  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
1 edit |  NO
NO.
All my music is from the Oldies genre(50's to early 70's) and are on CDs I already bought. I don't need or want newer music.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
 | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: NO I second that... "NO!"
..in other words, no.. I don't want an RIAA tax. I will continue to enjoy my right to buy what I want, when I want.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
|
| |
| | | Are you sure???? I think Briney's new song might be worth it. It's making me seriously contemplate this proposal. mmmmmmm yeah I might consider being gouged for $23 - $25 dollars a month such talentless tarts. I especially can't wait for a Paris Hilton's Greatest Hits album.......not. | |
|
|  gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | I have to give a HELL NO. | |
|
|  L337Premium
join:2005-03-10
Chicago, IL
1 edit | For 23 Dollars I rather get a real CD since they cost a mere 6-9 dollars these days. | |
|
| |
| | | | Yes... I would do it if there was no contract. Since my library was lost, I would love to rebuild it. There is a ton of older music that I would love to have. Rhapsody charges 9.99 for a cd, and I don't realy like Rhapsody. from a value perspective, if there was no contract period, I could do well.
Assuming they are offering the J. Giels Band, Johnny Winter, Leon Russell, Stevie Ray, and JoJo Gunn!
--
Where have the adults gone? | |
|
|  Radio ActiveMy pappy's a pistolPremium
join:2003-01-31
Fullerton, CA | From the article:
===========
"Each broadband subscriber would pay sixteen Euros ($23) a month, whether they downloaded music or not.")
===========
No, thanks. I pay as I go. I don't want to pay for others, and I don't want others paying for me.
--
I'll try anything once; twice if I like it; three times if I'm not sure...
| |
|
| | Umm...no $23 a month?!?! Umm no!!! | |
|
| | | Re: Umm...no yeaaaaa i dont think so | |
|
 cyboidGot Boost ?Premium
join:2002-04-08
Medford, OR |  Not only No, but...
That is far too much additional money for the casual song. One would have to download quite a few tunes to make it worthwhile. I love my music but, can you say gouge?
--
~Live on the edge or you're using too much space~ -Cyboid- | |
|
|  mtech
join:2002-10-20
Jonesboro, AR | Re: Not only No, but... No! I don't use p2p to download music, and certainly wouldn't want to subsidize the ones who do.
$23/month? No way.
$12.95/month TIVO
$12.99/month XM
$9.95/month Cable HD-DVR
$ ad infinitum
Make your own choices and pay for them yourself. | |
|
 PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | What about the artists? Would you pay an extra monthly fee to your ISP for unlimited, legal p2p music downloads?
No. For the same reason I don't buy the music from anywhere else. The artists will never see a cent of my money.
If I could pay artists in a Radiohead-like fashion, THEN I'd pay for my music. But I won't pay the FAA for a flight form Delta, I won't pay the NHTSA for a new car from Ford, I won't pay Avista for my internet, and I won't pay the RIAA for my music.
--
There comes a point in your life when you get tired of fixing everything and wiping everyone's ass. But it’s not giving up. It’s realizing that you don’t need certain people and the bullshit and drama they bring to your life. | |
|
| THoff
join:2004-01-15
Santa Monica, CA | Re: What about the artists? So who do you pay for the music? Anyone? | |
|
| | PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | Re: What about the artists? Exactly. Until there is a way for me to pay the artist for the work they created, I will continue to ILLEGALLY STEAL it from the RIAA. | |
|
 GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | Laughable. Of course the music industry - or at least the label execs like it, because they'd get more money than folks would use!
Of course then they wouldn't be able to complain about how much they lose to piracy.
Sorry but I'll pay for what I use, that's the way that needs to work. No way I'll want to see some defacto payment scheme.
