Would you pay $5/mo to be able to share music legally?

[Danny Boy]

Looks like the RIAA is kicking around the idea of a $5/mo surcharge on ISPs to compensate artists, publishers and music labels for revenue lost to filesharing.

It sounds like people will be up in arms about having to pay for other people's filesharing, but I think if they "legalize" file sharing, then everyone will be doing it.

Probably the kiss of death for iTunes and other online music stores...

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2008/03/music_levy

 

[BVS]

I think it should be an optional fee...

 

[Danny Boy]

I don't see how optional would work. The universal fee frees the RIAA from having to police the internet and saves them the legal expenses of going after infringers.

If the fee was optional, few people would pay it, and the RIAA would have to continue monitoring those who aren't paying.

Plus they get stinking rich in the process. $5 a month from every household in the country with an internet connection is a pretty big haul.

 

[deep]

at just a quick look

I think it should be a mandatory fee


much like radio and even bars and others places pay
a fee that is put into a pool

and distributed to *music rights* owners

based on some sort of number of plays method


let iTunes die.

or morph to a market place to expose music




let iPods be
a device to listen to music

 

[BVS]

Well the fact that it's only 5 dollars I would agree with you, but anymore and there will be a lot of pissed off people who are paying for a service they don't use.

But they already have optional packages as it is now with varying download and upload rates, I can see designing a package like that one that was too slow to really do much downloading if they chose not to take that package.

 

[corianderstem]

I'd pay an extra $5 a month for that, no problem. But I understand why some people would be all riled up about it.

 

[Vincent Vega]

And another $5 for the movie industry, plus another $5 for the book publishers.

RIAA isn't the only one.

 

[Liesje]

Sure. I'd prefer it just came with the service though, just raise the price of the service $5/mo and be done with it. Internet is relatively cheap these days, considering the usage of people like myself (I'm basically on 24/7, not AT the computer, but it's always running some process that requires I'm online).

Our school uses Ruckus for free music downloads and file sharing. The cost is built in to the students' technology fee which is now built into tuition. Not everyone uses the service, but that's just the way it is at this college. If it's THAT big of a deal, find a different school (or in this case, ISP).

 

[CTU2fan]

It would have to be everybody. I do think people will complain (probably while downloading themselves), but I'd say that's fair. Cable already does the same, every channel that's added to your basic service gives your bill a boost.

Good point VV about other industries though, movies/publishers/software companies will still be yelling and wanting their piece of the pie.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

if they would have done this 10 years ago they wouldn't be in the situation they're in today. now frankly i think it's too little, too late.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

^

 

[sulawesigirl4]

I already pay an outrageous amount to stupid Comcast for internet/cable service. Last month they cut back on our service (less channels) and raised rates at the same time. Hooray. And in my particular geographic area, there is no real competition, so they can pretty much charge what they want and we have to suck it up. I don't d/l music and don't really feel like paying more for something I don't use.