Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Replacing DRM With A Music Tax Is Incredibly Stupid

techcrunch.com — Peter Jenner is a respected figure in the music industry (he was Pink Floyd ’s first manager, as well as managing The Clash and other great artists), and he gets the ball rolling by saying the big labels are “*****.” That’s an easy way to win over the crowd these days, who generally see big music labels as the antichrist.

Bury

koregaonpark 1 year 250 days ago, made popular 1 year 249 days ago

608 diggs
digg it

robbyjo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Moreover, if they managed to lobby the govt to levy tax, they would still keep the DRM intact.
- Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Uhhh, I thought all recordable CDs/DVDs already had a 'content tax' on them?
- EmileVictor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18In Canada, not the USA.
- cmiz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21@yez70: only ones specifically labeled as music cd-r's have the tax included. (at least that's the case in the USA).
  
  as far as i'm concerned, on-line music was a HUGE idea, and instead of running with it, the record labels fought it tooth and claw. now they're screwed and they need to make huge changes to their business models... and frankly i don't think that it's the government's problem nor is it their responsibility to sort things out for them. in my humble opinion, the record labels dug their own grave... and now it's their responsibility and theirs alone to figure out how to pull themselves out.
- adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I thought they just did it on the blank CD's that were marked for Music.
  
  **cmiz beat me to it**
- ywong137, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7No, if you have thought a lot about how to solve the digital content problem while still protecting author's rights, this is actually a good idea. Why? Because being an artist is a terrible and unprofitable way to support yourself and a lot of good artists languish because we (1) don't pay them and (2) when we do, businesspeople exploit them. Artistic development is important to cultural development, so it should be funded as a public service.
  
  A constant stream of revenue would cover the costs of music production and manufacturing the media (CDs, up/download distribution). This would make distribution a non-profitable industry, and would certainly reduce the innovation incentives for what is right now called "the recording industry." The problem is that the recording industry only innovates in a way that is non-beneficial to society - they basically come up with better ways to exploit artists AND consumers. Recording/playback technology is not developed by them, it's developed by companies like Sony and Apple who will still have incentive to innovate. And on the other end, artists will also be able to earn beyond the minimum music tax because the popular/good ones will now be able to reap the profits of touring, concerts, and merchandising out of popularity. So artists will continue to have a reason to create (not that anyone ever becomes a musician for the money anyway).
  
  So yes, a music tax will, in fact, kill an industry, but it will kill a bad one - the "recording" industry. At the same time, it will free the technology and artistic industries that have been held back by the power of recording industry.
- ywong137, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Incidentally, this would not be the government "propping up" a dying industry. Instead, it would be the government *killing* the industry in one blow by converting them into a public utility. Think of it - you pay a flat fee that funds what is essentially an information-distribution service that brings you music. If you like it, you'll go to concerts and buy ancillary products from the artist and he/she will make a good living. The only people who lose are those who currently control the distribution channels (i.e. the recording industry) because their business will now be conducted like the water mains.
  
  Also, comparing this to the BBC television tax as something undesirable is absurd. The programming funded by the British television tax is widely considered to be some of the highest-quality television programming in the world. If you've ever been to England, you'll know what I mean - In America, I hate television, and while I was in England, I was fascinated by how intelligent, funny, and articulate the BBC channels were. So music quality might actually go up, once digital music distribution becomes a public utility so that the market is no longer distorted by the recording industry trying to push lowest-common-denominator crap at everyone - instead, people will actually search for and listen to things they really like, and the cream will rise to the top because crap pop like Ashlee Simpson won't have an artificial distribution advantage.
- 0o0Moylan0o0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I was going to say that it is a good idea, until i read down the page here, and i saw "I don't think pop music is worthy of my tax dollars." And i totally agree with that. There are so many better upcoming artists that are trying to get out there, and yet all the ***** Pop music will be getting the money... Stuff that.
  
