If the music companies impose a music tax, I'm stealing the fuck out of some music. I mean, I'll steal and share shit I don't even listen to, just to spite those bastards. Their business models consists of "everyone who doesn't buy our music is a criminal, and everyone who does buy our music is a criminal."

How the fuck do they reasonably expect to survive by antagonizing the very people who maintain their existence? They're glorified middlemen, and the more hostile their actions, the more people realize that maybe... maybe that middleman just isn't needed.

Sqube

I haven't purchased, streamed, listened, or even stolen an RIAA product since the Napster fiasco back in 2001/2002.

Go fuck yourself Warner!

axiomatic

ekasbury

markgm

so.. I personally hate this plan with a burning passion.

-Core-

Fangorn81

Bunch of whiners :(

zimer

DJJS

I only recommend going to concerts, your favourite artist, group, band, etc, should be performing live to get your money.

That's why there is a huge disconnect for people that download, the artists didn't perform (work) for that person.

I worked for my money, now you work for my money!

skulldriveshaft

That's the whole point of copyright. When you go to the store and purchase a CD from the shelf, you are not buying music; you are buying a license to use that music in a manner that already entails certain limitations that are stipulated by copyright law.

Frankly, I think that a flat music tax is fair and reasonable, as long as it counts towards all music and is only required for those who actually participate. This kind of collective licensing model is exactly what the EFF and other information freedom advocacy groups have wanted from the very beginning.

segphault

jamesuschrist

Aqua32

Yeah... and I'm a Chinese Jet Pilot.

@comp_wiz101: Oh but they are trying to pull this in Canada - the bastards
[Canada.com]

Sorry, but even though I download music, I'm not paying someone some sort of bribe just to not slap me with a copyright infringement fine. If the industry made CDs cost ~$5 a decade ago, then perhaps they wouldn't be faced with such a huge problem where nobody wants to pay for overpriced entertainment.

Artists: sell direct if you want to be compensated for your work, and set a realistic price, too.

electrikecho

comp_wiz101

Mike918

Blah8

I'd assume that the ISP's would get sued as soon as that first bill hit the mailbox. This would basically imply that every single person using the internet goes on for the sole purpose of downloading music.

...I think the porn industry would have an easier time filing for a mandatory tax on internet use.

PynkFloydd

Why do they make it so hard to resist stealing from them?!

hagrun

Perhaps they'll be different levels of internet service similar to cable packages and regulated by filters: basic public access (no extra fee), or comes with music, comes with movies, or comes with whatever for extra fees. The distinction that now exists between "cable tv," "radio," "internet" and "phone" would dissolve as single pipes supply filtered access to different content. The net itself would remain "neutral," but access to it would be tiered.

Want music? Pay the $5. Don't want to pay the fee? Fine, but no music for you.

frigg

Crashproof

socioecoboy

Lantesh

Juggrnott

CMU_Bueller

It might be time to start throwing our CDs into the harbor. MAFIAA Tea Party style... ;-]

BigDanInTX

that's the whole point! They wouldn't be illegal if you were taxed at the ISP. Download as much as you want... the tax makes it legal, and the artists get a piece of the action.

frigg

This is really about trying to capture a fraction of the illegal downloads, which positively dwarf those of the iTunes store. They can do this if they make a legitimate easy to use service with unlimited selection, at a nominal cost. Under such a scenario, why would anyone waste time looking for virus-laden stuff of questionable quality on torrents if you could pay a small fee and get it legally? Shifting even a small percentage of downloads from the "dark side" of P2P would generate a huge pot of money that could actually make it to artists at all levels.

MrSoyBoy

BonkUGood

Till they start thinking how they can turn it into some kind of tiered-pricing scheme, that is.

gadfly22

ph15h needs a nu job

If well implemented, it could actually be better for you, and help indies level the playing field against the majors. Internet traffic is label-agnostic. If your song became a popular download, you would receive a larger share of the pie whether you were signed to a traditional label or not. Much like the ASCAP system in which composers who don't have publishing deals simply register as self-publishing, there's nothing stopping this system from allowing you to register as your own label, or not require a so-called label at all.

However it shakes out, it's obvious that the function of a traditional label is radically shifting. If you want to essentially hire a label to perform tasks for you that you yourself don't want to or can't perform in return for a share of your profits, that's your prerogative and the prerogative of any label that wants to sign you. But if you have no need for that, or no interest from a label, and become popular anyway, this system wouldn't discriminate against you just because you haven't signed a contract with a 3rd party to handle promotion, make t-shirts, make coffee, and do whatever else labels wind up doing in the future.

As an independent, this is the very best way for you to profit from your recorded music, because it allows you to distribute as much as you possibly can without some flawed or prohibitive charging system getting in between you and your fans. A 3rd party tracking systems takes care of that automatically. All you would have to do is produce great music and get it moved around the net as much as possible to get paid.

frigg

fostina1

michaelportent

In Denmark similar organisations already successfully imposed a tax on blank media, like cd-roms and are creaming their pants at the prospect of a tax like this.

Artists should realize they can make much more money by selling their music DRM-free online, completely bypassing the bloodsucking bastards, shutting down this farce once and for all.

