Having Failed on All Fronts: Music Industry Proposes a Piracy Surcharge on ISPsThe RIAA's newest proposal is that ISPs pay them $5 per month per user. It's the ISPs fault piracy exists because they get user A to user B to swap files. I guess this would be like convenience stores charging car companies to subsidize shoplifting losses.
I can't decide if this is stupider than their previous attempt to get 25% of the sale of blank cds or not.
Seriously though, who does the RIAA think they are? How self absorbed is this organization?
Even if they proved everyone averaged $5 a month in music purchases before the internet, they are still trying to say that at least 10+% of the reason anyone and everyone has an internet connection is to steal music.
This would be a good thing personally, because it's actually a "licensing fee" meaning p2p would be perfectly legit but I don't think every broadband user should have to pay it.
View External Link [www.wired.com]
Back to Link List
|Alex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret|
It's a horrible idea in that people who don't use it have to pay for it (not that there aren't other thing like this, but precedent doesn't make it right).
First off the industry has to realize their golden age has ended and it's probably never coming back. Secondly come up with better ways to sell people what they want and many people will pay for it. One of the things they mention is that online sales aren't bringing in a lot of money because it's mostly people buying singles. Well, then maybe artists shouldn't make 12 track albums with 1 song that's really good and 11 songs that are crap. Basically they are complaining that they can no longer take something people want, bundle it with something people don't want, and then charge a lot for the whole package.
|Jeremy - 9002 Posts|
Well, if they pared "my" 5-10 cent MP3 idea with a policy that you have to by the whole album, that wouldn't really be the worst thing in the world.
Alternatively if they charged like $10 a month for an all you can eat service to those that wanted it people might do that, but I don't think that would be as universally adopted in a "let's not pirate music" sense as a trivially low per mp3 charge because that's still $120 a year for music weather or not you download any.
The other side of this is what happens to iTunes and Rhapsody if all of a sudden music is "free" with your internet connection? Does this count business connections too? Why just the RIAA? What happens with the MPAA wants in? What the hell kind of policy is "well you could steal this from me so I'll offset my losses by just billing you ahead of time" anyway? How did they even get people to a meeting involving this idea, let alone have people seriously considering it?
|Micah - 584 Posts|
|I still don't understand anyone that pays to download music anyway. Why are people paying $10 for an album with crappy sound quality, when the CD is $0-5 more. Although I really only buy CDs anymore if they come with DVD's or sweet packaging.|
|Alex - 3618 Posts|
256 kpbs is good enough quality for me and I'm saving the evironment by not consuming the CD, packing, transportation of said items, etc. The only reason I've bought any music in the last 2 years was to put it on my phone to listen to at work, so I don't want a physical cd at all.
I agree with all of Jeremy's points, and for the record there are some albums on Amazon where you have to buy the whole thing or some singles on albums that you can only get by buying the whole album. Which actually stopped me from buying the awesome song at the end of the Bourne movies so I could haxor myself a new ringtone. I was willing to pay 99 cents for the single but I wasn't paying 9 dollars for the whole soundtrack just to make a ringtone and never listen to the rest of it.
Anyway, my point was going to be that their proposal reminds me a lot of cable. I get 70 channels, but if I had to pay for them individually or in smaller packages, I'd probably only pick like 20 of those max and I would pick some that I don't currently get. Hopefully the Internet tears that system apart though and is not used to implement the same system for music.
|Micah - 584 Posts|
Alex Wrote - 03/14/2008 @ 06:29:14 PM
256 kpbs is good enough quality for me
If you're only listening on your phone, then I completely agree. Its only when you get into listening on pretty quality gear that you would need any better than that.
|Alex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated|
RIAA killed the radio star, star = customizable online radio stations with subscription fees for no advertising and skipping whenever you want
|PackOne - If you got a problem ... yo i'll solve it.|