Unlimited Legal Music Downloads for $3.95 a Month? 244
fishmasta writes "I'm at a major university studying the music industry, so we get to regularly talk to executives in the major labels. In a recent talk with someone working at Warner Bros, she brought up an idea they want to try where all file sharing is legalized by paying $4-5 a month through an ISP, all downloads are permanent, and you can get them from any source, and do what you want with them. It seems like some in the industry are starting to 'get it.' I was just wondering what Slashdot thinks of this idea. Would you be willing to pay a small fee each month if you could get all the music you want and have no legal liability?"
El-Man has another take on that subject replacing "unlimited" with a set number of licenses: "I believe that people are basically honest (maybe a failing, but it's how I feel), and are quite happy to pay for something of value. With music downloads, the only solution the recording industry has come up with is wrapping digital files with onerous, incompatible DRM systems, suing those whom they say have illegally distributed music (what is it, 13000 people and counting? Surely the courts have better things to do!), and generally not doing themselves or music lovers any good. How about a system, whereby a user can purchase a license for [n] amount of digital music files? Numbers can be, 10, 50, 100, 200, etc. Doesn't matter what the files are, as long as the number is not exceeded. There'd be a lot of details to thrash out, but is this something that is ultimately workable?"
If you were an executive of a medium-to-large sized record company, how would you handle the potential of the Internet?
Oh Canada... (Score:5, Informative)
Goddamn Finland ... (Score:4, Informative)
This law was mostly forced on the parliament by our beloved culture minister (former Miss Finland), who insisted that the copyright law should promote just the copyright holders' interests, consumer rights are out of scope and should be addressed in consumer rights legislation (which is likely not going to be modified in near future at all).
Re:Oh Canada... (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I find the idea of paying a levy on every piece of media I *could* use to pirate music repugnant. I do sound for a Dharma center where we have a lot of teachings; we record them and give them away for free. Having to pay a levy for an iPod or for CDs or whatever is completely unfair in this case - we aren't getting any of that money back when people copy our audio (nor do we want it - the audio is *supposed* to be free).
Meanwhile, because of all the paranoia from the music industry, it's very difficult to record anything - there are so many attempts to close the analog hole and to avoid perfect copies that, to this day, it is a struggle to get any kind of usable equipment that works for us - e.g., something where you push "record" and you get a clean digital recording. If you have the bucks for really expensive pro gear this isn't out of the question, but all of the sub-$1k equipment is deliberately crippled.
Re:Oh Canada... (Score:2, Informative)
Er, no. The copyright act does not says that you have to OWN the work you copy. And the supreme court said it's okay to share music for downloading on a P2P system.
Nice try, industry shill.
Re:Oh Canada... (Score:3, Informative)
>If you don't mind spending thousands of dollars, you can get clean audio
What about a $300 sound card like M-Audio with breakout box and 1/4" plugs? Or is this the "quite expensive but still consumer-grade piece of equipment that...simply stopped delivering?"
Actually, M-Audio and similar cards with 1/4" plugs would seem to fall under the category of pro gear. I understand everything you are saying about crippled consumer hardware but maybe the pr
Re:Oh Canada... (Score:3, Interesting)
In general, ALSA drivers are good, but only for non-obscure equipment. The M-Audio gear is sufficiently obscure that I'd have to have a lot of miles on it in testing before I'd trust it live. Pretty much the difference betwe
Re:Oh Canada... (Score:2)
Is it worse than suing children and grandmothers after they download a few songs... or don't download them as the case may be?
Re:Oh Canada... (Score:3, Funny)
-Eric
Re:Oh Canada... (Score:2)
Re:Oh Canada... (Score:2)
Re:Oh Canada... (Score:4, Insightful)
Home recording legal in the US (Score:2)
In the United States, you have every right [cornell.edu] to get together with friends and make copies of music on analog tape, or digital copies of music on digital audio recording equipment. This is per the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 [wikipedia.org].
