I guess what I’m saying, in the end, is that this isn’t an unworkable solution (it’s also not a stand-alone system, and needs additional means of revenue support so that fans can deliver full-value to artists as they choose). The levy-system benefits consumers because it is clear. It doesn’t try to equate one download to one sale, and instead looks to capture partial value. Focusing on personal electronics/mobile gear means that ISPs have no reason to end their status as common carriers and apply inspection appliances in a massively granular way to data traffic. Anonymity and privacy under a levy system are maintained. Do consumers pay a slightly higher price for blank media/devices? Sure, but I don’t think that’s anymore unreasonable than paying the trivially small environmental taxes for new computer equipment.

I’m neither sad nor sorry; it’s unworkable. It leads to a black-box, as described, and to money skimmed off all along the chain. It is looking back at the past, and trying to make it fit, it is not looking forward to the future.

We have recently solved the issue of how to do marketing and distribution of recorded copies, and we can do it at no cost, and achieve a wider distribution of knowledge, culture, and art, than ever imagined before.

Trying to attach a cost to it, in this way or any other, is adding friction and limiting the potential of what we could achieve. We need to see a free market, that results in a willing buyer and a willing seller (Crosbie Fitch is very much right in what he says about this).

Not taxes, control, tracking, and centralised collection and distribution, that only ends in pain. Please let’s not go there.

As always here, I speak first for myself, and not necessarily for any other organisation. While I am a member of the UK Pirate Party, and contribute there, my views are my own and do not necessarily reflect Pirate policy.

You note that a levy or tax turns into an extortion system; perhaps the levy could increase slightly as the various parties producing content try to ‘get in’ on the levy. A solution could be to identify a particular (fixed) rate for the levy, and have it increase by X (where X=rate of inflation, or something along those lines), and then an organizational metric for distributing funds. Figure every Y number of years it could come up for organizational review, and ensure that the board has a balanced groups of people sitting on it.

Currently, the Cnd levy stands as follows:
$0.24 per unit for Audio Cassette tape (40min or longer); $0.21 per unit for CD-R Audio, CD-RW-Audio & MiniDisc; $0.21 per unit for CD-R, CD-RW (non audio). In 2009 the levy on CDs and MiniDiscs will rise to $0.29 ( Source )

This doesn’t seem particularly excessive to me. To date, over $100 million has been dispersed. Clearly, this doesn’t represent anywhere near the monies recording groups clamour for, but it does represent the partial value of downloaded media. Arguably, the reason so little is now collected/distributed is based on a repealing of a media levy on portable music devices (because of the overreaching that you note before – a Canadian judge stopped it because it wasn’t part of the initial levy).

As for ‘how do we make people happy’, I would think that the method to do this is a (very low) cost per GB/TB or something along those lines, with rates being tracked per a formula based on average drive size increases that reduces costs on a per GB/TB basis. This can be done prior to the levy being restarted/started.

As for metrics, this isn’t hard, and doesn’t involve any use of DPI whatsoever (I’m cautious about the use of DPI for this kind of work, especially given its regular failings, which I write about as an academic focused on DPI). Get a couple smart programmers together to put together an aggregation system that identifies the number of downloads of songs/artists/albums across a wide set of sites (many of which might be interested in providing these numbers). Either the sites or the aggregation system can have significant anonymization protocols built it or scrub data sets after collation so that the data points can’t be tracked back to particular sites and/or individuals. Note that I’m note thinking of counting users, but aggregate numbers on sites. While it may not be 100% accurate, it will capture the long-tail better than the present evaluation metrics, as used in Canada, do. The nice thing is that, once it’s paid for, this is largely self-running. Have new sites added to the scape as they become prominent, and develop the overall system so that it’s modular enough to facilitate new scape systems as P2P moves to different platforms to account for P2P’s dynamic landscape.

As for how to ‘keep cash from the labels’, this is, again, organizational dynamics. It’s dealt with there. There isn’t any reason why labels, to an extent, *shouldn’t* receive some of the money. If they (not the artist) control/own the copyright on the song, then THEY should (from a legal sense) be the first receiver of monies. If you want to change that, fine, but that’s a larger issue of profit sharing and ownership of copyright (that rightly needs to be had) that doesn’t necessarily undermine a levy-distribution system. As to the point about current distribution mechanisms, I would say that it demonstrates a need to *reform* rather than *scrap* the levy system.

