March 29, 2008 6:00 AM PDT

Jim Griffin says ISP music tax only one possibility

The controversy over whether an internet service provider should charge for music is once again coming to a boil.

Pundits, music-industry insiders and members of the public are bashing Warner Music Group exec Jim Griffin after he acknowledged in a interview that he is working on a plan to collect music fees from consumers via their ISP bills.

I haven't seen backlash like this since rocker Trent Reznor told me in an interview two months ago that an ISP tax might be a good idea. It didn't matter to some that Reznor also made a seemingly conflicting statement in the same interview when he said perhaps music should be given away for free.

This kind of off-the-cuff musing was enough to make Reznor a target of widespread criticism. Nobody seemed to care that the leader of the band, Nine Inch Nails, was a digital-music innovator and had long called on the record industry to improve its treatment of fans. What happens is that people hear the word "tax" and objective analysis goes out the window. People condemn and vilify. Out comes the torches and pitchforks.

"It would be unfortunate if a creative and fruitful dialogue were sidetracked by a rush to judgment."
--Jim Griffin, Warner Music Group

Nearly two weeks after our Q&A appeared, Reznor disavowed his statements about the ISP tax. Griffin now appears to be tip-toeing away from some of his comments.

"We are in the earliest stages of what is a dynamic conversation about licensing opportunities in the global digital marketplace," Griffin said in a statement issued by Warner Music on Friday. "It would be unfortunate if a creative and fruitful dialogue were sidetracked by a rush to judgment about what was simply my own illustrative example of one of many concepts I have in this space."

The proposal outlined in the interview Griffin gave Portfolio.com suggested that ISP fees could create a $20 billion pool that would go to artists and copyright holders. Consumers would have the option of paying the fee or submitting themselves to advertising.

"All stakeholders stand to benefit from the kind of process that results from the willingness to consider a variety of raw concepts without prejudice," Griffin said in the e-mail.

But there's plenty of prejudice and Griffin should know this. The reality is music fans are distrustful of record companies. They resent talk about charges being quietly tucked into their monthly bills.

Griffin could have hardly done more to stoke paranoia than to attempt to sell his plan with comments such as this: "Music will feel free," Griffin told the magazine (the italics are mine).

He could be a digital-music genius for all I know. But Warner Music should have been smarter in broaching the subject of ISP fees than to allow Griffin to casually toss out ideas in print if--as he said in his e-mail--this is only one of "many concepts" the label is considering.

Warner Music now has a firestorm on its hands and few are trying to assess the idea dispassionately. That's too bad because the label, like its top three competitors; Universal Music Group, Sony BMG Music Entertainment and the EMI Group have appeared to be headed in the right direction of late. They've been experimenting with models and ideas they flat out rejected not long ago.

The labels have finally embraced open MP3s and struck deals to offer ad-supported music (albeit only in a streaming version) with social networks Imeem and Last.fm.

"There's a lot of experimentation in the marketplace right now and that's ultimately a good thing for the industry and for fans," said Mitch Bainwol, chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America. "It's important to note that all of the many ideas being floated out there involve voluntary payment systems, and not a government-imposed compulsory license. This would be the marketplace at work."

Bundling subscription fees into ISP bills on a voluntary basis may prove to be a bad idea. At this point, nothing is certain so shouldn't every proposal at least be explored?

We won't know if the public will embrace an all-you-can-eat music service from the ISPs until the music industry presents a formal plan, one that will hopefully be coolly and carefully analyzed.