  And also i dont know if any of this would apply to me, im in Australia, but thought i would share my view nevertheless.
- nicepants, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It should be optional. Allow people to optionally purchase a $5/month "license" to download, burn, rip, share any music that they want. I do not believe it should be government-run.
- MikeFromAmerica, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2To you people saying this would be a good idea because it would transform the music industry into a utility:
  
  How is that good? It's just wasteful spending.
  
  The music industry provides no value. Anyone can record at home. (Quality varies of course but professional recording studios only spew out over-processed sound with no dynamic range anyway.) CDs are dead so there're no manufacturing costs. Distribution is practically free with BitTorrent. The only service the music industry legitimately provides is marketing and all that's done is turned music into the ***** pop commodity that it is today.
  
  The music industry failed to adapt to the changing market and are now irrelevant. They should be allowed to go extinct.
martalli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18That's just nuts. Publicly financed pop music?
- burke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22I don't think pop music is worthy of my tax dollars.
- BenHanby, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I agree it sounds nuts, but is it more nutty for talented recording artists to abandon their careers because they need to look for work that actually pays for the roof over their head?
  
  File sharing will never slow down, so this seems to be the direction we're heading.
- collywolly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As people have pointed out, the BBC is publicly funded, but does have a good selection of high quality programs.
  
  We can to have loads more channels via cable or sattelite, but considering the extra volume of content available, it is usually more repeats of the same old American sitcoms (ok a few of them are good, but I have now seen every episode of Friends at least once, and don't need to see them another 4 times a month).
  
  Why then do you assume that a music tax would only inculde crappy pop music? I think the idea is to charge a reasonable amount and find ways of distributing the rights properly.
- mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And I'm sure that lots of people don't think whatever techno-dance-hip-hop-rap-core tripe you listen don't like that either. There's lots of things we all pay taxes for that we don't, indiviually, like. We all probably think public schools and roads are a pretty decent way to spend tax dollars. Lots of people are pissed about financing an illegal war in Iraq. Some people want to be there tho. Some of us aren't too keen on paying taxes for welfare, but there are still others who feel it's socially responsible. The list goes on and on, the point being that while music you don't like (pop) would get some of your taxes, music you DO like will too, along with som funding from people who don't like it. It all works out in the end and can make most of the people happy most of the time, which is saying something.
rshah, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5Crap... Digg me down
Philodox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I'm a big fan of the blank media levy in Canada. It's prevented U.S. style witch hunt lawsuits. I realise it's a little different than placing a tax on all music.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Plus the fact that any party that makes downloading music illegal in Canada won't be elected ever again, has something to do with it.
- anthony0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Did this "levy" stop the CDs from carrying DRM? Because if it didn't I just don't see the point.
- anthony0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Did this "blank media levy" stop the record labels from selling DRM'd CDs? Because if the CDs still have DRM in them, then what is the point.
sashaboyd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0David Byrne says http://blog.wired.com/music/2006/09/seeqpod_realtim.html
patience, on 10/12/2007, -24/+1Here is an idea: STOP stealing music.
The music industry actually employs ordinary people like us.
You are putting people out of work each time you steal that Paris Hilton or Three Six Mafia MP3.

If you can't afford it (and its not medicine or food or shelter),
ya don't need it.
- Aque0us, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15@patience
  Nobody's missing out on money from something I wouldn't have bought had it not been available for free.
- Backwards2, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0That is absurd logic. Because it is INVOLUNTARILY available for free, people are being hurt. Sure, ***** the labels. But you are arguing that individual artists shouldn't have a choice about what happens to their work. That's a pretty ***** social environment for encouraging people to create and invent.
  
  But given how quick Patience's posting was digged down, it is pretty clear how the opponents are artists' rights feel about free speech, too!
- 81v3d07g0d, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3your point is well taken, I just wish that it was that simple. Because the elites know that the masses must be distracted in order for them to keep their place of power in our country we live in a completely, consumer centric culture. Everyday we are all bombarded by images in the media and elsewhere that havering the latest thing is the only way to get closer to the power group that we so desperately want to be part of. Our overwhelming jealousy towards the "haves" extends into ever aspect of our life, entertainment media is a huge part of that. Can you expect that we can just be so zen as to simply ignore all the things that are being enjoyed in the culture? Beyond the simple curiosity of any human being, one would never want to isolate from the majority so much that one might appear freakish or otherwise defective. This type of thing has been done since the beginning of time, sharing knowledge, sharing resources, the only reason that so many take notice now is because we have the capability of doing what we have always done now just on a mass scale.
  
