“Having failed to stop piracy by suing internet users, the music industry is for the first time seriously considering a file sharing surcharge that internet service providers would collect from users,” Frank Rose reports for Wired.
“In recent months, some of the major labels have warmed to a pitch by [consultant on digital strategy for three of the four major music labels] Jim Griffin, one of the idea’s chief proponents, to seek an extra fee on broadband connections and to use the money to compensate rights holders for music that’s shared online,” Rose reports. “‘It’s monetizing the anarchy,’ says Peter Jenner, head of the International Music Manager’s Forum, who plans to join Griffin on the panel.”
“Griffin’s idea is to collect a fee from internet service providers — something like $5 per user per month — and put it into a pool that would be used to compensate songwriters, performers, publishers and music labels. A collecting agency would divvy up the money according to artists’ popularity on P2P sites, just as ASCAP and BMI pay songwriters for broadcasts and live performances of their work,” Rose reports.
“In a 2004 white paper, the Electronic Frontier Foundation called for it to be applied to file sharing, but the Recording Industry Association of America immediately dismissed the proposal,” Rose reports.
“Things are different now. ‘The labels are beginning to like the idea of an access-to-music charge,’ says Jenner, who once managed Pink Floyd and the Clash, ‘because they’re increasingly aware that their current model is broken.’ U.S. music sales, which peaked in 1999 at nearly $15 billion, dropped to $11.5 billion in 2006. Last year’s figures are still being tallied, but with CD sales cratering and online sales overwhelmingly dominated by singles, the only question is how far they’ll fall.”
Full article here.
The music industry’s current model is not broken, it’s being fixed — by Apple. The old model was an illusion. The music cartels grew fat on artificially inflated profits from CDs because they overcharged for bundles (albums) for years.
Massive amounts of undeserved revenue is a broken, unsustainable model that the marketplace will eventually correct. Now that people can buy music a la carte and choose exactly what they want and not be forced to pay for music they don’t want, the music cartels think something is broken. The only thing broken is their stranglehold over consumers.
Now that they actually have to develop product that consumers want to buy, instead of forcing people to buy a load of stuff they don’t want in order to get a few good nuggets, they’re shocked. “Hey, where’d all of our free money go?!”
Well, too damn bad. That extra bundling cash is gone forever, boys. Now you have to work for your money. Imagine that.
Next up: The cable companies who massively overcharge consumers for bundles instead of allowing their customers buy only the channels they want. They’ll be shocked, too.
As for the main issue of this article: trying to correct the issue of the theft of music, should ISPs – meaning all of us – have to pay a surcharge for piracy?
This sounds more like an idea from Peter Griffin.
A surcharge would only encourage more piracy. If I’m being forced to pay for what other people are pirating, then I’m going to pirate my ass off to get my money’s worth.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
I think it is a great idea. I work with a few of the brutal Torrent abusers. They disgust me. Everything on TV, Every Movie, Every Video Game Every bit of Music is stolen everyday by them. I go about my normal routine of paying. The only reason these Bit Torrent **ckers get their crap for free is because there are schleps like me that legitimately pay. I say ISP measure their traffic. When you see they are loading 60 gig per month send them a bill for obvious illegal activity! They are a bain to society and they should be made to pay at least for their traffic jam they make on the net with their stolen material.
‘It’s monetizing the anarchy,’ says Peter Jenner.
No, Mr Jenner, it’s extortion!
I ain’t touching your ass.
If everyone is paying a surcharge, then will sites like iTMS or Rhapsody stop charging for music? Otherwise wouldn’t we basically be paying twice for the same music?
So, If in exchange for being forced to pay a $5 a month “piracy surcharge” on my DSL connection, I will get free reign to pirate any/everything I want on the web?
Am I alone in thinking this will make matters worse, not better for the rights holders. It would be giving pirates free reign.
Another dumb idea from an industry that seems to have little left but dumb ideas.
— Hano
Worked well for Canada with the surcharge for blank CDs [/sarcasm].
