Why A Music Download Tax Is A Bad Idea
from the unintended-consequences dept
In the last few weeks, a lot of folks have been submitting the story about the Songwriters Association of Canada (SAC) proposing a $5/month "tax" on ISP connections, which could then be used to reimburse songwriters and musicians for downloading. I've resisted writing about it, because it's been discussed at length in the past when it's been suggested. The one difference here is that a group of musicians is actually supporting it. However, Michael Geist does an excellent job explaining why it's not a very good idea. Beyond pissing off those who don't feel they should subsidize the rest of the industry, it's not at all clear it's necessary. There are plenty of other business models that the music industry can use to support musicians and songwriters that don't require a special tax. However, the biggest reason, as Geist points out, is the second you do this, plenty of other industries will come out of the woodwork demanding a special fee get applied to internet connections as well. Newspapers that think Google and Craigslist are "stealing" from them will demand a special "news tax." And then think of all those other industries who claim they're being impacted by the internet. You'll have a special auto-mechanic's tax, to pay for mechanics who are upset about the DIY info found online. The "knitting tax" for all the free knitting patterns online. I understand that AAA may be upset about Google maps. Travel agents want that "travel tax" to pay for all that business that Expedia has cost them. Where does it stop?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
not to mention that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumb analogies
The reason for my post is that those might be the dumbest analogies you have ever used. Every one on them is about something on the internet that competes with another product by offering a similar service or information. But in the music case, we're talking about people having to compete with their very own product which is being given away for free.
Do you really think the newspapers to google/craigslist is at all the same thing? You might have a point if Craigslist was copying the complete content from newspapers and putting it on their site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dumb analogies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dumb analogies
What he's saying is people don't deserve compensation for some proposed form of theft (That really isn't) or else that definition will get perverted by law and lawyers alike. You really want to have a tax on XYZ item added because its supposedly stolen in some instances, even if it's not?
I've got a great idea. Let's take it even further, and add a "religion charge", because anyone who's not in one person's selected religion should be charged extra to go back to the "victim religion" for "stealing its members".
Sound good? No? You don't say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dumb analogies
xoxoxox
im only 15 by thw way and i have a very strong oppinion.
LOVE EMMALIN MUTHA f*****G dAUTOVIC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dumb analogies
Oh really? Every one of those examples was based on actual complaints.
Newspapers have insisted that Google is "stealing" from them and have said that Google should pay.
Knitting companies have been filing lawsuits against those posting patterns online.
Automechanics have been filing lawsuits against DIY info online.
So... why are they different?
You say they're legitimate alternatives... but there's always an industry that feels slighted.
In fact, I'd argue that in the music situation you'd say it's a legitimate alternative if you only shifted your perspective slightly. You just need to recognize that the "alternative" that's showing up here is the *distribution* mechanism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dumb analogies
If you can't see the difference between that and your analogies, I can't help you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Completely rediculous
My guess is an all you can download/share non-restricted, high-quality music format available for a fixed (affordable) fee per month would sell to so many people that they wouldn't know what to do with all of the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumb analogies pt. 2
Not that this makes the tax just in my opinion...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dumb analogies pt. 2
That sounds like being guilty without a trial and free money to the artists for having to do nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dumb analogies pt. 2
We have enough of these sorts of things, and need less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dumb analogies pt. 2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dumb analogies pt. 2
Emmalin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dumb analogies pt. 2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dumb analogies pt. 2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dumb analogies pt. 2
Until copyright law changes, civil suits make sense. A download tax never makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dumb analogies pt. 2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
License to Pirate
Since I'm paying this money and have no choices or anything I would feel I'm allowed to download music from then on since I'm already paying for in a mandatory fee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love it when they think I was born yesterday, I just didn't know they could tell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A couple visits a hotel. When they prepare to leave and go to settle up the bill, there's a $50 charge for the swimming pool listed. They demanded to speak with the manager.
Man: Why is this charge on my bill? We never used the swimming pool.
Manager : Well, it was available.
Man: Well I'm going to give you a bill of $500 for sleeping with my wife.
Manager: I never slept with your wife!