  Lets face facts this will never stop, and these days entertainment is almost as important as food or shelter, if simply to escape the drudgery that our daily life has become. I know that most of us are well aware that many of the issues that come up today might be solved if copyright laws were followed correctly instead of intellectual properties being owned by multinational corporations indefinitely. This is simply backlash that we all knew would come someday, if you tell us we have to have it, then we will buy it, or in this case steal what we can not afford. .
- Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Artists usually have no say in how their music is distributed. Record companies censor their music and many times force them to change lyrics in order to sell better. Artists already have a marginal say in how their work is handled. Not to validate an absolutely liberal handling of artist's work, but if the costumers that the Recording Industry sell to, since they are the ultimate handlers of the artist's work, aren't happy, it is the Recording Industry's responsibility to adjust rationally to how it is going on. Recently they are acting absolutely irrationally through their lobbying and frivolous lawsuits.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Most artists don't own their work.
  
  In fact... many fake Pop artists, and a growing number of rock bands simply sing/play other people's copyrighted music.
  
  They are simply hired to portray an image, given lines, and attached strings.
  
  Remember Ashlee Simpson? Saturday Night Live?
  Manilli Vanilli?
  Spice Girls?
  American Idol?
  
  There's much more of this going on all the time.
- vertigoblue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm still not going to pay for ***** music...
- foobar5892, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Faceless RIAA goon #5723, is that you?
- Rocketgeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1> Here is an idea: STOP stealing music.
  > The music industry actually employs ordinary people like us.
  > You are putting people out of work each time you steal that Paris Hilton or Three Six Mafia MP3.
  
  Here's another idea, if you feel so strongly, why not go talk to your nearest record label and tell them to start treating their artists like human beings instead of pieces of crap.
  
  The record industry are the mafia you fool. Having had the misfortune to work with some of them, I can quite honestly say you rarely come across such a bunch of crooks, lowlifes, liars and general wastes of Oxygen. Defending them in any way shape or form, indicates extreme naiivety.
  
  Yes the music industry employs ordinary people, but they treat the "ordinary" people like pieces of dirt. The money goes to fat ageing 'tards in their expensive suits and mercs, often to finance their coke and whore habits.
  
  > If you can't afford it (and its not medicine or food or shelter),
  > ya don't need it.
  
  True, but that doesn't stop the music industry trying to steal your money through mandatory taxes does it ?
drewmacphee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Michael Arrington, the guy who is responding to the Peter Jenner interview makes a lot of claims without backing them up with anything but his opinion. Bad article. Not that I am for what Peter Jenner suggested. It's just a poor opinion piece.
- ThetaDot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@ Gramdbodino (below)
  
  If you think that's your call to make, then you voice that by whether or not you purchase. You can't "be a rebel" by circumventing the system.
Grambodino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6As if people don't pay enough for music... As if they don't make enough millions of dollars from music sales each year... As if, okay, you get the point.
Lax32, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I could have told you the big labels are *****...

I mean, they are the only company I know that combats declining interest in their products by making their products even less appealing... I dont care what buisness you are in, that doesnt work.
XTrek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There will never be a music industry POLL TAX. Well excluding the cost of DRM hardware and software that's already in our products we pay for.
DigiShaman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Who buys CDs anymore? For that matter, who even bother listening to "musak". It's the music industries own damn fault for promoting the whole "Hip-hop" fad in that I jumped ship.

When I want to listen to music, I'll stream it from somafm.com, play my MP3s, or dust off my old CD collection and re-discover the music I listened to in the past. But mainly, I just listen to talk radio on the AM band.

