Slashdot Mirror


French Government May Subsidize Music Downloads

angry tapir writes "The European Commission has approved a French program to subsidize legal music downloads for young people. The Carte Musique scheme gives €25 (US$35) to French residents aged 12 to 25 to spend on music downloads or subscription services. Young people can purchase a €50 card for just €25, with the balance paid by the state."

187 comments

  1. I guess that means by halfEvilTech · · Score: 4, Interesting

    for the next 2 years while this is in effect, the online music services will be raising their prices to milk the system.

    They most likely won't but I wouldn't put it past those seeing this as a good money grab opportunity.

    1. Re:I guess that means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Coming up next, the story of the $400 "If I had a Hammer".

    2. Re:I guess that means by ribuck · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well of course, the intention is to divert taxpayers' money into the "legal music download" industry.

    3. Re:I guess that means by mangu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      for the next 2 years while this is in effect, the online music services will be raising their prices to milk the system.

      Probably yes, and that would show how stupid they are.

      If I were a teenager, I wouldn't really care about the subsidy. All I would want to know is what I'd be getting for my money. If I had to spend 25 euros on a 50 euros card to get 20 euros worth of music I wouldn't do it.

      As usual, the taxpayer gets fucked. And the music companies, even with the subsidy, will get less than what they would if they had reasonable prices.

    4. Re:I guess that means by ByOhTek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where do you get that they most likely won't? I probably won't be double, but an extra 50% increse is predictable.

      Normally I'm a moderately liberal individual, and am for the government helping the people, but this is asinine. This is a luxury, not a necessity. This is promoting a specific business model that should survive or fail on it's own merits, not on some kind of corporate welfare.

      W.T.A.F.?

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    5. Re:I guess that means by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Buy Apple shares, quick!

      There's a bunch of French taxpayer money about to be transferred to Apple's account.

      --
      No sig today...
    6. Re:I guess that means by Gothmolly · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's not a money grab if people are throwing money at you. I bet you blame the US Health Care industry for charging too much too.

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    7. Re:I guess that means by operagost · · Score: 3, Interesting

      for the next 2 years while this is in effect, the online music services will be raising their prices to milk the system.

      The French government is subsidizing entertainment for a select part of the population, and THIS is your concern?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    8. Re:I guess that means by andrea.sartori · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not really. If you were a teenager, you would gladly spend your 25, buy 50 worth of music, and when the card is depleted you would go back to downloading illegally.

      --
      Mostly harmless.
    9. Re:I guess that means by BasilBrush · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      5 million is chump change to Apple.

    10. Re:I guess that means by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Normally I'm a moderately liberal individual,

      You can be conservative and socially liberal as well. Don't believe the trolls that tell you that if you are a liberal, you must be for ANYTHING proposed by another self proclaimed liberal. The reverse is also true, you can be conservative and not... Oh how do they put it, 'view Somalia as a libertarian paradise.'

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    11. Re:I guess that means by zeroshade · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When you consider that the "Health Care Industry" also includes the Health Insurance companies, yea. I do blame the Health Care Industry for charging too much too.

      Among other problems in the industry...

    12. Re:I guess that means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they use it at all - let's face it, this initiative is not aimed at students who want to buy music, they're already doing so (this might let them buy a bit more) - it's aimed at those who just don't want to buy music at all while it's available free and easy. The best way to combat that attitude is to make music cheap enough that it's essentially free anyway (remove the barrier to impulse buys). Even former label head Rob Dickins agrees this is the best approach - my price point for new albums is now about £5, if they go over that by even a few pennies, I just don't think it's worth the risk losing money on potential dross. If they were a quid I'd buy a hell of a lot more.

    13. Re:I guess that means by duskycat · · Score: 1

      I think they have enough money Johm edwards web design, websites built

    14. Re:I guess that means by horza · · Score: 1

      5 million? In a post above I calculate that there are around 11M 12-25yr olds, and they get €25 each. I make that €275,000,000. Though I may well be wrong, feel free to correct me.

      Phillip.

    15. Re:I guess that means by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Interesting
      No shit.

      Hey, let's give people a government-enforced ownership and monopoly over a thing, and then subsidize purchases of it.

      If you want to let people download for free, weaken copyright somehow, you idiots. Demand that to have a copyright, you have to give the government X free copies of it or something, and the government can give those out.

      This is just stupid.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    16. Re:I guess that means by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apparently in order to participate they have to lower prices, but I still think this is a terrible use of public funds.

    17. Re:I guess that means by Americano · · Score: 1

      The problem is, reducing the prices to 1 pound (~$1.60 US) wouldn't do much to stop piracy - it still costs money, and pirated copies are still free. If the decision to pirate is an economic one, you won't do much to end it by reducing the price, even drastically, unless the price drops to "free". If it's not an economic decision, then you've done nothing to change the fundamental objection someone has to paying for music.

      Let's be honest, 99 cents for a new song is not much of a barrier to impulse buys, if you already have a computer & an internet connection, and probably an mp3 player (or a phone that does that job) as well.

      If you reduce the price of albums to near that level, you've pretty much guaranteed that what you'll end up with is the one hit single plus 8-10 other generic throwaway songs that nobody will ever care to listen to.

    18. Re:I guess that means by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      Isn't France supposed to be doing austerity right now? Like raising the retirement age from 60 to 62? (and omg protests!!!!!)

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    19. Re:I guess that means by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      What they must not have mentioned is that at least 26 of that 50 has to be spent on music providers which are approved by the government as being sufficiently culturally French!

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    20. Re:I guess that means by Xemu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If I was a teenager, I would have bought as many €25 cards I could afford and sold them on ebay for €( 25+x% profit ) to adults wanting to save on their purchases. This scheme is doomed to fail quick.

      --
      Tell your friends about xenu.net
    21. Re:I guess that means by Xemu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...and as a grown up, I will be selling music in France-- "Buy my song for €50 and get €25 cash-back!"

      --
      Tell your friends about xenu.net
    22. Re:I guess that means by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, just calm down. It's France, not the US. We all know they haven't whole-heartedly embraced US-style capitalism. They seem to be getting along just fine, and just because they did something doesn't mean we will.

    23. Re:I guess that means by partofthepuzzle · · Score: 1

      >If you reduce the price of albums to near that level, you've pretty much guaranteed that what you'll end up with is the one hit single plus 8-10 other generic throwaway songs that nobody will ever care to listen to.

      Haven't we been pretty much guaranteed that for most albums for the last 40+ years, while we're paying $10 - $15?

    24. Re:I guess that means by cupantae · · Score: 1

      RTFA:

      The scheme requires website operators to contribute a reduction in the price of the music, an extension of the duration of the subscription or a contribution to the cost of advertising the card. However as it caps the benefit each operator may draw from the scheme at €5 million there are concerns that the largest operators such as iTunes, FNAC and Amazon may not participate.

      Doesn't sound like government enforcement, ownership or monopoly. However, I would have a problem with any of my taxes going to Apple or Amazon or whoever, which seems to be the idea here.

