how-to block ads
|
|
view: topics flat text |
|
Comments on news posted 2008-03-28 15:08:31: In addition to demanding that ISPs implement piracy filters that may not work, the entertainment industry has long wanted to see ISPs start charging broadband users a piracy tax (whether they pirate or not). ..
|
 | | Great! A licence to download whatever I want! I'll gladly pay $5 for the right to download anything I want free of prosecution. | |
| | | | | |
| | | |  jtudorXm 60's On 6 FreakPremium,MVM
join:2002-12-07
Morganton, NC
1 edit | Re: Great! said by Anonymous_: so your willing to pay 5$ per lable? your nuts
--
Best of luck
"Do, or Do not, there is no try!" Yoda
| |
| | | | | he did not say per lable. he said he would pay $5 to download anything. you nut | |
|
|
4 edits | While this does sound like a good idea on the surface it really is not and here's three reasons why.
The first one is not everyone downloads pirated music and movies. So, this tax is going to be paid by everyone who uses a ISP connection to benefit a few. Quite unfair if you ask me.
The second one is that this so called tax money is not going directly to the artists, it is going to the **AAs. Therefore there is going to be no guarantee that the artists will see one dime of this money.
But lastly this is not a tax. A tax is levied by the government or the people themselves to pay for services rendered by the government or the people. Last time I checked the **AAs are not a government entity. Though I am sure they would love to be. This is extortion, plain and simple.
--
True Happiness Must Come From Within | |
| | |  banditws6Shrinking Time and DistancePremium
join:2001-08-18
Frisco, TX
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Great! said by Nightshade:The second one is that this so called tax money is not going directly to the artists, it is going to the **AAs. Therefore there is going to be no guarantee that the artists will see one dime of this money. You are absolutely right, and that is my biggest problem with this proposition.
--
"I'll follow the law until it's just stupid." -Ted Nugent | |
| | |  CabalPremium
join:2007-01-21
Austin, TX
·Suddenlink
| said by Nightshade:The first one is not everyone downloads pirated music and movies. So, this tax is going to be paid by all to benefit a few. Quite unfair if you ask me. They rarely are. My taxes partially fund schools and libraries I will never use, but that's not changing anytime soon.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? | |
| | | |
4 edits | Re: Great! But you did go to public school at one time right? So you used the services at one time. You pay your local fire department through taxes even though you don't expect, nor want, your house to burn down.
What I am getting at in the unfair part is that this so called "tax" is going to be imposed regardless if you ever downloaded pirated content or not anytime you pay for your ISP services.
Now that's truly unfair.
--
True Happiness Must Come From Within | |
| | | | |  jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·voip.ms
| Re: Great! said by Nightshade:But you did go to public school at one time right? So you used the services at one time. You pay your local fire department through taxes even though you don't expect, nor want, your house to burn down. What I am getting at in the unfair part is that this so called "tax" is going to be imposed regardless if you ever downloaded pirated content or not anytime you pay for your ISP services. Now that's truly unfair. Errr.. my parents paid propery taxes while I was in school, not me. That whole child labor law thing. However, despite choosing not to bring children into this insane world, I get to pay for my neighbors' kids to get a mediocre education. How is this anything but unfair?
I have no problem paying for the fire department; I'm paying for protection that I hope I never need, just like insurance.
(Technically, around here anyhow, we're paying for firefighters and police to have pensions, which is ok with me -- if they're willing to do that job and all they want is a nice retirement fund, it's a good trade.)
What's really unfair about this crap "downloading" tax (if you're paying it isn't "piracy" any more, now is it?) is that I don't want any of the MPAA's product whether it's free or not, nor do I care about crappy RIAA music. | |
| | | | | |
2 edits | Re: Great! said by jester121:Errr.. my parents paid propery taxes while I was in school, not me. That whole child labor law thing. However, despite choosing not to bring children into this insane world, I get to pay for my neighbors' kids to get a mediocre education. How is this anything but unfair? The implication is that your parents paid for your public education through taxes. I did not say you paid for it. Sorry for the confusion.
Okay consider the alternative then. A mediocre education is better than no education. A majority of students do not attend charter or private schools because of the cost, so the only alternative is public education. If you think society is bad now with the majority of kids with a mediocre education, imagine a society with the majority of kids having a substandard or no education at all. That for me is why I don't mind my property/income taxes going into public education, despite having no kids of my own. Even though I think public education needs to have a serious overhaul if we are going to stay competitive with the global markets.
said by jester121:What's really unfair about this crap "downloading" tax (if you're paying it isn't "piracy" any more, now is it?) is that I don't want any of the MPAA's product whether it's free or not, nor do I care about crappy RIAA music. True that it isn't a "piracy tax" anymore now that I am paying for it. I really don't care all that much of the music of today. Which is why I could never understand the mentality of since music is crap, I am going to pirate it. Why would I want crap that I can get for free? To me, crap is crap, free or not.
--
True Happiness Must Come From Within | |
|
| | | | | Except, of course, having an educated & literate population does benefit you directly & indirectly. Big difference between having an educated (& employed) population receiving their education from public taxes and having people download music they're too cheap to buy. Music does nothing for me at all.
--
Dismissed! | |
| | | | |  W7PSKJust MePremium
join:2000-12-04
Everett, WA | Re: Great! I wouldnt call more than 25% of what they churn out now educated | |
| | | | |  kadarPremium,ExMod 2001-02
join:0000-00-00 | Would it surprise you to find out the DOL wrote the specs for the DOE? | |
| | | | | | | | | | |  SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | Re: Great! said by Col Klink:Music does nothing for me at all. I don't know how you could take his words as speaking for anything but himself. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Great! I am so tempted to flame you but I will resist. I will just state that I was kidding with him.
--
The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary. | |
|
| | | |  Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1
·Bright House
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
| said by Col Klink:Except, of course, having an educated & literate population does benefit you directly & indirectly. Big difference between having an educated (& employed) population receiving their education from public taxes and having people download music they're too cheap to buy. That's the second point I would have made. Either way you pay. If not for schools, then by prisons, higher cost of goods, security on your home and a limited number of people to commerce with.
Visualize 1930. Imagine it as a permanent condition, but only for the US, as even 4th world basket cases figured out that they need to educate any children they can
Or another scenario;
Imagine community schooling. Once communities hunker down to protect themselves from communities who don't school; we'll wind up with local governments who have interesting and different ideas about what kids need to learn.
If your population is mostly fundamentalist Islam or fundamentalist Christian, what might those community schools teach?
What might America look like after 3 generations of that, while the rest of the world builds armies and decides to expand.
I'm no fan of public schooling, but it's still a mountain of wealth compared to no education at all. It also serves to help bind us all together. If you don't want to pay for that, you can stop reaping the benefits of public schooling. Now.
said by Col Klink: Music does nothing for me at all. Wow. Have you looked at having that treated?
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. | |
|
| |  BoogeymanDrive it like you stole itPremium
join:2002-12-17
Panama City, FL
·Comcast
| I wonder if the music industry realizes that if it was suddenly legal to download and share all the music you wanted, NO ONE would pay for it. You might find a few special edition boxed sets get sold every once in a while, but why pay $8-20 for a CD that you already can legally download and burn yourself for free? (The key being legally, you can already do this illegaly, but many people dont because of thier morals).
So in essence, that $20b would suddenly become the major revenue stream while actual distrobution of a physical product would barely be worth the cost. Of course not everyone has internet or wants to spend the time to download and burn all the stuff, but I'm sure everyone knows at least one person with broadband and would be willing to get what they wanted for them... for free. | |
| | |  SSidlovOther Things On My MindPremium
join:2000-03-03
Pompton Lakes, NJ
·Optimum Online
| jUST A QUICK NOTE: They have done this before. It's just a variation on their old copyright protection.
1. cassette tapes had a tax included on them to support artists whose music was supposed to be copied with the 'new tech'
2. CD-R audio has a tax as do regular CD-R's that are not qualified as audio at a lesser rate.
3. They also get $2 for each CD-R recorder.
»www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c20032004fs-e.html as an example of one govt agency....
SO, while they collect this type of money for decades now, they have (many people claim) NEVER given anyone a dime of it without a lawsuit.
