iTunes: Who should be making money?

It may be making money for the RIAA but it's better than a tax

from JoeUser Forums

As I sit here in my comfy couch with my "The Register" white polo shirt on today I read Andrew Orlowski's article about Apple and iTunes.

And I basically disagree with almost everything in it. Which isn't surprising, I usually disagree on such matters mainly because I'm a greedy bastard capitalist while he's more in touch with feelings of an almost human nature. ;)

His article basically makes three points:

  1. Apple's iTunes isn't netting Apple any money. It's a loss leader used to help sell iPods.
  2. Most of the money goes to the RIAA who we all agree are a bunch of total bastards.
  3. Apple is, in essence, helping those total bastards when in reality the best solution would be to have some sort of "tax" (be it on CDs or income tax or something) that would then go to the artists.

It is point #3 I have a problem with. How is forcing everyone out there to pay the music industry a good thing? Who decides which artists should get paid and how much?

Paying taxes on roads we don't use may bug some people but there's a natural limit on the number of roads and that limit shows up pretty quickly. But on music? Half the guys in my high school class were hoping to "make it big" in the music biz. Taxes being used on health care or roads (or any forced fee) is more tolerable than being used on music. Music is a luxury. They have no practical value.

And the music industry isn't the only ones experiencing mass piracy. I don't know if anyone's noticed but software developers have been dealing with piracy on a mass scale for decades. You don't see us suggesting that tax dollars go to pay us for our efforts making video games and computer software.  Who do you think loses more to piracy each year? The "artists" at Metallica or the "artists" at Microsoft? Should we start sending checks to Microsoft?

Once you start creating slush funds for musicians to pay for some unspecified amount of electronic piracy you're opening Pandora's box.

I don't see the problem with Digital Rights Management. Sure, right now it's a pain because so many players don't yet support it. But in a year, it's going to get increasingly seamless. I've already bought $30+ in songs electronically which is $30 more than I spent in the past year before at the store.

I much prefer systems in which users pay the cost when possible. I'd happily pay for roads directly if there was a seamless way to pay my share every time I used it. Right now, toll booths are still quite cumbersome for most people (but getting better). Electronic music purchasing, by contrast, is quite seamless and getting more seamless all the time.

11,481 views 16 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think we have to remember that those in favor of higher taxes to benefit those who don't pay taxes tend to be those who don't have to pay taxes.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Making everyone pay a music tax wether they listen to music or not and distributing it to artists sounds pretty socialist to me.
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hrm...
Fortunately, my solution is simple: I do not give any money, in any form whatsoever to the RIAA or to any of their agents. That's what you can choose to do with a company whose business ethics or practices you don't agree with, see.

But - I'm a bit lucky too, due to my musical tastes - I can only name 1 or 2 RIAA labelled artists who I actually listen to - and most of those aren't even on an RIAA affiliated label anymore (but were in the past.)

I have over 300 CDs sitting here in my bedroom. The majority of them from independant US labels who have no (and do not want,) any RIAA affiliation such as Metropolis Records. The rest, are all from 'unsinged' bands who either put out their own discs, or publish/distribute from independant labels so tiny they may as well be called unsigned - and then, there are import discs - mostly from artists who are already on other indie labels in the US (such as Metropolis,) but these are releases that aren't available here.

Taxation's definitely -not- the right idea. I'm sure as hell /not/ willing to help support an artist I don't even listen to in the first place - and a per CD tax is just as laughable.

This isn't a popular view - but, the RIAA isn't the only group to blame here. Like it or not, the artists and yes, us, the consumers are just as responsible for this current situation. The only way to /truly/ fix this, I've always felt, is for both of those groups to wake up, realize it, and do something about it.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I completely agree. There's plenty of artists out there, especially on the Internet, and if people hate the RIAA so much and think that the music sucks so much, why not try independent bands? I haven't listened to any for awhile, but with a subscription to eMusic, I plan to listen to less mainstream stuff. Besides, supporting the competition would destroy the RIAA faster than a mandatory tax that ensures their longevity.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Taxation's definitely -not- the right idea.

The "taxation" being referred to here is a flat fee principle called Compulsory Licensing and is winning support from the music industry.

The problem now is that you're already paying your taxes to a monopoly. The RIAA is a state-blessed monopoly, exempt from antitrust provisions. And the RIAA keeps much of the "royalty" collection for itself. New technology has removed two of the justifications for the monopoly's taxes: a) there are new forms of mechanical distribution, and b) we can devise more efficient and accurate ways of determining royalties. I can't see how that now we have the Internet, this iniquitous system can be justified any longer.

So now we have agreed the RIAA monopoly is extinct, the only question is what model we decide to replace it with. There are no reasons why the replacement system need be regressive: I personally favor a cent tax on currency speculation or day traders. There's no reason to tax individual citizens any more.

a per CD tax is just as laughable

Stop laughing - you're already paying it on blank CDs

We have a common culture of great value, so shouldn't we be working out how to protect it, rather than how to protect obsolete monopolies?

