Slashdot Mirror
Rosen Floats ISP Fee Idea -- Charge Everybody!
iconian writes "Hillary Rosen of RIAA wants to impose a type of fee to ISPs which in turn will be passed to all their customers indiscriminately to recoup supposed damages done by file-sharing. The RIAA considers downloading music illegally over the Internet to be the moral equivalence of stealing. I wonder then what is the moral equivalence of the RIAA taking realized cash from people who do not download music?"
I don't understand why the RIAA thinks they can get away with this kind of thing and NOT have more consumer-backlash! All of these different things the RIAA is doing (flooding networks with bad files, installing "worms" into servers, etc) is just making me less likely to purchase anything from the RIAA.
Ah yes, the "Tax everybody for the crimes of the minority" scheme. you just have to love the busted logic. Where's the love, indeed? Joe over there was speeding so you get a ticket too! I see...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Did you know that in many countries taxes are levied on CD writers and CDR discs because of piracy?
But, put that aside, one can argue this Piracy Tax with logic.
If the RIAA wants to impose a levy on ISPs because of possible file sharing, then shouldn't software companies be allowed to impose a similar levy? And if the RIAA can impose it, what about indie labels? Their music gets stolen too. What about artists who put their graphics online? What about font designers whose fonts get ripped off on alt.binaries.fonts? Surely they should all get a cut?
Logic shows this whole idea is stupid. But will logic be enough to stop the courts? I doubt it. Aristotle said 'The law is reason from my passion'. Not in 2002 it ain't.
mogorific carpentry experiments
I would like to claim damages from the RIAA for CDs that I've bought which had only one good song. $20 for 'Hit A' and 55 minutes of 'filler'?
Maybe the weather reporters from the news should charge the internet for giving it out for free too.... just a though.
What aobut all that free pr0n? I think Playboy has a case too.
And don't forget about the Postal Service!
Tell you what. I'll give the RIAA and MPAA each five dollars a year if they'll simply stop trying to sue and get file sharing banned or whatever they're doing. Anyone else find it funny that a corporation is trying desperately to tax us? Corporations can't tax! Interest groups can't tak! Only the government can tax.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
This is about as bright as the already in-effect tax on writeable media. It goes to the RIAA et al to reimburse them for piracy. So we pay for piracy and still can't do it.
Just when you thought that the corporate-owned government couldn't screw us in a more blatant, shameless and imaginative way, along comes Hillary...
My
Limekiller
You call us criminals, and you impose a tax on me for buying CD-Rs (that I use to backup my home directory on), and you flood our p2p networks with garbage and dDoS attacks to make it difficult to use them for even legitimate purposes, and then you throw all kinds of legislation to congress and all kinds of pressure to tech companies to make fair, legal things I do with my computer illegal, because "I might" do something "bad" (i.e., not in the interest of keeping your pocketbooks full) at some point in the future. And now, you want to charge me even more?
Hilary Rosen, congratulations. You will no doubt be the first against the wall. I sincerely and wholeheartedly extend this "Fuck you" into your general direction.
If this goes through it sounds like dictators are running the show. Yes, it is that bad. What will be next? A special fee for everyone because Ashcroft doesn't think the Americans give enough at church? Or a computer fee for Microsoft because everybody pirates their software? How about a fee for every computer to pay off the software companies?
The RIAA needs to be killed off, it is bad for the people. It is no longer about music, not even in the least. Those of you who are allowed to vote in the states, make sure you vote for people who don't support the RIAA...
They're planning on charging the ISPs and telecom companies for giving us access to file sharing networks. So instead of money changing hands (since internet access prices are already pretty bloated and they won't want to pass on additional costs to the customer at risk of losing business), the ISPs will probably just start port blocking and not pay the RIAA. The RIAA can't charge them retroactively. What never makes sense to me is that whenever these charges come up, shouldn't it give us a guilt-free pass to pirate music since we're now officially paying for it?
They're going to milk this whole "sales going to be down 6%" junk for all it's worth. I bet we'll see it in every related article until 2004.
I'm not sure if this post will end up funny, insightful, informative, or interesting, but here goes anyway.
1) The name Hillary has serious connotations to it. I immediately think of annoying, overzealous, stuck-up bitches like Ms. Clinton and Ms. Rosen.
2) Every CD-R disc that you buy is taxed and portions of the money you pay are given to the RIAA and similar organizations. So don't tax my Internet bill as well, and don't take my portable MP3 player either. Some of us actually use our own bought music to listen to.
