| Author |
Thread |
|
Future_Shock
Advanced Member
Australia
2,483 posts
Joined: Apr, 2007
|
 Posted - 2011/03/22 : 21:08:30
It's a pretty "out there" theory, so just stick with me if you can. This is meant to encourage discussion, it's not me PROPOSING an idea. I'm not in the position to do that anyway. So stick with an open mind while you read this idea.
Nobody pays for music. It's free, and legal. You go to your itunes account, or beatport, or track it down, or whatever, and there are no price tags next to music. Or maybe there is, keeping an option to pay artists if you want should be encouraged, but not a prerequisite.
Now this theory comes from the idea that more people fileshare than not. Which i think is largely true. What i'm saying is that a national tax is imposed for the right to fileshare.
I know this has been said before, but hear me out. As a professional artist, and as a civilian, i wouldn't have a problem with this. Now keep in mind im pretty shitty with math, and to keep it simple i'm just going to use figures for Australia only.
The average australian income is ~$30,000 a year. I'm going to use rounded off numbers to keep this simple. That's ~600/week, which is minimum wage for someone over 25.
If 1% of that income was taken every year as a 'music tax'that would equal ~$300/year. That's ~$5/week, or around 80 cents per day. There's 22 million people in australia, let's assume only half of them would fit into the right demographics to buy music.
$300 by 11 million people is around about 3 BILLION dollars. That would go a long way to paying musicians.
There are two ways this can go in regards to payment. One way is that every "certified" professional artists gets a base salary, and then commissions from albums and tracks. Obviously this would mean there would need to be a way to identify who is a legitimate musician, and who is not.
The other way is that there becomes a national music board for every country. There could be courses and degrees for this kind of thing and there would be departments for every genre of music. They would decide who is elligible to receive from the tax, and those who aren't. Obviously different genres based on popularity would recieve a different amount of funds to distribute between artists.
Personally the latter seems like a better idea. It'd decrease unemployment, increase the economy, and strengthen the music scene on a national scale. This seems like a small price to pay for 1% of your income. But it doesn't even have to be an income tax. ISPs could easily be charge an extra equivalent percentage for their rates.
So how many people do you think are PROFESSIONAL musicians? I'd say maybe one in 30 people? that's 3% of the 11 million. That's 330,000 professional musicians in australia. I think that's also a VERY generous figure. I'm sure there are significantly less. But regardless, that distributes about 10,000 to each musician per year. I can tell you from personal expereince, that takes the edge off. And we're talking insignificant numbers at the moment. it could easily be taxed higher without an issue (like income tax, there'd be tiers) and obviously not everyone earns 30,000 a year.
Now this is just for australia, we have a very small amount of people compared to, for example, the USA.
Anyway this is just a theory meant to incite discussion. Now, discuss.
__________________________________
New Future Shock Hardcore: https://soundcloud.com/futureshockgroup
Alert moderator 
|
TheOneNOnly
Advanced Member
United States
1,937 posts
Joined: Oct, 2008
|
Posted - 2011/03/22 : 21:29:44
The system would either to easily exploitable, or so damn hard to get into that it wouldn't be worth it. It sounds too much like social security, and like above, could easily be manipulated to work for you with the right lawyer on your side. Exploitable how you might say?
Since I live in America, I will base my examples simply off of our own laws and regulations. Simply put, parodying someone or something is not against the law, and you can easily do it without any kind of consent. Take all those songs on the internet about Charlie Sheen, how they are auto-tuned? Put that shit on iTune's, people download it because it's free, and you're making yourself a commission. You might say "hey, that's not a professional musician!", but their lawyer counters. They put the time and effort into remixing an interview into a song, and it fits all logical basis to fit as a track, therefore they are able to make profit off of it as a musician living on the pension you stated. As it stands right now, they could easily sell those songs already onto iTune's but instead put them on YouTube. If this system was put into place they could do the opposite and make $10k a year as you stated for doing what me and you might think as nothing.
