how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
211 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| Man they are INSANE Why the hell should I have to pay $5 per month for something I didn't do. I think that this fee and any other attempt to get the ISP's on board is going to run into the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing we have in the USA. Are the music labels so blind to the fact that they just need to re-think how they do business?
If they implement this I think consumer backlash would be huge.
Laters,
Jeff | | |
|
1 edit | Great idea in concept. There are problems though. FYI, I'm an auditor for a financial services company, and I would love to review the legality of this.
The concept is great: Pay a fee, do what you please. However, that doesn't really hold water if you think about it.
•Who has done statistics to show that the estimated ~$20 billion they intend to reap, is representative of the TRUE loss by the artists? By statistics, I mean hard PROOF. You can't implement a cost intended to recoup "potential" profits if you can't substantiate that you continually lose at least that amount for at least the frequency you intend to implement the cost. IN other words, if they can't prove that the artists lose ~$20 billion a month, they can't recoup that. That'd be like Apple increasing the price of the iPhone by $50 because of all of the people unlocking them, to recoup the lost AT&T subscription subsidy. Again, if the people are stealing, they never had any intention of buying the CD. You lost nothing - you simply didn't gain as much, but that's different. Instead of a mansion and a Bentley, that rapper will just have to deal with a 3-bedroom and a Chrysler 300....like the rest of us hard working folks.
•Who (meaning oversight) is ensuring that the artists are the one who receive any proceeds, and NOT the music industry? The music industry shouldn't get a dime, if this were to go through. If they did, you're looking at bona fide extortion and possible racketeering.
•Why should the ISP be the one to implement the charge? Because of the access pipe? You can't add a fee to an unrelated service. That'd be the same as charging $100 more per gun and/or bullets sold, which allows you Carte Blanche to rob as many banks at gunpoint as you please. As the saying goes...don't blame the gun, blame the monkey.
•How would this be taxed? If the industry is taking in ~$20 billion in already-taxed money, and then they don't have to pay their fair share, it means it's not going back into the economy. Which actually is doing more harm than good.
A smarter approach - though I figure it will be an unpopular one - would be to take a better figure - say, "at least $3 per month annualized" - and implement a tax deductible, OPTIONAL 'charity' that allows you the right to do what you please with music. It'd be a nightmare to manage, but you then incentivize it by making it tax deductible, lessen its impact by making it optional, and make it credible by making it a charity. If I knew that there was a free tax write off out there, that I could contribute to in exchange for free access to music, you damn well better believe I'd be all over that. Especially if the flat tax wins over FairTax. | |
| The estimated revenue is 20 billion, not 20 million.
You're an auditor??? | |
| Ever hear of a mistype? | |
|