      --
      --
    25. Re:I guess that means by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      Liberalism, throughout most of the world including France, is usually considered a center-right political philosophy. Only in America is the word "liberalism" seen as "left-wing," which I think says a lot about Americans.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    26. Re:I guess that means by Xemu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      my price point for new albums is now about £5, if they go over that by even a few pennies, I just don't think it's worth the risk losing money on potential dross. If they were a quid I'd buy a hell of a lot more.

      The $1 iphone apps proves this really well in real life. There are literally many millionaires made because nobody hesitates to pay $1

      --
      Tell your friends about xenu.net
    27. Re:I guess that means by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The reverse is also true, you can be conservative and not... Oh how do they put it, 'view Somalia as a libertarian paradise.'

      Perhaps I'm just taking this the wrong way, but (assuming you group libertarians in with the "conservatives") you should know that it generally isn't the libertarians themselves who "view Somalia as a libertarian paradise." This is a categorization usually made by their opponents.

      Libertarians are against aggression in general, of which government happens to be the largest source in most of the "civilized" world—made yet worse by its false shroud of "legitimacy"—but rule-by-tribal-elders (as practiced in Somalia) and the hypothetical rule-by-criminal-gangs scenario are just as thoroughly opposed. Moreover, many of the problems in Somalia exist specifically as a result of external powers attempting to prop up a succession of unwanted central governments in the region.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    28. Re:I guess that means by Americano · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Arguably, yes. And now we have the choice of buying the one song that's worth a damn for a buck, rather than $10-15 for a single song we like and 8-10 others that are pure crap.

      So now, you can buy the individual song you like for 99 cents - even my *favorite* albums, I'd be hard pressed to say I love "every song on this album," so why focus on trying to help the record companies continue selling albums?

    29. Re:I guess that means by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 2, Informative

      The law is supposed to cap the total subsidy to €5 million.

      --
      SSC
    30. Re:I guess that means by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

      If I was still one, I'd keep the card for "really good stuff that deserve to be paid for" or "stuff I can't find for free"
      And 3 years later the card would probably still be left unused and also invalid ;)

    31. Re:I guess that means by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Doesn't sound like government enforcement, ownership or monopoly.

      He means copyright, which certainly is a government-enforced monopoly.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    32. Re:I guess that means by pangu · · Score: 1

      If I had to spend 25 euros on a 50 euros card to get 20 euros worth of music I wouldn't do it.

      As usual, the taxpayer gets fucked.

      Clearly the taxpayer won't get screwed then. Since by your logic no one would take them up on it.

    33. Re:I guess that means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why even bother buying the cards at all?? If you are an illegal file downloader the surely 25 euros is already too much for your music?
      --
      An old fart that still likes to buy his music in stores.

    34. Re:I guess that means by BasilBrush · · Score: 0, Redundant

      If you RTFA you'd see that the French Government expect to sell 1 million cards per year. And they cap the benefit each operator may draw from the scheme at EURO 5 million.

    35. Re:I guess that means by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      If you RTFA you'd see that the French Government expect to sell 1 million cards per year. And they cap the benefit each operator may draw from the scheme at 5 million EUROS.

    36. Re:I guess that means by andrea.sartori · · Score: 1

      No: the trick is, the chance of getting the card appeals to that same part of your brain that is responsible for impulse buy (and if you're over 16, also to the part that smirks at the thought somebody else is paying half of the price). So, you do buy the card. Not everybody will, but sort of enough to keep the thing running, at least at the beginning, when it's a new toy to play with.

      --
      Mostly harmless.
    37. Re:I guess that means by v1k · · Score: 1

      >The French government is subsidizing entertainment for a select part of the population, and THIS is your concern?

      Who is to day the idea didn't originate from the online music services? "They kids won't pay for music, so let's make the government pay."

    38. Re:I guess that means by andrea.sartori · · Score: 1

      "really good stuff that deserve to be paid for" == "crappy ballad the girl i long for really really likes" ?

      --
      Mostly harmless.
    39. Re:I guess that means by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      Then after a while the govt. pays 100 % and the kids don't even have to download anything.

    40. Re:I guess that means by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, the next step would be to extend that to all people. With the government paying a (large) fixed price per citizen and year, and in return all citizens may get the music for free (because they already payed for it with their taxes).

      Well, at least at first. Because then they'll declare that certain music isn't covered. Over time, people will have to pay for more and more music, until the government payment (which isn't lowered, of course) only covers those titles which nobody actually wants anyway.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    41. Re:I guess that means by VanGarrett · · Score: 1

      This is the music industry convincing a government to give them money that, by all sanity, they shouldn't have.

      It may very well result in a decrease of music piracy, though, and it'll be interesting to see if it works. Yet, if the French record labels are anything like what we have here in the US, I suspect that the increase in sales won't be nearly as dramatic as they hope.

    42. Re:I guess that means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No need for an increase, prices here are already through the roof.

      The "major" French online retailer (at least the one that's heavily pushing for all those shenanigans) is "Fnac Music", their normal pricing is 10 euros for an album and 1.3 euros for a single (recent) song.
      When you factor in the fact that one euro is 1.41 dollars you get 14.1 dollars for an album and *1.83* dollars for a song.

      So they had their 50% increase even before opening !
      And they still wonder why no one's buying their crap...it has to be teh 3vil pir4tes

    43. Re:I guess that means by locallyunscene · · Score: 1

      The characterization problem is most people like to ignore the shortcomings of their philosophy which exaggerating others.

      Liberals like to ignore the potential for the gov't. abuse of individual choice through well meaning intentions.

      Libertarians like to ignore the power private actors can hold in absence of regulation.

      Liberals like to forget to save during upturns.

      Libertarians like to forget to spend on the needed public infrastructure.

    44. Re:I guess that means by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      The characterization problem is most people like to ignore the shortcomings of their philosophy which exaggerating others.

      No, the characterization problem is with calling an area a "libertarian paradise" when it is, in fact, nothing of the sort. A "libertarian paradise" is a society without aggression, period. Somalia obviously does not qualify.

      As for "shortcomings", these can only be considered with respect to one's goals. The goals of liberalism are not compatible with the goals of libertarianism, and it makes no sense to condemn either one for failing to meet the other's standards. Any comparison must start by defining a common set of goals against which the philosophy will be measured, based on the audience to which you are attempting to appeal.

      If you want to appeal to libertarians, point out how liberalism can reduce aggression via centralized defense. If you want to appeal to liberals, point out how libertarianism can produce more efficient private social services.

      Especially, don't reply to a libertarian by pointing out how liberalism is more effective at implementing regulations and taxes. If they thought fighting "power [of] private actors" and providing "public infrastructure" justified these means they wouldn't be libertarians in the first place.

      Libertarians like to ignore the power private actors can hold in absence of regulation.

      Libertarians care about aggression more than "power". If you believe that aggression is justified to combat non-aggressive power then the only conclusion you can draw is that you are not a libertarian. Limiting "power" is not one of the goals of libertarianism, ergo failing to do so is not a defect.

      Libertarians like to forget to spend on the needed public infrastructure.

