Here’s an interesting idea. Read this article.
Makes kind of sense to me, but obviously not a simple situation.
that’s a really interesting idea
Hell… I’d pay it…
3.41133929 Euros/month seems like something I could pay for downloading music for “free”, but I already know that if this comes to to pass(a big IF, if I might add) there’ll be some funky tax on top of it that’ll make it 20€/month for us Finns…
Just how will that $5 get to the artists that you will download?
And what if the movie industry decides to do the same?
And the publishing industry?
We’d have to pay because it’s assumed we use it?
hunter551’s got a good point. Why should anyone want to save an industry that screws its customers and its suppliers? The sooner the “industry” goes out of business the better. This is just a scam to keep the suits in business. The musicians will continue to pay to play, not get paid except by performing live, and us music consumers will give money every month to support a bunch of publicists telling us how much we enjoy getting the shaft.
Bleh.
If they are going to run this through the ISPs, how about this plan? I pay $5 per month and it’s distributed among all the websites I visit, proportional to the number of bytes received. If I spend half my time here, BlenderArtist’s gets $2.50. If I spend a month downloading songs, the artists split the $5.00. If I read the news on-line every day, the news web site gets a bit of that $5.00 each month. The money goes directly to the web site. No middle man taking a cut. If it’s taxed, the tax goes to supporting the internet infrastructure, similar to the way federal gas tax in the US supports highway construction.
if my ISP starts taxing me that money, then they better start hosting all the worlds music for their clients on their servers in high quality!
Other than that, i can see this somehow working.
Virtually every song ever recorded is available through peer-to-peer file-sharing (more than 79 million recordings). Only 3 million songs are available on legal sites.
i’m gonna have to throw up the bullshit flag on that one.:eyebrowlift:
SAC argues the fee would remove the stigma of illegality from file-sharing and represents exceptional value to the consumer, since it would allow unlimited access to the majority of the world’s repertoire of recorded music.
and on this one too. maybe the “stigma” would be removed, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll be legal.
this will make some artists get more money, and some get less. not cool.
Oh, yes, let’s save the people who exploit the artists and make them money machines.
Well, it’s always good to blame the P2P filesharing, thank god the music industry has such a scapegoat!!!