Hell yeah! Give me a good selection and a decent bitrate and $5 a month is a friggin' steal.

Isn't this what Napster is trying to do nowadays?

You pay some monthly subscription fee and then have "unlimited downloads"?

If it means more reliable download speeds then I'm all for it. If not, then I'll take my chances with the dark side.

lol. Canada already essentially has this. There is a surcharge (effectively doubles the cost) on CDs (not DVDs).

The idea is that "what else are you using the CDs for but to burn music onto, so we're going to charge you for it". Nice of the US to start thinking of this now...

As wired already pointed out, this will not happen. The media conglomerates want to make this MANDATORY. There is no way they are going to get ISPs to increase service $5 a month (probably more with the red tape and "fees") and not have a huge consumer backlash from people who do not pirate and thus should not suffer.

The only way it will work is if this is an "opt-in" program.

It really would depend. I think there would be a lot of argument on the definition of "legal". Think about it, let's say we download a $100 Software from a P2P site. Would that count as a "legal" copy? Wouldn't the only legal copy of that software be buying it from the author, or an authorized reseller, of that software? I don't know what's illegal about P2P if its content isn't illegal. But since the content is illegal, P2P becomes illegal. Now, what we are proposing is that the content remains illegal but P2P becomes legal with a bribe. I think this is a dangerous solution. Many, many, many people would be mistaken by this confusing scheme of money and P2P.

It would be, but of course we're talking about a charge that merely *STARTS* at $5. It would steadily rise over the course of a few months/years and piracy would once again become most web-savvy users' first choice.

It would only *BEGIN* at $5...no doubt it would rise over time, making piracy most users' first choice.

well, since verizon seems to be protecting me anyway, fuck paying.

If this is mandatory for all ISP's, this wont work.

If it was truly unrestricted and DRM free I'd be all for it but alas there's a slim chance this will come to fruition.

Ok, but there must be stipulation that's its UNLIMITED, not crippled in any way, best quality available, then highest possible speed, and free from advertising, spyware, or any other mandatory included garbage that I don't want nor need then yes... Somehow, I can't see this happening, as ISP's would seriously get hit hard with leechers... maybe in countries like the US where it's able to support it... possibly, but other countries where there is barely broadband, and it's hideously expensive, and capped, I highly doubt it... They can barely cope now...

@rimplestultskin: lol. Verizon is protecting you by having a direct pipe to Quantico, but you know. Yea. lol. :)

they seem to have it all backwards, fuck what the math book said in high school. I'm telling you this now, once and for all "$0 > $5" !

@knvb1123: Hell you confused me now, I had to read to twice.

Paying for P2P?

That's blasphemy!!!

$5 per month for poorly tagged, and often low quality files? I'll pass. CDs are high quality, cheap, and easy to import into iTunes.

@ThatsMrOffDutyNinja: Do you want a more clear explanation, or did you understand it? =] Sorry, I made it "confusing" but I think this idea of "Paying for P2P" is coming completely off the wrong foot [aka, idea].

@knvb1123: I don't know what's illegal about P2P if its content isn't illegal. But since the content is illegal, P2P becomes illegal.

Um what?!

First of all, there's nothing illegal about P2P. P2P is nothing more than a bunch of protocols that allow the sharing of files.

The fact that a lot of people use it to share illegally copied content is a whole other matter. The fact is that P2P networks aren't 100% about pirated content.

For example, some open source (free) software is distributed via P2P networks (for example, linux distributions). And it's better to download that from bittorrent than from a mirror. In my experience, downloading pieces from 50 different peers is faster than downloading the whole thing from a mirror server (which is often throttled).

/I also download television shows on occassion. But only when something happens to screw up the copy on my tivo (for example, a power outage causing me to miss a show, or a local amber alert overriding the show, etc).

@knvb1123: But they are talking about MUSIC...they could release a P2P software that only can transfer music files...i like the idea, if i can find any artist there, i would even pay $10 a month

What a fantastic plan! So,
- ISPs, following Caveman principles, charge all their users $5/month because they're too stupid to figure out a better way.
- Everyone gets dinged monthly for a P2P surcharge, whether they download covered content or not.
- P2P users spend 30 minutes figuring out how to hide their tracks from ISP packet sniffing and continue downloading whatever they want for free without any limitation.

So, royalties would be mostly paid by people who don't download or people who follow the ISP's rules, and P2P-ers keep doing what they do now. Makes perfect sense.