      Libertarianism has absolutely nothing against spending on infrastructure for public use. However, once again, if you believe that aggression is justified to raise the funds then you are obviously not a libertarian. For libertarians, fighting aggression holds a higher priority than providing public goods. If it's possible to do both, great. If not, aggression is still not an option. This is not a shortcoming, but rather the whole point.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    45. Re:I guess that means by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      That's why this scheme will probably only work with a national identity card/passport and a centralized database. After all, this the French government, this isn't the first mass giveaway they're doing. Strictly enforcing a quota per person/per household, with a proof of id and address, is nothing new to them.

    46. Re:I guess that means by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty certain we've already done this.

      Check the health insurance bill, where we take the criminal and immoral insurance companies...and subsidize their product if people can't afford it.

      Of course, that's even more surreal than this, as their 'product' is, literally, money. People give them money, they give other people money.

      At least you can argue the music industry might be doing something. Sure, France is subsidizing payment of something to buy that France itself made illegal to copy in the first place, but the recording industry does actually record music, or least appears to, in some vague manner, help that.

      Here in the US, we subsidize industries that just move money around. Not just health insurance, we've started subsidizing, although we don't call it that, banks.

      That it. That's all they do. Move money around. Not a single thought of saying 'Hey, why doesn't the government just give this money to the third party, instead of giving money to companies, and to people to give to companies, for them to give to the third party.'.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    47. Re:I guess that means by noidentity · · Score: 1

      No, he's just pointing out that this subsidy will do nothing to even make the music more affordable for the people it's supposedly helping.

    48. Re:I guess that means by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Liberalism, throughout most of the world including France, is usually considered a center-right political philosophy. Only in America is the word "liberalism" seen as "left-wing," which I think says a lot about Americans.

      It says that Americans view things from a "freedom first" perspective. In most of the rest of the world, "liberalism" is viewed as a step away from the autocracies of their pasts. In the U.S., "liberalism" is viewed as broadening the base of the government (and thus a step toward the autocracy that the U.S. was deliberately founded against). "Conservatism" in the rest of the world is seen as old nobility trying to hold onto what their fore-bearers had. "Conservatism" in the U.S. is seen as people trying to hold onto what the U.S. was created for: freedom from oppression. Different terminologies from different historical perspectives.

    49. Re:I guess that means by the_womble · · Score: 1

      Both the EU and the US claim to favour free market capitalism.

      In practice they both prefer mercantilism ("corporate welfare")

    50. Re:I guess that means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Teenager or not, most pirates wouldn't spend a cent on media that can be effortlessly copied an infinite number of times.

    51. Re:I guess that means by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I'm just taking this the wrong way, but (assuming you group libertarians in with the "conservatives") you should know that it generally isn't the libertarians themselves who "view Somalia as a libertarian paradise." This is a categorization usually made by their opponents.

      That was my point. It's the trolls who say that.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    52. Re:I guess that means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless half of the price is paid by the government and the other half by their parents.

    53. Re:I guess that means by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      The large fixed price won't be increased, but new taxes will be created to help fill the large deficit of this free music system.

    54. Re:I guess that means by locallyunscene · · Score: 1

      No, the characterization problem is with calling an area a "libertarian paradise" when it is, in fact, nothing of the sort. A "libertarian paradise" is a society without aggression, period. Somalia obviously does not qualify.

      At best you're attacking a strawman with another strawman because "Libertarian paradise" is your wording not mine. At worst you're ignoring the point behind the strawman, that aggression exists even in the absence of a strong gov't.

      As for "shortcomings", these can only be considered with respect to one's goals. The goals of liberalism are not compatible with the goals of libertarianism, and it makes no sense to condemn either one for failing to meet the other's standards. Any comparison must start by defining a common set of goals against which the philosophy will be measured, based on the audience to which you are attempting to appeal.

      Of course it is true that applying principles of one ideology to another is bound to produce conflict. The purpose is to find common ground. If one or both of the parties in the conflict are too dogmatic then the discussion will probably go nowhere. Most people don't wholesale subscribe too one ideology or another though.

      If you want to appeal to libertarians, point out how liberalism can reduce aggression via centralized defense. If you want to appeal to liberals, point out how libertarianism can produce more efficient private social services.

      Efficient, yes if the social service is question is profitable in the market, but I view efficiency as a means to an end, not a goal itself. There are other human interests that are more important, especially in the social services sector. I agree there are libertarian approaches that would and do improve these services, most of the time.

      Especially, don't reply to a libertarian by pointing out how liberalism is more effective at implementing regulations and taxes. If they thought fighting "power [of] private actors" and providing "public infrastructure" justified these means they wouldn't be libertarians in the first place.

      A fair point, but if a libertarian is unwilling to compromise that there are times when regulation is needed then there is hardly room for meaningful discussion. It's one thing to say there are tradeoffs. It's completely another to say the tradeoffs never matter because one ideology is always "right".

      Libertarians care about aggression more than "power". If you believe that aggression is justified to combat non-aggressive power then the only conclusion you can draw is that you are not a libertarian. Limiting "power" is not one of the goals of libertarianism, ergo failing to do so is not a defect.

      Maximizing social freedom is one of the goals libertarianism. Failing to recognize that there are actors other than the gov't. that can limit freedom or even be aggressors is a "defect" to use your words.

      Libertarianism has absolutely nothing against spending on infrastructure for public use. However, once again, if you believe that aggression is justified to raise the funds then you are obviously not a libertarian. For libertarians, fighting aggression holds a higher priority than providing public goods. If it's possible to do both, great. If not, aggression is still not an option. This is not a shortcoming, but rather the whole point.

      Except the point is that this kind of statement encourages libertarians to reject the gov't outright rather than provide any public goods which is exactly what I said in the beginning. If you're too dogmatic in your ideology you will run into the pitfalls of that ideology.

      Liberalism and libertarianism would both be perfect if people were perfect, but they are not. Similarly, there is no perfect ideology. Minimizing aggression is different from minimizing gov't. Many libertarians seem more concerned with the latter than the former.

  2. Glad this is France by diskofish · · Score: 3, Informative

    Our taxes are already spent on plenty of really really dumb stuff, last thing we need is "free" music downloads. Think of those poor sorry record companies though, how are they supposed to make any money?

    1. Re:Glad this is France by Pojut · · Score: 1

      You know what the worst part is? That damn socialism! Stupid government getting in the way of private business...SAY NO TO THE GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER!!!! /sarcasm

    2. Re:Glad this is France by dintech · · Score: 1

      think of those poor sorry record companies though, how are they supposed to make any money

      I know you're being sarcastic but maybe they're really not supposed to. Maybe a mark of a great society is one where record executives, lawyers and politicians don't get rich.

    3. Re:Glad this is France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hey, everyone has a right to own a successful music publishing company! It's just one of those basic human rights, along with food and water. If we can't get one ourselves thanks to the evil of CAPITALISM, then the government should just raise taxes, subsidise this and that, and damn well buy us one. And anyone who disagrees with me is a libertarian nazi Randroid.

