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
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
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;
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?
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)
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.
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.
Or a computer fee for Microsoft because everybody pirates their software?
Yes, this is exactly where we are going. Corporations will be our new governments; passing laws, collecting taxes, and running our lives (for their benefit). You can't vote, and you won't even be able to vote with your dollar. The marketplace will be ruled by cartels (-or industry associations, the name is your preference). It will be a sort of multi-feudalism, with many kings, each having control over a different aspect of your life. It's funny how at the extreme end capitalism and communism look quite similiar, at least in how they're implemented.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
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
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 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.
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...
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.
Imagine being a deaf Internet user.