a sensible idea from the Canadians

[metaphorge]

Digital tax could save the music industry from itself

In the last few years, the music industry has combated tumbling revenue by suing customers, decimating artist rosters and laying off thousands of employees.

That’s not a business plan. That’s the sound of the Titanic slipping under the waves.

But in the last few days, one important segment of the music industry actually came up with a rescue strategy that didn’t smack of panic, malice or desperation.

The Songwriters Association of Canada is proposing a $5-a-month licensing fee on every wireless and Internet account in the country, in exchange for unlimited access to all recorded music.

The deal would put $1 billion annually in the pockets of artists, publishers and record labels, according to the songwriters group. The money would be distributed to artists based on how frequently their music is swapped on-line; the more downloads, the more money the people responsible for the music would accrue. Big Champagne, a Los Angeles-based Internet monitoring service, says it can track file-swapping accurately enough to ensure that artists big and small would be compensated....

Read more. (via Johannes at monochrom)

This idea is very similar to one I've been advocating for several years now. It's too bad the music industry will likely not go for it, and instead will drop its proverbial bone into the water.

Comments

[spc476.livejournal.com]

And don't forget to add another $5 a month for movies, $5/month for books, $5/month for pictures, and $10/month for games, all mandatory, don'tcha know.

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

Sounds like an excellent idea to me, especially since such a scheme would eventually obviate the need for much advertising.

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

And of course if you don't consume any of these things, you pay anyway?

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

We're already all paying anyway, except through higher prices for internet service (providers pass on their legal costs to consumers) and higher taxes for law enforcement (with the added bonus of tightening the police state). We're also paying higher prices for the content since the music industry also passes on their expenses to the consumer, but I'll exclude those for the sake of argument since your hypothetical doesn't "consume any of those things".

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

Do you believe that ISPs would then charge less?

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

Yes, and there would be greater competition since smaller firms could get by without having the deep pockets to cover legal battles that the big boys do.

Do you have a good rationale for why a larger chunk of the money currently being used to fight the copyright wars should not go to the people who make the content?

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

I am deeply skeptical that a penny of the tax would go to the artists, and even more skeptical that prices would go down; once a business has established that people will pay a particular price for a thing, it is exceedingly rare that it will ask less.

In fact, the whole scheme strikes me as intensely similar to the trickle-down economics of the 1980's; instead of using the tax rebates to improve society, lower prices, and create jobs, the wealthy simply pocketed the money.

[spc476.livejournal.com]

So, as a producer of content, how do I get onto this gravy train of payouts? Some threshhold of page views? Who audits my figures of a 100,000 page views a day? Hmm … it might be economically worth it to me to slap some crap MP3 on my site, rent time on a botnet to download said crap MP3 and profit.

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

Besides, it's not like consumers are not already flipping the bill for all of this anyway, in the form of higher internet service bills, more expensive media, and higher taxes to cover law enforcement related to copyright.

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

Governments are already knee deep in enforcement of copyright law; this would only shift the expenditures to actually compensating artists for their work instead of building a bigger, better police state to make sure copyright is not infringed. I'd wager that once we figured out the indirect costs that are bring passed on to consumers already that this would cost less than what we're doing now (for example, higher costs for internet service because of legal costs service providers incur, etc.)

[airshipjones.livejournal.com]

While I like the idea of removing the enforcement from the music industry and reducing the number of frivolous lawsuits, I do have one concern. I think the cost structure is set to unfairly burden the lower and middle-class. Thst has the effect of widening the digital divide, and that is a bigger problem than the frivolous lawsuits.

Re: "frivolous lawsuit"

[airshipjones.livejournal.com]

Frivolous law suits are when the RIAA sues some grandmother because her grandson downloaded some music on her computer without telling her. Frivolous is someone suing MaDonalds for spilling hot coffee on themselves.

Unfrivolous lawsuits are when the people sue for damages against against a car maker for an obvious and unfixed design flaw. Unfrivolous is suing a doctor for cutting off the wrong limb, twice.

I don't believe that corporations should have the same rights as people, and I don't like the way corporations focus solely on profits above the common good. Most importantly, I don't like the influence that corporations have on the political process. And that is not frivolous.

Re: "frivolous lawsuit"

[airshipjones.livejournal.com]

My understanding of the Mickey Dee's coffee lawsuit was that she spilled it while driving with the coffee between her legs. Given that a friend of mine died that same way, I really don't feel any empathy for someone who sued McDonald's because they did something stupid.

On the other hand, I don't like corporations trying to profit while using us as guinea pigs. If they are doing the due diligence, I am dine with businesses doing their thing, but when they place profits over the common good, then my populist tendences come out and I get riled.

Re: "frivolous lawsuit"

[ssha.livejournal.com]

For the record, the suit was not, specifically, because the coffee spilled. It was over the fact that the coffee was hot enough to cause third and fourth degree burns to her crotch and thighs.

Re: "frivolous lawsuit"

[ssha.livejournal.com]

Also, the amount was not all that crazy, given the crap that goes on these days in tort court. Just think of the costs involved in healing and reconstructing such a sensitive area.