Support Grows For Blanket Music Licensing 606
Anti-Globalism sends in Ars coverage of a speech by Jim Griffin, who is a consultant for Warner, one of the big four music labels. Griffin is encouraging dialog on the idea of blanket licensing of music — a topic heretofore more likely to be heard from the EFF or the Barenaked Ladies. "Taking music without paying for it may not be 'morally voluntary,' Griffin says, but he admits it has become 'functionally voluntary.' No civilized society, he adds, can endure 'purely voluntary payment for art, knowledge, and culture.' So Griffin's job is to help Warner monetize digital music, and he's convinced that the issue of payment for music is nothing less than 'our generation's nuclear power.' Griffin's most intriguing idea, and one he's been pitching for some time now, is a voluntary, blanket music license; essentially, bringing the collection society model to end users. In this model, consumers would pay royalties into a pot (by paying an extra monthly fee to their ISPs, for instance) and would then have access to all the music from all the labels that participate in the scheme."
But some artists suck. (Score:5, Insightful)
Under blanket licensing, how do I reward artists with good music preferentially to those who suck? Frankly, any business model that has talented artists like Radiohead, NIN, etc earning the same amount or less than crappy acts like Britney Spears is fundamentally broken. I will not give one penny to those talentless pop stars.
Error: Persepctive Missing. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Our generation's nuclear power?" Seriously? You're comparing finding a way to sell music with SPLITTING THE ATOM?!?
Lets call this what it really is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But some artists suck. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not sure I'd trust this system (Score:2, Insightful)
Just as long as I can decline to opt in (Score:4, Insightful)
Fine and dandy, as long as I've got the option of not paying the fee and not getting access to the music. I don't care for most of the stuff the major labels put out, and I'd rather not pay for something I've no interest in getting. If I want music from them I'll pay for the items I want, thank you very much.
Re:Error: Persepctive Missing. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Error: Persepctive Missing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Think 60s anti-nuclear protests. It's our generation's nuclear power issue because of the hell raised on both sides of the fence.
Somehting went bad... (Score:1, Insightful)
I think something needs to be rephrased, the guy meant to say:
"No record company, he adds, can endure "purely voluntary payment for art, knowledge, and culture."
Voluntary payment (Score:5, Insightful)
' No civilized society, he adds, can endure 'purely voluntary payment for art, knowledge, and culture.'
Really. Because I'm pretty sure that almost every society on the planet Earth has had art, knowledge, and culture work that was for several millenium, if not longer. I'm reasonably sure nobody paid the guys who made cave paintings. Art, knowledge, and culture - the REAL stuff, as opposed to, say, Brittany Spears and the line, are produced by volunteers in their spare time. They do it because they have a burning passion to do so, and financial considerations tend to be secondary, if not tertiary.
We've been over this... (Score:2, Insightful)
"In this model, consumers would pay royalties into a pot (by paying an extra monthly fee to their ISPs, for instance) and would then have access to all the music from all the labels that participate in the scheme."
Haven't we already voiced loudly what this kind of shit leads to?
music gets their cut,
tv demands their cut,
radio demands their cut (because everyone records the non-music time),
movies demand their cut,
video games demand their cut,
book publishers demand their cut,
magazine publishers demand their cut,
news sites demand their cut,
etc etc etc, repeat this for EVERY possible industry.
And don't forget, they'll START at a "reasonable" fee. But then every year or two bring it to court saying "that's too low, the market's grown and so should the cost!" and "inflation!!! we need to increase the price to keep the same value!!!" and before you know it that reasonable (let's say $5) fee, has grown to $25 in the course of 10 years, and continues to grow at that rate forever. (See the canadian's blanket tax on CDs/cassettes/etc)
Nobody can afford internet anymore due to the collective $500/month royalty charges, america goes offline. (or bankrupt... and then offline.)
Meanwhile, they'll still find ways to rape you in court if they can.
No thanks (Score:4, Insightful)
Not paying monthly fee ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have said it before, and I will say it again.
I am not going to pay a monthly fee on my internet connection or anything else to "excuse" me for all of the copying I don't do.
I don't download music, I buy music. I buy a lot of music -- this year, about $800 on CDs so far, most of that from 3 record labels, and not mainstream ones. The artists I listen to aren't covered under your Brittany-where's-my-panties-Spears tax, and aren't on those labels who are trying to benefit from this.
