Debating The Broadband 'Piracy Tax'The right and wrong way to go about collective licensing... ( old news - 01:19PM Thursday Apr 03 2008) tags: prices · business · contentLast week the music industry caused serious waves by announcing they'd created a new organization tasked with trying to implement a music " piracy tax." In essence, users would pay their ISP $5-$10 a month for the right to download, copy and share as much music as they'd like without restrictions. Or at least that's the sales pitch; it's hard to believe the music industry's implementation of such a plan wouldn't have serious flaws. While the news saw ample coverage last week, the idea of collective licensing is obviously not new. The EFF proposed just such a system back in 2004, but the music industry instead decided that "suing the hell out of everyone" (TM) made better business sense. The EFF is back with an interesting read about the right and wrong way to go about such a system. The primary point is the system should be voluntary for users, artists and ISPs: Any collective licensing solution should be voluntary for fans, artists, and ISPs alike. We don't have a compulsory "restaurant tax" for songwriters -- there's no reason to have a compulsory "Internet tax" for file sharing. It should give fans what they want, rather than trying to withhold things from them -- after all, artificial scarcity is what got us into this mess. And it must give artists the freedom to choose among competing collecting societies, which is the only mechanism that will guarantee the kind of transparency and efficiency that much of the current music industry lacks. But honestly, what is the chance that all four major labels go about this the right way? This is an industry that hasn't exactly shown us they're capable of implementing an intelligent, progressive business model that's friendly to consumers or artists.
Related:- Phorm Wants To Bribe You
- DirecTV's Yearly Price Hike Arrives
- Canadian Writers Think ISPs Should Pay Them
- iTunes Variable Pricing A Bit Of A Joke
- Small ISPs Want FCC To Ban ESPN 360 Model
- The Metered Billing Fight Is About To Get Ugly
- Cogeco Metered Billing Goes Live, Confuses Customers
- Verizon's New Wireless Pricing Is An Insult
|
page: 1 · 2  |
 
Nightshade
sic semper tyrannis
Premium
join:2002-05-26
Salem, OR
2 edits | Voluntary would make more sense. It it was voluntary rather than mandatory I would be all for it expect for one thing, what guarantee is there that the money collected will go to the artists?
If the money went directly to the artists and a legal guarantee that I will never be sued for so long as I pay the tax then I would be all for it.
But something tells me this is never going to happen and it is all going to be a pipe dream because the RIAA business model is all about them, never about the artists they are supposed to represent, and the customers who purchase the music that they distribute. Heck RIAA even hasn't given one cent of their lawsuits that they won to the artists. So I am not holding my breath on this one on them doing it right because they never have, and never will. | |
|  | 
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Voluntary would make more sense. Problems with the idea:
1. If it would be voluntary for customers, how would free-riding be prevented? Monitoring everyone's traffic for copyright violations?
2. It would be only a promise not to sue, not compulsory licensing. This means any copyright holder not signing on to the promise could still sue anyone sharing his works.
3. Even if artists end up getting anything instead of nothing, it would be only the artists signed to companies participating in the deal - and that would be only a few big companies. Independent artists would get nothing.
A compulsory licence mandated by law would be a better solution. It would be payable only by sharers who would otherwise be infringing, so internet users not interested in music or movies could opt out. Filesharing sites could easily "go legit" by recording transfers and billing users. The selection or music, formats, etc. would include whatever people might choose to share. | |
| | 
Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA
| said by Nightshade  :If the money went directly to the artists and a legal guarantee that I will never be sued for so long as I pay the tax then I would be all for it. When will people understand that it is the artists via contracts that give the recording companies distribution rights to their work?
I don't know much about the industry and really don't care too but when you make comments like this it's obvious you don't understand why the recording company wants the money. The ARTIST signed the contract that gave the company the rights to collect revenue and as such the artist GAVE UP the right to collect that money themselves and instead end up with the short end of the stick.
This is because in some cases new artists have yet to figure out how to distribute media to the masses successfully, have crappy music but found a sucker at BMG or has NO money to start a career and needs a kick start.
All this hating of the recording industry for the wrong reasons needs to go away. If you're going to be mad at somebody, at least have a good reason and understand it.
