Elf wrote:I was very positive to Jarre's talk at this conference, but if he really said to The Guardian that cell phone manufacturers should pay $300-$400 to artist for each phone they sell, then he's really lost the plot.
I assume Jarre knows aproximately what a smartphone costs and therefore 400 dollars is way out of line, and he surely knows it too. It would double the price of smartphones and that goes directly against what JMJ also said; consumer should not pay or suffer from this levy. Because he said that very clearly, I deduct that he does not mean 3-400 dollars.
If it isnt a direct misquote, it must be a point of principle that was misunderstood.
Elf wrote:Jarre is currently being ridiculed for this statement in several online newspapers and blogs.
Some of those blog posts and articles twist Jarre's words around (for example by not reprinting the full quote), and many of the comments clearly show that many did not read the article, or did not understand the essence of what JMJ says. I think The Register was a good example of that.
Much of Jarre's point is; what he asks for is already in place in many sectors. For radio, for tv, for movies, for commercials, for blank storage media and multimedia hardware in in many countries, consumers already pay a "tax" that is redistributed to collection agencies and thus artists. Hogne, you will remember that in Norway we had Kassettsavgiftsfondet that collected something like 5 kr or some such little sum from each videotape and cassette tape sold. Many well known artists got their albums financed or at least co-funded with money from that fund. Motopsycho was given around 20.000 euros for one album and a couple of EPs, AFAIR. Many countries had similar systems, and still do today. Jarre wants a similar levy or tax on all kinds of multimedia hardware, internet broadband and web services, taken from the profits of these corporations. Google made a profit of almost 13 billion dollars in 2013. That's not their income, that's their PROFIT for one year.
We get that point. It's a proven system that already exists in some areas. JMJ just wants to expand it, as Youtube is part of the radio and tv sector now, sort of.
What the idiots in the comment fields does not get, or the tech and music journalists do not write, is that Jarre sees this in relation to letting all music loose on the net; he did say that all music will be free on the net, and the battle of selling music like industry did before, is lost. This isnt my interpretation, it's what Jarre said very clearly, either in his 35 minute live speech or in one of the long interviews. This is where Jarre's argument starts to make sense. It's not about finding one more source of income, it's about letting go of your main source and finding a new one. If the idiots bothered to read what Jarre actually said, they would see that he is trying to get them free music in exchange for an "invisible" compensation. Of course they will ridicule Jarre if they think he will tax them even after buying an album, but that is not the case.
Another point, which doesnt change the principle he advocates, is that he is talking about all kinds of creators, not just musicians.
) 
Is this JMJ today ? He Looks very old now.