    4. Re:Glad this is France by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      I know you're being sarcastic but maybe they're really not supposed to. Maybe a mark of a great society is one where record executives, lawyers and politicians die cold, hungry, alone and unloved.

      Not particularly fond of this particular meme, but... FTFY

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    5. Re:Glad this is France by zeroshade · · Score: 1

      I know you're being sarcastic but maybe they're really not supposed to. Maybe a mark of a great society is one where record executives, lawyers and politicians die cold, hungry, alone and unloved.

      Not particularly fond of this particular meme, but... FTFY

      Record executives and politicians dying cold, hungry, alone and unloved? Sounds like a paradise.... =P

    6. Re:Glad this is France by rolfc · · Score: 1

      Socialism? Where did you get that from? A conservative French government that subsidize the multinational media industry doesn't sound very socialist to me.

    7. Re:Glad this is France by diskofish · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're missing the point. Why should I be forced to pay a private content provider to provide a service?

      I can't see this providing any social or cultural value: most of the music people are going to be downloading is probably going to be readily available. This is why it is a waste. A better use of the money would be to invest it into music education programs where people actually LEARN how to play and make music.

      I am not against government spending, so long as there is real measurable value in that spending.

    8. Re:Glad this is France by CasperIV · · Score: 1

      I think by definition they can't be conservative while funding a program like this. It is like the "conservatives" in the US that claim the position of conservative while spending money like it's going out of fashion.... and a program like this actually would qualify as socialist as it is being done under the guise of social assistance. A social program doesn't have to make sense to still be a social program, just look at the welfare system.

    9. Re:Glad this is France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Socialism? Where did you get that from? A conservative French government that subsidize the multinational media industry doesn't sound very socialist to me.

      The French like to comment that Obama (Hugo Chavez) sounds Right-Wing Conservative to them. I have a feeling their choices are between Communism and Socialism.

    10. Re:Glad this is France by horza · · Score: 1

      France has 63.8 million people, 59.8% of which are 15-60. Assuming a fairly even distribution that works out around 11 million 12-15 yr olds. If they all take advantage then this is a €275,000,000 gift to the record labels from Sarkozy.

      Bearing in mind that friend of Sarkozy's family Thierry Lhermitte is board director on the company Trident Media Guard that is enforcing the 3-strikes Internet disconnection "Hadopi", it wouldn't be surprising to find the money from this also making its way back into familiar pockets.

      Phillip.

    11. Re:Glad this is France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It DOES sound very socialist to me.

      Just because the welfare recipients are corporations doesn't make it any less socialistic.

    12. Re:Glad this is France by Americano · · Score: 1

      You indicate that what you're saying is sarcasm, but it's not clear what you're being sarcastic about.

      Is it that you think this program is a good thing? Is it that you think it's *not* socialism? Is it that you think the GP post is off-base for saying this is a dumb way to spend tax money?

      Because frankly, it's hard to see where this is anything but a waste of tax money that serves no purpose other than shoveling French taxpayer's money into the pockets of music industry executives.

    13. Re:Glad this is France by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Record executives and politicians dying cold, hungry, alone and unloved? Sounds like a paradise.... =P

      The only society in which people of power are going to die "cold, hungry, and alone" is one where everyone else is already dead.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    14. Re:Glad this is France by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      It DOES sound very socialist to me.

      Just because the welfare recipients are corporations doesn't make it any less socialistic.

      Only if you define "socialist" as meaning "anything that affects society", which is incorrect.

      The truly socialist option would be to force record companies to make music available for download at cost (in effect, free).

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    15. Re:Glad this is France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By definition a conservative can't do anything that does not preserve the current state. In a socialist country the socialists are conservative.

    16. Re:Glad this is France by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The French like to comment that Obama (Hugo Chavez) sounds Right-Wing Conservative to them. I have a feeling their choices are between Communism and Socialism.

      That is only true if you use the US definition of socialism, i.e. anything more left wing than Ronald Regan.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    17. Re:Glad this is France by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Obama (Hugo Chavez)

      Wait, what? Are you actually equating the two as having the same political line?

    18. Re:Glad this is France by icebraining · · Score: 1

      How is giving money to private companies anything like "socialism"? Under a socialist state those companies wouldn't even exist, let alone receive money.

      This is corporatism, which was created to oppose socialism.

      State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management. (pp. 135-136)

        --Benito Mussolini, 1935, "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions"

    19. Re:Glad this is France by zeroshade · · Score: 1

      or one where different people are the ones in power :)

    20. Re:Glad this is France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a government-controlled industry though.

      Social Program =/= Socialism

  3. Fraud by dintech · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How many cards can I get and can I buy my own music with it from my own 'label'?

    1. Re:Fraud by 1000101 · · Score: 2, Informative
      FTFA:

      Cards are limited to one per person, per year and the French government expects one million cards will be sold each year.

    2. Re:Fraud by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      More to the point, how many music 'labels' will start selling albums for 50 Euros with a 37 Euro rebate? You pay 25 Euros, the taxpayer pays 25 Euros, I give you all of your 25 and half of the taxpayer's 25 back (minus credit card processing fees) in exchange for my album (which is a compilation of random public domain sound clips).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Fraud by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think the French government hasn't done the math.

      Choice A: Spend €25, get €50 of music legally, download the other €999,950* of music from the Internet.

      Choice B: Spend €0, download €1000000 of music from the Internet.

      Which do you choose?

      Of course option B is just more proof that people will still download even when prices are 'dropped'(**).

      [*] Numbers provided by the RIAA
      [**] Only the RIAA could see this as a 'price drop'.

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Fraud by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't see how that's any more fraudulent than the intended purpose of the card. In either case the tax payer is ripped off and money is going to someone who didn't earn it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:Fraud by delinear · · Score: 1

      Pretty ingenious - the only flaw is that it relies on students to get off their arses and make use of your system, and this depends entirely on how easy the French government make it to get the cards. If students have to fill out a form and go buy postage and send them off, I wouldn't count your chickens. If they hand them out in bars, you'll be a millionaire :)

    6. Re:Fraud by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If there is one thing I have learned over the last 25 years of internet use it's that intuition about music on the internet is often wrong.

      in 1995, I figured there wouldn't be a music industry by now. No one would pay. The napster came along And i thought, this is it, it's over. But no. Apple comes out and sells billions of songs. huh, it turns out that a lot of people will pay for music... but... how will todays 12 year old act? what will they be used to? Don't know. So this might help get people to pay for music. And it wouldn't take much of a percentage of them to spend 99cent on a song before the government gets it's money back.

      OTOH, it may fail miserably.

      To answer your question:

      I pay for my music. 1 dollar is pretty cheap for a song.

      NOTE: at no point am I defending the RIAA in this post. Please don't confuse the issue.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Fraud by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Only 1 million Euros? That sounds reasonable compared to riaa prices.

  4. Which music store ? by psergiu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    25€ to be spent in WHICH music store ? iTunes, Amazon, Napster ?

    --
    1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    1. Re:Which music store ? by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Sam Goody.

      That's right. Sam freakin' Goody.

    2. Re:Which music store ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because there are Sam Goody's all over France.