Now, with cassettes history, and CD-R pretty much the same with DVD, and they may have already struck deals for that media, they haven't been able to tax hard drives and ssd drives. The last thing they can tax is the gateway, and that's the ISP's clients. So they want to add a tax on you for downloading, when they already tax you for burning it, they already tax you for the media you put it on, and maybe they got you to pay for the music too, if you're an honest person.
Seems to me, they already have thier hands in a lot of my pockets.....and they want more... | |
| | |  fireflierCoffee. . .Need CoffeePremium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo | "the right to freely download, upload, copy, and share music without restrictions"
Huh? Am I the only one who doesn't believe the RIAA will leave everyone alone if this $5 "tax" gets implemented?
What guarantees are there that they won't still be suing people who "download, upload, copy, and share music without restrictions"? Or suing ISPs who don't implement the aforementioned piracy filters. Which brings up another point. If we're paying a "tax" to share without restrictions then why would piracy filters still be required?
I don't pirate and I have no intentions on starting so I'm not keen on subsidizing media industries with an additional $60/year when said media is already overpriced.
--
Wishes: When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor. --despair.com | |
|
| ReneM
join:2003-07-18
Cockeysville, MD | Even better, you also get a license to rightfully download anything you want that was free before you bought the license. Please send me $10 for the free air you breath, in return you are allowed to use as much air as you want for the rest of your life! Deal? To counter the argument that i do not own the air you breath, neither does the RIAA own already free (as in not copyright) music. | |
| |  MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | said by hairspring:I'll gladly pay $5 for the right to download anything I want free of prosecution. Me too, as long as upload is included too, but do you really think they'll let everyone do that even after they have their $20b?
--
The public is a poor business manager. | |
| | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | big ISPs could never be made to agree unless it was made law.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| |  joakoPremium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:5
·Comcast
| said by hairspring:A licence to download whatever I want! I'll gladly pay $5 for the right to download anything I want free of prosecution. So why didn't they offer this service directly to consumers 5 years ago?
--
09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0 | |
| |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | This is just music. Add another $5 for movies. Then another $5 for programs and software.. etc etc
Get really dammed expensive really fast.... | |
| |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by hairspring:A licence to download whatever I want! I'll gladly pay $5 for the right to download anything I want free of prosecution. Oh so I should have to pay $5 so you can download all you want? this is just fro msuci. Don't forget the $5 movie tax, $5 TV tax, $5 book tax, $5 software tax. Sound good now? | |
| | Reviews:
 ·WildBlue
| said by hairspring:A licence to download whatever I want! I'll gladly pay $5 for the right to download anything I want free of prosecution. Unless that includes movies too that really is not a good deal at all. I don't know about you guys, but I don't spend $5 a year on music, much less $60.
--
Wildblue Pro Pack / Beam 40 / Laredo NOC / Windows Vista Home Premium | |
| | | | |
| | I dunno... I might be willin' to drop Internet connectivity altogether if it meant not having to pay even a small extortion fee to anyone (I mean, beyond the normal ones--taxes, fees, surcharges to Verizon and the govt  ). It's not like I actually "need" Internet access for anything I have to do--it's a convenience only. | |
| | | | Re: I dunno... Only if there wasn't so much sheep today...
People should just boycott the music industry...but people are just too weak and selfish to care about anything else other than themselves...
Something like this will never pass. How can a non gov't agency impose a tax...
This is why there needs to be a change in the US, people need to stand up against this corporations, don't they care that they trying to pull this bullshit on the people. | |
| |  swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | Everything about this plan is evil.
1. Unfair to all the subscribers who aren't interested in downloading music. (It would be voluntary for the ISP but the ISPs that sign up would force it on all their subscribers.)
2. $5/month is way too much. Divide total downloads by total internet users, it probably comes to less than a dollar per.
3. The money wouldn't go to the artists - only to RIAA.
4. Others would want in. Imagine $5 for music you may not want, then $7 for movies and TV files you may not want, $5 for software someone's pirating that you may not want, and so on.
5. The bait for ISPs is that they avoid liability? They're already protected from liability for what their users do online.
6. It would assure greater exposure for major-lable music, to the detriment of indpendent artists who would not be covered.