--
TheGlobalMind.com | Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? | Angus the IT Chap | |
|
| | | Re: Laughable. said by GlobalMind:Of course the music industry - or at least the label execs like it, because they'd get more money than folks would use! Of course then they wouldn't be able to complain about how much they lose to piracy. They also wouldn't have to worry about pesky things like "sales" or "product quality". If everyone is forced to pay the fee, downloads or not, why bother even producing new music? Just sit back and reap the income.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
|
| |  JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: Laughable. Exactly. Nothing like a legislated, free money stream to line your coffers without having to do anything for the rest of history. | |
|
 Quake110Premium
join:2003-12-20
Ottawa, ON | Reminds me of Canada's decision It reminds me of Canada's CRIA *Canada's RIAA* decision wanting to impose a tax on all iPods and flash based MP3 players. | |
|
| | As a way of stoping piracy... ...this is pretty laughable. Most piracy is done on the basis of not wanting to pay for something, while most of the rest is done on the principle of open information sharing. | |
|
|  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: As a way of stoping piracy... said by lordofwhee:...this is pretty laughable. Most piracy is done on the basis of not wanting to pay for something, which is the problem with 99% of the people. They expect internet welfare. They want is all for free. Itunes could offer DRM free songs for 1 cent each and people would still pirate because that's how cheap they are. They way I see it if you want somthing so bad that you'd pirate it then it MUST have value. Unless you're a dumb pirate that steals worthless junk. So if it has value then it's obviously worth paying for. | |
|
| | | | Re: As a way of stoping piracy... said by BF69:said by lordofwhee:...this is pretty laughable. Most piracy is done on the basis of not wanting to pay for something, which is the problem with 99% of the people. They expect internet welfare. They want is all for free. Itunes could offer DRM free songs for 1 cent each and people would still pirate because that's how cheap they are. They way I see it if you want somthing so bad that you'd pirate it then it MUST have value. Unless you're a dumb pirate that steals worthless junk. So if it has value then it's obviously worth paying for. Well, you can pay, but I don't even download music... So, I'm not. However, I do use legal BT, and ISP, RIAA, MPAA, and other **AAs need to quit messing with it. | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·Charter
| said by BF69:said by lordofwhee:...this is pretty laughable. Most piracy is done on the basis of not wanting to pay for something, which is the problem with 99% of the people. They expect internet welfare. They want is all for free. Itunes could offer DRM free songs for 1 cent each and people would still pirate because that's how cheap they are. They way I see it if you want somthing so bad that you'd pirate it then it MUST have value. Unless you're a dumb pirate that steals worthless junk. So if it has value then it's obviously worth paying for. Then you obviously don't understand why people pirate. People pirate mostly because OF dumb junk. People don't want to pay for a full CD of crap for one song, people don't want to pay $1 for a song that is restricted with DRM. Same goes for movies.
Its different for software, people don't want to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for software that has paid for itself over and over. Software after its written is worth what a cellphone is worth, zero dollars. These people who pay hundreds of dollars for a cellphones are paying for something that is worth pennies to make.
Most of the stuff you see out there pays for itself and then some even with piracy. You will see RIAA and MPAA say they lost "so and so billions" to piracy this year but they are still making more money than ever. They go after it ruthlessly because simply THEY HAVE MONEY.
The fact of the matter is, the pricing structure of music/movies/games is overvalued by a long shot. When pricing is out of wack, history shows people will pirate those items. | |
|
 La LunaSurvived AshrafulPremium
join:2001-07-12
Warwick, NY
kudos:3
 ·Vonage
·Optimum Online
| $23 a month? For the current *new* crap that's out there? Uh, no thank you. Why would I want to pay $23 a month for one or two songs every couple of months, if that many? I already have the really good songs that I like, it's rare that there's anything new that's decent.
If they charged a REASONABLE fee PER song, I might consider it.
--
JIHAD WATCH~~9828 DEADLY TERROR ATTACKS SINCE 9/11~~TEAM DISCOVERY | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: $23 a month? agree - $23/month is too much. EFF has promoted this concept for years, but they always talked about $5/month or so.
I would do $5/month. The problem would be people that are very price sensitive and only able to afford the lowest tier, say $15/mo; going from $15 to $20/mo is a 33% increase. | |
|
|  nwrickertsand groperPremium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
kudos:7 | If this were 23 cents per month (or $0.23), then I would probably put up with it, even though I don't download music. But $23 per month is absurd. | |
|
 h4x0r3dPremium
join:2003-04-13
Oxford, MS | . HELL NOO | |
|
 dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | Pay? For music? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! Uhm, no.
When I want to hear music, I listen to music for free.
Pay for it? Hell No!
There are ways to get music if you REALLY have to have a copy... Used CD stores!
Or, just record it. 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: Pay? For music? they tried and failed before but i wont be surprised if the Used CD store comes under attack again from the RIAA whining about lost second sale money. and they would try and buy the congressmen to do it too. im sure the RIAA would buy SCOTUS judges if they had to for getting what they want.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| maybe... It depends on a couple things.... maybe...
See, I already subscribe to Rhapsody. I know Comcast had a deal with them, but who knows how many subscribers actually stuck around after a few months...
The only problem w/Rhapsody is when artists/albums/songs just DISAPPEAR. It is by far the most aggravating thing about the service. I can deal with the occasional technical glitch, the occasional upgrade that isn't so great, the occasional little thing here or there, but I simply cannot stand it when I find things in my library just "greyed out" and GONE from the service. It happens to things that've been there for YEARS (yes, I've been a subscriber for years) or some things that I found a DAY ago 
The only other thing that's somewhat of a let down is the lack of rare content. Not a whole lot of b-sides or rare albums etc. Even eMusic, with all of its indie stuff is lacking there.
If there were a legal, wide open distribution system, with all the weird rare things out there, and none of it disappeared -forever- (  ) I'd consider it.
If Rhapsody, at $15/month (for "to go" service, they upped the regular "unlimited" from 10 to 13) can do what they do, make a whole client program, organize everything, make sure all "metadata" is there, and have video's, new releases, and editorial content, there's just no way I can see paying more than that for such a service. No more than $15/month, and it'd probably be worth it.
I can't see how this would be a bad idea, really. Even if you don't use it, ISP's could lower the cost of "normal" (read, lower speed - most people don't NEED even 5-10Mbps!) broadband anyway, and with this the price would probably settle down to around $5 more than what most people are paying ... In short, it COULD be worth it to anyone that cared, and wouldn't affect people (like TCH-Xtreem) who don't care.
I'd also be willing to bet that even those who claim not to care would give it a try and still find some things of interest........ That's the nature of music....
Looks like people over there in Denmark actually have a good idea in the works... | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
| | fee base i agree with the reasonable fee per song. but i already bought motley crue on tape,then cd this is why i do not regret dl it again. hell several artist i had there 8 track,tape,cd..
funny thing is i purchase more cds now than i used to because i have discovered so many new bands that are not played in my redneck holy than thou area..
--
»www.thereligionofpeace.com/ | |
|
| | Sure. I'd pay the subscription, just to keep the poor starving artists from becoming destitute.
Shyeah.
In all seriousness though, I actually would subscribe to something like this as long as the music is completely DRM free. If they tack on DRM though, you couldn't pay me to use the service...
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement... | |
|
| | | Re: Sure. Ha, I just posted about this also and I just checked and saw you did! Glad to see we have the same opinion on this.  | |
|
| | | | Re: Sure. "Great minds..." homie.  | |
|
|
| |
| | Pay to use some else's network resources? I can see to pay to download off some corporate server, especially like $23 per month, but to pay some corporation to download off my neighbor's pc (P2P), not, he is paying for the bandwidth not any corporation. Now if there was some way to pay for the rights to the music and then be able to acquire it through P2P paying less than normal corporate server download, then that would make sense. In the end the only way to rid one of a black market is to compete directly with a black market, price and or ease and or reliability. | |
|
robertflPremium
join:2005-10-10
Mary Esther, FL | Bullshit I think my subject says it all..
/me laughs.
-Rob | |
|
 viperpa33sWhy Me?Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL | Of course it's mandatory Each broadband subscriber would pay sixteen Euros ($23) a month, whether they downloaded music or not. If it was optional music plan then I would yes but not if it's mandatory. I don't buy enough music to warrant me paying an extra $23 a month. If I buy 20 songs a year, I am lucky. I already have all the music I need and not from P2P either. | |
|
|  ifarrell
join:2000-08-10
Willow Spring, NC | Re: Of course it's mandatory Wow, talk about extortion!
I hope they don't try that here, I'll go back into my cave and get my news and tech info the old fashioned way.
This is just another useless tax. | |
|
| |  Flat Rate ISP Fee For Unlimited Music Downloads?
| |
|
| | How about... They pay me $23 a month not to use p2p.
$23 is more then I spend a year on music. | |
|
| | Re: Flat rate. This is actually kind of funny. The quality of music that companies put out nowadays isn't that great. Imagine how much of a decline there would be if the companies knew that they were going to get their money regardless of sales. This would hurt the music industry more than it would help it. | |
|
| | | Re: Flat rate. ok here is what i dont get, you could download thousands of songs in one month, heck i got 2gb worth of techno in a matter of days, it was like 300 songs, wouldnt it be more like ripping off the music industry still? | |
|
|
|
·