• On mySimon: Hanky Panky thong underwear
March 29, 2008 6:00 AM PDT

Jim Griffin says ISP music tax only one possibility

Posted by Greg Sandoval
  • Font size
  • Print

The controversy over whether an internet service provider should charge for music is once again coming to a boil.

Pundits, music-industry insiders and members of the public are bashing Warner Music Group exec Jim Griffin after he acknowledged in a interview that he is working on a plan to collect music fees from consumers via their ISP bills.

I haven't seen backlash like this since rocker Trent Reznor told me in an interview two months ago that an ISP tax might be a good idea. It didn't matter to some that Reznor also made a seemingly conflicting statement in the same interview when he said perhaps music should be given away for free.

This kind of off-the-cuff musing was enough to make Reznor a target of widespread criticism. Nobody seemed to care that the leader of the band, Nine Inch Nails, was a digital-music innovator and had long called on the record industry to improve its treatment of fans. What happens is that people hear the word "tax" and objective analysis goes out the window. People condemn and vilify. Out comes the torches and pitchforks.

"It would be unfortunate if a creative and fruitful dialogue were sidetracked by a rush to judgment."
--Jim Griffin, Warner Music Group

Nearly two weeks after our Q&A appeared, Reznor disavowed his statements about the ISP tax. Griffin now appears to be tip-toeing away from some of his comments.

"We are in the earliest stages of what is a dynamic conversation about licensing opportunities in the global digital marketplace," Griffin said in a statement issued by Warner Music on Friday. "It would be unfortunate if a creative and fruitful dialogue were sidetracked by a rush to judgment about what was simply my own illustrative example of one of many concepts I have in this space."

The proposal outlined in the interview Griffin gave Portfolio.com suggested that ISP fees could create a $20 billion pool that would go to artists and copyright holders. Consumers would have the option of paying the fee or submitting themselves to advertising.

"All stakeholders stand to benefit from the kind of process that results from the willingness to consider a variety of raw concepts without prejudice," Griffin said in the e-mail.

But there's plenty of prejudice and Griffin should know this. The reality is music fans are distrustful of record companies. They resent talk about charges being quietly tucked into their monthly bills.

Griffin could have hardly done more to stoke paranoia than to attempt to sell his plan with comments such as this: "Music will feel free," Griffin told the magazine (the italics are mine).

He could be a digital-music genius for all I know. But Warner Music should have been smarter in broaching the subject of ISP fees than to allow Griffin to casually toss out ideas in print if--as he said in his e-mail--this is only one of "many concepts" the label is considering.

Warner Music now has a firestorm on its hands and few are trying to assess the idea dispassionately. That's too bad because the label, like its top three competitors; Universal Music Group, Sony BMG Music Entertainment and the EMI Group have appeared to be headed in the right direction of late. They've been experimenting with models and ideas they flat out rejected not long ago.

The labels have finally embraced open MP3s and struck deals to offer ad-supported music (albeit only in a streaming version) with social networks Imeem and Last.fm.

"There's a lot of experimentation in the marketplace right now and that's ultimately a good thing for the industry and for fans," said Mitch Bainwol, chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America. "It's important to note that all of the many ideas being floated out there involve voluntary payment systems, and not a government-imposed compulsory license. This would be the marketplace at work."

Bundling subscription fees into ISP bills on a voluntary basis may prove to be a bad idea. At this point, nothing is certain so shouldn't every proposal at least be explored?

We won't know if the public will embrace an all-you-can-eat music service from the ISPs until the music industry presents a formal plan, one that will hopefully be coolly and carefully analyzed.

Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg.
Recent posts from News Blog
NASA, Google Maps track Southern California wildfires
Sprint first to offer HTC Touch Pro
Flipping out: RIM BlackBerry Pearl Flip 8220 debuts
Sprint HTC Touch Diamond outed early
Woman to virtual ex: 'I won't be ignored!'
Swiss secret sauce to power green choppers
iLink to deliver answers to military online communities
Vonage names new CEO
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 42 comments
REALLY? - what about carpenters, architects, school teachers
by digitalshaman March 29, 2008 6:21 AM PDT
let's see, trent reznor made, what, a million dollars for providing
downloadable music? how about warner coming up with a
program to create more JOBS? that sounds like a reason to tax ...

jim griffin might consider giving a portion of the warners exec
pay package to the artists ... wait, what about if the managers
and others who do not make the music re-work their contarcts
with artists and make the fairness issue one of wealth
distribution and NOT one of taxing consumers? you know like
the baseball/nfl/nba and movie industries/entertatiners
particupate in the upside with their owners?