7. Subscribers would be protected from liability only for some of their downloads; any download of a recording not from one of the participating labels could still get a person sued.
There's probably more that I'm not thinking of now - none of it good. I hope the ISPs have enough sense to tell RIAA to take a hike. | |
| | ditka_bPremium
join:2001-10-05
Barrington, IL | LOL and pigs fly right? | |
|
 dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | $5.00? Ok, what about those of us that no longer do music?
We get reamed for $5.00 anyways?
Uhm, what phrase am I looking for???
Oh yeah - Screw That! 
Music, I get for free(Comcast Rhapsody) - if I want it.
Thing is, I don't want it!
I have the program installed, haven't ran it for months(well, I updated it this morning... haven't played any music on it though).
*MAYBE* for movies, if they were of decent quality and not restricted to death, but not for music.
YMMV.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | | Why don't we compare this... to the other "fees".
I'm not sure of the details but aren't AT&T still charging a levy from the 1930's?
I think the probability of them lowering the levy is approching zero. | |
| | | | Re: Why don't we compare this... said by backness:I'm not sure of the details but aren't AT&T still charging a levy from the 1930's? I think the probability of them lowering the levy is approching zero. Maybe you're thinking of the excise tax related to the Spanish-American War (from 1898).
--
Hope this helps... | |
|
| | They hired the wrong guy! They should have hired "The Ice Man"... Oh wait, I think he was executed by the state of NJ. How about Gotti? Oh wait, I think he died. Oh, well... You get the idea... | |
|  gatorkramKaBOOM BabyPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2
·Suddenlink
| Hmm Let me see if I understand this correctly..
I pay my ISP $5 per month extra, to be able to download music..
But in the mean time, the end users are providing the real service...
Shouldn't they be paying us for the distribution of their products?
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
|  tomkbPremium
join:2000-11-15
Tampa, FL
kudos:5 | hmm... >>>$5 a month—bundled into their monthly internet-access bill in exchange for the right to freely download, upload, copy, and share music without restrictions
Nah, I'll just take mine for free, but thanks for the offer. | |
| | afro561
join:2002-11-12
Ellicott City, MD | Re: hmm... 5.00 a month for the first year, then they will come up with some excuse to raise it to a higher amount. | |
|
 yuutomoThe Wonder KitterPremium
join:2001-08-27
Missoula, MT | WTF?! okay, extortion, intimidation, and strong arm tactics. seems the RIAA is more and more like the MAFIA.
I say to don griffin, screw you buddy. | |
| Reviews:
 ·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | Nice pic of Al Capone on the front page, It fits the topic p Nice pic of Al Capone at the top of the page, It fits the topic perfectly, As in I'll make You an offer You can't refuse, Or You'll be swimming with the fishes. 
--
(26.04GHz crunching for SETI with the PC Perspective Killer Frogs) | |
| | amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America | Re: Nice pic of Al Capone on the front page, It fits the topic p myeah, see
good post
| |
|
| | This is a gross distortion of the facts. I'm not a fan of the music industry but I'm frustrated by how many people will cut off their noses to spite their faces.
This is not a piracy tax. It is a collective licensing system, something many people outside of the industry have been advocating for years.
Calling it a protection racket is nonsense. A protection racket threatens you(something illegal) and then demands money to stop doing that illegal threatening thing. I detest the industry and their policy of suing people, but suing people for copyright infringement is not illegal. Furthermore it is wrong to say this is paying them to not sue you. It is paying them to accept free and open peer to peer access of copyrighted material. People who say "why pay for what is free" are ignoring the fact that what is free is only free because people are ignoring the law, not because the companies who hold these copyrights are providing it for free.
Saying that it taxes those who don't download is stretching it. The only reason that many don't download now is because it is not legal behavior. If it became legal behavior many who don't now do it would begin to do it. There are very few people who don't access copyrighted music in one way or another and this would be a benefit to nearly everyone.
I'm begging people not to develop knee jerk reactions to this. Let's think intelligently about the details of this and not do something stupid. If we really have the chance to move to a world which unleashes limitless consumption of content, free of drm, using the applications and appliances of our choice without restriction, in exchange for $5 a month, that is one hell of a deal. | |
| |  gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | Re: This is a gross distortion of the facts. No thanks, I'll stick to my free radio »www.kpig.com and free online radio »www.pandora.com
I'm not paying extra so people can download the new Brittany album or some other crud that shouldn't have been on a label
--
There is no greater sign of a general decay of virtue in a nation, than a want of zeal in its inhabitants for the good of their country. ~ Joseph Addison | |
| | | | To those who do not engage in piracy and are not customers of the music industry, this is a tax. I'm being forced to license something I don't want. It's called a tying contract, and it's illegal. | |
| | | | | Re: This is a gross distortion of the facts. "I'm being forced to license something I don't want"
It isn't at all clear that you won't be able to opt out. We don't begin to know all the details of this particular proposal yet, but so far the claims are that there will be opt-out at the isp level(though not at the individual level so you would have to choose your isp based on their support of this approach).
"To those who do not engage in piracy and are not customers of the music industry"
This isn't about whether you engage in piracy. If this happens, the way that jim griffin has been advocating, then you could trade and download material to your hearts content and you wouldn't be a pirate. Are you telling me that if you could find and trade whatever musical material you wanted, whenever you wanted, that it wouldn't be worth $5 a month to you to do that? You would only be a pirate today because the industry has not licensed the material for such use. Once it is licensed you are not a pirate.
You say you are not a customer of the music industry. Are you really a person who never listens to music, radio(which functions under a collective licensing scheme itself), cds, records, itunes tracks or anything of the sort? If so, let's be honest, how many people do you think are like you and would really want to opt out of this.
If you say "but even one person paying when they aren't using is a violation of my principles" I can understand your feelings but applying such a principle would obliterate a huge amount of human activity where we don't pay for use. Societies have never worked like that, in the main because creating a world where people really only pay only for what they use and for the amount they use would create such massive intrusive overhead that the system would collapse. At the end of the day this makes nearly everyone's life easier at very low cost to any particular person, it provides consumers with freedom and flexibility while making sure that creators get paid. If you say the creators probably won't get the money anyway that is not a argument against collective licensing. We can all wish that the music business was structured differently but that is a decision to be made by the creators and the companies they hand their material over to, it isn't a decision to be made by the consumer. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Music only? So let me get this straight - $5/mo. for music - but aren't other files downloaded too? Let's see... How much for movies? How about games? Other apps? Pics? Etc., etc.??
Why without trying too hard, the Protection Fees could cost as much or more than the ISP fees!!
--Doug | |
| | | Easier It would be more straightforward of them to just file CRIMINAL (as opposed to civil) complaints against pirates, then go after them for monetary damages after convictions. | |
| | ReneM
join:2003-07-18
Cockeysville, MD | Re: Easier An what would you like Copyright infringement to be. A misdemeanor or a felony? less than 1000 songs 10 years, 10000 and up the death penalty? Last time i checked the criminal penal code is for what is says, crimes and crimes only. | |
|
| | Only givernment has that right I thought only your government was allowed such extortion....but with shrub at the helm anything is possible...All RIAA needs to do is to declare that Americans have software of mass distribution....Bushama declares war on piracy...rest is history | |
|  halo5
join:2000-07-20
Dayton, OH | Hmmm... Is it me, or does it seem like the **AA's now have this mentality that.. "it doesn't matter what people do, EVERYONE OWES US MONEY"!!!
I for one haven't gone to a mainstream movie or bought mainstream music in a long time because I think it's all pretty much mindless crap. Have I pirated it instead? Hell no! Why would I? It sucks.
Now they propose a way to still suck money out of my pocket, even though I no way use their services?!? F*CK YOU BUDDY! | |
| | | ... Lets not forget the movie industry, software industry, gaming industry, and probably a multitude of other industries that could easily claim victim to on-line piracy. We'll need to collect for them too! I have no problem with copyright holders defending themselves against piracy. If I were fortunate to have material worth anything I'd want to protect it too. But the system seems doomed to kill the industry promoting it. If the latest movies, music, and games were actually freely available on line there would be little incentive for consumers to purchase. Without any incentive to purchase there is no incentive to produce. Without production, there is no cause for the levy. This would seem to leave the industry right where it is - still needing to deal with piracy so they have some material for purchase. Of course, if they get handed 20 billion a year, what do they care?
It seems the only real solution for the industries is a method to make it likely to get caught and fined for on-line piracy. If legislators want to stand up to the problem, there is the solution. | |
| rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Why have ISPs charge it? If this is such a great deal, why go through the ISP channel? Why wouldn't Internet users simply directly pay the RIAA for their get-out-of-jail-free card?
If I could get all the unencrypted, high quality MP3s I could download for $5/month -- who wouldn't do that?
The question is, however, will the RIAA call off the attack dogs that today try to push fake songs into catalogs in an effort to make it impossible to find a good copy of the song you want? | |
| |  Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX | Re: Why have ISPs charge it? Similarly, Hollywood could set up their own torrent site
where you could legally download movies and TV shows,
either for free with ads or paid for without ads. Prices
could be set at a sliding scale, maybe more for most recent
movies and TV (those still on the air or in theaters), less
for those that have already aired or showed.
But charging all the ISP's customers an extortion fee to be
able to legally download is ridiculous.
Yes I am one of those who download music and movies now,
but even I think it is unreasonable for everyone to
subsidize the "pirates" in this manner. This is the wrong
model to use for any compulsory licensing scheme (which in
essence this idea is.)
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
| |
| | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | exactly i dont see why the industry keeps refusing to adopt free legal downloads in high quality and without any DRM. first off you could have the free versions have an ad or two(when talking movies). i know for a fact Advertisers would line up to have an exclusive deal for a certain release.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| all known music? The article states:
"...unfettered access to a database of all known music."
Why then can they not allow this for existing online music? Rhapsody certainly doesn't have EVERYTHING, and neither do any of the other services.
Also, what would happen to these businesses? They just lose? Do not pass go, do not collect $200?
I think it's an interesting idea, but besides thrashing existing businesses, who gets to add such "fees" next? The movie industry? Oh, but that's different...
At the same time, what about truly unlimited movie access??? Why won't they let Netflix (and others) put every known movie online? Would they allow the same "unfettered" access if movie folks jumped into this game? Again, same problems arise...
If Netflix (or whoever) could, and actually did, put a giant online universe of movies out for everyone, would their rates go up? Down?
Sounds like a messy mess to me... but the idea of letting every known piece of music be (legally) available is interesting.
I say that instead of taxing everyone, they make it easy and fair to get based on an opt-in service. Like many have noted, not everyone wants or needs this. Might be nice if it were an option though...
IMO, they missed the chance to do this right back when they shut down napster. They could have worked out something with those folks - $5/month and you're now a 'premium' member... and it probably would've worked. Lo-fi for free, and hi-fi plus tons more, more features, etc. for a low fee... I'd bet a large number of people would have gone for it immediately.
Now, it seems like it's almost too late for something like this to actually work - let alone "fairly" for all parties.
They had a perfect opportunity, and missed by ...how many years? Tons of people with this idea were all talking about it back then, but everyone either had their heads in the sand, or were too concerned with law$uits and making a quick buck along with their 15 minutes of fame...
Now, we have a fractured online music market - iTunes, and a dollar a song, which not everybody likes. Rhapsody, with a subscription + ability to purchase mp3's (in some cases), eMusic, with a subscription to indie music and cheap mp3s, and the ever changing field of file sharing. Sure, tons more out there, but the point is that its fractured in so many places and NONE, I repeat, NONE of the legal services have everything; which is one HUGE reason they aren't doing as well as they might (or were expected to by some).
Sure, they might as well try, but unless it's truly awesome and super easy, has EVERYTHING, and is truly fair, it will fail miserably.
If they really do make EVERYTHING available, they have a better chance.
It always makes me laugh when they gripe about the services not quite working as well as planned - well, if you have expectations of being able to find what you're after and it's simply not there, the conclusion most people reach is that it sucks! Pretty simple logic we're working with here... | |
| | horsemouthPlease Clarify My CSPPremium
join:2002-03-13
canada | Re: all known music? "IMO, they missed the chance to do this right back when they shut down napster. They could have worked out something with those folks - $5/month and you're now a 'premium' member... and it probably would've worked. Lo-fi for free, and hi-fi plus tons more, more features, etc. for a low fee... I'd bet a large number of people would have gone for it immediately."
