Trent Reznor Favors An ISP 'Tax On Music'

HELL NO

pay for use, period. blanket taxes screw the people who dont use the service.
 
ObscureTerror just owned my mind. Awesome/unfortunate story.

You sure gave me a whole new outlook on this issue and i'm sure, many others.
 
Really NOT interested in opening the door to tax's on the internet in any shape or form.
Bad Idea.
 
Um, how do you stop people from tapping into someone else's open wireless connection?

How do you keep your "friends" from using your connection?

How do you keep someone's bot from doing this?

This smells like a turd...
 
On one hand tis great for him and his fans. They can get ALL of his works and he can be compensated for them. On the surface its a rosy love love world, but its a half baked idea.


I don't need to bring up arguments that have been stated before and I'm sure anyone can take 1 minute and find problems with this idea.


I believe the biggest problem is the middle man, we can see vast differences in the way the RIAA and MPAA work. Neither are wanted poster children for the treatment and distribution of assets however the MPAA has seemingly been more willing to be consumer friendly. With such opportunities as Renting (DVD's are just as open to being copied as CDs) and although they were behind the RIAA in downloadable content I believe it was more for technical limitations than company policy.


Ultimately I believe that the increase in technology in booth connectivity and capacity/speed could render the middle men useless and that they know this and are trying to hold fast to what they have before they loose it. I don't think that they have too much to worry about without the collective will to get rid of them and the opportunity to force congress to get rid of them.
 
There has never been a problem that more taxes couldn't solve.








Wait....what?
 
I believe the biggest problem is the middle man
Click to expand...

The biggest problem is believing that they can add a tax to my ISP bill. I dont care if it goes directly to the bands i listen to the most, if i want to give them my money i will purchase tickets/cds/etc etc, but i will not be taxed by them via my isp, regardless if i listen to them or not.
 
I think he is just being a greedy f***. Why should I pay even more for my internet? I don't download music, I buy CDs. Will I get all the CDs I want for free?
 
Excellent idea...and I think they should pass it right after they pass that Entertainer's Tax on artists, actors, directors, etc...that flat taxes all income over $250,000 at a 50% rate.

Sounds fair to me :)
 
I don't download music off of the internet. Neither legally, or illegally. Paying yet another tax so rich people can get richer. How stupid is that?

Ding, ding, ding, not everybody listens to music pirated off of the internet. In fact, I only listen to music in my car, and it is whatever is on the fm dial. I doubt this is too terribly rare.

Here you go Trent Rezner, I don't know who you are or what type of music you play, I can't even be sure I have ever heard any of your music, but let me add to your multi million dollar fortune from.

This "music tax" is an idea born of pure greed and total stupidity.
 
The story on the [H] front page is kind of misleading and doesn't really capture the point of the interview. The interview itself is way more interesting than the story and headline would suggest.
 
A stupid idea to get YET MORE TAXES. This does not fix the problem of illegal downloads. They think taxes will fix everything. Idiots.
 
Growing up in Cleveland it's hard for me to think of Trent without... oh hell.

No! Terrible idea!
 
Why don't the artists just offer up there albums for .99 a song on there own web site? I'll tell you why! Because they suck and they know it. Lets face it, John Tesh would fucking starve!
 
I thought for the most part that the US is a capitalist country. If so, why should a tax be implemented to pay people that many don't want to listen to? What is wrong with letting people decide what they do and do not want to listen to.

A tax such as this would not solve any problems or help anyone that it would supposed to help. Then again, if an artist can't get anyone to buy their music, should they even try to make a living by selling music? I'm not going to try and tell them they can't, but if they can't make a living doing it, it would be in their best interest to find another line of work in which they are valued.

If something like this passes, I guess I should become a musician even though I can't sing or play an instrument. I would probably make more money living off this tax than I currently make. Not to mention, the low quality of current music (in my opinion) would only get worse with a tax such as this.

Also, anyone who thinks the tax would stay a static amount is delusional. This tax would constantly be increased to the point where it would equal or exceed the amount of your monthly internet bill.

This tax does not address any problems or come up with any type of solution for any problems. It would be nothing but a money grab.

 
I pay enough for my connection already.

I don't download music. From Itunes or anywhere else. I have a vast collection of classical music on CD's. Since all the good classical was written 100+years ago, I doubt I'm going to need to update my collection too much.

So why the fock should I pay for downloading music when I'm not going to do it - even if perfectly legal?
 
Morazl said:
We already do that with health insurance, and we all know how crappy the United States health insurance is. Take a look at France or Canada, everybody pays, nobody complains, everybody wins.

:D
Click to expand...

Um, why are the Canadians coming to the US for surgeries and paying for it themselves? Probably can't wait on the waiting list that long before they DIE lacking that surgery.

Preventative care, maybe I can buy that argument, critical/ASAP care, I'm skeptical.
 
Terrible idea. What exactly would one need to do to receive royalties from this tax? How could you distribute the money fairly? If no one were buying CDs how would you determine who the most popular artists are without having spyware on each and every computer watching what people download?

It seems to me that artists are just going to have to accept that the money isn't in album sales, its in live performances.
 
This is the best way to deal with a problem that will always persist otherwise.

If done correctly the fee could be small as suggested and the rest could come from the gigantic ad revenue that would come. Imagine a google music site where you could download anything you want. You pay $5 and the sites hand over 15-25% of their ad revenue.
 
TheCAD said:
This is the best way to deal with a problem that will always persist otherwise.