--
»www.fairtax.org | |
| | | Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| Re: Voluntary would make more sense. Well, I do work in the music industry, as an engineer and producer and I've worked with a number of major artists and the recording industry is far from the innocents that you suggest they are. For starters, some actions against non-industry personnel include price-fixing and damaging the lives of numerous people through their frivolous and poorly investigated lawsuits (dead grandmothers, anyone?).
As far as members of their own industry are concerned, I know several artists and music groups whose careers were completely destroyed in a number of various ways. One group was signed solely because the A&R rep at a major label was afraid that they would be picked up a different label and promoted in competition to a major act already signed by same agent. Once the "rivals" were under a deal memo, they were effectively bound and gagged until the label released any of their material which--surprise!!--they never did. The band eventually broke up amidst a flurry of lawsuits.
Ask any number of independent artists how much fun it is to try and get their music programmed on a station that is owned by a conglomerate like Clearwater...
But to quote Marty DiBergi, enough of my yakkin'. Steve Albini explains far better than I will here...
»www.negativland.com/albini.html | |
| kelso
join:2007-04-06
Ashburn, VA
1 edit | What's the point Sure 5 bucks for music, Not!
What about movies ?
I really think all this effort about music is a waste of time.
I guess some folks think music is worth more than I do. | |
| 
brandon
Some truth included in this post.
Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS
 ·AT&T Southeast
| The problem with voluntary... Is that you don't accomplish...anything.
The people who want to voluntarily pay for music online already are, through iTunes, Rhapsody, and elsewhere.
If voluntary is an option, the people who download illegally will just continue to do so.
I hate to say it, but I agree with the RIAA on this one. Five bucks a month to download whatever I want, whenver I want? Sounds good to me. | |
| | | | | 
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533 | Re: The problem with voluntary... Ditto | |
| | | | 
DiscardedVet
Premium
join:2005-04-06
Sturgis, SD
| One More said by morbo :great. while you're at it, pay my $5 a month too. Pay my 5 as well.
I don't drive, I don't pay gas tax.
I don't DL music, I'm not paying tax on it.
--
Bush is the Prez....Think Patriot Act II....This outspoken dissident....In jail I'll be soon. | |
| | | bgraham
join:2001-03-15
Smithtown, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | They do say "Voluntary for Music Fans. People who do not share music shouldn't have to pay for a license they don't need."
That is fine by me. i don't download music.
Honestly, if I were downloading music I think $5 a month is reasonable provided there is a no price raise clause of some kind. The RIAA could get the program implemented for $5 then you would find that there are constant price increases every few months. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | 
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18
·Verizon west (ex G..
| said by morbo :said by brandon :I hate to say it, but I agree with the RIAA on this one. Five bucks a month to download whatever I want, whenver I want? Sounds good to me. great. while you're at it, pay my $5 a month too. you can have my unlimited share.  i don't buy music or download it, and i sure don't want to subsidize those that do. They're already winning. Divide and conquer. Those who don't hating those that do. 
--
~~This is not The Greatest Sig in the World without annoying urls, no. This is just a tribute.~~ | |
| | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by brandon :Is that you don't accomplish...anything. The people who want to voluntarily pay for music online already are, through iTunes, Rhapsody, and elsewhere. If voluntary is an option, the people who download illegally will just continue to do so.
I hate to say it, but I agree with the RIAA on this one. Five bucks a month to download whatever I want, whenver I want? Sounds good to me. I agree with point 1 and 2. But your 3rd point(highlighted above), I don't agree with. I don't download music from anyone - legally or illegally. And I don't want to pay $5/mo for the privilege of getting MP3s I don't want.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Re: The problem with voluntary... Same here. Actually, if I was being charged a $5 a month "piracy tax", I might just start pirating music. After all, if I'm going to pay the fee, I might as well get some music out of the arrangement. If anything, this would increase illegal music downloads, not decrease them.
Plus, what about deaf people? Should they pay $5 a month for music that they couldn't hear if they wanted to?
And what about other industries? Should the movie industry add a $5 fee on our ISP bills in case we download movies? How about the TV industry? The book industry? The software industry? Eventually, our ISP bills will double just to cover the "we're assuming you are a pirate" fees.
The idea is an extremely dumb one. Making it voluntary makes it slightly less dumb, but it still doesn't make it a good idea by any stretch of the imagination.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | |
| | | | 
meowmix
@bright.net | Re: The problem with voluntary... Amen. | |
| | | | | |
asdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| I think concerns about it being voluntary are very legitimate. I have no appetite for forcing people to do things that they don't want to do. No serious debate should casually dismiss such arguments.