Im guessing that they would monitor what you download and the changes on your computer. And that way they would regulate which artist gets what.
And if its only off of one site that the isp's provide or they all chip in with software and shxt then there's really no point.
Now if they collect all the data from the torrent websites and the torrents you download, the information being sent to your computer, etc. or the p2p client you use (ie: limewire, frostwire, etc.).
IDK though because i'd probably still be downloading movies, and cd's off of mininova.
But i said i was going to stop so I am.
IDK convices me i'm sold. Verizon should do this so i could use that FiOS connection to get some kickass download speeds.

fuck, we canadians already pay a tax for P2P compensation. No RIAA bustin our asses up here!

If I was paying MAFIAA $5 a month, it's not longer 'piracy', it's a moral incentive to archive every decent album and movie EVAR.

Nope, I wouldn't switch over. Not if labels are involved. If it's put up by a coalition of independent artists, I'll happily subscribe, but I'm not supporting labels. They're completely unnecessary in today's music business, and I'd be quite happy to see them die off altogether.

@SnakeDiver: There has been a "license surcharge" on "music CD-Rs" and "music cassettes" for a while now--even in the US. CD-Rs specifically earmarked and sold as "music CD-Rs" have an up-charge on them that goes to the recording industry. At least, they used to. Maybe they stopped doing that.

No.

You can get a subscription to Microsoft's Zune service for $15 a month and share it between 3 computers and 3 devices, making it $5 a month for each person, but that doesn't seem to be putting a dent in piracy. Of course, that might be because you can only listen to the music on one of those PCs or a Zune.

Disclaimer: I have multiple Zune devices and a subscription, and think it's a great services, but recognize that most of the world either can't purchase a Zune because they're only sold in NA or would rather cut off their right nut/breast than buy a product from Microsoft, so this is not an option that most people are going to use to get their $5 a month fix.

NEVER! HACK THE PLANET! *teehee* I don't do that crap anyway. I like packages. It makes me feel proud to be able to say "I like this. I want more of this in the world... I'm paying for it." Is that wrong?

@marm0lade: @Luuey: What? Did you call my name? It's essentially a Mandatory_Fee here in Canada when you buy blank media -- whether you use that media to pirate or not. I don't think that it's unfair. And nothing stops people from voting with their "bits" and supporting independent artists by downloading indys, if the redistribution of funds is determined by what's actually downloaded, under this proposed scheme. Hell, if it were totally legal for everyone to DL copyrighted material, then it wouldn't BE piracy, and everyone (or at least many more) would do it. Nor would it put commercial services out of business, as many would find it worth a premium for guaranteed quality and higher bitrates....

If anyone can legally get anything they want from a torrent, anywhere, anytime, for $5 a month, wouldn't that cut music, video, software, etc. sales in half?

There's no option that says "I buy used CD's for cheap and don't DL music/movies I don't own."
or just....

I don't DL Illegally.

I support net neutrality and this looks like a slippery slope.

I believe in a good cause, and I will neither confirm or deny that I download music illegally.

However this is a great alternative. I as I'm sure others have theorized that the music industry is merely an archaic form of distribution, promotion and record printing was only made as a means to get music to people in the first place. All that extra was overhead and eventually pure profit the industries turned it into. Now there's such a better system in place and it's done through natural maturing of technology and the internet. Sooner or later they're going to have to face the music and realize that this isn't something they can squander and they must embrace it or fall to pieces trying to fight it.

well if they slap some good id3 tags on the music and i don't have to use anything remotely like limewire, i wouldn't mind it.

of course they would almost definitely cap download speeds, and then give you from nasty fines/hidden fees if you go over a certain quota.

There is one potential positive to this, increased incentive for artist to put out something...you know...GOOD! Since the total pot would be divided out by popularity of download, if the band makes crap, they get crap. Of course, that's pretty much how its been all along anyway.

@David Hildreth: Seconded. I don't like that it goes to ISPs, in fact it is something I would like to investigate more.

Ultimately though when you get fingered for file sharing it's because your ISP agreed to cooperate with the label that wanted you got in the first place. They are a gateway and without their consent the record label isn't allowed to know what you're downloading. How else do you think they find out? Them monitoring your downloads and pursuing legal action by themselves was already a court case that was thrown out due to invasion of privacy. This is how they do it legally.

I think it's a stupid idea.

Firstly, the ISP would have to look at and identify every bit of P2P data that they handle. Unless all the P2P stuff is centralized (which of course, defeats the whole purpose of P2P), that kind of tracking looks awfully difficult.

Secondly, this sounds like an involuntary surcharge, so it's a bad idea that you're making everyone pay when not everyone violates the law (or not all violate to the same degree).

Thirdly, the article never said that such a surcharge would make P2P legal, just that it would compensate artists (and the recording industry, I assume).

Hell no! Its all great that the artists get their share of the $5, but are they gonna be giving some of that to Adobe every time someone downloads Photoshop? Or give it to WB when someone downloads the new Batman movie? I don't think so!

The internet is far past the age of just downloading music, everything is available to anyone and they can't use a surcharge to pay everyone off.

I'm starting to get sick and tired of the record labels and such going to the ISPs and putting pressure on them. Illegal downloading has nothing to do with them, they simply provide a service. You wouldn't blame the Post Office for what people send in the post!

I'd pay a SERVICE (not an ISP) $5/mo for unlimited DRM-Free music downloads. I'd even pay $20/mo for unlimited video downloads.

Better yet, do what Russia did (AllOfMp3). I bet they'd make a killing.

They will probably be monitoring everything you do for that measly $5. You will probably soon get email advertisements related to the stuff that you download, which can be a little embarassing if you have an usual taste.

"We recently noticed that you downloaded Poo Eating Sluts 8. Here is a selection of websites that can cater to your needs..."

All who do like to buy original at this time would also go for the "legal p2p", and result in even smaller profits for the artists, and vendors. I think...

@Aqua32: I loved AllOfMp3. It was a great model and would have worked here if the RIAA did not fear the future.

I say it depends on the pirate. For a lot of 'em, it's a cost/benefit equasion; if they can afford the extra $5, then they'll probably go for it, but if money's tight, not having the extra "service" ain't gonna stop 'em.

5>FREE!

I don't pirate, the worst I've done is allofmp3.com :\

The only way I would pay $5 a month would be if they made it impossible for me to download illegally. why pay if you can get it for free? In any case, most of the stuff i download i already own in another format--vinyl, 8 track, cassette...i already payed for the rights to listen to the music, why pay for it again? There aren't any materials to be paying for, so really it shouldn't be neccesary to pay again.

if it's legal, what's preventing me from doing 2 chicks at once? Oh shit; wrong blog

Hell yes. Plus there would be safeguards against viruses packaged with those precious, precious songs.

I thought the problem with AllofMP3 was that it didn't pay anybody fees for the music. They kept all of the money for themselves. Unless I misunderstand, it's effectively piracy, except here, you're paying a middleman instead of getting it "from the source".

The problem is selection. If they cant compete with the market (other torrent p2p sites) then they are just bound to fail. You would need to make the equivalent of itunes (removed of DRM) and at monthly subscription of $5! No way would the companies sign on for it...

This technically can not count as "legalizing" P2P. Legalizing would be: do what you are doing now, we will not come after you any more".

$5 a month is just a clever way of putting yet an other tax on the consumers. If a person is swapping files using P2P without paying the surcharge, I'll bet it would still be "illegal".

@Spyrojoe: I think you are missing the point. They are not going to provide a site for you to download this music from at a decent bitrate, all tagged and neat. The $5 charge just allows you to get your music via exiting P2P means, like Limewire or BitTorrent.

Also, about the Zune Pass. I am a ZP subscriber. I first got it for my wife, because I didn't want to be bothered having to download music for her. But since I also bought a Zune, I've started using it as well. Overall, I have to say its not too bad. My biggest gripes are that some of their ID3 tags aren't too accurate. Like they will tag some songs on the same album as "album title (Parental Advisory)" and some just "album title", so it creates two albums out of one in the Zune software. And second, I'm really unhappy that their entire library isn't available. I don't mind if the artist or songs arent available at all, but if its available on the Marketplace, I shouldn't have to pay extra for it with the Zune Pass.

Hmm, seems a cheap way for the Gov't or the labels to find all the " pirates" that have caused all this mess!
count me out! Not that I use P2P but I have in the past...long before the big " crack-down "
I would be VERY leary of this. Kinda like offering a drug pusher a flat fee per month to not get arrested, then when they all sign on.....the bustin begins!!!

I think people here are making a lot of assumptions here like that if this came in to effect, all copyrighted material would be put in a big database with free direct downloads for everyone. The group that proposed this motion the Songwriters Association of Canada and they want to charge a $5 fee to every Canadian internet connection to make up for all the copyrighted music being downloaded. There will be no change to the services provided by Canadian ISPs. People who download copyrighted material will have to continue to download it the same way they always have (limewire, bittorrent, etc.).
This is a stupid idea. If it goes through that movie studios will want $5 a month too, and then tv studios, and then artists and software companies and game companies,etc., etc.
Here is a link to the story: [www.canada.com]

Oh yeah, it is not currently illegal to download copyrighted material in Canada anyway.