copyrights can be rid of tomorrow by an act of congress ... and
the artists will still play and still entertain ... NO MORE
CORPORATE WELFARE!!!

the lables & studios have successfully extended copyright terms,
enacted the DMCA, sued literally hundreds of consumers, for
what? if the artists has to make themseleves relevant to sell
music and performances, let the labels compete with other
conduits of music to justify their relevance ... we've heard this
before and never heard complaints when FREE radio caused
folks to buy albums ... and singles and cassettes and 8-tracks
and jukeboxes and compact discs and and and ...

billions spent on digital rights management scheme could have
been given to the artists ... where was that advice? millions
spent on lobbying for all of these measures could also have
been split with artists ...

all the while the music business continues to be vibrant and rich
with talent!

the "record" companies should compete like everyone else ...
and maybe they should look at how other intellectual property
can be attacked and undermined (congress is certainly not going
out of its way to "help" or "hand-out" anything to entrepreneurs
and inventors who actually create JOBS)

suggesting that every user of the internet has to pay for the
lifestyles of the rich and famous ... more pressing issues must
be addressed first ... maybe job creation should come first ...
Reply to this comment
Getting Rid of Copyrights
by markdoiron March 29, 2008 3:37 PM PDT
"... copyrights can be rid of tomorrow by an act of congress ..."

I'm not for a levy through ISPs that would got to copyright holders. But the comment about copyrights is incorrect: Since copyrights are provided for in the constitution, it would take more than an act of congress to get rid of them. However, congress does change the law about copyright, and could do something sensible, like stop requiring us to pay far beyond the time period for which copyrights were originally intended (to heck with the EU and their 70 year copyright law--tell then to not sell in the U.S. if it bothers them).

--mark d.
View all 2 replies
ISP Tax NOT
by georgiarat March 29, 2008 6:31 AM PDT
Tax the US ISP customers and then the rest of the world gets it
for free because they will not be paying a tax to RIAA I'm sure.

After that we can tax for ABC, NBC, and CNN providing news,
CNet for technology news, etc, etc. Pretty soon it will be like
the cable companies and one will raise a fee and then the next
and then real money will be involved. As the executives need
more money to pay the California taxes they will just raise the
fee another dollar per customer.

Is there any brains left in the entertainment business? I think
not.
Reply to this comment
Why should I pay for music I hate?
by prototerm March 29, 2008 7:01 AM PDT
I haven't found any new music in the last 20 years worth listening to. Only part of that is due to the music itself. The bulk of my complaint comes from the way the music industry "remasters" everything until it's positively painful to listen to. Now, granted I'm rapidly approaching the age where MP3 files sound pretty good (but *only* if they're recorded at 192 or higher), so that part of the equation isn't an issue. But this remastering has *got* to go! I'd really like to see the return of the vinyl record, believe it or not, as the technological limitations inherent in the format prohibit the kind of games producers can play with a CD or DVD.

But I certainly refuse to pay a fee each month for music I won't listen to, and programs (P2P, which IMHO are an invitation to malware ) I won't use. As a consumer, there are ways of making my displeasure felt (many of these companies sell other things than music, after all), should these companies try this nonsense, and as a resident of the Internet, I have ways of spreading that displeasure far and wide.

Finally, "all you can eat"? You can find that in any back alley in the city, too. Just look for the nearest garbage can. But hey, at least it's free, unlike this proposal.
Reply to this comment
ISP Charges
by MilSpecGuy March 29, 2008 7:13 AM PDT
I would dearly love to know how in the world the ISP's will be able to differentiate between those folk who download music and other media files, and those who do NOT! Or will everyone have to pay to support the Music Industry executives who are too lazy to try and find a way to use the Internet in a fashion that will allow only those interested in downloading the so-called 'music' Warner and others are fobbing off on the general public? If they think I will pay for some other parties to download music or video clips I have no interest in, they are sorely mistaken. Take a close look at your words, Mr. Griffin, and get yourself a plan in place to collect money for these downloads, or take a long walk off a short pier. I am NOT willing to pay to support someone else's habit of downloading music by paying a 'fee' built into my monthly bill. Why should I pay for their mistakes and mis-steps in how they have failed to plan for the reality of the Internet? And as to other 'possibilities', you all better watch your wallets , or you may be shocked to discover some new charges applied that will indirectly benefit the music industry to the detriment of others. Take a hike, and keep your phalanges out of my pocket book, Jimmy boy. Get a plan, or die, like the dinosaurs you apparently have become.
Reply to this comment
Stop EXPECTING free music, cheapskates
by mikestatic1 March 29, 2008 7:35 AM PDT
I'm no fan of the RIAA, but I do enjoy it when they take some loser to court for file sharing. It isn't about what you think is right or wrong - it is about legality. If you can't afford to buy music by your favorite artists, that is one thing... but these faux-intellectuals who base their theft on some 'moral' ground against the labels... they just want something for nothing.

