RIAA Now Open To 'You Must Be A Criminal' Tax On ISP Fees
from the not-the-answer dept
This certainly isn't the first time it's been proposed, but it appears that the RIAA is potentially warming up to the idea of a "music surcharge" that would have ISPs pay $5/month in order to allow anyone to share music online. Just a month ago, we were discussing why this is a bad idea. First, it's effectively treating everyone as a criminal, and forcing those who don't download or share music to subsidize everyone who does. Second, and much more importantly, it's not necessary. If there's anything that the past five years (and the past year especially) has taught us, it's that there are many different ways for musicians to make money without requiring the government to step in and set up a business model for them. In other words, there's no compelling need for such a mandated system. Third, once you do this, it opens up additional questions from other industries. Will the government need to set up laws that prop up their business models as well?Some people are comparing this new RIAA proposal to the one that the EFF proposed four years ago. However, that one was quite different, in that it was a voluntary licensing system, rather than a mandatory one. In that system, anyone who wanted to could voluntarily pay $5/month to have free reign to share and download music. This new proposal would mandate that ISPs pay the fee (meaning that ISPs would quickly pass the costs on to everyone). That's quite different. It also might be a different story if ISPs voluntarily offered this as a feature for customers -- where they would license the music so anyone could freely share it. That's a case where the ISP would effectively be paying for the creation of music and using its free nature as a promotional good for its service. However, that rationale goes away if it's mandatory. So, while it's nice that the RIAA has woken up (about a decade too late) to the idea that new business models are needed, this proposal isn't a very good idea.
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
Filed Under: copyright, isps, levy, mandatory, music, riaa
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You pay a similar tax in regular stores
But indeed, copyright infringement is not theft. :) The RIAA should just see these shared music tracks as promotion for the bands of their members.
In the past, I have thought that this would be a good idea, but I'm not so sure any more. What you are saying makes perfect sense to me. A voluntary system sounds indeed better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You pay a similar tax in regular stores
There can be any number of distribution issues that can drive up the cost to the customer, but those sorts of costs revolve around recovering costs from wasted production or investment. It comes back to the differences between normal property and intellectual property; when you steal physical property from a store they loose money because they can't sell that property to someone else. When you steal intellectual property you’re instead denying them a potential sale, which is different.
A better comparison might be the VCR in France, which (I think) had an extra tax on the cassettes to compensate production companies for home-recording.
But it seems that the worlds recording industry seems intent on forcing ISPs to regulate the internet in some manner. How will Governments respond with powerful corporate lobbies on one side and public liberty on the other?
The IP war looms…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You pay a similar tax in regular stores
Here in many European countries we pay an extra levy on blank media. On CDs, cassettes, DVDs, video tapes, MiniDV tapes etc. On all of those we pay a levy, and for us downloading is legal (though BREIN in NL does try to make it seem not to be that way). It's the uploading that's illegal here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You pay a similar tax in regular stores
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You pay a similar tax in regular stores
It's the most absurd, and expensive CD Shredder that exists. I imagine it's made of gold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You pay a similar tax in regular stores
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You pay a similar tax in regular stores
Except I don't think it would be true.
Shoplifting costs real money - actual goods go missing (though the cost should be evaluated at replacent cost, not at selling price, which in the case of illegal downloads comes down to just the bit the artist would have got since no actual CD manuf or distribution were incurred)
Illegal downloading only costs anyone a cent if you can prove that a real paid for music sale would have happened otherwise.
It is a bit like a motorist accusing me of queue jumping when I cycle inside him in the rush hour. It's just sour grapes, because I didn't actually take his place or force him to arrive in work any later than he would have done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You pay a similar tax in regular stores
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FU RIAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hold on just a second...
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but what I'm seeing is "Pay $5/mo and download as many songs (movies?) as you'd like!" as opposed to "I'm suing your children for file sharing" and that's something to really think about.
IF (big one here) these funds go to the artists as RIAA says it does, I'm actually open to having my cable bill go up $5/mo.
Because the next step would be to download a P2P program and start hogging up tons of songs I've been wanting.