3) With every new inane law or result of a lawsuit that I hear, I get one step closer to leaving the United States. It's becoming a bloody corporate rape scene here in the States and I for one am just about at the end of my rope.
4) Corporations should not control the government. We need to run the country, it's supposed to be our government. Let's let the citizens reign free and make America the best country it's ever been but without excessive taxation for wanting to listen to music or chat on the Intranet.
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
And consumer backlash about bad files, worms, etc? P2P is mainstream. Knowledge of what the **AAs are doing is not mainstream. I got some no-RIAA and no-MPAA stickers from ThinkGeek awhile back. Every single one of my friends (who all use P2P programs) had to ask what those 2 organizations stood for. Very few people who use P2P know about the **AAs and what they're doing, so how can they be pissed about it?
live(free) || die;
You, sir, are either a troll or a moron. When you pay taxes to the government, it's because you use their services. I buy maybe 3 CDs per year. Not because I am a pirate, but because I don't like anything that I can buy. Now why should I, a broadband customer and legal owner of my entire playlist, be forced to pay for a service just because I happen to have an internet connection?
Fuck that.
"The image is a dream. The beauty is real. Can you see the difference?" -- Richard Bach, Illusions
It's not about money, but pressuring ISPs to disconnect users or block sites. It's a logical extension of their letter writing campaigns to schools, which were mostly successful at scaring universities into blocking/punishing. Schools are ISPs of a sort, after all.
Not able to get music?? Did music not exist before the RIAA? Did it not exist before Tin Pan Alley, and Casey Casum's top 40 lists?
Brother, I think the question is, where has the music GONE?
There was a time when an artist expected to get paid for his performances of music, and there were many artists, and most of them played regionally. Some of them made a living, most of them didn't. The ones that didn't just enjoyed playing.
Well, these days, some artists make a living, and most of them don't. They tour internationally and expect to get paid for their performances. The only difference now is that the industry (not the artists) take such a large cut, that for an artist to hope for a profit, he must sell in the millions or be worthless.
Where has the music gone? It has gone from being of the people and by the people to being cut up and served from a few mega-stars to the masses who will never have any personal connection to the music they listen to.
In my opinion, therefore, they death of the RIAA *would* be the end of the music world as we know it, and I feel fine. Bring on the new and creative talent!
-- If it ain't broke - overclock it more.
I always learn about artists from friends, fan websites, and recommendations on Amazon.com, none of which are funded by the RIAA. Sure, if you only buy the latest pop crap, you might be influenced by RIAA advertising, but a lot of us on here listen to music that the RIAA doesn't bother advertising. I feel no moral compunction to pay extra for the RIAA to advertise Britney Spears crap that I don't listen to.
As for the markup, what would you argue? That people should pay the RIAA markup on CD-Rs and then pay again for the CDs at full cost, a price which is illegally fixed at an artificially high level as has been proven in a recent court case? You really think there's something wrong with downloading music for free when you already paid for it by purchasing blank CD-Rs which you need to backup your software?
... and you're charged every time you buy a blank CD, audio cassette or mini-disc.
21 cents per blank cd, 29 cents per audio cassette, and 77 cents per minidisc.
And the Recording industry wants it increased (a 181% increase for CDs), and wants it added to additional media (flash memory cards and DVDs) as well as to MP3 players.
Ironically, none of the money has been paid out to any artists.
1) It's legal to have an mp3 if you've paid for the music
2) CDs are used for things other than music
3) Flash memory cards are used in dozens of things; I have a digital camera that uses them.
The last time the levy was raised (Jan, 2001 I believe) I wrote letters to various Members of Parliment hoping to get it shut down.
This time, even the retailers are getting involved.
The music industry is a dinosaur. I believe artists should be paid for their work, but the cost of a CD is ridiculous; that money is disappearing into music executives pockets; the artist gets next to nothing. I would pay 30 cents per MP3 to download. No shipping, no retail costs, no packaging. That should be fair.
So where's our say when these fees are levied? When quasi-governmental agencies lobby for (buy) special laws favorable to them? Is there a price sheet somewhere? They won't be happy until this is officially the US of *AA, and everyone has to bow humbly to their Imperial majesties in Hollywood.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
This is only true if you are only interested in mainstream acts (and even then, it doesn't need to be true). None of the music I listen to has anything to do with the RIAA. In fact, I don't think I've listened to an act on an RIAA-backed label in years. I don't need the RIAA to tell me what to listen to; especially considering that they and their lackey labels are complete morons and wouldn't know interesting and artistic music if it came up and bit them on the ass.
