Pay 'tax' to your ISP to help cover cost of illegal music downloads

Technology journalist Andrew Orlowski has suggested that a 'tax' on top of monthly ISP subscription charges could be collected and paid to the music industry in order to 'pay' for illegally downloaded tracks. He sees it as a way of tackling the online piracy problem in an 'enlightened' way.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3674270.stm

"I do not have kids and I do not have a car but I do not have any objection to paying for roads and schools because it is better that they are there rather than not."

Sorry, the connection between music and our national infrastructure is .... what, exactly?

He added that the idea of a surcharge was winning the broad backing of many in the music industry including legendary figure Tony Wilson formerly of Factory Records.

I bet it is.

[MatTman]

i have a rather Spiffy size 10 hiking boot that i would like to thrust up that guys arse!!

[SMHarman]

Huh, surely the fee you pay to your ISP is to maintain the cost of the national network infrastructure, just as your basic taxes pay for the basic infrastructure. You then pay fuel tax and road fund licence (no it's not road tax ) for use of that asset, train fares for use of the track etc.

Why should I pay music tax for someone elses use of music?

Did someone mention a size 10.

The thing that gets me is the arrogant assumption that it's the music industry that should be first in line to benefit from any extra revenue that might be screwed out of internet users.

And what about those of us who simply don't use the 'net for warez? Orlowski is trying to bring schools and roads into this in order to establish that we already contribute to the costs of things we don't use. That again is complete arrogance - to think that music is somehow as vital to the fabric of our nation as our roads and schools are.

Entertainers of all kinds (by which I mean footballers and actors as well as pop musicians) enjoy a status and earning power out of all proportion with the rest of the Western economy and arguably always wildly out of proportion to their contribution to society (it's doctors, nurses and teachers that should be earning the megabucks). It sickens me that they can bleat on so much when they're losing the equivalent earning of spare tyres for their stretch limos.

(BTW, none of the above means I think that warezing is justified in any way. It isn't.)

[kronas]

is this guy on drugs or something, music sales are increasing, cd sales are on the up, there is now a market opening up for legitimate downloads, we already pay for a connection to maintain the network, a tax is not needed and would kill broadband britain (note tony has done f**k all) so far to help aid the countrys infastructure.


if nokia's plans to bring p2p to mobile phones take off i will say good on them!!

music compaines are not suffering as much as they lead us to believe sales do the talking.....

[Salu]

I feel so sorry for the poor Music industry. I mean, losing some of their large income stream that they have become so accustomed to. We really should feel sorry for them as they start to not be able to charge £15 per CD.

Sarcastic, I know, but their high charges and lack of embracing the digital-download are to blame for the prolific market of illegal downloads.

If CD's were £5.99 and you could have downloaded them legitimately for a few years per track then I doubt their income stream would have been under threat. Their greed has led them gently into a downfall.

However I do not support illegal downloading of music.

Nuff said

I do not download any music legit or otherwise.So why should I pay a tax for others to do so?Spit,spit.Let those who are guilty pay for it.

Anyway what about the folk who burn from legit copies of a CD and then sell the copies on without uploading to or downloading from the net.Grrrrr!

[Mr_love_monkey]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Anyway what about the folk who burn from legit copies of a CD and then sell the copies on without uploading to or downloading from the net.Grrrrr!

An extra tax on blank cds!!!

Originally Posted by Mr_love_monkey

An extra tax on blank cds!!!

But I don't burn any music.I use my CDRW for storage purposes for MY art work and documents.And yes I can store GB's of art work.So why should I be penalised in anyway for other peoples illegal activities?I already pay over the odds for legit copies of the music because the music industry overcharges to make up for these losses.

Bah! there are far too many greedy people in this world that want others to pay for their pleasures.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Mr_love_monkey

An extra tax on blank cds!!!

Which already exists on Music CDRs (as opposed to Data Ones), the type that can be used in stand alone CD recorders. Same way a levy exists on the blank compact casette and the minidisk.

Data CDRs and DVDs do not have this levy as they are used to store data not music.

[Ramrod]

It's just one crackpots idea..........never get off the ground.......I hope

[MovedGoalPosts]

I don't download music, so why should I pay a tax when I already pay tax on the music CDs I do buy at innflated prices from shops.

On the other hand maybe being taxed to encourage some good adult stuff to be available
er did I really let that slip out time for a quick exit

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Technology journalist Andrew Orlowski has suggested that a 'tax' on top of monthly ISP subscription charges could be collected and paid to the music industry in order to 'pay' for illegally downloaded tracks. He sees it as a way of tackling the online piracy problem in an 'enlightened' way.

Maybe he's a reader of this site - it was an idea I floated a couple of months back on the very last post

I also want to make clear that I don't think this is a workable solution - I'm sure the 'industry' is very happy about it, but I can't ever see it happening.

I mean, could I ask for a refund becuase the new [insert artist here] album is rubbish?

What would be more workable is embedding quality rights management into p2p networks, so everyone can own everything, but downloading it has a fair cost implication to the downloader. Of course there will be the people who will try and get round it, but then they are the in the minority - most reasonable people don't have an issue for paying a small amount for music - it would also silence the 'CD's cost too much' brigade.

Back to the idea Andrew Orlowski is touting...I'm not really sure what makes him qualified to talk to a music industry conference on the subject - he is a technology journalist (of some disrepute if some of the things I've read about him are true) and as far as I can make out has no real dealings of note in the music industry.

That said, whilst I don't agree with his 'idea' opening up the subject to debate within the industry is a good thing as it will start to make people think about more suitable ways of paying for music.

Originally Posted by Chris T

The thing that gets me is the arrogant assumption that it's the music industry that should be first in line to benefit from any extra revenue that might be screwed out of internet users.

I agree, this is another reason why this is unworkable. If this were to happen, then you can be sure the software industry will be asking for their bit, the movie companies theirs and everyone else too.

Originally Posted by Chris T

Entertainers of all kinds (by which I mean footballers and actors as well as pop musicians) enjoy a status and earning power out of all proportion with the rest of the Western economy and arguably always wildly out of proportion to their contribution to society

Whilst I hear what you're saying, for every megastar there's dozens of minor or unsigned acts not earning enough to live on. The internet, used properly, can open the market up to these guys (many of which are arguably more talented than the Hear'says and Girls Aloud of this world).

I'm very interested in the new Stelios model of copyleft music downloads, where the artist is able to grown their audience and charge fees for their songs if they wish (once they become established I guess). I think this is a much more suitable avenue to explore than taxing ISP's.

Originally Posted by Salu

If CD's were £5.99 and you could have downloaded them legitimately for a few years per track then I doubt their income stream would have been under threat. Their greed has led them gently into a downfall.

It's interesting, a few years ago people were saying 'if CD's were £10 then I would buy them'. Now they are under that price, I see that figure is now £6. And if they were £6, no doubt people would be saying, 'if CD's were under £4..... '

[keithwalton]

I'd quite happily pay an extra tax on my internet connection *IF* the gov then shoved that money into developing our internet backbone and its connection to the outside world. Like they do in Sweden and Finland. 10Meg connections for all for peanuts. The music industry well thats somthing that can go jump off the edge of the world. I could certainly live without it and all its 'popular' music trash

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by andygrif

I agree, this is another reason why this is unworkable. If this were to happen, then you can be sure the software industry will be asking for their bit, the movie companies theirs and everyone else too.

and how would you distribute this, based on legitimate sales, this would not help those struggling talents who have found that the internet is a good marketing outlet.