Bad Idea Redux

Bad Idea Redux

www.techdirt.com

I was going to ignore this, but people keep submitting it. A student blogger for ZDnet has decided that he's solved the RIAA's problems: just tax every internet connection at $1 per month. This is, of course, unworkable and unwise for a variety of reasons. First, the recording industry would laugh (and laugh and laugh) at the idea that $1 from every internet connection would come close to covering what it (falsely) considers to be "losses" from file sharing. Remember, this is the same recording industry that's continually trying to raise the price per song downloaded to over $1. But, more

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:

This is alot of information to take in. This is a concept which is said to make untold millions for record companies; this concept of the music tax.
I would kindly appreciate your fine ATS minds here to help me work out how exactly this takes place.
Mind you, HOW it works is only one piece of the puzzle.
Please read the full link provided.
The music tax is being talked about again. It's still out there and IMHO it will give more money to the record labels and starve the musical artist even more.

The second link is for clear channel's website. I heard the commercial for the music tax being brought back on clear channel coming out of Atlanta. That's 96.1 for non Georgians. The ad is talking about the large scale version of what this article is talking about. Though they are both the same thing , just on different levels.

www.techdirt.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm happy to pay that dollar if it means I can download whatever I like and whenever I like. Does this mean I wont be chased or prosecuted. That one dollar should give me the right to pirate whatever the hell I want.

Then again, does it mean that I will pay and extra dollar for my movies, then an extra dollar for my programs, an extra dollar for backdoor passes into pay sites... and so on, and so on, and so on?

IRM

reply to post by InfaRedMan


Very ,very interesting questions , Man.
I can barely wrap my head around it. What I believe is happening is that this Music Tax is only the first among many.
Personally I am a musician and most of my friends are too, but this is about a much bigger picture.
It seems like this is going to get bigger. All the things you mentioned will be included in what TPTB might one day name The Media Tax. As in all forms of media will be taxed.

This sums it up best for me (taken from the comments section of your source)-

by John Doe
I don't buy or "steal" music. I listen to the radio whether it is terestial or internet. If they do tax my internet connection, then that will be a license to "steal". I will become the biggest pirate the world has ever known.

Seriously though, I will be pissed to no end to be taxed for something I don't do. Besides that, it would just open the door to adding a buck onto your conneciton for every other industry that could possibly be affected such as music, newspapers, etc. This is an extremely slippery slope here.

It would indeed be a slippery slope.

Being a musician maybe you could answer this - don't artists make way more $$ off playing live gigs than selling music?

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Signals]

Usually, gigs are a way of paying off your corporate debt to the record company... so no. Gigging is actually something they force you to do when you sign your life away on their corrupt contracts.

IRM

[edit on 15/2/10 by InfaRedMan]

The music industry is nothing but a bunch of elephants riding the backs of musicians.


Musicians traditionally have only been able to make real money by going on tours. I say -- keep it that way. And cut out the middle man here, ie the grotesquely wealthy music industry. They are nothing but leeches and they deserve what they are losing and more.

Even Metallica, who had the famous lawsuit against Napster, now appreciates internet file-swapping and promotes their music being downloaded for free online, because it has introduced their music to a far wider audience and they have been able to extend tour legs even into the Middle East. The only people who don't like it, are the guys who have nothing to do with music, ie the businessmen. Cut them out of our art for good, kicking and screaming if they want.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
.... That one dollar should give me the right to pirate whatever the hell I want.

Don't you mean "download" or "copy" instead of "pirate"?

This is a dumb idea. It would start at a dollar, but after the beneficiaries of that money realise how many of them that dollar is split between, things go belly up and either they want more or they opt out of the condition.

And very unfair on those who use a computer strictly for business who don't download media.

And if this DID happen, would the legal downloading ONLY apply to things downloaded from the source and not from user to user?

I certainly think this is a concept that just makes no sense in the real world.

If you download music and want some practical advice, here's some: get it while the gettin's good.

I really believe downloading music like we can right now, may be limited to a brief period of time, and this is a golden age for it.

I personally am collecting entire discographies of as many artists as I can think of, literally, even ones I don't even listen to personally, and storing them all and making back-ups off my hard drive. If I ever want a CD I just burn it. If I want to buy an i-pod and load it down, I can fill a 160 gig completely up and STILL have stuff left over that won't fit.

There are very few places where `guilty until proven innocent' applies.
This would be one.

Way back there was a tax like this on blank cassettes. Whenever I put my band's music on a cassette, I had to pay the REAL pirates (RIAA).

Problem #1: that the industry thinks they are owed this
Problem #2: the industry is getting legal support for some of their crusades

Originally posted by Signals
This sums it up best for me (taken from the comments section of your source)-

by John Doe
I don't buy or "steal" music. I listen to the radio whether it is terestial or internet. If they do tax my internet connection, then that will be a license to "steal". I will become the biggest pirate the world has ever known.

