Warner/Griffin "Music Tax" Needs Public Debate

Sam Gustin writes: Let the students decide.

In digital music circles, few ideas provoke more tooth-gnashing than the model advanced by Warner Music executive/consultant Jim Griffin -- occasionally known as "voluntary blanket licensing" -- in which users would pay a regular fee in exchange for access to a vast online library of music. Earlier this year, Warner hired Griffin, a respected digital music expert, to explore new business models including voluntary licensing, a concept he has championed for years.

In theory, Griffin's plan makes a lot of sense: pay a nominal monthly fee for digital access to a huge, legal database of music playable without restriction on any mobile device.  He says it would generate new revenue for the industry, fairly compensate music rights-holders, and end the failed policy of suing peer-to-peer file-sharers by the thousand. Critics have called the plan a "music tax" and charged it amounts to a protection racket, eg. pay up and we won't sue you.

The idea is back in the news after the blog TechDirt obtained a presentation by Mark Luker, a vice president at non-profit Educause, describing the plan and attributing it to Warner and Griffin, who are each named in the document. Warner quickly issued a statement saying the presentation was not produced by Griffin or Warner, but rather by "someone outside our company and represents that individual's interpretation of issues discussed at meetings held several months ago." Luker did not respond to a request for comment.

But neither Warner or Griffin disputed the basic elements of the Luker presentation, which suggested, correctly, that Griffin is focusing his efforts on colleges and universities. College campuses, with their fat Ethernet pipes and music-hungry students, have long been targeted by the recording industry. Thousands of college students have been sued, which is why several major institutions are talking to Griffin and Warner about a solution.

In this model, universities would pool regular fees collected from students. Those funds would then be distributed through a non-profit organization to music rights-holders based on network traffic data collected by the university. In exchange, university students would become party to a "covenant not to sue," which, while not a full license, would effectively mean that the students aren't sued for their downloading and file-sharing activities.

Griffin declined to comment beyond the Warner statement, which quoted him as saying:

It's easy to see why Warner and the other labels might be so cautious about advancing this idea. As Peter Kafka at AllThingsD observed, "they've got a terrible image to begin with, and anything associated with a 'tax' is a tough sell in any case."

Jim Griffin is one of the good guys, and it's hard not to be inspired by the passion which he brings to this endeavor. However, I would suggest that the lack of public information about the Griffin/Warner plan is actually making life more difficult for them. Yes, the model is still in development, but the virtual radio silence about what they're considering creates a vacuum, which allows critics to define the issue. Instead of weighing the specifics of the plan, we -- the public -- are discussing a derivative presentation put together by someone else, based on months-old conversations.

Griffin's idea represents a serious contribution toward a solution to the crisis facing the music business. It deserves serious debate in broad daylight. I can think of no better place to do that than on the campuses of the colleges and universities where this plan might be implemented.