If done correctly the fee could be small as suggested and the rest could come from the gigantic ad revenue that would come. Imagine a google music site where you could download anything you want. You pay $5 and the sites hand over 15-25% of their ad revenue.
Click to expand...

Wait, you want a "music tax" and ads!? Communist! :rolleyes:
I think that music subscription sites where you pay a certain amount per month for an unlimited number of songs is the best option. A blanket "music tax" on everyone's internet bill is a bad idea.

Taxes in general are a bad idea.
 
Miserere said:
Trent's new 4+ MILLION DOLLAR home in Beverly Hills, CA.
http://realestalker.blogspot.com/2007/12/trent-reznor-heads-for-hills-of-beverly.html

Honestly, Mr. Trent "Hardcore Indie-Alt god of rock I hate the man" Reznor, shove your tax up your ass, you pathetic panhandling piece of shit.
Click to expand...

Actually, for that area that's a fairly modest home. Hell it's only 3900 sq ft., my parents live in a 4400 sq ft. home with a bigger pool than that, it just didn't cost anywhere near $4.5 million because it's not in Beverly Hills.

The man is entitled to spend his money however he wants. He is talented and absolutely deserves compensation for his work, put putting a tax on all Internet users for his personal gain is just ridiculous.
 
Its a terrible idea.

For one, not everyone who uses the internet downloads illegal music. :rolleyes:
If we did a music tax, then pretty soon there would be a movie tax, and then a porn tax, and then a google tax, and then the internet would turn into what cable tv is. Sorry Mr Reznor, you might be God, but you can't have my soul.

The whole reason why the music industry is having these problems are because:
A: They kept screwing customers for years.
B: They failed to innovate and keep up with a changing market.

Instead of fighting to shut napster down, and to ban the sale of any mp3 players (yes they did try to do that), they should have went WITH the flow and bought napster early on, and turn it into a super cheap music service. They failed to see that maybe their customers weren't trying to just steal something, but actually loved the idea of listening to any song they could think of within 5min, instead of going down to Tower Records, to find out that the cd costs 25$ and that it is on back order.

I think the future of music is to buy it directly from the artist. 2-5bucks an album is a price almost anyone can live with and and small cost would be worth not having to troll p2p sites with slow download speeds and all of the spyware/viruses involved with that.
 
This is absolutely ridiculous... It basically sounds like a juicy combination of entrapment and extortion. You'll just end up paying a fee to download content that's technically illegal to posses anyways, and in exchange the ISP's and media industry have to obligation to provide the music or the bandwidth it is downloaded on. They are taking the hard work pirates, and trying to make a buck off of it. Best of all, once the system is in place and they can actively watch your downloaded content, if you refuse to pay the fees they'll just send the info straight to the RIAA.

This certainly sounds interesting, considering Trent's last album was partially leaked as a means to advertise, and it appears he himself released the whole album prior to it's release on thepiratebay just prior to his recording contract ending (album was released from same address as later torrent releases from the NIN official site). Even since then, he has spared no effort to condemn the practices of the media industry, and has exclaimed that his art is paramount to profit and he'll distribute it openly as he sees fit.

What does the industry need to do to save themselves? DO SOMETHING NEW! CD's have been around for a long time, and are hardly the best format available anymore. Sure there is SACD dual discs all over the place now, but why have to settle for cd-quality only when ripping to your pc? And why pay as much for a download as a cd? Minus the distribution, packaging, and retail fees; downloaded songs should cost in the realm of 30-50 cents, with full albums being around $5-6.
 
I think the message a tax like that would bring will cause far more damage than good.

By taxing illegal downloads, they are in essence saying it's now OK...so now there is no such thing as an illegal download...so if all downloads are now legal...who's buying a CD?

I see this as very bass ackwards.
 
Bill Clo said:
Um, why are the Canadians coming to the US for surgeries and paying for it themselves? Probably can't wait on the waiting list that long before they DIE lacking that surgery.

Preventative care, maybe I can buy that argument, critical/ASAP care, I'm skeptical.
Click to expand...

This is a myth perpetuated by those with a pedestrian understanding of both health care systems. For an systematic review of the two systems I would suggest: http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1
 
Okay, so maybe the myth that more people die waiting for surgery in Canada isn't accurate. That doesn't mean that a 3 year waiting list for a surgical procedure is right either. My cousin married a Canadian woman and within 3 months of getting married, she had the eye surgery she'd been waiting 3 years for in Canada. There was a potential for blindness in that eye had she waited much longer. Clearly, she would have lived, but she shouldn't have needed to run the risk of going blind in that eye. Studies--and their resultant statistics--don't give any better a picture than a simple misunderstanding of the topic. The only difference is that most people believe statistics.
 
while it seems like a good idea at first i don't think it really is at all.

don't we already pay enough shitty taxes? :rolleyes:
 
Skirge01 said:
Okay, so maybe the myth that more people die waiting for surgery in Canada isn't accurate. That doesn't mean that a 3 year waiting list for a surgical procedure is right either. My cousin married a Canadian woman and within 3 months of getting married, she had the eye surgery she'd been waiting 3 years for in Canada. There was a potential for blindness in that eye had she waited much longer. Clearly, she would have lived, but she shouldn't have needed to run the risk of going blind in that eye. Studies--and their resultant statistics--don't give any better a picture than a simple misunderstanding of the topic. The only difference is that most people believe statistics.
Click to expand...

Oh I see, some random story about someones cousins wifes' wait time for surgery is much more informative and accurate than an in-depth study compilied by medical researches from both countries.:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top