Just like the video game crash of the 80s' we're all living the music crash today.
- ohgr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Well that's they're argument DigShaman. We're not buying their overpriced CDs anymore, so they're crying and claiming to losing money, and it's all the Internet's fault. And consumers are evil little people with small minds, who are stealing from them.
- foobar5892, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree. The 80's was a downfall in music as well. The whole emergence of disco and hip hop and schmaltzy pop songs and metal which frankly either sound like elevator music or they're vulgar or just a bunch of noise.
  
  What happened to good music like The Doors, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Mike Oldfield, Jimi Hendrix, the Beatles, Jefferson Airplane, etc. just to name a few.
  
  The problem is: good music doesn't have as high a profit/effort ratio as ***** music. And nowadays, money is the penultimate goal.
- wiener, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@foobar,
  and what is the ultimate goal?
ohgr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I can't believe the UK even settles with the TV Tax. That law is insane! And people are being jailed for it? No way Jose. Not on my lawn sir.

Look there may well come a point when downloaders will be put in prison soon. It looks inevitable because the Big Labels are crying the blues over claimed "Loss Profits". And since the real leaders of the United States is Big Corporations (It's where all of our money comes from, and they Lobby all the time to get things done their way), politicians won't have much of a problem bending over for these people, as long as there's a buck to be made. And they are paid nicely. It doesn't matter if you are Republican or Democrat.
- JeffDM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think the UK system has a history, and in a sense, it is understandable. It does finance the BBC, which is a broadcaster that provides several channels of commercial-free TV in exchange for a TV tax. I think they probably could be re-done better though. It's possible to scramble the broadcast signal, such that you would have a box and a subscription fee to descramble the video, much like the current cable and satellite systems.
- flappysocks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's a system that has worked very well for a long time. UKs TV is the best in the world, because the BBC sets a high standard, and the UK commercial channels have to follow suit to survive. However, even the BBC admit that the license fee model is unsustainable, and will have to be replaced in the next 10 years.
Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The day I see a large percentage of downloaders being put into jail, is the day when I see tens of thousands of people fill the streets. Even if it hits the 1% threshold I guarantee you that people will speak up loudly.
gxcdesign, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1" force users to pay multiple times for a single song"

Yeah, I was forced with a 1911 to my face to buy Two Step...twice

only a dumbass would buy a song twice
jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is about the most intelligent proposal there is, but it requires some intelligence to understand it. To take the analogy from the UK, the BBC is one of the highest quality channels there is, and BBC News is likewise; known to be one of the best news broadcasts the world over. Not bad for a publicly funded system, eh? More over, the amount of money that is spent focusing on specific 'super stars' is completely disproportionate to the quality given. Look at those talentless hacks, like P Diddy and Britney Spears. What do they do that is of any particular musical value? Nothing. And that's the point. The current system, as it is, has really propelled the quality of music that the general population will consume to mediocrisy (at best). So much for a 'capitalist' market.
opencity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The 20th century was the age of mass produced product and corporate profits. It's over. Previous to big media musicians made their living playing in a room ('meat space' for those who remember The Well). The global digital network doesn't eliminate this, in fact, if you're good at actually playing in a room, the rooms could potentially be very big. However, if you're in show business and don't play, the future is grim. Farewell to the rich lawyers telling kids how to play and middle aged players they are too old. As a career pro whose commerical life has been extended by the coming death of the music business I laugh at doomed protectionist tax schemes. 'get me out of your starry eyes and be on your way.'

To Peter Jenner I say: 'by the way, which one's Pink?'
t0ny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So why does everyone in the music industry think if you get a drm-free music file your going to release it to p2p? I love itunes because its easy to break the drm and convert it to mp3. Why do I convert it to mp3? To give it away to my friends. NOT. I do that so I can put it on my palm pilot and play it on Linux. Is that wrong? Being able to use music how ever I want to?
- collywolly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow, great. The music industry certainly have you brainwashed, if you are not into sharing mucis with your friends.
  Thats what we did when I was a teenager. We exchanged music. You would buy a couple of Records or CDs from your favourite artists, and swap copies for stuff that your friends had bought. It was quite socialble.
  
