Warner Music Pitches Music Tax To Universities: You Pay, We Stop Suing | Hacker News Reader

Warner Music Pitches Music Tax To Universities: You Pay, We Stop Suing

techdirt.com

11 pointspeter12312 comments

The universities should unite to defend themselves collectively. Combined they are surely more powerful than the music industry.

Or they could just get out of the business of supplying data connections. They don't run their own electric power plants anymore. Why do they have to supply Internet connectivity? They should just let students get it on the open market.

> They don't run their own electric power plants anymore

They don't? http://www.harrisgroup.com/node/262

This extortion thing has happened many times, but did they band together before? There was some false patent about live video streaming and my university (Michigan Tech) had the choice to fight it (and probably win) at 4x cost or pay license fees of x (sorry I don't remember the figures). Well, MTU paid the fees and the company probably moved onto the next school. I wonder why higher education is so expensive...

Getting the internet from UCLA was awesome. It was super fast. And this was in the glory days of Napster. Considering the way housing works, I kind of doubt the heavily regulated private players would be better.

I'm not a lawyer, but how is this NOT extortion?

[In "Fat Tony" voice]: That is a lovely University you've got there. It would be a shame, if something were to... happen...

Yes, 'tax' is quite a euphemism here isn't it.

Warner is now signing acts to 360 deals. They finally are re-inventing their business by making money off of the brands they create via touring, merchandise, public appearances...everything but selling music.

This is what they should stick to and the rest of the industry should and I suspect will follow.

Great. Which pretty much guarantees that what little musicianship is left in today's music will be flushed down the toilet and what we'll get instead is some Hello! news story about how Rock Start X got spotted wearing Gucci at Nobu in London.

Remind me again what was so bad about paying for the music that you listen to? It seems to me the most economically efficient way of doing things: you pay for the good you consume. What you're suggesting is that record companies monetize music indirectly, and if you monetize, for example, by selling clothing apparel, are you going to want to have Beyonce on your artist roster or Ray LaMontagne?

Be careful what you wish for.

there was a report a few days ago that basically said that university education will be unaffordable for most people in a few years. This will only make it worse.

This is absurd even more so on the universities part that for even considering it. Why would someone who doesn't want to own or download any music or even for that matter someone who actully pays for his music be subjected to this involuntary tax? Looks like the tution fees are not going to fall anytime soon.

The problem is that if the record companies actually go after the worst perpetrators they get pilloried by the press for being nasty, when all they're actually doing is protecting their property and means to livelihood. I can just picture the reddit/hacker news stories: "I was sued for sharing music, my mother has no job and has five children and lives off welfare, and I was tasered by the cops to boot..."

The record companies are in a very difficult position; the market for sold music has shrunk by half in seven years - this during a period when actual consumption of music undoubtedly increased. This kind of event would be cataclysmic for any business. The charge that they have mismanaged things certainly has some truth, but they would be bleeding even if their industry was led by Jack Welch. I suspect that more than a bit of this hand-wringing over the failures of record companies' management is self-serving: by saying that the record companies "were slow to adapt", it provides a justification for me saying: "fuck it, I'll just steal the music". But 1) the days of music not being available on a paying basis are now largely over. If you want to pay for music, you no longer need to walk into a store to do so. So I'm afraid that's no longer a valid excuse. Also, 2) two wrongs don't make a right: the screw-ups of the record industry are not compensated for or negated by us stealing their content. So there really is no excuse for downloading music illegally nowadays. I would personally prefer if they engaged in some PR to explain the plight of all the sound engineers, A&R guys, mixing engineers, musicians -- in short, the entire ecosystem of jobs that form the music industry -- how these guys are getting mercilessly whacked. That and then go after the guys who share music, whether on college campuses or elsewhere; but that would require that internet providers are on board. I can just hear the howls over the infringement of privacy.

But make no mistake about this fact: if people don't directly pay for the music they consume, the quality of music will decrease.

This is one of the best responses I've seen to this debate here or otherwise. As someone involved in that value chain, but who is not a musician or record label, I can say with confidence that illegal downloading has devastated the lives of many people I know- engineers, session musicians, composers, persons who work at labels, publishers, distributors, etc. And the worst part of it is that the small indie type artist and labels, that people claim to support instead of the majors, are the ones who suffer the most. WEA, EMI, etc. can scale down and adapt, but look at Pinnacle in the UK, who went under yesterday, taking a huge amount of indie labels with them effectively.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com