4 ms·

The Music Tax: Details Of The Plan They Don’t Want You To Know

10 points by paulsb 19y ago

fallentimes 19y ago
The big-label music industry is truly unbelievable. Just when you think their bad ideas can't be topped, they come up with this. They need to take a cue from what the Nine Inch Nails did (and the success they witnessed) with the release Ghosts I-IV: http://tinyurl.com/2u9wzk http://tinyurl.com/2u9wzk
noonespecial 19y ago
Is it just me or is every one else as tired of stories about the RIAA and "big music" as I am? They've now become (and have been) completely irrelevant to me. I don't like/buy/care about their product. The threat of a lawsuit even though I don't download music has faded into the background threat matrix of my life like an unfair IRS audit or eminent domain taking my house. IF they do succeed in this tax, its just one more tax by a quasi-government agency for stuff I don't use, for people I don't know. There's already 5 others just like it on my Sprint bill as it is now. They're gonna do what they're gonna do and I have little influence in any of it. Unjust? Probably but I have more pressing things to worry about. I know there are likely some people in this group who care deeply about fighting the injustice behind this, but I for one would rather RIAA nonsense be left to the Diggs and Slashdots of the world and focus on startups and hacking with this group.
- dbreunig 19y ago
  First off, this affects us. This proposed tax is voluntary for ISPs, not consumers. The ISPs are paying this money as protection to the RIAA, so they won't sue. This fee is then handed down to the ever growing list of fees to subscribers. This additional charge for bandwidth and the implications for music-based start-ups is very real and relevant. That being said, I too am tired of the RIAA. So, apparently, are their artists: http://consumerist.com/368663/riaa-pockets-filesharing-settlement-money-doesnt-pay-artists-whose-copyrights-were-infringed http://consumerist.com/368663/riaa-pockets-filesharing-settl...
- mechanical_fish 19y ago
  Perhaps you should ask Shawn Fanning, or the inventors of ReplayTV, or the Youtube folks why someone who cares about "startups and hacking" might want to pay very, very close attention to the evolving strategic and legal positions of the music and movie industries.
wmf 19y ago
Didn't the DMCA already exempt ISPs from liability? The music tax could be a double whammy for ISPs, because not only would they have to pay the tax but their bandwidth costs would likely increase due to increased usage of P2P.
dejb 19y ago
If the money actually went to the artists I'd be happy to pay a $5 a month tax. But somehow I don't think this is how that scheme would work out.

10 points by paulsb 19y ago

The big-label music industry is truly unbelievable. Just when you think their bad ideas can't be topped, they come up with this. They need to take a cue from what the Nine Inch Nails did (and the success they witnessed) with the release Ghosts I-IV: http://tinyurl.com/2u9wzk http://tinyurl.com/2u9wzk

noonespecial 19y ago

Is it just me or is every one else as tired of stories about the RIAA and "big music" as I am? They've now become (and have been) completely irrelevant to me. I don't like/buy/care about their product. The threat of a lawsuit even though I don't download music has faded into the background threat matrix of my life like an unfair IRS audit or eminent domain taking my house. IF they do succeed in this tax, its just one more tax by a quasi-government agency for stuff I don't use, for people I don't know. There's already 5 others just like it on my Sprint bill as it is now. They're gonna do what they're gonna do and I have little influence in any of it. Unjust? Probably but I have more pressing things to worry about. I know there are likely some people in this group who care deeply about fighting the injustice behind this, but I for one would rather RIAA nonsense be left to the Diggs and Slashdots of the world and focus on startups and hacking with this group.

dbreunig 19y ago
First off, this affects us. This proposed tax is voluntary for ISPs, not consumers. The ISPs are paying this money as protection to the RIAA, so they won't sue. This fee is then handed down to the ever growing list of fees to subscribers. This additional charge for bandwidth and the implications for music-based start-ups is very real and relevant. That being said, I too am tired of the RIAA. So, apparently, are their artists: http://consumerist.com/368663/riaa-pockets-filesharing-settlement-money-doesnt-pay-artists-whose-copyrights-were-infringed http://consumerist.com/368663/riaa-pockets-filesharing-settl...
mechanical_fish 19y ago
Perhaps you should ask Shawn Fanning, or the inventors of ReplayTV, or the Youtube folks why someone who cares about "startups and hacking" might want to pay very, very close attention to the evolving strategic and legal positions of the music and movie industries.

wmf 19y ago

Didn't the DMCA already exempt ISPs from liability? The music tax could be a double whammy for ISPs, because not only would they have to pay the tax but their bandwidth costs would likely increase due to increased usage of P2P.

dejb 19y ago

If the money actually went to the artists I'd be happy to pay a $5 a month tax. But somehow I don't think this is how that scheme would work out.