Big Music downloads for ISP-levied fee?
p2pnet news | Music:- On O’Reilly Radar and Blogowogo, Andy Oram posts he’s just heard from two contacts in Denmark that the local International Federation of Phonogram and Videogram Producers, more commonly known as the International Federation of Phonographic Industry, has, “seriously proposed allowing unrestricted downloads of music over peer-to-peer networks, in exchange for a modest monthly fee to be charged to all ISP users”.
He says he hasn’t been able to find and English language confirmation but, “My contacts say that the suggested monthly fee is 100 kroner, or approximately 16 Euros (slightly less than $23),” Oram says, continuing, “the Danish IFPI represents the content producers themselves. When they start to buy in to the concept of unrestricted, all-you-can-eat downloading, the end of the debate is in sight”.
Debate !? What debate? Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG have been trying to sue, extort and blackmail consumers into consuming nought but Big 4 ‘product’. They’ve failed ignominiously and if Oram is correct, this may be a tentative move on the labels’ part to in effect test market the idea in what amounts to a backwater.
Oram goes on:
In a context where law allows industry to control technology, decisions still come from industry leaders rather than from the public. For instance, I’m a traditional kind of music listener who doesn’t download tracks, and buys a lot of CDs. But if my ISP starts charging me the equivalent of 16 Euros a month whether or not I downloaded music, then to hell with it – I’ll quit buying CDs and get all my music online.
Another awkward aspect of this solution is that it’s hard to fit a licensing model to different types of technological access. Charging money per ISP connection may work where the average household has its own ISP account, but what about people who take advantage of free Wifi access or shared a pooled connection?
The admission that the pay-per-unit model doesn’t work for online music is valuable, even if it comes from one small corner of the economically advanced world and is encumbered with logistical concerns.
Definitely stay tuned.
Also See:
O’Reilly Radar – Music industry association recommends flat-rate file sharing, October 23, 2007
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for the download, and here for details. Click here or here to learn how to by-pass censorship in your area.
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:52 am
blogkast says : thats the kind of scheme i would enjoy using!
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Well, it’s about friggin’ time. One way or another, these idiots have to realize that their outdated business model isn’t going to work in the digital age.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:03 pm
SOME ISSUES
ok, but some issues remains, to start here are some:
1. Who is going to do the accounting and who will distribute the money to the artists and songwriter?
If the answer is the cartels. with their black room accounting methods, you can be sure that the cartels will keep all the money.
2. What if some or many artists and songwriters don’t want to participate? Who will represent them in these negotiations and proposals? After all copyrights exist, allegedly, to get the artists and songwriters to create more works for the good of the public. Nowhere does the copyright law says it is for the good of music publishers and record companies.
3. Will non musical works (poems, videos, books, etc.) be treated the same? If not, the question is… is it constitutional?
4. What would then be the purpose of copyright duration periods for individual works? Why not copyright duration for authors and author decendants instead?
5. Can he idea work if only some countries participate?
6. Will a family of 10 downloaders pay the same as an individual downloader?
7. Will sharing and copying through other methods be legal then?
8. Can a subscriber allow others to use his/her computer to download?
…
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:07 pm
$20 dollars for no hassle from the music industry? Wait just a minute here. That’s per month. Before you go to saying that’s a good idea, stop and consider. Just how much are you willing to go up in payments to your ISP? Would your internet connection be worth it if it was say $400 a month to connect with no increase in services from the ISP other than to pay these legal watch dogs off?
If the music industry gets this then the MPAA is gonna want a piece, the BSA is going to want a piece, the ASCAP will want theirs, and new groups will be coming out of the woodwork all wanting a new cut. Before long these that getting paid off will want to go back to the trough; it’s never enough. Then there will be them making new groups under the guise of something else only to double dip. All of this of course coming from everyones pocket that pays for a net connection.
Without some sort of cap that limits how much your net fee can be raised, it is an open house to any of them to get more and more.
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Another question I have if ifpa / riaa are involved how if at all will indy / unsigned artists get payed?
second it had better be speed / bandwidth price scaled IE shaw basic $2 PM high speed extreme $10 per month. AND it MUST cover ALL content AND all artists / producers
IE movies / music / books ETC
October 24th, 2007 at 5:10 am
It will NOT cover books or movies! You are just dreaming if you believe that.
It SHOULD cover all music though.
October 24th, 2007 at 5:43 am
it cant work!! some people can hardly afford internet as it is e.g those living on pensions and all they want is to send and receive email. they already have all the music they want (vinal, tape, cd).
some company’s already offer as much music as you want for a monthly fee.
if RIAA gets fixed amount of money each year they wont even have to produce good music to get paid!!!!
finally. $23 x 12 = $276 i have never spent that much on CD’s in a year ever. so for me this is a very bad deal.
October 24th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
perhaps dedicated isp’s should be used that only sign up customers willing to pay for music downloading. those who wont be downloading music can use a seprate isp but get no protection if they use p2p for music
October 24th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
i listen to a new cd evewry day of the month with a imesh subscription. if i bought a new cd every day aprox $300 or more.
October 24th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
$300×12 is aprox $3600 a year plus tax!
October 24th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
This is going to invite the ire of those who use the Internet and don’t download. Why would I need to pay electricity tax if I use gas?