Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Unlimited Legal Music Downloads for $3.95 a Month?

Posted by Cliff on from the too-good-to-be-true dept.

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?

45 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. Oh Canada... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is precisely the system we have in Canada, through a levy on blank media.

    1. Re:Oh Canada... by mellon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, that's not precisely the system you have. With the system you have, you pay the levy whether you use it or not, and whether you were otherwise entitled to the music or not (e.g., by buying it through iTMS or because you already paid for the CD).

      Personally, I find the idea of paying a levy on every piece of media I *could* use to pirate music repugnant. I do sound for a Dharma center where we have a lot of teachings; we record them and give them away for free. Having to pay a levy for an iPod or for CDs or whatever is completely unfair in this case - we aren't getting any of that money back when people copy our audio (nor do we want it - the audio is *supposed* to be free).

      Meanwhile, because of all the paranoia from the music industry, it's very difficult to record anything - there are so many attempts to close the analog hole and to avoid perfect copies that, to this day, it is a struggle to get any kind of usable equipment that works for us - e.g., something where you push "record" and you get a clean digital recording. If you have the bucks for really expensive pro gear this isn't out of the question, but all of the sub-$1k equipment is deliberately crippled.

    2. Re:Oh Canada... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and in Hungary. Except that I don't buy blank media, just harddrives. They don't tax them here with that levy.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    3. Re:Oh Canada... by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny
      Hey, I find it repugnant to pay for courts and prisons even though I've never committed a crime (and schools to teach everyone else's damn kids, even though I don't have any). But that's just the way it goes.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:Oh Canada... by mshurpik · · Score: 2, Informative

      >most digitizing systems are flaky. They sort of work.
      >If you don't mind spending thousands of dollars, you can get clean audio

      What about a $300 sound card like M-Audio with breakout box and 1/4" plugs? Or is this the "quite expensive but still consumer-grade piece of equipment that...simply stopped delivering?"

      Actually, M-Audio and similar cards with 1/4" plugs would seem to fall under the category of pro gear. I understand everything you are saying about crippled consumer hardware but maybe the problem is that you've realized you need pro gear but you still haven't bought any.

      Personally I use a 4-head stereo vcr for master recordings and I digitize later on by playing the tape. That's because you're right, pro digital gear is expensive - I've never dared shop for it. Maybe you should build a Shuttle box (minimal footprint desktop) with an M-audio card and use the laptop as a display only. These Shuttle boxes are pretty damn small and as always, you can build a dream PC usually under $1000.

      Keep in mind what you are asking for:

      * Digital sampling
      * Digital copy
      * High performance
      * Reliable
      * Affordable
      * Portable
      * Easy to use

      You're asking for everything. Certainly, even if you had the money, a consumer-grade solution would only do half of these things. I'm not surprised you settled on a laptop. Portability and ease of use seem to be high on your list, and those things are perhaps the most difficult to obtain in a recording environment that usually includes microphones, stands, mixers, pre-amplifiers, tape decks, monitors, and cords for optimum control and sound quality.

    5. Re:Oh Canada... by mellon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That looks good in the shopping basket, but unfortunately doesn't work very well. The box I described in the previous post _was_ an M-Audio box, and I lost valuable data because the driver was flaky. And this was with the stock drivers, on Windows - I wasn't doing anything funny.

      In general, ALSA drivers are good, but only for non-obscure equipment. The M-Audio gear is sufficiently obscure that I'd have to have a lot of miles on it in testing before I'd trust it live. Pretty much the difference between a pro setup and a cheap setup is that the pro setup works reliably. You pay the extra money not so much for better quality hardware as that the manufacture is going to be in deep doo-doo if somebody loses a recording session on the pro gear they bought for a couple of thousand bucks, but if you lose data on the cheap stuff, the manufacturer pretty much doesn't care.

      Ironically, what I'm using right now is a Shuttle box, and it pretty much does the job with the baseboard audio - I don't need an M-audio card, because the motherboard comes with a line in. The software is all command-line, which means that only I can operate it, but that's fixable - as I said earlier, I'll probably wrap some Qt4 widgets around DarkIce and do some trivial mods to support storing uncompressed audio rather than MP3. It's a work in progress.

      $1k for a reliable recorder is a little spendy, but that's about what you have to pay. I'd really like something the size of a Nokia 770 with a line in and a real spinning disk drive - that would address my need precisely, because it runs Linux, so I can slap a custom recording program on it and go. Unfortunately the real Nokia 770 doesn't have a line in, and doesn't really support spinning media, so I'd have to get an iMic or something, and it'd take me a long time to be able to trust the driver on that.

      Also, you're right that I'm asking for the world. What's wrong with that? Seems like the world is eminently buildable - there are devices that are very, very close to what I want on the market already. Sadly, there are none that do exactly what I want.

      We tried the iRiver for a while, but that was a huge disappointment - despite being a great hardware platform for recording, the UI is geared primarily for playback (one wonders how many people buy an iRiver when they could have an iPod for less money if all the want is playback), and, unbelievably, the iRiver maxes out at an hour and nine minutes of recording if you record into a WAV file at 44KHz+mono (less if you go stereo), and so what we found was that we kept getting half a class, because the person operating the iRiver had no real way of noticing that it had stopped recording. You could set up a discipline (e.g., set a timer for an hour, start a new session then) but it's not practical unless you have professionals doing the recording, and we don't.

      The lesson here for me is that it pretty much has to run Linux or I don't want to be bothered with it. So no more iRivers. No windows boxes. No Macs (mac sound drivers tend to fluctuate in quality from release to release, unfortunately, and coding for Cocoa and Apple's sound system is deeply painful). I'm confident that within a year or so there will be something on the market that fits the bill, but I can still whine about it in the meantime! ;')

  2. Yes. by jersey_emt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  3. sounds good in theory... by musonica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:sounds good in theory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's worse than that. You'd be paying the big record companies a welfare check every month, even while they become less and less relevant. The payment would not actually be tied to which music you found worthwhile enough to pay for - you could be downloading entirely independent artists that don't get a cent from their mortal enemies, the big record companies - but you'd still be paying the executives wages while the artists starved.

      This is, most likely, what the record companies are going to wind up asking congress for. It fits perfectly with their welfare-ho philosophy as evidenced in their press releases and court documents so far.

    2. Re:sounds good in theory... by 777film · · Score: 2, Informative

      But I don't see how the artists can make money from such a scheme after the labels take 90% of the profits?


      They'll make the same they do from CD sales, which is nearly zero. If an artist makes money it's from licensing, publishing, merchandise and touring.

    3. Re:sounds good in theory... by homer_ca · · Score: 2, Informative

      The payment would not actually be tied to which music you found worthwhile enough to pay for

      Sure, it may not be very accurate distributing your $5 payment to the right artists, but in aggregate such a system is surprisingly accurate. Nielsen Soundscan already tracks paid downloads. It wouldn't be hard for them to track popularity of P2P downloads too.

    4. Re:sounds good in theory... by Crspe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nielsen Soundscan already tracks paid downloads. It wouldn't be hard for them to track popularity of P2P downloads too.

      However what happens to the tracking if the artists themselves decide to boost their income by having bots download their songs as often as possible?

      Tracking P2P downloads is probably simple and accurate as long as noone is profiting directly from the results. As soon as an individuals salary is completely dependant on these figures then I think it will get much more difficult to ensure the correctness of the results - it is too easy for people to influence.

    5. Re:sounds good in theory... by gnasher719 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      '' However what happens to the tracking if the artists themselves decide to boost their income by having bots download their songs as often as possible? ''

      That should be no problem. Lets say everybody pays x dollars a month, and lets say three dollars of everyone's payments is to be distributed to the artist. If all you download in one month is one Britney Spears song, she gets your three dollars. If you download her song tenthousand times, she gets three dollars. If you download ten different songs, everyone gets 30 cents, if you download 1000 different songs, everyone gets 0.3 cents.

      The bot can only produce three dollars of income to an artist, but it needs an ISP address where more than three dollars are paid, so it is a net loss.

      What would be dangerous is a virus that gets copied on many machines of paying consumers and downloads stuff they don't want.

    6. Re:sounds good in theory... by aggieben · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But I don't see how the artists can make money from such a scheme after the labels take 90% of the profits?

      Sure they can: If an artist puts 10 songs on a CD that sells for $15, it comes to $1.50 a song. The label takes its profit, and the artist takes the rest. That's the way it works now, no?

      Artists have to churn out songs one after another to keep a steady income. Most just can't keep up. Result? CDs filled with crappy songs that cost way too much.

      Fast-forward a bit. Now, the record labels have figured out that the internet is a useful mechanism for selling music. The difference is that now, they charge $5 per month for unlimited downloads. Since the record label is pulling in money at a regular clip just from people being subscribed, artists are under less pressure to crank out songs. They can concentrate on making good music. The ones who don't get downloaded (i.e., miss a download target some number of consecutive months in a row) get dropped from the label. Also, lets don't forget that this gives opportunities to more musicians to "make it" as the cost for producing 1 or two songs to be downloaded would be phenomenally less than the cost of making an album, not to mention an instantly broader audience.