Which makes them not much more than nothing themselves... sad, really.
Reply to this comment
Funny you call young girls and old women losers...
by R.Jefferson March 29, 2008 8:18 AM PDT
Sure there are college dudes who get caught, but most of the time its girls and women who upload music that get caught because they were stupid enought to put all truthful and correct personal info into kazaa or limewire for the RIAA to supoeana.
View reply
Wow, your one sick individual
by Stoked1984 March 29, 2008 1:12 PM PDT
you enjoy seeing a billion dollar industry take a 12 girl whose mother in on welfare to court for downloading a few tv show themes? its people like you that give humanity a bad name.
I don't think there is anyone who comes to CNet that expects free music
by aka_tripleB March 29, 2008 1:29 PM PDT
But I'm sure they expect not to be robbed by the RIAA and MPIA. Many people do pay for there music when they download it. If the RIAA forces ISPs to impose a tax for using the internet, then all the people who use Walmart.com, iTunes, Amazon.com, or Zune Marketplace are being robbed. You do not need to pay for anything twice. And anyone who doesn't download any music would also be robbed.

I for one will not pay twice for something I obtained legally; nor will I pay for something I don't want or got. Maybe you like people just taking your money for no reason, but I don't.
legality? as the music industry has crafted it?
by digitalshaman March 31, 2008 5:23 AM PDT
your comments are silly and extend further confusion about the
underlying issue ...

there is no mechanism to "purchase" music ... the concept of
"stealing" is not accurate since you are already getting the music
(and paying for it) at restaurants, radio, bars, TV, even the
carriers you buy don't really belong to you -- you can "use" the
music "under license" -- that goes for CD, the failed billions of
dollars of DRM formats, the ignorance and refusal to work with
MP3/focusing instead on SACD and DVD-A -- FIX THAT!!

I have not a single problem with the labels I have a problem with
how they treat artists and the REST of the market -- including
the consumer ... the faux intellectual, my friend, is staring at
you in the mirror ...
The losses aren't quantifiable
by bluemist9999 March 31, 2008 11:33 AM PDT
Definitely, if someone can't afford to pay for music, he shouldn't be downloading it for free.

However, imposing a tax on everyone who uses broadband is only fair if we have a concrete. quantifiable set of losses.

Now, I'm sure retail stores add in a "shoplifting surcharge" to cover those losses. However, those losses are concrete and easily quantifiable.

How much money does a record label really lose when someone downloads music? How many of those who will "buy" something for free would really have paid $20 for it? Or $10?

Even if we say it was $1 lost per song (iTunes model), we still don't know how many people would have paid $1 for it.

My point is we can't quantify exactly how much money has been lost, so there is no way to determine a fair, reasonable fee or tax to charge.

Historically, taxes exist to provide public services. Are digital downloads of music a public service? If so, how do we quantify the value?

I feel there are too many unanswered questions in this topic to condone any type of tax. I'm sure the RIAA has specific figures, but they are going to be more than slightly biased, and based at least partly on speculation.

I definitely believe those who provide music files for upload should be punished, but the punishment must fit the crime. Certainly, it qualifies as a felony and federal crime (copyright infringement is both), but I've no idea what should be the exact punishment.
Oh swell
by pbg3445 March 29, 2008 7:51 AM PDT
Then even if the record companies put out loser release after loser
release, awful band after untalented popstar--even if nobody buys
their ugly music--they'll still have a guaranteed revenue stream
that they don't have to do anything at all to get.
What a deal! Free money from the government! Just tell us how
much money you think you're losing, and we'll give it to you! And
we'll take it from people whether they steal music or not.
Sweet!
Reply to this comment
Thief is theif, no matter how you package it...
by MTGrizzly March 29, 2008 8:49 AM PDT
I owned a small ISP during the nineties. Our margins were razor
thin, while the start up costs were stratospheric. Adding an
additional responsibility/cost - the charging and collecting of a
"music tax" - would have killed us. And, for what? So the RIAA
could get a bag full of money that they didn't, necessarily, earn?

