Why a Music Tax Is a Bad Idea 194
An anonymous reader writes with a followup to the story posted last week about Warner Music's plan for a music tax for universities. "There's been some debate about this plan and Techdirt has a detailed explanation of why a music tax is a bad idea, noting that it effectively rewards those who failed in the marketplace, punishes those who innovated and sets up a huge, inefficient and unnecessary bureaucracy. Meanwhile, plenty of musicians who are experimenting with new business models are finding that they can make more money and appeal to more fans. So, why stymie that process with a new bureaucracy that simply funds the big record labels?"
Re:a new bureaucracy that simply funds the big rec (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They'll do it because they think they can (Score:4, Informative)
Second off, I'm a musician on the side, and I put out albums on a regular basis which make money here on a local level. If my band's album is downloaded on a college campus, is some of that tax going to go to me, if I have no affiliation with Warner? NO! So not only are they getting money for music that may or may not even be downloaded, they're getting money for content that isn't even theirs to profit on.
Oh don't worry, from the previous /. story:
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.
100-to-1 says this entity is the RIAA and "distributing the proceeds fairly" means funding litigation against students from universities that haven't agreed. You know, just like the "proceeds" from their lawsuits to date. Of course the inevitable end result is that nobody will pirate your music anymore, and you make more money! Beautiful, isn't it?
Re:why? (Score:5, Informative)
Darnit, bumped the "submit" button early.
I think the biggest barrier to growth is the lack of music talent now compared to the times past which saw explosive growth in the 70's and 80's.
Not true, not true at all. There is plenty of new music talent out there; the problem is that the MafiAA companies no longer want to promote new talent, because new talent are not interested in selling their eternal souls to crappy slave-labor contracts, MafiAA "creative accounting" practices, and multi-album deals where the labels hold musicians hostage by claiming their final contracted album needs to be "re-done" over and over until they manage to blackmail the artist into signing an extension or giving up any hope of ever owning their own music.
Track the MafiAA's supposed "piracy loss" numbers against the number of new albums and new acts released, and you find a linear correlation that has absolutely nothing to do with "piracy."
But why take it from me? Take it instead from someone who's lived through MafiAA Hell [janisian.com] herself.
This is sort of like the levy in Canada (Score:3, Informative)
Canada has a levy on blank media (currently just CDRs and tapes, not DVDs), and a right to make copies for personal use. (There's some question about whether allowed copies must be onto levied media, or whether they can be made copy: but it is not a copyright violation to make the private copies.)
There are lots of reasons to dislike this: you have to pay it even if you use the CDRs for data or your own music, the rules for distributing the money don't bear a close connection to what actually got copied, payments are only made to Canadian collectives, it doesn't apply to copies made on the more common media people use nowadays, etc.
The CRIA (the Canadian subsidiary of the RIAA) lobbied to have this put in place because it looked like a cash cow, but lately they've been lobbying to get rid of both it and the personal copying right. This is likely because they don't get a large share of the levy, which goes to copyright collectives first, and is distributed to their members (artists) as well as the recording companies.
It's probably not possible to fix most of the problems with the levy, but it is nice to know that I have the legal right to make copies of music, and don't have to worry about being sued over it. The Conservatives introduced legislation that kept the levy but did away with the private copying right (and promised to deal with the levy this fall, but things didn't work out for either the legislation or the promise). I think the Liberals are also in the pocket of the big media companies, so they will probably support that legislation if it ever comes to a vote.
So you should demand a blanket license to copy for personal use, not just a promise not to sue, and then this "tax" might not be such a bad thing.
Re:why? (Score:4, Informative)
As a musician..... (Score:2, Informative)
Because musicians will not get the money.
Trust me, musicians don't get the money now!!!