If you can’t beat ‘em, charge ‘em

WIRED reports that he RIAA is “seriously considering a file sharing surcharge that internet service providers would collect from users” in order to profit from piracy.

While the idea of an extra $5 a month being added to broadband bills and paid to artists isn’t without its merits in an ideal world, there are a number of problems. The RIAA will be collecting the money on behalf of artists, who must then, I assume, join whatever organisation they set up to disburse the collected funds (with a certain amount deducted for “administration”). You could argue that it sounds very much like a protection racket. They collect the money by threatening legal action, then charge artists to receive their share. Can the RIAA be trusted not to enforce restrictions on the free expression of the artists? And to be fair in their division of the spoils? It sounds like they might at least distribute based on popularity on file-sharing networks, but who will collect these results? And will they disqualify some networks - such as the Pirate Bay - because of legal reasons and decide that only “authorised” networks count?

Ars Technica has another good point: “if $5 on your ISP bill gets you access to music, can the day be far off when another fee appears for movies? For e-books? For cross-stitch patterns?”. It could be a very long list. Will broadband access become a luxury which only some can afford?

It seems like such an inelegant solution. Out-of-date. An industry has a problem so they call for taxes to be levied to subsidize their business. The thought of $5 (or €5 over here, as they would no doubt round it up) on my bill every month being used to support the latest industry-manufactured band doesn’t make me very enthusiastic about the idea. I, for one, would prefer to choose which artists to support.