6 comments

• 

  attaboy

  1 year ago

  Of course, Canadians already pay for the CBC through their income taxes regardless of whether they watch or listen to it, so it's not like this is unprecedented. The difference is that the CBC is a crown-corporation, so we're subsidizing salaries of performers and producers, not a for-profit business entity.
  
  If the ISP tax was distributed directly to artists, then I might actually be in favour, but since we know it will go to the record labels instead, the whole idea is ridiculous.
  
  (Almost as ridiculous as a tax on blank recording media.)
  reply
• 

  Porter

  1 year ago

  If it really is Intellectual "Property" - the owners of the rights to the "Property" should be taxed based on an assessed value. We tax everything else - land, cars, homes as property. The continual assertion by corporations about protecting their Intellectual Property involves the use of the government to protect it. The corporations should therefore pay their share.
  
  It would then become a self balancing system. Property which becomes very valuable will have a high assessment value - and thus a heavy tax. Much like old people who are forced to move from their family homes due to an inability to pay the property taxes on it - corporations might need then to sell at a lower value, or set free - pieces of "Intellectual Property" in order to avoid paying taxes on it.
  
  This isn't just about music - anything copyrightable, patentable, etc.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  That's an interesting idea. If the record labels want to charge fees
  for access, perhaps they should be paying a kind of property tax. It
  would certainly force content owners to confront their devotion to the
  "intellectual property" idea.
  reply
• 

  David Gratton

  1 year ago

  You make good points on the slippery slope of cultural content, but I would also add software, too. People steal software through via P2P, how can we get compensated for that?
  
  And I said this to Jim directly at SxSW. The biggest issue I have with this scheme is that it taxes the wrong people. Jim is trying to recover money from the declining sale of CDs, but he is not targeting the people who buy CDs, he's targeting everyone. When he talks about music being purchased now or in the 1990s he always talks about "the average" (or mean) and consumers only being charged about 3-5 dollars per month. However, looking at the average is a red-herring. The fact is MOST people (Mode not Mean) spend 0 (ZERO aka NOTHING) on music in any given month or YEAR. In fact the Median amount spent on music is also ZERO. The vast majority of the North American population does not spend money directly on music. Jim's plan in effect forces the majority of the population to subsidize a small group of people like me who do buy music.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  You are right software, David -- I will add that to the list. And
  that is an excellent point about the approach Jim is taking: it
  penalizes people who not only don't download music, but likely don't
  buy it in any form whatsoever -- and they have to subsidize the
  activities of a small group. That's just blatantly unfair.
  
  
  On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Disqus
  reply
• 

  vmo

  9 months ago

  Will ISP's be bill collectors for music companies? Absolutely not. Well, that all depends on what their cut is!
  reply