The system would just be too exploitable, and it isn't easy to set standards and regulations on whom is professional and whom is not. What you might consider music, i.e. hardcore, is techno trash to a hardcore metal fan and isn't considered music. On the flip side you love hardcore, and think hardcore metal is shit and shouldn't be considered music. Who is right, who is wrong? Your song consists of a bunch pots and pans banging together in a beat, but to me it sounds like you just randomly hitting shit. You say it's music, I say it's not, and you shouldn't be considered a musician. But you spent the time to record, develop, and smooth the track out. Who is right, who is wrong? This is the problem with a system like this.
Everyone is right and everyone is wrong, and in the world of music everyone is a professional and everyone isn't. Opinions differ as much as religion, and you can't just make it so easy to regulate. Therefore, like I stated before, it would either be to easy to exploit, or to hard to get into. A large corporation could easily control a huge amount of money through some kind of system like this for their artists. How do you stop it? They already have the fan base and the recognition to automatically get into something, and they would be the ones to turn to to set up regulations. Now you're back to square one where there is an elite and an underground.
Honestly, you just can't win.
__________________________________
New YouTube Account
The Past, The Present, The Future (CD One)
The Past, The Present, The Future (CD Two)
Alert moderator
Edited by - TheOneNOnly on 2011/03/22 21:38:49 |
Samination
Advanced Member
Sweden
13,230 posts
Joined: Jul, 2004
195 hardcore releases
|
Posted - 2011/03/22 : 21:34:07
I don't know how it works in other countries, but in Sweden we have a form of tax that you pay if you got an radio or TV (with a tuner, but this part is supposedly removed now, so any kind of TV is debited). This of course is actually nothing Copyright owners gets directly from listeners/viewers, rather it's something we pay so our natinonal Radio/TV-Stations will be commercial free.
Sweden also has a tax (not really a tax since it's money that doesnt go to the government) on burnable CDs and DVDs. Supposedly there should have been a tax on memory sticks and harddrives, but that's been halted for the moment because of one problem. Who is supposted to pay for this copyright tax?
I wont deny that most hardware are actually bought by private consumers, that might or might not use these storages for Illegally obtained copyrights. But should companies, that use these storages for business and not copyrighted material? It's obvious that they shouldn't, because as a company, you DO NOT DOWNLOAD COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL ILLEGALLY (personnel might download, but it's still company property).
Also, who, or rather when, do we class Artists as professional or certified Artists? I don't think 70% of the hardcore producers have gone through alot of papers to make sure their music is copyrighted and approved for compensation today. Heck, in Sweden you're automaticly "protected" through STIM, wherever you want it or not. They can sue people for playing your music, but you wont get the money from these processes unless you personally get in touch with them.
__________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Samination, Swedish Hardcore DJ
Happy, UK Hardcore, Freeform, Makina and Gabber
http://samination.se/
---------------------------------------------
Alert moderator
|
Future_Shock
Advanced Member
Australia
2,483 posts
Joined: Apr, 2007
|
Posted - 2011/03/22 : 21:43:09
quote:
Originally posted by TheOneNOnly:
The system would either to easily exploitable, or so damn hard to get into that it wouldn't be worth it. It sounds too much like social security, and like above, could easily be manipulated to work for you with the right lawyer on your side.
How would it be easily expoitable? It's not any easier to exploit than any other system. If someone uses a lawyer to "get in" then that doesn't mean they can, and then stop writing music. Obviously there'd be prerequisites and download expectations etc to stay qualified.
In fact, that'd be a good way to do it. You're qualified after a certain amount of downloads minimum, per track you release. ANd you'd need to release a certain amount per year. This would sort the hobbyists from the professionals.
quote:
Originally posted by Samination:
I don't know how it works in other countries, but in Sweden we have a form of tax that you pay if you got an radio or TV (with a tuner, but this part is supposedly removed now, so any kind of TV is debited). This of course is actually nothing Copyright owners gets directly from listeners/viewers, rather it's something we pay so our natinonal Radio/TV-Stations will be commercial free.
Sweden also has a tax (not really a tax since it's money that doesnt go to the government) on burnable CDs and DVDs. Supposedly there should have been a tax on memory sticks and harddrives, but that's been halted for the moment because of one problem. Who is supposted to pay for this copyright tax?