Actually, thanks to that we *do* have the legal right to copy music. But that’s only because the music industry here was (again) thinking old school when then won that judgement in the late 90’s, and didn’t consider the internet. They won’t make that mistake again.
Of course, most of the money from the levy never makes it back to the artists that the levy was supposed to compensate in the first place! Lying scumbags…
It’s simple Karma. You steal, you develop an entitlement mentality. You make enemies.
Everything else is smoke.
On both sides.
It’s extortion (the practice of obtaining something, esp. money, through force or threats) plain and simple. I do not listen to pop music, which constitutes most of the music being pirated, And I’m supposed to cross your greedy music industry hands with a $5.00 a month surcharge to compensate you for what you wrongly consider to e your just due? No way in hell. I’ll fight this by all means fair and foul and I’ll be happy to join with others who wish to do so.
That ISP surcharge is a great idea. Then I will feel justified to download everything I have ever wanted and then some because I have already paid for it.
I think Trent Reznor has the right idea in offering his latest music for a very reasonably priced high quality download and then offering some unique collectible packages. The ultra collectible autographed $300 package sold out in no time and in a limited release netted $750,000. Imagine if U2 offered an autographed release or the Stones. Reznor has always been a musical visionary, now he’s shown his marketing genius as well.
ISPs won’t go for it as they are already under pressure from consumers for their charges. It can only happen if it is passed into law, which won’t happen either. The music industry is grasping at straws….
This is idiocy. It’s like suing Bell because the Mafia does business over the telephone. Or the suing the electric company for obscenity for providing the power that your tv uses to display porn
This is such an insane article, I can’t even make a reasonable comment.
I think the MDN take is right on.
The industry has a legal option. Continue sueing the hell out of consumers. That will build a lot of good will with customers…NOT!
The old model is dead. Better get with the new one fast!!!
Quote: Next up: the cable companies who massive overcharge consumers for bundles instead of allowing their customers buy only the channels they want. They’ll be shocked, too.
Wrong. Cable companies, satellite companies have to bundle because there are stations that noone will buy unless they are forced on you. They are made to bundle them by the channels themselves or they can’t carry them on there network then they get bitched at for not carrying it. TWC my former employer had an issue with NFL channel where NFL was trying to dictate which pay tier TWC could put NFL Channel. I don’t know the outcome but the channels have alot of power in this. Alot of the channels are owned by same company so they might have a very popular channel and a not so popular channel. They require the not so popular channel to be offered on a certain tier or they can deny you the popular channel. If the cable company could do as they please they would let customers have whatever channel they want. And the price is derived by many factors. The cost that the cable company pays to the channels themselves, operating cost and the fact that they ARE a business and have to earn a profit. And yes I used to work for cable company so I’ve seen the other side of things.
Once I see rappers and rock bands not owning multiple cars that cost more than $100,000, then I’ll consider it. They probably pay more for insuring one of their vehicles per year than what my car is worth.
Hano and Mossman,
BINGO, right on the head.
A, it sounds like a good idea if you are the one getting free money from everyone for not being able to sell a crappy product.
These people that “steal” 30 gigs of music —- DO NOT and CAN NOT listen to it all. If you played that music constantly with different soungs, you would have to listen for YEARS.
These people collect music like I collect junk,….. treasure.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
NOPE, the music cartels have to DIE and be reborn into something that works and supports the music artists.
This “get rich scheme” that they come up with is only to support THEM. Screw the artist. Trust me on that.
Hmmmmm. So, since most robbers use getaway cars, it seems that all banks, convenience stores, and people’s homes should start collecting from car manufacturers. For every car sold, money should be taken and then given out to all homeowners and banks and stuff.
“Sounds rediculous,” you say? So does collecting from ISPs who have nothing to do with what people actually download.
Next up – since bank robbers often use cars to rob banks, we should stick an extra tax on gas and pass it along to the banks.
dd, great minds think alike. You beat me to it…
So does this mean that since we are being charged for something that we aren’t buying that we can take it now anyway?
Also @ mr_Matalino
“Once I see rappers and rock bands not owning multiple cars that cost more than $100,000, then I’ll consider it. They probably pay more for insuring one of their vehicles per year than what my car is worth.”
