Full Version: Webcasters Tax
Tax day is nearing for Webcasters in the US: Webcasters must face the music, pay up for plays
Webcasters, as the articles states:
Starting October 20, 2002 the companies will be required to pay to the federal government .0007 cents per listener per song. This is also retroactive to four years ago when the law was originally enacted. Some companies are going to have to fork over some big bucks.
The federal government has no business getting into internet taxes. The internet is worldwide. Businesses can't be kept within the US. People will take their business and move it out of the US, killing jobs here in the States.
It is up to the record companies to resolve this issue with the Webcasters. The US government should be kept out of it.
Webcasters, as the articles states:
QUOTE
play songs for public consumption by streaming them on the Internet to anyone who cares to tune in.
Starting October 20, 2002 the companies will be required to pay to the federal government .0007 cents per listener per song. This is also retroactive to four years ago when the law was originally enacted. Some companies are going to have to fork over some big bucks.
The federal government has no business getting into internet taxes. The internet is worldwide. Businesses can't be kept within the US. People will take their business and move it out of the US, killing jobs here in the States.
It is up to the record companies to resolve this issue with the Webcasters. The US government should be kept out of it.
I agree Jaime. I am so sick of government taxing anything and everything. There once was a thing going around how the post office wanted to tax all e-mails. (Sorry Mike) but I think e-mails is appropriate here. We pay taxes for our internet services. How much more does the government think we are willing to take of this? I am being taxed on the service and now they want to break it down and add a tax to a tax already being taken. 
Time to tell my girlfriend and her mother why they are both wrong. Real smart move on my part... 
This isn't a tax at all. In order for it to be a tax, the revenue would have to go to the government. These are royalty payments.
The music industry is comprised of a large number of companies. This industry somehow got the idea that they need to restrict live streaming of their music over the internet. To most people, this seems like a bad idea. After all, they allow radio stations to do the exact thing that is prohibited for web broadcasters. But this is their decision. It is, after all, their property.
So the music industry decided to lobby Congress for a law as opposed to the much costlier option of suing every single webcaster on the internet. It seems as though they have been fairly convincing to those in Washington that the solution to their problem is legislation and not litigation.
I see this as part of government's role. They are protecting and reinforcing the rights of the owners of intellectual property.
Mike
This isn't a tax at all. In order for it to be a tax, the revenue would have to go to the government. These are royalty payments.
The music industry is comprised of a large number of companies. This industry somehow got the idea that they need to restrict live streaming of their music over the internet. To most people, this seems like a bad idea. After all, they allow radio stations to do the exact thing that is prohibited for web broadcasters. But this is their decision. It is, after all, their property.
So the music industry decided to lobby Congress for a law as opposed to the much costlier option of suing every single webcaster on the internet. It seems as though they have been fairly convincing to those in Washington that the solution to their problem is legislation and not litigation.
I see this as part of government's role. They are protecting and reinforcing the rights of the owners of intellectual property.
Mike
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.