I wont deny that most hardware are actually bought by private consumers, that might or might not use these storages for Illegally obtained copyrights. But should companies, that use these storages for business and not copyrighted material? It's obvious that they shouldn't, because as a company, you DO NOT DOWNLOAD COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL ILLEGALLY (personnel might download, but it's still company property).
Also, who, or rather when, do we class Artists as professional or certified Artists? I don't think 70% of the hardcore producers have gone through alot of papers to make sure their music is copyrighted and approved for compensation today. Heck, in Sweden you're automaticly "protected" through STIM, wherever you want it or not. They can sue people for playing your music, but you wont get the money from these processes unless you personally get in touch with them.
I see your point. I'm not exactly sure WHO should be paying what... But nothing is being done at the moment about it and that's just wrong. Just throwing out ideas to find a solution.
IMO ISPs should be held accountable to an extent. they provide a service (the internet) and people are abusing that service to do illegal things. Who ever heard of providing a service and not policing it or being responsible for it?
__________________________________
New Future Shock Hardcore: https://soundcloud.com/futureshockgroup
Alert moderator
|
Samination
Advanced Member
Sweden
13,230 posts
Joined: Jul, 2004
195 hardcore releases
|
Posted - 2011/03/22 : 21:56:23
I might defend the ISP and say "then the postal services should be held for things sent throu them".
When it comes to movie and game industry, I dont think they put enough money into getting more stuff digitally. The game industry might have a harder time with that because of the console things and stuff.
But I had an idea!
They should work with the manufacturers of recorders. Create a program that needs a specific code to burn specifc games iso, so they work like legit discs you can buy.
__________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Samination, Swedish Hardcore DJ
Happy, UK Hardcore, Freeform, Makina and Gabber
http://samination.se/
---------------------------------------------
Alert moderator
|
TheOneNOnly
Advanced Member
United States
1,937 posts
Joined: Oct, 2008
|
Posted - 2011/03/22 : 22:03:14
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
quote:
Originally posted by TheOneNOnly:
The system would either to easily exploitable, or so damn hard to get into that it wouldn't be worth it. It sounds too much like social security, and like above, could easily be manipulated to work for you with the right lawyer on your side.
How would it be easily expoitable? It's not any easier to exploit than any other system. If someone uses a lawyer to "get in" then that doesn't mean they can, and then stop writing music. Obviously there'd be prerequisites and download expectations etc to stay qualified.
In fact, that'd be a good way to do it. You're qualified after a certain amount of downloads minimum, per track you release. ANd you'd need to release a certain amount per year. This would sort the hobbyists from the professionals.
Re-read my post, I edited it.
__________________________________
New YouTube Account
The Past, The Present, The Future (CD One)
The Past, The Present, The Future (CD Two)
Alert moderator
|
Future_Shock
Advanced Member
Australia
2,483 posts
Joined: Apr, 2007
|
Posted - 2011/03/22 : 22:13:14
quote:
Originally posted by TheOneNOnly:
The system would either to easily exploitable, or so damn hard to get into that it wouldn't be worth it. It sounds too much like social security, and like above, could easily be manipulated to work for you with the right lawyer on your side. Exploitable how you might say?
Since I live in America, I will base my examples simply off of our own laws and regulations. Simply put, parodying someone or something is not against the law, and you can easily do it without any kind of consent. Take all those songs on the internet about Charlie Sheen, how they are auto-tuned? Put that shit on iTune's, people download it because it's free, and you're making yourself a commission. You might say "hey, that's not a professional musician!", but their lawyer counters. They put the time and effort into remixing an interview into a song, and it fits all logical basis to fit as a track, therefore they are able to make profit off of it as a musician living on the pension you stated. As it stands right now, they could easily sell those songs already onto iTune's but instead put them on YouTube. If this system was put into place they could do the opposite and make $10k a year as you stated for doing what me and you might think as nothing.