The last thing I want to see if some *(&^%(*& monthly surcharge on having an Internet connection to help offset the losses to artists I don't listen to.
Everybody who proposes one of these surcharges really needs to be fed their own head in very small pieces, because it's a stupid idea, doesn't address the issue, and won't be paying the artists I listen to. It basically is an attempt to have their revenue stream guaranteed by law.
Cheers
And where do unsigned artists come into play? (Score:4, Insightful)
This looks like a pretty interesting (dare I say, good?) scheme to get us consumers to actually pay for the music we get off the web. However, the problem I'm feeling from it is that this is still very label oriented. What about musicians who want to make a living off their music online but don't have a label? How do they get involved?
Another sticky wicket would be dividing up the cash in the pool for the artists. A good point had already been brought up by a poster to whom I replied earlier. How can we consumers use this system to benefit the artists we like, and avoid lining the pockets of those we don't? Is there some kind of download tracking? Registration (or other tracking) of songs? And then, do all artists get the same share of the pie, or does it vary based on number of plays, actual play time, or some other scheme?
If the questions get ironed out, and this is something which can be opted into (as opposed to being unilaterally fobbed on us) I wouldn't mind paying a bit extra each month to support my favourite acts. But only if the concerns about how it works are answered.
Re:So what about us? (Score:3, Insightful)
In this model, consumers would pay royalties into a pot (by paying an extra monthly fee to their ISPs, for instance) and would then have access to all the music from all the labels that participate in the scheme.[emphasis added]
If we're going to be paying our ISPs royalties on top of what we already pay them, then they'd damn well better not unreasonably throttle or cap our traffic, and they should give us specific bandwidth and/or data limits instead of slimy "magic mystery numbers subject to change and nyah nyah we wont tell you what they are" contract clauses.
It also depends on how many labels participate in the "scheme"...as in, "all of them". I want more than music from the Humble Christian Rock or the Polka Plus! labels.
Re:But some artists suck. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how either mandatory or even voluntary reporting of the music I personally listen to can be considered a 'bast case' scenario.
I would rather see a system where the release of a music recording is sold (rather than a copy). For example, a band records a studio album and goes on tour. They price the release of the album at 100,000 tickets. After they've sold their 100,000 concert ticket, they release the album to the public domain. That's just one example, artists that don't tour or perform live would have to come up with other mechanisms.
Just another ploy (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly.
This isn't trying to be friendly to consumers, and work out a common ground.
Instead, it's music execs trying to figure out how they can continue profiting from mediocrity, while also making it even more difficult for independent artists to find an audience and be compensated for their work.
How do you think this is going to work? Most likely, the pool would be divided among the RIAA member companies, and allocated based on the artsts whose music got played or downloaded more. Considering that they are going to be the same artists that are going to be promoted by the RIAA, and the same artists whose music will be forced into my skull through paid arrangements (do we really deserve the punishment of hearing the same song on the radio 20 times per day?).
Under such an arrangement, RIAA can just deposit their "proteges" into the playlist by paying the radio stations, and then proceed to collect 99% of all money from the pool, which will then be allocated by them - 99% to the company, 1% to the artist... and only a few artists are going to see that 1%. In other words, the system will be even more skewed and broken than it is now!
Supply and demand: a recap (Score:5, Insightful)
Let us ignore all the various government intrusions that try to subvert the real market laws: supply and demand.
When you have a limited supply of an item, and some demand, the price tends to go up. When you have an unlimited supply of an item, and some demand, the price tends to go down.
Music, or any content that can be distributed digitally, can have near infinite supply. The price, in such a case, may fall to zero. Some people will have some "moral imperative" to paying the original artist, but in reality the current distribution does NOT pay the original artist. Look at how the coward monopolists at BMI distribute royalty license fees.
There's a great catch, though, and one that I've used to help small bands make a pretty decent buck: find out what you have that can be sold in limited supply.
For musicians, their live performances are always going to be in limited supply. The music, since it is infinite in supply and has a value of zero in terms of quality between licensed and unlicensed copies, should be a marketing item.
Make your money the way most of us here make it: by doing new work for new customers. Your old work, as ours, is a great portfolio tool to attract new clients. Once you've gotten the clients' attentions, offer them value added items. Instead of hoping to get $15 for a CD that they can download for nearly nothing, offer an autograph session and only autograph your CDs. I own an offset print shop, and we can do custom CD runs for almost nothing. Sell collector's items, autograph them, and you've got a valid limited-supply product. Sell limited-run T-shirts. Offer personal time for your wealthy fans to hang out back stage, at a fee, or even offer online or IRL lessons to groups of fans.