It sure as hell beats paying $0.99 per song!!! And EVERY consumer would see this as an advantage and wouldn't mind a $5 charge (especially if it gets people like me to download when we usually don't).
But I've a feeling this isn't what RIAA's intentions are. Given how idiotic these people are, it seems the $5/mo will be in addition to charges at online stores and the lawsuits will continue.
I fully understand that artists need to be compensated for their works but I absolutely abhor the music industry for screwing up the "math" for these artists.
Back in the CD days, it was believed that artists received less than 20% per CD sale. I don't believe the 80% should have gone to the industry simply because they need to spend on advertising and push crap artists to the radio.
I've found more artists I enjoy online that I have on the radio these days. Thanks to many free mp3 websites, it's amazing the music people do make.
Which brings me to one more point: How in the world can the music industry try to sustain EVERY SINGLE ARTIST out there? It can't! Especially with the prices they're charging consumers for songs!
I guess it's more important to support a drunk, child-ignoring, crotch-shot showing, SUV beating singer than it is to support a group no one's ever heard of because they lack radio play.
Pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hold on just a second...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For Poor Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For Poor Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember that when the government comes to visit, they never stay in a hotel, offer to chip in for gas or bother to pay for any of those porno movies they downloaded to your DVR. And forget about the international phone calls they rang up in your name, on your calling card. IMHO the RIAA is slurping up slop out of the same pig trough as any government agency with the ability to order and collect taxes and fees. I say it's time for another tea party in Boston.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another point
Your comment reminded me of the travel industry reps who were bawling in front of Congress after 911, demanding the same kind of taxpayer prop-ups and bailouts that the airline industry was asking for.
I remember thinking about how these travel agency bitches wouldn't give me the time of day to process a $400 airline voucher in the months before 911. It took about 2 minutes for the Delta employee at the airport to print out what I wanted, which was an airline ticket, with an itinerary and flight numbers I'd already chosen online.All I heard from all the travel nazis I called was whining about how I would have to make an appointment, and it would take a couple of hours, and I'd have to pay a service fee of at least $50. Yeah. Asta la vista, unnecessary travel agents. You're about as useful as the RIAA and their demand to be subsidized at the tune of $5 a month at the expense of every internet user in America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You often make the mistake...
However, the recording industry is in the business of making and selling records. They don't usually get a piece of the band's concerts, T-shirt, songwriting royalties, or other related merchandise. I'm not surprised they are scared by giving away their only product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beware 'voluntary'
I suggest people pick wisely from the following ways artists can be compensated:
1) Suspension of liberty and natural IP rights to privilege publishers.
2) Taxation or compulsory levy to compensate publishers for free public use.
3) Exchange of art for money from the artist's audience in a free and fair market (without compulsion or monopolies such as copyright).
The people who really know how to exchange digital works in a free market (software engineers) are way ahead of everyone else. Free as in speech, not as in beer. You want more and better GPL software? Pay for it. Feel free to sell your own improvements. No-one has a monopoly on GPL software.
The idea that suspending the public's liberty to free cultural exchange was a great way to promote culture is just the sort of unenlightened claptrap people would be persuaded to tolerate 300 years ago when slavery was fashionable.
The alternative of taxing the people for the benefit of poor publishers who've realised their monopolies are dissolving before their eyes, is similarly unenlightened and grievously corrupt.
Follow the money. In whose houses do marble floors get laid?
Let audience and artist deal direct, just as in any other equitable trading relationship since time immemorial.
Art for money, money for art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
None of it can be accepted
For instance: RIAA manages to get ISP's to pay 5$/month "protection" money for each account. What's the MPAA getting? Well, here comes another 10$/month charge for that.
Now, that's just entertainment. What about the BSA? They have even more ridiculous claims of lost profits, so of course, they'll be wanting 25$/month.
Who'd come after that? Who knows, but someone will. Look at the prospective "entitlement" you'd be setting up for them with such a "protection" scam. It must be made clear that this is not an appropriate direction to head into.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
in the wake of NIN...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So.....
If the record industry wants to see its profits drop into the single digits (Billions), then it should enact this plan.
Plus, i am no legal expert, but the record label has accepted a subsidy for the stolen music, so case closed. After you accept a subsidy are you going to go back and sue because you say it was not enough? Highly unlikely, you will raise the rates, so $10/month... then $20/month...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wonder if Comcast said NO to the RIAA, and AT&T said YES and if that's why Comcast is now getting hit with Net Neutrality claims that AT&T was peddling.
It changes the game if you can pay for your filtering system through a universal "music sharing tax".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would pay $5 per month
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I would pay $5 per month
If you pay us $5 a month for the rest of your life, we won't sue you for $250,000.
Those guys in Los Angeles. Funny. And every time I go there, it's almost as if no one has a job. This is why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"license globale"
In my view, it is far from perfect, exactly for the reasons mentionned by Mike, but it is probably the best that can be done by now, in the current political context.
Think of the whole problem as a political one. Of course, there is a course of action better than any other in theory, but in practice, there is an old business model which simply won't be able to adapt and remains influent enough to force the government into very stupid things.
In my view, the most important thing right now is that people are not put into jail for illegal downloading (as could legally happen in France), nor even fined absurd sums of money. Not that I support RIAA's new position, I just see it as an opportunity for compromise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How long before value/$ is exceeded
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> musician). Is the RIAA going to give me a cut?
No. They have trouble paying artists as it is!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
U2's own manager is for this?
"If ISPs do not cooperate voluntarily," McGuinness declared, "there will need to be legislation to force them to cooperate," McGuinness said.
Time to burn the U2 Albums!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about indie artists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
duh
If the pizza delivery guy did that, I'd tell them to go fly a kite.
But something leads me to believe that they are having no luck in suing people.. Maybe because the tactics are UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who else wants $5 ?
Where does it end ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon optimzes P2P, sees 60% speed boost
http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/03/14/verizon.p4p/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Verizon optimzes P2P, sees 60% speed boost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Verizon optimzes P2P, sees 60% speed boost
P4P is not needed in any way shape or form. They will give all sorts of false pretenses in an attempt to control this P2P. And once they have this control...
P4P is akin to BitTorrent, except it gives the ISP the ability to become the tracker to all clients. If the ISP is the tracker, then the ISP controls all, including rather "intimate" information about every clients activities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But why do they even have to do that? Why don't they simply offer a service for a monthly fee for unlimited downloads? That model has proven to work - AOL proved it with internet users, cable has long proven that with movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now lets take it to the next step.
The RIAA is under the notion that no one uses the internet except for music sharing. This is the same thing as my saying my websites and artwork are the only reason people use the internet. I want a $1 surcharge on everyone in the nation. Now i understand that you may not know who i am but that is irrelevant.
This would completely destroy individual rights and make the interests of a single entity the primary beneficiary of public good. This would be similar to passing a law for Bob. Who is Bob? Bob is a guy who wants the tax payers to buy him a pool.
Who are the lawmakers in the pocket of the RIAA?
Welcome to socialism folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now lets take it to the next step.
Anyways... I say just buy music made by independents. Most artists on major labels suck anyways. Support DIY music.
Works for me. Most DIY labels offer free samples in the form of compilation discs or by free sample downloads on their website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now lets take it to the next step.
The laws which are often passed in the United States are often passed on the behalf of lobbyists and not the public's interests at large. So when you accept that posture then it does meet the grounds for socialism, at least in this case.
So the previous commenter would be correct in saying this is socialism, when you approach it in this context. This would lead to a more exaggerated corporate welfare system then the U.S. has already. This is likely a "feeling the waters" for something like this down the road.
Personally, I find it arrogant on the side of the RIAA to assume that music downloading is the only thing that the "inter-web" or the "world wide AOL" are good for. Let us not forget Lars needs his solid-gold Ferarri.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now lets take it to the next step.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business as Usual: RIAA Is Accustomed to Special T
See: USC Title 17, 1008 "Royalty Payments". This is a tax imposed on music CD-Rs, digital audio tapes, stand-alone CD recorders, and digital audio recorders. In 1998 the RIAA tried, but failed, to get special taxes imposed on MP3 players.
