Really, why does anyone think stuff like this is a good idea? I support the EFF but making users pay for using a p2p service is stupid. First of all, the music would not go to the artists but to the labels – since artists practically sign away their life. Then, what if I don’t use the p2p network to get copyrighted music in the first place but for Free music or other software – why am I forced to subsidize the labels? Same thing for the CD Burner tax – I use it to backup stuff and burn pictures, why does the RIAA get any of my money for that? I’m sorry if piracy is hurting your business, even if part of the cause might be the ridiculously high price of CDs or lack of an unencumbered mp3 file of your music, but don’t force everyone to pay because of the actions of some users. Next thing, you’ll want to add a surcharge on my printer and printing supplies that compensates book publishers – does that make sense?
Perhaps, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The digital-rights group recently proposed the idea of having file sharers pay a monthly surcharge in exchange for the right to share away. The charge would be voluntary and could be levied through the sharers’ Internet service provider, software client or university dorm fee. And the money would go to the artists.
Hastings law professor Margreth Barrett said the proposal is a good one. She dismissed the RIAA’s objection that all music would be valued equally because those musicians whose songs are downloaded most would receive a larger chunk of money. To make up for money lost by those who still share music illegally, a small surcharge could be tacked onto music products like CD burners, which would be put into a fund divided among copyright owners.