Most of those wannabees rent the stuff for the music videos to make them seem rich and successful. Besides, why apply that logic to musicians when the reality is people in ALL forms of business are the same way. Are you going to start stealing gas because the CEO of some oil company made 400 million last year?
Ok, so they charge the internet service providers, which will inturn charge the consumer, regardless of whether they downloaded from bit-torrent or not…
Yet another stupid idea from the m usic cartels
No matter what anybody says, the monster we call file sharing will never be killed, unless we go to a state of dictatorship! Then and only then, can the old take back what they once control!
But, that is not possible, soon more “providers” will collapse onto themselves… soon, the net will be the way, the only way and even then, that day will come to an end, but not for another fifty or hundred years.
People will always steal if they think they can get away with it. What better way is there to sit at your computer in your house and take anything you want from anyone you want! If you can stop that, then you will stop piracy!
The sky has fallen…
I don’t download music (except itunes that is) so I should not have to pay the surcharge
What a stupid idea! First, as someone pointed out, it will encourage people to pirate — if I’m already paying $5 per month “surcharge,” I may as well get what I’m paying for. Second, it assumes that everyone on the web pirates music. I’ve spent about $200 on iTunes in the last year, which is much more than I’d have spent on CDs. Why should I–or anyone else–have to pay roughly $60 per year on top of whatever I spend at iTunes? No, if the music industry does this, piracy will skyrocket. And rightly so.
“The music industry is grasping at straws….”
Usually it’s just a rolled up hundred dollar bill. They call that brainstorming.
Let me be clear on this. I haven’t pirated music since the old Napster days. Once there were legal and FAIR alternatives my yearly spending on music has gone up significantly. If there is an automatic music tax added to my broadband bill, you can me sure that I will start doing the P2P music thing and not paying for anything as much as I can.
This is a stupid idea and that money will never ever make it’s way into the pockets of the artists. The recent experiment by NIN is a view at the future way to go for artists. Does it mean there’s some extra work to know how to package and offer some extras to customers to justify the purchase? Yes. But the days of albums/CDs is drawing to a close. Evolve and move on and cut these unnecessary bloodsuckers out of the middle.
I don’t mind them charging for P2P sharing. I very rarely anymore use things like Limewire anyways. I still but my stuff on CD. If I think I’ll only like a song or two then I would get it from iTunes. But CD is still the way for me. Then I have the songs in all there uncompressed glory of which I can do whatever I want with. Until iTunes becomes all “iTunes Plus” then the vast majority of songs I get will be from CD.
As for the Cable TV idea mention in the MDN Take. I agree. Why should I have to pay for like 100 channels when I only want like 10. It makes no sense. And on top of that, right now (at least here in Canada) if you want the HD version of a channel it will cost you extra for each HD channel you want. Pretty sad.
Anyhoo that my two cents.
“Are you going to start stealing gas because the CEO of some oil company made 400 million last year?”
So, that’s wrong? Dammit!
@bjh – Yes, we did come up with a good one. 😀
MW: job – This bank “job” was done with a Chevy. Someone get GM on the phone. lol
I think it is a great idea…I’ve mentioned it here a few times, it seemed pretty obvious to me, and now I think I’ll sue this Griffin guy for patent infringement.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
For all the bitching here, note that it originated with the EFF, not the RIAA, as a model taken from radio. So the point here is that after additional years of wasted time fighting downloaders the RIAA is finally considering a solution that originated with the EFF.
I don’t know how much of a piracy surge it would actually cause–the RIAA has to concede that its efforts haven’t done anything to increase music sales, and people might pirate less if there wasn’t the attitude of “I better download this while its available”
It also takes the best of the subscription idea–large amount of material available for a small amount of money–and strips it of the thing that keeps subscriptions unpopular–DRM restrictions and the fact that you are renting music instead of owning it.
Looks like most everyone has already figured out the fatal flaw in this argument: if they’re adding a piracy surcharge to our ISP fees – in other words, if we’re going to be forced to *pay* for piracy – it sure seems like people who are currently not engaging in piracy feel encouraged to do so, since they’re being forced to pay for it!
