MESSAGE
| DATE | 2008-04-06 |
| FROM | From: "Ronny Abraham"
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Tax the Internet
|
This is really insane. So now I have to pay them money for music I
don't want to listen to? Maybe we should charge them a tax for
software they don't use.
-ron
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Michael L. Richardson
wrote:
> What about those who do not download music or movies? Yes they are out
> there.
>
> *****
> Check this out:
> www.globalabundanceprogram.com/mlr52
> *****
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ***************************************
> Check this out:
> www.globalabundanceprogram.com/mlr52
> ***************************************
>
>
>
>
>
> Ruben Safir wrote:
>
> > Having failed to stop piracy by suing internet users, the music industry
> > is for the first time seriously considering a file sharing surcharge
> > that internet service providers would collect from users.
> >
> > In recent months, some of the major labels have warmed to a pitch by
> > Jim Griffin, one of the idea's chief proponents, to seek an extra fee on
> > broadband connections and to use the money to compensate rights holders
> > for music that's shared online. Griffin, who consults on digital strategy
> > for three of the four majors, will argue his case at what promises to
> > be a heated discussion Friday at South by Southwest.
> >
> > "It's monetizing the anarchy," says Peter Jenner, head of the
> > International Music Manager's Forum, who plans to join Griffin on
> > the panel.
> >
> > Griffin's idea is to collect a fee from internet service providers --
> > something like $5 per user per month -- and put it into a pool that
> > would be used to compensate songwriters, performers, publishers and
> > music labels. A collecting agency would divvy up the money according to
> > artists' popularity on P2P sites, just as ASCAP and BMI pay songwriters
> > for broadcasts and live performances of their work.
> >
> > The idea is controversial but -- as Griffin and Jenner point out -- hardly
> > without precedent. The concept of collecting a fee for unauthorized
> > use of music was developed in France in 1851 as a way of reimbursing
> > composers whose work was being performed without their permission in
> > cafes and the like.
> >
> > The practice spread to the United States in 1914 and currently applies
> > to radio airplay and webcasts in addition to live performances. In a
> > 2004 white paper, the Electronic Frontier Foundation called for it to
> > be applied to file sharing, but the Recording Industry Association of
> > America immediately dismissed the proposal.
> >
> > Things are different now. "The labels are beginning to like the idea of
> > an access-to-music charge," says Jenner, who once managed Pink Floyd and
> > the Clash, "because they're increasingly aware that their current model
> > is broken." U.S. music sales, which peaked in 1999 at nearly $15 billion,
> > dropped to $11.5 billion in 2006. Last year's figures are still being
> > tallied, but with CD sales cratering and online sales overwhelmingly
> > dominated by singles, the only question is how far they'll fall.
> >
> > Meanwhile, the industry's antipiracy efforts appear more and more
> > futile. Digital rights management, long touted as a solution, has been all
> > but abandoned. And though the RIAA is said to have threatened or taken
> > action against some 20,000 suspected file sharers, the market-research
> > firm NPD Group reports that nearly 20 percent of U.S. internet users
> > downloaded music illegally last year. The score to date: 0.02 million
> > alleged P2P users down, 40.98 million to go.
> >
> > At the music industry trade show MIDEM last year, John Kennedy, the
> > head of IFPI -- the RIAA's international affiliate organization --
> > offered modest support for the kind of licensing fee Griffin and
> > Jenner propose. "It's a model worth looking at," he said at a press
> > conference. "If the ISPs want to come to us and look for a blanket
> > license for an amount per month, let's engage in that discussion."
> >
> > The tone at the January 2008 MIDEM in Cannes, France, was more
> > combative. Longtime U2 manager Paul McGuinness said in a widely reported
> > speech that it was time to hold ISPs responsible for the file sharing
> > deluge. McGuinness wants network operators to cut off those the industry
> > deems offenders -- an approach France's Sarkozy government is already
> > pushing in that country. "If ISPs do not cooperate voluntarily,"
> > McGuinness declared, "there will need to be legislation to force them
> > to cooperate," McGuinness said.
> >
> > Behind closed doors, however, MIDEM attendees discussed the prospect
> > of collecting money from ISPs instead. An invitation-only meeting on
> > the subject drew about 50 people, including representatives of IFPI,
> > Sony BMG, T-Mobile, the giant European ISP and mobile-carrier Orange,
> > and performing-rights organizations like BMI. The response, according to
> > Jenner, "ranged from 'What do we do now?' to 'It sounds good, but can
> > it possibly work?' A lot of people are like rabbits in the headlights:
> > They're terrified they're going to lose their jobs. No one dares to feel
> > that this might be the solution."
> >
> > Even so, notes Shira Perlmutter, IFPI's head of legal policy, "none of
> > our members are ruling anything out. These companies are all very open to
> > creative new ideas that would allow customers to do things they want --
> > including using file sharing technologies."
> >
> > Not everyone sees the two approaches as an either-or situation. "I love
> > Paul McGuinness' idea," says another scheduled SXSW panelist, Dina LaPolt,
> > a Los Angeles attorney who represents Mötley Crüe and the estate of
> > Tupac Shakur. "And I love the idea of trying to make ISPs pay artists
> > and make up for all the free crap that's going on. I support both,
> > so long as artists are getting paid for their work."
> >
> > Whether ISPs will be willing to ante up remains far from clear,
> > especially since many users can be expected to protest the extra
> > charge. One option would be to introduce different service tiers and
> > impose the surcharge only on customers who buy enough bandwidth to make
> > file sharing feasible. But for ISPs, other music-industry demands could
> > be far more onerous.
> >
> > In the weeks since MIDEM, antipiracy zealots have been using McGuinness's
> > speech as a rallying cry. Last month the British media reported that a
> > government white paper was about to call for legislation to force ISPs
> > to move against suspected file sharers. As it turned out, the white
> > paper merely included a vague call for "voluntary, preferably commercial
> > solutions" by April 2009.
> >
> > Just Monday, the four majors sued the largest ISP in Ireland in an
> > attempt to force it to block illicit downloads. Attorneys for Eircom
> > retorted that it was not legally obligated to monitor its network traffic.
> >
> > AT&T has been looking into content-sniffing technology that could turn it
> > into a spy agency for music labels and film studios, but most ISPs seem
> > distinctly unenthusiastic about the idea. They have good reason to be.
> >
> > Technology experts say it would be impossible to reliably inspect
> > trillions of packets for pirated material, especially if file sharing
> > networks resort to encryption mechanisms. Legal experts point out that
> > any attempt by an ISP to monitor its traffic in this way would jeopardize
> > its status as a common carrier. It could also leave the ISP open to
> > lawsuits from subscribers who get cut off without good reason. And
> > financial experts say it would cost a bundle to implement.
> >
> > But the bottom line is, it simply won't work. "Ultimately there is
> > no real hope of eradicating copyright-infringing technology," says
> > another SXSW panelist, Eric Garland, CEO of BigChampagne, which tracks
> > the popularity of music online. "You can push piracy around, discourage
> > people from doing it in this or that venue, but I don't think in even
> > the most Orwellian scenario you could reduce massive infringement in a
> > comprehensive way."
> >
> > So, which will it be: A last-gasp assault on piracy, or a truce that
> > would bring in money and benefit everyone except the lawyers?
> >
> > At this point, the music industry seems too dazed to decide -- and several
> > nights in Austin probably won't help. Though Jenner and McGuinness are
> > on opposite sides of the debate, their good cop-bad cop routine could
> > ultimately prove synergistic. Pay up, the music people are telling
> > internet providers, or we'll sic Washington on you -- and London and
> > Paris and anybody else we can find. Yahoo! Buz
> >
> >
>
|
|
