Taxing music at the ISP level: Good idea or bad?
Warner Music Group has a proposition for U.S. universities, according to Techdirt: buy a blanket license to music downloads through file-sharing services, or be sued.
Techdirt thinks that this is a bad idea, and I disagree.
Techdirt's criticisms are clear:
It's basically a music tax--allowing the record industry to be lazy. Someone else gets to go out and collect all this money, and hand it over to the industry to distribute (or, actually, not distribute). It effectively sets the business model of the recording industry in stone, and harms better, more innovative business models by inserting the recording industry (and not the musicians) into a role where they don't belong.
But the benefits to such a blanket tax are also clear, as I wrote back in 2003. Consumers want a convenient way to pay for content. A tax levied by the ISP is a highly efficient way to ensure that the music industry gets paid, and that consumers don't get slowed down in their enjoyment of music.
Techdirt has some valid points, but it fails to identify the "better, more innovative business models" that would take the music industry forward, either in this article or in the others to which it refers.
Personally, I pay for my music, movies, and other media. But not everyone does, perhaps because they don't want to use iTunes or a similar service, for whatever reason. A minimal tax added to students' university fees would easily cover this, with little cost to these consumers and great benefit.
No, not every student would end up using the service, but that's the nature of a tax: sometimes you pay for others' benefits, not yours. In fact, that's usually the way it works.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
Similarly, I don't want paying for my internet bill to automatically send money to companies who I might otherwise choose not to patronize. Isn't paying someone not to sue you similar to a protection racket?
I understand why you support such a system, but any solution needs to permit market forces to continue to function. If the internet is a threat to Record Companies, the solution isn't to let them destroy the Internet, or to pay the Record Companies for something they may not have earned. If the Internet destroys the Record Companies, it won't be because of "piracy", it will be because artists finally realize that they don't need the Record Companies in the first place.
Q: What's worse than taxation without representation, the assumed cause of our American Revolution?
A: Taxation without purchase or use.
We have enough fees at University, and being that I commute, I really don't think it should be part of my rising tuition to feed the frenzy of illegal music downloads! I pay for my music, thank you!
I already pay a parking fee, a $100 per semester fee for a parking garage, athletic fees, technology fees, and the list goes on and on down to paying fees to keep the campus beautiful.
Only fee they are lacking is a fee to provide us with good instructors. We are both understaffed and under-qualified.
http://www.blackgate.net/blog/index.php/sharing-is-not-piracy/
http://www.blackgate.net/blog/index.php/copying-is-not-piracy/
Why not suggest that the RIAA start with suing Harvard?
(there's a reason that the RIAA explicitly avoids that particular university, in spite of Harvard specifically denying the RIAA's every request, and promising to fight them if they ever show up... may have something to do with the law school there or somesuch :) ).
/P
I hope you inherited the good looks in your family because you certainly didn't inherit the brains.
In case you hadn't been paying attention to the news lately, there's a recession on. Huge numbers of people are either facing cuts, are already unemployed, or are extremely worried about joining the ranks of the unemployed. You really think it's a great idea right now to tell everyone they need to pony up a little more to their ISPs for a "music tax". I don't know about you, but most of the folks I know don't buy art when they're not sure if they'll be able to feed their families.
Here's a thought: Perhaps the RIAA should participate in the recession along with the rest of us.
And what about those who legitimately purchased everything in their music collection? They're supposed to compensate the RIAA for stolen music -- knowing that these people don't have any stolen music?
How much of the money from all the RIAA lawsuits went to compensate the artists whose music was downloaded without payment? I think you'll find the answer is a number astonishingly close to $0. If I were a betting man then I'd wager that the amount of money funneled back to the artists from an ISP "music tax" would be similar.
The problem with this misguided notion is that it assumes that pretty much everyone steals music -- so pretty much everyone should pay. I don't steal music. I don't personally know anyone who steals music. All of my friends buy their music... some buy more than others and some buy almost nothing at all... they just listen to it on the radio when they want to hear it. Either way they don't steal it. It's not that I don't believe people steal music. I just don't believe it's nearly the crises that the RIAA makes it out to be. I also believe that when it does happen it's generally done by kids who can't afford to buy the music anyway. That doesn't justify it, but the point is that even if the RIAA could successfully block every possible avenue for illegal music downloads, the RIAA probably wouldn't earn significantly more than they earn today -- the kids would just go without.
