Five bucks a month may be the answer to music piracy - EFF

vbimport

#1

I just posted the article Five bucks a month may be the answer to music piracy - EFF.

  Despite all the unsuccessful attempts the RIAA had in seriously reducing  piracy across P2P networks, it cannot be eliminated in similar way to how illegal  drug dealers cannot be put to a...
Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/7837-Five-bucks-a-month-may-be-the-answer-to-music-piracy---EFF.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/7837-Five-bucks-a-month-may-be-the-answer-to-music-piracy---EFF.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

The problem with this is, THEY are charging other people to use MY bandwidth. This will never work. Put up album/single downloads on your own goddamn servers for 5$ a month and I’ll definitely have a more open mind about it. /MLS
[edited by MLS on 27.02.2004 01:04]


#3

Let me get this right. I have to pay to share music? Whats the catch?


#4

Taxing ISP. I’ll tell you something from Canada’s way: I get to pay taxes up to my a… and I should feel guilty to download some songs !!! I burn my data on cdr and money goes to artist inc and I, ME, should keep on paying $20 for cds ??? and be a criminal to use P2P ? I rememder in the late 80s, cds are indestructible, cds are better, cost more than LP … but are cheaper however… And who keeps on paying: ME AND YOU !!! I’ve got the (digital) power now. Payback time. TG
[edited by Tunderground on 27.02.2004 04:47]
[edited by Tunderground on 27.02.2004 04:49]


#5

This is totally absurd, and I thought the EFF was on our side? For starters, are they proposing that the ISP charges EVERY SINGLE CUSTOMER an additional $5/month or do they want to limit it to people using file sharing? Either way, you’re assuming people using a file sharing program are criminals and must be sharing music. That’s as stupid as the Napster/Kazaa/etc lawsuits trying to get file sharing off the net as you’re trying to say these applications can only be used for illegal purposes. This is mindlessly insane. How are they going to decide who does file sharing, by port? That can’t work as you can remap a program to a different port. This has got to be the dumbest thing the EFF has ever released, for shame! The canadian thing is a bad example as CDrs are used for much more than copying music, so if you buy cds for data backup, part of that money is going to the music industry? Ever heard of corporate/government scams, because I smell one a brewing.


#6

IT IS BY CHOICE " The charge would be voluntary and could be levied through the sharers’ Internet service provider, software client or university dorm fee. And the money would go to the artists."


#7

What the hell happened? A couple of years ago everyone was for this. Five dollars a month and you have access to every song ever made legally. I don’t think it’s that bad of an idea. But the problem arises when you realize that if this system was ever implemented the price would not be 5 dollars a month. It would probably be somewhere between 20 and 50. Use the term five dollars to get the law passed then when it is passed you actually charge 50 dollars. I can see that on the horizon. But I can’t belive the RIAA would rather have nothing then something. So what if they’re not getting paid the proper amount for their music, right now they’re not getting paid anything for their music.
[edited by chsbiking on 27.02.2004 20:15]


#8

What kills me is how unfair the law is. The Music industry screws us for years with price fixing and guess how much I get for a settlement…a lousy 13 dollars. Yet the music industry sues someone for sharing songs and they pay thousands of dollars. How is that fair? I hope the music industry crashes and burns and organized music dies with it and we go to days of musicians advertising themselves and publishing themselves instead of big companies who screw the customers for years by price fixing and then use their illegally gained profit to buy off politicians and judges so they can sue the **** out of us when we fight back.


#9

Maybe it’s me but I can’t help but think that it all comes down to the G word……GREED. Maximize the profits, make as much as you can as quick as you can! When we give control of our efforts to the bean counters that don’t have an Artistic bone in their body, never had an original thought in their lives, never known a 'bare arsed, dirt poor, living on a shoe string" existence what can we expect? I once heard Dustan Hoffman comment (about pirated copies of one of his movies being distributed) 'What do I care, I made the Movie so that people would watch it, the more the better". The wealth of the world is in the hands of to few people already Pirates are just doing their part in redistributing the wealth!


#10

Well after reading the story and reading the replies, I have to say one thing, If 4 years ago everyone would have been for this, and I know that for sure, now 4 years later your against this proposed plan? Did you people have your brains seep out or something? How many of you buy CDR’s and see it go up $2 and think nothing of it other then “Oh Inflation”, so what if the ISP’s agreed to tack on $5 for each subscriber, 95% of people will still pay it, even if it wasnt for P2P, why? Cause you wont go back to dialup, The best solution to this and everyone here is up in arms over it like the RIAA, you all are smoking some bad crack. I for one think that either have all ISP’s tack a $5 monthly charge on subscribers, or tack the $5 on to all CDR’s and DVDR’s, and be gone with this whole mess, I think the EFF has the right idea, and probably the BEST idea so far, even though Canada has been doing this for years which is called Article 17. If for $5 you can and are allowed to downloaded UNLIMITED music and share freely, then there is no room for arguments, None, If your going to hold a grudge for all the years that the RIAA has screwed everyone out of money, then your not thinking with a clear head, or your out for more then fair use. I for one think anyone one of us that doesnt think that this is a good idea if not the best solution, needs to have some smoke blown up the hershey highway, cause it wont get any better then this. I for one am against the RIAA and what they have dont to the public, and the consumer, and for them to think that the ones that they sued are going to now buy CD’s is a joke, and for the ones that know what the RIAA is doing to people, arent going to be buying CD’s either, unless they are morons, so dont go thinking that I am for the RIAA, completely the opposite, but for people to throw a gift horse in the mouth, then your on the wrong side of the fence.


#11

Apparently you have forgotten that blank CD’s and DVD’s already contain a tax that is suppose to cover music copying onto those discs. However, we pay the tax when we buy a CDR or DVD but when we actually make a copy of something it’s still illegal.