It's "obvious" that because the recording industry clings to a business model that doesn't work, internet users should be _forced_ to subsidize them?

I am embarassed (and a bit angry) to have ever contributed to the EFF.

This isn't a subsidy for the labels, it's a way to face the reality of P2P and still get the artists something.

This proposal is way too collectivist. Why should the majority (probably) of internet users who don't traffic in pirated songs be forced to pay for those who do? How would you determine how to allocate the funds among the artists without massive privacy invasion for tracking? How are you going to keep the labels from sucking up the money like they've done for the last forty years? I'd rather see a movement to tar and feather Hilary Rosen and let it go at that.

What an idiotic idea. Is this lawyer representing the RIAA or his client?

If it is wrong to use a product you didn't pay for the answer certainly is not to pay for a product you didn't use. Which is what most internet users will be doing under such a scheme.

But let's expand this a bit. I do use beer. But I don't want to pay for it so let's tax all bars in order to provide free beer for me. Yippee!

Get real, at least try to work for your freebies a little more creatively. I do so hate incompetant grift!

There's already an RIAA tax on "music" CD blanks, and very little of it finds its way to the artists. There's no reason to think an RIAA tax on Internet usage would be any different. (There's also no reason to think it would stop prosecutions for personal use. The Audio Home Recording Act was supposed to make it clear that such use is lawful, in exchange for the CD-blanks tax and for killing the DAT format.)

I am very interested to hear more public response to this - fire away

i'm hoping that eventually the major labels will just go under. their business model doesn't work anymore. they screw over their own artists (tiny, tiny, tiny royalty percentages), and they screw over their own fans. that's us!

over and over again we hear about how cd sales are down 25%. yep, i believe that's true. however, we've been living through a recession for the same amount of time. well, duh! that wouldn't have anything to do with it now would it?

also, the idea that each song downloaded is lost money for the label/artist...well, that's just crap.

One thing you didn't mention is that this proposal resembles the system already in place that handles music licensing for radio broadcasts. Most stations pay flat fees (which vary with ratings and advertising rates, IIRC) to ASCAP and BMI, after which they can make "unlimited" use of any ASCAP or BMI licensed works. The two rights agencies then statistically sample airplay nationwide, and dole out payments based on popularity. This is a win for the broadcasters because they don't have to track each individual song played, and a win for the composers because they get paid without chasing down each individual performance.
But it's important to note that this system is voluntary. If a station plays only classical music (i.e., public domain stuff), it doesn't have to participate. And talk stations that play only a few tunes as bumper music can license those particular works individually. And that's an important difference from the EFF proposal: Taxing "all internet users" to pay for something they may not use (or be interested in) bothers me. (I've been on line for 5 years and have never downloaded any music. When I'm ready to do so, then come see me about paying for a license.)
Also, I don't buy the idea of some collections automatically going to the record labels. Any rights-management organization must be an independent body whose only purpose is to collect and apportion the payments. Past financial shenanigans by the big media companies leave them with NO credibility in this area, and the RIAA is too tied to them to be trusted, either.

What people forget is that there's already a free file sharing system out there that works and has proven extremely difficult to destroy. I think any effort to force people to pay for MP3 without significant extra benefit would be something like trying to sell people internet browsers when anybody can get Mozilla or Netscape or IE for free.

What W Peak said. But to further expand on Peak's point, let's try a more detailed analogy, shall we? Let's say the Hershey Foods Corporation announces that candy bar theft from convenience stores has diminished profits to the extent that they may be forced to lay off factory workers and close the Milton Hershey School. In order to solve this serious problem and provide for the workers and children, Hershey's plans to levy a compulsory chocolate profit restoration tax on all convenience store customers throughout the country, including diabetics, dieters, Nestle chocolate fans, and those who just wanted a soda or a pack of cigarettes. How do you suppose that would go over?

The analogy to physical products doesn't hold - this is in essence access to the great celestial jukebox in digital form, and the only way to get the artists fairly compensated for their work, while still preserving P2P.

With respect, I don't believe it makes any difference whatsoever whether the product is physical or digital. As laudable as these goals may be, neither compensating the artists nor preserving P2P takes precedence over the rights and freedoms of the general public. The artists are being cheated and it's a problem--but dipping their hands into the pockets of the millions who have never downloaded music is not the answer.