Warner Music Latest To Jump On The Music Tax Bandwagon
from the please,-gov't,-save-our-business-model! dept
Remember earlier this month how there was a story about a guy going around pitching a required tax on ISPs for music sharing as a good idea? Well the main guy who was pushing that proposal has now been hired by Warner Brothers to make it a reality. While the idea is gaining some momentum, it doesn't change the extremely questionable nature of this proposal. It's a proposal based on the laziness of industry execs, who want others to go out and collect money for them, which they'll then get to "distribute" (by which we mean not actually distribute) to musicians.The fact is that there is simply no reason for this proposal to go ahead. It treats everyone as a criminal first. In the article, one supporter of the plan even admits this:
"At this point, 96 percent of the population is guilty of some sort of infringement, whether they're streaming or downloading or sharing. What we have here is the widespread use of technology that declares all of the population to be illegal."While that 96% number is made up and pure bunk, it's a bizarre world in which someone claims that nearly everyone is breaking the law and therefore we should punish everyone, rather than get rid of the law. Considering that more and more musicians are showing that there are perfectly good business models that don't require treating everyone as a criminal, can someone explain why this "music tax" should be put in place? And can they then explain what will happen when every other industry wants its own "you're a criminal" tax included on internet connectivity?
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, jim griffin, music, subscriptions
Companies: warner music group
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Deal Me Out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal Me Out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deal Me Out
I hope this was meant as sarcasm, because it's completely wrong. Infringement isn't the same thing as theft, and not every instance of infringement equates to a lost sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, no, bad RIAA lackey
If this tax goes threw, I hope it makes them enough money to live off of because I'm never going to purchase another CD, iTunes/Napster download again. And I won't be hindered by the "it may be wrong" thought ether. I'll even teach my mother how to use emule or something like that. Sounds like my music file is about to get much bigger. I still have 250G free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, no, bad RIAA lackey
feh, newb. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, no, bad RIAA lackey
ha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Voluntary, if you mean dragged kicking and screami
When suspending the public's liberty fails, it's not surprising that taxation appeals as a fallback option.
Of course a dying industry will eagerly grasp at this last straw, but it won't be tolerated.
"Griffin says those fees could create a pool as large as $20 billion annually to pay artists and copyright holders".
Hmmm. It sounds like there's quite a few marble floors in this plan. And if the record industry is happy about it, they've no doubt been reassured that the same 99:1 split can be achieved, thus keeping them in the lion's share to which they've become accustomed.
I always knew the recording industry would eventually go for this idea, as no doubt did the astute Jim Griffin, however, I think the public might not be too keen.
Copyright suspended the public's liberty (given as a privilege to publishers), and the Internet restored it. And the public are supposed to be wringing their hands over this as a tragedy? Will the people gladly vote to reward the restoration of their freedom with a selfless tax for the benefit of publishers?
I think we've got a little wiser since copyright's enactment around 300 years ago. I think the people will say "We'll have our liberty back thanks, and because it was ours to begin with, no you can't tax us instead - do you think we were born yesterday or something?"
Let's try a free market instead. No monopolies. No taxation.
It's a very simple deal in which both sides come together willingly, and set a mutually agreeable price:
Art for money, money for art.
I wonder who sets the price for music in 'voluntary collective licensing'?
At least with CDs punters can decide whether to buy or not buy, and thus vote on the price with their feet.
With VCL, some central committee decides how much music is worth - in other words, how long the yachts should be for various record label execs.
And if the pot is divvied according to popularity, we can look forward to the lowest common denominator tripe that the recording industry is so skilled at producing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why be specific
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fine
If I have to do the time, then I damn well better be allowed to do the crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few questions
Would your local library have to pay it also ?
And I'm sure that business owners would be just fine with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wonder what's next?
If Congress even considers this, like many others, I'll never buy another CD, movie or book again (not that I buy CDs or movies now, for all of the reasons discussed in these forums in the past). I'll start getting the material illegally. Might as well, if I'm already a criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stifle Innovation
Music Taxes Will Kill Music Innovation
Forcing people to buy music whether they want to or not is not a solution to this problem. The incentives created by such a system are perverse - guaranteed revenue and guaranteed profits will remove any incentive to innovate and serve niche markets. It will be the death of music.
Music industry revenues will be a set size, regardless of the quality or type of music they release. Incentives to innovate will evaporate. There will only be competition for market share, with no attempt to build the size of market or serve less-popular niches. Forget labels building new brands and encouraging early artists to succeed - they’ll bleed existing big names for all they are worth and work hard to keep anything new - labels, artists, and songwriters - out of the market. New entrants just means more competition for a static amount of money. Collusion by existing players will run rampant.
Soon labels will complain that revenues aren’t high enough to sustain their businesses, and demand a higher tax. It will go up, but it will never go down.
