HuffPo Columnist: I Infringe, So All Broadband Users Must Pay A New Piracy Tax
from the here-we-go-again dept
We've talked time and time again about the pipe dream on some fronts (mostly the entertainment industry) that you should tax broadband connections to give them the money they so justly deserve as victims of new business realities they repeatedly refused to acknowledge. It's effectively a "you must be a criminal tax," and despite being an immensely bad idea, it has obviously seen passage in numerous countries in the form of German levies on things like solid state drives and Canada's tax on blank media. Fortunately here in the States, efforts to push these taxes on broadband users or universities run into strong opposition.Most people understand that letting the entertainment industry tax everybody for the behavior of a few people simply makes no coherent sense. Except apparently for "musician and freelance writer" Chris Peak, who in at attempt at humor over at the Huffington Post proudly proclaims that he thinks it would be a nifty idea if all broadband subscribers had to pay a monthly fine for the behaviors of other people. Peak begins by proudly admitting he pirates, tossing around some of the usual arguments buried under said attempted humor (it's "stealing!" and "bands and musicians have essentially given up on selling music!"), and reaches the point where he asks all broadband subscribers to pay more money for no good reason:
"The fix? There is a fix. And it could work. Tax me. Tax for me the amount of bandwidth I use. Tax me each month, then earmark the tax for the film and music industry. Collect whatever percentage off of that tax you want. Enter into an anti-piracy agreement with both the RIAA and MPAA, and distribute the tax as fairly as possible. It would be a difficult task to allocate the tax to the effected artists and software developers, but there are widely available lists, updated daily and weekly, of the most pirated albums, programs, and movies."Because it's not like once those taxes are imposed they'll endlessly shoot skyward, completely detached from any real-world financial realities, right? If only we had real-world examples of that to show Peak how awful this idea is. Fortunately, ISPs and the entertainment industry are both known for transparency and accurate math, so it's not like they'll try to expand and abuse such a levy at every conceivable opportunity, right? It's also not like entertainment industry middlemen have a long history of taking this kind of money and ensuring they get the lion's share of it, right? Peak's idea is fool proof!
The author then cries a little bit about his inability to adapt to a new business paradigm he pretty clearly doesn't understand:
"I anticipate in the very near future my own music being completely stolen from me, pirated, and offered for free for trade between my fans. Fans are great. I wish I had more (for self-esteem issues). But that music that you kind of stole from me... I spent years writing, years recording, and years begging and borrowing and spending my life's savings on, hoping that I would find enough fans to buy my music. Because I kind of do this for a living and need to support myself. Get it?"Got it. Surely the best possible way of building your admittedly-small fan base will be to call them thieves and impose an entitlement fee on top of every broadband connection in the nation, while demonstrating you have limited skills at adaptation. Stardom awaits!
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: broadband, chris peak, mpaa, piracy, riaa
Companies: huffington post
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No. The only way forward is to make your end consumers know that the existence of your creativity depends on their payment, and let the crowd realise they have a responsibility to pay their dues if they want any creativity whatsoever - if they don't pay up, they will not get what they want. Which ultimately means crowdfunding. Amanda Palmer made a terrible mistake in her TED talk by saying that Kickstarter was a way of "letting" people pay for music instead of "making" them pay. To the contrary, crowdfunding websites, like tickets, subscriptions, pre-orders and other assurance contract economies, are the most heavily underrated and underestimated paywalls out there.
There's a terrific irony here that copyright advocates like to praise every form of paywall conceivable except the ones that actually work. Policing every copy through copyright-paywalls is a silly way of going about things when paywalls stand their grounds far better without copyright by forcing payment as a condition of the creation's existence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is an explanation for that actually. Crowdfunding, the 'paywall' idea you talk about, only works if people like the person asking for money, and are willing to throw money at the creator so they can make their music/movie/other content.
If on the other hand you've got a massive reputation of screwing over your customers, showing contempt towards them, and/or are too lazy to bother connecting with them to the point that they want to give you money, such an idea will fail before it even gets off the ground.
With a 'you must be a pirate' tax though, it doesn't matter if people like you, if they hate you, of even if they've ever heard of you, they still have to pay you, whether or not they want what you're offering.
Considering it's almost always the *AA's(or their foreign equivalents) and various 'collection' agencies that are always pushing for such 'taxes' to be put in place, and the kind of reputation they tend to have... well, you can see why they wouldn't even try the crowdfunding idea, and in fact would hold it in contempt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gotta watch those double standards
'In just a few hours, to wind down my evening, I'll watch a pirated movie (thanks, Ellen DeGeneres) in the confines of a cozy bed. And I'm sure that after I brushed my teeth this morning I listened to my iTunes, full of songs which, you guessed, are pirated. '
Then later on:
'But that music that you kind of stole from me... I spent years writing, years recording, and years begging and borrowing and spending my life's savings on, hoping that I would find enough fans to buy my music. Because I kind of do this for a living and need to support myself. Get it?'
