Could $5 a month save the music industry?

[Quillz]

That is why you buy the cds you're interested in.

No one tells you what to buy... what a stupid point.

Music is for listening to and enjoying, not fighting over. I never understand people who go out their way to tell OTHERS what to listen to. It's an individual experience for everyone.

That's not saying I don't joke at genres/artists/bands from time to time (although I usually do that with my mates, who have similar tastes), but I never pin it directly on people (especially people I don't know) and say "hey you're a moron for what you listen to, MY tastes are better than yours!!!".

Waste of the earths precious oxygen those arguments.

Nope it's primarily filesharing, and secondly pricing in some cases. Not all cds are overpriced, some are cheap and come with a ton of extra content.

This was sort of what I was trying to get at. Since there is very little music these days commercially available that appeals to me, I find myself buying fewer and fewer CDs. Multiply this a few hundred thousand times and as a trend, CD sales are going down.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Exactly, you've proved my point. Since there is very little music these days commercially available that appeals to me, I find myself buying fewer and fewer CDs. Multiply this a few hundred thousand times and as a trend, CD sales are going down.

Not really, even the non-comercial stuff can easily be bought from artists webpages/myspace/ect.

And to be honest, there are far more fans of comerical/"popular" music than there is of obscure/unheard of/indie bands - Therefore it's nothing to do with people not listening to mainstream music as much, it's just everyone and their dog knows how to pirate music.

Reason being, when an "indie" band get popular, they usually get snapped up, rinse/repeat - Therefore the mainstream industry is always being fueled by new bands all the time.

So don't use the "I don't listen to mainstream music, therefore I can't source my cds" argument :/

It may be true for some artists/bands, but most will happily sell you their cd through their website/myspace if you want it.

(ps. im not telling you to buy cds, im just saying I don't think it has anything to do with some shift slide in musical interests that's causing cd sales to drop)

[Smigit]

I don't like the idea to be honest. Firstly based on how the record industry has acted in the past few years I can't see it staying at $5 and that being the end of it. I'd fully expect them to ask more or look for loopholes to keep certain users out ect. Frankly, they don't have my trust on the matter. Some complain about their cut from iTunes for a single song, so I cant see how $5 for an unlimited amount would keep them happy for long.

Secondly I buy 99% of my music in stores because I want the CD's. I dont download music tracks and don't see why I should be billed for it (assuming it wasn't optional...but if it's optional whats stopping people not paying anyway?).

If they want $5 for an all you can eat system then they should open a online record store and charge a $5 fee there. Clearly for this to work everyone at the ISP level would need to be billed otherwise people will skip the payment and download anyway. Imagine how many users who have no intention on downloading music will be billed. Also I'd hate to imagine what impact this could have if Movies or Games industries took note and started asking for their own fees.

So no, I completly and 100% disagree and feel its only a good idea for those that want the tracks but forcing it onto others is unreasonable. If they got together they can open up a music store and give people the option through that instead.

[Berserk87]

i already pay $6/month for yahoo unlimited :p

but you cant find everything on there...its certainly quicker to find stuff though.

bring it on!

then we could have a canadian only "piratebay" :p

[Borbus]

No way. Why? Because the artists will get nothing from that, the record companies will take it all. The way forward IS the death of the music industry.

[Ayepecks]

Who does the money go to? How do you properly compensate indie artists?

So many potential problems.

[primexx]

we already pay a blank media levy to offset piracy "losses". This sounds like just another way for the corporations to make more money.

[G_0]

No way. Why? Because the artists will get nothing from that, the record companies will take it all. The way forward IS the death of the music industry.

Exactly! I have no problem paying for music digitally and do so more then ever right now. I enjoy using my money to tell an artist that I enjoy their music and encourage them to make more. What this plan sounds like is free money to the suits that can't come up with a better business model then what they have been using.

I can not believe on this forum the amount of people that blindly say yes to this tax so they can get their download on and not worry about being busted by their ISP.

[Berserk87]

I can not believe on this forum the amount of people that blindly say yes to this tax so they can get their download on and not worry about being busted by their ISP.

they already leave us alone.

downloading copywrited material in canada is not illegal, only sharing it.

and even when they had a list of uploaders they did nothing.