Recent posts from News Blog
EarthLink ditches Philly Wi-Fi network
'Wuthering Heights,' Wikipedia in 5-minute chunks
A reminder of why Microsoft wanted Yahoo
Craigslist files lawsuit against eBay, claims unfair competition
Yahoo releases Delicious plug-in for IE
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 42 comments (Page 1 of 3)
REALLY? - what about carpenters, architects, school teachers
by digitalshaman March 29, 2008 6:21 AM PDT
let's see, trent reznor made, what, a million dollars for providing downloadable music? how about warner coming up with a program to create more JOBS? that sounds like a reason to tax ... jim griffin might consider giving a portion of the warners exec pay package to the artists ... wait, what about if the managers and others who do not make the music re-work their contarcts with artists and make the fairness issue one of wealth distribution and NOT one of taxing consumers? you know like the baseball/nfl/nba and movie industries/entertatiners particupate in the upside with their owners? copyrights can be rid of tomorrow by an act of congress ... and the artists will still play and still entertain ... NO MORE CORPORATE WELFARE!!! the lables & studios have successfully extended copyright terms, enacted the DMCA, sued literally hundreds of consumers, for what? if the artists has to make themseleves relevant to sell music and performances, let the labels compete with other conduits of music to justify their relevance ... we've heard this before and never heard complaints when FREE radio caused folks to buy albums ... and singles and cassettes and 8-tracks and jukeboxes and compact discs and and and ... billions spent on digital rights management scheme could have been given to the artists ... where was that advice? millions spent on lobbying for all of these measures could also have been split with artists ... all the while the music business continues to be vibrant and rich with talent! the "record" companies should compete like everyone else ... and maybe they should look at how other intellectual property can be attacked and undermined (congress is certainly not going out of its way to "help" or "hand-out" anything to entrepreneurs and inventors who actually create JOBS) suggesting that every user of the internet has to pay for the lifestyles of the rich and famous ... more pressing issues must be addressed first ... maybe job creation should come first ...
Reply to this comment View reply
ISP Tax NOT
by georgiarat March 29, 2008 6:31 AM PDT
Tax the US ISP customers and then the rest of the world gets it for free because they will not be paying a tax to RIAA I'm sure. After that we can tax for ABC, NBC, and CNN providing news, CNet for technology news, etc, etc. Pretty soon it will be like the cable companies and one will raise a fee and then the next and then real money will be involved. As the executives need more money to pay the California taxes they will just raise the fee another dollar per customer. Is there any brains left in the entertainment business? I think not.
Reply to this comment
Why should I pay for music I hate?
by prototerm March 29, 2008 7:01 AM PDT
I haven't found any new music in the last 20 years worth listening to. Only part of that is due to the music itself. The bulk of my complaint comes from the way the music industry "remasters" everything until it's positively painful to listen to. Now, granted I'm rapidly approaching the age where MP3 files sound pretty good (but *only* if they're recorded at 192 or higher), so that part of the equation isn't an issue. But this remastering has *got* to go! I'd really like to see the return of the vinyl record, believe it or not, as the technological limitations inherent in the format prohibit the kind of games producers can play with a CD or DVD. But I certainly refuse to pay a fee each month for music I won't listen to, and programs (P2P, which IMHO are an invitation to malware ) I won't use. As a consumer, there are ways of making my displeasure felt (many of these companies sell other things than music, after all), should these companies try this nonsense, and as a resident of the Internet, I have ways of spreading that displeasure far and wide. Finally, "all you can eat"? You can find that in any back alley in the city, too. Just look for the nearest garbage can. But hey, at least it's free, unlike this proposal.
Reply to this comment
ISP Charges
by MilSpecGuy March 29, 2008 7:13 AM PDT
I would dearly love to know how in the world the ISP's will be able to differentiate between those folk who download music and other media files, and those who do NOT! Or will everyone have to pay to support the Music Industry executives who are too lazy to try and find a way to use the Internet in a fashion that will allow only those interested in downloading the so-called 'music' Warner and others are fobbing off on the general public? If they think I will pay for some other parties to download music or video clips I have no interest in, they are sorely mistaken. Take a close look at your words, Mr. Griffin, and get yourself a plan in place to collect money for these downloads, or take a long walk off a short pier. I am NOT willing to pay to support someone else's habit of downloading music by paying a 'fee' built into my monthly bill. Why should I pay for their mistakes and mis-steps in how they have failed to plan for the reality of the Internet? And as to other 'possibilities', you all better watch your wallets , or you may be shocked to discover some new charges applied that will indirectly benefit the music industry to the detriment of others. Take a hike, and keep your phalanges out of my pocket book, Jimmy boy. Get a plan, or die, like the dinosaurs you apparently have become.