A person's pay is not for work they've done in the past. No one pays their plumber a license to flush their toilet. No one pays their plumber a fee when they use the plumber's tactics to fix their own toilet again. Past work is relatively worthless if it can be mimicked by others, easily.
Copyright only exists today because of the momentum of it. It is dying a quick death. There are artists out there who moan and complain about it, but they're the ones who just can't see the forest for the trees: writing music, creating drawings, etc, is no different than going to plumbing school. Your labor of creation is the lesson time you spend to figure out a way to sell your future labor. Write a song, learn to fix toilets: they've both education. YOu don't get paid to learn to fix toilets, you don't get paid to write your own music. Both steps take you to the next level: finding customers to sell your services to.
Re:Voluntary payment (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But some artists suck. (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe they could come up with a system where an artist releases a collection of music, which people could then purchase. That way, you would only pay for the music you actually listen to.
We already have this.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what about us? (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, I've no interest in iTunes are any music store, their selects are always more limited than you find out there in torrent land. iTunes has a decent selection although I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole as the interface sucks and is highly invasive to a Windows machine adding a number of other services.
Then of course there is the problem that the library is difficult to move around, the whole plugging an ipod into a Windows machine wiping the ipod if you're a mac user primarily. Lots of little stuff Apple did either intentionally or unintentionally made it annoying. There is also the fact that it does nothing that I couldn't do with Audiogalaxy and Winamp way back in the day when Napster was just starting out and not on the RIAA's radar yet.
Now contrast all that BS with any random torrent site and your favorite music player on any platform and you see why people like p2p so much. There's also the fact that it is easy to download a few thousand songs off p2p, if you do that with iTunes have fun looking at your bill. It doesn't take long to rack up quite a bill.
Look at Kevin Nealon as an example, that guy bought 300k (his exaggeration) in iTunes and doesn't even back it up. It's easy just to click another song and spend another dollar.
... and your chicks for free. (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. Do people with hearing deficits get a refund? Or do they have to subsidise others?
To me, this sounds like they're re-inventing the radio license fee, but without having to provide extra programming paid for by that fee.
Or like charging everyone a high yearly library fee, and then expect people to build their own library buildings and populate them with books. Um, sorry, no, I won't have it.
For a fee to be useful, the record companies would have to produce something for the fee. Set up a library I can access, and keep it populated. And those who do not read or listen should not be forced to pay.
Re:Lets call this what it really is (Score:2, Insightful)
So forget the thousands of $$ I spent on CDs and LPs, now I have to pay for music I don't download?
amazing solutions (Score:5, Insightful)
from people who still don't understand how the fundamentals have changed
recorded music is now nothing more than an advertising vehicle for artists. if some old timers have a problem conceptualizing that, imagine the business model of radio: it gave music away for free in order to sell ad spots and create buzz. got that? apply that concept to recorded music now. welcome to present day reality
artists: no more coasting on royalties. you'll have to do regular work, concert gigs, to make a living like the rest of us mortals, or be spokesman for advertisers. you'll still be disgustingly rich and get lots of blow jobs from eager female fans. i don't exactly empathize with your plight of losing royalties
distributors: the internet has replaced you. you can't compete with free, sorry, enjoy your extinction
End of professional musicianship? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you're overstating here. This might be perhaps the end of multi-millionaire rockers, maybe. But file-sharing wont be the end of live shows and merchandise. So there's still plenty of revenue sources for the artists.
If by "professional musicianship" you're referring to the top-40 detritus on MTV and Clear Channel, let's hope you're right. I certainly wouldn't want to preserve that system with a federal tax.
I have a revolutionary idea! Maybe we can go back to people making music they love because it's what they love to do.
It's only taken them TEN YEARS! (Score:5, Insightful)
Will someone please give these clowns a clue pill?
Unusual economics (Score:3, Insightful)
No civilized society, he adds, can endure 'purely voluntary payment for art, knowledge, and culture.
That might be true for things like sculptures or books or theater tickets, but that's only because all those things are scarce and have a marginal cost to produce. If I can take all the books or paintings in a physical store home with me without paying, then yeah, that's probably not going to be workable. The marginal cost of a digital music file (or movie, or ebook) is basically zero.
