Mix: iPod tax, Cheap tracks, Stolen music, Cigarette case | iLounge News


Mix: iPod tax, Cheap tracks, Stolen music, Cigarette case

 Wisconsin legislators are “mobilizing against a proposal they call the ‘iPod tax,’ in a battle over online music and movies that could soon spread across the United States.”

 In a move to curb illegal downloading, an academic at McGill University proposes putting all music on a search engine and charging five cents a song.

 Slate’s Daniel Engber asks, “How much is your stolen music worth?” And answers, “Probably more than you think.”

 A cigarette container probably isn’t what Apple had in mind when they created the iPod shuffle Sport Case.

Related Stories



I don’t like paying taxes, but I don’t see why tax shouldn’t apply to downloaded music as much as it applies to everything else bought online.

It would suck to pay $1.07 instead of $0.99 per song.

Or better yet, keep the price at $0.99 and have Apple and the labels cover the tax. 

Oh, I forgot, we wouldn’t want to see a billion dollar corporation or millionaire artists lose a couple pennies here and there.

Posted by Talking Madness on March 11, 2005 at 3:12 PM (CST)


LOL, Jobs is having a tough enough time keeping the price at .99 with all the record labels pressuring him for an increase.  Ask him to cover a sales tax and he’ll probably bite your head off.

Posted by ACLeroK212 on March 11, 2005 at 3:19 PM (CST)


“but I don’t see why tax shouldn’t apply to downloaded music as much as it applies to everything else bought online.”

You pay tax for other things bought online?  Interesting…

I sure mind paying taxes.  It just means more money going to people doing nothing for the product or for me.  It’s the current trend of “hey, there’s something that’s popular - tax it!”

I guess I’m just odd in that I like to actually keep my money that I earn.

Posted by m. sherman on March 11, 2005 at 3:31 PM (CST)


I’d be ok with a price per song increase if:

The lables open up the vaults and make more stuff available.

For every 50 tracks we buy we get 3 free.

Offer longer previews (30 seconds don’t cut it).

Offer different formats and bitrates.


Posted by CanofAir on March 11, 2005 at 4:17 PM (CST)


Does the “5ยข per song” thing remind anyone else of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off?

“Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone?

“Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve.

“Anyone know what this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point.

“This is very controversial. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. ‘Voodoo’ economics.”

Posted by SPThom on March 12, 2005 at 11:09 AM (CST)


Talking Madness, in fairness, most of the artists who have music on iTunes are nowhere near millionaires. As for the record labels on the other hand (who’ve gouged us for years, price fixed and treated their customer base like criminals) let ‘em rot!

Posted by punxking on March 12, 2005 at 12:05 PM (CST)


To me the 5 cents per track thing makes perfect sense. The cost of distributing tracks online is exceedingly low. With CDs you have to pay for the production of physical CDs and distribution of them. So they could sell online tracks for a much, much lower price than they do now and still make a substantial profit per track. The end result would be that current iTMS users would buy much, much more than they do now, even taking chances on stuff they are less familiar with and otherwise wouldn’t have taken a chance on, and lots of people that currently download tracks illegally would stop doing so. The net result is the industry would make more money and consumers would be able to have much larger music libraries, which also spurs demand for larger (and more expensive) iPods. I don’t know if 5 cents is the magic number, but certainly 99 cents isn’t it.

Posted by sjonke on March 12, 2005 at 10:22 PM (CST)


M. Sherman-

I pay sales tax on a lot of things I buy online.  I do try to find sites that won’t charge the tax, but that’s not always possible.

I believe that the law says something like if you live in the state were the site is based (or, if the site has offices in your state) they have to charge you tax.

Posted by Talking Madness on March 12, 2005 at 11:58 PM (CST)


Why pay for advertisement and propaganda?

I want to have fun. And fun is always spoiled by the loss of freedom. And information must be free. And music is information - and fun!

Posted by whizzbizz on March 14, 2005 at 10:09 AM (CST)


Sales tax is paid on online purchases if the seller has a brick-and-mortar store, or a warehouse, call center, office, etc. in a state. There must be a physical nexus between the taxing entity and the seller. In this case, what’s being delivered is 1s and 0s over the internet. There is no delivery of a physical product or service. I just don’t see how Wisconsin could get away with such a proposed tax. (Non sequitur: if access to playing digital music were interpreted as a service, Napster’s rental-music would be subject to a tax.) I cannot remember right now if my DirecTV, a similar delivery of digital product, not even through phone lines but through the air itself, is subject to Texas sales tax. I’m thinking it’s not. Or shouldn’t be.

Posted by DigitalKim on March 16, 2005 at 12:44 PM (CST)

Subscribe to iLounge Weekly

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 - 2018 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy