Friday, March 28, 2008
Paying More For Music Downloads?
Posted by Suhit Gupta in "Digital Home Talk" @ 10:00 AM
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-99...g=2547-1_3-0-20
"Hotels tack extra charges onto your bill when you raid the minibar--or if they're really mean, when you steal towels. If a new Warner Music Group executive gets his way, your Internet service provider will be billing you each month for music downloads. Jim Griffin, Warner's latest top-shelf hire and the former head of Geffen Music, told Portfolio.com the details of a radical new strategy to deal with the record industry's 21st-century crisis. According to Griffin's plan, to which he said Warner Music is "totally committed," a monthly fee added to an Internet service bill--say, five bucks--could give consumers unlimited access to music that they could download, copy, and share. He estimated that this could provide as much $20 billion per year to reimburse artists and copyright holders."
Ugh! This is what happens when an ex-music industry exec takes over. I can see how checking at the ISP level is one way to monitor music downloads, but isn't this bordering on 'big brother watching'? I am all for artists and copyright holders getting compensated, but between the DRM, pay-for-unlimited-music services, iTunes (and similar services) and all the other technologies available, do we need to add more inconvenience to our lives? I feel like the people that are following the rules are the ones that are hurt all the more. I dunno, I was just a little annoyed when I read this, maybe I just woke up on the wrong side of the bed today.
"Hotels tack extra charges onto your bill when you raid the minibar--or if they're really mean, when you steal towels. If a new Warner Music Group executive gets his way, your Internet service provider will be billing you each month for music downloads. Jim Griffin, Warner's latest top-shelf hire and the former head of Geffen Music, told Portfolio.com the details of a radical new strategy to deal with the record industry's 21st-century crisis. According to Griffin's plan, to which he said Warner Music is "totally committed," a monthly fee added to an Internet service bill--say, five bucks--could give consumers unlimited access to music that they could download, copy, and share. He estimated that this could provide as much $20 billion per year to reimburse artists and copyright holders."
Ugh! This is what happens when an ex-music industry exec takes over. I can see how checking at the ISP level is one way to monitor music downloads, but isn't this bordering on 'big brother watching'? I am all for artists and copyright holders getting compensated, but between the DRM, pay-for-unlimited-music services, iTunes (and similar services) and all the other technologies available, do we need to add more inconvenience to our lives? I feel like the people that are following the rules are the ones that are hurt all the more. I dunno, I was just a little annoyed when I read this, maybe I just woke up on the wrong side of the bed today.