      Result? A system where good musicians get weeded out from the bad without requiring the good ones to sacrifice their reputations by writing 3 crappy songs for every 1 good one. Better music. Better prices. More profit.

      --
      Don't become a regular here, you will become retarded. -- Yoda the Retard
  4. I don't get it by pHatidic · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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


    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.

    1. Re:I don't get it by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Isn't this basically just stealing from people who don't illegally download music off the Internet?

      How so? Just have it as an extra cost item in your service.
      "Do you want to include the $3.95 music download fee in your broadband subscription? []Yes []No"

      If my broadband bill went from $50 to $54, AND included actual, legal, reliable, fast downloads? Hell yes.

      Not that this will happen anytime soon, but yeah,I would.

    2. Re:I don't get it by hab136 · · Score: 3, Informative

      >I think the cd levy thing is true in Canada, but I've never heard about it in the US before. Can someone provide a source?

      The US has it too. "Data" CDs don't have the tax. "Music" CDs do. The difference is one bit in the header, and a few bucks at checkout time.

      The name of the law taxing music CDs (and DAT tapes, etc) is AHRA - Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, an amendment to the U.S. federal Copyright Act of 1976. It's often called the "DAT tax", but it applies to music CD-Rs too.

      http://drmwatch.webopedia.com/TERM/A/AHRA.html

      http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/truth

      http://www.eff.org/cafe/cafe_case_analysis.html

    3. Re:I don't get it by Trogre · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At first I thought "hell yes, this is what I've been waiting for!"

      But then I considered this:

      Where does that $3.95 or $10 or whatever go? Directly to the RIAA, and filtered down to the actual label and eventually the artist.

      Now what happens to all the minor labels, the ones that aren't part of the RIAA? I'm not talking about companies like Magnatune that distribute low-bitrate recordings for free, but labels that charge per download?

      Since this initiative will inevitibly result in an "I've paid my monthly dues so I can download any music for free" meme, the small labels will be forced to either give the music away for nothing or join the RIAA to get a piece of the pie. Of course this will effectively give the RIAA a total monopoly on music dollars.

      I'm not saying free downloads are necessarily a bad thing, but it's just something to consider.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    4. Re:I don't get it by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm not saying free downloads are necessarily a bad thing, but it's just something to consider.

      I guess it depends on what was meant by 'download'. If they're talking about downloading from the current (or something similar) P2P programs, i.e. off some dudes hard drive, then no way I'd pay money for that. You'd still be left with the all too common partial files, mislabeled files, slooooow downloads, etc.

      Now, if it was something like emusic.com used to be. All you can eat legal mp3's, for a flat fee, then hell yes.

      But paying money, just to use the current P2P offerings? That's just paying protection money to the RIAA, and they don't have to do anything at all.

    5. Re:I don't get it by VoxCombo · · Score: 2, Informative

      It would make sense to go through ASCAP, BMI, and/or SESAC - the organizations that collect and distribute performance royalties (royalties for radio play and any public use of music). They already have an infrastructure built up for this sort of thing, and their methods are generally regarded as fair.

  5. I'd buy that for a dollar! by supersocialist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  6. If.... by countach · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  7. interesting ideas, but... by pennyher0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  8. No by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 4, Interesting


    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.

  9. This is a step in the right direction by denissmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?
  10. Re:I doubt it... by TheOtherAgentM · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While I don't like much new music, I can think of a lot of old stuff that I would want to get my hands on legally. Just look at a group like The Beatles. How many compilations are out there? I would be more than glad to pay $4-5 a month for that. The problem is, that's not much money. What record label is going to give up their music if they know it's good?

  11. I'm Skeptical by YourBlueRoom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

  12. This makes sense for ... by Bin_jammin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  13. How does this support the artist? by Paddo_Aus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  14. Kinda... by mobiux · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Kinda... by Randall_Jones · · Score: 2, Interesting

      then the (admittedely rare) individuals who buy blank cds for legal purposes have to pay the tax and get screwed. They tried to institute a blank tape tax in the 80's, and tried to get VCRs taken off the market, too. We know how well that worked out...

    2. Re:Kinda... by rkcallaghan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      then the (admittedely rare) individuals who buy blank cds for legal purposes have to pay the tax and get screwed

      Is backing up your (homework/thesis/research/work of any kind) really that rare? What about driver discs? I won't try and pretend that Linux makes up a big portion of the sales, but I think there's a lot of family photo albums out there. Tax season has begun, my family keeps their results on a CD, is that uncommon?