Ultimately, that's what the RIAA cares about much more than people copying CDs. They've enjoyed decades of dictating what people get to listen to. Now, their uselessness is becoming clear. There are plenty of ways to find music that you like (All Music, Ptichfork, mp3.com, etc.) and you don't need the RIAA for any of them. In fact, you just might find that your musical interests are invigorated by getting away from all that mind-numbing, mainstream crack.
The internet, and particularly p2p, has irrevocably changed the way I listened to music and exponentially expanded my musical options. If the establishment wants to brand me a criminal for that, so be it. Just look out, cuz once I'm already a criminal, who knows what I might do. ;o)
One solution we never hear from Government or the RIAA et al. is dissolution of these corporate bodies.
Business are not meant to last an eternity. If your business model is going the way of the dodo because of technological change, etc. then you should act like all other businesses and disolve. The RIAA et al. keep on putting on a charade to Congress about the death of industry but that is not what is happening. The game is up for the RIAA et al. and instead of walking out they decide to tax us for their own personal benefit while those monies could go to something more useful for us or the U.S.A.
I think Congress should say to the RIAA like they said to United Airlines: deal with it and don't expect a bailout from us.
I agree. I've had a DSL line for nearly four years and have never downloaded or shared pirated music. If I'm going to be charged an "RIAA Tax", you can damned well bet I'm going to change that! I own more than 600 records, tapes(DAT), and CD's (mostly classical, folk, and various forms of electronica), and I'll rip and host them all just to spite the bastards. What are they going to do, sue me? I've got the means to take them to court and fight it, and it shouldn't be too hard to make the argument that the activity should be allowable since "I'm paying for it anyway".
:-)
The RIAA could be shooting themselves in the foot with this one
There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
It's not being charged a fee to get into the club. It's being charged an extra fee to take a taxi to the club because you might slip in the backdoor and avoid the cover. More than that - it's a tax on cab fare, because of all the people going to clubs! It's not a fee that you can avoid by not downloading music - it's a flat fee that everyone will pay, just like the tax of blank tapes and audio CDs.
i agree with you... it's like saying "grocery prices are outrageous... to show my malcontent i'll go rob a grocery store". the legal way to show malcontent is to not purchase the product. if enough ppl do this, things change.
however, i don't think that'll work in this case. if, say, 25% of American music lovers stopped buying CDs published by companies in bed with the RIAA and everyone stopped pirating music... it is my guess the RIAA would still blame bad sales on piracy. it's an easy excuse that execs can use instead of sticking their necks out and going "maybe things need to change."
file swapping will continue to be the RIAA's excuse because it's easier than the truth.
This is exactly the way it works in Canada. We pay a levee on all blank media which is handed over to the music industry, but it's completely legal for us to make copies of music for personal use. Personal use includes a hell of a lot of things, including making copies of CDs for friends. I"m not sure, but it may even include making copies available online for all our friends.
If you've ever bought a blank "music" cd or a blank cassette, you've paid. This bothers me a bit, though -- anyone who downloads music is considered a thief (by RIAA), but they charge everyone who uses cdrs and tapes, regardless of what we use them for. It seems a bit to me like they're stealing from me.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
Personally, I'd like to see artists paid out of some sort of slush fund for data tranfers.
You'd have something like the nielsens, which would figure out what people were downloading (by sniffing random packets or whatever - I'm sure the slashdot crowd can come up with a method that would work) and then reimburse whoever owned the copyright to a particular work preportionally out of the general fund.
The PROBLEM is that groups like the RIAA would see to it that the rules were stacked in their favor, so that they got all this money.
Does anyone know how much of the casette surcharge goes to artists? To artists who are not actually affiliated with the RIAA? I can't find an exact figure, but it's not frigging much!
I'd like to see a direct compensation scheme of the good sort in place, since it would allow people to make a living providing culture (which is good) and maximise the VALUE of that culture to society (since anyone could have as much culture as they wanted for a flat rate.)
Unfortunately, the blood suckers at the RIAA have both the power and position to suck such a scheme dry of blood.
