You for got to ask "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Expect a subpoena from the RIAA for the IPs of everyone who voted yes **or** no.

Skeptic

Bottom line: ain't gonna happen.

Skeptic

crugg

fastmike

BigViper

$5 subscription to a download service a la iTunes? ...those businesses already exist. They'd be wasting their time.

As for me, I don't download music. I DO download television from other countries. Somehow I think the $5 doesn't apply to me, therefore I give it a "meh".

linoth

Why should my grandma pay $5 a month when shes obviously not downloading illegally?

The $5 is not to punish people, it's to support the production of content people otherwise download for free. Think of it like cable TV - you pay a monthly fee and have access to lots of content. If this were an established system, P2P wouldn't hide in the shadows, but be completely 100% grandma-friendly so that she could download all the Barry Manilow, Frank Sinatra, and Sex Pistols that she wanted.

And if your grandma decided to steal your guitar while you were sleeping, and invest all her money in producing an album that went on to be a surprise online hit with one million downloads in one week, she would get a proportional percentage of the combined $5 fees for that week that would reimburse her investment and encourage all the other grandmas in the world to produce hit albums, and the world would be a better place.

Or maybe there would be an opt out so if you didn't want any music at all, you wouldn't have to pay the $5.

frigg

The only way I would agree to pay $5 per month is for complete immunity. I download whatever is out there, and I upload whatever I want, and nobody comes crying to me about their copyrights. Movies, music, games, Photoshop, whatever. No DRM, no lawsuits, no nothing.

That's the idea.

frigg

Labels are going about this in the completely wrong direction. They need to EMBRACE p2p and music sharing, and start doing what their original purpose was: to provide quality music to people, and stop wiping their asses with hundred dollar bills.

although that said I do like the idea of artists getting royalties for how often their music is traded.

pevans34

Needless to say, this will not happen.

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

The simple fact of the matter is, once more artists start distributing their music by way of fair pricing schemes that work (ie.. NIN's new album) instead of the BS that record companies have been force feeding the masses for so long... all these pirating issues will go the way of HD-DVD.

phor11

Now, here's a question. If you had, say, 20,000 Mp3s already... and then you started paying this "tax"... would all those songs become "legit", since technically, you could now download all of them legally if they did something like that?

How would they be able to tell the difference?

corvettejoe89

"We wont arrest you and take you to court as long as you pay us $5 a month" hmmmmm reminds me of the movie american gangster.

teqsun.com

.tox

frigg

As an independent musician, wouldn't you welcome the opportunity to get paid if people download your music?

Are you familiar with the ASCAP / BMI system? This is applying that model to the internet. And just as musicians can self-publish (you don't need an established publisher to get royalties through ASCAP), you wouldn't need an established record label to receive your share of the pie.

Maybe at the user level, there could be an opt-in or opt-out option so that if someone didn't want any music, they wouldn't have to pay. Obviously, the ISP would track that (aren't they starting to do that already as an "experiment"?) and if you downloaded more than a certain threshold, the surcharge would kick in.

frigg

There will never be an acceptance of the RIAA from me. That ship has already sailed.

axiomatic

entropyman

People who are concerned about limited offerings miss the point. Everyone would pay at the ISP. The money would then go into a pot, and be distributed to music creators based on a sampling of internet traffic. For musicians, the more your music is downloaded, the bigger the piece of the pie you would get. And for the downloader, there's no restriction. You download whatever you want. Because the fee is at the ISP, not at a particular service, you're not limited to what a particular service offers. The world is your oyster, and the oysters get paid.

That way, if you download some obscure indie tune and other people download it as well, that artist's traffic goes up and they get a bigger piece of the pie. If their music drives 1% of music traffic that month, for example, they get 1% of the music money pie. The musician gets paid and can spend more time creating music instead of designing t-shirts and serving cappuccinos at Starbucks.

It's no different than the current ASCAP model which samples radio stations and clubs and divides a pot of money collected from licensing fees (all those ASCAP stickers on doors you see everywhere mean that store/restaurant has paid a fee to ASCAP for music). The money collected from all those fees go into a pot, and is distributed to music publishers based on how much their music is played. It's a fair system and one that the musicians themselves struggled to put into place so that places that make money off of the use of their music pay them something as well.

A "music tax" at the ISP isn't about supporting a big bad label or the ISP. It will become an essential component in the next generation music industry that will look nothing like the current one. Without it, music will be increasingly unpaid for which would make it increasingly difficult to produce.

Of approximately 150,000 people who downloaded Saul Williams' album produced and promoted by Trent Reznor, less than 20% paid for it despite the absence of an "evil record company" and Reznor acting like a cheerleader to encourage fans to pay. That barely recovers the cost of recording it in the first place.

So given that the tidal wave of free digital distribution of music can't be stopped, and musicians should be paid for their recordings like anyone should be paid for anything that costs them time, talent, and money to make and is consumed by a bunch of people, the inevitable solution is some kind of ASCAP-like system gone digital.

For downloaders, aside from the $5/month, it should be invisible. For music creators, they should get a check based on the percentage of traffic their music is generating. And for labels... their cut will be based on whatever they turn into and whatever deals they strike with artists and producers. For example, a future music label might agree to some kind of split with the artist in return for production (possibly), hosting (possibly) and promotion (probably) in a much more limited, lean agreement than the indentured servitude of traditional label contracts.

frigg

Benifits:
Users gain liability protection
Trade group/Labels gain popularity statistics and $$$$
ISP don't have to change infrastructure or billing practices
Regulators do not have to impose any more draconian law

Drawbacks:
There will still be hardcore pirates, but at least those pirates are not providing a service because they are paying for the storage space and bandwidth for sharing content with paying users so the Trade group/Label/Artist doesn't have to.

punknubbins

Nyle

smitty1123

I think that for something as little as $5 a month, most people are not going to raise too much of a fuss

rraszews

asabru88

T3hG33k

phoomp

uberfu

10/23 NEVER FORGET!!

endless

This charge is a levy on all ISP's that would make you pay a fixed sum per month on top of your broadband charges to take account for any illegal material you may be downloading.