At the same time what society is trying to do is to find a way to monetize the massive amount of file sharing that is going on outside of legally licensed channels. Simply creating for pay services isn't likely to resolve that. Collective/blanket licensing is one of the more sensible ways of resolving it, though it is by no means perfect. The problem is how can one practically create such a scheme while maintaining its voluntary nature.
With roads we can have a gas tax. Since there is a close connection between amount of gas consumed and amount of driving/use of roads, this works pretty well.
Of course, even here we can't construct anything that is perfectly fair. Someone will say "I own a lawn care business and the gas I buy isn't to drive cars on roads" so why should I be forced to pay for roads I'm not using. The best we can ever hope for is to try to create something that is reasonably fair to most people and to try to minimize unpleasant side effects imposed on the innocent.
I don't see how we could translate the road example into the isp space however. We could possibly tie it into a pay per byte system, but even here there will be people who say I pay for a lot of bandwidth but am not using that bandwidth to infringe copyright so why should I be punished.
On an individual level I'm not sure we can come up with a voluntary approach, at least not without going with a police state approach to net activity.
What if I pay for the collective licensing scheme? I am paying for use of applications that I want to use, drm free material and free exchange with others.
How can I be certain, if others can opt out, that the person I'm connecting to isn't doing something illegal (i.e. maybe he opted out but is still behaving as if he is licensed to transmit files)?
The only way to deal with this, on an individual level, is to create an extremely intrusive big brother environment where everyone's activity is constantly monitored to make sure that all those engaging in this activity are legitimate and shutting down those who aren't. I hope we can agree that this is not an acceptable approach.
If we resolve this by only allowing paying customers a certain application with music tied up with drm it defeats the whole purpose of doing this and puts us right back to the drm encrusted for pay services that already exist, with masses of people functioning outside of the law.
One more reasonable resolution would be to do it at the isp level and not at the individual level.
An isp that wants to buy in would buy in for ALL customers. One that wants to opt out would opt out for All its customers and would then block all p2p activity for all its customers. An individual would then have to change isp to one that opts out if he didn't want to participate.
This would probably lead to its own form of coercion. Those who don't have many isp options could be trapped with no option for opt-in and be forced to a significantly limited internet experience. We could be setting many isp services on a path of increasing limits and control over their customers.
On the other hand, it is more reasonable than monitoring individual behavior and it could be a way to balance concerns with the freedom and openness of those who want to pay, while maintaining some choice and not falling into a grotesque network of constant monitoring of individual behavior.
In the end, though, the simplest way, that would probably offend the fewest people, is simply to have everyone participate because there would likely be very few people who would actually want to opt out if we lived in a world where we could consume limitless music, freely and openly, for $5 a month. Yes, there will still be some who don't want to. Yes it bothers me that they would be coerced into $60 a year for something they don't want. I do think, though that it is a solution that maximizes benefit for the largest number of people while minimizing harm to those who don't want to participate. It certainly isn't ideal, but it may be the closest to ideal we are likely to get in an imperfect world. | |
| |
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by brandon :The people who want to voluntarily pay for music online already are, through iTunes, Rhapsody, and elsewhere. With all the free places to listen to music online, who needs to either pay for it or steal it. Comcast has Rhapsody for all subscribers. Any one with a cellphone with WiFi on it can listen online to a dozen free sites and with 3G coming soon to a cellphone near you, it will be free there too.
Now Myspace has just cut a deal with 3 of the 4 big labels:
»www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/techn···f=slogin
In the latest effort by the ailing music industry to bolster its declining prospects, three of the four major music companies have struck a deal with MySpace to start an music Web site.
As part of the deal, MySpace will spin out its popular MySpace Music service as an independent joint venture in partnership with Universal Music, Sony BMG and Warner Music Group. EMI, the fourth major label, is not a part of the deal at this time, but people involved in the negotiations said it would probably join soon.