Reply to this comment
Stop EXPECTING free music, cheapskates
by mikestatic1 March 29, 2008 7:35 AM PDT
I'm no fan of the RIAA, but I do enjoy it when they take some loser to court for file sharing. It isn't about what you think is right or wrong - it is about legality. If you can't afford to buy music by your favorite artists, that is one thing... but these faux-intellectuals who base their theft on some 'moral' ground against the labels... they just want something for nothing. Which makes them not much more than nothing themselves... sad, really.
Reply to this comment View all 5 replies
Oh swell
by pbg3445 March 29, 2008 7:51 AM PDT
Then even if the record companies put out loser release after loser release, awful band after untalented popstar--even if nobody buys their ugly music--they'll still have a guaranteed revenue stream that they don't have to do anything at all to get. What a deal! Free money from the government! Just tell us how much money you think you're losing, and we'll give it to you! And we'll take it from people whether they steal music or not. Sweet!
Reply to this comment
Thief is theif, no matter how you package it...
by MTGrizzly March 29, 2008 8:49 AM PDT
I owned a small ISP during the nineties. Our margins were razor thin, while the start up costs were stratospheric. Adding an additional responsibility/cost - the charging and collecting of a "music tax" - would have killed us. And, for what? So the RIAA could get a bag full of money that they didn't, necessarily, earn? The RIAA needs to realize that the Internet is not the basis for all evil. That it is not their playground to manipulate at their will. There is no reasonable justification for a tax like this. All it would do is make the RIAA's members rich, while increasing the cost of Internet Access, (for some to the point it was no longer affordable), for everyone. Do we really want to make Internet Access so that a large portion of the population can't afford? For the sole purpose of making the RIAA's members rich? One of the previous posters pointed out that there isn't a lot of new music out there that is worth buying. I agree. Every time I go on a trip, I buy $20-30 worth of music from iTunes. Before my most recent trip, I bought 30 songs off of ITunes. Out of the thirty, only four were songs I hadn't already paid for in one form or another - eight track, cassette or vinyl. The most recently recorded song I bought was "Amish Paradise" by Weird Al Yankovich. Of the rest, some dated back to the sixties - Jim Croce, et cetera. How can the recording industry claim they are being victimized when they manage to sell music that was created in the 1960's, (If they haven't recovered their costs of producing a song from the '60's, then they are hopelessly incompetent and don't deserve to be in business), three or four times to an individual customer? This sounds like a license to steal. And they want to tax users, on top of that? I wish I could get away with something like that...
Reply to this comment
why not?
by Darryl Snortberry March 29, 2008 9:07 AM PDT
in our current environment we seem to like big government solving problems and making everyone happy. and we love taxes even though we are already taxed to the hilt so why not? why don't we just go ahead and hand the keys back over to england. if the best we can do is barack, hillary, and mccain why fight?
Reply to this comment
I hope ...
by thurston24 March 29, 2008 9:48 AM PDT
That we all throw our computers off the side of the ship. Dont forget to dress like indians.
Reply to this comment
Executives In Fantasy Land
by thenet411 March 29, 2008 10:11 AM PDT
This, once again, shows just how disconnected from reality executives are. Sad. Just sad.
Reply to this comment
1 | 2 | 3 | Next 10 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement
  • About News Blog

  • Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader
Google
Yahoo
MSN

Latest from News.com

Featured blogs

Beyond Binary by Ina Fried A look at how technology is changing our lives and at the people behind all that life-changing stuff.

Coop's Corner by Charles Cooper Charles Cooper weighs in on Silicon Valley hijinks, and he doesn't suffer fools gladly.

Defense in Depth by Robert Vamosi Covering the latest in computer viruses and computer crime.

Geek Gestalt by Daniel Terdiman At the tech culture nexus of video games, fire art, and virtual worlds.

Green Tech Fresh green tech news and commentary.

One More Thing by Tom Krazit Tom Krazit takes on the tech phenomenon that is Apple, and keeps a close watch on the chip industry.

Outside the Lines by Dan Farber When business and technology meet, that's when things get interesting.

The Iconoclast by Declan McCullagh Exploring the intersection of politics and technology.

The Social by Caroline McCarthy Exploring all facets of social media and tech culture.

Underexposed by Stephen Shankland Coverage of digital photography, science, and open-source software.

advertisement
Click Here
On TV.com: MILEY CYRUS photographs
Advanced
search
Advanced
search
Visit other CNET Networks sites: