Comments on: Napster 2.0 Could Be Put on the Auction Block

By: ConfusedMime

ConfusedMime — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 03:17:41 +0000

nonsensical nonsense

By: open_universe

open_universe — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

Best way to handle this then is to have everyone with an Internet connection also pay for a mandatory monthly subscription for music movies etc. That is: Pay $ x a month for access to the Internet (which we already do except for those people who hop on the back of free Wi-Fi) PLUS $ y per month for unlimited music downloading (like Napster now) etc. Have the RIAA’s member companies establish a single portal for downloading music log in using your ISP-given ID and they apportion the fixed monthly fee across those artists one downloads. End of story.

By: ackmanx

ackmanx — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

What about the millions that don’t want to download music & movies? No reason to make them pay extra.

By: mountain_rage

mountain_rage — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

Not the mention the cost that would be required to compensate all the rights holders who think they are gods gift to the world. No either they learn the market has changed or we let them slowly die off.

By: open_universe

open_universe — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

The RIAA MPAA software creators etc. aren’t going to “give up”. Either they eventually destroy the Internet completely or we make an accommodation that makes both sides feel that they’re being dealt with fairly.

And whether one decides they will never download music or movies is irrelevant. First we pay taxes for a lot of services we rarely or never use. Second there would be no way to prove that one person didn’t download to their mp3 player then turn around and give 100 friends each a copy of the same song. Making everyone pay into the system would mean that you would never have illegal sharing it would be nonsensical and a waste of time and effort. And given that everyone with an Internet account would have already paid a nominal monthly fee everyone would be covered.

Or we could just scrap it all and charge people by the byte both uploaded and downloaded. Personally I’d prefer a flat monthly rate. Charging by actual use for Internet access is more of a pain than it’s worth.

By: Spurge

Spurge — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

Geeze and here I thought Napster died off long ago.
As for these plans….
1. Sue all the people that are downloading music for free
-Surely this would bankrupt the labels of course the Lawyers would push for this option for they are after the $$$

2. ?????
-Exactly.

3. Everyone goes back to the music store to buy music legitimately.
-Not going to happen I can’t imagine people going back to buying physical cd’s now in large numbers(With the exception of special signed limited edition etc. ones). The CD days are dying fast.

Maybe they could charge a little more for commercial use of the music? ie: Radio Film Television there should be shitloads of cash to be made by charging just a little more. But it seems to most labels 1 or 2 million dollars is nothing. *sigh.

By: mountain_rage

mountain_rage — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

So open_universe how much do you charge per month to compensate the Book music movie software Tv and games industries. Not $10 surely $20 would barely even be a drop in the bucket. These are industries who are currently valued in the billions (although I find that number highly inflated). In order to make them happy you would need to charge well over $100 on everyone’s connection per month not gonna happen.

By: open_universe

open_universe — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

@ M_R:

I pay $18 a month for NetFlix. Every day their catalog of streamable movies gets bigger. Napster charges $15 a month for unlimited access to 5 million music tracks. That’s plenty fair for all concerned.

Eventually the RIAA and MPAA will convince Congress that the only way to enforce copyright laws is (1) no anonymity on the Web and (2) mandatory fees. Do you really want an Internet with NO anonymity? :rolleyes:

By: mountain_rage

mountain_rage — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

Well hopefully when they propose that law which locks down the internet someone decides to finally run against them with an alternative platform. The internet is already out of reach for some of the more poverty stricken. Adding 100$ a month even if it is worth it for most people will cause many of these people to go without internet access. Its not the right direction sounds good on paper useless otherwise. How will you distribute the wealth how do you know one artist should get the money over another what about international works they are still covered under you’re copyright.

By: ackmanx

ackmanx — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

So you’re thinking like $30 extra per month for internet just to cover the music & movies part? Bogus. And then think of the format wars… if people would be paying extra they’d certainly want good quality. Free legal services already botch up the quality by loading videos full of loud advertisements and high compression. And then does this apply to EVERY label/brand? There’s a lot of music from Germany I enjoy listening to would they really want to give it all away to Americans (unless you think the entire world should adopt this policy) Besides just because we already pay taxes for services we don’t use doesn’t mean we need to do it more. I’d vote for doing it less!