I keep seeing this with a healthy dose of skepticism. With the major labels making $1 a tune through Apple and whoever else, and Yahoo charging $5 a month for DRMed rental tracks, I can't see why the major labels would make a move toward a more relaxed (and lower priced) form of business. Until I see it, I'm going to go out on my prophetic limb and call shenanigans.
However, assuming that this does come to pass...
I don't wanna sound like an industry shill, but as it stands today, very few artists ever make any money on a CD release - it's all in merchandising and live shows, plus endorsements and tv/movie deals.
What this sounds like to me is that the major labels would be transitioning away from physical media sales to a pseudo-free distribution of recorded music online...and using the revenue from this 'isp fee' as a subsidy for artist exploration, development, and promotion.
That's not to say they'd completely abandon physical media - there will always be consumers who want to buy a physical item with liner notes, etc. This just seems like a way the labels could get paid for the downloading that's already going on, and it would give them an excuse to stop suing everyone in sight.
'Course, it would also put the crosshairs on the customers of any ISP who refused to implement the charge; anyone uploading from a non-sanctioned ISP would find themselves a much easier target for the RIAA's goons/lawyers.
1. I don't see where the article says the government is "surprised" by anything.
2. Having been in the military for many years, I'm not surprised that the document does not contain specifics. It's a strategic overview (and pretty high level since Rumsfeld signed off on it). The details are left to those who handle the implementation (at the tactical level).
3. You needed some document to tell you this?
What are you so hostile about? You need to sit back and take a deep breath, man, before you start treating me like some dumbass off the street. Here:
1."Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap...information...is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans." I never said "the government" was surprised. I was using words contained in the article itself.
2. WTF? I was pointing out that we've made plans for this stuff, NOT being cheeky about a lack of details. I wouldn't expect detail to be leaked, it should still be classified.
3. You should stop and read a post before you respond to it. I *never* said anything about those plans being surprising. The only mention of surprise is From TFA, in relation to the propaganda blowback.
1. We spew propaganda worldwide and are surprised that it's being picked up by American media outlets, and 2. We don't know what to do about this situation.;);) Oh, and 3. We'd love to build a system that would let us completely dominate everything operating in the electromagnetic realm. In fact, we're working on plans.
...it would be the same as the government asking Gallup to do a survey... Except that:
1. Gallup would conduct a poll of willing and anonymous participants, 2. Gallup would be paid to do such a survey, 3. Google is not a polling agency, and 4. Since when is the gov't allowed to demand information for purposes of supporting a lobbying effort? Note that this isn't a law enforcement thing, it's because the executive branch wants to lobby for a law to be passed. If this information is so valuable to the legislative process, let Congress subpoena Google. It's not the DOJ's job.
Slashdot Mirror
However, assuming that this does come to pass...
I don't wanna sound like an industry shill, but as it stands today, very few artists ever make any money on a CD release - it's all in merchandising and live shows, plus endorsements and tv/movie deals.
What this sounds like to me is that the major labels would be transitioning away from physical media sales to a pseudo-free distribution of recorded music online...and using the revenue from this 'isp fee' as a subsidy for artist exploration, development, and promotion.
That's not to say they'd completely abandon physical media - there will always be consumers who want to buy a physical item with liner notes, etc. This just seems like a way the labels could get paid for the downloading that's already going on, and it would give them an excuse to stop suing everyone in sight.
'Course, it would also put the crosshairs on the customers of any ISP who refused to implement the charge; anyone uploading from a non-sanctioned ISP would find themselves a much easier target for the RIAA's goons/lawyers.
2. Having been in the military for many years, I'm not surprised that the document does not contain specifics. It's a strategic overview (and pretty high level since Rumsfeld signed off on it). The details are left to those who handle the implementation (at the tactical level).
3. You needed some document to tell you this?
What are you so hostile about? You need to sit back and take a deep breath, man, before you start treating me like some dumbass off the street. Here:
1."Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap...information ...is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans." I never said "the government" was surprised. I was using words contained in the article itself.
2. WTF? I was pointing out that we've made plans for this stuff, NOT being cheeky about a lack of details. I wouldn't expect detail to be leaked, it should still be classified.
3. You should stop and read a post before you respond to it. I *never* said anything about those plans being surprising. The only mention of surprise is From TFA, in relation to the propaganda blowback.
1. We spew propaganda worldwide and are surprised that it's being picked up by American media outlets, and ;) ;)
2. We don't know what to do about this situation.
Oh, and 3. We'd love to build a system that would let us completely dominate everything operating in the electromagnetic realm. In fact, we're working on plans.
1. Gallup would conduct a poll of willing and anonymous participants,
2. Gallup would be paid to do such a survey,
3. Google is not a polling agency, and
4. Since when is the gov't allowed to demand information for purposes of supporting a lobbying effort? Note that this isn't a law enforcement thing, it's because the executive branch wants to lobby for a law to be passed. If this information is so valuable to the legislative process, let Congress subpoena Google. It's not the DOJ's job.