“The amount being paid to the music industry, even though their games are entirely dependent on the content we own and control, is far too small,” Bronfman said during an earnings call today. “There is what I would call a very paltry licensing fee per song. … I think the industry as a whole needs to take a very different look at this business and participate more fully and in a much more partnership way. And if that does not become the case, as far as Warner Music is concerned, we will not license to those games.”

Leaving aside, for a moment, the question of why Warner (WMG) agreed to a royalty scheme it apparently finds unappealing, you’ve got to wonder why the company persists in lambasting these new media that so obviously invigorate the industry and promote its music. And beyond that, you’ve got to wonder why Warner is doing it at a time when games like Guitar Hero and Rock Star are clearly becoming viable distribution outlets.

Of course, we already know the answer. Bronfman himself gave it to us in a speech last year. “We used to fool ourselves,” he said. “We used to think our content was perfect just exactly as it was. We expected our business would remain blissfully unaffected even as the world of interactivity, constant connection and file sharing was exploding. And of course we were wrong. How were we wrong? By standing still or moving at a glacial pace, we inadvertently went to war with consumers by denying them what they wanted and could otherwise find, and as a result, of course, consumers won.”

At the time, Napster had some 20 million users worldwide and was essentially the de-facto file-sharing standard. Had the RIAA labels agreed to the alliance, they might have turned peer-to-peer distribution into a new and powerful business model, one with low distribution and marketing costs and a fast developing user base. But they didn’t. They chose another route.

Big mistake. Along came Gnutella. And increased broadband penetration and cheaper storage. Along came Kazaa. And then came BitTorrent. And, well, look at the industry now.

Given such history, it’s difficult to look at the recording industry’s plan to have a monthly fee added to consumers’ internet-service bills and not shake your head in wonderment.

Portfolio.com reports that Edgar Bronfman Jr.’s Warner Music Group (TWX) has indeed hired veteran industry consultant Jim Griffin (no relation to Peter, right?) to quarterback a plan under which consumers pay an Internet-access surcharge of $5 a month for the collective right to freely share music. Those fees would be pooled and divvied up among artists and their labels.

“Ideally, music will feel free,” says Griffin. “Even if you pay a flat fee for it, at the moment you use it there are no financial considerations. It’s already been paid for.”

Ah- charge everyone for all music. So it is Monetization Without Representation. OK. But what gives the music industry the right to tax all broadband users because it suspects some of them might illegally share its content? And if the music industry deserves that right, then doesn’t the film industry deserve it as well? And the publishing industry? And any other industry that might benefit from such a tax?

As David Barrett, engineering manager for peer-to-peer networks at Web content-delivery giant Akamai (AKAM), notes Griffin’s plan is problematic. And desperate.

Said Barrett:, “It’s too late to charge people for what they’re already getting for free. This is just taxation of a basic, universal service that already exists, for the benefit a distant power that actively harasses the people being taxed without offering them any meaningful representation.”

World War II was won by the Allied forces, not only because we were right, but also because we had more men and women, more weaponry and more money, and that money in turn would train more men and women and build more weaponry.

“But being fair, and being just, is what allowed our civilized society to survive and prosper, while that of our conquering ally, the Soviet Union, cracked, crumbled and collapsed because it attempted to perpetuate a society that was fundamentally unjust and unfair.

“And if the Internet should require an unjust and unfair paradigm in order to perpetuate itself, then it too will crack, crumble and collapse, and it won’t take five decades of Cold War politics for it happen.

“That is why it is in your interest to join our fight to protect and defend the property rights of creators everywhere. And that is why we are bringing our fight to the court of justice and to the court of public opinion.”

–Warner Music Group boss Edgar Bronfman Jr., May 26, 2000

Edgar Bronfman Jr.’s abusive relationship with Steve Jobs has apparently resulted in a Stockholm Syndrome-esque emotional attachment between the Warner Music CEO and Apple. Speaking at the GSMA Mobile Asia Congress in Macau, Bronfman–who’s long been critical of the company that arguably legitimized the digital music business–turned tack and lauded iTunes as a prime example of digital music done right.

“For years now, Warner Music has been offering a choice to consumers at Apple’s iTunes store the option to purchase something more than just single tracks, which constitute the mainstay of that store’s sales,” Bronfman said. “By packaging a full album into a bundle of music with ringtones, videos and other combinations and variations, we found products that consumers demonstrably valued and were willing to purchase at premium prices. And guess what? We’ve sold tons of them. And with Apple’s cooperation to make discovering, accessing and purchasing these products even more seamless and intuitive, we’ll be offering many, many more of these products going forward.”

And so began a paean to Apple which, by the time Bronfman concluded, had heaped adulation on everything from the company’s design chops to its billing-platform savvy. “You need to look no further than Apple’s iPhone to see how fast brilliantly written software presented on a beautifully designed device with a spectacular user interface will throw all the accepted notions about pricing, billing platforms and brand loyalty right out the window,” Bronfman continued. “And let me remind you, the genesis of the iPhone is the iPod and iTunes–a music device and music service that consumers love.”

Clearly, Bronfman’s had quite an epiphany since his war-against-the-consumer days, when he was calling for mandatory peer-to-peer filtering and taxes on recordable media and MP3 players and demanding a share of Apple’s iPod revenue. “We used to fool ourselves,” he said. “We used to think our content was perfect just exactly as it was. We expected our business would remain blissfully unaffected even as the world of interactivity, constant connection and file-sharing was exploding. And of course we were wrong. How were we wrong? By standing still or moving at a glacial pace, we inadvertently went to war with consumers by denying them what they wanted and could otherwise find and, as a result of course, consumers won.”