Man: No, but she was available.
I think the punchline applies to this stupid tax idea as well. You cannot fairly tax people for something that they never use or receive any benefit from. Things like fuel taxes for road maintenance make sense, because everybody who uses fuel uses the roads. A music tax does not make sense, because there are bound to be lots of people who never download music.
On a related note, there are people like farmers and construction workers who use diesel fuel in offroad machinery that is rarely, if ever, on the roads. They are exempt from the tax, and the diesel they buy for their equipment is dyed red. If the red diesel is found in trucks on the road, whoever is caught with it is in serious trouble. You could say the red dye is a watermark for determining whether the fuel is legal or not.
The watermarking idea for non-DRM music files creates a win-win situation for all. Consumers can freely play their music anywhere they like under fair use terms, and agencies that enforce copyright laws can police file sharing networks looking for people sharing watermarked music files, which will enable them to track down and stop illegal file sharing in a sensible manner. Trying to implement a stupid tax will not solve any problems, but rather put more of the consumers' money in the wrong pockets, and the pirating problem will still exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hotels and diesel fuel
Interesting idea--how can this be done? You can't take dye out of gasoline, but it's quite simple to change the tags on an MP3 file. Does anybody have any ideas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hotels and diesel fuel
But like anything that people say "can't be broken", well, it attracts a lot of attention, and usually is broken.
http://crypto.stanford.edu/DRM2002/drm.pdf
Again, just a temporary solution. This is a social problem that will only be answered with a social solution. Tech is only going to aggrivate the problem.
Check out Darylxxx's suggestion from last week- http://tinyurl.com/26buuc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hotels and diesel fuel
I think the fact that watermarking can allow the consumer to use his music however he chooses while still providing law enforcement with a tracking method is a great idea, not because it can't be cracked, but because most consumers won't have to bother cracking it because they can use their music the way they want. If you can freely listen to music you purchase on any device you own, you have absolutely no reason to crack the watermark protection unless you are intentionally trying to pirate the music without getting caught.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: hotels and diesel fuel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hotel tax
The 20/20 story was about hotels who offer low room-rates, but then add in "resort fees", for such things as massages, pool towel usage, and more.
If you complain (and that's a big IF), they might give you your money back. But how many people will complain?
However, back to this story- I agree with the other posters than a "tax" like this will just open the doors for anyone else who wants to get subsidies from the government.
Today, it's the musicians/ RIAA relief tax. Then it's the actors/ MPAA relief tax. Next it's the AAA/ map-makers tax. Before long, you'll be paying twice as much for internet service simply because of these "relief taxes"... which we've all come to realize simply pay for supporting an obsolete business model.
But, hey, why innovate when you can get the government to charge taxes on your behalf?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ugh, no it does not. There are lots of problems with watermarks:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080113/165009.shtml
They degrade the quality. They can be removed. You'll get in trouble if you accidentally lose you music collection. It *discourages* the active promotion of music. It's hardly a win-win. It's yet another artificial limitation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not license instead
Instead why not have an optional licence. Pay an annual fee, download whatever you want from wherever you want and it's all legal and the money gets distributed to the copyright holders. Of course this would mean some kind of tracking but public performance royalties get distributed in this manner and it would be much easier to track downloads than it is to track performances in every bar, club, venue and radio station round the world.
If the recording industry realised they are no longer in the business of distribution, and are in the business of producing and promoting content then it all seems wonderfully simple. It could set up a global database of music, issue licenses to consumers and say to online service providers give our music away for free so long as you make sure that the consumer has a licence and tell us what they download. It would change the fortunes of the music industry over night. Many online services would pop up delivering music to consumers using whatever business model they could think of to make their money, this would drive demand for the music and thus the licenses.
You wouldn't eliminate piracy because there is always going to be the hardcore pirate bay/bit torrent crowd, but the plain fact is that all content industries have for years lived with the 80/20 model where so long as 80% of the content is purchased they can cope with the 20% that is pirated.