Sort of a variation on the “I pay taxes to help people like you” problem, where forced taxation for certain good causes can unfortunately reduce voluntary charitable giving. If I’m going to be taxed for something I’m already paying for voluntarily, then where’s my incentive to continue paying for it voluntarily?
“Cable companies, satellite companies have to bundle because there are stations that noone will buy unless they are forced on you.”
Like TBN. I look forward to the day when I don’t have to go through my channels and manually delete all the home shopping networks, televangelists, and hunting shows.
There way or excuse to raise the price of there online music. Imagine that? There like pirana that never get enough out of one feeding frenzy, they always want more. Artists need to get off or out of there contracts with these bottom feeders and record and sell there music independently online. This way 90% of there money doesn’t end up in the hands of GREEDY record cartels and then people can actually buy what they want at affordable prices!
This is not going to happen. What is more likely is that the ISP will throttle bandwidth indiscriminately to prevent the music and movie cartels from suing them for aiding pirating.
That’s it!!!! I’m suing the sofa companies for all of the loose change my sofa eats…..
MW: needs. “I needs to gets me my moneyz”
Look, if they stop hassling music lovers/pirates then I’m all for it. But if the record companies are proposing it then perhaps it’s worth looking at.
However here’s the rub, if the record companies get away with this, then the film industry will be putting their hands up as well. Do we then get publishers and authors asking for their levy?
The only way this idea will get off the ground is to set one amount which is then divvied up between the various affected parties. And believe you me such a levy wouldn’t be high enough for all the various copyright holders and related parties. If you did make the amount consistent with the relevant stakeholders’ wishes then consumers would baulk at the cost.
” . . . all the home shopping networks, televangelists, and hunting shows.”
Or they could at least combine those into one channel. There’s a clearance sale on blessed Jacketed Hollow Points. Now let’s sing, “Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition.”
WHEN WILL THE INSANITY END?!?!?!?
bjh…
Instead of a gas tax, why not tax the profits of the oil companies, since they’re thieves too.
I like the idea! RIAA, MPAA, publishing houses, any schlep who owns a copyright – all their stuff will be posted on the net for FREE and all we pay is $5 a month, right?
Oh wait, that’s NOT what they’re saying? Hmmm.
How about we start charging RIAA a fee to LISTEN to music? And we can charge ISP’s a $5 monthly fee if they don’t feel like paying it?
This lawyer is f**king crazy.
This will not only make the problem worse, but small local ISPs like the one I work for (4000-5000 customers) will effectively go out of business. Customers who do not download movies and music will leave because of the $5 increase in fees, as will the people who legitimately purchase movies and music online. People who wouldn’t have thought to download music or movies, will feel incensed, and begin to do so anyways. Hey, why not? They’re getting charged $60 a year for the privilege of having DSL or Cable Internet, right? It’s punishing the majority who are honest, turning many of them into the very pirates and file sharers the Entertainment industry hacks are trying to stop.
If this idea goes through everybody will be paying for music rentals, just as many people are BUYING music from the iTunes store.
These will be paying twice! (Even those people who subscribe to the beleaguered music rental services)
How unjust is this?
The worst part if it is that the music industry would attract a money stream WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING!
Actually, they’re not. They charge a margin, same as any other business. It’s just that when the price goes up and their total volume of sales increases to almost unimaginable levels, their percentage margin becomes a huge number.
Do you have a problem with Apple charging a margin ? McDonalds ? American Airlines ? The Gap ?
If this gets passed (and of course I am against it being passed), then it is effectively a license to use P2P, like a “forced” subscription. And then I’d be downloading “free” stuff 24/7. Don’t the labels realize that this fee will become their only source of revenue because p2ping would effectively no longer be piracy (I’m paying $5 a month for it, sir.). iTunes and Amazon mp3 would no longer be needed.
I am against it in principle, and because that $5 tax would soon become $25, since all taxes increase.