I'm not sure what this means about copying a CD someone else bought to a tape, but copying a CD for a friend using digital audio equipment and audio cds is perfectly legal, and copying an audio tape to a
In short... (Score:2)
Re:In short... (Score:2)
This is not about the rights per-se. It's about offering the fucking **AA alternative means of income so they'll ease up on their whole campaign against "piracy".
Canadians can make copies of music from any source (Score:2, Informative)
No where does it state that the copier must own an original. When the Copyright review board last reviewed the CD levy the board specifically stated th
Yes. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yes. (Score:2)
Re:Yes. (Score:2)
-Eric
Re:And now you can (Score:2)
sounds good in theory... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:sounds good in theory... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is, most likely, what the record companies are going to wind up asking
Re:sounds good in theory... (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, it may not be very accurate distributing your $5 payment to the right artists, but in aggregate such a system is surprisingly accurate. Nielsen Soundscan already tracks paid downloads. It wouldn't be hard for them to track popularity of P2P downloads too.
Re:sounds good in theory... (Score:5, Interesting)
However what happens to the tracking if the artists themselves decide to boost their income by having bots download their songs as often as possible?
Tracking P2P downloads is probably simple and accurate as long as noone is profiting directly from the results. As soon as an individuals salary is completely dependant on these figures then I think it will get much more difficult to ensure the correctness of the results - it is too easy for people to influence.
Re:sounds good in theory... (Score:4, Interesting)
That should be no problem. Lets say everybody pays x dollars a month, and lets say three dollars of everyone's payments is to be distributed to the artist. If all you download in one month is one Britney Spears song, she gets your three dollars. If you download her song tenthousand times, she gets three dollars. If you download ten different songs, everyone gets 30 cents, if you download 1000 different songs, everyone gets 0.3 cents.
The bot can only produce three dollars of income to an artist, but it needs an ISP address where more than three dollars are paid, so it is a net loss.
What would be dangerous is a virus that gets copied on many machines of paying consumers and downloads stuff they don't want.
Re:sounds good in theory... (Score:2, Informative)
They'll make the same they do from CD sales, which is nearly zero. If an artist makes money it's from licensing, publishing, merchandise and touring.
The average person now spends about $4.50 / month (Score:2)
The RIAA, for 2004, reported about $12BN in total music sales [riaa.com], including CDs, Cassettes, Vinyl LPs, and any other form of physical media. (Note: According to the RIAA, the average CD sold for $14.90 --- that's tremendously high!) This does not include any download sales, nor does it include concerts, artist merchandise, licensing songs for movies, commercials, etc. This is basically what American consumers gave to the RIAA.
(Note: I do
Re:The average person now spends about $4.50 / mon (Score:3, Interesting)
I have several problems with the all-u-can-eat buffet ...How about: When the RIAA gets their welfare cheque will they still have any interest in producing music (i.e. the much vaunted incentive is gone)
Currently the RIAA has two tasks:
They don't produce content: Artists do, and always will.
The problem for the RIAA is that interne
Re:sounds good in theory... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure they can: If an artist puts 10 songs on a CD that sells for $15, it comes to $1.50 a song. The label takes its profit, and the artist takes the rest. That's the way it works now, no?
Artists have to churn out songs one after another to keep a steady income. Most just can't keep up. Result? CDs filled with crappy songs that cost way too much.
Fast-forward a bit. Now, the record labels have figu
I don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't this basically just stealing from people who don't illegally download music off the Internet? Because basically you have to pay whether you download songs or not. I don't download copyrighted music anymore, but if Warner keeps advocating stealing from me I just might start stealing from them again in retaliation.
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
How so? Just have it as an extra cost item in your service.
"Do you want to include the $3.95 music download fee in your broadband subscription? []Yes []No"
If my broadband bill went from $50 to $54, AND included actual, legal, reliable, fast downloads? Hell yes.
Not that this will happen anytime soon, but yeah,I would.
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Informative)
The US has it too. "Data" CDs don't have the tax. "Music" CDs do. The difference is one bit in the header, and a few bucks at checkout time.
