Slashdot Mirror
Unlimited Legal Music Downloads for $3.95 a Month?
fishmasta writes "I'm at a major university studying the music industry, so we get to regularly talk to executives in the major labels. In a recent talk with someone working at Warner Bros, she brought up an idea they want to try where all file sharing is legalized by paying $4-5 a month through an ISP, all downloads are permanent, and you can get them from any source, and do what you want with them. It seems like some in the industry are starting to 'get it.' I was just wondering what Slashdot thinks of this idea. Would you be willing to pay a small fee each month if you could get all the music you want and have no legal liability?"
El-Man has another take on that subject replacing "unlimited" with a set number of licenses: "I believe that people are basically honest (maybe a failing, but it's how I feel), and are quite happy to pay for something of value. With music downloads, the only solution the recording industry has come up with is wrapping digital files with onerous, incompatible DRM systems, suing those whom they say have illegally distributed music (what is it, 13000 people and counting? Surely the courts have better things to do!), and generally not doing themselves or music lovers any good. How about a system, whereby a user can purchase a license for [n] amount of digital music files? Numbers can be, 10, 50, 100, 200, etc. Doesn't matter what the files are, as long as the number is not exceeded. There'd be a lot of details to thrash out, but is this something that is ultimately workable?"
If you were an executive of a medium-to-large sized record company, how would you handle the potential of the Internet?
If you were an executive of a medium-to-large sized record company, how would you handle the potential of the Internet?
Just think about it. A mandatory $56 fee (a tax) per ISP customer. That's many millions of customers, equaling billions of guranteed dollars, with almost no work required of them to get it.
I'd have a hard time coming up with at least one new song I liked every month and was willing to pay for. I'll stick to buying individual songs or albums as I run across them.
Like the kind they put on burnable media in certain countries?
This is precisely the system we have in Canada, through a levy on blank media.
Personally, if you live in a capitalist country (I guess China would censor this if not), then go with the offer. When you see a deal like this, read the fine print, and run with it.
The only people that will "get it" will be the artists.
I would gladly pay $5 a month for unlimited, non-DRMed music. Heck, I already pay $5 amonth for DRM'ed downloads (Yahoo! Music Unlimited).
My spoon is too big.
But I don't see how the artists can make money from such a scheme after the labels take 90% of the profits?
Music, Games, Media Art and Programming
Isn't this basically just stealing from people who don't illegally download music off the Internet? Because basically you have to pay whether you download songs or not. I don't download copyrighted music anymore, but if Warner keeps advocating stealing from me I just might start stealing from them again in retaliation.
YES!
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
If it actually rendered all mp3s legal and copyright liability-free, I'd be happy to pay that tax. I hope it would make music easier to find, too. I can't even get my hands on the Mister Rogers theme song. How sad is that?
If I was an executive of a medium-to-large sized record company, I would allow all my music to be downloaded for free. I would follow this by running my company into the ground, going bankrupt, having my wife leave me, and finally killing myself.
:)
In other news, I'm glad I'm not an executive of a medium-to-large sized record company.
Yes I would pay IF I could easily obtain good high quality mp3s. Half the mp3s on limeware are rubbish - skips, and other flaws. If you're going to pay you need guaranteed quality.
I think the "pay $4-5 to make it all legal" idea would only work if all record labels participated, and all ISPs participated. You'd have to basically force every ISP to add this "music-download tax," and implement it across the board... otherwise customers are going to be flocking to the competition that doesn't include this tax, and continue downloading things for free.
Really, we're all whiny brats when it comes to our cable bills, so few of us (especially us poor college kids) are going to be ok with a $5 increase...
The idea of buying a license is interesting though. How would that work for those of us who have multiple copies of files on different machines or different music devices. I don't see how this could be enforced either... all p2p networks would have to participate and count how many files you downloaded, or check some kind of secure file that had a universally readable mp3 file count on your machine.
Both are interesting ideas, but I don't yet see how they could work.
There is no way for the money to get back to the artist. This plan only benefits the labels. Perhaps they can survey the P2P networks and get a sample of what's being searched for, then pay the artists accordingly. This will ensure the popular artists get the money while those with fewer fans get the shaft. At least by getting DRMed music, in theory the provider can accurately track whose music is being downloaded and thus compensate the artists.
$3-$4/month for file sharing? fuck yes.
$3/$4 per month per RIGHTS holder? Fuck no.
People Talking in Movie shows.. people smoking in bed.. people voting republican.. GIVE THEM A BOOT TO THE HEAD!
I don't know if this is the right price, and the details need refinement, but in a word, yes. This is a good idea, but there needs to be a mechanism for artists to get adequately compensated. The notion that the RIAA members would get to decide how the artists got paid out of this is far more frightening than P2P. The record executives used to be thought of as close to mafiosi, but we now know they are much,much worse.
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
It sounds like the $4 fee would have to be a mandatory fee that anyone with an internet connection would pay. That's the only way the system would work well for the recording industry given the low price. I don't think it's fair that people who never download music should be forced to subsidize those that do. I already pay enogh for internet access. If I wanted a subscription music service, I could choose to pay for it from a number of providers, and the DRM doesn't bother me because I'm just renting the music anyway with a subscription service. I don't worry about burning songs either, since I'd buy a 60GB mp3 player and just load it up.
Vote for Pedro
"I believe that people are basically honest (maybe a failing, but it's how I feel),"
I'm not honest, and that is the truth.
...for your car.
Might even work in the short term. But the recording industry is already dead--the body just hasn't stopped twitching yet, is all.
How to pay people to create ``intellectual property'' is going to be quite a challenge. Unless somebody comes up with something better, we're stuck as using the ``property'' itself as a loss leader to sell tickets to concerts, lectures, and the like on the one hand and commissions / works for hire on the other. Both are the traditional models that worked for centuries, if not millennia, before the advent of publishing in its various forms. It'll be painful for many to go back there...but I think it'll be better for society as a whole in the long term.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
First, and perhaps I'm too cynical, but I have a hard time believing the same industry people that set retail prices for a single CD at $18 would be willing to sell an unlimited (or even reasonable) number of songs for a flat fee per month. Second, the artists themselves will probably not like it, because it would change the economics for how they get paid. If Britney Spears has the #1 selling album, she's probably entitled to more money than your local indie band (though I'd argue which is actually worth more, ha). Is the industry going to have some sort of tracking in place to determine what is the most popular? Would this even be possible on such a large scale without any sort of DRM in place? Third, there are those that scoff at paying one red cent for their music. I personally don't get it, but no matter how pretty the package or distribution model is, these people won't bite, and they'll destroy any potential for the rest of us. Hopefully I'm wrong!
the record labels financially. There are many many more people connected to the internet every month that would be paying $4-5 for this usage tax than there are illegal file sharers, and suing file sharers doesn't recoup anywhere near the real or inflated costs of downloading copyrighted music. Lawyers, court costs, etc, avg. settlement. I personally don't download very much off p2p content wise, and when I do it's usually to backup songs on damaged cds. If I were being handed a mandatory license to go hog wild, I'd have every tv show, movie, and song I'd ever wanted. If I'm going to get charged for it, I'm going to drain the well.
Any system which doesn't involved the money paid by the consumer being attributed to the artist who creates the work is flawed. If I pay my 5 dollars, and download 30 songs, does the system ensure that all 30 artists get compensated with a proportion of my payment? And why should an artist get less for their effort just because I want to have 30 songs this month instead of 5? The major problem with the current system is that the record label is getting so much more than the artist, then the RIAA is trying to invent schemes to increase income which doesn't relate back to the artists. If the RIAA actually supported artists instead of the big labels, people might care what they have to say.
I can't say that from an executive position I would find this setup appropriate, at least in a one size fits all formula. The fact that file sharing already allows for such a high amount of information greatly reduces the ability to discriminate price based on locality. Further, a single price for unlimited portable songs is unviable with the availability of smart, broadband-connected users that would pay for one month, download nonstop for the next 30 days, and cancel. In that time, a clever user could have thousands of songs at a great disadvantage to the company. Better, I think, would be a realtime updated price for a single song, to allow for precise pricing, offered free of DRM, complemented by a flexibly DRMed subscription service that allowed for unlimited downloads at a fixed monthly rate. The scenario described in your post requires a radical change in the business culture of the RIAA and a highly increased level of competition above what exists in the industry today.
So if $4-5 a month is enough for them, then why not just make it ad-supported, where the advertisers pay $4-5/mo per active user and get rid of the fee, provided you utilize the service at least XX hours a month?
It may be considered that if everyone that subscribed to the ISP had to pay regardless of downloading music or not. But if only those that signed up to the p2p option had to pay the extra 4.95 or whatever it is, then no it wouldn't be.
Hell, I'd take a piracy tax on my blank media any day, if it means I can copy music. Since now that I have an ipod, i don't buy any blank media any more. Well, maybe a single 50 pack a year or so.
"Hi, I'm a student a major university that has good relations with record labels. They tell us ideas and stuff. I'd like to jeopardize that relationship by sharing something with Slashdot that was probably told to me in confidence!"
The problem with even this system where the labels have a strong incentive to participate - stronger than what is described in the thread as they have an ongoing profit stream - is that many labels simply choose not to participate.
And the ones that don't participate are most often techno/progressive/indi music that a lot of serious music downloaders are more inclined to be interested in than the general populace.
If you can't get all the players to the table under a system as rich as Janus than any system that offers them less money/control is doomed.
Seriously, DRM is the future, it isn't 'crippling', it's practicle and effective. You rent almost _everything_ for $6 a month and you can put it on your compatible player and take it with you OR access the entire library from work or from home or wheever else. Just assumed you did own everything and didn't have to pay for all of the dozens of new releases each week. How much is it worth to you to have to catalog and load it all onto the internet so you can have access to it anywhere? This is what Janus provides to you.
Another great chance to get in on it will probably be within the month as Urge launches with a loss leader prices of probably around 5-6 a month with a big coupon to get a PlayforSure device.
Socializing the entertainment industry will not improve the consumer experience.
7 ), and make it easier for consumers to get legal content then illegal.
1) They (WB) can not remove all liability for all music, because they don't own the rights on all music. They can remove the liability for their music but that's it.
2) The market would no long drive the industry. who determines which royalties to pay? Some execs get to chop 90% off the top then spread the last 10% across admin and authors? What happens the the lesser known bands?
3) This removes all incentive for labels to pick up new artists. Why add more music to a $4.95/month library when you can spin off a subsidiary label and release new music under it. Then once that library has grown for a few years, release it under another $5/month contract. Now the consumer is coughing up $10/month for full access to both labels, not to mention any competitor labels.
All round this is a bad idea. Get the industry to agree on a standardized DRM (See JE at:http://ask.slashdot.org/~RingDev/journal/12694
It's all a matter of convenience. If consumers have a choice between paying $1 for a song, or downloading it for free with the risk of being sued, the vast majority will go for the $1 option. Provided the $1 version is compatible with all of their entertainment equipment (Windows, Linux, home entertainment, xbox, ps3, car stereo, etc...)
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
The EFF calls it Voluntary Collective Licensing of Music File Sharing.
It has many similarities to what is described in the article, and I think it is a solution that is best for everyone. Lawrence Lessig, in Free Culture (a great, freely downloadable book on related subjects), calls it a chimera. It is wrong to rob the artists, but it is also wrong for the RIAA to treat their fans as criminals. The solution is in the middle, and I think the collective licensing idea is it.
How much does the avererage downloader pay to have broadband instead of dial-up? I think that people have already shown they are willing to pay a reasonable price to get what they want.
How would they decide how to distribute the money among the labels? I imagine they'd shut out all the smaller, independent labels.. (y'know - the ones that make the good music)
A similar system already exists , and is called www.emusic.com - although it's more than $5 per month, it only hosts independent artists and labels. You're gauranteed that you're not supporting RIAA, their (oftentimes) crap music and their scummy mates.
Just like the subject says: I'm an independant musician; how do I get my cut?
_______
2B1ASK1
DRM is dead and gone. The songs will be converted to an unencumbered format and posted to Usenet before they even make it to splUrge. And once the hoi polloi figure out the DRM game, sales of the devices are going to dry up PDQ. People rent things it makes sense to rent, not for the sole purpose of becoming cash cows for the content "industry."
I'm starting a studio in Chicago, Illinois this spring: No Copyright Studios. We've started to take in donations and investments, and are hoping to open our doors in very late spring if not sooner (considering the equipment we're getting, it should be sooner). I hope to be a future medium-sized label exec by repudiating copyright and focusing on bands that have a real value in live shows versus CD sales.
I believe that music has some interesting profit incentives when it is played live. We've looked into all sorts of value-added options for those live venues, including the following:
* Buy the official CD, get a free ticket to a private show.
* Buy the official CD, get a login to view the band in the studio for a set period of time
* After the live show, purchase a real-time edited sound-board fed DVD of the show
* Buy practice time with the band
* Let anyone else play the song live if you like, but we'll make sure we find out who performed what and when, and advertise that we're the co-op that created the music.
I don't believe in any intellectual property. In the last 6 months, I have attended almost 50 live shows in the Chicago Indie, Punk and alternative scene. I've met over 75 bands who have admitted that copyright has done jack for their income, and they were always better off giving away the recorded music in exchange for getting people into the shows. If you're a musician and you want to earn an income, is it better for the top 10 in the country to make $10,000,000 because they're the main earners for those who control the distribution networks? Or would you rather see 1,000 bands locally who can generate $100,000 each?
There is a lot of money out there to be made when you take out the copyright cartel companies from the market. I firmly believe that bands can make money if they realize the supply and demand forces at work can not be manipulated. Taking advantage of supply and demand is the best way to go about it. MP3 = near infinite supply = $0. Live music = limited supply = income. QED.
You won't have to pay an extra $5 a month?
CATS/Diebold '08- All your vote are belong to us!
For many people, it makes sense to rent music. The average teen or college kid will not be listening to 90% of their current music collection in 5 years -- and for pop songs, probably won't be listening in six months.
And there's rental all-you-can eat services right now, and AFAIK there's no mass piracy going on. It's just easier to rip the CD.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
she was talking about this as a cooperation between all the major labels and on an opt-in basis.
Take once per day until desire for DRM subsides, and weekly thereafter.
DRM scares me.
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
ASCAP/BMI/CCLI and all those things work the same way. Anyone (big label/small label/indie) can join, and they payout based on usage.
Sorry, iTunes Music store is way beyond anything Janus has to offer at this point. IMO aac is way better than wma. I can't play DRMd WMA on my iPod, or on linux (but I can play DRMd aac in iTunes in crossover office on linux). Not to mention that the iPod is better than any of "PlayforSure" devices.
The extra four dollars would be well worth it considering the (probable) hundreds of millions of dollars directly lost by American taxpayers as a result of the lawsuits generated. And the indirect hundreds of millions lost in productivity and time. And the cultural loss of thousands of (now) unknown artists, turned away by record labels as they tighten funding of new talent to pay for lawyers and for money sapped by as-yet-illegal filesharing services. Four dollars is a penny and some copper shavings per day. Four dollars is a sum easily forgotten, a smart and small investment among the uncertainty and waste of most others.
How much is it worth to you to have to catalog and load it all onto the internet so you can have access to it anywhere?
Zero, given that it won't work with anything I already own.
A persons musical taste, band/artist loyalty and freedom to use the purchased content how- and where-ever wanted, is much greater than the brand or label that is controlling or selling the content. If I can find music I like that I can appreciate, or one of my favorite artists/bands in MP3/OGG format on the Internet for free (most liberal freedom of use), I will be a happy consumer. If I also want to support the artists/bands, then I will purchase from iTunes (fairly liberal freedom of use with DRM). In absolutely no point in my purchase or download decision is any consideration made to a brand or label.
t /etc...), discover what works for consumers and capitalistic pursuits and drop what doesn't work. The systems they start and continue with must be able to fully & equally support Independent artists/bands.
The music labels need to get over this competitive, dog-eat-dog, downward-spiral they are constantly pursuing. They need to get together and hammer out a few well thought-out plans/business-models and then all labels get fully behind all models. The models may be fixed-price per download like iTunes, a fix-price per month unlimited download, a license system (as mentioned above), and/or any number of other great ideas being floated here. They need to try these plans on a global scale (it is the Internet, not the USAnet/UKnet/Nipponet/Deutschnet/Canucknet/Sinone
How about I promise NOT to download anything in the Warner catalog, unless THEY PAY ME $3-4 a month.
The big 4 (or is it 5) are simply grasping at straws to maintain control, first it will be $5 a month voluntary, then it will be "included" in the service that is $5 more. Suddenly they are squeezing ISPs for more, and the little guys, the small bands and small labels will continue to get jack out of the system. But now the average home user will think "I pay so I can have anything" even if the money all goes to universal and warner leaving all the Idlewilds of the world in the cold (well OK Idlewild only has one band, but you get the point).
Recently I joined emusic, and I am happy to use it to legally get non-encumbered music that I can do with as I please, that way the artist gets paid and I don't feel dirty for shopping with a company that doesn't trust and has been sueing my friends. (I am not affiliated with eMusic and am not vouching for them I may learn they suck soon, so don't take this as an endorsement.)
In Finland there is also a levy on all blank media, but beginning from this year downloading from non-authorized sources became illegal nevertheless. Now we just continue to pay for the privilege which we can't even legally use. Big hooray for the EUCD (European Union Copyright Directive), or at least our implementation of it.
This law was mostly forced on the parliament by our beloved culture minister (former Miss Finland), who insisted that the copyright law should promote just the copyright holders' interests, consumer rights are out of scope and should be addressed in consumer rights legislation (which is likely not going to be modified in near future at all).
Yes. And I already am. I am paying for my internet access and the CDs and DVDs I buy are levied because I am expected to be pirating music/movies with them.
Because I am considered guilty anyway and because I have paid my debt through various levies, I do not expect to have any legal liability. Thank you.
You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
Warner Bros. Music:
Interestingly enough, I'm sure most Slashdotters have seen the article about Warner Bros. trying a P2P DVD download service in Germany; this question indicates that they are thinking of really trying to branch out, but that their music and movie departments don't see eye to eye. From the DVD article, Warner Bros. wants you to pay the exact same amount for a download and a DVD. The problem is that the download is lower quality, takes much longer to download than a song, will likely be ebcumbered by DRM, and you will be uploading the movie to other users.
The main reason that will fail is because you're paying the same amount for not only less content, but then you're helping distribute the content and getting no reward for doing so.
This music idea has a better chance. While Slashdot bitches and moans about DRM, the fact of the matter is that the populace doesn't mind it to much, as long as it has a bit of flexability. Make sure that the downloaded files are good quality, and will play on most devices. Here's a hint: If it doesn't play on an iPod, you're probably screwed.
Initially, $5/month for unlimited to-keep downloads seems unrealistic, especially considering that millions find $.99/song acceptable (thanks, iTunes!). However, when you calculate in the P2P model, it doesn't seem so bad. You're essentially sharing the bandwidth cost, which is a big portion of any online model.
I can see it working. You have some things to accomplish, though:
1. Making sure the songs will work on most, if not all, MP3 players.
2. Allowing the song to be burned to a CD (and playable in modern CD players.)
3. Figuring out how to have someone download the music, but not disable file sharing, all while not locking them into some crap proprietary player.
4. Making sure it will work with most ISPs, many of which cap upload bandwidth (which will cause a problem if you have "share limits").
I pay roughly $3/month for LAUNCHCast, and then it's songs that I've rated in some random order over the internet. My own choices on the go would certainly be worth an extra dollar or two. I know I'd be interested, if those hurdles can be cleared.
Music Liscenses
I see that failing pretty fast. Fair Use, to the ire of the *AA, already allows for personal backup and playback to other forms of media. What exactly do the liscenses change? Uploading them to anonymous P2P servers and friends? How would you keep them from uploading the file to others? How would you make sure that the friends receiving the song could play it?
How much would it cost for a liscense? Would this only be for personal use, which most music on P2P is used for, anyway, or public broadcasts? What if I bought ten liscenses of a song, but in the end decided I only wanted two copies? Can I transfer the remainder to another song of equal or lesser cost? Do I get some sort of media for each file?
It seems to me that this would raise too many issues and too little convenience, not to mention the hastle that seems inherent. While DRM may not be the answer, this seems even worse.
The levy does NOT give you the right to do anything of the sort.
...After they are done having a good time, any money left will go to Canadian Recording artists, or rather, their handlers.
Anyone telling you otherwise is lying, probably in an effort to make themselves feel better about their illegal downloads
The levy is simply a money grab to allow a few people to make a good living working at an organization (CPCC) created to collect the levy
What am I allowed to do because of the levy ?
You are allowed to make an unlimited copy of licenced material you ALREADY PAID FOR onto other forms of media for YOUR OWN PERSONAL USE
ie.. If you never paid for a licenced copy of a song, then you don't magicaly get a licence when you download it on Limewire and burn it onto you levied CD disc.
Time travel is possible. We are quickly heading for 1984.
The thing about it is that you know every record label would want you to pay that 4-5 bucks to each of them for access to their artist's music. So therefore you would have to be digging through 3-4 major labels... Sony, whoever else it is (I don't know major labels sorry) But the other thing is that the indepentant lables/smaller ones.. would be left out... and those are the ones i would love to support. In reality they should somehow create an independant music association to go against the RIAA... maybe their already is one.
Conclusion. There are way to many ands ifs and but(t)'s with strings attached.. (Butt refference was aimed towards the RIAA. i would like to actualy compare them to an Dumbass but it didn't fit the punchline.)
Think of it this way...
$5/mo
10M P2P users in the US and Canada, not including BT (via Slyck and BigChampaigne). Possibly more.
Thats $50M USD PER MONTH in revenue direct to the labels AT VERY LITTLE COST (just the cost of collecting the money from the ISP). For the math impaired that is $600M/yr. Certainly more than they could ever hope to raise through lawsuits.
And as long as new releases are released with some sort of incentive to buy it (perhaps discounts on concert tickets, DualDiscs, etc), CD sales wont suffer any more than they're suffering now with illegal P2P.
The problem is that without DRM I could spend $5 one month, download as much as I can, and then cancel the $5 fee for another 5 months, pay another $5, download a whole lot more for that month, etc. So I download 100s of CDs within 2 months for $10/yr. Thats the problem.
The recording industry would probably need to offer it in 6-month or 12-month blocks to prevent the behavior I mentioned above.
Essentially you'd be buying immunity from RIAA lawsuits. The RIAA would ask your ISP if you're paying the tax, and if you aren't they'd sue you.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
I do not listen to any music, but even if I did, I would prefer to donate some money directly to the creator of the music, instead of making record labels owners rich. Gift economy could work, as long as the participants honestly agree to sharing.
I believe that music has some interesting profit incentives when it is played live.
There are some musical genres that cannot very well be performed live, as they rely on heavy digital manipulation of sound. (I mean "electronic" music genres, not pitch-correcting pop stars' voices.) Do you just claim that your label is not for them? And what about fans who can't get into places where live music is performed because they are too young to attend bars and there are few or no all-ages venues in a given geographic area?
After the live show, purchase a real-time edited sound-board fed DVD of the show
Caution: that's patented.
Or would you rather see 1,000 bands locally who can generate $100,000 each?
And watch the incumbents sue the 1,000 bands for $200,000 each, claiming infringement through inevitable subconscious copying.
The record industry has already missed the boat. In the late 50's and the 60's record companies were signing up anyone they chose and deciding for themselves who wrote what and which records got pushed.
Nobody else got a look-in. Radio presenters were influential in the extreme. And top acts earned millions.
Now any pub singer can write his own song and put it out to the world for the cost of a computer. There is no need to sign anyone up, the artist chooses what he sings and how many songs he publishes and doesn't need to sign a contract.
Of course he'll earn next to nothing besides the kudos and the bookings he might get from it. But it means that the entertainment industry is as free as it was an hundred years ago. All the artist has to do is cotton on.
Had the music industry handled Napster better and had Napster managed its content and accounts professionally, they would be calling all the tunes right now. Sony wouldn't even be in the biz. (Wouldn't that have been nice?)
Interestingly enough, I'm sure most Slashdotters have seen the article about Warner Bros. trying a P2P DVD download service in Germany
Not as on-topic as some might assume. Warner Music Group was spun off from Time Warner 23 months ago.
I know there are a lot of people, especially in Hong Kong and China, are paying this (~USD 4/month) for illegal download to site like itmike and BoxUp. They have a rather complete set of CDs, MTV and so on and attract a lot of people who are too lazy to find seed on whatever P2P network...
If it is made legal, I don't see the point why people would NOT shift to legal download.
> You are allowed to make an unlimited copy of licenced material you ALREADY PAID FOR
No, we puckheads are allowed to copy friend's CDs for our personal use too.
"It seems like some in the industry are starting to 'get it.'"
Get what ? Killing the music industry ?
We can do better. As part of setting up any deal: 1) The RIAA will immediately cease all legal proceedings against music fans, apologize, return the thousands of dollars in settlements they've extorted, grant amnesty to everyone, promise not to start any new cases, and post a large enough indemnity to give the public some assurance that they won't go back on their word. 2) Artists must have opportunity to change to better contracts. 3) The industry must be transparent with the finances. 4) Not just no DRM, but admit the whole idea of DRM is fundamentally flawed. 5) Cease lobbying against the public interest. No more extensions of copyright, no more DMCA types of legislation, and no lobbying against efforts to restore copyright to more reasonable limits.