As I said before, Asking the government to prop up a dying industry is always (always) a bad idea. In this case, it is a monumentally stupid, dangerous, and bad idea.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/03/27/the-music-industrys-new-extortion-scheme/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sure it's made up, but it's certainly not bunk. You of all people should know that given a literal reading of our ridiculous laws, it's certainly 100%. It's not hard to empirically prove that even the most casual internet user is no doubt guilty of "millions of dollars" of infringement in a given week -- and that's the real crime!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I could take this as a serious plan . . .
Rest in peace guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just another bad tax
But then again, I prefer one more bad tax to the current situation where people can go to jail (in theory) or have to pay life-ruining fines for doing what "96%" or so of the population does. At least, the tax system puts an end to the current legal insecurity.
It is a bad tax, but we live in a world full of bad taxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
terrible idea
But ideas like this spell the death of the market and eventually end up with the state (often through its sock puppets) rigging the distribution to support art that promotes ideas it likes and suppress art that it disagrees with.
And then we get to be called "New China" or the USSR or something. Oddly enough, ISTM that these are the same reasons that many on the left love the idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If 96% of the population committed murder than that law is already gone along with the government.
"I am sure at one point 100% of the drivers in America have broken the speed limit. Lets get rid of that law too"
I agree 100% We have reckless driving laws that would cover it just fine. Same with those dumb ass cell phone laws.
Stupid laws should be broken. Ever hear of the Boston tea party or maybe the American revolution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Hear that? If 96% of the population commits murder ..."
How could that happen ?
One would think that if 50% of the population committed murder then everyone would be dead.
And one more thing, why would someone using dialup be required to pay this tax/fee/whatever ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bring it on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bring it on
If it is mandatory, and becomes reality I would expect lawsuits, and if they try a mandatory fee, and still put DRM on the music downloaded, I hope there would be a major consumer backlash. If they make it a mandatory fee, and then sue people for downloading music after paying the fee... I'm sorry, I think my head might explode if I contemplate that possibility too long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The 96% figure
It can't be 96% of the population of the US for the same reason.
It can't be 96% of the population of people who have computers, since there are WAY more than 4% who don't know how to do anything beyond e-mail. (Some Senators come to mind.)
So where does this number come from and why isn't anyone calling foul?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be Careful What You Wish For...
One Canadian version of the RIAA fileshare lawsuits foundered on the implicit assumption "If you already charge money for consumers to copy songs, then you are already consenting to and being recompensed for it - case dismissed."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a crock of SHIT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I take offense at that statement.
This asshat is calling me a criminal.
I suppose he would tell you that he is one of the 4%
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And in related News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And in related News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am the guy you quoted above (96%...)... more on
You may not see this quite yet but I think the flat rate will roll out in 2 stages: a) users (or their ISPs) can pay the $5 per month to get the all-you-can-eat unprotected music service b) the networks i.e. music service providers will bundle the charge and develop smart and unobtrusive 'advertising2.0' models around the music to make it de-facto free for the users. Paying with attention. If that reminds you of radio I wouldn't be surprised
b) research has shown that almost 100% of active internet users in western countries are indeed using their net connections to listen to or download music that is not deemed 'licensed' (as currently defined) - because these licenses don't exist (see: widgets, on-demand streams, sharing applications etc etc)
I just published a new book about all this stuff btw, and it's available as 'free' i.e. pay-what-you-like pdf see http://www.mediafuturist.com/music20_book/index.html
Finally, Mike, I do wish you would get off this TAX thing - it's just a cheap label to use when you don't have time for proper research and real journalism.
While I grant you that it's tough to trust any of the big labels to actually come up with solutions that are not just self-serving, I think this idea DOES merit real investigation and more neutral coverage. It may take more time to fully emerge but this is not a tax - IT'S A LICENSE. Read http://www.mediafuturist.com/2008/01/the-end-of-co-1.html if you want to know more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it even quacks like a tax, it is a tax!
Calling it a license when it is an unavoidable tax, doesn't magically stop it being a tax.
If you have an Internet connection and the ISP provides an OPTIONAL $5 licence to permit unlimited copying/mixing of music among licence holders, then this is a license. If it isn't optional, if it's compulsory, no matter whether you want to copy/mix music or not, then it's a tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayLouder is an example of an ISP that effectively gives its users the option of voluntarily paying a license fee. If this voluntary collective licensing idea is so attractive then more ISPs will become like PlayLouder, but punters will retain the choice between a licensed ISP or an unlicensed ISP. When you make it compulsory for ISPs to be like PlayLouder and thus make it compulsory for their users to bear the costs of the license fee, then it's a tax.