The name of the law taxing music CDs (and DAT tapes, etc) is AHRA - Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, an amendment to the U.S. federal Copyright Act of 1976. It's often called the "DAT tax", but it applies to music CD-Rs too.
http://drmwatch.webopedia.com/TERM/A/AHRA.html [webopedia.com]
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/truth [boycott-riaa.com]
http://www.eff.org/cafe/cafe_case_analysis.html [eff.org]
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
But then I considered this:
Where does that $3.95 or $10 or whatever go? Directly to the RIAA, and filtered down to the actual label and eventually the artist.
Now what happens to all the minor labels, the ones that aren't part of the RIAA? I'm not talking about companies like Magnatune that distribute low-bitrate recordings for free, but labels that charge per download?
Since this initiative will inevitibly result in an "I've paid my monthly dues so I can download any music for free" meme, the small labels will be forced to either give the music away for nothing or join the RIAA to get a piece of the pie. Of course this will effectively give the RIAA a total monopoly on music dollars.
I'm not saying free downloads are necessarily a bad thing, but it's just something to consider.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess it depends on what was meant by 'download'. If they're talking about downloading from the current (or something similar) P2P programs, i.e. off some dudes hard drive, then no way I'd pay money for that. You'd still be left with the all too common partial files, mislabeled files, slooooow downloads, etc.
Now, if it was something like emusic.com used to be. All you can eat legal mp3's, for a flat fee, then h
Re:I don't get it (Score:2, Informative)
I'd buy that for a dollar! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'd buy that for a dollar! (Score:2)
(First Google hit for "mr rogers theme song" is
http://www.tripletsandus.com/80s/tv_theme_wav.htm [tripletsandus.com]
If.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If.... (Score:2)
You think $5 is going to buy you tech support to go with that get-out-of-jail-free card?
Cripes.. some people's sense of entitlement just blows me away sometimes..
interesting ideas, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Really, we're all whiny brats when it comes to our cable bills, so few of us (especially us poor college kids) are going to be ok with a $
Re:interesting ideas, but... (Score:2)
Annoyware (Score:2)
What if we just ran our mp3's voluntarily through a program that would say "ok, you've got 500 mp3 tracks - you need a $400 license. If you can not afford the license please remove tracks to reach your goal" and that is it. Don't actually force anyone to do anything - just suggest it. Put it out there, see if it works. People might just start paying fo
Re:interesting ideas, but... (Score:2)
Instead of making it a "download-tax", why not make it a license to posess music, no matter where it comes from? My model would be s
No (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no way for the money to get back to the artist. This plan only benefits the labels. Perhaps they can survey the P2P networks and get a sample of what's being searched for, then pay the artists accordingly. This will ensure the popular artists get the money while those with fewer fans get the shaft. At least by getting DRMed music, in theory the provider can accurately track whose music is being downloaded and thus compensate the artists.
The Question Is: (Score:2)
$3/$4 per month per RIGHTS holder? Fuck no.
Re:The Question Is: (Score:4, Insightful)
$3/$4 per month per RIGHTS holder? Fuck no.
There it is. They're talking only about one label. Assuming all the labels went for this, it'd be a pretty penny for the 4-5 big ones, and then a lesser sum for the smaller ones.
That's one of the main advantages of piracy, as I see it. Pirates can get all the content in one place, and as we've seen with TV stuff, it's almost more work to track down which network is with which service, and getting an iTMS and Google Video account, and have to manage 4-5 accounts. If the content industries united behind 2-3 stores that had all the content, it'd help them fight piracy a lot.
This is a step in the right direction (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is a step in the right direction (Score:2)
C'mon, you're smarter than that. The RIAA has serious faults, but this is not one of them. They sign contracts with their artists. The artists obviously thought it was a good deal or they wouldn't have signed. If you're going to bitch, bitch about the right things.
Would your rather have all of a grape or a slice of watermelon? [slashdot.org]
Re:This is a step in the right direction (Score:2)
Makes a lot of sense to me. More sense than suing everyone in existence anyway.
Not if it's mandatory (Score:2)
Nice buggy whip holder... (Score:2)
...for your car.
Might even work in the short term. But the recording industry is already dead--the body just hasn't stopped twitching yet, is all.
