Jim Griffin says ISP music tax only one possibility
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.
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.
- Topics:
-
Media
- Tags:
-
Jim Griffin,
-
Warner Music Group,
-
Trent Reznor,
-
ISP tax
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us



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 ...
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.
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.
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.
Which makes them not much more than nothing themselves... sad, really.
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.
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 ...
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.
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!
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...
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 ...
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!!
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.
- 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.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 42 Comments >>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"...