The RIAA needs to realize that the Internet is not the basis for all
evil. That it is not their playground to manipulate at their will.
There is no reasonable justification for a tax like this. All it
would do is make the RIAA's members rich, while increasing the
cost of Internet Access, (for some to the point it was no longer
affordable), for everyone. Do we really want to make Internet
Access so that a large portion of the population can't afford? For
the sole purpose of making the RIAA's members rich?

One of the previous posters pointed out that there isn't a lot of
new music out there that is worth buying. I agree. Every time I
go on a trip, I buy $20-30 worth of music from iTunes. Before
my most recent trip, I bought 30 songs off of ITunes. Out of the
thirty, only four were songs I hadn't already paid for in one form
or another - eight track, cassette or vinyl. The most recently
recorded song I bought was "Amish Paradise" by Weird Al
Yankovich. Of the rest, some dated back to the sixties - Jim
Croce, et cetera.

How can the recording industry claim they are being victimized
when they manage to sell music that was created in the 1960's,
(If they haven't recovered their costs of producing a song from
the '60's, then they are hopelessly incompetent and don't
deserve to be in business), three or four times to an individual
customer? This sounds like a license to steal. And they want to
tax users, on top of that? I wish I could get away with something
like that...
Reply to this comment
why not?
by Darryl Snortberry March 29, 2008 9:07 AM PDT
in our current environment we seem to like big government solving problems and making everyone happy. and we love taxes even though we are already taxed to the hilt so why not?

why don't we just go ahead and hand the keys back over to england.

if the best we can do is barack, hillary, and mccain why fight?
Reply to this comment
I hope ...
by thurston24 March 29, 2008 9:48 AM PDT
That we all throw our computers off the side of the ship. Dont forget to dress like indians.
Reply to this comment
Executives In Fantasy Land
by thenet411 March 29, 2008 10:11 AM PDT
This, once again, shows just how disconnected from reality executives are. Sad. Just sad.
Reply to this comment
There Should Be A Rap Music Tax
by Stating March 29, 2008 10:13 AM PDT
There should be a rap music tax on the RECORD COMPANIES for polluting society and glamorizing thuggery among youth. It's a plague on society.
Reply to this comment
and auto sound systems
by Lee in San Diego March 29, 2008 11:11 AM PDT
And a a tax on auto sound systems that can play above a certain decibel level :)

Well the good news in regards to the inconsiderate jerks who rattle
my my windows from 3 car lengths away is that soon they will be
totally deaf.
Stupidity Abounds
by sleeknub March 29, 2008 11:51 AM PDT
People that are freaking out about this idea are simply not
thinking. Let's think about this logically. There are currently
many subscription models available in which a person pays a
regular fee to be able to listen to any of the available tracks; no
one seems to be screaming bloody murder about those services.
Griffin's proposal is generally the same as said services with two
main differences. With his service the fee is added onto an
existing bill that you have to pay in stead of being an additional
bill and, if you want, you can bypass the fee by viewing
advertisements. Based on this evidence, people must be
whining about added convenience and choice. What idiots.
Reply to this comment
This is nothing like the subscription models
by aka_tripleB March 29, 2008 2:00 PM PDT
Those are opt-in models; if you want it, you pay, if you don't, you don't pay. Griffin's discussed model is purely "you pay." It doesn't matter if you want music, it doesn't matter if you buy the music, and it certainly doesn't matter if you subscribe to music subscriptions; you'll be taxed. You don't get anything for this tax, and there is nothing meantioned about sharing music. So even with this tax, it's still most likely that the RIAA will still sue anyone sharing music. It's just a way for the RIAA to have a constant flow of revenue, even if they stop all legal means to buy music.
nothing like subs
by wyly295 March 30, 2008 6:29 PM PDT
This is nothing like existing sub services. This would basically put all existing legitimate digital music stores out of business and the P2P sites would become the new digital stores. Thousands of people who tried to play by the rules would lose jobs and millions of dollars of investment capital, and the lawbreakers would be rewarded for playing hardball by making all of society foot the bill with a tax or levy. Real smart.
stupidity is what stupidity accuses of being stupid
by digitalshaman March 31, 2008 5:28 AM PDT
if you want subscriber services -- get an XM contract or a Sirius
contract -- oh wait -- that brilliant concept is being combined
into one big jukebox in the sky ... wait, i got an idea ... let' make
a satellite to feed any music to anyone at any time ...