BINGO | |
|
| | Man they are INSANE Why the hell should I have to pay $5 per month for something I didn't do. I think that this fee and any other attempt to get the ISP's on board is going to run into the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing we have in the USA. Are the music labels so blind to the fact that they just need to re-think how they do business?
If they implement this I think consumer backlash would be huge.
Laters,
Jeff | |
| |
1 edit | Great idea in concept. There are problems though. FYI, I'm an auditor for a financial services company, and I would love to review the legality of this.
The concept is great: Pay a fee, do what you please. However, that doesn't really hold water if you think about it.
•Who has done statistics to show that the estimated ~$20 billion they intend to reap, is representative of the TRUE loss by the artists? By statistics, I mean hard PROOF. You can't implement a cost intended to recoup "potential" profits if you can't substantiate that you continually lose at least that amount for at least the frequency you intend to implement the cost. IN other words, if they can't prove that the artists lose ~$20 billion a month, they can't recoup that. That'd be like Apple increasing the price of the iPhone by $50 because of all of the people unlocking them, to recoup the lost AT&T subscription subsidy. Again, if the people are stealing, they never had any intention of buying the CD. You lost nothing - you simply didn't gain as much, but that's different. Instead of a mansion and a Bentley, that rapper will just have to deal with a 3-bedroom and a Chrysler 300....like the rest of us hard working folks.
•Who (meaning oversight) is ensuring that the artists are the one who receive any proceeds, and NOT the music industry? The music industry shouldn't get a dime, if this were to go through. If they did, you're looking at bona fide extortion and possible racketeering.
•Why should the ISP be the one to implement the charge? Because of the access pipe? You can't add a fee to an unrelated service. That'd be the same as charging $100 more per gun and/or bullets sold, which allows you Carte Blanche to rob as many banks at gunpoint as you please. As the saying goes...don't blame the gun, blame the monkey.
•How would this be taxed? If the industry is taking in ~$20 billion in already-taxed money, and then they don't have to pay their fair share, it means it's not going back into the economy. Which actually is doing more harm than good.
A smarter approach - though I figure it will be an unpopular one - would be to take a better figure - say, "at least $3 per month annualized" - and implement a tax deductible, OPTIONAL 'charity' that allows you the right to do what you please with music. It'd be a nightmare to manage, but you then incentivize it by making it tax deductible, lessen its impact by making it optional, and make it credible by making it a charity. If I knew that there was a free tax write off out there, that I could contribute to in exchange for free access to music, you damn well better believe I'd be all over that. Especially if the flat tax wins over FairTax. | |
| | | | | Re: Great idea in concept. There are problems though. The estimated revenue is 20 billion, not 20 million.
You're an auditor??? | |
| | | | | | Re: Great idea in concept. There are problems though. Ever hear of a mistype? | |
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | I've already paid my kickback when I bought my CD-Rs They have already collected their kickback from the sale of the CD-R that Can but not Necessarily be used to burn that downloaded music/etc. All CD-Rs sold carry a surcharge that goes to the RIAA (or some other Music Mafia organization) to supposedly "compensate" them for my ability to use the CD-R to store music (or Rip a commercial CD-ROM). The fact that not every CD-R is used for this purpose (I use them a King-Sized Floppies to store my Computer Files) does not mean that only usage for Music is being charged for. | |
| | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: I've already paid my kickback when I bought my CD-Rs said by RARPSL:They have already collected their kickback from the sale of the CD-R that Can but not Necessarily be used to burn that downloaded music/etc. All CD-Rs sold carry a surcharge that goes to the RIAA (or some other Music Mafia organization) to supposedly "compensate" them for my ability to use the CD-R to store music (or Rip a commercial CD-ROM). The fact that not every CD-R is used for this purpose (I use them a King-Sized Floppies to store my Computer Files) does not mean that only usage for Music is being charged for. This is untrue. Only CDs labeled Audio CDs carry the surcharge. Data CDs do not. (This is despite the fact that you can copy an Audio CD onto a Data CD.)
Here's my source:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_co···d_States
scroll to the last section. | |
|
| |
|
Re: Great!