So, practically brags about how much pirated content he watches/listens to, and then has the gall to get angry at the idea of someone else doing the same to his music?
Just a little rule of thumb but, if you do something to other people, and see nothing particularly wrong with doing so, you don't get to get angry and upset should they turn around and do it back to you.
Still, given the apparent mass piracy he engages in, I look forward to reading about the absolute avalanche of lawsuits sent his way, bankrupting him into oblivion, since obviously the *AA's treat piracy by people they don't like the same as piracy committed by people working for them. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gotta watch those double standards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If your industry requires any degree of government-backed authoritarianism to stay afloat, then good riddance. You deserve to go out of business for being a fascist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh wait, what about the Author's Guild, and other writer associations?
And photographers? They need their cut too!
Oh and what about businesses? I mean, they infringe jsut as much as citizens, so they should suffer this tax too right?
But then, if we're all paying this "tax" ....does that mean we can pirate all we like without consequence now? We've now paid for it. Just like they do in Canada!
How about we fix copyright instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would have commented in HuffPost except they locked up comments unless you are a 'verified' user in Facebook. The day I give my cell number to Facebook is the day that Satan skates to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I call dibs on 100%!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Worth It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After everyone of them gets their cut and you pay for the increased taxes on the increased amount, there is no where that it slows down, except when it gets too expensive to have. When that happens, there will be some other idea on how to skin your wallet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let the RIAA and MPAA fight against Getty Images, Wiley, the AP, the pornographers and whoever else thinks they should get a cut of every ISP bill. Let the ISPs send their lobbyists running to the legislatures to cry that they can't charge customers what all these parties would have them charge.
In other words, if they want it to be all about money, make it be all about money. They are the ones who have it, not us consumers ... so there's only so much they can get out of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perspective
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
If I didn't know better I'd swear this entire blog was just a bad parody gone wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I really don't understand why the trolls can't at least use their brain. What's the point of posting on every single thread if you're just going to be a running joke?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not to mention that the costs of these taxes (administration and enforcement) easily can be higher than what they bring to the collection societies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As opposed to a bad parody gone right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
average_joe just hates it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WRONG MIKEY
you dont want to pay 1.5 on your internet well thats 4 times what they get via a levy on blank cdrs.
and that would include everything....too many of us are sick n tired of the bs....
we have 80 years in canada term rates, and strict laws now....it is far too easy to breka theselaws...instead of complex i KNOW many would go for a easy tax....and if you say you'd never download well this coudl encourage you....
if yoru adament you never would...then we put you on a filtered account that would bar you and you would pay to make sur eno one cheats.
THATS RIGHT....you might in fact pay more in the end to have it policed...its easy to setup a govt tracker and then have a id like your social insurance to prevent cheating on stats to get the artists paid.
IF you want ot pay and advertise ads are and will be there as well as a whats new page.
they and you dont want this cause it of course solves all the issues and removes it all....
HOW do you admin this...wihout it becomign a increase every year till its a stupid cost?
well easy you have elctions form the citizens of the internet...if you hav einternet in canada for 6 months of the year you get one vote for 5 of 9 seats on a council. that will then oversee all matters to this
you can have 3 can be one of software one for music and one for tv/movies represented on this and one can be a govt person to represent all the other types of media like pictures and books etc.
I did a ten pager of this and had warner brothers steal and twist this from a 1.50 per net account in canada to a 10-20 dollar ( we can make 20 billion a year crazy fest)
when you consider at that time canada had 28 million internet accounts and due to harper and his policies and these we now have 18 million ( thats right 10 million dropped net accounts since the new law came in GREAT WORK HARPER )
28 times 1.5 = 42 million a month or 504 million a year
compared to 43 the music industry gets its share is 25% of the above and you arrive at fair and equatable in this fashion movies get 30% and tv gets 25%.
that is 126 million for music and you ahve to compete and get paid based on direct stats of downloads that are based on per household...ergo one download or ten from same house counts as one download stat ( easy in tracker code to deal with)
this is 3 times what the industry gets and give sany Canadian artist exposure in one spot and if you want a tour company to say we like this its getting lots a hits lets talk to them and invest in a tour then you can go that route....
WHAT we no longer need is a music distribution house like the riaa or music canada ....it then gives the cash right to artists. NOT LAWYERS....
my idea is sound and the only ones that dont like it are pirates that never want to pay a dime for anything and prolly steal change off your table....and the movie/music lawyer/houses...and anyone else that derives income form this...you are either with that lot or we the people.
MARK my words this is the end system that will come....
its the only one that will give something to everyone....
and do it fairly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WRONG MIKEY
We knew from the subject, there's only bs to expect from an anonymous shill but that's for contracting yourself that nicely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WRONG MIKEY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WRONG MIKEY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WRONG MIKEY
:-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
p.s.
for you music buffs and pro industry types
think canada has 20 million net accounts and there are 2400 milion on the internet
so 504 times 120 = 60.4 billion a year...