  Now it is all iPod. Me, me, mePod. And the fact is that what used to be a part of teenage culture is being declared illegal by the mucis industry.
sashaboyd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This digg post says it ALL "Music labels lose MP3 search" case"http://digg.com/tech_news/Record_labels_lose_MP3_search_case
afbase, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3We haven't gone a whole week since the death of Milton Friedman and we're already thinking of new taxes...AMAZING!!!

DRM and taxes are both stupid ideas
fraggle35, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It won't work, it would be even easier for big labels to screw the system,
at the moment a tactic used to push sales figures is to buy there own stuff back,
I read this story to mean you pay a fixed sum, and download for free, the label with the most downloads gets the biggest slice of pie, so the winner will be the biggest labe,l with the biggest data centre, auto downloading the latest crap boy band.
Verisimilitude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Interesting, when it involves music, you get it...
when it involves gasoline you are totally blind...
very interesting...
- opencity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There are hidden costs in the automobile economy. Free market can't mean free ride. If Exxon sells gasoline used on roads who pays for the roads: upkeep, policing, registration, court system? Someone's paying. If you judge the health of your society by the short term profits of companies you end up shortchanging, in this case, everything except the oil companies. Don't take my word for it, see Bill Gate's dads rant. Rich guy->pro taxation, smart too.
  
  Aging rock scam artists music tax is trying to legislate for a dead industry. Like requiring everyone to wear hats again so there will be hat makers.
geluso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0-wrong tab-
iainc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd like to see a complete paradigm-shift in the music industry. Perhaps something on the same scale as the one currently affecting the software industry. I think a new type of label, or enabling technology, that is geared up specifically for DRM-free Internet distribution, that helps bands sell their music direct to their fans at reasonable prices. I'd also like to see artists get the lion's share of the income rather than the piss-poor royalties handed to them by the Music Mafia as part of their restrictive contracts.

As a music-lover who is deeply appreciative of true talent, I'd rather see artists I like getting rewarded for what they do. Ripping them off would just make me feel dirty. Granted there are some toe-rags out there who would still steal music, but I believe that artists selling direct (or as near as dammit) and getting financially rewarded for doing so would foster a desire in their fans to do the right thing.

This is the age of the Internet. Distribution is a no-brainer for those who want to move with the times. Anyone who doesn't get that and fails to adapt is going to go the way of the dinosaur. The Music Mafia have had there day and I hope they banked their profits carefully because they're about done.
coversyl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Uk TV licence has some benefits but problems too:

1. you need to pay it if you watch TV, even if you don't watch BBC, even if you just watch another paid-for service like Sky

2. it is a fixed amount irrelevant of income, so the poorest find it hardest to pay eg mums on benefits, students, etc (ye you need one if you are a student with a tv in your room)

3. if you don't have a TV you still get increasingly threatening letters from the collections department as 'everyone has a tv, dont they', culminating with a knock at your door, a demand to enter the house to search for a TV and an 'interview under caution'

4. if you dont pay it and are caught watching TV it is a criminal offence punishable with a fine of up to £1000 and/or jail

see: http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ for a resistance group in the UK also the very informative

http://www.marmalade.net/lime/
KrashTheMighty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think a better solution is for bands to make good music instead of crap only worthy of a download. If the music is good enough I will support the artist, NOTHING else. So what If someone downloads the music they werent going to buy it in the first place so its really not like anyone is losing out.
- khafra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This argument has been heard so many times it seems cliche now--but there's something to be said for it. I never bought music until I started listening to local bands, going to small concerts and coffee shops and hearing things I like. I now have a growing CD collection, but only things I've bought directly from artists, and not a cent goes to fund pop crap.
- KrashTheMighty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@khafra
  I know its cliche but its true, half the music I own I heard throught P2P after someone recomended it. I for one would embrace the internet as a medium to get my work exposed, NOT as a scapegoat because I cant buy my kids solid gold walkers. TOUR more PUT YOURSELF out there you cant fileshare a concert experience. People are more likely to buy the music of a band who puts on a great live show and gives them an experience they remember.
Metasquares, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0You all speak of musical "goodness" as if it were an objective quality.
harlowsmonkeys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In theoretical economics, it can be shown mathematically that for goods like, say, loaves of bread, a free market system is optimal--producers end up producing what consumers want in the quantity consumers want, with optimal resource usage. However, this relies on assumptions about that nature of goods that do not apply to things like music, which is arbitrarily copyable for essentially zero cost. It can be shown that for such goods as music, a free market system leads to underproduction. This is called a market failure.

