Unlimited Legal Music Downloads for $3.95 a Month?

fishmasta writes "I'm at a major university studying the music industry, so we get to regularly talk to executives in the major labels. In a recent talk with someone working at Warner Bros, she brought up an idea they want to try where all file sharing is legalized by paying $4-5 a month through an ISP, all downloads are permanent, and you can get them from any source, and do what you want with them. It seems like some in the industry are starting to 'get it.' I was just wondering what Slashdot thinks of this idea. Would you be willing to pay a small fee each month if you could get all the music you want and have no legal liability?"

El-Man has another take on that subject replacing "unlimited" with a set number of licenses: "I believe that people are basically honest (maybe a failing, but it's how I feel), and are quite happy to pay for something of value. With music downloads, the only solution the recording industry has come up with is wrapping digital files with onerous, incompatible DRM systems, suing those whom they say have illegally distributed music (what is it, 13000 people and counting? Surely the courts have better things to do!), and generally not doing themselves or music lovers any good. How about a system, whereby a user can purchase a license for [n] amount of digital music files? Numbers can be, 10, 50, 100, 200, etc. Doesn't matter what the files are, as long as the number is not exceeded. There'd be a lot of details to thrash out, but is this something that is ultimately workable?"

If you were an executive of a medium-to-large sized record company, how would you handle the potential of the Internet?

Oh Canada...

[Pig Hogger]

This is precisely the system we have in Canada, through a levy on blank media.

The EFF calls it Voluntary Collective Licensing

[Kelerain]

The EFF [eff.org] calls it Voluntary Collective Licensing of Music File Sharing [eff.org].
It has many similarities to what is described in the article, and I think it is a solution that is best for everyone. Lawrence Lessig [lessig.org], in Free Culture [free-culture.cc] (a great, freely downloadable book on related subjects), calls it a chimera. It is wrong to rob the artists, but it is also wrong for the RIAA to treat their fans as criminals. The solution is in the middle, and I think the collective licensing idea is it.

Re:The EFF calls it Voluntary Collective Licensing

[MsGeek]

Someone mod this up.

And let me also mention that there are perfectly good agencies in existence to collect this "compulsory license," to use the term in US Federal law that made those horrible Radio "pirates" legal. ASCAP. BMI. SESAC. There are others, but those are the biggies. Most musicians who keep their publishing rights (as opposed to those who have signed them away as part of their record deal) are members of one of those three.

My husband's publishing is collected by BMI. They haven't done anything much *for* him, but they haven't done anything *against* him.

A "compulsory license" would cut the gordian knot of "piracy" and obviate the need for Digital Restrictions Management.

However, the RIAA and MPAA actually want MORE. They want to be able to collect RENT [wikipedia.org] on your music. And this is beyond the pale.

Re:sounds good in theory...

[777film]

But I don't see how the artists can make money from such a scheme after the labels take 90% of the profits?


They'll make the same they do from CD sales, which is nearly zero. If an artist makes money it's from licensing, publishing, merchandise and touring.

Re:I don't get it

[hab136]

>I think the cd levy thing is true in Canada, but I've never heard about it in the US before. Can someone provide a source?

The US has it too. "Data" CDs don't have the tax. "Music" CDs do. The difference is one bit in the header, and a few bucks at checkout time.

The name of the law taxing music CDs (and DAT tapes, etc) is AHRA - Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, an amendment to the U.S. federal Copyright Act of 1976. It's often called the "DAT tax", but it applies to music CD-Rs too.

http://drmwatch.webopedia.com/TERM/A/AHRA.html [webopedia.com]

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/truth [boycott-riaa.com]

http://www.eff.org/cafe/cafe_case_analysis.html [eff.org]

Goddamn Finland ...

[halitus]

In Finland there is also a levy on all blank media, but beginning from this year downloading from non-authorized sources became illegal nevertheless. Now we just continue to pay for the privilege which we can't even legally use. Big hooray for the EUCD (European Union Copyright Directive), or at least our implementation of it.

This law was mostly forced on the parliament by our beloved culture minister (former Miss Finland), who insisted that the copyright law should promote just the copyright holders' interests, consumer rights are out of scope and should be addressed in consumer rights legislation (which is likely not going to be modified in near future at all).

Re:sounds good in theory...