How'd Canada do on their deal? Did Canada get any of the concessions mentioned above?
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Songs? If it's WB that's toying with this idea, who cares about their "songs"? I want the cartoons, man! Over 1000 classic Looney Toones episodes. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Cyote, Carl Stalling... That's the stuff of Saturday morning felicity, not to mention all the Animaniacs episodes *still* unavailable on DVD.
If Warner Brothers offered up their copious classical discography on such a service (Bach 2000 anyone?) -- now that would be noteworthy indeed.
For starters, the idea of some kind of "tax" which assumes I'm going to download music, scares me a little. I don't want to download music - most of it is poor quality/badly tagged/etc. Secondly, this sounds perfect for the studios, they can produce any old pile of crap, and they are still guaranteed to make money from you. It removes any reward they get for producing good music.
However, on the other hand, it sounds like they're beginning to see that many people are frustrated at online music stores, which are all incompatible with each other, and require you to use a specific music player (this is the reason why I won't touch iTunes MS.
Also in terms of how this would be enforced. If I don't want to sign up for this, but I still want to have my music collection on my computer (all ripped) - Is every Record Industry lawyer going to point their finger at me and shout: "PIRATE!" (ignore the heightened sense of self importance - it's an example), just assuming that because I have music on my computer I must have downloaded it.
When I first heard the idea it didn't sound that bad, but I'm willing to bet that it would have to be enforced, by assuming everyone shares/downloads music. Which is something that I don't agree with.
.sigs are for losers
here in Canada, the levy is being used to enrich the music industry, not the artists
many record labels cheat artists and audiences, they are the real criminals, imho
There is a company in Russia, called allofmp3.com, that is completely legal. They pay royalties according to Russian laws. These royalties work in the same way as when radio stations pay them, only they pay them according to data transferred. Thus you pay according to quality.
One record costs about $3-$4 so I'd say the prices are quite good. The site is mentioned in this The Register article.
Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
In short; you wouldn't be able to do anything more than you would have already been allowed to do if the tax didn't exist.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I just was thinking when I read this sentence in the summary: How about a system, whereby a user can purchase a license for [n] amount of digital music files?
What if we just ran our mp3's voluntarily through a program that would say "ok, you've got 500 mp3 tracks - you need a $400 license. If you can not afford the license please remove tracks to reach your goal" and that is it. Don't actually force anyone to do anything - just suggest it. Put it out there, see if it works. People might just start paying for stuff they find on p2p networks.
The Plan: Get content owners together to form an alliance. The alliance agrees not to sue participants (users) who own licenses for petty copyright infringement(sic). The alliance splits any and all profits (and thus shares the initial costs). The new alliance releases said software. Software's job is to do these things: collect count of audio and video files, update metatag (ID3v2, et al) info with "licenced" status, provide checkout interface for buying licenses, filter out media that may not need to be covered by licenses (*content that doesn't belong to the alliance*, shorter clips, home recordings, DRM'd media).
The Catch: The program pops up every 8 hours and says "You still need to buy a license for 2,452 songs" - just kidding! No, the catch is that the music companies (and hopefully TV networks) don't get to see what we've got. If I don't feel like paying for a K-Fed song, I don't have to. If I want to pay for "My Humps" I can. Instead of running my songs against a masterlist on their server, using hashes, we use a distributed collection of the hashes or the masterlist must be downloadable. (or a mirror of the masterlist exists somewhere we trust). Drag and drop the files or folders onto the software's window and checkout. It should be annoying when you've got songs in your "to pay for" list that haven't been paid for - but not disruptive. The tactful approach will be the one that wins.
It is a game of nuance - Apple's pay per song model is too close to retail. That system still rewards those who are promoted the best and those who need more real world money for nearly intangible items because their success has nothing to do with talent.
The music industry says the Internet is ruining their business. Hogwash. They are ruining the Internet.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Would this $4 license fee make the downloaded songs legal for eternity or just for that one month?
If it is time-limited than this is just a trap. Either:
A. Download songs, pay increased license fee of $400 a month.
B. Download songs, don't renew license, get sued for any song not deleted.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
What a compelling argument.
... and then they built the supercollider.
This reminds me of the UK TV license, for those outside the UK: we have to pay a set amount* each year if we have any equipment capable of receiving and displaying TV signals - this cash goes to the BBC so that we don't have adverts etc on the BBC channels. However, if you do not possess a TV and therefore don't have a license you get a letter every month or so saying that your property doesn't have a license and they'll be sending men around to check that you don't have a TV.
Is this download license going to be a similar thing? Perhaps it's a means of narrowing the target of illegal downloaders? i.e: ISP contract holders that don't have the license may get their traffic scanned every month to make sure they're not in violation of copyright law?
Haydn.
*FYI: the amount you pay varies depending on if it's a colour/b&w tv, if you're blind/deaf etc.
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
Great. Any argument that starts with "shut the fuck up if you're in the 87% market share that owns an iPod" is bound to be compelling. Well done there.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Because if your company truly is "No Copyright", then that means everything that your artists make will be Public Domain, which means the public can use it however they want...
Perhaps you should rethink things a bit and keep the Inellectual Property idea, but be more lenient with it a la Creative Commons licensing.
Remember, Copyright is what keeps your creations out of the hands of those who would rip you off, just like it is what allows the GPL to keep code open and free.
Don't get me wrong. I do like your ideas, but I really think you need copyright to make them work, otherwise you will simply get the less scrupulous profitting off of your and your artists's hard work with no reward for you. Seriously, consider Creative Commons. It is AWESOME!
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
While admittedly this specific suggestion is probably not a good idea (bit hard to tell without the details), I'm glad to see some thinking going on in the music industry.
Of the many things wrong with the music and movie industries at the moment, the one that worrys me most is that there is no long-term thinking going on. Technology has, basically, destroyed their business model, which largely comprises distributing recorded performances. Now that any bozo with a copy of Garageband and a web page can do this, they are stuffed. Even the non-distribution bits of their business, which are also important, are stuffed, because it was the distribution component that collected the customer's money.
Their response has been to run amok trying to keep that model alive. Sueing your customers and breaking their media players is clearly insane, but they can't think of anything else that will keep up the pretence that ther business model isn't dead.
What they, and we, and the creative artists need, is for someone to come along and come up with a new 21st century business model, where music gets made, creators get paid, and we get to listen to it in the ways we want. But almost no-one is thinking about this. (In part this is because this is a hard problem)
Is a sort of download tax, which may be what WB are proposing, the answer? Hard to say. How well does the performing rights society do with distributing royalties on public performances of work? (I think an independant body should be in charge of such a scheme, rather than the record companies) How would they cope in a situation where every bozo with a web page is a music publisher?
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
This isn' really new as such... it is based on the Blur-Banff Proposal [theregister.co.uk] and there are a couple of potentially interesting implementations already surfacing in the UK:
One point to note about Playlouder MSP is that you use their P2P client and network, and as they function as your ISP, all access to other file sharing services is blocked (as far as is possible) to prevent content leaking out to unlicensed users. Does this constitute a fair compromise to any of you? I'd be severely tempted by this, providing that the following conditions are met
Admittedly, only we can make the last point happen.
Firstly, are we assuming it will be the ONLY way to acquire music? If not, surely consumers will ask this question: 'Do I spend more than $60 a year on music?' If you DO, then the record industry are going to lose out. If not, then you'll continue to buy digital/CDs as normal. Will this make the illegal downloader go legit, maybe it will. How much of the market is taken up by illegal downloaders these days? I suspect it's not enough to offset the fact that I can personally reduce my yearly expenditure on CDs from $300+ to $60. If, like El-man suggests, you could buy a licence for X tracks, then how is this going to be policed? If I have a licence for 1000 tracks and I've got 1200, surely this it's not even worth trying to find me and fine me. It sounds like a nice idea that will not (as far as the record industry is concerned) be monetarily viable.
No where does it state that the copier must own an original. When the Copyright review board last reviewed the CD levy the board specifically stated that the language was written such that making copies of borrowed works was legal. The Act was changed to allow copying in exchange for the CD levy. Furthure the board stated that all copies of music, on any medium (not just CDs), regardless of source where legal even if that source was illegal. However, it is not legal to make a copy for someone else. It is not legal to share music, as the host of the music is making the copy not the person who will use the copy. (See statements from Copyright board.) It is not legal to pay (with cash, barter, or other form of trade) someone to make a copy on your behave, or pay for the priviledge of making a personal copy.
So copy away Canada! And do it quickly. The CIRA has tried hard to change the Act to prevent copying while keeping the CD levy.
In the original article there was this statement "all downloads are permanent, and you can get them from any source, and do what you want with them".
Take note of the last part "and do what you want with them". That means I could legally download 30 songs, burn them to cd, make 100 copies and sell them to anyone I want to for $1.00. Yea Right, like they are really gonna let me do that.
But if it ever did happen, hell yea I would pay the fee (at least up to $10 a month).
...it would be a shame if a lawsuit were to be brought against you...
movies and maybe even games could be done using this system of pay by the month as well.
The RIAA, for 2004, reported about $12BN in total music sales, including CDs, Cassettes, Vinyl LPs, and any other form of physical media. (Note: According to the RIAA, the average CD sold for $14.90 --- that's tremendously high!) This does not include any download sales, nor does it include concerts, artist merchandise, licensing songs for movies, commercials, etc. This is basically what American consumers gave to the RIAA.
(Note: I do not know if independent record sales are included here. For example, your local band, etc. For the intents and purposes of this argument, we are going to assume that your local band "gets it" and has several of their songs available on MP3 on their website).
Now, the U.S. has about 295 million people now and 21% of them are under 15 years of age. So let's say there's about 233 million people who bear the economic burden of buying music, whether for themselves or for the under-15 age group. Then, on average, each person in this 233 million subset spends roughly $52 a year on music, or a little under $4.50 per month.
Conversely, if everyone in this subset were to pay $4 per month on this new all-you-can-eat system, you'd be left with "only" $11 billion in revenues for music sales. The questions, then, are as follows:
My main problem with this $4-unlimited-no-DRM "tax" that everyone pays is that it then very directly defines the revenue stream for record labels. They have X people paying a $4 "tax" to hear music, we know our sales will be at least this much. Where is the economic incentive for them to cut costs? How do they decide when it's a good year or a bad year if they have a set amount of income always coming in?
It's been roughly six years since Napster et. al. has affected the music industry. I'm not siding with the labels here, but when CD-single sales drop 95%+ in a decade there are definite strong external factors at work here; file-sharing is only one of them. It may take another six years or more for a functional, workable system to emerge. It is asinine to believe that large companies (Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Time-Warner) won't be in control of this. I just hope the artists get a bit more out if it next time around.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
That's what this is about. They want to be able to raise the distribution cost for the independent music producer and have the extra profits go to themselves.
And of course all you slashdot freeloaders who are only interested in being able to download the latest Brittney Spears mp3 for free are going to sign-up for this in droves.
This is what Lessig means when he says that the dinosaurs of the past will always try to preserve their place in the future.
We'll see this in Congress next. It will become law. And the prospect of Free Culture that the Internet once promised will be dead forever.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
I find it highly unlikely that this company, who tried to muscle Steve Jobs into doubling the per-download price of iTunes, would suggest such a pricing scheme with any intentions of following through.
No offense to anyone intended, but this entire article seems like some serious wishful thinking.
-Oser
If you haven't already check out Bleep, the online music store for several cool labels who's artists include Aphex Twin, Boards of Canada, and Venetian snares, among hundreds of others.
You can preview any part of any song, choose your download format, and everything is nicely tagged for you. Oh, and no DRM.
And I don't work for Bleep, I've just given them a shitload of money.
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
Repeating myself (http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=96729&cid =8272631)
In the United States, you have every right to get together with friends and make copies of music on analog tape, or digital copies of music on digital audio recording equipment. This is per the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.
I'm not sure what this means about copying a CD someone else bought to a tape, but copying a CD for a friend using digital audio equipment and audio cds is perfectly legal, and copying an audio tape to another audio tape is also legal. We pay a "tax" to the RIAA on every piece of digital audio equipment, audio CD, and audio tape to allow this.
What they're proposing is just doing the same thing for file sharing. My fear with it is the same as the issue with the AHRA: the music industry will then promptly work to hide the fact that this behavior is legal from the American public, and the law will become useless as technology changes. (e.g., the way computers are used to copy audio CDs, which is not protected by the AHRA even if you buy audio CDs). So we will end up paying taxes to the RIAA for our internet connections, and getting no new legal rights in the bargain.
The problem with this system is that while it was perfectly suited to what we used to do in the past – copy albums from friends – it doesn't work with filesharing. I'm still getting music and paying a fee for what I want to keep – which I burn to CDs – but I'm not allowed to pass it on to anyone else, which would constitute copyright infringement. However, that's the very essence of file sharing.
Another reason to be uncomfortable with this fee is that 90% of what I burn to CDs is not created by anyone who gets any amount of that money. Backups of my personal files take up more space than MP3s, and even more space is consumed by video casts etc. Most of these files are copyrighted, but not by musicians or anyone else affiliated with the music industry.
Yet another reason is that I don't listen to any music you'd find in the Top 40, made by those who get the largest share of the fees I pay, and that a large part of my music collection is CC licensed, made by those who don't get a single cent. This scheme is essentially taking from the poor and giving it to the rich.
On the other hand, I wouldn't want my computer to be infected with spyware that tells some agency what I listen to, in order to distribute the money fairly. There are dozens of reasons why this could never really work anyway.
Thus, the only viable system is a distribution service that is even better than any current P2P service and well worth the admission fee for pretty much anyone, as opposed to the iTunes Music Store et alia, which do many things right (correct information [ID3 tags / Ogg comments / whatever] in every file, decent quality, no 'fake'/truncated files), but charge so much that the overwhelming majority of listeners still finds the 'black market' more attractive. They also do many things wrong (DRM, not cutting costs and boosting speed by using P2P technologies for shuttling the bits to and fro, ridiculous EULAs, don't offer the works of competitors through the same interface and thus severely restrict the available selection), so there's lots of room for improvement for a hypothetical new service. This service would charge a flat fee, which is distributed to the artists according to how often their songs are downloaded. Just imagine: a P2P download wouldn't hurt your favourite artist, it would help. The fans would love this. And it doesn't require to track who downloads what. You could even use your downloads to create mixtapes or podcasts, feed them back into the system, which counts the downloads towards the respective totals of the artists whose work you used, and if your show is successful, the system might even cut you a provision.
IMHO, everyone would win. Everyone, except for the record labels, which would be rendered obsolete in almost every respect. They couldn't claim to discover new talent any longer, the listeners would do that themselves. All they would do is provide venture capital to new artists, which won't be profitable in a future in which users can take DRM-unencumbered files and make their own ringtones, a future in which they can't threaten their customers with lawsuits and extort extra money for the right to make backup copies, play the files on a second/new platform, or keep them beyond your subscription period. Yet sadly, the big labels wield the most power, so they're preventing the creation of anything better. Truly unlimited, legal music downloads for $3.95 a month? No, not a chance, not as long as the uneducated masses put up with the current situation and support the status quo.
Thus, the record labels must die. Don't buy their overpriced CDs any longer. Make them go bankrupt. Give an adequate amount of your hard-earned cash to the artists directly. Once the greedy middlemen and middlewomen are cut out, everyone will win.
Maybe no one w
but what do i know, i'm just a model.
Then you are a pussy who scares easily. Stay under your bed.
Is it me or does this = "I know what you did, but will not take you to court for a little $$"
In Spain the P2P are legal.
Just a side note, but you meant the CRIA I think, since the CIRA does .ca registrations.
Be sure to write your MP and tel them you like Canada's copyright law as it is and expect them to vote down changes that are endorsed by the CRIA.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Under no circumstances will I pay money to a record company ever again. I download my music illegally, and I will continue to do that, now and forever.
Try and stop me.
That said, I do sometimes pay for the music I receive. Whenever I find a good album or band that I enjoy, I go online and look for their fan club. Usually I can find an address or some other way to get a letter to the band in some fashion. Then I print out a letter that essentially says "I like your work, but I downloaded it from the internet because I hate record labels. So here's $10 and that's at least 10 times as much as they'd pay you if I bought it legitimately. Keep up the good work", stuff it and a Hamilton in an envelope and mail it off.
Okay, so I'm not "legal". But hell, that's the least of my concerns, really. With any luck, some of these bands might realize that hey, if they sell direct to their fans and avoid paying off record labels, they can make a lot more cash even if they don't have a huge audience. It's my little way of trying to make some kind of difference. Probably won't work, but it can't hurt. All I know is that it'll be a cold day in hell before I give money to Sony or anybody affilated with them.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
There is no organization that has the authority to permit distribution of all copyrighted works without destroying the idea of copyright. do you know why they don't sing the happy birthday song in restauraunts? because someone owns the copyright, and demands a royalty.
There is no room in the law for qualitative interpretation in art, and if i release a song, and demand a certain amount of payment, then i am entitled to that amount of payment if someone is going to esentialy create a copy and sell the copy of my work. I have a right to be paid what I think is reasonable for my own work.
If this goes big, you can expect to see a work by me, available and very popular on all p2p networks. Oh, and the cd will be available to buy for $1000 so that's what I'd demand as my royalty for every download under this plan. It'll be a breakout song called "DownloadThisToMakeMeRich.com".
-John Fenley
You know what I'd really like? A variety of radio stations (like sattelite radio, or comcast music channels; not like local radio stations) which I could tune in to, and with the click of a button, download the song I'm listening to if I like it. I would pay quite a bit for a service like that.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
the service must also be platform-independant, and the DRM must either be extremely flexible or (preferably) non-existant.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Well, I suppose absent of any alternative, paying a few dollars a month for unlimited (or even limited) legal downloads would be all right with me, but I think there is a bigger question here.
Are the record labels redundant? I say they are. All of this control and scheming is nothing more than a system that props up an industry which is no longer needed.
I would prefer a system where I can pay the artists directly for there work, and where the record labels can go fuck themselves.
Basically, it's like we're being forced to pay a buggy-whip premium even though we're driving cars that don't need them.
Anyone who thinks this is all about making sure the artists get paid is being naive.
Proverbs 21:19
An Internet access levy payable to the music labels enforces control of the label over the artists. It removes the threat of artists going it their own because they get paid no matter
what. A tax for music is patently unfair. For one, there is no representation... how do we guarantee that our unsigned indie musician gets a piece of the pie?
What music labels fear is democratization and commoditization of the pipeline. Many vendors, many musicians can compete on price eventually. Secondly, the reason for going with a major label dimish as access to broadband increases (and Ipods)... communication and popularity campaigns become cheaper... radio stations will play hits from the Internet/blogospher. It scares the labels because they are not technology companies but content managers so they cannot control distribution.
What they want is a universal tax. Once established it is EASY money, and very difficult to REPEAL accept by a change in law or vote. Then the labels lobbyists take charge which we know
is a VERY effective way of getting things done.
