netwire
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Mooresboro, NC
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Millenicom
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Vonage
| Hmm
I'm not sure about this. On one hand, sure for $5 to $10/mo unlimited downloading and sharing does not seem bad. But on the other hand, so many people would opt in for this that connections would become even more bogged down and the networks overloaded.
--
Visit my homepage »thinkequality.net |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
|  Insulting
Why does BBR see the need to insult Al Capone by comparing him to the content industry?
And why does the content industry need even more government help? There are numerous existing civil and criminal remedies available to this industry to combat copyright infringement. I don't see why yet another industry that works against my behalf needs more of my money to do its job.
--
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| really its ment for pure profit.
take an ISP like comcast with 16mil(i think) HSI subs, now i bet the majority of them dont even know what P2P is. so lets say subtract(making up numbers here) 2 million for people who pirate daily leaving us with 14 million or at 10 per sub that is 140mil in nothing but profit each month, basicly from one ISP alone its like they released a box office smash each month.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to pnh102
Re: Insulting
yea the content industry is lower then Capone, that said they still do hold their MAFIAA name.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
BigVe
join:2005-07-15
Gulliver, MI | reply to netwire
Re: Hmm
Maybe it would be better to have a higher price tag like $10+ as long as the money goes to the artists and not the pockets of RIAA & MPAA etc. |
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | reply to netwire
What they are really trying to do is sell an insurance policy against being sued by the **AAs. If the $10/mo allowed me to down load any music or any tv show I would consider paying for it. |
|
anon33
@csolve.net | do it but .....
sure, do it, but remove the download cap and throttle |
|
Taget
join:2004-07-29 | Way too much...
...include the movie industry on the $5 to $10 and then we might have a deal. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to Kearnstd
Re: Insulting
maybe this pic would be more appropriate |
|
MarkAW
Barry White or lil bratt
Premium
join:2001-08-27
Canada
2 edits | Sounds good to me...
.....as long as the ISP's lift the caps and throtting allow us to download at top speed, sure I'm willing to pay $5 to $10 a month and as long as the money goes to were it should. |
|
corinthos
join:2007-10-09 | Meh
What keeps the movie, pornography, games, comic, and other industries for getting in on the action since their stuff is pirated also. So we going to see tons of add on taxes for each? |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to S_engineer
Re: Insulting
That's just bleepin' priceless!
--
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | No thanks
I'll keep my 10 bucks and they can keep their sh!t music. |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| question
Why doesn't Rhapsody (and iTunes and all the others) have access to "everything" already?
Why do they constantly take things away?
Why don't these labels already give the existing legal services access to everything? Sure, some artists don't want their tunes online (the Beatles come to mind), but it's already too late - I'm sure their music is "shared" anyway.
What would the "music industry" do about such cases?
I'd bet they still sue people, even with this proposed system in place...
They missed this opportunity years ago when they decided to fight Napster. They could easily have compromised somehow with those people and I'd bet MOST users of that service would gladly have signed up for a small fee. Sure, some would not go along with it, but I'd venture to say a vast majority of "ordinary" users (who then jumped to Kazaa, Limewire, bit-torrent, etc. etc. etc.) would have simply punched their VISA numbers in and kept downloading away and sharing all their tunes.
At this stage, what would be the benefit of going with such a system like this when the legal services are already being shafted?
Also, what about other such systems? Are we to expect a proposal for video too? When would it stop? How many extra fees would there be? Internet bill - $45, music bill $15 (already paying for Rhapsody!) - movie bill $10 (already paying for Netflix) = $70/month that I'm currently paying... add another $10 here, another $10 there, wtf?
Again, why doesn't Netflix, or iTunes, or whoever already have everything online? Why can't I log into Netflix and push play on anything I want? Why the crappy selection?
If anything online movies are far worse off now compared to music as far as selection goes.
Would such services proposed really let you do anything you wanted?
What about independent artists? Would I be able to opt-in to such a service as easily or more easily than the current system if I wanted my cut from buyers?
Heck, if this is really to be proposed, are we talking about knocking out ALL currently existing legal services for one big mountain of peer-to-peer sharing that would then become the de-facto standard for all internet media?
Who would control such a thing? How could they? What assurances would anyone have that any of that money would ever go directly to the original creator(s)?
Currently, I can sign up to have music sold with a variety of services that guarantee me a very large chunk, if not all monies paid for my music. Would this system do the same thing? Would an indie movie maker, for example, be able to do the same thing? |
|
voipdabbler
join:2006-04-27
Kalispell, MT
| Bad timing.
Given the grim state of the economy and the fact that economic experts are predicting continued job losses, this isn't the best time for the entertainment industry to be lining up for public largess. And make no mistake about it--this will be nothing but public largess; music downloads will not suddenly be free nor will copyright laws be amended to make downloading without paying legal. This is simply the music industry (and movies and tv will be right behind them, believe me) stepping up asking the government to make every citizen who has any kind of access to the Internet (even if it's only as a taxpayer in a community with a wired public library) pay them a monthly fee, just because. You will still see enforcement of copyright infringement provisions, both civilly and criminally. If music gets this, expect to see tv and movie execs step up to the bat. So, if you own cell phone (regardless of whether it's data capable; I just don't see the cellular carriers objecting to levying more fees on all their users) or have an Internet connection of any kind, you'll end up paying somewhere around $20-$30 month more for fees to the music industry (not artists, mind you), tv and movie execs. Before you know it, other industries will try to get in on the act, say publishing. By the time it ends, you may pay more in fees to compensate industries for "pirating" even if you've never violated the copyright act than you pay for the Internet service. On top of that, anyone who wants to download music legally is still going to have to pay for it and those who continue to pirate aren't going to get a free ride--if they get caught they'll still be subjet to criminal and civil legal action. |
|
cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| sounds tempting
a set $5 doesn't sound that bad, assuming it stay thay way.
if this does go through, bandwidth consumption may sky rocket, possible destroying of the current entertainment buying (why send ~$50 for 50 songs, when you can just thousands on bit torrent for free? you pay the piracy tax either way, why not make use of it?), and if the MAFIAA start sinking more, it is a safe bet that the tax will go up. |
|
Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
| This makes a lot of assumptions...
one of them being that everyone is a pirate and instituting a piracy tax is nothing more than punishing everyone for the people who do pirate. This is wrong because if people are made to pay this, then everyone will become what the **AA's don't want because they will be entitled to do it based on this tax they will pay. |
|
Harry Potter
@verizon.net | My thoughts
NO WAY!! If I want music I will get it from iTunes. I don't need my ISP to add more taxes to my bill. |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Qwest.net
| I don't Think So
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV8boXLV0ik
You mean pay $5-$10 bucks a month for stuff like this......
I don't think so.  |
|
Millenniumle
join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY
| ...
I wonder if the music industry is pitting themselves against some rather large opponents - AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, Comcast.... They may not appreciate having to add more cost to their service, money that goes to someone else. Perhaps they'll get enticed with a little collection fee kick-back. The RIAA charges $10. The ISP keeps $1.00.
Still, I think the strongest argument against this is every industry in electronic format has just as much reason for the same system, as Karl mentions - movies, books, games, etc. By the time they all get done lining up behind the RIAA's precedent, broadband will be $50 plus $100 in racketeering fees. 
Rather than imposing such a system, every company interested should offer what amounts to the same thing - an unlimited subscription to their material for a monthly fee. Sony music for $2. Warner for $2. Universal Studios for $10. Each company could cut out all the middle men and media costs. They could market and sell subscriptions. "Hey, we have the best movies/music/games all for only $3.00 per month." Several companies could even get together and offer content under a single subscription. |
|
