01/30/2009 04:08:51 PM EST
Could A 'Piracy Tax' Ever Work?
posted by Rhys Jenkins
Whether it's Guy Hands and his handling of EMI, or the epidemic of illegal downloading, the music industry seems to be perpetually in crisis in one form or another. In all fairness to the major labels, artists and distributors, attempts to limit the damage caused by 'Peer-2-Peer file-sharing networks', in the form of programs such as iTunes, ringtone sales, and through interactive forms of marketing, have been very creative. However, by not radically addressing issues of the pricing and quality of the product offered by the music industry, have the most important factors of the entire saga been ignored?
The newest in a long line of attempts towards a solution to the biggest obstacle for the entire music industry has come, perhaps surpriisingly, from the UK Government. Communications Minister Lord Carter has urged the Rights Agency to toughen up on online piracy by levying a 'copyright tax', or 'piracy tax', on Internet Service Providers such as AOL, BT, Orange, Sky and Virgin. This additional cost for the companies would come hand in hand with legislation that would make it easier for the providers to prosecute those users who continaully infringe copyright law.
Groups from across the political spectrum have been quick to attack the move, claiming that companies would feel no more obligated to prosecute their customers because of the tax, which could so easily be covered by increased prices for internet access. The Liberal Democrat spokesman for Culture also raised the issue of whether the system merely punishes the majority by allowing their Internet Service Providers to spy on them to a greater extent in an attempt to quell the criminal activity of the minority.
Whilst both of these rejections are valid, what they strangely ignore is the music industry and its practices. Amongst artists there seems to be two broad schools of thought on the issue. Thom Yorke is an exponent of the idea that illegal downloading has been spawned and exaccerbated by failings in the capitalist system to deliver desirable goods on terms favourable to the consumer. The music industry is overcharging for a product that can be produced quite cheapy, the radio doesn't play songs people want to hear, and music television is not entertaining enough. Crucially, it is claimed that all don't do enough to help uncover new music.
The opposing view, held by the likes of Bono, is that money or access has little to do with people's motivations for downloading music illegally. It isn't logical to assume that consumers baulk at the idea of paying £10 for a CD album when they fork out up to five times as much on video games. The truth of the matter, they say, is that music is simply too easy to steal. Conventional theft from a store at least carries the risk of being caught and prosecuted. Online, the risk is decreased to such an extent that it actually more convenient to steal than to buy.
Whichever view you take (in fact, they could probably both be right) I'm still surprised it is the Internet Service Providers who are expected to prosecute all these illegal downloaders. Surely the crime is committed against the artists and their records companies, and it should be their responsibility to look after their own interests. Whilst I think the Liberal Democrats were naive to think that it was such a small group illegally downloading music, they were right to point out that not only would ordinary users have to endure increased surveillance as a result of this proposed legislation, but higher costs for access to the Internet also, whether because of a 'piracy tax' or the cost to corporations from taking out so many lawsuits against their own customers.
Capitalists have pushed for de-regulation when it has suited them, but whether it's the banks, or the music industry, when they are in serious trouble it seems the general public have to step in to prevent the rightful turn of events according to the capitalist belief system. If a business can't sustain itself, it should fall. That is the entire idea! It is the underpinning characteristic that is supposed to maximise the efficiency of the economy and keep the market on favourable terms for the consumer. The Government should make it as hard as possible for crimes to be committed in all cases, but it should not be the responsibility of separate corporations or the Government itself to prosecute in such instances.
Put simply to conclude, if the music industry could not afford to protect its interests and look after its own affairs, so long as conditions were fair, then essentially it is the fault of the industry for not moving quick enough to solve its own problems and eradicate its own weaknesses. The reprocussions of that may negatively affect me, in that I may not be able to purchase as much music as I used to, but it's not my battleground.