Monsterdog

As far as a music tax goes, there is no way this is, in ANY way, constitutional:

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

How exactly does this A) provide for the general welfare, or B) tax everyone uniformly (as you're taxing those who don't utilize the service they're being taxed for?)

m4ximusprim3

lonewolf333

kwicherbichin

The concept isn't terrible, but that means my grandparents would have this charge on their internet service and they can barely download email attachments...

Don't penalize 90% of the population just because you're losing money in an archaic distribution method.

Of the 66 Million DSL subscribers ([www.internetworldstats.com]) if even 50% of those either don't download music at all, that's still $165 million dollars they SHOULD NOT HAVE.

The MAFIAA claims it's protecting its artists. They should do it in a different manner than paying off lawmakers.

They make me Mad Panda...

BigDanInTX

avconsumer

reading is fundamental.

either way it's a crappy idea.

firesign

Any legislator that introduces this on the state or federal level seriously needs to be voted off the island.

We have a capitalistic, free enterprise system. People in our system get to choose to do business with people or companies based on free will, MFs!

Just like any other business, if you find that you're not making enough money to support your operations, you need to change your business model, bitches, not intentionally harm consumers.

Why would the music business be any different from other businesses/industries? Oh, look, I have a business that no one uses. I'd like to suddenly charge a tax even if people don't use my services or products. If the music industry gets to do it, then I should be able to do it, too.

And besides, if we the people get taxed for music, then we the people get to choose everything about where and how the money goes (at least in principle). And the companies would then be even more irrelevant. Do they really want to turn their revenue stream over to the government?!? These people are idiots.

It's almost funny that these cry babies are too stupid or too lazy to figure out a solution other than FORCING people to pay them for crap they don't want.

You have become irrelevant. Do us all a favor and GTFO.

To all music artists: please, please, please DO NOT sign any contracts with these people. Other, perhaps, more established artists are blazing the trails that you can follow to distribute your own music via the internet. It works. If the artists will only follow suit, we can all finally put the last nail in the music companies' collective coffin.

FritzLaurel

firesign

Not downloading NIN Ghosts or anything from the new model, just outta respect, and I think they deserve the oney for the cool tunes.

Jurisprudence

No wonder they're forced into trying shit like this when the pirates offer a better service than they do.

testrack

BigDanInTX

Jurisprudence

madoublet

I'm sorry, but double taxation is not the way to fix your F'ING industry!! All it does is piss us all off. Stop relying on an archaic system and just suck it up and find something NEW! The Artists don't need the stupid MAFIAA to support the record labels that take most of their record sales these days. Just make it available for direct purchase or download and you'll be able to keep your money.

Death to the MAFIAA!!

BigDanInTX

dwarfgoat

Thats like saying 'you might buy a car one day so start paying the insurance now'

or worse if they are saying its to stop illegal downloads as thats the equivalent of saying 'you might steal someday so your gonna do 5 years now'.

What is this, fucking minority report. Stick it Sony.

Jurisprudence

So if I pay twice as much, how the hell do I get twice as much "unlimited" music for download?

Oh, if I had my way, when the revolution comes, the RIAA will be the first against the wall.

dwarfgoat

Le0nidas

Actually, this is artist-friendly. The model for distributing the money is based on the current ASCAP/BMI system. ASCAP collects licensing fees from radio stations, restaurants, clubs, and stores (hence those "ASCAP" stickers you see everywhere). Then, ASCAP tracks what music is actually played and distributes the money proportionally. So, for example, if your song is played a lot on the radio, you get a bigger portion of the pie.

The music internet tax system would similarly distribute proportionally based on traffic. If you wrote a song and lots of people downloaded it in one month, that would be tracked through traffic sampling, and you would get a bigger piece of the music tax pie that month.

To make it fair, there should be some kind of opt out feature so that if you don't download any music, you don't pay, but if you do, there's a threshold that triggers the $5/month tax.

I wouldn't be surprised if, with increasingly sophisticated filters implemented by ISPs (whether we like it or not), this kind of thing is inevitable, and not just for music but for all content distributed over the internets.

frigg

1. They get a cut to cover their business expenses.

2. (The more likely) They'd get shut down from lack of business within a few years. EMusic and other companies of the like would suffer a crippling financial defeat, RIAA wins and suggests to boost the fee to a Hojillion Dollars a month onto your internet fees instead.

TheCyberBob

BStu

IrisMR

chucklebuck

TheCyberBob

NotMe

discounteggroll

smitherssocal

The Lab

sleepyyazo

Angryrider

Matt has it right. Who gets what percentage of the dough from this "tax" would be near impossible to figure out - which usually means the major labels/publishers get most of it.

The artists get screwed as usual.

jibbly

/sound of Daffy Duck "dee thpick abbbbb ul"

ANoel

smitty1123

fastm3driver

I want Vivid and Penthouse to push for a $5 tax next! Unlimited access to all known prOn?

I'd never leave the basement!

Then, for those inevitable 'down times', how about a $5 tax for unlimited access to all known books.

Then, give me a $5 tax for all known video games.

Where does it end?

Murph1908

Good luck on the labels fending off not only the feds but the class actions suits from internet subscribers who refuse to pay because they don't download music online.

The record label execs have their heads stuck so far up their asses that they can't think straight anymore from breathing all that methane.

tundraboy

Arsenal6

Monty

kyel57

Erwos

Hope this does not come through

pradster

fostina1