If theft isn't the problem, then what is? The problem is that the huge labels that are members of the RIAA don't actually represent as much of the music people listen to anymore. I personally have a huge music collection from downloads such as iTunes or Amazon as well as physical CD purchases. It turns out not very many of those artists are backed by the the member labels of the RIAA. Most of them are artists represented by smaller labels. The "problem" is not that music is "stolen" but rather that the RIAA can't actually control what we listen to. There are too many other ways to learn about great artists that the RIAA doesn't represent. It's not that the Internet makes it possible to download music for free... it's that the Internet makes it possible for small labels and independent artists to sell & distribute music at all... and THAT creates competition for the RIAA.
Suppose we agree to an ISP music tax? Who decides where that money goes? The RIAA? That doesn't seem like it would be very fair to the rest of the artists & labels.
You need to figure out which of your siblings inherited the brains and go bounce your ideas off them before you post your stories.
Get a clue Matt, you are essentially advocating legalized extortion. Where does it stop? First the RIAA gets their tax, then the MPAA, then books, then the SIA, and on and on as each industry jumps on the gravy train.
Copyright infringement is not theft, and unless the RIAA is willing to offer up unlimited downloads for every single song controlled by its members, this is a bad idea. Even then it is a bad idea, but it would be more palatable. The RIAA can move to a lawsuit business model, look how good it did for SCO. I am still waiting for the RIAA to prove they have lost even $1 to online copyright infringement.
Trent Reznor and others have shown the RIAA the way to the future, but they are unwilling to change. Let them die and good riddance, it is not like the major labels contribute much to the arts.
They are out there and it is not our job or Techdirt's to come up with a way for these dinosaurs to stay in business.
Why should the music industry "move forward"? Wouldn't it be better for everyone if the RIAA members ceased to exist? They have no value to music listeners, to musicians or singers. They are simply an unnecessary middleman stealing money from both the artists and their fans.
That is right, the RIAA is a criminal organization.
I do agree that it's a completely idiotic scheme and that 90% of the money will _not_ be reaching the artists whose music is shared but I've made my view on the Big Four quite clear elsewhere. I suspect even my eMusic subscription goes largely to independents.
ti99_foreever, I do hop you're not an English major (or minor for that matter).
99% of the money will not make it to the content creators, wake up.
I suppose that the USA being a member of the UN means the UN invaded Iraq does it?
LOL
Many members of the UN were against the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq, do you see the RIAA standing against this?
Gee, can't spell my id, and "hop"?
What is wrong with my post...?
Is it the ID10T? Obviously, you are not a computer science major, or have any connection with usenet, unless you are a noob... or an ID10T yourself.
...and no, I don't have any connection with UseNet, everyone useful left years ago. Last time I looked was to try to find resources on PPC ASM and all I found was chlidish bickering and endless flamewars on how best to teach Assembly.
MSSlayer. Completely ignoring my point there I see. USA != UN. Warner != RIAA. Whether the RIAA is for or against, this is, as I already stated quite clearly...
irrelevant.
Yes, it's still irrelevant.
They are not involved at this time, it's just Warner Music. The RIAA _IS_NOT_INVOLVED_.
Just get your damn facts straight and stop making excuses all the time.
Hardly? You are the idiot that brought up the UN when it is not even close to the same thing.
You are the idiot who started playing grammar nazi without making sure you could spell.
1) I was picking at the H@XX0R L33T $P33K. You know the two parapgraphs where I'm slagging off the use of obscure language and childish exclusionary slang? The part you've completely ignored? I mean, excuse me for a little sloppy typing, at least I'm not _deliberately_ typing gibberish. Don't 'Grammar NAZI' me when you can't even read what you're replying to.
2) My slightly ropey analogy doesn't make you any less wrong. your focussing on the difference is a complete sideshow. You have yet to at any point show how the RIAA are actually involved in THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE. Membership be damned.
The RIAA are still not involved in this, you're still blowing smoke and no matter how many times you call me an idiot you're still making excuses, you're still wrong and you still haven't addressed any of this. Instead you're still hiding behind a smokescreen, calling me names and on occasion missing the point in a way I suspect is deliberate.
Are the RIAA actually involved in this? No.
Are you still arguing that they are? Yes.
Are you making personal attacks in lieu of an actual argument? Yes.
Do you read like one of those idiot creationists? Yes.
Should you shut up? Probably, unless you're going to go and really make yourself look stupid. I mean, that could be excused.
obviously your problem is between your computer and your chair...
Those of us on usenet are thankful your kind has left.
Well they were like NO! NO! NO! That's not going to happen! We will make perfect DRM that cannot be cracked and we will never accidentally sue anyone that's innocent and everything is going to go the RIAA's WAY! Then the pirates were like, alright. Let's play then.
