Slashdot Mirror
$5 Per Month Fee Proposed For Legal Music P2P
sneakyimp writes "Both Wired and Ars Technica have reports on Jim Griffin's proposal that ISPs charge each broadband customer $5 per month to subsidize the ailing music industry. The resulting fund would ostensibly 'compensate songwriters, performers, publishers and music labels.'
Although no specific version of the proposal has been referenced, a number of controversies are inherent to the plan: How is the money really divided? What happens when the MPAA, the Business Software Alliance, and various other industry groups want their own surcharge added? What about the supposed majority of broadband customers who never download illegal music? Griffin discussed the plan further at SXSW . We've previously discussed a similar proposal from the Songwriters Association of Canada.
They'll never be able to match free. This actually seems like a modern, cost effective and fair distribution model to me. Out of curiosity, what about it doesn't meet that criteria?
I know that not all downloading is illegal. "Illegal downloaders" doesn't assume that - it's like for example saying "Christian parents", referring to a subset of parents, not saying that all parents are Christians.
Inconvenience, mislaying your property, having a plot spoiled... would you consider these rational reasons for theft in the real world? In a case where the copyright owner won't ever make their product available for purchase, maybe you have a case. But the others just don't wash for me, I'm afraid. "I'm sorry for stealing the iPod, your honour, but I've lost mine so I thought it would be okay..." And yes, I know, downloading a file doesn't deprive a retailer/owner of a physical object. But it still deprives them of the revenue that object represents. More importantly, it allows crappy legislation like this proposal to seem legitimate, which in my view is the worst crime of the illegal uploaders/downloaders.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.