Legalize file-sharing with taxes? | iLounge News


Legalize file-sharing with taxes?

“Instead the music industry should embrace file-sharers, said technology journalist and author Andrew Orlowski in a keynote speech at the Interactive In The City conference being held in Manchester. [...]

The inclusion of a small surcharge on monthly internet subscription fees that was given to record labels to pay artists could solve the problem, he said.”

« Report: Apple, HP plan 1 million iPods per month?

NewerTech and OWC announce new RoadTrip! FM Transmitter »

Related Stories



im actually in for it as long as some method is devised to make sure the artists get a good piece of the cake…. i pay €45 per month for my adsl.. here in spain its quite expensive, (although big price breaks are supposed to come next year), i would be willing to pay an extra €3… if everyone paid €3 they wud become even more filithy richer! and €3 isnt such a big amount compared to €45 thats already being paid.. i certainly make good use of p2p… muhahaha

Posted by Hitesh Sawlani on September 21, 2004 at 4:21 PM (CDT)


If I’m an artist and I know I’m going to get paid for my album via way of taxes regardless of its quality, what is my motivation to produce anything worth listening to?

Posted by dethbrakr on September 21, 2004 at 4:38 PM (CDT)


not a bad idea.

Posted by hmm on September 21, 2004 at 10:14 PM (CDT)


if your only motivation to make music is money, then you arent a real artist… im not saying that artists dont deserve money(which they definately do), but it shouldnt be your sole inspiration

i guess your motivation could be your fans, or maybe just expressing yourself is enough

besides.. if you got enough money from this tax to not have to worry about making listenable music(which is extremely doubtful), then wouldnt you have more freedom to express yourself, being that you dont have to worry so much about record sales, or what your record label thinks?

Posted by to dethbrakr on September 22, 2004 at 3:07 AM (CDT)


Yawn yawn… do it for the love of it?
Yes there has to be an element of that, just the same as everyone should love their job! (would be nice eh?), but these people are in it to make a living just like everyone else.  The reasont that they get paid a bit better than the rest of us (and believe me, it’s only a bit) is because their chosen career has a very short life span.
The reason that Record companies take so much is because they plow all of the money into the artist in the first place.  They spend the money making the cd’s, studio costs, promotion etc etc.  In order for the artist to get even half of this, they would need to match the costs equally.

Anyway…. enough of my rant.

I would be quite happy to pay a small subscription to be able to download stuff legally.  e.g. $10 per month for unlimited downloads might sound like an insult, but they would soon recoop a lot of the money they used to get from record sales, and if everyone did it, they would probably get to the stage that they stopped producing music on cd’s etc.

Posted by Gbobm on September 22, 2004 at 7:01 AM (CDT)


Another liberal cries more taxes!? That is about the silliest thing I have ever heard. It is the RIAA that could be crying more taxes and this business friendly administration would have no problem being very accomidating. Get that chip off of your shoulder… you would not even have music to put on the iPod if not for a bunch of ‘liberals’ making it… asshat.

Posted by me on September 22, 2004 at 10:54 AM (CDT)


People resent having to shovel money to the RIAA but if it’s to the government, well that’s different. And those who propose that there are ‘societal needs’ that justify extortion via tax while others don’t qualify haven’t been paying attention. Most if not all markets are now significantly controlled by the State and we still have every malady known to man throughout time. We are losing our freedom and the product of our own labor while gaining nothing. If this tax idea smells, it does, but let’s apply to every market. Once we buy into the idea that some other schmuck can allocate resources better than the individual, we become slaves.

Posted by toolkien on September 22, 2004 at 3:02 PM (CDT)


THIS IS A HORRIBLE, POORLY THOUGHT OUT PROPOSAL. Here in Canada, we have a similarly poorly thought out “tax” on blank cassettes and CDs. Of course, the majority of the money collected has never been distributed to the artists by the record companies. Besides which, the record companies decide which artists get how much money… this leads to artists like Jessica Simpson getting her pockets lined while we get, just what we need, even more uncreative musical crap being forced on the population. We’re supposed to live in a “free market economy” - let it be free. If the record companies can’t figure out how to make money selling music online, screw them. Somebody else will (iTunes proved that).

