CNET también está disponible en español.

Ir a español

Don't show this again

HolidayBuyer's Guide
Services

Taxes shouldn't fund record labels

Why should the greedy recording industry be able to tax me via his proposal? Fisher's proposal would just give another reason for my cable company to raise my ISP rates.

In response to the July 11 Perspectives column by William Fisher, "A royalties plan for file sharing":

William Fisher's article is just plain silly.

"The government would tax devices and services used to gain access to digital entertainment. The primary target of such a tax would be ISP access. Secondary targets would include CD burners, blank CDs, MP3 players, etc."

I don't download music files, and to the best of my knowledge, none of my friends or family members does, either. Why should the greedy recording industry be able to tax me via his proposal?

I would be interested in knowing how much research Fisher did before suggesting this idea. Does he have reliable statistics revealing that the vast majority of people who use Internet service providers (ISPs), CD burners and the like are copying illegal files? Despite all the press, I have seen no numbers showing that the vast majority of technology users is swapping files.

Even worse, my tax money would be used to fund controversial religious or political views with which I may not agree. If, for example, some extremist group decides to download 10 million copies of its latest inspirational song, why should my tax dollars support this? Perhaps the recording industry should instead consider offering its customers a good value for their money. It has a poor-quality, overpriced product. We do not need to subsidize this industry through taxes.

This proposal would just give another reason for my cable company to raise my ISP rates.

Jerry Levasseur
Cleveland, Ohio