Warner Music Pushing Music Tax For Universities 375
An anonymous reader writes "Warner Music is pitching the idea of a 'music tax' for various top universities. The idea is that students would be free to file share, but the university needs to monitor and track everything, create a pool of money, hand it over to a recording industry entity that promises to distribute the proceeds fairly. In exchange, the university gets a 'covenant not to sue' from the music labels. It's not a full license, just a basic promise that they won't sue. It's also claimed that this is 'voluntary' but the Warner Music guy says that they need to include all universities and all ISPs to really make it work. It's basically a music tax, where the recording industry gets to sit back and collect money."
Indie (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll allow it only if I can sign up as an indie artists and get some of the money, too.
(read: this is ludicrous and will never happen)
Geez...just like 47th street in Brooklyn (Score:5, Insightful)
Grasping at Straws (Score:5, Insightful)
Where do I sign up? (Score:3, Insightful)
What do they really want? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Indie (Score:2, Insightful)
No Taxation without representation!
Or better yet (Score:4, Insightful)
Just thinking about, I can not see much difference between the labels or the detroit 3. All have had greedy management that is worthless.
End of the gravy train (Score:2, Insightful)
It's real simple. The RIAA can see that it will soon be common place for Law Students to fight for the victims of the music industry's suits. They are looking to replace that lucrative revenue stream.
Actually kind of scary (Score:4, Insightful)
Definition of extortion (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, so the record industry doesn't actually make it legal for the students to share the music, they just require their cut and they promise not to sue.
I hope someone more qualified than myself takes this up because they are trying to extort money from the universities in what appears to me to be a very literal definition of the term.
Re:Music tax? (Score:3, Insightful)
I actually don't think that this general idea is the stupidest idea in the world. It would be much more reflective of the way music is produced and distributed now for there to be a more generalised licensing system, rather than a pay-per-track/album system like we have now.
However, the obvious problems with this proposal are:
- why should the RIAA get to operate the scheme?
- who decides which artists are able (or have) to participate?
- why should the RIAA set the price (and not, say, the market)?
It's extremely unfashionable, but setting up social systems where the rights and interests of some are protected in a way which adequately protects the rights and interests of the whole is basically the whole point of government...
What about after University / What about Ruckus (Score:3, Insightful)
What happens to the file-swapper after they graduate? Their identity is compromised, their activities documented, and they would be ripe for a lawsuit after graduation, no?
Why not allow service providers to perform this service and actually grant a license? I have unfettered access to ruckus.com through my university e-mail, and that works just fine more me.
Re:Indie (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Grasping at Straws (Score:3, Insightful)
too many... metaphors... can't... breath...
Re:Indie (Score:1, Insightful)
Your argument is moot.
Will my band get payed too? We are not an ANY label, but sell CD's, and tracks online. Are we going to get compensation for OUR music being distributed across the Universities networks? Something I know for a fact has taken place.....
THAT. WILL. NEVER. HAPPEN.
This is a protection racket. Period. If you don't see that, YOU are part of the problem.
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
mafiaa (Score:4, Insightful)
"Nice university you got there. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it."
Affordable and yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to say this sounds a lot to me like a person who is very frugal going out to dinner with a bunch of other people who order extravagant food options and then having someone want to split the bill at the end.
I mostly don't listen to music. $2 to $10 per month is $25-$125/yr or $100-$500 over the course of a four year college. That's about $90 to $490 more than I would have paid if buying a la carte every piece of music I wanted to buy. That's money I could have spent on things that matter to me.
Will you be as excited about anteing up $2 to $10 per month to cover some routine cost that I pay for and that bores you to tears, just to bring my price down?
To employ a musical reference, does the phrase "tyrrany of the majority" ring any bells?
Tell me why it isn't just fair that people should pay for what they use?
Re:They can kiss my ass (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Indie (Score:5, Insightful)
That's no tax.... that's extortion.