How to pay people to create ``intellectual property'' is going to be quite a challenge. Unless somebody comes up with something better, we're stuck as using the ``property'' itself as a loss leader to sell tickets to concerts, lectures, and the like on the one hand and commissions / works for hire on the other. Both are the traditional models that worked for c
Re:Nice buggy whip holder... (Score:2)
One of the advancements of society is the delegation and specialization of work. IOW, people are rewarded for doing what they are good at. We don't make the entire cast, crew, and support of every motion picture tour the nation looking for hand outs. And who has time to go to all of the speaking engagements for the 3rd shift graphical editor of the Star Wars trilogy?
The person holds
I'm Skeptical (Score:3, Insightful)
This makes sense for ... (Score:2, Insightful)
How does this support the artist? (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely not (Score:4, Insightful)
1) They (WB) can not remove all liability for all music, because they don't own the rights on all music. They can remove the liability for their music but that's it.
2) The market would no long drive the industry. who determines which royalties to pay? Some execs get to chop 90% off the top then spread the last 10% across admin and authors? What happens the the lesser known bands?
3) This removes all incentive for labels to pick up new artists. Why add more music to a $4.95/month library when you can spin off a subsidiary label and release new music under it. Then once that library has grown for a few years, release it under another $5/month contract. Now the consumer is coughing up $10/month for full access to both labels, not to mention any competitor labels.
All round this is a bad idea. Get the industry to agree on a standardized DRM (See JE at:http://ask.slashdot.org/~RingDev/journal/12694
It's all a matter of convenience. If consumers have a choice between paying $1 for a song, or downloading it for free with the risk of being sued, the vast majority will go for the $1 option. Provided the $1 version is compatible with all of their entertainment equipment (Windows, Linux, home entertainment, xbox, ps3, car stereo, etc...)
-Rick
Re:Absolutely not (Score:2)
The EFF calls it Voluntary Collective Licensing (Score:5, Informative)
It has many similarities to what is described in the article, and I think it is a solution that is best for everyone. Lawrence Lessig [lessig.org], in Free Culture [free-culture.cc] (a great, freely downloadable book on related subjects), calls it a chimera. It is wrong to rob the artists, but it is also wrong for the RIAA to treat their fans as criminals. The solution is in the middle, and I think the collective licensing idea is it.
Re:The EFF calls it Voluntary Collective Licensing (Score:2)
I think that's how it works anyway.
Re:The EFF calls it Voluntary Collective Licensing (Score:5, Informative)
And let me also mention that there are perfectly good agencies in existence to collect this "compulsory license," to use the term in US Federal law that made those horrible Radio "pirates" legal. ASCAP. BMI. SESAC. There are others, but those are the biggies. Most musicians who keep their publishing rights (as opposed to those who have signed them away as part of their record deal) are members of one of those three.
My husband's publishing is collected by BMI. They haven't done anything much *for* him, but they haven't done anything *against* him.
A "compulsory license" would cut the gordian knot of "piracy" and obviate the need for Digital Restrictions Management.
However, the RIAA and MPAA actually want MORE. They want to be able to collect RENT [wikipedia.org] on your music. And this is beyond the pale.
I'm an independant musician; how do I get my cut? (Score:2)
From a future executive? (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe that music has some interesting profit incentives when it is played live. We've looked into all sorts of value-added options for those live venues, including the following:
* Buy the official CD, get a free ticket to a private show.
* Buy the official CD, get a login to view the band in the studio for a set period of time
* After the live show, purchase a real-time edited sound-board fed DVD of the show
* Buy practice time with the band
* Let anyone else play the song live if you like, but we'll make sure we find out who performed what and when, and advertise that we're the co-op that created the music.
I don't believe in any intellectual property. In the last 6 months, I have attended almost 50 live shows in the Chicago Indie, Punk and alternative scene. I've met over 75 bands who have admitted that copyright has done jack for their income, and they were always better off giving away the recorded music in exchange for getting people into the shows. If you're a musician and you want to earn an income, is it better for the top 10 in the country to make $10,000,000 because they're the main earners for those who control the distribution networks? Or would you rather see 1,000 bands locally who can generate $100,000 each?
