Slashdot Mirror
Warner Music Pushing Music Tax For Universities
An anonymous reader writes "Warner Music is pitching the idea of a 'music tax' for various top universities. The idea is that students would be free to file share, but the university needs to monitor and track everything, create a pool of money, hand it over to a recording industry entity that promises to distribute the proceeds fairly. In exchange, the university gets a 'covenant not to sue' from the music labels. It's not a full license, just a basic promise that they won't sue. It's also claimed that this is 'voluntary' but the Warner Music guy says that they need to include all universities and all ISPs to really make it work. It's basically a music tax, where the recording industry gets to sit back and collect money."
I'll allow it only if I can sign up as an indie artists and get some of the money, too.
(read: this is ludicrous and will never happen)
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Ya see...ya just pay us a little somethin' each week and nothin' bad'll happen to ya. It's extortion and I imagine lots of universities will sign up in hopes they won't get sued. And they won't, as long as they pay the yearly protection money. The worst part is that even after the music business finally goes out of business from their horrific management, these protection scams will remain viable assets for legal firms to purchase and manage.
What they are afraid of is the growing momentum against the RIAA at the university administration level. This is a weak and desperate attempt, a grasping at far away sticks by an arm who's body is quickly sinking below the quick sand surface.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I would be willing to pay a monthly "download insurance" fee in exchange for immunity from prosecution for downloading to my heart's content. Music, Movies, Games, Software, set up a separate fund for each and let folks opt-in.
Seriously. They know this isn't going to fly. The Universities and ISPs know it's not going to fly. This whole ridiculous thing looks an awful lot like the sort of gesture you see followed by 'we tried to play nice, but...'
the universities lawyers fight the labels hard and keep draining them of money. At the same time, the indie world needs to create easier access to BOUGHT AND PAID FOR music. IOW, make it possible for the artists to make more money by getting rid of the blood and money sucking labels.
Just thinking about, I can not see much difference between the labels or the detroit 3. All have had greedy management that is worthless.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It's real simple. The RIAA can see that it will soon be common place for Law Students to fight for the victims of the music industry's suits. They are looking to replace that lucrative revenue stream.
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
As a career college student, I've seen many new fees introduced over the years that simply weren't there before. The curriculum hasn't changed enough to warrant the fees. If the price is right, I bet lots of universities would be more than happy to pass the fee along to students with a nice helping of obfuscation.
Umm, so the record industry doesn't actually make it legal for the students to share the music, they just require their cut and they promise not to sue.
I hope someone more qualified than myself takes this up because they are trying to extort money from the universities in what appears to me to be a very literal definition of the term.
I actually don't think that this general idea is the stupidest idea in the world. It would be much more reflective of the way music is produced and distributed now for there to be a more generalised licensing system, rather than a pay-per-track/album system like we have now.
However, the obvious problems with this proposal are:
- why should the RIAA get to operate the scheme?
- who decides which artists are able (or have) to participate?
- why should the RIAA set the price (and not, say, the market)?
It's extremely unfashionable, but setting up social systems where the rights and interests of some are protected in a way which adequately protects the rights and interests of the whole is basically the whole point of government...
Read Pynchon.
What happens to the file-swapper after they graduate? Their identity is compromised, their activities documented, and they would be ripe for a lawsuit after graduation, no?
Why not allow service providers to perform this service and actually grant a license? I have unfettered access to ruckus.com through my university e-mail, and that works just fine more me.
Lucky there isn't a camera tax. I use my camera all the time in libraries making "illegal" copies of pages of books. Of course, it's not illegal is it... it's fair use. But I bet if the RIAA were representing books they'd want a camera tax as well. And why isn't there a pen/pencil tax? I can sit in a library and write down, verbatim, the text from a book.
"Nice university you got there. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it."
I have to say this sounds a lot to me like a person who is very frugal going out to dinner with a bunch of other people who order extravagant food options and then having someone want to split the bill at the end.
I mostly don't listen to music. $2 to $10 per month is $25-$125/yr or $100-$500 over the course of a four year college. That's about $90 to $490 more than I would have paid if buying a la carte every piece of music I wanted to buy. That's money I could have spent on things that matter to me.
Will you be as excited about anteing up $2 to $10 per month to cover some routine cost that I pay for and that bores you to tears, just to bring my price down?
To employ a musical reference, does the phrase "tyrrany of the majority" ring any bells?