HELLO this is not about having a consolidated bill, which you
incorrectly posit eliminates mistakes and empirically INCREASES
them -- whether it is a credit card statement, isp/telecom
statement, mortgage statement ...

who are you calling stupid? the consumer?

GREAT START
Tax on non-users
by budeverett March 29, 2008 12:33 PM PDT
The music industry and Griffin must have big egos to think that everybody who uses the internet listens to their music. Many people use the internet for other tings and mute their speakers to avoid hearing the annoying music and sounds from some web sites. Why should these people be forced to pay a tax for something they don't use? Why should they be bombarded by additional advertisements if they don't want to pay this tax?

Broadband internet access fees are increasing. There are many families who cannot afford to pay the ISP rates now and increasing the cost of internet access will deny even more people the benefits of going online. The government should guarantee everybody free internet access and make all these companies who profit from the internet pay for the internet.
Reply to this comment
Bad Assumption
by bassplayer78 March 29, 2008 1:00 PM PDT
This assumes that everyone on the internet with a broadband connection is pirating music. I don?t know about the rest of you but I resent that. I don?t pirate music and I don?t want to subsidize piracy committed by others. The other issue is where will this lead if it is enacted? Do software companies then get to add their own tax because broadband users could also be pirating software too? What about photographers (which I am)? Should photographers get a tax too because users can steal photos from websites that they have no rights to reproduce? Where does it stop? In the end you will have half of your broadband bill going to special interest groups. And how much of that do you think will actually get to the creators of the content instead of the overseeing group. Just ask the RIAA how much money they?ve distributed to artists from all the lawsuits against college kids and parents just scraping by. I think if you look for articles on that you?ll find that amount is $0.00.
Reply to this comment
amen!
by digitalshaman March 31, 2008 5:33 AM PDT
let's have a magna carta for the creators, the inventors, the job
creators (!) and let them work directly with the internet as a conduit
for their businesses ...

then we can see why the artist (musicians in this case) get less than
12% or so of the revenues under a contract against future royalties
... counted by, you guessed it, the label!
The Key To Success
by Tonsotunez March 29, 2008 1:18 PM PDT
I don't agree with Mr. Griffin's concept mainly because it is unfair to those who don't download music' but more importantly, because it would be virtually impossible to implement. See: "Warner Music's Tune of Folly" (http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9905661-7.html?tag=nefd.lede)for a look at the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the complexities involved that defy solution and insure that an idea like this will never fly...

That being said, for the sake of all involved in the creation of the music, there must be a way - more likely a multitude of ways - creators can get compensated in a world where consumers have come to believe they are entitled to gorge themselves on the fruits of others labors without having to pay a dime to those who harvest those fruits via their fertile minds(usually developed through extensive training and practice)and hard, hard work.. much of which never catches the public's fancy.

Entrepreneurs, technologists and others who believe that those who create the fuel that drives new technologies should be paid are spending billions to build entertainment delivery systems they hope consumers will find enticing ... and creators and their representatives are working tirelessly to come up with licensing arrangements they hope will encourage continued legal technological experimentation.

We're only 10 years out from Napster and its instant transformation of a system built on hundreds of years of laws, treaties, traditions and written agreements all of which are slowly but surely being brought into conformity with the new reality, via negotiation, the courts, political action and an ever expanding landscape of understanding and cooperation among those who truly care about music - from consumers, to creators, to the developers of the new and exciting technologies we all are embracing.

Given the complexities, it may be another 10 years before the turmoil we are currently experiencing will have settled and ALL parties concerned are pleased with the outcome. But, it will happen. Everyone working to understand each others issues will be the key to success.
Reply to this comment
Furthermore...
by Tonsotunez March 29, 2008 1:54 PM PDT
I'd like to comment on two things that always come up when these sorts of public discussions take place - as if anyone gives a rat's ass:

1. Someone always says, "The reason record companies are dieing is because of the awful music they are putting out." I always wonder, who is the god that determines what music is awful? ... Music is such a personal thing that your 'awful' could be my 'sensational.' One's perception of what constitutes great music usually has to do with memories associated with their age rather that their ability to identify any characteristics of music that might be used to identify the quality of its creation and/or presentation., Besides, if you can't find plenty of music that fits your tastes either from the majors, the indies or the DYIers in today's day and age, you have no right to make a comment on the state of today's music one way or the other as there has never been a broader and more accessible choice of music in the history of the world.

