“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?
“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