I guess what I’m saying, in the end, is that this isn’t an unworkable solution (it’s also not a stand-alone system, and needs additional means of revenue support so that fans can deliver full-value to artists as they choose). The levy-system benefits consumers because it is clear. It doesn’t try to equate one download to one sale, and instead looks to capture partial value. Focusing on personal electronics/mobile gear means that ISPs have no reason to end their status as common carriers and apply inspection appliances in a massively granular way to data traffic. Anonymity and privacy under a levy system are maintained. Do consumers pay a slightly higher price for blank media/devices? Sure, but I don’t think that’s anymore unreasonable than paying the trivially small environmental taxes for new computer equipment.

“…in all cases they are instances of particular organizational issues.”

“Organization” had little to do with what I was talking about. I was referring to the inevitable extortion every tax and levy to date has become.

Once any revenue stream is in place, it gets exploited by every agent in the process, and the consumer has no real avenue of recourse. Rates get jacked up and everyone is supposed to keep accepting that as “part of the package”.
_______________________________

“…extending the levy to portable devices has the advantage of…”

This is part of my Pandora’s Box theory coming into play.

The levy ends up being extended to EVERYTHING ELSE.
Start with an internet tax, and then you’ll have fill a “liability hole” by imposing another charge on services offered by individual sites. Other such “holes” will have to be patched with a charge on devices of all kinds, software, all forms of recordable media/storage items, etc.

How much will be enough to make everyone “happy”??
_______________________________

“…the issue is tracking metrics and monetary delivery systems.”

Yet, you don’t think the proposal is too complicated?!

- Who’s gonna track all the usage?
- Who is actually trustworthy enough to do so?
- Don’t we already have exploding privacy issues?
- How many agents will such a scheme need?
- How much will that take from the total?
- How do you keep the extra cash from just ending up in the labels’ pockets anyway??

These are just a few of the immediate questions that come to mind. And, once again, I’ll avoid bringing DPI into the discussion, even though it certainly belongs there.
_______________________________

“The overhead, in the Canadian situation, isn’t extremely high, and the levy is small enough that consumers are (reasonably) used to it.”

How much does the blank media levy actually add?…
Honestly, I have no idea, but currently, CDs are approaching TWICE the price of the more-capable DVDs. Logic would seem to dictate the levy is responsible for that, since there are no rational reasons. (Also goes back to what I said about what will happen to an internet tax – how much will the average internet service bill explode to, under the same plan?)

And as it was discussed here previously, considering the insignificant portion of that seen by the artists, and the disproportionate amount kept by the labels and the “non-profit” collectors, it’s safe to say the levy’s been a failure.

Believe me, I take the issues that you offer seriously, but in all cases they are instances of particular organizational issues. Administrative overhead exists, yes, and a levy doesn’t necessarily have to be the *sole* method of collecting fees/directing monies towards artists. As I understand it, a key issue with the levy in Canada is the metrics used to identify key artists (based on discussions I’ve witnessed between various parties in the music industry who tend to recognize distribution challenges and issues). The overhead, in the Canadian situation, isn’t extremely high, and the levy is small enough that consumers are (reasonably) used to it. Further, extending the levy to portable devices has the advantage of conveying some degree of legal protection on individuals engaging in P2P, and thus can shield them from devastating lawsuits from the music conglomerates. We need to acknowledge that people are listening to WAY more music than they were 20 years ago (in the sense of a more diverse set of albums and songs) but are highly unlikely to purchase all of those albums. A levy doesn’t try to capture the full ‘value’ of a song (full value defined as the present commercial valuation of media/content) but the partial value that might be derived from listening to song/albums. It is up to other delivery and monetization mechanisms to then pick up the ball and let new fans then direct funds towards artists they support.

At the moment, I don’t quite see how the levy system is ‘too complicated’ or ‘not streamlined enough’ – the issue is tracking metrics and monetary delivery systems. By focusing on the hardware that holds music, we can be sure to avoid charges at the ISP level, where all attempts to systematically track P2P file transfers using networking appliances has resulted in both invasive applications of technology *and* failures to prevent copyright infringement.

1) All taxes and levies always become nothing more than explosive cash cows that are totally abused at every opportunity. For example, start with a $5/month “internet tax”, and see how long it takes before it becomes $20/month, regardless of how much of that is actually being allocated to compensate music.

