Piracy Tax

Scott Hardie | December 6, 2007
Still a fan of Randy Bachman after this news, Erik? Songwriters association pushes for 'piracy' fee. All Internet-surfing Canadians would pay a $5 monthly tax to offset the cost of copyrighted file-sharing, which would become legal and de-stigmatized.

Yeah. This is going to happen. Like, next week.

Eric Wallhagen | December 6, 2007
5 bucks a month to make downloading legal and more easily available? um... hell yeah? especially with it being wrapped up in taxes, you'll barely notice it. I suppose to those that have absolutely no interest in downloading music, this is a harsh fee that they have no interest in. To me however, I'd be ok with it.

Amy Austin | December 6, 2007
Ditto. Although... who actually gets the proceeds begs another question... where do the actual record labels continue to fit into this picture???

Scott Hardie | December 7, 2007
For the record, I agree it would be great. I just think it will never happen. The record companies would never agree to a fixed system like that, and even if the law was passed, I don't think that would stop them from finding excuses to sue sites and users. I often find myself defending the recording industry in debates over file-sharing, but there's no way they'll embrace this fair and balanced of a system when they can cling to the illusion of power that they have now.

Steve Dunn | December 10, 2007
I have serious reservations about this concept.

First, who gets the money?

Second, why should people who never downloaded illegally have to pay for the people who did? Why should people have to pay for music at all if they're not using it?

Third, $5 per month is a ludicrously high tax for this purpose. By way of comparison, the city of Charlotte has a 0.5% special sales tax for the purpose of funding mass transit. The average taxpayer pays $40-$50 per year. That's for mass transit. The Canadian tax would be $60 per year... for music downloads. It probably sounds like a bargain to all of us, but extended to every internet and wireless user, it's a massive tax for a dubious purpose.

Basically, this plan boils down to a federalization of the music business. There is no reason why the government needs to be in this music business (unlike, for example, the road business and the law enforcement business).

Contrary to Scott's assumption, I think the record companies will love this approach. It is perhaps the only thing that can keep their dying business model alive. Meanwhile, legal downloads are becoming less expensive all the time.

I would favor a voluntary subscription service that provides access to legal file sharing, and I'd be willing to pay more than $5 per month for it. However, I find the concept of using taxes for this purpose virtually unconscionable.