There has been a lot of talk about a music tax and its effectiveness to help pay for copyrighted music download. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) seems most interested in implementing a music tax for universities, which could lead to ISPs adopting the controversial tax in the future.
I'd like to share a couple of thoughts I have about a music tax, and whether I'm for or against it.
As of now, I'm fully against implementing a music tax, but it's something that I believe could work if implemented properly by all parties. If the RIAA refuses to listen to ISPs and groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), then I'm likely going to remain against the adoption of a music tax.
Warner Music Group is interested in having students at several major universities pay a flat fee for unlimited access to music downloads across peer-to-peer file sharing networks. Along with interest by the RIAA, it seems the universities are interested in the tax, as a method to reduce the number of John Doe lawsuits currently filed against file sharers.
Considering the thousands of lawsuits thrown in the direction of college students, if this tax would appease both the RIAA and students, then why not give it a shot? It's obvious that universities are tired of being dragged around by this legal nonsense, and students obviously don't want to shell out anywhere from $1,500 up to $7,000 in copyright infringement penalties.
Either way, I think it also depends how much the imposed tax would be per student. Most numbers thrown around range from $5 up to $10 per semester or quarter, while I've read unconfirmed rumors of $15 or $20 for the tax. If the price is kept lower, and students won't be disconnnected from their Internet, then $5 or $10 may be a price students are willing to pay.
I am doubtful about a couple of issues related to this music tax, which I will now discuss.
To avoid "massive leakage," it seems that all ISPs and universities must be on board -- a difficult feat that is highly unlikely any time soon.
Another issue that concerns me is how the collected money will be disbursed. If you're taxed by the RIAA, would you trust them to distribute the money to artists fairly? This is a major concern that must be addressed to help give tax payers proper peace of mind.
The EFF has a music tax plan it created a couple of years ago it believes is fair to music downloaders and musicians alike.
The RIAA must be more flexible than it has been in the past when it comes to working with music downloaders.
The EFF proposes a voluntary collective licensing agreement, which would rely on a network of "collection societies" for $5 or $10 per month. In exchange, file sharers will be able to continue sharing and downloading music as they please. The important part is that the tax is voluntary for music fans, ISPs and artists, rather than forcing it upon everyone, like the RIAA wants to do at the moment.
Let's clear up something regarding the P2P file sharing aspect of this debate, however. The tax would allow the students to continue to download and share music files, and it would be only for music -- not movies, video games, or any other copyrighted content.
If the RIAA is willing to listen to input offered by the people who pay the tax, then I will give them the benefit of the doubt, and won't slam it before it even gets started.