FOR THE WORLD....
and the music industry as a whole would double revenue over night
SO think about it COST as is = about 50 cents per net account...
and think what 18 billion ayear can mean to film industry for block busters and special affects?
your risk is as usual to get the cash upfront to do stuff....
thats YOUR ARTISTS BUSINESS...NOT ME NOR MY GOVT....if you do good stuff we'll download
\
trailors and snippets are a advert way to get you noticed...and if its in one place we can look
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: p.s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In summary...
Yeah, how could that possibility go wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK, so there is/was s a Canadian tax on blank media..
In Canada, I can legally decrypt and back up my DVDs. Et tu?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OK, so there is/was s a Canadian tax on blank media..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OK, so there is/was s a Canadian tax on blank media..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bring on the popcorn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Government money/services => poor people = Socialism!!1Eleventy-one!1!! + Terrorists! + Won't somebody please think of the children?!
Government money/services => rich people = *crickets*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I might be ok with it.
In that case, no deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I might be ok with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
but they still want to threaten people into settlements with questionable "evidence" of copyright infringement of material that may or may not be theirs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Default Criminals: Inspires Actual Criminals
The customer is a Default Criminal. Pay for your Default Crimes.
That bad attitude is never acceptable in business. Then there is the simple human reflex of responding to customer abuse with customer retribution.
∑ = Our media Corporate Oligarchy CREATES the criminals they insist we all must be. THEY are their own worst enemy.
It's the 21st century. Catch up and get with the future, media mogul morons. Treat customers with respect and they always respond in kind, ending your self-generated piracy problem. It's really that simple. And it doesn't take a media pirate to notice. You just need to understand basic human decency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please tax me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please tax me
Yeah, I don't think the people who push this sort of stuff understand human psychology very well(that or they're banking on the inevitable results so they can sue more people), if you treat someone as a criminal, then it increases the odds that they will act like one, and feel justified in doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please tax me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Please tax me
Yeah, some fundamentalists(and all 'born agains') are funny/crazy like that, the idea that someone could disagree with them and/or their religion, for reasons other than a desire to be evil and commit a bunch of 'sins', is just completely beyond them.
Far as I can figure, the idea behind such belief is that to them, their religion is completely and utterly 'obviously true', so to them, anyone who disagrees with them/it can only be doing it on purpose, intentionally ignoring the 'trueness' of it, and since to them their religion is the source of good, obviously the only possible reason someone would disagree with it, or not follow it, would be because they wish to do bad and/or evil things.
Such is the mind(if you can call it that) of a fanatic I guess, where there's only one possible 'truth', and everyone who disagrees with them isn't doing so because they have a different opinion, or don't find the evidence presented compelling enough to agree, but solely because of a desire to do evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Please tax me
Unfortunately this is the mind set that leads to the Spanish Inquisition, or the Taliban.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Please tax me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please tax me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please tax me
Aren't hasty generalizations fun?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please tax me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please tax me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please tax me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please tax me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please tax me
Also, what moron first came up with the 'breeders' thing as an insult? That's not only idiotic, it's idiotic hypocrisy, fighting to be considered equal, and not be judged by sexual orientation, and then turning around and using a term based on sexual orientation as an insult is just beyond stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please tax me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please tax me.
They got a tax levied on ALL blank audiocassette tapes.
That tax still exists today!
I don't think anybody knows of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please tax me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music sales barely pay artists anything
Yeah, I am a music industry husband, close enough to know what's going on (technically a director of one of the few honest companies in the business) but detached enough to be horrified by the legal and illegal practices ripping artists off, rather than blas� about them. I have long been in an industry that is basically clean and honest; the most dishonest person I know in my own field used to manage a major rock band. Quelle surprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Music sales barely pay artists anything
Back when it was a choice between 'sign this incredibly one-sided contract, give away the rights to your music, and maybe get paid', or 'don't sign, and no one will ever hear your music outside of any local gigs you can manage', it's not too surprising(though still disgusting mind) that the musicians would tend to be screwed over, since the labels held all the power, but now, with the drastic increase in other options, musicians should have a much easier time finding truly equal and fair contracts, if they decide to sign them at all, rather than just going solo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Peak
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/contributors/chris-peak/headshot.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eff them
They're the criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They get their tax, but *all* anti-"piracy" programs are suspended for as long as the tax exists.
The media groups that accept revenue from this tax must accept an unconditional ban on lawsuits against non-commercial infringers.
All pressure against filesharing sites stops, quite literally "for good".
If they're getting payment for internet users consuming their media, then the methods used *must* be acknowledged as legal.
Only fair, only right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A tax won't work.
If you give them money and it's not attached to any particular artists name, that money will only pocketed by the billionaires who are raping the artists anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fixed. You're welcome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did I miss something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Without obvious cues, it is impossible to tell a parody of extremism from true extremism"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]