Re:Indie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Indie (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a term for this 'tax'
Protection money,
You pay the money, or you'll need protection.
It's been the subject of mob and mafia movies for decades.
How are the RICO cases against the RIAA going btw?
Re:Yes, indies can be included (Score:5, Insightful)
Why on God's green Earth would you want to be complicit with this nonsense that's going to create more work for you with no additional pay? Why on Earth would any university condone the use of university personnel, facilities, etc. to do the work of someone else for free? This is extortion and racketeering, almost by definition folks. The RIAA can blow it out their ear. I'd rather they tried to sue and then get hit for malicious and wrongful prosecution than deal with this utterly ridiculous racket.
I'm sorry, I'm someone who loves music, makes music, and last year recorded an independent album that the RIAA can suck on for all I care. We don't need them nor the crappy music they push at us on a daily basis, nor the ridiculous racket of enforcement they are trying to dupe us into believing is their right. It's not and if you believe it is you better educate yourself before you get on the wrong side of a very messy battle that's just beginning to start. I believe in the rights of artists as individuals, not in the rights of unions, guilds, corporations or other corrupt bureaucracies that have only their own self interests in mind.
Don't be that guy/girl! Tell them to shove it and see them in court! The whole point of being "independent" is you are not at the mercy of the RIAA nor any label. You don't need them! WAKE UP!
Re:Yes, indies can be included (Score:5, Insightful)
I work at UMass Amherst and I'm trying to get this implemented
Why exactly are you trying to get this implemented? Somebody told you it was good? Got a phone call from the mafia? Clueless? It will look good on your resume?
Your post is modded informative, but there is nothing informative about it except that you're trying to get it implemented. I don't know what position you hold at UMAss, but this kind of blind following is exactly what the RIAA hopes. Do they not teach critical thinking at UMass anymore? Are you tenured or a guy/girl with an administrative job. If you are a guy/girl with an administrative job then I really think you should do some research and gain an informed opinion. If you're a tenured prof/scientist/researcher or whatever, then you should know better.
I am only asking because I'd really like to know what motivates you trying to comply with the RIAA extortion.
Re:Indie (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not an American, I'm a New Zealander...
So while I'm generally in support for an artistic tax (of perhaps $50/yr on an internet connection)...
What a great idea.
Any more taxes you'd like to add for Americans while not being one yourself?
You missed the film industry completely. DVDs cost more than CDs. If $50/yr is fair artistic tax for music, then naturally you must be all for $100/yr for movies as well. How about the software industry? I hear that Microsoft products are pirated and that involves the internet. How much additional tax shall you add to protect Microsoft and other software vendors?
Of course, taxes require oversight. It's an odd thing in America - you can't force a business to collect taxes without also allowing them to recoup the costs of so doing. So - how about we add in a just a bit of an extra ISP charge to account for that?
And, there's a precedent for it - how about the add-on charged for every blank cassette recording tape - not a dime of which has gone to a single artist.
Yeah. Great idea pal. Really interesting. And please don't mind if add, fuck me.
Re:Indie (Score:5, Insightful)
People who don't listen to music and people who can't. Should a deaf student pay a music tax allowing him to download all the music that he wants if he can't hear it at all?
And why must this be limited to a music tax? Why not a video game tax? A software tax? A movie/TV show tax? A book tax? Hell, let's throw a blog tax in there so I can get some money in the rare event that someone infringes the copyright on my blog posting. Add up all of the taxes and you'd better hope you can download the content for free, because you're going to be bankrupt. Those middle managers in the RIAA/MPAA/etc. will be rolling in dough, though. Oh and they'll give some to the artists too. After removing some "administrative fees" and such from the pot. Yup, looks like there's enough for the artist to buy himself a cup of coffee!
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Indie (Score:5, Insightful)
Public schools? You're paying to help educate the next generation of doctors, scientists, and other useful people. These are the people who will help save your life, extend your life, make your life more comfortable and pleasant. Of course, you're also helping educate the next generation of politicians, but on the whole, they're a minority. Thank (insert name of invisible friend here).