Posted by Brad on September 22, 2004 at 10:38 PM (CDT)


Because, logically, everyone who uses the internet (dial-up to T1s) downloads music.  ....riiiiiight

Before you know it, they’ll want to tax us for accidentally overhearing music on someone’s MP3 player that we did not pay for.  EGADS.

Posted by Schmoo on September 23, 2004 at 10:02 AM (CDT)


just because i live in this city doesnt mean i will use its sidewalks.. WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO PAY THEIR TAXES?!

Posted by li on September 23, 2004 at 1:11 PM (CDT)


This makes me laugh.

If the music industry wasnt so greedy, there would only be a small number of people downloading illegal music.

Like, today, there are so many services offering downloadable tunes for a price (iTunes, sony, blah blah) but, they are still expensive in my view…

If the music industry opened their minds, they’d find if they reduced the price, they’d actually make more sales.

I reckon if you could buy 1 single song downloadable from the internet for 20p (UK sterling), you’d find a lot less people downloading illegal copies.

And what about those rare remixes noone can ever find legitimately? Will people still get screwed over by law because they didnt purchase it legitimately?

This is my view anyway….

Posted by Luke on September 26, 2004 at 5:08 AM (CDT)


My big gripe about legal trading is the ridiculous cost!  The sound quality is not as good, there is no physical product to produce, no shipping costs, no retailer mark up.  But they still expect us to pay $.99 a song??  Come on lets get real.  $.50 a song at the most!!  $.10-$.25 would be realistic to pay!

Posted by g_funk3 on September 29, 2004 at 2:22 PM (CDT)


***My big gripe about legal trading is the ridiculous cost! The sound quality is not as good, there is no physical product to produce, no shipping costs, no retailer mark up. But they still expect us to pay $.99 a song?? Come on lets get real. $.50 a song at the most!! $.10-$.25 would be realistic to pay!***


***If the music industry wasnt so greedy, there would only be a small number of people downloading illegal music.***


How much did you guys pay for your ipods? How much did you pay for your computer, drives, monitors, and other gadgets? Do you have any peripherals for your ipods (itrip, portable speakers etc etc)?

It amazes me how much people will spend on hardware and expect they can simply pirate the ‘software’. People will spend several hundreds of dollars on ipods and extras and the computers to move files, and spend money on internet connections etc etc and blanche at the thought of spending 99 cents on a song. I assume these same people wouldn’t think twice about spending 75 cents for a candy bar from a vending machine, the after product of which is floating out to sea the next day, and has an enjoyment window of about a minute or two.

As far as I know, for 99 cents you get restricted rights to the song, and can burn it for your own use while also having it on your home computer, and on your ipod, etc etc. You can listen to the same song as many times as you wish for the rest of your life, and have several copies of it, all for 99 cents.

I’m a little perplexed about how people can afford hundreds of dollars for the hardware but apparently are indigent when it comes to songs to play on it.

And as far as greed, that’s the market, pay someone the asking price or don’t transact. Just because a candy bar in a vending machine is $100 doesn’t give anyone the right to break into it and steal it. Also, why isn’t greed on your part to want to pay less? You obviously covet the song, you just don’t want to be put out the economic resources it takes to buy it/license it. You’d rather have the song AND what you can buy with the money you didn’t spend. Sounds like greed to me. You get what you want on YOUR terms. A given company wants to sell it on THEIR terms. The market brings the two together, and a transaction based on MUTUAL terms is struck. Unless of course you simply steal it, then it’s back on YOUR terms.

Posted by toolkien on October 22, 2004 at 3:59 PM (CDT)

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter


Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter


iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2014 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy