Nightshade
sic semper tyrannis
Premium
join:2002-05-26
Salem, OR
2 edits | Voluntary would make more sense.
It it was voluntary rather than mandatory I would be all for it expect for one thing, what guarantee is there that the money collected will go to the artists?
If the money went directly to the artists and a legal guarantee that I will never be sued for so long as I pay the tax then I would be all for it.
But something tells me this is never going to happen and it is all going to be a pipe dream because the RIAA business model is all about them, never about the artists they are supposed to represent, and the customers who purchase the music that they distribute. Heck RIAA even hasn't given one cent of their lawsuits that they won to the artists. So I am not holding my breath on this one on them doing it right because they never have, and never will. |
|
kelso
join:2007-04-06
Ashburn, VA
1 edit | What's the point
Sure 5 bucks for music, Not!
What about movies ?
I really think all this effort about music is a waste of time.
I guess some folks think music is worth more than I do. |
|
brandon
Some truth included in this post.
Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS
 ·AT&T Southeast
| The problem with voluntary...
Is that you don't accomplish...anything.
The people who want to voluntarily pay for music online already are, through iTunes, Rhapsody, and elsewhere.
If voluntary is an option, the people who download illegally will just continue to do so.
I hate to say it, but I agree with the RIAA on this one. Five bucks a month to download whatever I want, whenver I want? Sounds good to me. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
 ·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| said by brandon  :I hate to say it, but I agree with the RIAA on this one. Five bucks a month to download whatever I want, whenver I want? Sounds good to me. great. while you're at it, pay my $5 a month too. you can have my unlimited share.  i don't buy music or download it, and i sure don't want to subsidize those that do. |
|
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533 | Ditto |
|
bgraham
join:2001-03-15
Smithtown, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | reply to morbo
They do say "Voluntary for Music Fans. People who do not share music shouldn't have to pay for a license they don't need."
That is fine by me. i don't download music.
Honestly, if I were downloading music I think $5 a month is reasonable provided there is a no price raise clause of some kind. The RIAA could get the program implemented for $5 then you would find that there are constant price increases every few months. |
|
Millenniumle
join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY
| ...
The RIAA members should just jump to the chase and stop producing music. Their poor attempts to curtail piracy are doing far more to encourage it. The EFF proposal has the same problem as music sold online today; $5 per month is still more than free. Still, the RIAA should pay attention. The idea has the potential to reach a large market at a low price without the "forced down your throat" kinda feel. People might actually want to jump on it! |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to brandon
Re: The problem with voluntary...
said by brandon :Is that you don't accomplish...anything. The people who want to voluntarily pay for music online already are, through iTunes, Rhapsody, and elsewhere. If voluntary is an option, the people who download illegally will just continue to do so.
I hate to say it, but I agree with the RIAA on this one. Five bucks a month to download whatever I want, whenver I want? Sounds good to me. I agree with point 1 and 2. But your 3rd point(highlighted above), I don't agree with. I don't download music from anyone - legally or illegally. And I don't want to pay $5/mo for the privilege of getting MP3s I don't want.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to bgraham
said by bgraham :The RIAA could get the program implemented for $5 then you would find that there are constant price increases every few months. right, that is another danger i see. |
|
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18
·Verizon west (ex G..
| reply to morbo
said by morbo :said by brandon :I hate to say it, but I agree with the RIAA on this one. Five bucks a month to download whatever I want, whenver I want? Sounds good to me. great. while you're at it, pay my $5 a month too. you can have my unlimited share. i don't buy music or download it, and i sure don't want to subsidize those that do. They're already winning. Divide and conquer. Those who don't hating those that do. 
--
~~This is not The Greatest Sig in the World without annoying urls, no. This is just a tribute.~~ |
|
StudioTech
S2409W plus SA4250HD
join:2001-10-10
Edison, NJ
| If the music industry can do it...
Then why not the movie industry? How about the software industry? Both of those could claim they lose money to piracy. Then your $5/month now becomes at least $15/month. And don't think they won't want more money every year since all of them will claim piracy cost them more and more every year. See where this can lead to? |
|
bobjohnson
Premium
join:2007-02-03
Titusville, FL
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
|  reply to bgraham
Re: The problem with voluntary...
