'Download tax' for illegal downloaders?

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/music-indus...

That's actually quite a good idea.

id be willing to pay 30 quid a year

not a bad idea at all. Much better than fines to random downloaders, or trying to coerce ISPs into spilling the beans on people who download (Which apparently they've succeeded in doing so?).

its a much better idea then trying to stop all illegal downloading. I may be too young to have experienced it but get the impression its similiar to Home Taping is Killing Music jargon. Artists know that Illegal downloads help them (maybe in the indie sector where people will subsequently go to more gigs). Its those fatcats who are scared as ever.

Deleted Post

a good idea, but seems slightly strange. Are illegal downloads still illegal if you pay your £30, or does that just buy you immunity from prosecution? Will they bring it in for other illegal acts? I imagine they might charge gary glitter a bit more than £30 to be allowed immunity from prosecution for his "hobbies".

Well, its not without precedent - blank tapes in the past had a tax on them for the music biz.

Well, its not without precedent - blank tapes in the past had a tax on them for the music biz.

As did the blank CDs which standalone CD writers had to use, not that anyone uses standalone CD writers anymore.

Blank tapes never had a levy on them in the UK though there are some territories where such a scheme has been applied.

I think it's a fine idea, and i think a lot of people would be happy to pay. I'd be curious as to if this tax would apply to people who download movies and TV from America.

£30 is a good price - it is both a bargain for us punters and cumulatively is a massive amount for the record industry.

I'd like to know if there is a better way of splitting the cash up though as this seems a bit like the PRS model for distributing cash from PRS licensing in shops, pub, hairdressers etc. with most benefits going to very few artists and the rest of the industry not getting a look in.

Rubbish. So am I to believe that when I download, say, the latest Grouper album (which everyone should buy btw - it's awesome), that £30 is going to be sent Type Records' way? No.

This only benefits the majors.

^^ That is why it has taken so long to get to this stage - this is the nub of the argument as I understand it.

It is a good idea to pay a small one-off annual fee

...but...

There is no reasonable model for splitting up the cash which doesn't favour the majors

Rubbish. So am I to believe that when I download, say, the latest Grouper album (which everyone should buy btw - it's awesome), that £30 is going to be sent Type Records' way? No.

If you want the band to get the money why not pay for their music?

If you want the band to get the money why not pay for their music?

Glad i wasn't the only one who thought this...

Deleted Post

I suspect you're vastly in the minority there though, if you even mean it yourself. Very few people are going to care in the slightest about any major record company's profit margin (which is where I suspect illegal downloading hits hardest); they're much more likely to gain some sympathy if they can persuade people that it's the artists that are losing out.

Is there actually any information on who *does* lose out? I'd expect it most likely benefits smaller bands overall due to the increased exposure and hurts the larger ones, but I'm not sure how one would go about demonstrating whether or not that's the case.

I did wonder if you bought merchandise at a gig how much of it goes to the band, and if there was any difference whether it was CDs, Records, Tee-shirts?

I gather bands generally get a much better cut from merchandise than from music itself. I'm not sure exactly how much better, though.

^This is always my self-justification for buying (too many) band t-shirts.