While I was looking for a specific breakdown of how the 2%/$2 surcharge on blank CDs/CD burners is disbursed (I can't find it) I did find this interesting article which is worth a read.
The author has very much my take on the economics of the affair, although I disagree that piracy is "basically wrong."
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
it's like saying "grocery prices are outrageous... to show my malcontent i'll go rob a grocery store". the legal way to show malcontent is to not purchase the product. if enough ppl do this, things change.
Brilliant example. If grocery prices were being artificially jacked up by a marketing cartel, farmers were being paid shit wages, and there was a 'tax' on gardening tools and fertiliser that went to the same cartel to cover loss of profits due to home gardening. even if you were only using the tools and fertiliser to grow roses and not vegetables. That's about where we're at.
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
Rationalizing theft? If this happens, people will be forced to pay their ISPs to pay the RIAA for music they may or may not download. You're paying for the "crime" anyway, you might as well get to commit it. It's not rationalizing, it's getting your money's worth for your ISP bill.
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
> And the money still doesn't go to the artists....
Sure it does.
That money is going directly to the people the artists are allowing to represent them.
Its the artists fault for choosing thieving scum to represent them in the first place. If the artists would stop doing this, the whole situation would get better.
Let me comment on how I see this (if you don't like my view don't take offense to mine..share your own).
One thing that I find to be a common truth. Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.
1. Let every see that they are paying $xx for sharing music and they will react as if it is a license to download, not as paying retrabution.
(Result: more downloading, not less)
2. "Tell you what. I'll give the RIAA and MPAA each five dollars a year if they'll simply stop trying to sue and get file sharing banned or whatever they're doing." by Renraku (518261)
- Any before you know it they will say $5 is not enough, it must be $10. There is another word for this...extortion. Don't give the RIAA/MPAA any ideas...they will become the "Jesse Jackson" of the music industry.
(Result: The attitude "Fuck the industry, I'll just download it.")
3. "My mother, a standard consumer with nearly no knowledge of how to go about pirating music or burning CDs, pointed out something very simple to me. She said that the price of CDs was the big problem, not the economy so much, and not piracy.
She pointed out how when Wal-Mart or K-Mart or Target have sales on CDs where the price drops quite low, say $10/CD, they sell out of the popular CDs. She also pointed out that in order for everyone to get paid reasonably, the cost to produce a CD would be about $5." by bildstorm (129924)
Your mother has just pointed out a basic fundimental of economics(and marketing). If it costs $5 to make a cd...I sell for $10 and you sell for $15 not only do I sell out, but many people will buy two because the cost only ends up being $20. (To prove this theory just go to Best Buy on Sunday.)
Result: Selling more cds
Food for thought: Do stores make more or less during sales?
Spelling and grammer errors should be ignored..unfortunately my secretary won't type my Slashdot posts for me.
I support my favorite artists by going to their concerts and buying their non-mainstream CDs out of the trunks of their cars. They mark it up from the 20 cents or so they pay for CDRs to $10, and this way I know for a fact they are getting that well deserved $9.80. The absolute SHIT that the RIAA is pushing is not going to get a dime out of me, and tracks I do download are usually 20 years old from artists I at one time bought the CDs from (not personally, but from the store back when the music industry was less evil). Thing is, a lot of those artists that are putting out shit are only doing it because the record companies are forcing them to become pop dreck. When is the last time a Fleetwood Mac or a Pink Floyd quality gig came on the scene? Somehow I doubt that musical talent has diminished that much, I think the re-packaging is the real downfall of the industry.
- The word is a virus.
- i don't go brick and mortar shopping very often, but the wife unit dragged me out to the local Target today...
- as i was side-swiping a spawner with two demons from hell with my shopping cart, i peeked at prices of DVD movies and audio CDs...
THE DVDs WERE CHEAPER THAN THE AUDIO CDs!!!
- looks like the movie industry is headed in the right direction, but i thought it was more expensive/harder to rip DVDs than audio?
- btw, Jack 'Bone a Bimbo' Valenti and Hilary 'Miss Piggy' Rosen can kiss my ass regarding their whining about market downturns... those two turds are still sucking up Surf and Turf at high-end restaurants, while my version of Surf and Turf is fish sticks and hot dogs...
- i buy my music CDs (jazz, such as the Rippingtons) and DVDs (such as the entire series of The Prisoner) because i'll listen and watch over and over again...
I agree with you -- but just one question. Is the blank CD tax a law? When did it pass? How? I would be concerned that this one can follow the same path.