MacDailyNews Take: The music industry’s current model is not broken, it’s being fixed — by Apple. The old model was an illusion. The music cartels grew fat on artificially inflated profits from CDs because they overcharged for bundles (albums) for years.
Ah yes, the old fabled “artificial construct” argument – very original. Thank Jobs, we’re now entering a new golden age, when people will realize that the only music worth listening to are the big hits; I mean, really, who cares about all the rest of that filler? Seriously? Who can be bothered to listen to something new when they can listen to the same old same old any old time?
Cripes.
@ Grigori
People can sample each individual song via iTunes. Nobody is limited to just the “hits”. In fact, with radio being the vast wasteland it currently is, many of us don’t even know which ones are the “hits” and which ones aren’t – we browse and buy what we like, regardless of the airplay they may or may not be getting.
wow. $5 a month for all the music i can steal? SWEET!
now THAT’s a subscription plan i can finally agree to! where do i sign up?
“to use the money to compensate rights holders”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That would be a first. The record companies do nothing, but serve to screw the rights holders.
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10498664
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/omm/story/0,,2241544,00.html
There is no way for the ISPs to determine what your getting. Suppose you stream audio or video legally – thus pure bandwidth usage is not a good metric. The only way they would be able to charge those who are pirating is to actually see what files people are downloading. This would open up issues of privacy. Anyway you cut it the consumer is screwed. MDN nailed it on the head the record industry business model is broken…Get rid of DRM and allow people to purchase music and do with it what they will.
@middilay
I’ll take you seriously the day you learn to correctly spell ‘bane’.
For everyone else, this is ridiculous. I say, if it’s allowed, we collectively sue the pants off of our ISPs.
@Gabriel: 25-30 second samples are the musical equivalent of buying junk candy at the check-out line ; “Ooh, that looks/sounds good, think I’ll take that!” Thirty pounds later, you realize just how much crap you’ve consumed.
FreddyThePig@: You are correct, sir; also, the second word of a sentence is usually not capitalized.
$5 to freely download/pirate any damn thing i want? Sounds pretty good to me. That’ll fill up the Time Machines/AppleTVs real fast!
So by this phiolosphy the people that don’t steal music should have to pay for and b/c others do. NICE! way to stick it to everyone!!
correction: philosophy. sorry about that. i “proof read” the post as it was being posted and realized i totally goofed on that, lol.
So I’ll still be forced to pay for music I don’t want and don’t own because the music cartels think something is broken. Morons! Don’t you get it yet? I don’t buy your stuff now because I don’t want it, not even for free!
This is the same thing as a fee on blank media which was rejected by Washington. This is much and more costly, Why should my ISP charge me a fee that will benefit the big record companies? I buy and pay for indie music from indie artists. Sound Exchange (one of the RIAA’s other hats) already screws indie artists by collecting fees on their music and then refusing to pay the indie artists. This is just a reaction from consults and the big recording industry executives seeing their gravy trains running dry. If the Recording industry signed good artists and treated them fairly and kept their money grubbing fingers and noses out of the artists creative business. Instead of making recording Artists celebrity, they should be worried about the Artist making the best recordings possible.
The artists will never be compensated even a penny of the money from an ISP pay fee to recording industry scheme. It’s just another face on an industry that can’t and won’t do what is need to stay relevant in the changing modern times.
I for one as a music lover do purchase all my music and do not steal it. I just don’t buy label artists’ music I prefer indie artists, artists’ with a view point, a passion, an edge, a real person, and not a fake, drunk or drugged out celebrity that a hobo wouldn’t waste time over.
This proposal is essentially the same idea that the labels have been pushing for as long as I can recall. A tax on blank media. They’ve tried to propose it with audio cassettes, MiniDisks, CDRs, iPods and even Zunes.
Once in a while they manage to find a compliant government ( such as Canada ) who can be persuaded to go along with it, or a desperate manufacturer ( such as Microsoft ), but it’s an idea that has never worked and never will.
It’s just wishful thinking on the part of the labels and like most of their silly ideas, it will have the opposite effect to the intended effect. If people are paying a piracy tax, then paying for legitimate downloads is pointless.
