RIAA Piracy Tax?
On this week’s edition of Copyright 2.0, I learned of a new idea that is gaining interest among the heads of some record companies: A “piracy” tax. As reported by Wired:
At the music industry trade show MIDEM last year, John Kennedy, the head of IFPI — the RIAA’s international affiliate organization — offered modest support for the kind of licensing fee Griffin and Jenner propose. “It’s a model worth looking at,” he said at a press conference. “If the ISPs want to come to us and look for a blanket license for an amount per month, let’s engage in that discussion.”
Jonathan Bailey, one of the hosts of Copyright 2.0, was open to the idea. Charging a flat rate to everybody (five dollars is the amount being discussed today) for the “right” to download your music sounds better than the losing battle the RIAA is facing today, right? There is some precedent for the idea of forced royalties and compulsory licenses, too. Bailey didn’t totally endorse the idea, but he said that it might be a good place to start until a better idea comes along. I enjoy hearing and reading Bailey’s opinion, but this time I have to respectfully disagree. I think this is a horrible idea that completely shreds the idea of copyright and intellectual property.
I think the problem becomes self-evident once one brings the definition of “copyright” into the issue. A copyright is the right to control the distribution and use of a piece of intellectual property. This right is initially secured by the creator of that property simply by the fact that he created it. Since he did the work to create it, he or she gets to decide what is done with it. Like any right over material property, it can be sold, exchanged, or given away. The owner owns it, so he gets to decide. That’s what copyright is about.
Now apply this concept to the idea of allowing everybody to use a compulsory license to download whatever music they want, in exchange for a $5 tax that is collected and distributed to copyright holders according to some process. Obviously, there are some conflicts. Copyright says that the owner of a creation gets to decide how to use that creation, but a compulsory license says that paying a tax allows anybody can download the copyright holder’s property — with or without permission of the copyright holder. Copyright says that a the owner of a creation can charge whatever he or she wishes for his music, but the compulsory license establishes a set rate for everybody — with or without permission of the copyright holder. All of the “benefits” that a compulsory license might bring about are at the expense of the artist’s rights.
When copyright is discussed today, I think too much focus is placed on the idea of making sure that artists receive some form of “fair” compensation for their work (I don’t mean to include Bailey in this group, now I’m just talking in general). When they’re not constrained by the rights of artists, people are free to imagine all sorts of “new models” that might bring more money to the artist than today’s system. And the funny thing is, some of these imaginary systems might, in fact, bring in more money for some artists if they were ever put in action. Some artists might even prefer it over today’s sytem, too. I doubt it, but I guess it’s possible, especially if one cherry-picks the right examples. However, any additional income will be at the cost of something that’s priceless. Control over one’s work is something that nobody should be forced to give up.
There are a number of other problems with a tax like this. How is the appropriate rate established? How would an artist receive compensation from a tax like this? How can one accurately measure downloads, anyway? These are questions that have no good answer. Like most “new models,” the system becomes pretty arbitrary when the details are established. It probably doesn’t matter, anyway: I doubt the RIAA would ever agree to a blanket, compulsory license in exchange for this tax, even if they were allowed to control the income. If the RIAA pushed a tax, it would be to make up for their losses from illegal file sharing. In other words, it would still be illegal to download music, but you’d pay the tax anyway. Even if you didn’t illegally distribute or download music.
The main source of the music industry’s trouble is the lack of understanding and/or respect for intellectual property, by both consumers and the recording industry. Gimmicks like this tax aren’t going to solve anything.
Tags: [copyright 2.0, isp, isp tax, piracy, plagarismtoday, riaa, tax]Comments
3 Responses to “RIAA Piracy Tax?”
Leave a Reply
This just sounds wrong. This assumes that everyone uses illegal file sharing. What about all of the people who mostly just email their family and use ebay? Piracy tax for them to? Crazy!
First off, thank you very much for your thoughts and for your balanced view of my opinions and what I said. As you can imagine, I’m used to my words being distorted so it is very nice for me to hear someone disagree with me without twisting my words around. Thank you for that.
Regarding this idea, as you can imagine, I am probably the world’s worst cheerleader for it. My strongest endorsement being that I am intrigued, think that it is better than nothing and not outright opposed to it.
What stops me from being dead set against it is that compulsory licenses already play a major role in copyright, it is just what we rarely see it. Blank CDs, MP3 players, even Xerox machines come with compulsory taxes for paying artists for future infringements. We simply don’t notice this due to the fact it is hidden in the price of the item.
Since a compulsory license system is in place for many things, there is already a system for translating that revenue to the artists. The Copyright Royalty Board exists solely to make those kinds of determinations. A perfect system? Not a chance, especially if you’ve been following the latest RIAA news, but at least marginally effective.
I grant that this idea has many problems. Ok, many, many problems and is still a long shot to achieve fruition. But there are at least two positives to it.
First, it shows that the RIAA is willing to consider new models. It may not be the earth-shattering “music is free” model everyone wishes but it is a compromise that could, theoretically, be stomached by most on the Web.
Second, it shows a more robust understanding of what users want. Rather than trying to sue file sharers, they’re trying to find ways to work with the system.
Regarding the issues of copyright raised, they are valid points. But it is important to remember that, almost certainly, any such system would be opt in. Currently, compulsory licenses are dealt through RIAA licenses. In fact, SoundExchange, the organization that doles out these kinds of royalties, is an offshoot of the RIAA. Independent artists would be free to do as they wanted and explore new business models.
I’ve said repeatedly on the podcast that I think the RIAA is good at one thing and it just doesn’t happen to be selling CDs. They’re great at promotion and getting people known. They make superstars, not always platinum records. They deserve to be paid for that, but I’ve mentioned other business models where they take on more of a “managerial/promoter” role and make a percentage based upon concert sales and whatever music is sold. Is that a perfect solution? Definitely not. But it is another model to weigh in on.
In the end, I’m just happy the RIAA is exploring new options. We can debate the merits of the models as they come up, but at least their model isn’t simply press CDs and sue file sharers. Anything is better than that…
Thank you again for your feedback! I greatly enjoyed your post!
Jonathan,
You’re totally right that some products that maybe be used in piracy contain compulsory taxes. I don’t know much about them in the U.S., but I’ve read a lot about the levies added to blank cds and mp3 players in Canada. They’re not for reimbursing artists, though. Groups like the RIAA say they’re for reimbursement, but that’s not what happens. If I write a song, play it on my tuba, and then try to sell it like Trent Reznor sold his latest CD, am I going to be reimbursed with funds from this tax for those who steal my music? No. I might be able to follow the RIAA’s procedure and get a few scraps, but I’m not not going to receive a real reimbursement for my losses due to “file sharing.”
I don’t think a system like the RIAA might be proposing would be “opt in.” That’s the problem with compulsory licenses: They’re not opt-in. Artists have no say in the matter. The government, webcasters, and the RIAA can all get together and build a system for paying performance royalties on top of a compulsory license, and the artists are left out in the cold. Sure, just like the RIAA piracy tax, they might be able to follow the RIAA’s procedure and get some scraps, but they’ve lost the ability to control their property. They’ve essentially lost their copyright.
Thanks for the comment, though! And thanks for the Copyright 2.0 podcast, I enjoy it a lot.