[CrisCr0ss]

under a few conditions

1) money goes to artists and not $0.01 of each paymen

2) it is optional - music has more or less gone downhill lately

[xfodder]

im moving to canada ...

[Jerry Grey Member]

Or maybe having a online store that you can buy and download songs (mp3 versions) for a price, I will be happy to pay to download music.

[petroid]

I don't really download music, but if my bill went up by $5 per month I'd make it my duty to download as much music as I possibly could.

[hagjohn]

The poor music industry... I feel so sorry for the multi-millionaires. It must really be tough on them. :rolleyes:

[Eric Veteran]

This isn't a terrible idea, but NOT to "save the music industry." It's their fault they're in the situation they are. If they stop pumping out crap and overcharging for it and pare down their legal pool it would be far more useful. I wouldn't be surprised if half of what we pay for a retail CD goes straight to pay for litigation. The RIAA is NOT an industry group anymore, it's a consortium of sue-happy lawyers that are trying to make money off of music by suing people instead of signing and promoting quality. (My opinion, of course. ;))

[EnzoFX]

Pretty crazy times...

Maybe music is becoming more like an art form. Wait, not in terms of great quality, but in defining the medium. Take paintings for example. You can often find a high res photo online, completely free. Where it might even be encouraged for everyone to look at it. There's so much to argue about. This, what Canada proposes, encourages free distribution. But where do we draw the lines? Movies, just as music is another medium, hell even software, it's all literally bits of info in this internet age.

Who knows how it'll all end up, the solution here, I'd say is an interesting and highly debatable one.

Maybe we should leave it all up to google, and everything can be ad-based! =P

[grik]

If it would include music and cinema industry i would be interested.

The topic specificly says music so i would say of course not. I woudnlt pay to sustent bad singers cause is what the most are.

Make a Music+Cinema package and count with my 5$.

[-Vivicidal-]

Its an unfair idea on non-users and would encourage more downloads, using more bandwidth, making ISPs charge us all more.

Artists should give away their music and ask for donations. If you get no donations then obviously no-one like your music enough. Don't like it? Leave the industry.

[Frank]

Artists should give away their music and ask for donations. If you get no donations then obviously no-one like your music enough. Don't like it? Leave the industry.

Well, maybe you should do the same. Offer to work for free for your employer and if they like the work you are doing, they could donate some money to you.

I do agree that the music industry has major issues, but I don't think we should force any sort of "donationware" or any other scheme on them. If the artists want to do it, more power to them. If they don't that is their choice as well as your choice not to buy their music.

[+Tantawi Subscriber²]

Sounds great to me :D

It sounds too great! :D

[sPudz]

Virtually every song ever recorded is available through peer-to-peer file-sharing (more than 79 million recordings).

If someone revives all those dead torrents then maybe....untill then its still impossible to get hold of half the stuff

[Brandon Live Veteran]

This scares me, as it sounds like a slippery slope.

It starts with a fee for music, but it opens the door for:

1. Movie fee
   
2. TV fee
   
3. Software fee
   
4. Book fee
   
5. Pictures fee
   
6. News fee
   
7. etc.
   

And then what about studios / artists / developers that aren't a part of the organization getting this money? Can they require ISPs to charge another fee? Will I be required to pay an HBO fee because in theory, I could download HBO TV shows?

The answer, for me anyway, is no.

However, I will happily pay a reasonable monthly fee to the music industry for the right to download and copy music (for personal use) whenever / wherever / however I please. But I don't want DRM on it.

[EnzoFX]

Yes, it is all very scary. The industry is on shaky grounds it seems. Where would things fall, and where will people draw the lines.

[somethingthatrhymes]

I thought it was already legal in Canada?

[Ayepecks]

This scares me, as it sounds like a slippery slope.

It starts with a fee for music, but it opens the door for:

1. Movie fee
   
2. TV fee
   
3. Software fee
   
4. Book fee
   
5. Pictures fee
   
6. News fee
   
7. etc.
   

And then what about studios / artists / developers that aren't a part of the organization getting this money?

You read my mind.