There are a few ways that a market failure can be dealt with. One is to not use the market at all. An example of this model would be art in the Renaissance. The great artists then were all supported by wealthy patrons.

Another is to artificially give music the properties of goods that do work in the market. This is the theoretical justification (from an economic point of view) of intellectual property. Essentially, copyright law tries to make songs like loaves of bread, so that you can have a producer, and they can control the quantity in the market, and supply and demand works then, and all those wonderful feedback loops in a market economy apply, and everyone is happy. Except it only works if we actually treat music as loaves of bread. That was easy when those who did not want to go alone only had a small impact (e.g., when mass copying was expensive).

The intellectual property approach is good in that it lets the market determine production. However, it also makes copying artificially expensive, which is not good.

The tax approach essentially is the patron approach, with the taxed population being the patron, and using the market to determine what is produced. That's good, because other approaches (other than the intellectual property approach) tend to have the patron or the government deciding WHAT music would be produced. I don't think we want that!

I think some kind of tax approach is the only one that makes sense in the internet age. We should just get rid of copyright on music completely. There is still the question of what kind of tax, though. Two basic possibilities:

1. Wide tax base. Just pay for the music out of the general budget, for example. Basically, this approach is to treat music like water or highways. It is a general benefit that we as a society provide.

2. Narrower tax base. Try to find something that correlates to music use, and tax that. Sound cards, speakers, CD drives, etc. All of these have non-music uses, though, so the correlation isn't perfect.

It is very important in the tax approach to make sure that the mechanism for distributing the tax money to music producers is based on some objective measurement, like song downloads, so that the government doesn't get control over what music is produced.

As to people who don't like the tax approach, AND don't like the intellectual property approach, propose something else--but make sure it addresses the economic issues. Most people's proposals are more wishes than proposals.
egarcia79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1if you can still find them cassette tapes are much cheaper than cds. they cost more to manufacture though. even though cds are cheaper to produce they sale for more because the record industry and the lablels are greedy. they're own greed has caused their problems. people complain that the artist are losing money and not making as much because of people downloading music. the labels are still making huge sums of money. they could easily pay the artist more. they won't though because they are greedy and want higher profits. last time i checked popular artist make millions a year. they aren't exactly hurting for money.

also if the labels put out good music again then they wouldnt have this problem. it used to be that you actually had to be talented to make it in the music industry. now it's more about fashion and marketing. most pop/hip-hop artist today don't even write their own music. they're more focused on singles then putting out a good album. i'm tired of buying an album and only one song is good. put out something that's worth buying and i'll buy it.

let the record industry dig themselves out of they hole they dug. they don't deserve our help or money until they change.
rrobster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It seems that this cure is worse than the disease.
lucian303, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Jenner's idea is incredibly stupid, invasive, and highly unpractical. What an idiot!

What about people that don't even know how to download music. How will they be monitored? What if my parents say they won't pay the tax because they don't download music (and they don't) but I use their computer to snag a few tracks? Will they go to jail because I'm using their computer?

I don't really see the point of having music labels anymore. With music distributed over the internet, they are not needed for distribution or manufacturing. Everyone gets the same chance. It's all about getting exposure and if you're an artist who makes any decent music, the music labels won't give you exposure or help you with marketing. And why should the worst music (ie->most popular) make all the money anyway?
nomad1984, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"yey comunism" NOT!
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Replacing DRM With A Music Tax Is Incredibly Stupid

Login or register to add a comment