with business models at large. It's a social construct, not an economic construct. It's a good objection, actually. Having dinner with friends at one's house does not interact with the market of restaurants - there is not even competition between house meals and restaurants because they're completely disconnected - I guess I take it for granted that peer-to-peer and business models for the creative industries have a similar relation which is, given the current political debate climate, perhaps uncareful.
I don't think that the public digital library, or that libraries at large, hinder innovation, but putting up specialised mandatory revenue streams do risk deincentivising potential subscribers to voluntary revenue stream models from signing up to them. I see a clear distinction between the funding coming from an earmarked payment or from a general tax, though.
The Left Party proposal is, to my understanding, the exact same model as for the Swedish biblioteksersättning (public lending right) which all in all is not so bad - the money that is put into the revenue stream is not actually collected /for/ the revenue stream but a general tax that is later distributed where society feels it makes most use of itself. That is different from, say, the flatrate solution or extended collective license solution in which it is supposed that every individual pays a predetermined amount of money that is earmarked for the revenue fund. The reasoning of the potential subscriber is, I guess, presumed to be something along the lines of "if I already paid a predetermined amount of money for the purpose of supporting the creative workers, why should I sign up to a second scheme that makes me pay yet another predetermined amount of money for the purpose of supporting the creative workers? That would be like me paying twice for the same thing."
I think that line of reasoning would be especially common when it comes to mass produced media and culture. Political intervention or solutions that have a chance of creating that solution would, I guess, be of a greater support to now marginalised culture since the paying audience would be more inclined to go into several payment schemes there. That's actually not so bad, if cultural policy is meant to encourage cultural diversity. :/
Taking money from the general tax fund /is/ a planned economy solution since you're removing some of the straint of money making from the market and putting the responsibility for revenues on the state.