Visitors to the site will be able to listen to free streaming music, paid for with advertising, and share customized playlists with their friends. They will also be able to download tracks to play on their mobile devices, putting the new site in competition with similar services like Apple, Amazon and eMusic.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| 
Millenniumle
join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY
| ... The RIAA members should just jump to the chase and stop producing music. Their poor attempts to curtail piracy are doing far more to encourage it. The EFF proposal has the same problem as music sold online today; $5 per month is still more than free. Still, the RIAA should pay attention. The idea has the potential to reach a large market at a low price without the "forced down your throat" kinda feel. People might actually want to jump on it! | |
| | 
ixNay
Premium
join:2002-04-12
USA
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: ... I do not download or buy music and I definately do not want to pay a tax for it. Although, the price sounds like a fair price for those that do, atleast for now.
So lets say they start taxing everyone the $5 fee or offering it voluntarily, what will happen next? I am guessing the ISP's will start increasing their prices due to increased bandwith usage, so in the long run we all get hammered anyways?!
--
"I write jokes for a living. I sit at my hotel at night, think of something thats funny, then I go get a pen and write it down, or if the pen is too far away I have to convince myself that what I thougt of, aint funny" - Mitch Hedberg | |
| | |
Millenniumle
join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY | Re: ... I think one way or the other bandwidth needs are going to increase regardless of the music. Even webpages will continue to increase in megabytes. 10 or 20 years from now I wouldn't be surprised if they are measured in gigabytes. | |
| 
StudioTech
S2409W plus SA4250HD
join:2001-10-10
Edison, NJ
| If the music industry can do it... Then why not the movie industry? How about the software industry? Both of those could claim they lose money to piracy. Then your $5/month now becomes at least $15/month. And don't think they won't want more money every year since all of them will claim piracy cost them more and more every year. See where this can lead to? | |
| | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
3 edits | Re: If the music industry can do it... Yep. Don't forget the book and comic book industries, the adult video industries, etc... | |
| | |
Annie Mousse
| Porn rules... I agree. I think people download porn more than they download music, at least the people I know do. I think most of that $5 should go to the porn industry. Then again, a lot of the porn comes from outside the US... | |
| |
Millenniumle
join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY
| ... I have to think there are a lot of structural hurdles to be crossed for something like this to work. For instance: What incentive would there be to produce today's multi-hundred million dollar block busters over a low budget B-movie?
I think the point you raise about other industries battling piracy as well is where the compulsory solution proposed by the EFF has a strength. Any industry and its members could work toward such a system where they felt it was advantageous. | |
| |
asdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| Re: If the music industry can do it... Would this be such a terrible result?
Would you really balk at paying $20-30 a month if you could freely transfer copies of songs, movies, tv any time you wanted? You are probably already paying many times more than this for cable or satellite, a service that is much more limited and provides you with much less freedom to consume what you want when you want.
Having said that, no one is proposing that movies and tv move to this model and the cost of movie and tv production is considerably different from the cost of creating and recording a song. | |
| | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | Re: If the music industry can do it... quote:
Would you really balk at paying $20-30 a month if you could freely transfer copies of songs, movies, tv any time you wanted?
They can do that now for free.
People assume because piracy is illegal, it isn't part of t he conversation. These new models have to compete with piracy.
It's not fair, but it's true. | |
| Pictor Guy
join:2004-06-21
Sammamish, WA | Reverse Why not tax $5 to $10 for each CD under the assumption that the user is sharing the CD with others. Sure that would be flawed but so is taxing the ISP. | |
| cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| not that bad of an idea doesn't sound so bad to me, but there are probably hidden details and flaws throughout it. if this is implemented fully, it could lead to disastorous consequences. if it truly is $5-$10/month for an unlimited music sharing, who would use itunes (or similar) at ~$1/song? or buy ~$20 CDs when they are already paying the piracy 'tax'? i like the idea, but looking at the piracy 'tax' from this point of view makes it seem like it is too good to be true. i'm sure i'm missing details, so my 'analysis' could be entirely wrong. | |
| |
Millenniumle
join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY
| ... And where is the incentive to produce? If the industry gets the tax, what incentive does the industry have to produce? 'Cause, hey, they're gettin' paid anyway. If they have only 10 artists producing only twenty songs a year they all get a bigger cut of the multi-billion dollar pie. Movies would seem to be in the same boat. | |
| | |
asdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| Re: ... With, for example, a statistical sampling approach, those whose files were showing in the sampling as being transmitted a lot would get a bigger part of the pie. If a band never created another song, presumably the amount of transfer of their material would diminish over time and they would get a decreasing piece of the pie. I don't see why they have less incentive to continue to produce new material, for a piece of this pie, than they do for a piece of the pie as it is presently constructed. There are still mechanisms for trying to allocate the pie according to the intensity of interest in their material.
