Industry Group Suggests "Free" Music

GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares
edited July 2006 in Science & Tech
The Association of Independent Music (Aim), which represents the UK's independent record labels, has suggested that music downloads could become free to consumers. That is, if Internet Service Providers (ISPs) pay the record labels, instead. The proposal represents a shift in the recording industry's method of enforcing copyrights online, and looks at ISPs as being comparable to radio stations. ISPs, like radio stations, would pay royalties to the record labels, but provide the music free to the consumer.
At a press conference outlining their ideas, the panel of music industry experts also said that record companies were wrong to sue people who illegally download music.

"Prohibition always ends in disaster," said Dave Rowntree, drummer for the rock band Blur. "As an industry we've learnt our lessons."

"We all agree the consumer is the wrong target to be focusing our attention on," said Alison Wenham, chief executive of Aim.
Understandably, Internet Service Providers have so far been less than enthusiastic about the prospect. Of course, if ISPs are made to pay royalties, that cost would almost certainly be passed onto consumers.

Source: BBC


  • airbornflghtairbornflght Houston, TX
    edited July 2006
    hmm. this could be good and bad.
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK
    edited July 2006
    They'd likely have to pay a fortune, which in turn means we're going to end up paying a fortune. Sorry but I really have no interest in paying ****ty artists for ****ty music that I wont even be listening to!
  • CyrixInsteadCyrixInstead Stoke-on-Trent, England
    edited July 2006
    Yes, it's not fair that all users should have to pay extra for the people who download the music. There would have to be a way for the ISP to know you're downloading music.

  • entropyentropy Yah-Der-Hey (Wisconsin)
    edited July 2006
    Gargoyle wrote:
    The Association of Independent Music...

    ...the rock band Blur.

    I don't get it. :scratch:

    In any case, I'm also against this. You know damn well that the RIAA is going to try this over here. Nothing they've done so far has been reasonable, so why would they start? They'll demand HUGE "taxes" from ISPs, AND still sell their overpriced CDs.

    Personally I'm with Enverex. I don't want to pay for sh.t music that I don't listen to.
  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares
    edited July 2006
    I suppose how I feel about it depends how much of the cost is passed onto us. If the cost only increases a few bucks a month, that would be a great deal for me, since I'm already paying $10 a month for Napster. But I'd only be saving money because the cost would be spread across all of the ISP's customers, even the people not downloading music.

    It's hardly fair, but it doesn't seem quite as bad as the RIAA's practice of making examples out of individual music downloaders and suing them for tens of thousands of dollars.
  • lewicronlewicron Glasgow
    edited July 2006
    Enverex wrote:
    They'd likely have to pay a fortune, which in turn means we're going to end up paying a fortune. Sorry but I really have no interest in paying ****ty artists for ****ty music that I wont even be listening to!

    Me neither, I certainly don't want to pay for someone else's crap music that I wouldn't cross the street to piss on if the record store was on fire. Then again, I don't really fancy paying through the nose for all the really good music that I do want to listen to, either.
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska
    edited July 2006
    I just don't see a great rush to the local ISP because they have tunes available. I also don't see ISP's warming up to this. Sure, there is a large demographic that enjoys downloading their music, but I just can't see that group comprising more than say, 10% of any given ISP's subscriber base. Maybe this could work in larger cities, where an ISP could actually specialize in music, and have a large enough market that they would attract a large base.

    I'll give credit for people at least brainstorming, trying to come up with a new model to replace the dinosaurs that are the RIAA and BPI (UK).

    I sure as heck don't want to fund someone else's downloading of the latest whatever. Maybe there could be special, laddered accounts, where higher fee structures allow access to downloads, as in a "premium" cable TV subscription. Those who don't want it, pay less.
Sign In or Register to comment.