Re:But some artists suck. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this isn't taxation, which actually pays for services.
This is protection money, plain and simple.
Like on radio? (Score:5, Insightful)
*Again*, this is the same buisness model as radio royaty, and public TV in the country where it exists.
People pay a fee, the audiance of each artist is measured using polling (TV audiance is not exact), and then you give the money according to that repartition.
Last time this was discussed, I was modded into oblivion for simply pointing that the majors were changing their stance on this (before, they hated it). We'll see if slashdotters have smarten up on this.
Look at how different p2p statistics and box office are for some movies: this would be a better system, because at the very least the medium is not controlled by the guy who sells the stuff. Also, no more bullshit about causing 10,000$ dammages for one song.
Re:Voluntary payment (Score:4, Insightful)
Because I'm pretty sure that almost every society on the planet Earth has had art, knowledge, and culture work that was for several millenium, if not longer.
I agree.
Art, knowledge, and culture - the REAL stuff, as opposed to, say, Brittany Spears and the line, are produced by volunteers in their spare time. They do it because they have a burning passion to do so, and financial considerations tend to be secondary, if not tertiary.
Oops, now your brush strokes have gone far too wide.
Many of the greatest works of art ever realized were created, at least in part, to earn money for the artist.
The Sistine Chapel is a perfect example. While revered as Michelangelo's greatest work, he supposedly reviled creating it for the Pope at the time, who was paying him to do it.
Many classical artists, such as Mozart, created and performed art for money, usually a rich benefactor, monarch, king, etc. was paying them to create the work in their honor.
My point is, I don't care why an artist creates something. If I like it, I like it. Don't try and diminish someone's work simply because you disagree with their lifestyle.
Re:But some artists suck. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Everyone else sucks, but not me. (Score:3, Insightful)
What worries me is that the recording companies will now scrape the bottom of the barrel for talent
Funny, they've been doing that for years and people have paid voluntarily for it.
Re:But some artists suck. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Supply and demand: a recap (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But some artists suck. (Score:3, Insightful)
> In theory, the money goes into a pot,
> and then is redivided based on what was listened to.
In practice, those of us who don't listen to a lot of music will be subsidizing those of you who do.
Re:But some artists suck. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just another form of taxation. I don't want my tax dollars going towards the "war" but it's going there despite the fact.
Exactly. It would be a tax. That is why I oppose this. Unless the government is collecting this money, not everyone is covered. I do not believe it is the role of government to ensure the health of a commercial entertainment industry through taxation. Why does this country dislike socialized programs for the protection of its citizens, yet encourages socializing the support of whole industries? I thought this was a capitalistic society.
The solution is simpler (Score:5, Insightful)
No civilized society, he adds, can endure 'purely voluntary payment for art'
So charge for concert tickets, t-shirts, trinkets, datastream subscriptions, and so forth.
voluntary payments vs voluntary payments? (Score:5, Insightful)
"No civilized society, he adds, can endure 'purely voluntary payment for art, knowledge, and culture. [...] Griffin's most intriguing idea, and one he's been pitching for some time now, is a voluntary, blanket music license;"
Wait. Voluntary payments don't work, so here's a voluntary payment scheme?
Re:But some artists suck. (Score:3, Insightful)
The initial recording of the album is generally payed for by a loan from the recording company.
The album is recorded and then the band tours and tours to pay it off while receiving pennies from record sales and almost nothing from playing concerts.
Additionally, then The Beatles wouldn't have been able to release Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, Magical Mystery Tour, The White Album, Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road, or Let it Be.
Vital importance to "society?" (Score:3, Insightful)
If you globally replace "society" with "recording industry" in the article, then statements like
become correct.
I guess I missed the part where society is critically dependent on the recording industry.
Re:Unusual economics (Score:1, Insightful)
But the cost to produce the material in the digital files for an album is usually in the range of $30k to $500k - sometimes more. If there's no requirement to pay for the ability to listen to a particular digital music file, then there's little chance of the digital music files ever been created.
Copyright exists for good reason, don't let its subsequent abuse blind you to that reality.
Re:But some artists suck. (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably not how it'd actually turn out, but this would be the best case scenario for this plan, don't you think?
Christ, haven't we [Western society] figured this one out yet?
Don't pass laws based on the "best case scenario". Doing so is a sure way to let the government fuck over the people using law passed with noble intent.