If you mean that the industry is guaranteed a certain size pie and therefore they can just sit back and continue to rake in money on what has already been produced I think there are two counterbalancing forces.
1. This seems to be an argument for making it voluntary with option to opt-out. People, once they consumed what they wanted of presently available material, would start moving to opt-out as they saw themselves getting less and less for their $5 a month.
2. Human beings would still feel the compulsion to create music and to express themselves to their fellow human beings and they would develop an alternative way of creating and distributing what they create if the present industry decided they didn't want to bother cultivating new acts and material. It seems to me the industry still has every interest in maintaining control of new acts and material. If a competing system built up, in place of the present industry, it would start demanding and getting the lions share of the collective licensing pie and the present industry would wither away into insignificance. | |
| 
gatorkram
Spelling and Grammer impared
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
clubs:
·Embarq
 ·linode
1 edit | Current system I am happy with the current system. I see nothing wrong with it at all. As far as music goes anyway. I use Rhapsody, and
more or less rent my music, like you do movies. The only thing I would fix, would be to include ALL artists and tracks in the "rental" system, instead of having some that are outside that system, and you have to buy them outright to get them.
The movie system is still a bit borked in my opinion. The time from theater to DVD is just way to long. They need to shorten that period, and start putting first run movies on PPV.
I am happy with Netflix. I just wish when new movies came to DVD, they had more of them. I am still waiting for I am Legend to not be "Long wait"
The TV system is just all screwed up. I don't know if they will ever be able to fix it.
edit:
If everyone would just stop stealing, and yes, it is stealing, you are depriving someone of money when you DL, and adopt one of the many legit services out there now, the RIAA/MPAA and whoever else would see people are willing to pay for the things they want, then maybe they could start to improve apon each service that is out there now.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
| |
mAsK
@comcast.net
| Re: Current system why bother with the RIAA anyway? the musick (yes, i spelled it that way on purpose, get over it) i buy (and sometimes download, but only if the creators made it available for free--many do) is never from anyöne associated with the RIAA. this may seem a bit off-topic, but i can't help but wonder why people continue to subsidise the RIAA in any way when there are so many other options. | |
| 
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs: | bull This is a ridiculous model. How will they actually know who should get paid and how much? | |
| 
Wills
join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL | Flaws? There are no flaws from the RIAA stand point. The flaws are already built into the system.
ISP download limits...
--
I have a shaved head, a goatee, and tatoos. Don't you realize the rules don't apply to me. | |
| deadzoned
Premium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA
·Cox HSI
| Well... I applaud the music industry for FINALLY starting to do some forward thinking but, given how the music industry has been acting up to this point, I am not entirely convinced that they are trustworthy enough or smart enough to implement something like this.
When you take into account how badly they have treated the consumer and all of the artists that create the product they sell, I have to say I just don't trust them to implement this in a way that doesn't %100 percent work in their favor with no regard for consumer/artists rights or interests.
It would literally be a windfall of billions of dollars in GUARANTEED PROFIT for them, what motivation would they have to treat the customers and artists fairly? This plan doesn't address the major problem in all of this - the RIAA's unwillingness to think outside of the box and adopt new business models or come up with new ideas. And it certainly does not address the RIAA's inability to let go of their old and dying business model of the past that no longer has a place in the digital age of music. | |
| 
DataDoc
My avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC | How about the Trucking industry? All those truckers that didn't get paid hauling CDs to your store or Amazon's warehouse need a piece of this pie.
Any "tax" for doing nothing is worth exactly that. Nothing.
--
KEN LEEEEEEE... tulibu dibu douchoo! | |
|
Jim456456
@qwest.net
| No Thanks I think it is pretty obvious we want a change in all facets concerning music. We want the suits gone. Sony, universal, EMI, they all need to go away and the artists and writers need to develop a new way to get paid for their work.
