here is an intresting article.

"Recording Industry Association of America has not taken an official position on the issue.
" is what the article says, but do you believe they are neutral in this?

Interesting article.

I like this quote from the article

In reply to:

---

Phil Galloway, co-owner of Off the Record, said the proposal is another example of the record industry "shaking down" consumers for all it can get during a time of decline.

"On the first-time purchase, the label and the musician made their profit," noted Galloway, who with his business partner opened the first used-CD stores in San Diego County at the advent of the CD format in the mid-1980s. "You don't see royalties collected on used cars."

---

I think this quote sums up the situation very well.

Seems to me that the Music labels are trying to have their cake and eat it to.
First up they are selling nearly 1 Billion 'CDs' a year in the US alone.
But this overproduction is causing the second hand sales market to boom, due to the disposable nature of the music they produce for us to buy and as a result their new sales growth declines [or remains stagnant].

So now they are saying, we only think its fair that we should be able to tax CDs that are resold as our stupid marketing of music has created this mess but all music purchasers - whether new or second hand should pay to bail us out.

If true, then this is truly a dramatic turn to the dark side.

The music industry is keen to put its hands into everyone elses pockets but their own on this one.

How long before the music companies are telling that when we buy a CD we actually onlybuy our music for X plays (or X minutes) [for the same or more than we pay now], then when that time has expired our right to own/play/sell the music expires.
I know the music industry would like that to happen right now.

DivX didn't die, it just moved into the Headquarters of the music companies along with the music executives - RIAA lawsuit here we come ....

I fail to see just how this 'turnover tax' will actually help the music industry in either the short, medium or long terms.

The other thing I'd be concerned about is that such a tax would have to have legal support in Congress to become a reality - does anyone really want politicians controlling these sort of things?

I can't think of any product where second hand sales of goods have a non-Government mandated levy on them.

The hilarious aspect is that they will never give up, and they will never, ever make one iota of difference. Those who choose to not pay for music will continue to not pay for music. A tax on used music will never fly. We will live to see the day when artists pay to record their own music and release it directly to the internet. Payment will be optional. Their real income will continue to come from the live shows, just as it always has. With a little luck, music will improve by leaps and bounds as the only real way to become known will be to make good music. Natural selection at it's best.

There is simply no way to avoid it. Mp3 playback devices are becoming better and more widespread and broadband is expanding. If you can play the music in any way then you can copy it. I mean, of course they have to put up the fight. What else can they do? But in the end, they must lose. It is unavoidable.

The fact is that the market has changed. And if the RIAA loses money then it's tough luck. They are not entitled to profits. They have to earn it.

The RIAA is a politcal/technical lobby group for the American Music industry.

Its not a company in its own right, and doesn't (and shouldn't) make or lose money like say Sony Music does.

There is nothing in the article about the tax proposal coming from the RIAA directly - only that the RIAA is probably lobbying the politicians right now for this tax on behalf of its allegedly beleagured members and that it has adopted no position on such a tax (yet).

I can't disagree with your comments.

I add some words of caution:

Do not assume that because the mp3 format is ubiqitous now amoungst the music community, that it will always be the case for whatever music formats are in use.

Mp3 got into the position it did due to many factors, not least as it has no encryption in its design and therefore there are no DMCA provisions to fall foul of.
If that were not the case, then the DMCA would have shut down any non-RIAA sanctioned mp3 software encoding (ripping) programs years ago.

However, the music industry is trying to make the possesion of any mp3's (i.e. non-RIAA sanctioned music format) akin to possesion of drugs - if you have a mp3 file you must be either a dealer in stolen music, or you are a user of stolen music. They want no middle ground (where its ok to have mp3s of music you own and legitimately paid for).
Ask the public - they believe the all mp3s are theft byline the RIAA spouts.

The record companies take the high ground on piracy - of course piracy is rampant in the industry? Why because the RIAA says so!

And where you may ask, is the evidence of the $4+ billion in pirated music figure from? The RIAA of course, and how do they calculate this? Well, probably by looking at how much more money they are not making this year over last (based on their previously outlandish sales forecasts) and adding some other numbers up to come up with a totally bogus figure.

Few people in their right mind buy a ink jet printed CD (or a stuck on paper CD label) with a badly copied/reproduced booklet etc - which is what the average backyard copied CD looks like.

Where the acknowledged piracy comes from is the pirated CD produced (well) in CD pressing plants - the same plants that make legitmate CDs as well.

Perhaps the Record industry should be lobbying for a tax on all CD pressing plants made and sold (or resold) around the world.

A sort of CD plant non-proliferation treaty - like we have for nuclear materials now.

Most of the pirated music for sale comes from these illegal pressing plants in a few well known countries, not from the CD burner on your PC or friends PC.
Surely if the RIAA and its ilk was serious about piracy, they would ban all CD's from these countries unless proven to be geniune copies of music?

Obviously this doesn't happen often if at all and why not?
Generally these same countries and in some cases, the same plants, make the legitimate CDs that the RIAA members sell to the public and churn out the pirate copies too.
Maybe thats where the RIAA should start.