There is a lot of money out there to be made when you take out the copyright cartel companies from the market. I firmly believe that bands can make money if they realize the supply and demand forces at work can not be manipulated. Taking advantage of supply and demand is the best way to go about it. MP3 = near infinite supply = $0. Live music = limited supply = income. QED.
Is originality possible? (Score:2)
I believe that music has some interesting profit incentives when it is played live.
There are some musical genres that cannot very well be performed live, as they rely on heavy digital manipulation of sound. (I mean "electronic" music genres, not pitch-correcting pop stars' voices.) Do you just claim that your label is not for them? And what about fans who can't get into places where live music is performed because they are too young to attend bars and there are few or no all-ages venues in a given geogr
Re:Is originality possible? (Score:2)
No IP? Then you won't mind... (Score:2)
Are you sure about that? If so, then I suppose you won't mind if the major labels come along and take anything that your artists create that they (the labels) like without permission or compensation and just go ahead and call it their own...right?
Because if your company truly is "No Copyright", then that means everything that your artists make will be Public Domain, which means the public can use it however they want...
Perhaps you should rethink t
Re: From a future executive? (Score:2)
Case in point: the Beatles gave up touring in order to spend time developing their music. They simply wouldn't
Re:From a future executive? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:From a future executive? (Score:2)
Sounds like a good deal, unless of course Metallica signs with this label!
Musical tastes, bands & freedom, not brands... (Score:2)
No thanks. (Score:2)
The big 4 (or is it 5) are simply grasping at straws to maintain control, first it will be $5 a month voluntary, then it will be "included" in the service that is $5 more. Suddenly they are squeezing ISPs for more, and the little guys, the small bands and small labels will continue to get jack out of the system. But now the average home user will think "I pay so I can have anything" even if the money all go
Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes. And I already am. I am paying for my internet access and the CDs and DVDs I buy are levied because I am expected to be pirating music/movies with them.
Because I am considered guilty anyway and because I have paid my debt through various levies, I do not expect to have any legal liability. Thank you.
Re:Yes (Score:2)
Well then, I guess you have carte blanche for shoplifting too, since part of the price you pay in a store is to cover the percentage of people that are going to steal merchandise.
Incidentally, people like to bitch about the "blank CD tax" a lot, but the fact is that (in the USA) it only applies to the branded "Audio CDs" not the data CD-Rs that 99% of us use.
Maybe and No. (Score:2)
Interestingly enough, I'm sure most Slashdotters have seen the article about Warner Bros. trying a P2P DVD download service in Germany; this question indicates that they are thinking of really trying to branch out, but that their music and movie departments don't see eye to eye. From the DVD article, Warner Bros. wants you to pay the exact same amount for a download and a DVD. The problem is that the download is lower quality, takes much longer to download than a song, will likely be ebcu
Warner Bros Records != Warner Bros Pictures (Score:2)
Interestingly enough, I'm sure most Slashdotters have seen the article about Warner Bros. trying a P2P DVD download service in Germany
Not as on-topic as some might assume. Warner Music Group was spun off from Time Warner 23 months ago [wikipedia.org].
Why it makes sense... (Score:2)
$5/mo
10M P2P users in the US and Canada, not including BT (via Slyck and BigChampaigne). Possibly more.
Thats $50M USD PER MONTH in revenue direct to the labels AT VERY LITTLE COST (just the cost of collecting the money from the ISP). For the math impaired that is $600M/yr. Certainly more than they could ever hope to raise through lawsuits.
And as long as new releases are released with some sort of incentive to buy it (perhaps discounts on concert tickets, DualDiscs, etc), CD sales wont
Re:Why it makes sense... (Score:2)
I guarantee that this would be applied to each and every "broadband" (ie: always on, regardless of how slow) internet connection, whether you download a single file or not. This, of course, eliminates the problem you suggest. It also eliminates a big accounting/billing bureaucracy that would have had to have been created to manage the system you described.