Well, here we are after Napster started and how has the music industry done? They're still crying about it and haven't solve a single thing. More music and movies are shared now than ever. This option was offered to them years ago and they didn't want it and now they can't have it. Here's why.
We offered and they said no. It's not like we kept the money laying around. All that money could have been theirs, but it is gone now. We all went and spent it on big houses and SUVs and hookers and blow and now we're in an economic crisis. Do they really think their crappy music is more important than some kid's college education? I'm sorry, but I think we need to prioritize in this country and get our stuff together and I'm sorry music industry. You're just not first on the list. You're about number 2,765,333,042. When we get to everyone else then we can get to you, but you're just going to have to wait your turn!
Oh no, not the RIAA. Not the music companies. They have to have what they want now and it's not the crisis that's responsible for low sales. It's not Axl taking 15 years to release a crappy album. It's not that crack head, lip syncing Britney's fault that music sales are down! It must be the pirates fault right?
Well I'll tell you what then. I say we give them the chance one more time and if they turn it down then I don't want to ever hear anything about music piracy again. If they turn that option down a second time then anytime someone from the RIAA says the word piracy, someone should just hit them straight in the mouth. Especially any judge ruling over a piracy case, and that's from a pacifist. We've offered up solutions but they're too greedy and don't want to give up their control over the music. Which is fine, but if there way isn't working out then don't come crying to me about it. Look, pirates aren't going to stop. Either come make them stop or shut up about it. Don't keep being cry babies about it though.
I use it to keep tabs on quite a few unsigned groups, such as Pomplamoose, all of whom aren't represented by the RIAA. I pay for all the other stuff I get. Why should I pay extra for what I already paid for and why should I be paying the RIAA for downloading music or podcasts that have nothing to do with them? In this case, the RIAA and the record companies would be getting a cut of MY pie, and everyone else's who use the internet to distribute thier works.
Just because you and some other people SAY it's a good idea to tax at the ISP level doesn't mean it actually is. You people who state that it is have not thought this through, you think that only the major record companies should get consideration in the internet realm of distribution and quite frankly, you all are idiots of the magnitude of OJ Simpson. "Give me my stuff!"
Whatever.
I say, if an internet tax at the ISP level comes to reality, we all never pay another dime to any record company and strictly go to P2P, after all, why pay twice? Right? And while we're at it, let's turn the profanity filter off on Cnet so myself and everyone else so inclined can say what we really feel about all this *********.
One final word for Herr Matt....LOSER!!!
- by keithdick December 9, 2008 12:57 PM PST
- To answer the question in the headline: Bad idea.
- Reply to this comment
-
(30 Comments)This situation is a classic example of a business trying to live in the past. We should NOT be enabling that futile behavior.
Something that most people don't think about is that the business model of the recording industry is only about 80 years old. It was enabled by the invention of practical sound recording and reproduction-- a new technology. Recently new technology has been invented that destroys the base of that business model. Computer and internet technology make the cost of duplicating and distributing recordings of music and video approach zero. It is accepted economic principle that in a free market, the price of a good naturally approaches the marginal cost of production and delivering it. Hence, in a free market, the price of music and video recordings will approach zero. Anything that prevents that is distorting free markets. Is that really what you advocate? Would you have advocated putting a tax on the automobile industry to support carriage and buggy whip makers? It is the same thing.
I'm sick and tired of people telling me that I have to adapt to the new situation brought about by the rise of computer and telecommunications technologies that sent my job to India, but big companies like the music and movie industries think they should be insulated from the consequences of those those same technological changes.
You say that this "tax" or "voluntary license" or whatever you want to call it has the benefit that consumers no longer will be under the threat of being sued by the music industry. Well, there is another, much simpler way to accomplish that than creating more bureaucracy that the proposed system would require -- make whatever changes in the law that are necessary to prevent the music industry from suing people over these issues. I believe there is credible evidence that copyrights and patents do not fulfill their stated justification of promoting progress (and, in fact, do exactly the opposite) and so should be eliminated. That certainly would stop the lawsuits over this! But even if you don't accept that copyrights and patents should be eliminated, certainly changing something about the way they work that insulates the general public from these lawsuits should be under consideration. Even simpler would be to persuade the music and video industries that they are fighting a losing battle and should adjust to the new technology, just as everyone else must adjust to new technology, but they have shown very little ability to recognize the new reality and adapt to it, so they probably have to be forced into it.
Oh, and your claim that Techdirt has not identified better business models is laughably false. If you really believe that, you have not been paying attention. They regularly highlight new, better models that musicians are actually employing successfully that take advantage of free distribution of their music recordings to promote income-producing activities. They have identified numerous new, better business models. Saying they haven't sharply undermines your credibility.