Tell me why it isn't just fair that people should pay for what they use?
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Yeah, this conflation of 'criminal theft' with 'copyright infringement' has been fostered by all those stupid ads the industry has been putting out like 'you wouldn't steal a car and piracy is the exact same thing!'
Why on God's green Earth would you want to be complicit with this nonsense that's going to create more work for you with no additional pay? Why on Earth would any university condone the use of university personnel, facilities, etc. to do the work of someone else for free? This is extortion and racketeering, almost by definition folks. The RIAA can blow it out their ear. I'd rather they tried to sue and then get hit for malicious and wrongful prosecution than deal with this utterly ridiculous racket.
I'm sorry, I'm someone who loves music, makes music, and last year recorded an independent album that the RIAA can suck on for all I care. We don't need them nor the crappy music they push at us on a daily basis, nor the ridiculous racket of enforcement they are trying to dupe us into believing is their right. It's not and if you believe it is you better educate yourself before you get on the wrong side of a very messy battle that's just beginning to start. I believe in the rights of artists as individuals, not in the rights of unions, guilds, corporations or other corrupt bureaucracies that have only their own self interests in mind.
Don't be that guy/girl! Tell them to shove it and see them in court! The whole point of being "independent" is you are not at the mercy of the RIAA nor any label. You don't need them! WAKE UP!
I work at UMass Amherst and I'm trying to get this implemented
Why exactly are you trying to get this implemented? Somebody told you it was good? Got a phone call from the mafia? Clueless? It will look good on your resume?
Your post is modded informative, but there is nothing informative about it except that you're trying to get it implemented. I don't know what position you hold at UMAss, but this kind of blind following is exactly what the RIAA hopes. Do they not teach critical thinking at UMass anymore? Are you tenured or a guy/girl with an administrative job. If you are a guy/girl with an administrative job then I really think you should do some research and gain an informed opinion. If you're a tenured prof/scientist/researcher or whatever, then you should know better.
I am only asking because I'd really like to know what motivates you trying to comply with the RIAA extortion.
How would you like it if you were a musician, and I started bootlegging every single last piece of merchandise that you every produced and gave it away for free or at just cost? Your t-shirts, your stickers, your cds, everything. Oh, and I stood there recording every live performance in high quality HD and gave it away for free to anyone too lazy or cheap to go to your show?
I may not be denying you your music, but I sure as hell am cheating you out of any reasonable compensation for your work by creating conditions where no one has any incentive other than maybe the goodness of their heart toward a starving musician to give you any money.
How about I just take your latest source code and market it as my own? It's just a bunch of bits, I'm not denying you any rights by just walking away with your hard work and selling my own version of it. You still have your copy. Why should I be able to copy anything you own, but not be able to sell it?
I'm not misunderstanding the situation at all. I happen to be of the opinion that copyright is a real property right, and should be subjected to the same rights and regulations as physical property. That's why I have no problem with your state government charging you with grand theft if you pirate Adobe Creative Suite for shits and giggles.
What you clearly don't understand is that there are many sides to this issue, not just yours and theirs. There is nothing inconsistent between my position and opposing a blanket tax and surveillance policy which treats all students as potential criminals. That is absurd and unconstitutional in any scenario involving public universities, regardless of what the Supreme Court has ever ruled on similar issues.
I am a professional musician and I think this is blackmail. Sounds a lot like Microsofts blackmail against linux developers...sign here, pay us some cash and we promise we wont sue you. The record labels need to go broke more than GM does... they are not producing great music. just disposable music. Execs have been heard saying James Brown would never have been signed in todays climate... The corporations dictate the streets. They are the gate keepers and they created this culture of disposable crap and they could end it too if they wanted. I think the fact the labels are putting the most effort behind the least talented artists is half the reason their income stream is drying up. People like "disposable" artists now...they dont become real fans who want to buy your CD because they want to support you. If your next single isnt as hot as the last they will drop you faster than you can say "john mccain". They sell emptiness. I hope they go broke...real artists can make a living without them these days...
That's an interesting point, and it can be taken one step further. How can the RIAA convince a jury that, by the preponderance of the evidence, the university is responsible for copyright infringement done by its students? That's as daft as saying the DEA ought to arrest the university president because some the students are smoking pot.
Seems to me the university has nothing to lose by letting this go to trial.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.