No (Score:2)
How about you give feedback on our ideas? (Score:2)
We can do better. As part of setting up any deal: 1) The RIAA will immediately cease all legal proceedings against music fans, apologize, return the thousands of dollars in settlements they've extorted, grant amnesty to everyone, promise not to start any new cases, and po
The fine print (Score:2)
If it is time-limited than this is just a trap. Either:
A. Download songs, pay increased license fee of $400 a month.
B. Download songs, don't renew license, get sued for any song not deleted.
UK TV License?? (Score:2)
Is this download license goi
Good to see some thinking going on (Score:2)
Of the many things wrong with the music and movie industries at the moment, the one that worrys me most is that there is no long-term thinking going on. Technology has, basically, destroyed their business model, which largely comprises distributing recorded performances. Now that any bozo with a copy of Garageband and a web page can do thi
Bleep (Score:2)
You can preview any part of any song, choose your download format, and everything is nicely tagged for you. Oh, and no DRM.
And I don't work for Bleep, I've just given them a shitload of money.
Re:I doubt it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I doubt it... (Score:2)
The original posting doesn't say whether the $4-5 a month is for every user or just those wanting to share music.
Re:I doubt it... (Score:2, Insightful)
they're already giving it up for free--on bittorrent, on emule, etc... the idea is to provide a legal alternative that costs a reasonable amount of money. Even people as stupid as record company executives must be able to understand that making some money of internet downloads is better than making no money.
Re:I doubt it... (Score:2)
Re:I doubt it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I doubt it... (Score:2)
Forget new songs for a moment. Think about the range and depth of recorded music as a whole. There are some in the business who have been around for over one hundred years. QRS [qrsmusic.com]
Re:I doubt it... (Score:2)
The thing is that you wouldn't have to find a new song you like every month.
$4/mo is a trivial sum for most people, and it probably is for you too if you have time to waste on /., and these $4 not only means that you can try&trash pretty much everything that comes around, but it also means that if you happen to find a nice band you can get their whole discography without paying anything more.
Think about it this way: most full albums are above $16, this means that you only have to get an album every 6
Re:Looney Tunes! (Score:2)
But only if I can get them in their original non-politically correct versions.
Re:To quote Ace Ventura, Pet Detective, (Score:2, Insightful)
</pedantic>
Kinda... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell, I'd take a piracy tax on my blank media any day, if it means I can copy music. Since now that I have an ipod, i don't buy any blank media any more. Well, maybe a single 50 pack a year or so.
Re:Kinda... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Kinda... (Score:3, Interesting)
Is backing up your (homework/thesis/research/work of any kind) really that rare? What about driver discs? I won't try and pretend that Linux makes up a big portion of the sales, but I think there's a lot of family photo albums out there. Tax season has begun, my family keeps their results on a CD, is that uncommon?
Personally I think there's a big market out there for completely legitimat
Re:Janus is as good as it gets - and it's pretty g (Score:2)
DRM scares me.
Re:Janus is as good as it gets - and it's pretty g (Score:2)
What a compelling argument.
Re:Janus is as good as it gets - and it's pretty g (Score:2)
And there's rental all-you-can eat services right now, and AFAIK there's no mass piracy going on. It's just easier to rip the CD.
Re:The only "It" they're getting is your money (Score:2)
My Constitutional Law is a bit hazy, but seeing as we had to pass an amendment for the federal income tax, I'm pretty sure a countrywide tax would be require one as well, and that's Bad News. Underhanded money-passing between Big Corporation and Big Government is one thing, but this wouldn't even be like trying to hide it.
And, of course, negotiating taxes with each individual state would be
Re:The only "It" they're getting is your money (Score:2)
Re:It will never happen (Score:2)
1) I've got a feeling that by saying "what you want with them", it wasn't meant to be taken literally. Maybe more as a summary of "yes, you can download them to several machines, several devices, burn them if you like, we don't care. Whatever you want within your personal use."
2) Why would I buy music from you for ultra-cheap if I can get it myself for ultra-cheap? Yeah, it's only a dollar, but the full deal would be nicer @ $4/month. It'd be like..
That's right! Three CDs for onl