Should the music industry tax you to use the Web?

There are times when I read the news in the morning and I can't help but wonder what some people are thinking when they announce something new. Usually, that amazement revolves around weird products or dumb deals. But today, it's something entirely different: a tax on Internet use.

According to The Independent, Internet users could face an annual tax of 30 British pounds (about $60) to download music over the Web in an attempt by the music industry to use Internet service providers to stop illegal downloading.

"U.K. Culture Secretary Andy Burnham is supporting calls from sections of the music industry for a yearly levy of 20 pounds ($40) to 30 pounds ($60) to be imposed by ISPs on customers who want to share music," The Independent reports.

Obviously blind to the implications of this arrangement, the music industry believes it could actually help a larger portion of the public, who would have otherwise been criminalized at the hands of illegal downloading. Not to mention, it could recoup the industry's estimated $2.4 billion in annual losses at the hands of illegal downloading.

"If you get enough people paying a small enough amount of money you can turn around the wheels of the music industry," music industry veteran Peter Jenner told the publication.

"Both ISPs and the music industry need to take responsibility for this issue. But we need action as the industry is suffering," another industry insider told The Independent.

Yikes. Is this really where the music industry is going next? Sure, it's just in the U.K. right now and there's no indication that it'll go elsewhere, but don't you think that if it works there, it'll come here?

Once again, the low-hanging fruit is the victim.

In its infinite wisdom, the music industry has once again conjured up a plan to ensure that you become the victim regardless of whether you're illegally downloading music. The way I see it, this isn't a tax designed to stop piracy, it's a tax to use the Internet, and to me, that's totally unacceptable.

Try as it might, the music industry won't simply solve its problems by trying to tax us into oblivion. Instead, it needs to denounce its foolhardy plans of attacking college students and individuals and start addressing the biggest concern: piracy cartels overseas that make up the lion's share of those billions in losses.

A levy on all users of $60? Are you kidding me? You mean to tell me that from now on (if this bill were to pass), you would be forced to pay your ISP $5 per month to address the so-called "rampant" file-sharing issue on the Web? What if you've never illegally downloaded a song in your life? What if you don't even know where to find illegal songs? You should be penalized because someone else does and the music industry has no idea how to stop them?

Sorry, but that's not right.

Once again, the music industry has shown its true colors. It doesn't really care about going after the pirates, it only cares about recouping its investment by any means necessary.

And perhaps that's where I have the biggest issue with this. It's not that the music industry is actively seeking ways to stop pirates--I expect that--but that the music industry is showing here that it really doesn't care if you're illegally downloading music as long as it doesn't impact the bottom line.

Doesn't that seem a bit ironic considering the RIAA and the rest of these wacky organizations always try to claim that "it's just not right to steal?" They don't care if you steal, they just don't want you to steal if it costs them money.

An annual levy on Internet use is both foolhardy and representative of the sad state of affairs in the music industry. Instead of embracing the Web and trying to find ways to exploit it, the music industry continues to show its desperation and try to find ways to make you lose out. In the process, the innocent are being victimized for something someone else did.

Hopefully the music industry's annual tax idea will die a quick death. But if it doesn't and it becomes a "success" in the eyes of the labels, look for it to spread across Europe and the United States until we're all being charged cash for something we don't do.

Does that seem fair to you?

Want to know what Don is up to? Follow him on Twitter and FriendFeed.

[steve4lee]

The internet wouldn't exist if God hadn't created electrons. Everybody that uses it should be taxed with the proceeds going to my church and other churches I agree with.

[G_Slade]

I completely agree Don, how stupid are these record label guys!
People who already download music illegally will think that as they are paying £30 a year they will be allowed to carry on doing it. Then you get all the people who were on the fence about downloading music illegally thinking well if im being charged for it, i may as well do it! Then the music industries problem actually gets worse! As a UK resident, if they actually bring this out im going to have bittorrent running constantly downloading music just to spite the B*****DS.

Heres a thought though: Would it be such a bad thing If all the big record labels went down the pan?
With the internet, all an artist has to do to get their music out to the public, is to put it up on their website for download for a small fee or to have a CD sent for a bit more. The money goes to paying the shipping and cd production fees and website fees, the artist gets the rest. At present the artist only gets a small percentage of what the record labels get from sales anyway. Everyone wins, apart from those fat cat record labels!

[evejam-co-uk]

The other issue is Deaf people, The gorup of people that is so often forgotten when it comes to technology.
Already there is a hugh amount of the web that Deaf people cannot access due to videos, would it be fair that they start being charged for music they cannot use?

[letterrepdotcom]

Of course, the music industry should tax us! What...are your crazy!?! The same as scuba companies should tax us for breathing air, even if we don't dive.

Quality and democracy, two virtues poorly understood by the music industry, are dismantling it. Manufactured pop will wither with the industry, if true musicians can bravely focus on music allowing the democratic assassin of their Big Brother to promote their music's quality.

LetterRep.com

[Floppybingo]

The entertainment industry's losses due to what they call piracy are greatly exaggerated. Their most obvious cause of loss is the fact that they are putting out a steady stream of crap at high prices. The music business in particular is out of touch with their audience. If all internet downloading were to stop tomorrow they would still have the same lack luster performance.

[letterrepdotcom]

Of course, the music industry should tax us! What...are your crazy!?! The same as scuba companies should tax us for breathing air, even if we don't dive.

