$5 Per Month Fee Proposed For Legal Music P2P

sneakyimp writes "Both Wired and Ars Technica have reports on Jim Griffin's proposal that ISPs charge each broadband customer $5 per month to subsidize the ailing music industry. The resulting fund would ostensibly 'compensate songwriters, performers, publishers and music labels.' Although no specific version of the proposal has been referenced, a number of controversies are inherent to the plan: How is the money really divided? What happens when the MPAA, the Business Software Alliance, and various other industry groups want their own surcharge added? What about the supposed majority of broadband customers who never download illegal music? Griffin discussed the plan further at SXSW . We've previously discussed a similar proposal from the Songwriters Association of Canada.

So...

[Smordnys s'regrepsA]

Basically the same amount our northern neighbors pay (as taxes) to keep their MAFIAA on a leash? Maybe we should just copy their entire section of IP laws.

Re:Stupid.

[icebike]

> It's why there's a surcharge on "Music" CDRs. It's not actually legalizing it, it's just their way getting more money.

It is my understanding that the surcharge DID legalize duplicating music CDs in Canada.

But you are right of course, its just a money grab.

Re:Well

[Original Replica]

I see this as their new business model.

I wonder what one has to do to qualify as part of this music publishing business? Everyday, I pass subway musicians with decent home burned CDs for sale. I have even bought a few, in fact one of my favorite classical CDs is direct from the musician. They are a part of the "music industry" how do they go about getting their cut?

Thanks for nothing. Just say no.

[inTheLoo]

You say that as if duplicating your CDs was ever against the law, here or in Canada. Copyright is supposed to be a civil matter between private parties about the right to commercially publish works. Applying that to personal coppies has always been a stretch.

I recall some controversy about artists never got their cut of the digital media tax, not even RIAA signed artists, and it hurt local artists [www.cbc.ca]. Looks like it never got better [slashdot.org].

I expect ISP fees to be exactly like that. In effect, they will outlaw what's already allowed and steer yet more money to an industry that has long ago ceased to perform a useful function.

Re:Stupid.

[Oktober Sunset]

and last but not least, the songwriters.

Surely you mean 'last and also least'

Re:Thanks for nothing. Just say no.

[poopdeville]

Let p2p run rampant. Don't sue anybody. Then watch and see if the music/movie industries up and die. If they do, then consider whether or not legislation is needed to revivify them. If they do not die, then admit that the legislation was never needed in the first place, and just don't bother with it.

They won't. This was the biggest year for the MPAA ever.

Re:Stupid.

[RodgerDodger]

No the performers tend to be screwed more than the songwriters (with the exception of the celebrity performers like Britney).

In a typical band, for example, the songwriter would get a lot more than the rest.

Re:Thanks for nothing. Just say no.

[modecx]

They won't. This was the biggest year for the MPAA evuer.

And despite most of the movies last year being complete shit, too. Boggles the mind.

Re:This whole idea sounds familiar

[werwerf]

Well...

Here in Europe, auto insurance IS mandatory by law and medical insurance IS mandatory (social security) for anyone having a payroll...

... But mandatory music... That's another thing!

Moreover, in Europe "artists" are already quite subsidized for the most majority of the crap they produce... They good ones (the ones we like) make their living from they work... Isn't that amazing? :)

Re:Thanks for nothing. Just say no.

[R2.0]

"hmm, was there not some USA bigwig that ones stated something to the tune that no market had the right to exist for eternity?"

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."

Robert A. Heinlein, "Life-Line", 1939.

Re:Stupid.

[esocid]

Just use RIAA radar [riaaradar.com] to see if the album you want to buy is under a label associated with the RIAA. I've checked every time i've wanted to buy an album, and so far luckily they all (2) have been RIAA free. Whew, that was a lot of acronyms.

Re:Are you guys smoking crack?

[careysub]

Do you think Hollywood is going to turn over the rights to let you copy whatever you want of their stuff for a few paltry million $ that this would bring in?!?! Even if every single internet user in the United States paid $5 (much less the pathetic $1 you're suggesting), that would only be about $775 million.

Paltry? Umm... in December 2006 there were 82.5 million active broadband lines in the U.S. (see: Networked Nation: Broadband In America 2007 [doc.gov]). The proposal is $5 per month per broadband customer. This is $5 billion a year, even at December 2006 adoption rates. It will climb higher in years to come as broadband penetration increases.

For comparison this is almost half of the recording industry's revenues from 2006 [arstechnica.com]. And this would be essentially all profit. For this kind of gift (if they could get it) the public should demand the sky in freedom to do whatever it likes with the recording industry's products. Even a $1 fee would likely more than double its annual profits.

Re:Again?

[Jardine]

If you're in the US (and if my memory is working correctly, Canada) you ARE paying a RIAA tax on every blank CD you purchase (and probably on DVDs).

Not on DVDs in Canada.