Rhodri Marsden: Musicians are the only group who will welcome this tax
Thursday, 24 July 2008
When the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, endorsed a plan to deprive illegal music downloaders of internet access in November 2007, those who believe in free, unfettered access were quick to roar their disapproval. The music industry, meanwhile, was delighted, with John Kennedy, from the international recording industry body IFPI, describing it as "the single most important initiative to help win the war on online piracy that we have seen".
While the British Government backed a similar move in a draft consultation Green Paper in February, there has been much debate about whether it would provide an effective deterrent. Shared internet access is widespread so determining who is actually participating in illegal file-sharing isn't always easy. And even if offenders are caught red-handed, there's little to stop them finding internet access via different channels.
Blocking the peer-to-peer networks that carry illegally shared files is another option, but this, too, has its drawbacks. While much of the material shared on P2P is illegal, the technology that drives it is used for perfectly above-board activities. So, to reuse one of my own analogies, tackling the problem in this way is just like Selfridges trying to combat shoplifting by removing all their lifts and escalators.
Which leaves a plan to add a levy to every broadband package, and redistribute the monies collected among artists, labels and publishers. Such a scheme was put forward in January by the Songwriters Association of Canada, allowing consumers to download unlimited amounts of music from any filesharing network in return for a $5 rise in their broadband bill. Such a proposal would in effect dump $1bn in the lap of the music industry. But the reaction to it was surprisingly negative: ISPs refused to administer the price rise, consumers who don't download music pledged never to pay up, and record companies – obviously keen to retain what little hold they still have over distribution of music – labelled the proposal a "pipedream".
The pinch would certainly be felt by legal stores such as iTunes, whose raison d'être would in effect disappear. But with the ratio of shared to paid downloads conservatively estimated as 50 to 1, the thorny problem of monetising music in the 21st century will continue to be ferociously argued over.

Nobody in the music business wants this tax except Peter Jenner and his comrades.
Posted by Steve | 25.07.08, 13:20 GMT
WHat you're effectively proposing is an Internet Tax. Undoubtedly, the government would cream off a large percentage of this tax and over time it would rise and rise until it formed a substaintial percentage of broadband bills.
Posted by Pav | 24.07.08, 15:49 GMT
Remembering that most MMORPG game providers, Linux providers and other avenues for downloading use the peer to peer protocol for legal purposes, I would like to see the music industry start to take on the heavyweight Activision-Blizzard who supply the World of Warcraft to 10 Million users through Peer to Peer.
And maybe if the music producers charged a fair price instead of up to £17 for a disc that costs them about a pound to produce, that the musicians themselves see very very little from each sale, if the industry was brought into line by the governments then illegal downloading would become the rarity rather than the norm.
And isn't there a levy already on blank discs and writing equipment that is paid secretly to companies like SOny Ent to reimburse them for the losses through piracy?
Posted by Ian Watson | 24.07.08, 14:18 GMT
This proposal is almost exactly what this consumer wants. The only problem is that it needs to be an opt in system. Pay your licence fee (based on the bandwidth you use) and enjoy downloading as much music as you like. Or don't pay it and be subject to the attention of the music licence enforcement squad.
Dividing the royalties sounds like a pain but with modern track fingerprinting technology this would actually be a piece of cake. No need for complex DRM systems, the quality of music will go up, the ease of obtaining music will go up, piracy will go down.
Its the simplest, most effective, fairest solution I've heard proposed. It works for TV and I can't see why it shouldn't work for music.
Posted by Barnaby Dawson | 24.07.08, 13:10 GMT
The world where a few artistes and recording companies make fortunes by selling recordings is changing, rather than making a futile attempt to stop the dam collapsing, we should let the world adapt to new technology. It is, after all, barely 100 years old. I think the changes will benefit those musicians who struggly on 8-10k salaries - they aren't the ones who suffer from this copyright infringement anyway.
In the new world, artistes will make their money from performances, not recordings. Record companies in their current form will go the way of your local coal merchant, suffering the fate of all industries overtaken by technology. And who will cry over an industry that happily required re-purchase of the copyright each time the medium changed and one replaced (for instance) cassettes with CDs? I doubt anyone will get super-rich from being a musician; again - who cares? Rather, I suspect more musicians will make a decent living from performing.
Posted by Jamie | 24.07.08, 13:00 GMT
Well as i've got older my music habits have radically altered.
Nowdays i'm more likey to hunt down a specific and striking recording of a Shubert or a Beethoven and unless these are made available on the interent i would refuse to pay a tax for something i don't download.
The music industry needs to stop feeling so hunted and assuming we all must pay so that they can make huge profits for their rock n roll life styles. If they want to charge everyone a public service tax, then they better damn well provide a comprehensive public service. I rarely listen to pop & only listen to the best classical musicians and they bleedin' well better be available.
Posted by nicholson | 24.07.08, 12:19 GMT
I'm of the exact opposite opinion.
I think consumers will welcome the move - I'd certainly pay £20-£30 to be able to enjoy unlimited downloads. Admittedly those who don't download at all shouldn't have to pay, and so I would propose making the system work like a TV license - voluntary payment, threat of detection and prosecution if you download without paying.
It's the musicians who I would expect to be wary of this, though, as it's not clear how the royalties will be distributed. Will it end up in the rightful person's pockets or just on the balance sheet of a big music company?
Posted by Ed W | 24.07.08, 12:10 GMT
I'm amazed by the default "music industry is evil" viewpoint of some contributors.
The music industry isn't mostly execs and most professional musicians aren't Radiohead, McFly, Prince. The average wage for musicians is £8k - £10k, according to the Musician's Union. Half the membership of the PRS (songwriters) earn under £250. It's these little guys who aren't getting their dues.
Isn't the problem that ISPs have, for years, made profit from (now) easily demonstrable copyright breaches?
Posted by DS | 24.07.08, 10:35 GMT
I very much doubt real musicians will welcome this proposal: real musicians make their money by making music, not recordings of music.
The 'music business' - the exces, marketers, legal swine - simply has no de jure right to continued commercial existence in its current form. Ossifying it further through deployment of the state's coercive power will, naturally enough, stifle the creativity of tomorrow's musicians (who would most likely want to use mash-up techniques, just as every musician who ever picked out a tune did). 'Government regulation' and 'music' should only rarely crop up in the same sentence, or even article.
Posted by Michael Taylor | 24.07.08, 10:25 GMT