I for one think this is a brilliant idea. Fuck, even if it was $10 extra a month, I would still go for it. Why? Because the assurance of knowing that I can download a shit-load of content from whatever source I so wish *without* the possibility of being arrested or charged with illegal downloading of content would be worth it on it's own.

I also *want* to give back to the artists and actors unlike most of you cheap cheap bastards.

We get daily entertainment for FREE. What do you expect? People who put in hard work to just give you all their shit for free? WAKE UP.

As for those above who said that they purchase all their own songs / movies /whatever and do not P2P at all, I believe the ISP's should have an opt-out option.

however...the following clause should be put in place for such people..

If you are found to be using P2P for downloading illegal content when an opt-in option was made available to you, you are responsible for paying a very large fee for being a lying wh0re ;)

legacye

mkasdin

xeggbert

Fulfill those two criteria and I'd pay something like $50 a month, no problem. Artists deserve it (and they should get a large share of the cut), even though cheapskates like twreckx will always be around wanting everything in life to be free.

Hey, twreckx, I'm sure you don't mind me borrowing your car tomorrow? Great, thanks! I'll take it for free, because I figure it's easier that way.

digidandy

twreckx

I don't see this happening because:
a) it destroys media publishers (unless they start their own online distribution that is somehow cheaper, like vonage vs TW cable)

b) it destroys retail sales (would you go rent something you could download while at work and come home and watch it?)

c) it destroys all the blockbusters (netflix would die too because again why rent something when you can download it faster, easier.)

But it'd be cool.

phimuskapsi

mcjake

slumlord

jamar0303

Lizard_King

Why? Simple: Limited amount and variety of media.

From what I understand, the collection of movies and music would be limited to the artists involved in it.

One of the greatest things in p2p networks is having access to rare, unusual, independent and different content.

At least for me. I rarely download games, movies and music I can buy easily on online stores and stuff. You know, the mainstream stuff.

And if I do, it's usually to try it out before definitely buying them, because demos usually are too poor (if not defective) to give a real feeling of the product itself (demos for games, trailers for movies).

People must learn, and eventually separate the buying because you like it, from supporting those who made the stuff that entertains you.

So yeah... I would gladly pay a monthly fee for a fair content (much like cable TV it seems). But it probably wouldn't lure pirates from the dark side... mainly because it might not be a "dark side" at all.

It all depends on the reasons why a given pirate does it.

One thing that most people don't seem to notice also is that piracy is forcing big companies and labels to put fair prices on their products, with stuff like the one on this topic. If this wasn't a profitable business, no one would be considering doing so.

Bokusatsu_Tenshi

Great selection and legal? Of course I would pay who wouldn't? Maybe college kids (when I was in college I had no money and spent all day taping people albums) but any grown adult who likes music/tv would be much better off with this than taking their chances with crappy quality and long downloads.

I seriously doubt the labels would agree to something this sensible, although the $60/year would be alot more than they get out of me now...

stwf

WolfDV

These ideas are a fat-cat's grab at easy money if we allow it. If you produce crap, why should you get any money? It's a gamble that you will lose if you play it, so why be such a bitch and blame the guy who's downloading music, except it's not your music? Worse yet, blame everyone who has the capacity to download music.

Hell, while we're talking about capacity, why don't we just put everyone on death row for having the capability to commit murder? Hyperbole, yes. But how much stupidity are we willing to tolerate before it will affect everyone?

If you don't take a dump on these twits over the little things, then it just gets easier for them to take it further.

Weren't certain gun taxes repealed for a somewhat similar issue?

electrikecho

ridered

Guess what? DRM, it sucks, and I don't want it.

Until I am trusted enough to get music without DRM restricting me, I will not be paying for much music! ;)

fLUx1337

I kind of like the idea of artists actually jumping through hoops and offering more/quality stuff in order to get our (increasingly devalued US) $$. I just don't see this working-not for long anyway. Something doesn't seem right...

Gadgetgirl

Mandatory_Field

wolfbane65

origamimavin

AxCrusnik

AxCrusnik

97Intruder

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.

MadOx23

$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".

Mag

simmo

Maltose

Ghede

discounteggroll

waffleking77

Jitty

Slavik0329

Rhainor

EmptyRepublic

Faforce

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

MickyK

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

Aqua32

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!

robdonn

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).

Maltose

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.

Absent Blue

deciBels

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.

jbhitter24

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.

Absent Blue

David Hildreth

I don't DL Illegally.

socioecoboy

Ethan Allison

Mandatory_Field

Face_523

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.

Hyloka

Petezah

残心

YourTechSupport

Rob C

SneakerFiend

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.

gmaxwell447

Mike918

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).

lordargent

keehun

Galley

That's blasphemy!!!

Voohoo

ThatsMrOffDutyNinja

Zan

SnakeDiver

tetrion

flame500

Luuey

rimplestultskin

peteH

peteH

keehun

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

marm0lade

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...

SnakeDiver

Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!

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

WasabiJoe

Spyrojoe