SmtH
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wasn't aware that the RIAA is a state allowed monopoly. I thought only major league baseball had that exemption.

I just don't see what is so bad about Digital Rights Management on songs. It's not that big of a deal.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Stop laughing - you're already paying it on blank CDs"

Only the ones with the 'audio' label on them. The government, yes, considers the two differently labelled CDs to be two different beasts.
I've read many different articles on flat-fee licensing - and I admit I didn't read /that/ link as well as I could have (BAD headache at the moment - trying to keep it from becoming a migraine, whee!) and while it -was- a flat-fee licensing article, yes - the article didn't state anywhere that THIS one was a compulsory flat-fee scheme. I've read articles supporting both types.

And just as a question - but can a technically non-profit group even be /considered/ a monopoly?
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
All the RIAA bashing I have seen lately reminds me of all the Microsoft bashing that Linux Zealots do. Why is it some people just love to hate large companies that have been very successful?
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
There are too many relevant news links to point out (and at 3am, I'm simply not awake to do so.) Mostly, in a nutshell, the recording industry has a history (going back to at least the 50's mind you,) of being anything /but/ fair to artists.
A large number of artists wind up in /debt/ to the labels for making a record. The labels have (or had? I don't remember the results of the CA hearing,) no responsibility to provide /any/ accounting/accountability for royalties paid to artists.

The list goes on. A good deal of them are the treatment the major record labels give to their artists - which is, yes, a situation the artists get themselves into, and have to get /themselves/ out of.

My -biggest- complaint with the RIAA and the record labels is that they treat us, the consumers, like we are their enemies. The people who purchase their products, listen to their no-talent artists and buy into what they decide is 'good' music for us.

Which is why I simply don't support any RIAA affiliated artists or labels. It's my personal decision - I just have to keep my eyes open for the day they start trying to push laws through Congress which will affect my current listening habits. Now if I could only get 10 or 20 million people to feel the same way. ^_~

Oh - and the RIAA will be the /first/ people to tell you that they aren't a company - and generate no profit for themselves. After all, with being a company comes things like responsibility.

(And for the record, I may not agree with all of Microsoft's business practices, but hey, I like Microsoft. And Mr. Gates, you're free to send that cheque to.... )
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
How has RIAA treated customers like enemies? The only people I can see that they have seen them sue are people who illegally distribute copyrighted music over P2P networks. Don't you think it is generous of them to offer an immunity deal for P2P users/abusers that have not been caught yet where they sign a confession and promise never to pirate again.

I do not believe RIAA is a company. It is an association of five different record labels. Don't these five different record labels compete with each other to be the most profitable?

I notice that in this world there is a pattern of complaining about the most successful. People outside of and inside of the USA complain about America because we are the most powerful country in the world. People complain about Microsoft because they are the biggest software company in the world. People complain about the RIAA because they are an association of major record labels. Before Microsoft became as sucessful as it is today, people complained about IBM because they were the most sucessful computer company.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Microsoft and the USA actually make things. The RIAA does not. It is, by its nature, a parasite.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
The five record labels that make up the RIAA make recordings and publish CDs. It is the record companies that make spend the money needed on recording equipment. production, and sales. The record companies deserve compensation for their work as much as the artists do.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
... "Why is it some people just love to hate large companies that have been very successful? "

You're right, Tech Cat and kthxbyte -

Why is it some people hate getting screwed ? I hope you sent that price-fixing rebate form right into the trash. Perhaps you could offer the record companies more than they ask for their CDs? Perhaps a dollar or two more. And ask the cashier to send a note back with each purchase, saying "The larger you are - the more I love you! Keep screwing me!"


Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Don't you think it is generous of them to offer an immunity deal for P2P users/abusers that have not been caught yet where they sign a confession and promise never to pirate again."

Yes - an immunity which actually bears no weight at all. Even the RIAA fully admits that it doesn't protect you from that certain band's -label- suing you if they choose to. Not that I am trying to advocate the unlicensed downloading of music - but that was merely an attempt by them (an orginization viewd as, well, like Draginol said - a parasite at best, and something akin to an organized crime syndicate at worst by the population,) to gain public favor.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I believe Wired magazine has had some anti-RIAA articles in it I believe. Anyway, claiming the RIAA a parasite is very true. These major labels are complaining that they are losing money when they are still getting million dollar pay checks in the mail. How about instead of over-charging CD's for stuff that is at most crap and witch hunting the very source of income they need to make their posh lifestyles, let us pick and choose who we want to listen to that includes indie artists. Maybe 1 song for $1 for a CD that holds up to 20 songs. It would sure help the disk jockies in this country. :-)