2) The Pandora’s Box Syndrome (which I’ve already discussed a few times) is a reality. There are too many “interested parties” in the picture now, just waiting to pounce on such a proposal. There will also be the need to create new ones connected with any levies that are introduced.

3) We already have “non-profit” organizations that are supposed to be collecting royalties, etc. Lots of money IS being collected… The artists just aren’t receiving it. Google “SoundExchange”.

4) The money collected from such a levy always gets whittled down by all the administration costs.

5) The blank media levy was a failure, and we’re still paying for it now.

6) Any solution to this whole mess would need to be in the form of something much less complicated (easily implimented), more streamlined (less people and processes that would reduce the total take), and not based on any past failures.

That said, I’m a Canadian, and don’t actually have an issue with a levy-system *that works*. In Canada, we are charged a levy on all blank media that is sold. This levy originated many years ago, and was meant to recoup losses from the copying of MP3s onto disks. The levy is very small per disk. Arguably, few people burn mp3s to disk like they used to – with the advent of cheap and portable storage media, that’s where media tends to go. Rather than targeting ISPs (who, really, should function like semi-intelligent data piping networks) why not impose a small levy on mp3 players? When I see an iPod or something like it, and am told that ‘160GB of storage just isn’t enough’ I have a hard time believing that someone has paid the not-so-small fortune to fill it up with music, TV shows, etc. Toss a levy on the device at point of sale, and then have a mechanism by which the money is blackboxed and distributed back to content owners.

Is a black boxing system ideal? No. But if we’re talking a levy, either a more broadbased sampling of what is being listened to needs to be widely adopted (i.e. one that does account for P2P downloads, YouTube hits, etc) or ’smarter’ devices (i.e. ones that can read what is being played and then report it back to a mothership/motherdatabase to adjust the levy in near-real time) would be needed for ‘targeted’ redistribution of levy fees. As a consumer, the former is an acceptable shift in distributing the levy, whereas the latter is a gross violation of my expectations of privacy.

As for the concerns about organizations collecting the levy, make them non-profits (or something similar). Organizational dynamics are such that there *must* be some kind of organizational structure that would suit a distribution of funds in an acceptably transparent fashion.

I am not in favour of counting how many copies of particular songs are transmitted across the web, for all sorts of reasons, not least because we have no idea which of these files is actually played. If we wanted to make payments proportional to popularity, we could use a voluntary play tracking system, like last.fm’s “scrobbler”, where users install a plugin to their media player which sends in usage data. Many fans would want to supply this data if they knew it would help the artists they liked.

TI’m not worried about everyone jumping on a tax bandwagon if one is built. That would lead, if to nothing else, at least to the realization that everybody is chasing the same dollar, and nobody is going to get the share they think they “deserve.” That really isn’t what we’re here to discuss, though.

The fundamental problem remains. The tax is proposed as a way to compensate for non-commercial downloads, and those, by general consensus here, are not supposed to generate revenue. You and I agree that what is “missing” is the need for this conversation at all within the parameters that have already been set for this discussion.

Here in the UK both of our two main parties are spineless and have no particular agenda other than to regain or retain power. If we are able to put some emphasis behind an artist-centred plan and gain some column inches in the popular press – and especially if the PPUK gets behind it, and is seen to be gaining in popularity – inevitably both major parties will, in their terror, start to move towards that position too.

Yes, I believe that if a2f2a comes up with nice policy that we could support, that the UK Pirates might be delighted to do so, and I would be very happy to take something like that back to the PPUK policy discussions and speak there in favour of adoption. Although possibly not this particular proposal…

In a similar way, I think that we would see the Featured Artist’s Coalition as potential allies (I believe we have been trying to make contact), if we in PPUK could come up with policy we believe in, and which the FAC could get behind and support as well, then I suspect we would be delighted to do so, and again I would speak in favour of adoption of such a policy by the party.

I suspect we all have similar ideas, we want freedom from control, censorship, and restriction by “majors” the way that happens today, we want artists and creative people to have the opportunity to profit from and earn from their work, we want it to be as easy as possible for new entrants to that, and maybe most of all we want to encourage the greatest possible flow of creativity and dissemination to the widest possible audience, and maybe not just an audience, but a participation.

How we get there… well, we’re asking the right questions, maybe, and with wit and ingenuity we will find answers.