What I would want with the $XX tax the ISP pays is the implied license to download as much as I want, and whatever I want. The same way when I pay a tax on blank tapes and music CD-R's. The piracy tax is already applied, so my "illicit" downloads have been paid for as long as I affix them to that medium.
If I give them compensation then I obviously expect something in return.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
The music industry is in a tailspin with global sales of CDs expected to fall six percent in 2003, its fourth consecutive annual decline. A major culprit, industry watchers say, is online piracy.
And all this time, I thought it was because that most of the music that is pumped into the market these days sucked. What was I thinking? I mean, when you think about it, it couldn't be the product that's the problem! That's simply not possible!
Rationalizing theft. I probably won't win anyone over by arguing about that, so I won't bother.
A fail to see why it's theft to do what I've paid to do. If I pay admission to a theme park, it's not theft when I get on the rides. If I pay for cable, it's not theft if I watch it. So, if I pay for downloading mp3s...
By the same token, it IS theft if the theme park charges me admission and then won't let me ride, and it IS theft if the cable company charges me for cable and then won't give me a signal. So if the RIAA charges me to download mp3s and then tries to stop me...
I wish i had a nickel,for every 8-track tape that was eaten within a week of purchase,when i can finally download and listen to those old songs,they cry,but can i get a refund on my old 8-tracks?I dont think so.
Per chance, does anyone know of any movements out there to have the major record lables indicted under federal RICO statutes?
Their current business model pretty much rests on bribery, extortion, fraud, theft, computer network tampering, price gouging, and price fixing.
If there is no such movement, perhaps we need someone to organize a website where we can weigh in on this. Instead of debating the theoretical and philosophical aspects of the issues, let's start going on the offensive. Let's begin exposing the RIAA for what it is. Letter and email writing to congresscritters and media types would be a good beginning. If a single major media outlet were to give coverage to the necessary topics, it would be a great boost to the cause. For once in the 20 years of corrupt business practices within the major media companies, let's put them on the defensive and make them justify their own theft.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
That's about where we're at.
That's right, and it's also why this is such an incredibly stupid idea. The biggest reason it's so stupid is that it a) penalizes people that have nothing to do with piracy, and b) creates a revenue stream that is based on nothing but speculation- it completely distorts important issues like market demand. If this is going to be the new game in town, then why don't banks ask for an special tax on cars, since they're often used as a means to escape after a robbery. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
And furthermore, I'll be pissed if I have to pay the music industry a "cover charge" to get into their "internet night club" when all I want broadband for is to download the latest redhat or slackware or the latest tarballs.
Do nightclubs offer timely news from Slashdot, online newspapers, journals, tech sites, eh? No.
If I'm visiting the bookstore next to your night club, are you going to have your punk @ss bouncers demand money of me? Does your night club own the whole damn block? Even if pirated music is like alcohol in a club, who says the whole internet belongs to the RIAA's "night club?" That's a pretty narrow point of view, as if the only worth of the internet is to distribute Hollywood and RIAA "content."
Imagine being a deaf Internet user.
Pirated CDs travel on roads too. Oh, and by boat. Trains too. Maybe we should impose a gas tax while we're at it. They should set up toll boths on the interstates!
You reap what you sow, and as long as those bastards resort to petty acts of cyber terrorism to keep their customers in line, they'll continue to be boycotted by me and hundreds of other like-minded individuals, and through association, any ISP adopting this "RIAA Tax" will be boycotted as well.
It's a sorry reflection on the legal system today that such criminals can hide behind the laws whenever they're being hurt. D:
It's been a long time.
I wonder if anyone could explain this to me: what exactly makes record industry so special that they don't have to care about laws of commerce? I have understood that in any other industry, if sales go down you have to
a) Lower prices (by cutting costs etc.)
b) Produce higher quality ("better music" or more other value to the customer)
Now it seems that record industry is doing neither. Instead they try to get money even from those who don't consume their products (to which there are great comments in this thread).
Sure there are people who think "why should I pay when I get it for free?", but we are talking about the whole world of music consumers here. If a CD (yes, a CD, I am not going to buy a single copy protected audio record: they are crippled and don't work) would cost 10 euros (today new records cost around 20 euros here) I'd have a much less harder time to buy them (financially and psychologically). And I sincerely believe that I would buy more music than now and spend MORE MONEY. I can't see why others wouldn't too.