    3. Re:Which music store ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      25€ to be spent in WHICH music store ? iTunes, Amazon, Napster ?

      From TFA:

      there are concerns that the largest operators such as iTunes, FNAC and Amazon may not participate.

    4. Re:Which music store ? by painandgreed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      25 to be spent in WHICH music store ? iTunes, Amazon, Napster ?

      Knowing France, it will probably only be good at a French government site that only sells music by French bands or sung in French that have been approved by some council of culture.

    5. Re:Which music store ? by AtomicJake · · Score: 1

      25 to be spent in WHICH music store ? iTunes, Amazon, Napster ?

      Knowing France, it will probably only be good at a French government site that only sells music by French bands or sung in French that have been approved by some council of culture.

      Knowing the French president and the First Lady, I'll gladly prefer Klingon operas...

    6. Re:Which music store ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This whole plan is absurd, more crap probably suggested by Sarkozy to make more money off of his wife Carla Bruni's music and whatever other deals he's got. He's always been the most opportunistic pig. Nobody is worried that you can't afford music. France would tax the air you breathe if they could. The money for all of these government programs does in fact come from somewhere. Socialism sounds like an ideal until you realize that the bigger the government the more crap like this is peddled "in your best interest."

  5. I guess the French outdid themselves again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Musical socialism?

    1. Re:I guess the French outdid themselves again. by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More like fascism, this is just a form of corporate welfare. The industry couldn't figure out how to deal with piracy so now the government is subsidizing their products.

      Ultimately it won't work, I doubt very much that this will really convince people to stop pirating. And on the unlikely event that it works, the question really is why does the French government need to provide a subsidy to what was apparently an issue of supply and demand.

      By all means crack down on those that are distributing the copies, but that's the responsibility of the recording industry, not the government.

    2. Re:I guess the French outdid themselves again. by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's a vast improvement over musical chairs.

    3. Re:I guess the French outdid themselves again. by DrEasy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ok, we need to stop saying France is a socialist country. Sarkozy is anything but socialist. And this latest idea is much more in line with what a neo-con government would do, which is to subsidize the private sector.

      --
      "In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
    4. Re:I guess the French outdid themselves again. by Blue+Stone · · Score: 2

      The real question that bugs me is how much does this have to do with the President's wife being a recording artist?

      No subsidies? No blowjobs for you!

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    5. Re:I guess the French outdid themselves again. by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

      Strange that you've been mod'ed troll.
      It's closer to insightful unfortunately.

    6. Re:I guess the French outdid themselves again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ultimately it won't work, I doubt very much that this will really convince people to stop pirating.

      I doubt it'll do much of anything at all really.

      People who are downloading illegally will continue to do so. Spending $25 for $50 dollars worth of music is still more expensive than what they're currently doing.

      Those who are buying those cards in the first place will be putting the same amount of money into buying cards - the government will just be effectively buying a few extra cards for them - possibly. Some of them will just not buy extra cards and keep that 25 dollars they saved.

  6. Truly amazing by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Interesting

    France has regular riots with minorities, an economy down the drain, one hell of a reputation with the deportation of Roma and now it gives a 200 million euro subsidy to the music industry?

    Just WTF?

    Is his wife payed for by the music lobby? And it still requires people that in the plan are claimed to be unwilling to pay for music, to pay for music. Just not so much. Once...

    And why does the state have to pay for this? Can't the music industry itself offer a discount action? Why must the average french taxpayer pay for 50% off for some kid for an American song with the money going abroad?

    This isn't even corruption anymore. It shows a level of detachment from reality in the French government that is closer to insanity. "Let them eat cake", at least showed an awareness that the issue was related to food. This proposal doesn't even grasp. "42, beezlebug for I am, bibble", Marie Antoinette was heard to say, just before her head came off. Insanity.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Truly amazing by golden+age+villain · · Score: 1

      Is his wife payed for by the music lobby?

      Well, there were rumors going in that direction yes.

    2. Re:Truly amazing by olivier.matz · · Score: 1

      Yes, lobbying is evil.

    3. Re:Truly amazing by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Is his wife payed for by the music lobby?

      Of course not! A mistress is uncertain of her wage; a wife has none.

    4. Re:Truly amazing by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Methinks the Sarkozy government has some very strange priorities indeed. Either that or they're all sleeping on giant piles of money from the music industry. I would go with the latter.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:Truly amazing by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1

      "Let them eat cake", ....

      If it has butter or cream cheese icing, I'm game.

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    6. Re:Truly amazing by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 1

      I don't see what's particularly different about this from Cash for Clunkers, aside from this being a more direct subsidy.

      --
      My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    7. Re:Truly amazing by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      "42, beezlebug for I am, bibble", Marie Antoinette was heard to say, just before her head came off. Insanity.

      Got a citation for that? Everywhere I've looked said her last words were "Monsieur, I beg your pardon."

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    8. Re:Truly amazing by delinear · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is his wife payed for by the music lobby?

      Considering Nicolas Sarkozy's wife is herself a "singer/songwriter", it's less likely she's paid for my the music lobby and more likely she actually is the music lobby. It's baffling logic, to say the least - to combat the fact that a percentage of young people are consuming music without paying for it, we'll make a percentage of older people pay for music without consuming it!

    9. Re:Truly amazing by Americano · · Score: 1

      Can it be carrot cake?

    10. Re:Truly amazing by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      At least this won't jack up the price for used cars at a time when people are less capable of buying newer ones.

      --
      SSC
    11. Re:Truly amazing by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Becasue if the music companies offer it, they could never raise their prices back up.

      If people pay for the music, that money moves around in the economy.

      Marie Antoinette never said 'let them eat cake'. In fact she did what she could to help the people of France. She is the result of people making up lies and putting them cute slogans.

      Like I said in an earlier post, it will be an interesting experiment. If it workd, even a little, the French government will make this money back.

      You really need to earn to look at the big picture instead of make knee jerk reactions based on slogans. I call it the 'Glenn Beck's Bitch' phenomenon,.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:Truly amazing by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

      they as individual yes
      the government is not exactly rich.
      lobbies are. people in the government are. france, aka the governement, is not.

      of course, that's not right.

    13. Re:Truly amazing by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

      Same logic they already applied
      you pay 200% price (yes its that much) on many medias such as DVD to pay taxes directly to the media companies already.
      Even thus most of the DVDs are not used for music.
      If you like to pay hard drives 200 eurs (only slightly exagerated, depends on capacity, but if you want 2To, bad luck) more than in the rest of the world, france is also a good country for that

  7. State aid? by Krakadoom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How is that not illegal state aid under EU law? Because they dont target specific content providers? Sounds highly dubious.

    1. Re:State aid? by golden+age+villain · · Score: 1

      It probably is but then, legality is not really the most immediate priority of the current French government.

    2. Re:State aid? by delinear · · Score: 2, Informative

      EU law is about promoting competition between member states (and theoretically non-member states, although in practice I'm sure they care far less about that). Since this apparently applies to all content providers, it doesn't technically disadvantage anyone unlike, for instance, if they offered subsidies on music performed in French, which would blatantly favour national over international content. Outside this remit, the EU is pretty much powerless to intervene, it's much more a local issue if you feel your government is wasting money during a time of economic crisis and "austerity measures" by propping up an ailing business model.