They are running out of ideas.
@FreddyThePig — whatever – so there! I don’t think you would know how to download music legally or via bit torrent. I have some advice – don’t buy an iPhone – goto:
http://www.jitterbug.com/
thats the phone for you…so THERE you go…
I would like to apologize for my previous comment. I was trying to give a perspective of the potential infringement on all of our rights. Instead I was duped by an “old fart” do to a grammatical error. Thank God I have an Electrical Engineering degree and a graduate degree in telecom, and going for a Phd in computer science. I may not know grammar but one day “old fart” you will use and pay for something that I have made…
Don’t forget the $8 surcharge for the movie industry, and the $6.50 surcharge for the TV industry,
While we’re at it, let’s get rid of paying for shareware – just add a $5 surcharge for that, and the obligatory $10 Microsoft surcharge (no one knows why we pay them anyway, so just fork it over),
Now add in taxes on the surcharges, and a higher bill from your ISP for handling all the surcharges,
Hey, my broadband bill just went to $150/mo so I can check email and surf the web a bit. Grandpa and Grandma will love that!
It’s a great idea letting some group that’s known to be shady, collect money on someone elses behalf, so they can get extra money, that’s mighty charitable . . . to a piece of fruit, but to a human with a brain, don’t be surprised if the charitable group has a
‘the buck stops here’ sign on their desk.
@eliga,
You make an excellent point, and it’s kind of where this article boils down in my pot. Obviously the music ind. finally got somebody with a calculator to attend their meetings and figured out yet another way to keep their fat cats on payroll thanks to someone else’s work. (60/40 splits and expecting the artists to act like their lucky.)
If ISP’s are going to be charged this – tax, then you can be sure we’re going to get charged, and long story short – $5/month is an outrageous return for the so-called music industry. They’ll make way more money per song then they’ve ever made… This is a truly terrible idea. Remember the cassette tax? When that format was popular the “music industry” was raking in the dough. I believe it was something like 1¢/recordable tape. Sounds small, but in principle I was always against it because it was a private industry being given the right to tax privately owned distributors, and ultimately me.
When I started reading the article I was imagining perhaps 50¢, which, arguably, the ISP’s could just absorb if they wanted to, but $5 bucks – no way… (I guess I already said that.) If you ask me, this is just another strong-arm and payback tactic being proposed by the music industry.
I’ll say honestly that if my ISP bill goes up by five dollars a month I’m going to feel perfectly justified to just go ahead and stop actually buying music at all, and to just go ahead and torrent it. Heck, for 50¢/month the temptation could become a reality. The point being, that this same feeling, felt and acted upon en masse (which I believe is justifiably probable), will surely bring the house down around online music stores, and voilà, 100% payback for screwing with their finally tuned fat cat assembly line will have been dealt.
As much as we love to hate the industrial music machinery, let’s not ignore the fact that they have a lot of practice protecting their turf – It’s clear that things are not going to be the same, but let’s not for one moment underestimate the industry’s ability to be militantly underhanded. I for one would like to continue to pay for my songs one by one, with the option of buying complete collections at a small discount. I think that almost anything is better than letting this industry presume to levy any kind of tax directly on the end user.
My wish is that all artists would remove themselves from the proverbial “music industry” paradigm and just go ahead and direct market through stores like Apple and Amazon, or if you like subscriptions (which I don’t) then pick a subscription based service.
Now back to TV… I wait with baited breath to see if TV is learning anything or if they too will just rest on their laurels until they realize we’re not watching off-air as much anymore, and we’re starting to drop our cable and satellite subscriptions.
Isnt Capitalism wonderful?
It allows the idiotic notion that some must have more cash than they will ever need and some must have less than none, that is, be in debt.
Yet we continue with it because its ‘freedom’ or some such tripe.
Isnt it time to see that there is something wrong with this system and not pick at pieces of it?
Taxing the peasants is what all this is about, because if you have enough money, then extra costs dont bother you.
