Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Sebastian Thrun: Google's Driverless Car
Warner Music Pushing 'Music Tax' With Focus on Universities
Warner Music Group (WMG) has begun pitching its controversial "music tax" to universities, some of which are expressing interest, TechDirt reports.
This "music tax," the brainchild of WMG's recently hired online mastermind Jim Griffin, would constitute a "covenant" between WMG and the "tax"-payer, by which the payer could download music freely and WMG would not file suit. The "tax" is really an additional fee that Internet subscribers would pay to their ISP. According to Griffin's model, ISPs would then turn that money over to the record industry, who would, he assures us, distribute the money fairly.
TechDirt obtained the above PowerPoint presentation that Griffin has allegedly been delivering to universities, and reports that, as of right now, eleven different universities have expressed interest in participating.
With an ever increasing number of music consumers getting their music online, and finding out about new bands in the same way, we all know that labels and distributors need to reevaluate. That being said, this pay-us-not-to-sue tactic strikes us as an impulsive act of desperation, if not bullying. [From: TechDirt]
16 Grammys Looks That Weren't Working
Whitney Houston Autopsy: Cause of Death Determined?
Worst Movie Mistakes: Date Night Edition (PHOTOS)
Whitney Houston, Bobbi Kristina: Late Singer's Daughter Hospitalized
Adele Five-Year Break? Singer Plans to Focus on Relationship, Write 'Happy Record'
PHOTOS: President Obama's Kissing Technique
Jennifer Hudson Whitney Tribute: Grammy President Reveals Why Singer Was Chosen for Musical Memorial
Grammy 2012 Winners' List: Adele Sweeps Music's Biggest Night
How Hattie Lost 300 Pounds: 'I Was Ready To Do Whatever It Took To Survive'
3 Economic Misconceptions That Need to Die
5-Hour Energy: A Success Equal Parts Caffeine, Chemistry and Meditation
Matt Bomer Comes Out As Gay
People With Easy-To-Pronounce Names More Likely To Succeed, Study Says
Katy Perry Grammy Performance 2012: Did the Diva Diss Her Ex-Hubby With Revealing New Song?
Grammy Awards 2012: The Best & Worst Of The Red Carpet!
Whitney Houston Dead: Stars React to Legend's Sudden Death
Photos Of Dead Lacrosse Player's Injured Body Shown To Jury
12 Grammys Stars Who Gave Good Style
The Top 10 Slacker Colleges
15 Funny Valentine's Day Cards
Mystery Disease Kills Thousands
WATCH: 25 Million Tons Of Japan Tsunami Debris Headed Directly Our Way
Oprah Under Fire For Controversial Tweet
PHOTOS: Thank God For Grown-Up Glamour
JUNGLE SURVIVAL: Marines Drink Snake Blood, Eat Insects
Remembering The People's Ballerina
New Clues, Details Emerge In Powell Case
PHOTOS: Model Falls At Dennis Basso Show
PHOTOS: Kate Spends Valentine's Day Solo!
Taylor Swift Does Great Depression Chic
PHOTOS: Beautiful Scars
15 Funny Valentine's Day Quotes
Comments
4
Subscribe to commentsdwr50Dec 6th 2008 11:09AM
"ISPs would then turn that money over to the record industry"
What stupid ISP would become a collection agent for Warner Music Group ? It's clear that Warner just want's people to GIVE them money... don't we all. (lol)
sgentilejrDec 6th 2008 4:51PM
The music industry has learned that their efforts to file suit against people who download music they believe they should be paid for are costing the music industry far more money than they are recovering from those people who have been taken to court. Their lawyer fees and expert witness fess are killing them so not they want to offer downloading as a small addon fee. Better settle for a little, rather than get nothing is their new approach.
JohnDec 6th 2008 6:09PM
Wow they make is sound oh soooo good. And it might be a good deal for the educational establishments. But there is an obvious exclusion of any mention of the solo internet user. Now if the ISPs sign on to this does it cover every user, or will there be caveats. or will this be one of those socialist set ups where all pay for the few.
Also this non-profit company to operate their new plan. When has any corporation ever let anything live long that was not generating a profit. Also there is no mention to fee schedule or that what may start out as a good deal will remain so after someon figures out that there is mooney to be made. The people in charge of the non-profit might discover a way to fatten their paychecks through fee increases.
Now this may actuually be a good deal, but an industry that has a long history of ripping off everyone from artists to fans, is not the one who should be trusted let alone be the overseer of such an operation. They have hired a slick internet type to sell and package this. And like all sales persons he is eyeing his commision over telling the downside. Beware as the fox is trying to get the position of guarding the hen house
oh yeah Merry Christmas everyone
xalaskaDec 6th 2008 9:20PM
I wonder what type of market research WB has done. Are the consumers being targeted, (college students), currently purchasing songs online? If so, how many songs do they purchase per month?
What will the 'tax' be? At say $3 per month, the music label is betting that the consumer currently purchases less than 3 songs per month, or they will be losing money. If the label gives up unlimited downloads for $3 per month, the recording artist loses out. It would not make sense to sign to this label. If WB is attempting to make up for losses through internet piracy, they need to implement the current technology that exists for eliminating piracy altogether. There has to me more to this story that meets the eye. Or, there is much less business sense at WB than meets the eye. I am guessing that it is a combination of the two. For those who wonder why the music industry is losing money, even with record numbers of consumers...just look at the price of their product. The price per single ($.99) is actually less than what is was 30 years ago ($2.25 for a 45 with 2 songs).