  8. Headline clarification by Thornae · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Note that this is "may" in the sense of "is permitted to," rather than "might."

    --
    |>
    Here be Dragons
  9. One quick question? by xednieht · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Where does the French government "earn" it money from? The French government isn't subsidising squat, the French people are.

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
    1. Re:One quick question? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The supply of roads and the anal retention of strict French language.

      French is a dead language.

    2. Re:One quick question? by need4mospd · · Score: 1
      And they'll end up paying interest on the money spent, meaning however much is thrown away at this program, the REAL cost will be much higher.

      This must be part of their plan to join the PIGS. What would that make it, PFIGS?

    3. Re:One quick question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      English is a dumb language.

  10. Also in the news by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    French government subsidises breathing air. You will be able to buy a €50 card for just €25, the rest of which will be paid for by the state. Any guess how many takers there will be?

  11. There is more music than you can listen to by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In a normal market, that would lead to lower prices.

    Even in an abnormal market, it will lead to lower prices eventually.

    (There are also more movies than you can ever see now, more tv shows, more books).

    Unless the music, book, movie, etc. is spectacularly special, I'll choose the less expensive one first.

    I stopped paying over $10 for DVD's several years ago. Actually, I mostly just stopped buying DVD's as I realized they were clogging up the house and I was never going to watch most of them again.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:There is more music than you can listen to by delinear · · Score: 1

      Same here - I don't "download", but I've set myself a very strict price cap on buying content, which tends to be around £5 for both music albums and DVDs. That's the maximum I'm prepared to risk on something being poor quality, even then I'm very picky about what I buy and I'll only ever break the cap for something I know I'll enjoy. If they could drop the prices of these things to £2 - 2.50, I'd be willing to risk my money far more often - I'm sure a lot of other people would follow suit.

      It would be nice to see them at least experiment with such a pricing model, my feeling is they'd actually generate more money from the massive uplift in sales (£2 would be practically giving it away, which instantly makes "free, but with a chance of legal repercussions" seem less attractive), but it seems nobody in the music industry has the kind of courage or foresight to even trial a model like this. I suspect this is because, while it would be effective for the download market, it would harm bricks and mortar stores selling physical copies who just wouldn't be able to compete at that price point.

    2. Re:There is more music than you can listen to by Americano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In a normal market, that would lead to lower prices.

      For something that's a commodity, yes. Farmer Bob's corn is pretty much the same as Farmer John's corn. Saudi Arabia's oil is pretty much the same as Venezuela's oil. South African gold is pretty much the same as gold produced by Peru.

      However, Metallica's CD is quite different from Britney Spears' CD. The entertainment industries will never produce "commodity" music - or let's hope they never do. As such, price is not the only determining factor in choosing the products, and in many cases, it's not even remotely a factor: if you offered me Lady Gaga's entire catalog for $1, I'd probably decline, because I simply don't dig her music. It's not something I'd be interested in listening to. In the same breath, offer me a copy of good-quality outtakes, unreleased songs, and other studio 'rarities' produced during recording sessions by Tool, Bruce Springsteen, or other artists I *like* for $20, and I'd probably hand over $20 on the spot.

      When personal taste factors into the buying decision, you won't necessarily have an asymptotic approach to a price of $0, because people like what they like, and the existence of 10 million other records out there wouldn't make me miss Tool's "Undertow" or Springsteen's "Nebraska" any less, or replace those albums for me if I couldn't afford a copy of them.

    3. Re:There is more music than you can listen to by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Its valid except...

      High quality entertainment has completely saturated me. There is now more high quality entertainment than I can consume.

      Which means high quality entertainment is now a commodity to me. And I suspect I'm not the only one.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    4. Re:There is more music than you can listen to by rgviza · · Score: 1

      redbox for the win

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
  12. And what does this say to those 12-25 by Osgeld · · Score: 2, Interesting

    'Free' music is your god given right, so much so they government even gives it to you as a social service?

    what happens when those cards run out (quickly)? Yea a bunch of 'kids' who now think they are entitled to it are going to steal it and have a whole new mindset about doing so

    1. Re:And what does this say to those 12-25 by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      'Free' music is your god given right, so much so they government even gives it to you as a social service?

      Surely having whatever you want is one of the "human rights" guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:And what does this say to those 12-25 by cffrost · · Score: 1

      '[K]ids' who now think they are entitled to it are going to steal it [...]

      More likely, 'kids' will just download it. More convenient, and no risk of arrest.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  13. FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Young people can purchase a €50 card for just €25, with the balance paid by the taxpayers.

    This certainly sounds like the perfect deal for the record companies though -- basically state-sponsored welfare for them.

    I wonder what I'd have to do to get a product listed on the "government gift certificate" list.

  14. Wow... by Haedrian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can the french government get any worse? First they implement the 3 strikes law.

    Now they will throw 25 million euros a year (according to their estimates) - in order to pay the music industry. Why not grab the 25 million and use them to build more parks, or reduce homelessness, or put into education?

    Answer: Because there aren't any 'homelessness lobbies'

    1. Re:Wow... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Because by getting kids to pay for things, that money goes to people. A strong economy is an excellent way to reduce and help homeless people.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Wow... by kyz · · Score: 1

      The people receiving the money (middle managers at record labels) already have homes.

      Or is it that you're an adherent of trickle-down Reaganomics, and think that homeless people will thrive on washing record executives' cars?

      --
      Does my bum look big in this?
    3. Re:Wow... by EdgeyEdgey · · Score: 1

      25 million to spend on recording studios for young people. That would be money worthwhile.

      --
      [Intentionally left blank]
    4. Re:Wow... by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      If I buy something from itunes, I am pretty sure apple will take the money - which then trickles down to the song producer (which probably aint french either - and which is defentally not homeless). So no money is going into France, but a good deal is going out of France and into America.

      This is for ONLINE purchases.

      There is something interesting called the Broken Window fallacy or something like that. Basically the 25 euros that the person spent and the government spent would not have been stored away, but used for something else -> which could help the economy even more. The 25 euros the kid gave to itunes could have been used to pay for a restaurant, or for clothes, or for their education.

  15. If there's any European people reading... by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Vote Pirate Party in the next elections. It's the only sane thing to do.

    --
    No sig today...
  16. Why the middlemen? by porneL · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Cut out the middlemen and give it directly to recording industry lobbyists.

    1. Re:Why the middlemen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 corruption :D

    2. Re:Why the middlemen? by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

      Sometimes you need some lube to make it through. Cards are the lub.

    3. Re:Why the middlemen? by chocolatetrumpet · · Score: 1

      Cut out the middlemen and give it directly to recording industry lobbyists.

      And then what? Hope to eventually make some of it back as tax revenue?

      Why not cut out the middleperson - pay the money directly to themselves as tax income!

      Genius!

      Why don't I work on Wall Street?