2. Then there's the, "I don't want to see those fat cats at the record companies or those bastards at the RIAA get rich ... they should all rot in hell" crowd - you know those who embrace the EFF / P2Pnet.net spew. If you are among that group, you either never want to have to pay a creator for his or her work - or you don't understand that the millions upon millions of dollars being spent by the defenders of creator's rights to establish the ground rules that will allow for fair compensation for rights owners in the digital age will apply to everyone whether they are associated with the RIAA, record labels or are a stand alone artist trying to make it on his or her own.

The most vulnerable to the assault on creator's rights, of course, are those trying to make it on their own - the people that finally have an opportunity to break through without having to depend on yesterday's middlemen. Those are the people that will never be able to financially take on the Consumer Electronics Association, the National Association of Broadcasters, Microsoft, Apple or seek support through the courts or in Washington or be able to defend their rights in any way.

The unintended consequences of destroying those with the money and the power to defend the creative community will be that our hope for tomorrow's music - those creators depending on the democracy and opportunity the Net might bring - will be the first to be screwed, followed closely by those who build new technologies and finally, and most devastatingly, the consumer.
Reply to this comment
you will know
by digitalshaman March 31, 2008 5:38 AM PDT
... when you want to pay for something ... every entrepreneur
takes risks as does every musician and every other person with a
dream ... the people with money you refer to are not interested
in letting the little guy have a shot ...

if they were the same artists they say they are protecting would
share the performance/concert revenue (alas, they do NOT)

i am in neither camp you eloquently describe -- there really are
two extremes -- but when the dot-com period was HOT they,
the music biz, had so many proposals and options it boggles the
mind how they have so thoroughly messed up the opportunities
...

if you obsevre the music scene today it is more personal more
dynamic and more fan-centric then it has been in over 3
decades ...
View reply
Holy Cow (can I say that?)
by gadzuks March 29, 2008 4:09 PM PDT
1. I don't subscribe to music on the internet.
2. I don't listen to music the internet, and lately not even on the radio.
3. I will likely never pay for music via the internet, see #2.
4. If Mr. Griffen is stating that, (or suggesting such a "great" idea), EVERYONE must pay a 'music tax' to their ISP's, does that mean me too?

5. Man, I wish I had the money to lobby like he's going to for that nifty (tax) pay increase. (hummmmmm)

I am all for free enterprise and to the hard working go the spoils.
However, I do think artists should work, heck the rest of us do up until the ripe old age of 70+.
Some even hand over their hard earned money to purchase a cd, (overpriced) concert tickets or online rights to download music. I'm certainly not saying starve the artists, or the big business that drives them, but fella come on.. Laugh!!
Reply to this comment
Let's tax everything digital.
by FlutterBly March 29, 2008 4:20 PM PDT
Why stop at music. Let's tax for movies, video games, computer programs, and whatever else we can think of. Then everything will be free. <.<
Reply to this comment
!00% distraction
by perfectblue97 March 30, 2008 4:41 AM PDT
This is a 100% distraction from the two real issues.

Firstly why do people pirate music? It's largely because they don't value it as a product because its often generic, derivative and expensive. If consumers thought that they were getting value for money from legal services then they wouldn't download so much.

Secondly, the costs should be recovered from the pirates AFTER they have committed the offense, not from innocent net users who might not even be downloading music in the first place. Record companies and ISPs should track and sue illegal file shares if and when they are found.

All these measures will do will be to lower consumer confidence in the record companies even more and make them even less likely to value music enough to buy it.
Reply to this comment
Hidden agenda
by JadedGamer March 31, 2008 2:47 AM PDT
The Big Four's real agenda is to kill off independent publishers, and this is perfect for that.

1) ISP tells user about the tax and that it allows free downloading of music.
2) User promptly downloads the latest album from some struggling independent artist
3) RIAA company gets tax and gives money to Amy Drughouse.
4) Independent artist quits the business and gets a paying job.

It fits well with the existing practice of buying store shelf space and mass-marketing of the boob racks called "artists"...
Reply to this comment
 See all 42 Comments >>
advertisement

In the news now

Slowing expectations at a green-tech start-up

Six months ago, biofuels start-up Mascoma had the wind in its sails, as did the rest of the clean-tech sector. Now, the company is treading carefully and scaling back.


With JavaFX, Sun seeks new coders, new revenue

With the launch of JavaFX 1.0, Sun is trying to reclaim Java's strength as a foundation for rich Internet applications. But it's no longer the incumbent.


Tim Lincecum, motion capture star

San Francisco Giants pitcher, who won the Cy Young award last month, dons a motion capture suit for 2K Sports' Major League Baseball 2K9 video game.


About News Blog

Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader

News Blog topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right