ONLY poor people actually pay tax, or surcharges, because rich people can afford it without even thinking about it.
Get it?
“– and put it into a pool that would be used to compensate songwriters, performers, publishers and music labels.”
Not necessarily in that order.
What a joke.
The Labels should be careful what they wish for. This would be a tax. A tax collected by government.
A government that never saw a tax it didn’t like. A government that would charge a handling fee and income tax on these found funds. A government that would not allow any write offs on those ill gotten gains.
A government that would oversee the distribution of those funds and make sure the song writers, music composers, musicians, performers, technicians and retired music industry workers and creatives all get their fair share.
There would not be much left over for The Labels.
The Labels in Canada are not in favor of this tax at all.
They know they wouldn’t see much of that $5.
Music Cartels, Oil Cartels, Drug Cartels
Why don’t I see any differences…all will screw you royally!!
How about a surcharge to Walmart to make up for lost revenue from people who buy CD’s, rip the songs and burn copies for friends.
If we surcharge the ISP’s because they are the delivery method for online music, we should also surcharge trucking because they are the delivery method for CD’s.
“As for the main issue of this article: trying to correct the issue of the theft of music, should ISPs – meaning all of us – have to pay a surcharge for piracy?”
I am sure that the majors assume that each pirated track is revenue lost and try to determine their price based on this. However, I do not believe that all or even most tracks that are pirated would have been paid for otherwise. Of course, that is just my opinion, based on a very small sample size of friends.
“Thank Jobs, we’re now entering a new golden age, when people will realize that the only music worth listening to are the big hits.”
I fail to see how selecting any song you can means only hits. For pop acts and the like that previously only had 2-3 good tracks or “hits”, that might be true. But good acts that put out 10 tracks of goodness will remain the same.
“Gee it would be a real shame if…”
How about if Jim Griffin sends me $5/month for being gracious enough to not break his kneecaps?
Afterall, if what he’s proposing is not extortion, then neither is what I’m proposing.
-hh
Really, if this goes through, and I am forced to pay for music, does that mean I’m allowed to download anything I want? Sounds like a good deal to me.
I’m not against the subscription model, I’m against DRM.
resently read an interview with the piratebay on torrentfreak. they suggested that the music/movie industry/rights companies start their own add supported bittorrent sites and pay artist from that revenue. personally, i think this would be a better way to go. a surcharge would just be another tax on services; which we don’t need.
Looks like a tax, smells like a tax.
But wait, how can they apply a compensation tax to everyone that’s legal? They’re not a government entity. They’re not providing any goods or services.
I have a great idea. Bank robbers use pantyhose to hide their faces when they’re robbing banks – right? So let’s place a sure charge on pantyhose companies to pay back the banks. Oh – while we’re at it – bank robbers also drive cars – sure charge the car companies; they were clothes – sure charge the cloths companies; they use guns – sure charge the gun manufactures; etc.
But what about all the independent musicians? If this was implemented then just about everyone would use BitTorrent or whatever, and it would become the main way to get music. But only those under the control of the RIAA would get paid (if anyone… probably 90% would be stolen by RIAA).
This way the industry cartel gets to keep its strangle hold on music, because if musicians work outside of them they won’t get any money.
But what about all the independent musicians? If this was implemented then just about everyone would use BitTorrent or whatever, and it would become the main way to get music. But only those under the control of the RIAA would get paid (if anyone… probably 90% would be stolen by RIAA).
This way the industry cartel gets to keep its strangle hold on music, because if musicians work outside of them they won’t get any money.
This is not about fair payment (something the RIAA and record companies never do), it’s about keeping the control they are so obviously losing now.
Why this is illegal and moronic:
–> It presumes guilt.
In the USA we presume INNOCENCE.
This rubbish is not gonna happen.
Yeah, I expect the RIAA goons will blackmail the ISPs somehow or other. But this would be thrown out of court at the first challenge.
WAKE UP RIAA! IT’S THE FUTURE ALREADY! GET IN SYNC!
;-D
$5 / mo. is incredibly steep. I would think $10/year max is more than enough for those greedy bastards.