The two problems I see with this idea is that 1. I'm sure all this money still goes to the labels and the useless RIAA anyways and 2. I already voluntarily pay a ton of money for downloads and cd's anyways so the music pirate next door to me will still get it for free anyways... So this shouldn't even be an issue at all |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Nightshade
Re: Voluntary would make more sense.
Problems with the idea:
1. If it would be voluntary for customers, how would free-riding be prevented? Monitoring everyone's traffic for copyright violations?
2. It would be only a promise not to sue, not compulsory licensing. This means any copyright holder not signing on to the promise could still sue anyone sharing his works.
3. Even if artists end up getting anything instead of nothing, it would be only the artists signed to companies participating in the deal - and that would be only a few big companies. Independent artists would get nothing.
A compulsory licence mandated by law would be a better solution. It would be payable only by sharers who would otherwise be infringing, so internet users not interested in music or movies could opt out. Filesharing sites could easily "go legit" by recording transfers and billing users. The selection or music, formats, etc. would include whatever people might choose to share. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
3 edits | reply to StudioTech
Re: If the music industry can do it...
Yep. Don't forget the book and comic book industries, the adult video industries, etc... |
|
DiscardedVet
Premium
join:2005-04-06
Sturgis, SD
| reply to digitalfreak
One More
said by morbo :great. while you're at it, pay my $5 a month too. Pay my 5 as well.
I don't drive, I don't pay gas tax.
I don't DL music, I'm not paying tax on it.
--
Bush is the Prez....Think Patriot Act II....This outspoken dissident....In jail I'll be soon. |
|
Pictor Guy
join:2004-06-21
Sammamish, WA | Reverse
Why not tax $5 to $10 for each CD under the assumption that the user is sharing the CD with others. Sure that would be flawed but so is taxing the ISP. |
|
cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| not that bad of an idea
doesn't sound so bad to me, but there are probably hidden details and flaws throughout it. if this is implemented fully, it could lead to disastorous consequences. if it truly is $5-$10/month for an unlimited music sharing, who would use itunes (or similar) at ~$1/song? or buy ~$20 CDs when they are already paying the piracy 'tax'? i like the idea, but looking at the piracy 'tax' from this point of view makes it seem like it is too good to be true. i'm sure i'm missing details, so my 'analysis' could be entirely wrong. |
|
ixNay
Premium
join:2002-04-12
USA
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to Millenniumle
Re: ...
I do not download or buy music and I definately do not want to pay a tax for it. Although, the price sounds like a fair price for those that do, atleast for now.
So lets say they start taxing everyone the $5 fee or offering it voluntarily, what will happen next? I am guessing the ISP's will start increasing their prices due to increased bandwith usage, so in the long run we all get hammered anyways?!
--
"I write jokes for a living. I sit at my hotel at night, think of something thats funny, then I go get a pen and write it down, or if the pen is too far away I have to convince myself that what I thougt of, aint funny" - Mitch Hedberg |
|
Millenniumle
join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY
| reply to StudioTech
I have to think there are a lot of structural hurdles to be crossed for something like this to work. For instance: What incentive would there be to produce today's multi-hundred million dollar block busters over a low budget B-movie?
I think the point you raise about other industries battling piracy as well is where the compulsory solution proposed by the EFF has a strength. Any industry and its members could work toward such a system where they felt it was advantageous. |
|
gatorkram
Spelling and Grammer impared
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
clubs:
·Embarq
 ·linode
1 edit | Current system
I am happy with the current system. I see nothing wrong with it at all. As far as music goes anyway. I use Rhapsody, and
more or less rent my music, like you do movies. The only thing I would fix, would be to include ALL artists and tracks in the "rental" system, instead of having some that are outside that system, and you have to buy them outright to get them.
The movie system is still a bit borked in my opinion. The time from theater to DVD is just way to long. They need to shorten that period, and start putting first run movies on PPV.
I am happy with Netflix. I just wish when new movies came to DVD, they had more of them. I am still waiting for I am Legend to not be "Long wait"
The TV system is just all screwed up. I don't know if they will ever be able to fix it.
edit:
If everyone would just stop stealing, and yes, it is stealing, you are depriving someone of money when you DL, and adopt one of the many legit services out there now, the RIAA/MPAA and whoever else would see people are willing to pay for the things they want, then maybe they could start to improve apon each service that is out there now.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 |
|