The system would just be too exploitable, and it isn't easy to set standards and regulations on whom is professional and whom is not. What you might consider music, i.e. hardcore, is techno trash to a hardcore metal fan and isn't considered music. On the flip side you love hardcore, and think hardcore metal is shit and shouldn't be considered music. Who is right, who is wrong? Your song consists of a bunch pots and pans banging together in a beat, but to me it sounds like you just randomly hitting shit. You say it's music, I say it's not, and you shouldn't be considered a musician. But you spent the time to record, develop, and smooth the track out. Who is right, who is wrong? This is the problem with a system like this.
Everyone is right and everyone is wrong, and in the world of music everyone is a professional and everyone isn't. Opinions differ as much as religion, and you can't just make it so easy to regulate. Therefore, like I stated before, it would either be to easy to exploit, or to hard to get into. A large corporation could easily control a huge amount of money through some kind of system like this for their artists. How do you stop it? They already have the fan base and the recognition to automatically get into something, and they would be the ones to turn to to set up regulations. Now you're back to square one where there is an elite and an underground.
Honestly, you just can't win.
Sorry that whole response wasn't there when i replied.
That's why i highlighted the idea of figurehead positions for genre. If there is a type of music that's selling, then it obviously needs a figurehead position to monitor it. It's like applying for any job, you'd need a certain prerequisite to get in. Obviously an interest in that genre is required. Besides, it doesn't come down to the figurehead's own personal taste - that's why i also highlighted in my second response that it should be based on how much interest there is in it - ie downloads, or some other way of monitoring it.
It could also be in effect that it's only open to musicians who earn UNDER a certain amount through royalties and performances. Britney spears wont miss her 10K, but other struggling musicians would sure like a share of her cut.
quote:
Originally posted by Samination:
I might defend the ISP and say "then the postal services should be held for things sent throu them".
When it comes to movie and game industry, I dont think they put enough money into getting more stuff digitally. The game industry might have a harder time with that because of the console things and stuff.
But I had an idea!
They should work with the manufacturers of recorders. Create a program that needs a specific code to burn specifc games iso, so they work like legit discs you can buy.
Ah but the postal service does keep track of things like that. Well at least here they do, and you do get fined or other penalties if you break the law. That's the difference. ISPs don't even MONITOR it.
About movies and games, i don't see it as NEARLY as big of an issue to be honest. For the most part it is a fairly big effort to pirate existing games (mod chips etc) and then you either have to burn your own games (paying for dvds as well) or download them (coming back to ISPs being responsible).
The movie industry though? It's far more profitable than the music industry. They regularly have budgets of tens of to hundreds of millions and regularly make a profit on that.
Small film makers might not but it's fairly different. It's not the exact same industry, and it wasn't part of the argument lol One problem at a time sam
__________________________________
New Future Shock Hardcore: https://soundcloud.com/futureshockgroup
Alert moderator
|
Future_Shock
Advanced Member
Australia
2,483 posts
Joined: Apr, 2007
|
Posted - 2011/03/22 : 22:15:28
quote:
Originally posted by TheOneNOnly:
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
quote:
Originally posted by TheOneNOnly:
The system would either to easily exploitable, or so damn hard to get into that it wouldn't be worth it. It sounds too much like social security, and like above, could easily be manipulated to work for you with the right lawyer on your side.
How would it be easily expoitable? It's not any easier to exploit than any other system. If someone uses a lawyer to "get in" then that doesn't mean they can, and then stop writing music. Obviously there'd be prerequisites and download expectations etc to stay qualified.
In fact, that'd be a good way to do it. You're qualified after a certain amount of downloads minimum, per track you release. ANd you'd need to release a certain amount per year. This would sort the hobbyists from the professionals.
Re-read my post, I edited it.
I know, i already replied ;)
__________________________________
New Future Shock Hardcore: https://soundcloud.com/futureshockgroup
Alert moderator
|
TheOneNOnly
Advanced Member
United States
1,937 posts
Joined: Oct, 2008
|
Posted - 2011/03/23 : 03:23:39
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
That's why i highlighted the idea of figurehead positions for genre. If there is a type of music that's selling, then it obviously needs a figurehead position to monitor it. It's like applying for any job, you'd need a certain prerequisite to get in. Obviously an interest in that genre is required. Besides, it doesn't come down to the figurehead's own personal taste - that's why i also highlighted in my second response that it should be based on how much interest there is in it - ie downloads, or some other way of monitoring it.
It could also be in effect that it's only open to musicians who earn UNDER a certain amount through royalties and performances. Britney spears wont miss her 10K, but other struggling musicians would sure like a share of her cut.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a figurehead. I take it as one of two ways: You either mean a figure company, like that of the FCC to regulate what counts and doesn't count as professional music, what counts as music, etc. Or someone directly who oversees it all, which wouldn't work at all, and I figure it's the former not the latter for obvious reasons. I just don't see it working because I have this nagging feeling some would see it as "censorship" because they are denied, etc. etc.
And I don't see how anyone could ever effectively track how much interest there is in a genre as it's pretty much a guessing game with no real statistics. Unless you formalized all downloads under one program, which would be impossible and a monopoly, there would be no way to track it. This also means "underground" types wouldn't get much publicity and would favor mainstream types more then it does so now. It would be extremely hard to make it a fair and equal system.
Filesharing will never be truly equal if you ever try to put restrictions on something. To me, it's either free or not, it's hard to have a middle ground because of just the human nature of greed. Everyone is out to make a buck, and people put time and effort into their products because not only do they have a love for the music, they want, and need, to make a living off of it. Now of course this isn't true for everyone, but it's definitely the case in mainstream artists who hold the majority of.. everything. It still seems like someone with the right mind and resources could easily play such a system and come out on top, especially if their popularity is extremely high.
__________________________________
New YouTube Account
The Past, The Present, The Future (CD One)
The Past, The Present, The Future (CD Two)
Alert moderator
|
carldj90
Senior Member
United States
299 posts
Joined: May, 2010
|
Posted - 2011/03/23 : 03:38:22
That was a very good read Andy. It seems reasonable.
Although it would be reasonable to just make music free and very reasonable to take out the failing money system.
I can't stress this enough. I do not want to pay for food, its f'ing ridiculous. It should be free, but it wont be. (and they call mcshit food? Come on why the hell would you pay for shit like that? People are just dumb)
I will pay for a CD that has fancy artwork on both the box set and CDs. That is reasonable.
All-in-all, if corporations didn't run the music industry this theory would work. Don't go against file sharing. I think its a great way to rebel against corporations. I do feel bad for the artist since most of them spend all their time making the music.
Personally, if and when I become and artist and ever do get a label. I would not care if I made a single dollar and everyone file shared my music. At least I would be keeping the scene alive. As long as I am doing what I love, I won't need money. I'd probably have a part-time job anyway just to pay bills.
Just because you don't receive money means a scene is dieing. (Most artist think money = saving the music.)
One more thing. I wouldn't be surprised if there have been artists who have pirated the software to make the music they sell. Then complain about file-sharing of the song.
Alert moderator
Edited by - carldj90 on 2011/03/23 03:42:37 |
D-tor
Advanced Member
United States
1,145 posts
Joined: Sep, 2009
|
Posted - 2011/03/23 : 05:45:35
Very interesting idea, to say the least. It would be hard to enter the discussion at this point, but I do have to say as with any system, if everyone sticks to it, it would work.
Also the American Republicans hate taxes, so they'd fight it ha ha
__________________________________
rAmen Break / rAmen Dream Owner
linktr.ee/djdtor
Alert moderator
|
carldj90
Senior Member
United States
299 posts
Joined: May, 2010
|
Posted - 2011/03/23 : 05:49:30
Yeah, honestly what I posted...I'm not even sure if it makes sense. I have to be under the influence of a plant to have a discussion like this.
Alert moderator
|
Lilley
Advanced Member
Australia
3,740 posts
Joined: Jul, 2006
|
Posted - 2011/03/23 : 10:10:54
In theory, good idea. In implementation, impossible. As for professional musicians in Australia, it would be closer to 1 in 300 than 1 in 30
__________________________________
nearly in line....
.....strange continuity problems
Alert moderator
|
Triquatra
Moderator
United Kingdom
12,637 posts
Joined: Nov, 2003
|
Posted - 2011/03/23 : 10:39:14
before i start, despite what people have said: virgin media here in the UK are 90% there with launching this idea, and have been in talks with Universal Music since 2008/09
this is where they are at the moment:
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/01/21/isp-virgin-media-uk-names-legal-music-download-service-musicfish.html
i agree with oneandonly, it is fairly exploitable and i can see alot of loop holes forming
back to what you said, its a theory, and with refinement you could probably shut down those loop holes and also the red tape you might come across
at the same time, i think that by ironing out the loopsholes (making a tax for it when i'm sure many would throw their hands up with arguments like "why should i pay for filesharing when i dont have a computer or use the internet" (these people do still exist - though dont focus on that point, its just one argument of many that would arise against imposing a tax on everyone) - and they way round that is an ISP tax for filesharing - that way you are only taxing the people with the means to do it - and no doubt will use that means through companies set up through ISPS...which they are trying to implement here in the UK through Virgin Media, no doubt it could expand to the BBC/Virgin/Alan Sugars venture "youview" though currently thats only going to be TVIP..of course that could offshoot to music downloads (all supported by englands TV Tax..er... license fee (147), sorry!)
but yeah, keeping the "tax" on the ISP (which looks to be 4.99 extra a month with Virgin, who i'm with!) and doing it though one company so as to track sales properly
the next step is to get record companys on board - which is the (very) hard part..or even getting yourself on board a major record company like EMI, Warner or Uni..
unless of course you look to Emusic..
__________________________________
Triquatra/Bee Trax/Cuttlefish
http://www.hardcoreunderground.co.uk/ - http://CLSM.net -
Alert moderator
Edited by - Triquatra on 2011/03/23 10:41:56 |
Samination
Advanced Member
Sweden
13,230 posts
Joined: Jul, 2004
195 hardcore releases
|
Posted - 2011/03/23 : 10:55:52
quote:
Originally posted by DjTriquatra:
before i start, despite what people have said: virgin media here in the UK are 90% there with launching this idea, and have been in talks with Universal Music since 2008/09
this is where they are at the moment:
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/01/21/isp-virgin-media-uk-names-legal-music-download-service-musicfish.html
i agree with oneandonly, it is fairly exploitable and i can see alot of loop holes forming
back to what you said, its a theory, and with refinement you could probably shut down those loop holes and also the red tape you might come across
at the same time, i think that by ironing out the loopsholes (making a tax for it when i'm sure many would throw their hands up with arguments like "why should i pay for filesharing when i dont have a computer or use the internet" (these people do still exist - though dont focus on that point, its just one argument of many that would arise against imposing a tax on everyone) - and they way round that is an ISP tax for filesharing - that way you are only taxing the people with the means to do it - and no doubt will use that means through companies set up through ISPS...which they are trying to implement here in the UK through Virgin Media, no doubt it could expand to the BBC/Virgin/Alan Sugars venture "youview" though currently thats only going to be TVIP..of course that could offshoot to music downloads (all supported by englands TV Tax..er... license fee (147), sorry!)
but yeah, keeping the "tax" on the ISP (which looks to be 4.99 extra a month with Virgin, who i'm with!) and doing it though one company so as to track sales properly
the next step is to get record companys on board - which is the (very) hard part..or even getting yourself on board a major record company like EMI, Warner or Uni..
unless of course you look to Emusic..
in sweden, it was actually the represent for the movie/music/game industry that wanted to implent the same thing, so I don't think it's actually that hard.
If they implent this system, they will earn shitloads of money. I also doubt that they will lower the prices on the real sold stuff, so when consumers want the real deal, in theory, have already paid off a part of the price.
__________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Samination, Swedish Hardcore DJ
Happy, UK Hardcore, Freeform, Makina and Gabber
http://samination.se/
---------------------------------------------
Alert moderator
Edited by - Samination on 2011/03/23 10:57:55 |
Triquatra
Moderator
United Kingdom
12,637 posts
Joined: Nov, 2003
|
Posted - 2011/03/23 : 11:15:24
clearly it is hard as its taken 2 years just to get to this point with Universal.
__________________________________
Triquatra/Bee Trax/Cuttlefish
http://www.hardcoreunderground.co.uk/ - http://CLSM.net -
Alert moderator
|
|
Printer friendly