If a tax is such a great idea then call it a tax, but let's not use weasel words and call it a voluntary license when it's nothing of the sort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am the guy you quoted above (96%...)... more
"b) research has shown that almost 100% of active internet users in western countries are indeed using their net connections to listen to or download music"
Care to provide a reference for that ?
Who paid for that "research" ?
Seems you have a vested interest, no ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am the guy you quoted above (96%...)... more
Forcing people to pay at least $5/month when there are plenty of business models to support real-free, not "feels-like-free" seems like punishment to me.
You may not see this quite yet but I think the flat rate will roll out in 2 stages: a) users (or their ISPs) can pay the $5 per month to get the all-you-can-eat unprotected music service b) the networks i.e. music service providers will bundle the charge and develop smart and unobtrusive 'advertising2.0' models around the music to make it de-facto free for the users.
You forgot stage c) the movie industry wants it cut, and so another $5 gets add. and stage d) the newspaper industry wants its cut so another $5 gets added and stage e) the knitting industry (knitting patterns are traded freely online) so another $5 gets added. and stage f) auto mechanics wants its cut (they're complaining about diy auto repair info) so another $5 gets added...
You also totally leave out the mess that this causes in terms of figuring out who gets paid.
This is a model to prop up a dead and dying set of businesses, let's be frank.
If that reminds you of radio I wouldn't be surprised
Are you seriously suggesting that radio is the model we should emulate here?
b) research has shown that almost 100% of active internet users in western countries are indeed using their net connections to listen to or download music that is not deemed 'licensed' (as currently defined) - because these licenses don't exist (see: widgets, on-demand streams, sharing applications etc etc)
Again, I'm curious as to how having 100% of the population (and I note, no citation) doing something that you consider to be illegal doesn't mean that maybe the law is wrong, not the people?
Finally, Mike, I do wish you would get off this TAX thing - it's just a cheap label to use when you don't have time for proper research and real journalism.
If you could explain why it's not a tax, I'd appreciate it. Because no matter how I look at it, it acts very much like a tax.
Again, there are perfectly good business models that don't require compulsory licenses. Why muck up the entire system and create a huge bureaucratic nightmare?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am the guy you quoted above (96%...)... more
auto mechanics's work cannot be digitally copied..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a tax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow......don't talk if you have no idea what you'r
In the music industry, the revenue earned from sales of sound recordings, digital files, what have you is split amongst the artist (artist royalty), the producer (producer royalty), and the songwriter and music publisher (mechanical royalty) and the label gets a good chunk as well. If this tax goes through, it could be one of the best things for the music business and also for the consumer. Realistically, they can't charge much for this tax, maybe 5-10% at most of your current ISP bill....so like 3 bucks. If everyone with an internet connection (regardless if you have speakers or not [PS you can get speakers for 10 bucks at staples]) opts-in for this, this means that not only will the artist be able to recoup his or her advance from the label quicker and start making money off of royalties, the royalty rates will probably increase, thus giving your favorite artists more money and making them able to record and produce more music. I don't know...I think it's a good idea because everyone wins, but at a very low cost. The music industry not only will build up again but will also get its money it's been crying poverty for and the consumer will be able to get more for less. Simple economics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow......don't talk if you have no idea what y
Um. No, not quite.
Realistically, they can't charge much for this tax, maybe 5-10% at most of your current ISP bill....so like 3 bucks.
Actually, the discussions start at $5 and have been talked about up to $15.
If everyone with an internet connection (regardless if you have speakers or not [PS you can get speakers for 10 bucks at staples]) opts-in for this, this means that not only will the artist be able to recoup his or her advance from the label quicker and start making money off of royalties, the royalty rates will probably increase, thus giving your favorite artists more money and making them able to record and produce more music.
That assumes it's better than the old model, but doesn't recognize that there are better models for the artists to make more money faster. We've discussed them in great detail here. This solution would take most of those business models off the table.
On top of that, it would create a huge bureaucracy, and it would be quite difficult to determine how to actually split up the pie.
There would be plenty of funny accounting and the royalties wouldn't be delivered quickly or in the amounts you imagine.
I don't know...I think it's a good idea because everyone wins, but at a very low cost.
Not at all. Not everyone wins. Consumers are forced to spend more than the market price of a product (monopoly rents!), a huge bureaucracy is created and it stifles creativity in business models. Ouch.
The music industry not only will build up again but will also get its money it's been crying poverty for and the consumer will be able to get more for less
The *music* industry doesn't need to be built up again. More music than ever before in history is being produced. More musicians than ever before in history are earning money from their musical activities. More concerts are making more money than ever before in history.
The only part of the business that is struggling are the companies making plastic discs.
And the idea that "consumers get more for less" is incorrect. Some consumers will get more for less, but many others will end up subsidizing those consumers. That's not fair or just or necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]