Gas tax? That's supposed to go into road construction and maintanance. Where it really goes, well, talk to your friendly politicians and maybe they'll tell you where it really goes. Or maybe not. Did you contribute massive sums to their reelection campaign?
What Warner Music is seeing is an untapped 'revenue stream' in the form of college tuitions, and figuring that most college students are so broke they can barely pay attention and thus automatically filesharers, then Warner Music somehow, by some sleight of hand and language refinement, is due a percentage of said tuition fees and other contributions to said colleges. Never mind that college radio already pays a yearly fee in order to play music on their stations. Never mind that commercial radio pays a yearly fee to play music on their station. Somehow, if one student downloads one music track, then all students everywhere download every piece of music in sight, and thus Warner Music must be paid. The alternative is massive lawsuits by RIAA et al until the colleges do bend over and pay. What's next, manditory insurance premiums on college students with a 3rd party as beneficiary?
Re:Indie (Score:5, Insightful)
I seriously listen to music all the time, but I don't steal any of it and would *hate* paying a tax. I listen to the radio, and occasionally buy used CDs. That's about it.
I odn't know why the /. mods think you're trolling. It must be the same mods that mod medown whenever I mention that I don't have cable because I don't watch live TV. Some people just can't understand that others have different priorities! Either that, or its the crack that's standard issue with mod points.
UNlike schools, which I benefit from even though i don't have kids, I don't receive *any* value from an RIAA tax. It's not some kind of social benefit, it's just a damn consumer product. For most of human history, there was no recorded music distribution and people *still* listened to music - often if you lived in a city. Heck, even water and power are paid for on an as-used basis, not by taxes, and they're a bit more important than mp3s!
Re:Indie (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly you failed at reading the bit where I wrote that "American spends something like $50/yr on copies of movies/music"
Clearly, I did not miss that at all. There's a diff between RIAA and MPAA. The rest of your post discussed music. Your fault for any diff between what you say you meant by artist tax and what you wrote.
And your source of the info that Americans spend about $50/yr on COPIES of music/movies is from...? The same people using our courts nefariously? The same people screwing the artists? And those of us who spend $0/yr on COPIES of music/movies and download nothing illegally and share nothing illegally should pay your proposed tax because....??
Talking about $50/yr puts some metrics so that we can discuss how we can support artists, preferably through voluntary schemes.
Try http://www.magnatune.com/ [magnatune.com] or http://www.jamendo.com/ [jamendo.com] and give the artists the $50 directly. Companies that Are Not Evil and support Creative Commons licensing are way ahead on the metrics of which you speak.
Wow, you're just plain obnoxious.
Now you're talking about taxing all sorts of countries. I'm obnoxious, AC? You fucking bet.
its just blackmail (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Indie (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>American spends something like $50/yr on copies of movies/music
I spent $0 on movies/music this year. And the year before. Why should I have to pay a $50 fee for no product received??? Stupid. The RIAA can go fuck themselves because I'm not paying them a dime.
Americans should only pay if they walk out of the store with a DVD or CD or MP3 in hand. If they do none of those, then they shouldn't have to pay at all.
Why is this the university's problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's an interesting point, and it can be taken one step further. How can the RIAA convince a jury that, by the preponderance of the evidence, the university is responsible for copyright infringement done by its students? That's as daft as saying the DEA ought to arrest the university president because some the students are smoking pot.
Seems to me the university has nothing to lose by letting this go to trial.
Re:Indie (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Indie (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if it were a genuine 20s-themed bar, he wouldn't be able to advertise that it actually was a bar. What with Prohibition and all... : p
Re:Indie (Score:3, Insightful)
Software producers
TV studios
Indie music publishers
Book publishers
And if they refuse, they open themselves up to lawsuits. I can't see this flying for this reason alone.