      --
      Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
  17. you only need music if you are 12-25 years old by plastick · · Score: 1

    Ya, I see where this is going. What, people in the late 20's and up don't listen to music? Oui oui, it's le racism! And what happens when the cash is gone? They won't need to download any more music? I honestly can't fathom how this helps anyone except for the same music publishers who have raped us with their music prices for decades. You know what this really is? Some deal was made behind closed doors.

    1. Re:you only need music if you are 12-25 years old by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      I honestly can't fathom how this helps anyone except for the same music publishers who have raped us with their music prices for decades

      I think the biggest question is "Is it supposed to?"

      This is the same government which put in the 3-strikes law for filesharers, let me remind you that.

    2. Re:you only need music if you are 12-25 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this means that you have to start having kids at age 12, so when you're 25, you can use your kids to buy music.

  18. Just you wait... by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    ... until the RIAA decides that they want that money the customers saved thanks to the subsidies and sues the legit downloaders, despite having received government grant money for that very amount.

  19. money for nothing (and your cheques for free) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why dont they just write a cheque to the record industry and cut out the middle man.

    1. Re:money for nothing (and your cheques for free) by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why dont they just write a cheque to the record industry and cut out the middle man.

      Because the point of this program is to train the 12-25 yo crowd to pay for music. Apparently the French government believes they're all pirates (who might vote pirate party if not trained).

  20. Musician's websites should offer them instead by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    Dump the middleman who is profiting from the hard work of the musicians and producers and just buy the music directly from the artist.

    For example: Purchase Radiohead In Rainbows for 7.5 pounds or $12 US.

    Seems fair to me.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Musician's websites should offer them instead by Americano · · Score: 1

      And this is the way more and more artists seem to be moving. One which I encourage whenever I can buy buying direct from the artists when/if I can.

  21. Only music? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Not all teenagers are obsessed with music.

    Why can't Jean-Paul use his €25 to buy books or clothes?

    1. Re:Only music? by delinear · · Score: 1

      Because what French politician wants to leave office and walk into a role as an executive at a publisher or clothing manufacturer? Far less glamorous. On a more serious note, though, if this is really meant to fight filesharing, you are right - why doesn't it apply to movies or books or games, all of which can also be downloaded for free?

  22. I guess the French have learned nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    about the dangers of letting their population suck too much from the government entitlement tit. Odd, since riots over pension cuts are shutting down Paris right now. "Oui oui, we can't afford to pay people to retire at age 35 any more, but we CAN give them free music! Let them eat iTunes!"

    1. Re:I guess the French have learned nothing... by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

      that's because they don't give them free music.
      they are forcing them to pay for music with that card actually. and the lobbies get the money.

  23. sick by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    This is just sick, it's sick that any government would subsidize any business ever at all.

    1. Re:sick by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      The are occasionally reason to subsidize businesses. For example, if farms were not subsidized to some extent, a single bad year would wipe out 75% of them, which would mean we wouldn't have enough food the next year. (Of course, at this point, farm subsidizes have gotten insane, but we do actually need them to exist in some form.)

      Frankly, we should subsidize only to help critical industries past bad years, and only past bad years. No subsidizes should exist for long term. If a local industry can't compete with an out-of-country industry, and we want them local, then we should have damn trade restrictions, not subsidizes. All subsidizes should be temporary measures.

      But, no matter what you think of subsidizes, it's totally insane to subsided the purchase of property that is not infinite solely because of a government! If there's a 'shortage of music' problem, (However crazy such a concept would be) there's a pretty obvious solution that will get the people all the music they need or even slightly want, and that's to reduce or remove copyright protections, or, hell, just have the government provide free copies without paying for them.

      We don't subsidize industry to protect industry, we subsidize them so they can keep up a supply we need. And we do not need the music industry to 'make' more supply...because the entire premise of copyright is to restrict supply, so, duh, we could obviously increase it by changing the law.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    2. Re:sick by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I only have one answer to you: I disagree with subsidizing any business at all for any reason, regardless of any perceived benefits.

    3. Re:sick by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I suppose that's easy to say when you have a full stomach, live in a house, and don't have to worry where your next meal is coming from.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:sick by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Right, because subsidies to companies is what allows me to support myself.

    5. Re:sick by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      No it's the subsidies that let you buy things as cheaply as you do. Otherwise in many cases no one would be farming. Then again I suppose explosive inflation is always a good thing, after all americans are deathly afraid of deflation at any price.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re:sick by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Subsidies kill competition and remove my choices of what I buy and at what price, instead the choices are substituted with some dead end stupid ideas by some moron who thinks he knows better what I want to buy at what price and it always ends up bringing prices up if not for the subsidized item then for the item that is being replaced in the market, because the subsidy kills alternatives.

      I am a loud proponent of deflation here, who sees that recession must bring prices down but giant inflation that is happening does not let it, so don't hang this on me.

  24. Oblig Captain Hammer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate the homeless ... ness problem that plagues this city.

  25. Free music store? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this crazy idea passes, perhaps a free-as-in-freedom organization such as Musopen could sell downloads of free music to let people direct these subsidized "profits" to a good cause?

    1. Re:Free music store? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Oh good, just what we need. More shitty electronica from DJ Neckbeard, released under Creative Commons.

  26. download with no guilt by Jeek+Elemental · · Score: 0, Troll

    The music industry has profited immensely from the basic human need to share with others.
    Targeting teenagers who have no defense at all is the basic business model, turning them into sales representatives for the label on a massive scale.
    It worked extremely well when copies were poor quality, basically acting as a teaser, produced at no cost to the label.

    Now they have this terrible dilemma, how to exploit the same weakness when copies are bit perfect?
    Well you cant, not without perverting the internet itself. A free internet is not compatible with that business model.

    So if you find yourself tearing up over the plight of the music "industry", you should support packet inspection, 3 strikes, censorship etc.
    You better have a copyright lawyer on standby, because there are countless ways you can infringe, without even knowing!

    If on the other hand you think the internet is too important to twist to serve 1 slimy group of people (I guess it shines through where I stand), then you should not let the music lobby affect the internet or anything you do. Do not give them more money!

    There have been music for quite a few centuries now, I doubt there will be silence, maybe a few less billionaire musicians.

    1. Re:download with no guilt by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You can by instilling a sense of fairness in the kids. I.E. people should get paid for their efforts.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  27. Ridiculous... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    This is utterly stupid, why should the government (ie TAXPAYERS) pay content distributors?
    If anything, the government should put pressure on those distributors to lower prices, not pay them off.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    1. Re:Ridiculous... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Not enarly as ridiculous as posting without reading the article.

      Come back when you wan't to discuss the merits of why they are doing this.

      BTW, we all know it's taxpayers, no need to shout.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  28. Good news, bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The good news is that young people can now purchase music with a government subsidy. The bad news is that the subsidy only applies to classical music.

  29. An Insult by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 1

    Art is suppose to be something governments try to suppress, which gives it more, pardon my french, séduire. Having the government approve your art is like having your mother approve your sexual technique.