Quality and democracy, two virtues poorly understood by the music industry, are dismantling it. Manufactured pop will wither with the industry, if true musicians can bravely focus on music allowing the democratic assassin of their Big Brother to promote their music's quality.

LetterRep.com

[vlad88667]

are you kiddin me? 60$??? I spend 10 times more each year on cd's and iTunes downloads! I would be glad to pay that and then download everything for free!

ps. to think that internet users don't know where to download free music is a bit naive in my opinion...I mean, what kid now doesn't know Kazaa or bittorrent?

[ara_p]

I buy all of my music and even I believe the RIAA et al. need to die, fast. In an age where there are literally no technical barriers to music replication and distribution, the artificial barriers put in place by these troglodytes are a affront to the very customers they're marketing to.

To make matters worse, their bald faced lies about the supposed losses they incur when someone digitally copies their products is an insult to the public's intelligence. To say nothing of Judges who are persuaded to believe that anything more than a pittance should be paid for these copies to begin with.

Someone needs to break the back of the RIAA in a bad way. Maybe it's time for the public to organize and launch an all-out legal assault. They need to be brought up on charges and investigated for price-fixing and anti-trust behavior. A judge needs to force them to pay reparations to all the artists and clients they've screwed throughout the years to the end of emptying every last cent in their coffers with the intended effect of shutting them down, permanently.

[Crash0verride]

I'm in the US and I can't recall how many times I've heard there was going to be a tax on email and the like... but if what you are saying is really in front of lawmakers I'd say your best bet would be to unite and announce that any lawmakers who actually vote to pass that into law would be removed from office. If it were a tax on internet porn there would be blue murder.

I agree, would it be such a bad thing if the record labels just vanished? Nope. Not at all. They always say they're losing money. Just how much money are they losing? A CD costs approx 2 bux to manufacture and ship yet they routinely sell them for far more. And how long have I been buying music? Since I was old enough to get an allowance.

Let them go find other jobs and see what it's like out in the real world for a change.

Just my two cents.

Bill

[oclaros1]

Absolutely NO! The RIAA is a cartel, nothing more nothing less. Why should consumers have to pay for the RIAA lack of security. If they have problem with the distribution, well, how is this my problem? Mose CD are not worth the 18+ dollars. Most of the people, including me, only like one or two songs on a CD. I think that more artist should start their own websites and let fans enjoy thier music from them directly, and stop the middle man.
A CD only costs about 2 dollars to make, the artist gets about what, 10 percent. So on an $18 CD, the artist gets $1.80. How is that fair to the artist? How is price gouging fair to the consumer?
Plus, those old rich moguls get generous tax breaks and a nice corporate welfare check from the U.S. federal and state governments.
If they are unwilling to change, let them fail and become extinct, that's the point of the "free" market system, right?

[wango2007]

We live in a free market environment. If the music people can't deal with the realities of that then they need to get into some other business. Technology has made the old music model obsolete.

The music industry needs to change to fit into the world... the world does not need to change to fit the needs of the music industry.

[morrie 52]

After all these years of the British public,been goosed by all and sundry for paying over the odds for almost everthing ,compared with the rest of the World,they want to put a tax on us,damn cheek,some of the richest people in the World taxing some of the poorest,and by the way I have never downloaded anything illegal.

[c|net Reader]

It's stupid, wrong, and misguided to tax all music downloaders. My family has never downloaded illegal music and would be unfairly punished were this policy to come to the US.

This is yet another example of trying to use Government to solve problems that are societal.

[Musicvoid]

Well in the UK, the BPI (aka the major music industry), the government and ISPs have ironed out an agreement based on three strikes of file sharing and you are disconnected.

I have written an article on my blog which examines whether this bandaid is actually hitting the root cause of a lot of piracy.

The blog also has a video interview with Pim Betist the founder of www.sellaband.com

Be good to get your thoughts?

http://www.themusicvoid.com/?p=110

Cheers,
Jakomi

[NYker]

I have an better idea than the 1 the music industry has. Wouldnt it be fair if you can just tell your ISP you will be downloading music and than pay the $60 instead of just making you pay it with out you downloading music at all? that way there is a win win situation and its fair for every one. If you download music and you get cought doing it with out telling your ISP than you should be punished for it.

[jamalystic]

I don't we should be decry this measure so hastily. We fume about ISPs wanting to throttle the internet, we fume about almost every thing that wants to retsore some form of sanity to the rampant piracy online. I think ti's a very novel idea and i hope it is given a real cjance of been successful!!

[hootowlz]

It is not currently legal for ANYONE to tax on the net, not even the IRS! Every bill submitted in Congress to add taxes to net purchases have failed thus far. How is it that the RIAA thinks it is above Congress? The next American "TEA PARTY" should feature DVD's being thrown into the river! STOP THIS MADNESS BY THE RIAA!!!

[hootowlz]

It is not currently legal for ANYONE to tax on the net, not even the IRS! Every bill submitted in Congress to add taxes to net purchases have failed thus far. How is it that the RIAA thinks it is above Congress? The next American "TEA PARTY" should feature DVD's being thrown into the river! STOP THIS MADNESS BY THE RIAA!!!

"If they are unwilling to change, let them fail and become extinct, that's the point of the "free" market system, right?"

Summed their problem up in a nutshell - well put!

I take it the BPI, or however is behind this latest scheme, have made no mention of sharing this money with the other victims of piracy - film companies, software developers, game developers, eBook authors, photographers, graphic designers... - pretty much anyone whose business revolves around producing content that can be distributed over the web.