Take a look at child protection laws, the war on drugs, and anti-terrorism laws if you want examples...
Re:But some artists suck. (Score:3, Insightful)
The big difference is that I have to have a body. Music is voluntary.
Your hovercraft is full of eels. You should really give that up, you know.
Re:Like on radio? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But some artists suck. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's spot on, it's really the only thing that would make any sense at all.
The reason why it won't be popular with the industry is exactly because of the multiplier involved in 'running the copies', that multiplier is not in the hundreds (like a large wedding) but in the tens of thousands to tens of millions.
Performing artists with a good income will be exactly that again, performing artists, not studio artists. We'll come full circle to lots of live music.
Re:The solution is simpler (Score:5, Insightful)
So charge for concert tickets, t-shirts, trinkets, datastream subscriptions, and so forth.
I've seen downloaders use this argument a lot to justify downloading music and sometimes even asserting that charging for music is somehow immoral - "Information wants to be free" type stuff. Of course, you may just be trying to volunteer a band-air to the admittedly completely broken business model...
I suspect that the same downloaders also download movies. I really would like to see somebody make the leap and extend that argument to defend downloading movies. Only pay for live performances? Hope that people will shell out $12 because they just have to see Office Space on the big screen in a noisy, crowded theater instead of the leaked DVD at home? The Big Lebowski action figures?
Anyone care to make the leap?
Re:Not paying monthly fee ... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why he's proposing a voluntary scheme, not a mandatory one.
There are plenty of ways "technically voluntary" becomes "effectively compulsory". I can think of several off the top of my head, but the most obvious is: Record company offers some sort of incentive for ISP to sign up more customers to the scheme. ISP adds £1 to every customer's bill and sends an email explaining that you'll be paying the "voluntary RIAA Charge" unless you opt out. The opt-out process will be about as straightforward as cancelling AOL [putfile.com].
Either that or it'll be "voluntary" in the sense of "If you don't like it, you're free to take your business elsewhere".
Re:But some artists suck. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this isn't taxation, which actually pays for services. This is protection money, plain and simple.
Yeah, but what they're protecting is themselves against the competetion. Their competetion is the independant artists and labels, who are NOT suing their best customers like the RIAA thieves do.
Under their scheme, they get paid but the indies don't.
This is an incredibly ignorant lie. Every society in the world had just such a voluntary system until the advent of copyright [wikipedia.org] in 1662.
WTF is that supposed to mean? Ironic though; when nuclear power was first engineered they said it would make electricity "too cheap to meter".
I'd be willing to bet that this sleazy RIAA goon never heard of open source software or copyleft.
Mandatory Warner Profits (Score:4, Insightful)
Blah blah blah Warner consultant blah blah blah mandatory payments to Warner blah blah society cannot otherwise survive blah blah blah here's my invoice.
If record corps just used free distribution of music to promote the live concerts, T-shirts and other physical transactions they can actually control, and licensed hits to cross-promote other merchandise like in commercials, they'd have an excellent business model. Without the arbitrary overhead and guaranteed profits (despite terrible business work, and mostly terrible "art").
Just admit that the record contract and sales model was a ripoff from the start that could last only a century, and harness the power of fans directly promoting the products they can sell. And stop insulting us with claims that "what's good for Warner is good for America".
In other words, pay the gangsters "protection" (Score:3, Insightful)
RS
Re:But some artists suck. (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh, so your reason why the current system is broken isn't that the record companies have to front a lot of money in order to make the record, but that they don't release the albums to the public domain.
I'm sure once record companies start to release albums to the public domain, the money will roll right on in for the artists... right.
A problem that a lot of people on /. don't seem to understand is that the schemes relying on patronage are essentially what a standard recording arrangement is. If you substitute the public as the patrons, then there's still got to be something for them to be patrons of. Unless travel costs plummet and make national and worldwide tours much easier, what they're going to base their patronage on is quite likely going to involve recordings of their music. Potential patrons are going to be more attracted to better quality recordings, which means that as an artist you're going to have a better chance of success if you can get someone to provide some decent funding for your first recording to entice patrons to pay money... and then we're back to finding someone to front the money based on expected future profits, which is what a record company does.