Think of the universal health care coverage plans from the candidates. do we really want to continue to foot the bill for all the poor people while the suits of the insurance companies are making $30 million a year. it just has to stop... | |
| EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Please no There's no reason for this but to steal from the consumer- can I charge the RIAA a $5 fee every time they make a proposal to screw me over? | |
| 
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs: | I thought... only the government could tax you for something. SO just how does the RIAA institute this tax?? They might be able to get a mandatory FEE tacked on but they cannot add on a tax. | |
| 
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
 ·Skype
| I'll believe it when I see it. "users would pay their ISP $5-$10 a month for the right to download, copy and share as much music as they'd like without restrictions."
"it's hard to believe the music industry's implementation of such a plan wouldn't have serious flaws."
What's hard to believe is that the industry would actually honor their claim that "tax payers" could download, copy, and share as much music as they like. I'm putting my money on the scenario that they'll convince people to start paying this "tax" and once it's implemented, they'll come back and say, "well, we didn't really mean you could do whatever you wanted with ANY music, only the stuff that's not copyrighted."
Sorry, I don't trust a group that's engaged in so many draconian tactics to actually keep their word on this.
--
Wishes: When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor. --despair.com | |
| |
Bellsucks
@aliant.net | Re: I'll believe it when I see it. Why not have an online music subscription and pay $5 that way. The people who would want to pay it will pay it. | |
| | |
ATMW
| Re: I'll believe it when I see it. I buy all my CD's I listen to so screw them. I sure as hell will not pay an extra $5.00-$10.00 for something I don't take. Their model is flawed as they ASSUME every user pirates music which is not the case....
Price the CD's a bit more reasonable and the sales will go up and less piracy. At $17-$20 or more a CD it's no wonder music gets pirated. Most of it's not worth $.50 a CD..... | |
| | | | Neoistheone
join:2007-01-13
Tornado, WV | Re: I'll believe it when I see it. I hate to buy a CD and only 1 or 2 songs on the disk are worth listening to.
--
When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME. | |
| 
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| RIAA, MPAA is not to be trusted Sure they propose a $5-$10 "piracy tax" now. What happens 3- 6 months from now? We are sorry to announce the fee is not enough to cover hidden or additional administrative costs.
To be fair, we the almighty RIAA must level the playing field, we need to increase the broadband "Piracy Tax" because piracy is still costing us $$millions, even though we have bent over backwards to please everybody, it's not as if we have tried to sue dead people or computer-less people or MAC users who use P2P or anything like that.
We have been very kind and gracious to offer cheap settlement offers, while having the best one hit music cd's in the world. We allow fans to purchase our music for the cheap price of only $29.99 per cd. While we hang like leeches off musicians backs.
Don't know how much broadband users pay now. IMO broadband is currently over priced as it is with hidden fees and other assorted "non government" imposed taxes.
This would be the straw which broke the camels back. I do not use my connection much now, there is now way in hell I would or should be forced to pay more for an excuse to gouge people $$$ to an azzhole corporation for a figment of their imagination. I would tell the RIAA to go f**k themselves by dropping all internet service.
The Revolutionary War was fought over a 14% tax, what % are you paying now?
--
It's easier to manipulate non-religious people, Ever hear of Communism?
With out religion your are more suceptable to manipulation. Look at china, they banned religion. It's much easier to manipulate people who don't have any religious convictions. | |
| 
Smith6612
Premium
join:2008-02-01
united state | Voluntary for me! I vote for Voluntary. This is because I don't want my internet bill going up $5-10 because of something I don't do. | |
| acrufox
join:2004-07-14
Canada
| It's only....$5....here....and then... Of course this whole thing sounds like a good idea in an IDEAL situation which is not.
I can imagine how much the internet would suck if you had to pay a $5 music tax, a $X tax for movies, then be on a crappy ISP that has monthly usage caps, only to be charged even more $$$ if you went over your monthly limit.
Not everyone is on super high speed idealistic internet access. Sure I don't mind if there is one more person taking $5 in my pocket, unfortunately it's never just one person, and once you open the door to things like this, it just helps justify making more slices in your piece of pie that you'll ultimately end up paying for. | |
| jarthur31
join:2006-04-14
Carlsbad, NM | I'd do it! If the price doesn't go up within 2 years and they offer high bitrates on DRM-free music (mp3, lossless, is ok by me). All the major music labels must consent to open up their catalogues to this plan but that seems highly unlikely. | |
| | | |
|
|