Seriously though, I will be pissed to no end to be taxed for something I don't do. Besides that, it would just open the door to adding a buck onto your conneciton for every other industry that could possibly be affected such as music, newspapers, etc. This is an extremely slippery slope here.

It would indeed be a slippery slope.

Being a musician maybe you could answer this - don't artists make way more $$ off playing live gigs than selling music?

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Signals]

Indeed, Signals, and many of those replies speak volumes from that site. I don't know much about how the musician makes money in the industry. I am not making money with my original music, though it strikes me as performance and recording are the ways to express it , or share it with the largest percentage of the world that is imaginable
One of many points here could seem strange considering I don't earn money from my musical compositions. And while I would like to go on about that this thread is about the bigger picture that all of us on here are looking at.

reply to post by InfaRedMan



Fascinating , and sort of cruel at the same time.
Damn you , Spock!


Kidding brother. That was just such a cold hard fact. Written like only a Vulcan could write lol

Originally posted by bsbray11
The music industry is nothing but a bunch of elephants riding the backs of musicians.


Musicians traditionally have only been able to make real money by going on tours. I say -- keep it that way. And cut out the middle man here, ie the grotesquely wealthy music industry. They are nothing but leeches and they deserve what they are losing and more.

Even Metallica, who had the famous lawsuit against Napster, now appreciates internet file-swapping and promotes their music being downloaded for free online, because it has introduced their music to a far wider audience and they have been able to extend tour legs even into the Middle East. The only people who don't like it, are the guys who have nothing to do with music, ie the businessmen. Cut them out of our art for good, kicking and screaming if they want.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by bsbray11]

They do ride the backs of the musicians. And the ones who actually compose the music and the lyrics they ride perhaps even more? The businessmen need to be cut out then, I hear you saying? I agree, they do indeed.

So if you are an unsigned band and you are using social networking and your own websites to get your music out there, then could you apply for some of the "tax money"? Didn't think so. The RIAA and industry are realizing that most bands coming up in the scenes today don't really need major record labels. Even a clear channel rock station here in Orlando as well as it's Talk Radio counterpart are now asking for local bands to submit music and play live sets for them. They don't charge and you get paid to do live sets at events, and it also gains noteriety for the stations as supporting local music scenes. Even Trent Reznor (NIN) embraced the coming digital age, and helping to speed-up the slow demise of these money sucking mammoths. It's your music...you need to get paid for it. Not become endentured servants for 10-12 years to pay off what they claim you owe.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by djvexd]

reply to post by nerbot


lol... I'm only playing the devils advocate.

IRM

Originally posted by leftystrat
There are very few places where `guilty until proven innocent' applies.
This would be one.

Way back there was a tax like this on blank cassettes. Whenever I put my band's music on a cassette, I had to pay the REAL pirates (RIAA).

Problem #1: that the industry thinks they are owed this
Problem #2: the industry is getting legal support for some of their crusades

You have identified two VERY significant problems, Leftystrat.
Thanks for that.
You've identified , actually , more than that.

reply to post by dragonsmusic


From my experience with bands signed to corporate labels in Australia (like Mushroom), this is exactly what happens. One band who were very good friends of mine were so poor under their corporate record contract that they were actually forced to go on social security. That's no joke! Not exactly the glamorous rock n roll lifestyle that people imagine.

I signed to an indy label years ago. However, they have their problems too and have a tendency to go bust. Needless to say I an not in the industry anymore and have a 'real job' these days!

IRM

Originally posted by djvexd
So if you are an unsigned band and you are using social networking and your own websites to get your music out there, then could you apply for some of the "tax money"? Didn't think so. The RIAA and industry are realizing that most bands coming up in the scenes today don't really need major record labels. Even a clear channel rock station here in Orlando as well as it's Talk Radio counterpart are now asking for local bands to submit music and play live sets for them. They don't charge and you get paid to do live sets at events, and it also gains noteriety for the stations as supporting local music scenes. Even Trent Reznor (NIN) embraced the coming digital age, and helping to speed-up the slow demise of these money sucking mammoths. It's your music...you need to get paid for it. Not become endentured servants for 10-12 years to pay off what they claim you owe.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by djvexd]

You wrote "It's your music...you need to get paid for it. Not become endentured servants for 10-12 years to pay off what they claim you owe"

Agreed.

Today I heard of the music tax again. It was on NPR. The site is www.world.org

And the link is about owners of hair salons in Spain having to pay a Music Tax to an Inspector. Yes that's right! Paying a tax just for playin' the radio in their salons! A freakin' Inspector showing up asking for a Music Tax to be paid. It's for the musicians he says. LMFAO!

It's for the musicians

Sure, it is inspector person. I'm sure the musicians are the ones getting each and every penny.
F&$king tax inspector.

The Beatles' music will now express my feelings vicariously.