The other suggestions I've seen generally rely on the idea of getting money from people who see you live, but if that were viable for producing high quality recordings then wouldn't most musicians already be self-financed? The money you get from touring can be good - though it's easier to make it if you're a covers band - but it's generally nowhere near the kind of money needed to get a reasonably good studio recording, and frankly most of the music buying public isn't going to be able to look past a cheap recording to see the quality underneath.
Re:But some artists suck. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But some artists suck. (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not believe it is the role of government to ensure the health of a commercial entertainment industry through taxation. Why does this country dislike socialized programs for the protection of its citizens, yet encourages socializing the support of whole industries? I thought this was a capitalistic society.
You are misinformed. This is a corporatist society, not a truly capitalistic one. The corporations and the government work hand-in-hand for their mutual benefit (not really the benefit of the government as a whole, but rather its individual members), to the detriment of the citizens. This is why socialized programs for industries are highly popular here, while socialized programs for citizens are not.
Re:But some artists suck. (Score:4, Insightful)
Once again, this is just a way for the big labels to a) get regular, steadily increasing income [as you can't vary what you pay, and the monthly rate will only rise over time], and b) obfuscate which artists should be paid what amount of money.
The musicians will have no ability to check how much they should be paid or even how much the labels are skimming off the top from all the artists.
For the defined goal of 'artists must get paid', of the three groups involved:
1) customers always have to pay some increasing amount of money
2) labels get a large steadily increasing amount of income
3) artists get whatever the labels decide to give them
Given that the goal of the labels is to maximize shareholder profit, manipulating 1) [assuming they can get people to buy into this stupid idea] is hard, because there generally is widespread displeasure at tax increases, but manipulating 3) is trivial and basically unverifiable by anybody except people within the labels themselves.
I'm okie with this... (Score:1, Insightful)
If it's opt-in.
If it isn't I'm flatly against because it is a new tax, and an unjustifiable one. ;)
Re:But some artists suck. (Score:3, Insightful)
Music existed long before Hollywood came on the scene and will exist long after they have disappeared. Hollywood doesn't give a crap about music, only about controlling it via extortion "on their behalf".
A day late and a dollar shy... (Score:1, Insightful)
This would've had potential potential (ie some potential, not a typo) 10 years ago when Napster was just starting to growl.
In the present, why? Short of a legal mandate, there's little motivation for the ISP or device mfgr to raise prices, in order to cover something that their users already effectively have complete free access to.
Great idea but, unfortunately, little feasibility in today's market
Re:The solution is simpler (Score:3, Insightful)
wow.
so who exactly is paying all the actors working on movies whilst they are in development? you?
And you DO realize that not ALL actors are BILLIONAIRES right?
Of course you don't. you probably think everyone who makes movies,music, tv, games, software, or basically anything you fancy helping yourself to is a BILLIONAIRE. That's how you justify taking their work without compensation right?
There are legitimate reasons to be critical of the attitude of some big media companies. Posts like your just help convince content creators that everyone pirating content is delusional.
Fine with me except... (Score:3, Insightful)
...it is probably a camel's nose for a compulsory scheme wherein all Internet users would pay a "tax" to the RIAA.
Re:But some artists suck. (Score:5, Insightful)
And what is better? Is it music as it was a hundred years ago or music as it is now?
How dense are you, really? No music exists independent of what came before. All music is variations on what came before. Music now is music past plus a smidge, always has been, always will be. Music now is not better than music then, or worse, it is only music different. If you truly think music now is always better than music past, you are one sorry sucker.
Re:But some artists suck. (Score:3, Insightful)
Welcome to society, part of living here is that we help people who can't afford to help themselves. The payback to you is that you get to benefit from the same system if you ever find yourself down on your luck.
Very true. There is also the benefit of not having to protect yourself from desperate people who can afford black market weapons but not much else, who without government services will fall between the cracks and have to predate on the middle class and the wealthy to survive.
I don't care how badass your special forces training is, or how many guns your grandpappy passed down to you, or how much of a fortress your libertarian dream castle is, if you take away the things that help people, the people who need help will take what they need to survive from you.
The Libertarian paradise of living under seige for your entire short, brutal lifetime just doesn't sound very appealing to me.
I'd rather have social security and single payer healthcare, and enough easy education to schools that people can better themselves. Oh, and enough police to take care of those who don't want to better themselves. Sure I own guns, but if someone is screwing with me I'd much rather have the government take care of them than try to take the law into my own hands and just kill them outright. If I wanted THAT kind of system, I'd move to Israel and live in a settlement.