[homer_ca]

The payment would not actually be tied to which music you found worthwhile enough to pay for

Sure, it may not be very accurate distributing your $5 payment to the right artists, but in aggregate such a system is surprisingly accurate. Nielsen Soundscan already tracks paid downloads. It wouldn't be hard for them to track popularity of P2P downloads too.

Canadians can make copies of music from any source

[Anonymous Coward]

Canadians are allowed to make unlimited copies of all music regardless of source. You do not need to own an original. It does not matter how the music is aquired. Read the Copyright Act Section 80.

"musical work, is embodied onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright"

No where does it state that the copier must own an original. When the Copyright review board last reviewed the CD levy the board specifically stated that the language was written such that making copies of borrowed works was legal. The Act was changed to allow copying in exchange for the CD levy. Furthure the board stated that all copies of music, on any medium (not just CDs), regardless of source where legal even if that source was illegal. However, it is not legal to make a copy for someone else. It is not legal to share music, as the host of the music is making the copy not the person who will use the copy. (See statements from Copyright board.) It is not legal to pay (with cash, barter, or other form of trade) someone to make a copy on your behave, or pay for the priviledge of making a personal copy.

So copy away Canada! And do it quickly. The CIRA has tried hard to change the Act to prevent copying while keeping the CD levy.

Re:Oh Canada...

[Pig Hogger]

Actually, that's not precisely the system you have. With the system you have, you pay the levy whether you use it or not, and whether you were otherwise entitled to the music or not (e.g., by buying it through iTMS or because you already paid for the CD).

Er, no. The copyright act does not says that you have to OWN the work you copy. And the supreme court said it's okay to share music for downloading on a P2P system.
Nice try, industry shill.

Meanwhile, because of all the paranoia from the music industry, it's very difficult to record anything - there are so many attempts to close the analog hole and to avoid perfect copies that, to this day, it is a struggle to get any kind of usable equipment that works for us - e.g., something where you push "record" and you get a clean digital recording. If you have the bucks for really expensive pro gear this isn't out of the question, but all of the sub-$1k equipment is deliberately crippled.

What are you talking about? You can make perfectly good copies or master audio-CDs on any PC. Perhaps you don't know how to use your gear properly??? Have you tried to RTFM???

And both ministers who have been pushing for DMCA-like laws in Canada have been booted from office a week ago: I personally worked for the campaign of the kid who just booted Liza Frulla out of office by a landslide!!! So don't expect any legislation soon with the minority conservative government in place...

Re:Oh Canada...

[Anonymous Coward]

There was no Supreme Court decision that has legallised upload music on p2p. The Copyright board has said that downloading is legal, but uploading isn't. However that is only the opinion of the board and has not been tested in court.

Find the Court ruling to prove me wrong.

Re:I don't get it

[VoxCombo]

It would make sense to go through ASCAP, BMI, and/or SESAC - the organizations that collect and distribute performance royalties (royalties for radio play and any public use of music). They already have an infrastructure built up for this sort of thing, and their methods are generally regarded as fair.

Re:Oh Canada...

[mshurpik]

>most digitizing systems are flaky. They sort of work.
>If you don't mind spending thousands of dollars, you can get clean audio

What about a $300 sound card like M-Audio with breakout box and 1/4" plugs? Or is this the "quite expensive but still consumer-grade piece of equipment that...simply stopped delivering?"

Actually, M-Audio and similar cards with 1/4" plugs would seem to fall under the category of pro gear. I understand everything you are saying about crippled consumer hardware but maybe the problem is that you've realized you need pro gear but you still haven't bought any.

Personally I use a 4-head stereo vcr for master recordings and I digitize later on by playing the tape. That's because you're right, pro digital gear is expensive - I've never dared shop for it. Maybe you should build a Shuttle box (minimal footprint desktop) with an M-audio card and use the laptop as a display only. These Shuttle boxes are pretty damn small and as always, you can build a dream PC usually under $1000.

Keep in mind what you are asking for:

* Digital sampling
* Digital copy
* High performance
* Reliable
* Affordable
* Portable
* Easy to use

You're asking for everything. Certainly, even if you had the money, a consumer-grade solution would only do half of these things. I'm not surprised you settled on a laptop. Portability and ease of use seem to be high on your list, and those things are perhaps the most difficult to obtain in a recording environment that usually includes microphones, stands, mixers, pre-amplifiers, tape decks, monitors, and cords for optimum control and sound quality.