  30. How to increase availability of music and art by devent · · Score: 1

    "We welcome initiatives from member states to increase the availability of music online at a lower price for consumers and through legal distribution channels. Music online is certainly a driver for the success of the Internet and for economic development," said Almunia.

    You know what will do that, without any extra money from the people? Just put copyright back to sane terms or abolish it altogether. Stop criminalizing a whole generation of people and stop cutting families off the internet based on accusations only.

    --
    http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
  31. like training monkeys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what a surprise?

    the corepirate nazi holycost (life, liberty etc....) is increasing by the minute.

    you call this 'weather'?

    continue to add immeasurable amounts of MISinformation, rhetoric & fluff, & there you have IT? that's US? thou shalt not... oh forget it. fake weather (censored?), fake money, fake god(s), what's next? (fake ?aliens? ahhaha) seeing as we (have been told that) came from monkeys, the only possible clue we would have to anything being out of order, we would get from the weather. that, & all the other monkeys tipping over/exploding around US.

    the search continues; use any search engine, as the 'filters' are inconsistent at best.

    weather+manipulation

    bush+cheney+wolfowitz+rumsfeld+wmd+oil+freemason+blair+obama+weather+authors

    meanwhile (as it may take a while longer to finish wrecking this place); the corepirate nazi illuminati (remember, (we have been told) we came from monkeys, & 'they' believe they DIDN'T), continues to demand that we learn to live on less/nothing while they continue to consume/waste/destroy immeasurable amounts of stuff/life, & feast on nubile virgins while worshipping themselves (& evile in general (baal to be exact)). they're always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their (slippery/slimy) 'platform' now. see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

    never a better time to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

    greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere/planet (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

    "The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

    "I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

    "The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for m

    1. Re:like training monkeys by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      -1 WTF?

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  32. Ahh france... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahhhh.....Socialism at it finest! What a great way to spend taxpayers money!

  33. Interesting experiment. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Can't wait to see it's impact in over the next 10 years.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  34. Meanwhile... by billsayswow · · Score: 1

    My local college continues to subsidize music for students by way of free, unsecured wi-fi internet and bittorrents.

  35. Subsidizing by Aggrajag · · Score: 1

    Nice to see that the French government supports badly suffering music business.

  36. Unreal. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

    It's unreal. The French government needs to raise the retirement age to, a still absurdly young, 62. They've been cutting healthcare coverage and benefits for years now. I had family members who've had to get private insurance to augment what the government has cut. But apparently they have the means to do something as stupid as subsidize music downloads.

    There are all the absurd subsidies to a wide variety of industries. The government cut the work week back but forced companies to maintain current salaries with the delusion this would somehow increase jobs. They made it excessively difficult to fire employees, particularly college graduates, in the hope of providing job security and instead increased unemployment. The French government, and quite a few other European governments along with them, have created this expectation of handouts amongst their citizens. They can't make necessary cuts now because the unions all take to the streets and shut down the nation. But it seems like for every sensible measure there are several stupid ones which offset it.

    This isn't an inherent failing of socialism. It's socialism applied stupidly. I'd argue it's quite difficult to keep a socialist nation from spiraling out of control with excessive handouts but the system certainly has some benefits.

    People here seem to be forgetting that the American standard for conservative is quite different from what is considered conservative in Europe. A conservative in Europe is still heavily socialist. Although, the US is a lot more socialist than Americans seem to realize. A corporate handout is just as socialist as national healthcare.

  37. eBay by Stregano · · Score: 1

    Does this mean we will be seeing a huge influx of music cards showing up on eBay that are worth 50, but selling for 30 or 40?

    --
    The world is how you make it
  38. Musopen by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    +1 Funny, but what Musopen actually does is provide Free recordings of classical works (Bach et al) - even if the music composition is way too old to be under copyright, a new performance of it is still copyrighted in that regard, so Musopen addresses that issue.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    1. Re:Musopen by Americano · · Score: 1

      Yes, mostly snark. I shouldn't have left it that way, as it does sound like I'm ripping on Musopen themselves, rather than the awful, awful proliferation of cheesy synthesizer bullshit that I've heard in most of the "creative commons" music I've listened to.

      To be fair - I like the concept of Musopen, though from what I've listened to, the quality of their uploaded recordings is very uneven. There doesn't seem to be much of a restriction on who can upload their interpretation of a piece, and let's be honest - not everybody's going to play it well.

      I know they're also working through Kickstarter to hire a symphony and record high-quality versions of some standard classical works, and I think that would be a worthwhile way for this money to be spent - funneling the 5 million or so to them (the max allowed by this program to any music seller) would probably do some amazing things for their ability to record symphony-quality versions of more classical pieces.

      Problem is, I'd imagine they might have a hard time convincing teenagers to purchase a bunch of classical music to listen to. I'd rather see the government take that 5 million and give a grant to a program like Musopen, or even directly to a symphony, with the stipulation that the music must produce either or both of: 1) free/cheap public performances of classical pieces; 2) free/cheap recordings available to the public of those classical pieces; 3) free/cheap musical workshops where the public can learn more about music, playing music, etc.

    2. Re:Musopen by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      I'm no classical fan (one of the few genres I don't really listen to), so I can't speak too much about their product, but I can recite what they do/what they're trying to do. Your paragraph 3 adds something that I had forgotten to mention.

      Yeah, issues do crop up with lowering the barrier to entry - some people, like DJ Neckbeard and those bad orchestras, should have been left out, even though lowering the barriers also lets in a lot of people that should be there.

      Even if you embrace the new industry paradigm, you still need to, ya know, make good music. The types of indies I listen to do get that. The slick mainstream stuff is competition.
      One of them, MC Lars, also tries his hand at webcomics. Here's a couple relevant ones:
      http://27thstreetcomic.blogspot.com/2010/03/march-4-2010-diy-sellout.html
      http://27thstreetcomic.blogspot.com/2009/07/july-30-2009-diy-networking.html

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  39. the music industry doesn't need this by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    likely the french music industry pressured the government to give them these handouts, but in all reality, THE CURRENT SYSTEM MUST DIE so that a new and better system of music distribution and sales can replace it. Time to kill the fucking music industry dinosaurs.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  40. I don't understand. by xigxag · · Score: 1

    "All you can eat" music plans are substantially less than €25. Why doesn't ask "unlimited play" providers to bid on the purchase of a blanket license to everyone under 18. Then the music companies get paid, the kids get free music, it winds up costing the state the same or less than the current crazy plan, and everybody's happy. Except maybe the lawyers.

    --
    There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
  41. You're a little late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That could have been true a decade or two ago, but not so much now, now that there is a president with so many close friends in the music industry / distribution industry...

  42. True loss leader for both musicians and the Govt. by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    In Canada, we put a tax on blank CDs and DVDs, to skim off some of the "illegal" copying. Almost no-one today uses a CD, and from the web, if anything is being downloaded, it goes from hard-disk to your music player or remains on the hard drive. So, we do not see the government rescinding the tax ever, it becomes another milk cow.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  43. I don't understand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does the government, representing that of the people, choose the option which costs them extra? Wouldn't any reasonable government change its Laws in a situation like this?