> Actually, This is an interesting point legally. The artist
> certifying a payment server with an unforgeable digital signature is
> an act that can be pointed to in court. It's a signature on a kind of
> contract, and the extant recording industry can claim it's a contract
> that the artist had no right to enter into since the artist was
> already under contract to them.
>
> The fact is that most "major" artists are under contracts that
> will prevent them from doing this -- and if they aren't, the
> recording industry will stick it into the standard contract so
> fast it'll make your head spin.
Stick *what* into a standard contract? What would that provision
look like? "Artist agrees not to accept gifts from fans?" "Artist
agrees not to possess or publicize public key or digital signature?"
I don't think so. The RIAA is unhinged, but not that unhinged.
Even if it is, this is one crazy idea that would get laughed out of
court by the clerks filing the motion, let alone a judge.
Fred
www.pobox.com/~fhapgood
