Headlines - Warner Music wants an ISP tax

[HEXUS]

Warner Music Group wants to add a compulsory music fee to ISP charges; the UK might just go for it.

Read more.

[Sinizter]

What bloody nonsense will they come up with next ?

Does this mean that if this tax is in place, I can download as much music as I want off the internet in any form from any site and it wont be considered piracy ? If not what the hell is the point of this tax other fattening up an industry that can be more or less rated as a parasite ?

[Scott B]

I think that is the intention Sinizter. But you would pay the tax regardless of how much, if anything, you downloaded.

[colincliff]

Its a ridiculous idea i have to agree. My main reason for posting though is to thank Scott Bicheno for such a well written article, sadly not somthing i always expect when looking around the web. Good work hexus.

[DeSean]

It won't happen. We should not be complacent, but once news of this became mainstream it would be very politically unpopular. The only way they could do it would be the usual sh*te about using the money to combat internet terrorists/pirates/hackers/sexual predators and virtually anything else you can think of. Drug dealers too probably.

[This isn't just wild exaggeration by me, look at some of the anti-piracy adverts where claims are made linking all forms of piracy to terrorism and people trafficking.]

[AndrewJ]

As much as they "try" to police the internet they should realise it just won't happen.

If this occured IF, likelyhood would become that someone would host his wireless and give out WEP keys to local mates who would pool in to pay the monthly broadband bills on a high tier.

No matter what they do the internet always adapts.

[Saracen]

I don't download music, copyright or not, illegal or not. So why is a "tax" acceptable?

If an ISP wants to block me from download sites, P2P software and so on, go right ahead. I don't have a problem with that.

I do have a problem with paying a "tax" to protect the profit margins of music companies. They already have laws in place that allow them to pursue people downloading illegally. Use them. Just don't expect me to pay you for something that you provide that I don't want and don't get. You, music industry, aren't a public service provided for the public good out of public funds. You're commercial enterprises. So either provide products or services people want and will pay for (including using courts to pursue those that "steal" from you) or die. I don't much care which. Just don't expect me to pay for it.

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

....

If this occured IF, likelyhood would become that someone would host his wireless and give out WEP keys to local mates who would pool in to pay the monthly broadband bills on a high tier.

Wanna take a bet as to whether that already happens .... or even the wired equivalent? It's against ISP's terms of service, but I'm not betting it doesn't already happen, and would bet it does.

[Agent]

Originally Posted by Saracen

If an ISP wants to block me from download sites, P2P software and so on, go right ahead. I don't have a problem with that.

Now you see, while I don't use any of the above, I would have a problem with it.

The internet should not be for corporations to control. I am a firm believer that net access should be unrestricted as much as possible.

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by Agent

Now you see, while I don't use any of the above, I would have a problem with it.

The internet should not be for corporations to control. I am a firm believer that net access should be unrestricted as much as possible.

Kinda what I meant was access by subscription. If you want service A, pay the subscription. If you don't, don't.

Like, for example, Sky TV. If you want premium services, pay for them. If the music companies want a "tax" for something, charge those that use it.

[Funkstar]

But open internet services shouldn't be arbitrarily charged for by the ISP on behalf on an unrelated organisation.

If want to download a couple of linux ISOs (as an example) using P2P, so it doesn't cost the community that created it, I hvae to sign up to an extra service with my ISP, the revenue going to the music industry?

Yeah, thats going to work out just great for everyone!

[AndrewJ]

Originally Posted by Saracen

Wanna take a bet as to whether that already happens .... or even the wired equivalent? It's against ISP's terms of service, but I'm not betting it doesn't already happen, and would bet it does.

Oh it does happen, their is alot of unsecured wirless networks, some even fitted by the ISP themselves

Alot of people don't see point in paying for their internet when next door has 10mb unsecured...

I personally have mine WEP locked.

On point though no matter what they will do I do personally believe the net will adapt.

[IAmATeaf]

Isn't this a classic case of being judged guilty before the trial.

What I fail to understand is why these big corps refuse to accept that the internet is here, here to stay and getting faster and faster. Rather then ride along on the copyright bandwagon, I'm sure the Bull pulling this is getting tired, why not embrace it, accept that initially their profits might be lower and setup online shops to sell digital content at a reasonable price and not at the current inflated prices they seem to feel is their rightful privilege.

[Mblaster]

Originally Posted by Saracen

Wanna take a bet as to whether that already happens .... or even the wired equivalent? It's against ISP's terms of service, but I'm not betting it doesn't already happen, and would bet it does.

A couple years ago my neighbour couldn't get internet in his house where as we could, so set up a wireless network between the houses and we got 2 ADSL connections

Originally Posted by Agent

Now you see, while I don't use any of the above, I would have a problem with it.

The internet should not be for corporations to control. I am a firm believer that net access should be unrestricted as much as possible.

While probably most of the Bit Torrent traffic is piracy related, there's plenty of other people using Bit Torrent legally, World of Warcraft uses it for patch delivery, the non-streaming BBC iPlayer used it etc.

[pauldarkside]

Good article!

That's a weird kind of logic - enforcing a tax which untimately encourages piracy yet reaps greater and guaranteed profit margins?!

If such a scheme ever came in and was compulsory for all internet users, I'd have to reconsider my entertainment sources. As much as I hate to say it, I'd only support artists and groups, through my purchases, which aren't covered by that agreement.

Warner Music can kiss my hairy arse.

[scarbunny]

I agree very well written article.

The problem I have with this concept is that, as the article states, the music industry is only worth $10billion how everthe "tax" could bring in a garunteed $20billion. I'm of the opinion that the reason the music industry as Warner want it is dying out is because the music they produce is of the highest order of ****.

I have not bought a CD from the major record labels since I found my own musical tastes, thanks in no small part to downloading music illegally. I've said it before if it wasnt for pirating music I would not spend so much money of music.

Adapt or fail that is the way ever other commercial enterprise works.

To quote NOFX "The dinosaurs will slowly die
And I do believe no one will cry
I'm just ****ing glad I'm gonna be
There to watch the fall
Prehistoric music industry"