Could $5 a month save the music industry?


Recommended Posts

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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. ;))

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

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$.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • NASA: This asteroid may not kill us but it probably won't be far off either by Sayan Sen Image by Zelch Csaba via Pexels New observations by NASA's James Webb Space Telescope have eliminated the last remaining impact threat posed by asteroid 2024 YR4, ruling out the possibility that the near-Earth object could strike the Moon in December 2032. NASA said observations collected by Webb on February 18 and 26, 2026, enabled scientists to refine the asteroid's orbit enough to "rule out a chance of lunar impact on Dec. 22, 2032." Instead, asteroid 2024 YR4 is now expected to pass the Moon at a distance of about 13,200 miles (21,200 km). The agency stressed that the update "reflects improved precision in our understanding of where the asteroid is expected to be in 2032 rather than a shift in its orbital path." The announcement closes a remarkable chapter in planetary defence that began in late 2024, when the approximately 60-metre-wide asteroid briefly became the most closely watched near-Earth object in the world. Discovered on December 27, 2024, by the ATLAS telescope in Chile, 2024 YR4 initially appeared to have a small chance of colliding with Earth on December 22, 2032. As astronomers gathered more observations, the impact probability briefly climbed to around 3%—the highest ever recorded for an asteroid of its size—before steadily falling as its orbit became better understood. By early 2025, international observations had ruled out any significant risk to Earth. However, astronomers were left with another possibility: a roughly 4% chance that the asteroid could instead strike the Moon. "The probability that asteroid 2024 YR4 will strike the Moon on 22 December 2032 is now approximately 4%," the European Space Agency (ESA) had said last year, noting that "there is a 96% chance that the asteroid will not impact the Moon." ESA said such an impact, while unlikely, would have presented an extraordinary scientific opportunity. "It is a very rare event for an asteroid this large to impact the Moon – and it is rarer still that we know about it in advance. The impact would likely be visible from Earth, and so scientists will be very excited by the prospect of observing and analysing it," said Richard Moissl, Head of ESA's Planetary Defence Office. "It would certainly leave a new crater on the surface. However, we wouldn't be able to accurately predict in advance how much material would be thrown into space, or whether any would reach Earth," he added. The asteroid also exposed an important blind spot in planetary defence. Because 2024 YR4 approached Earth from the direction of the Sun, it remained hidden from ground-based telescopes until after its closest approach. "We looked into how Neomir would have performed in this situation, and the simulations surprised even us," Moissl said. "Neomir would have detected asteroid 2024 YR4 about a month earlier than ground-based telescopes did. This would have given astronomers more time to study the asteroid's trajectory and allowed them to much sooner rule out any chance of Earth impact in 2032." He added, "As an infrared telescope, like Webb, Neomir would have also immediately given us a much better estimate for the asteroid's size, which is very important for assessing the significance of the hazard." The latest NASA observations underscore the value of space-based infrared telescopes in tracking faint asteroids. According to NASA, Webb made "among the faintest ever observations of an asteroid," extending the object's observational record by nearly eight months at a time when it had become too faint for other telescopes. That additional data allowed scientists to eliminate the remaining uncertainty surrounding its 2032 flyby. Although asteroid 2024 YR4 is now confirmed to pose no threat to either Earth or the Moon, scientists say its discovery remains one of the most significant real-world tests of the international planetary defence system, demonstrating how continued observations can rapidly transform an object once considered hazardous into one whose future path is known with high confidence. Source: NASA, ESA This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Yup. Google is just scraping the entire internet for their own ad profits without sharing revenue with the sources. It's obviously stealing, but since these sites depend upon Google's search scraps to survive... As for me, I just stopped using Google for anything except Reddit searches. If Reddit's own search wasn't complete crapola, I'd never use Google search again.
    • I had a feeling this was coming. Picked up my first Mac ever last Saturday. Glad I did.
    • In a major surprise there is actually some good deals for the first time in years. At least for me.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
    • Apprentice
      daryld went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Contributor
      Carltonbar went up a rank
      Contributor
    • One Month Later
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      419
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      169
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      130
    4. 4
      Xenon
      70
    5. 5
      neufuse
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!