Of course this is not going to happen any time soon. The recording industry is desperately trying to cling to an outdated business model that is centred around controlling distribution and extracting a per copy royalty. The idea that they should throw this out of the window for digital downloads and concentrate on what they are good at making and promoting music terrifies them, but I firmly believe if they do not embrace this then they will surely die.
Technology moved on 10 years ago, come on recording industry, at least try and catch up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A nice idea, but I wonder:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why A Music Download Tax Is A Bad Idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Man we fooled them good! Let's break out the Champaign, Cigars, and Streamers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Distribution
I dont download music illegally, but whats odd is that when i do buy songs online, theyre .99. I dont average 5 a month (riaa cant keep up with that anyway producing Good music). But i could see the value in freeing the (existing and new) content so they stop their whining.
Does that tax then make it legal to download or 'make available' contents from their members, or will they continue to double dip and suit a potential down/uploader for $700,000 ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I propose a tax...
Not.
There are very clear laws that concern theft. It starts with the victim filing a civil suit against the thief, and is handled in that court thereafter. I am so, so tired of these music companies trying to buck the system and make the public pay for thier legal fees in the way of taxes and shitty guidelines and so on.
I buy all kinds of music on-line at Amazon.com, because it's sheap, it's easy, and it's DRM-free. However, I find myself unable to buy all the music I want because lots of companies won't sell it without that shitful DRM. So in those cases I buy or borrow a used CD, which nets the company zero in revenue, and I make copies until my hearts content.
It's a lose-lose situation for those companies, esp. those who are trying to create laws that force the public to stick with thier outdated business models, when the public is very obviously past that.
Amazon.com got over one hundred bucks from e last month... But I havn't purchased a new CD in years, and I will never step foot in an over-priced CD store again in this lifetime. How about y'all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$2.00 RIAA Administrative Overhead
$0.50 Delivery Surcharge
$1.55 I2OBCT Correctness Propaganda Program
$0.90 Wired Transaction Surcharge
$0.05 Musicians "Relief" Fund
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't know what it does, but it sounds official, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"CD Destruction Fee": When they get on the bandwagon, and realize this internet thing isn't going away, the Recording Industry will sent men in suits to your house to destroy your CD collection. The CD Destruction Fee will cover the labor costs involved for this effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Microsoft Tax
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Built in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Built in
If you're stealing music, you ARE using an internet connection.
We have to make sure we punish the thieves, no matter how much it hurts our legitimate customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Built in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm....
1) The obvious, which is that it essentially treats every internet user as a criminal with no evidence. If I buy a car, I don't have to pay a $200 tax in case it's used in a bank robbery get away. This is the most morally offensive idea behind it, to me.
2) It kinda proves that the whole "crusade against piracy" thing is purely about the money. This has absolutely nothing to do with stopping piracy, it's just a scheme to grab as much money as possible. And I also doubt that they'll stop suing people they find with illegal downloads, either, so they'll make lots of cash.
3) They're essentially admitting that they can't find and/or stop the majority of illegal music sharers, so they're just punishing everyone in an attempt to recoup losses. It's as if there has been a riot in a town that has caused property damage, the police couldn't catch any of the rioters, so every town member is fined $100 to pay for it.
It also points to them not being confidant at all in any DRM pursuits, so the fact that they continue to insist that DRM is useful etc... is even more annoying.
All in all, this entire thing is annoying. The fact that someone thought it was a good idea in the first place is actually offensive. That other people agreed with it and support it is even worse. It actually offends my common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goose and Golden Egg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumb analogies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So basically we are just adding 'Recording Industry Welfare' into the mix now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, really - you know.. Phonograph makers, instrument makers, and the like need to sue the RIAA for the same reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like the author said....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon Rejects Hollywood’s Call to Aid Piracy F
Three cheers for Verizon, but I really, really hope it isn't just lip service to the people who want the bandwidth.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/verizon-rejects-hollywoods-call-to-aid-piracy -fight/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
subsidy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep paying for shitty music you silly fuckers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am speechless
Why try saving the fat ass dinosaurs from the music industry? How will they split the money among the artists?
I bet artists will see tiny bits of it.
This is a prescription for perpetual corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]