Notice that these are taxes on *digital* devices. Analog technology (blank vinyl disks and vinyl recording devices, analog tape and recorders) never had these levies, and yet the industry survived.
At the same time the industry has been obtaining access to tax revenues (originally under the theory that this was a trade-off for more liberal copyright restrictions) it has also been seeking, and getting, increasingly draconian revisions of copyright law.
In all, the recording industry has had some success in using computer technology as a scare tactic to stampede congress into granting it immense new assets at the public's expense. Despite its great success in this copyright land rush, it is still crying proverty, hoping for even greater gains. Its lots easier than running a successful, adaptable business. The MP3 episode shows though, that these attempts can be resisted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who else should get some "tax" money
$5/m to the MPAA
$5/m to NBC for the TV shows you download
$5/m to ABC
$5/m to CBS
$5/m to FOX
$5/m to Microsoft because you pirate Vista
$5/m to Adobe for that extra copy of Photoshop
$5/m to Google for using their search engine.
$5/m to the newspapers because you are killing print.
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Impetus
The ISPs are not going to eat that cost they are going to pass it off the the end users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Impetus
I was going to say the same exact thing. I don't presently download now (at least any more) but if this passes than I'm going to see just how much music fits into 255G.
Plus I'll be telling everyone to download all they want. (even grandma) It's not like the RIAA will be coming after them any more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, where would you get the music from?
What I think would happen if this were made a requirement is that the "tax" would allow you to use some poorly designed service offering a limited selection of DRMed music - much like the music service forced on some universities today. In this way if you stop paying the tax, you will be given the option of either "buying" the music you downloaded (rented) or having your music collection stop working. Some deal that is. Besides, even if you were allowed to do an "unlimited" amount of music downloads and they never did expire, I'm sure there would be some sort small print in the service TOS as to just how limited "unlimited" really is.
Sorry, but I just don't see this ever working in a way that wouldn't end up screwing the consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Angle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you're missing the biggest issue of all
Luckily this insanity would never happen... oh wait... it already has... taxes on recordable media... snowcap... there's dozens of example of this stupidity and lunacy.
It stifles true innovation and creativity and encourages creativity and innovation in gaming of the system.
Who'll be the first to start 5 bands and put out a bunch of crap so I can collect their share of the royealties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop Fucking Around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Random Observations
- The RIAA is not there to defend the poor and starving artists. It is there to serve the interest of the industry. Industry which, incidentally, is not shy about sucking artists dry, banking on their talent, forcing them abandon their rights, being charged an arm and a leg for studio, etc...
- The Industry knows that the only way to sell a record is to push it down people's ear. Why they have to pay the radio to do that while they would go after the people who download the songs is beyond me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And does anyone really think it would stay at $5 for more than a year at most? Companies will charge whatever they think they can get away with. I already pay almost $20 a month in BS taxes for my AT&T U-Verse, DSL and phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA never pass the money on to artists anyway
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA and ISP's
what it all boils down to is that the RIAA is finally paying for their stupidity and greed after overcharging for their crappy CD's all of these years. file sharing will get easier with time and the RIAA knows it. they just don't have enough good artists under contract anymore to keep making music people actually want. what a shame. and the more the RIAA sues the little guys out there, the worse the RIAA looks. the RIAA is probably the most hated organization in the USA and even the judges who get the cases from these leaches hate the RIAA for their evil way of suing the average american.
it will be interesting to see where downloading music files goes, but one thing is certain, file sharing is here to stay and as ISP speeds get faster and faster, it will be harder and harder to track "illegal" downloading. the system will eventually overwhelm the RIAA and they will collapse as the artists leave the record labels and go independant which is what is happening big time right now. too bad, the RIAA will be gone and we won't even knwo it as they fade into nothingness. asta la vista RIAA. jersey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE:TAX
[ link to this | view in chronology ]