      Personally I think there's a big market out there for completely legitimate uses for CDs, before you even approach the car audio compilation, which is also very popular and legal if you have a clean source.

      ~Rebecca

  15. Absolutely not by RingDev · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Socializing the entertainment industry will not improve the consumer experience.

    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/126947 ), and make it easier for consumers to get legal content then illegal.

    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
    1. Re:Absolutely not by Mendy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.


      What I'd do would be to try to get away from the amount of money an artist earns being directly related to their record sales. I think a model more closely modeled on professional atheletes would be better, a studio would pay a yearly wage to an artist and for that they'd get exclusive access to their work (and possibly their back catalogue). As an artist's popularity went down they'd be paid less which would then free up money for new bands. Some artists would probably choose to become "self employed" and cut out the middle man.
  16. The EFF calls it Voluntary Collective Licensing by Kelerain · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:The EFF calls it Voluntary Collective Licensing by MsGeek · · Score: 4, Informative

      Someone mod this up.

      And let me also mention that there are perfectly good agencies in existence to collect this "compulsory license," to use the term in US Federal law that made those horrible Radio "pirates" legal. ASCAP. BMI. SESAC. There are others, but those are the biggies. Most musicians who keep their publishing rights (as opposed to those who have signed them away as part of their record deal) are members of one of those three.

      My husband's publishing is collected by BMI. They haven't done anything much *for* him, but they haven't done anything *against* him.

      A "compulsory license" would cut the gordian knot of "piracy" and obviate the need for Digital Restrictions Management.

      However, the RIAA and MPAA actually want MORE. They want to be able to collect RENT on your music. And this is beyond the pale.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
  17. Re:I doubt it... by pallmall1 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    So you sign up for a month or 2 every year and download everything you can get...
    I thought about that too, until I remembered this was Time Warner, of AOL fame (or shame). They'll require some long, multiyear contract that's impossible to cancel.
    --
    3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
  18. From a future executive? by dada21 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:From a future executive? by scotch · · Score: 2, Funny

      How about this one: buy a CD, have sex with the drummer? Win-win situation.

      --
      XML causes global warming.
  19. Re:The Question Is: by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 3, Insightful

    $3-$4/month for file sharing? fuck yes.
    $3/$4 per month per RIGHTS holder? Fuck no.

    There it is. They're talking only about one label. Assuming all the labels went for this, it'd be a pretty penny for the 4-5 big ones, and then a lesser sum for the smaller ones.

    That's one of the main advantages of piracy, as I see it. Pirates can get all the content in one place, and as we've seen with TV stuff, it's almost more work to track down which network is with which service, and getting an iTMS and Google Video account, and have to manage 4-5 accounts. If the content industries united behind 2-3 stores that had all the content, it'd help them fight piracy a lot.

  20. Re:I doubt it... by Randall_Jones · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What record label is going to give up their music if they know it's good?

    they're already giving it up for free--on bittorrent, on emule, etc... the idea is to provide a legal alternative that costs a reasonable amount of money. Even people as stupid as record company executives must be able to understand that making some money of internet downloads is better than making no money.

  21. Goddamn Finland ... by halitus · · Score: 4, Informative

    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).

  22. Yes by Neurotoxic666 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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?

    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.
  23. Canadians can make copies of music from any source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    Canadians are allowed to make unlimited copies of all music regardless of source. You do not need to own an original. It does not matter how the music is aquired. Read the Copyright Act Section 80.

    "musical work, is embodied onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright"


    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.
  24. Re:The average person now spends about $4.50 / mon by dwandy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Will there still be $1 billion in music sales even if you can download for "free"?
    I have several problems with the all-u-can-eat buffet ...How about: When the RIAA gets their welfare cheque will they still have any interest in producing music (i.e. the much vaunted incentive is gone)
    Currently the RIAA has two tasks:
    1. Find and/or fabricate artist(s) and promote them.
    2. 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...
    ...this leaves them with only the task of finding or fabricating artists and promoting them. Personally, I find their track record in identifiying good (or even popular) music horrible. Some use the fact that for every 'hit' band the RIAA 'discovers', it must waste profits on 20 misses as a reason that the RIAA must exist. I just see that as a second innefficiency, and a second reason they are no longer necessary. Let's face it, the only real task was the distribution of media. The finding and promoting part is just a more-profit question. (i.e. more hits -> more media distributed -> more profit.
    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?