They are [becoming] a buggy whip. I see less and less 'service' they are providing. I'm sorry to musicians, but maybe music should be made by musicians who just like making music, rather than a 'way out' and to make million$ in giant record contracts. The American dream has transmuted to becoming a millionare and this has also become the musicians dream. Might say something about why there is no good music coming out anymore and everyone is listening to punk from 25 years ago. A hard working band used to mean they performed every night. That's how they made their money, by actually entertaining instead of negotiating with lawyers. They will have to use all that creativity to make their own distribution (hardly a challenge today) and they start gigin! MTV is geared towards consumers many of whom may never have even seen a live band. Music lovers will seek out the music and the experience is entirely different. JMO
Buying a CD of an artist entitles you to a download of an mp3 compilation of similar artists on the label.
I love the idea about buying a CD and getting tickets to a show. Here in Boston there is a record store that does it from time to time.
Bury me in mashed potatoes.
IHBT.
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
That's exactly where they are headed - and once they have it DRM will become a moot issue. And that's ALSO what they want because as soon as it's guaranteed WE THE PEOPLE have no profitable means of *personal* publication and their future is assured via the new media welfare system, their control of all major channels of communications will be complete.
Would you be willing to pay a small fee each month if you could get all the music you want and have no legal liability?
I do and it's not small. My cable provider charges me $50/mo. I get all the music I want and I have no legal liability. This fee probably exceeds what I was spending on CD's prior to the internet, and it exceeds all my other monthly bills including electricity, gas, phone, and tv.
Well if certain artists don't want to go on tour, then they need to sell something of value in the marketplace, like a high-quality recording that can't be duplicated with consumer hardware. The real tragedy of the music industry is not ripping off mp3s, or DRM laws, or paying $17 for a Beatles CD. The tragedy is paying $17 for a CD from a washed-up act like Ratt or Devo.
In other words, all of this started going downhill when people were convinced that a $0.02 coaster was "a new audio format." CD's and MP3's don't sound good because they don't cost anything to manufacture. On the other hand, if bands sold products, and those products differed in price based on supply (quality) and demand (popularity), then there would not be an argument.
It's stunningly simple. But like I said, people have been paying essentially nothing for recordings (on the manufacturing side) since the invention of the CD, so creating a marketplace for music products is something that few of us have ever imagined.
So can anyone explain how my license fee will be distributed to minor independent labels, given that I only tend to listen to and download obscure Futurepop and Psytrance?
Currently the RIAA has two tasks:
- Find and/or fabricate artist(s) and promote them.
- Distribute physical media for a profit.
They don't produce content: Artists do, and always will.The problem for the RIAA is that internet+economics dictates that they are no longer the cheapest/most-efficient method for accomplishing Task#2.
So then comes the argument that We've never seen a mega-band come from non-RIAA promotion (i.e. internet alone). Well, that's simply not quite true (as in the whole truth). The reality is that the RIAA controls the single best music advertising medium: Commercial Radio. Wanna get radio play? sign right up... Don't wanna sign? sorry, no play for you. Radio play equates to CD and ticket sales in a very real way, and the RIAA knows it (now!) which was why payola was made illegal (which hasn't stopped the practice, just changed it to 'promoters').
So let's eliminate the RIAA completely and see where this goes:
Commercial radio isn't going to die if the RIAA doesn't payola them, so there's no loss there.
People will hear new music from a variety of sources: radio, internet, friends, etc so people will still get new music, so no loss there.
Will it be the same bands? Probably not, since we already know that the RIAA is pretty bad at picking good bands (by their own 1-in-20 numbers). Is that a loss? Not in the least: it's a major bonus for music enthusiasts. No more sifting through the crap they feel is most profitable (i.e. those that would sign away their artistic integrity).
This decentralises the power of who gets to control what you hear. Friends and the 'net (blogs, last.fm whatever) become more important in determining what you listen to, and the local radio station might (again!) have a say in what they play. The title 'music director' might again be someone who actually picks up random recordings and plays them, or better, DJs might again get to do the same... 'music director' is an invention of the RIAA controlled marketplace.
So, do I want a system that continues to prop up a business that has outlived it's usefulness, and is harmful to artists and consumers? Nope, I won't pay for the buffet.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
The problem is that if the RIAA is genuinely looking at this it means we may be getting closer to the (much needed) end of this obsolete organisation. It is obviously a desperation tactic to guarantee their profits.
This flat-rate model is the RIAA looking to maximise profits with minimum work. If anyone thinks that a company with guaranteed income is going to do any work needs to revisit the economics of what welfare does to people's desire to work.
So we are effectively going to eliminate any work the RIAA might be doing.
Since they only have one real job: Distribute media, they are really not doing anything in the internet age anyways
The argument that they discover and promote talent is bogus. They invent and market those that are most profitable to them. They prevent those that won't sign from getting exposure beyond clubs (i.e. no radio play for you!) Do you really want just the music that gets marketed to you? Marketing is a very real force, and you can pretend that ads don't work on you, but then everyone says that, but companies are still able to fabricate demand. Coca-Cola anyone? Purely fabricated demand.*
The 'discovery' and 'promotion' aspects are only there because it increases their bottom line. The only real job the RIAA has ever had is the distribution of media. The internet is now more efficient at performing this task, and I see no reason to pay the RIAA a royalty for doing nothing.
All those that want to pay me to do absolutely nothing for you, please reply here, I'll set up a paypal and you can fund me to your hearts content... no takers? hmmm, too bad.
So why do you want to prop up a bunch of millionaires who aren't doing anything for you either?
The RIAA is just looking to guarantee it's profits. Nothing more.
*I'm not saying coke's not a tastey beverage, just that it's popularity is based on slick marketing; which is how music is also marketed and sold. Art isn't made for profit. The profitability of art shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether or not it gets made or you get to see/hear it.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
Would you be willing to pay a small fee each month if you could get all the music you want and have no legal liability?"
comcast get's 50 bux a month from me for basic cable, and the rate keeps creeping upward. i'm not real happy with the content vs. cost ratio but it's the only game in town for my situation.
earthlink gets about the same per month from me for an ADSL connection. i get some mailboxes, 10MB of webspace, and not really any thing i'd consider as content. i use a bit torrent client for multi-media "content."
enough already with the "small fee" crap. how long is it till ALL my content will be reduced to just another added "small fee?" i'm gonna be sticking my head out the window any day now and yelling, " I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this anymore!"
Serenity now, insanity later.