Pay ISP's to use P2P's
 

I think this is a good idea to pay $5 to download and share unlimited mp3s. I support this idea

Heres The Article:

Several proposals to collect money from Internet service subscribers to pay for online music swapping are bubbling to public attention in the United States and Canada.
A trade group representing Canadian songwriters and music publishers argued in front of that country's Supreme Court on Wednesday that ISPs should pay into a nationwide pool--similar to a tax now imposed on blank tapes and CDs--to compensate copyright holders for widespread music downloading.

On Tuesday in Los Angeles, the Distributed Computing Industry Association (DCIA), a peer-to-peer industry trade group, proposed a related idea that would ultimately give file-swapping networks a service model similar to cable television. Under the early stages of the DCIA proposal, ISPs would collect a fee from anybody using file-trading software and distribute that pool of money to record labels, artists and music publishers.

Under the plan, ISPs would have to install software such as that from Packeteer or other network-management companies that can identify which applications subscribers are using. Some portion of the fee would go to fund those activities, Lafferty said.

Later stages of the plan would evolve into a structure more like cable television. File swappers could subscribe to "channels" of encrypted content focused on a specific type of music for an extra fee. Ultimately, a top tier of service would be added in which subscribers could pay for individual, tightly copy-protected songs that would not be available at the free-trading lower service levels until a later date.

I already pay $108 /month for my Internet and full cable thank you :beer:

Re: Pay ISP's to use P2P's
 

The idea of subscribable genre-specific p2p 'channels' is attractive in itself to many p2p users. What would be more convenient than to get all fresh releases from your favorite genre delivered automatically to your HD, or to learn about new artists from well-edited and interesting broadcast streams. But why would people want to pay for any DRM-crippled content - preselected and controlled by some commercial entity - when they could set up more interesting channels on their own and distribute the content to each other in free, openly accessible formats?

True music lovers and collectors have the best playlists and plenty of information on artists and their works. They would be the natural candidates for running genre-specific music channels in a p2p ecology.

- tg :WA:

Give a carrier reason to add surcharges on an already high cost for access and control over the music to download.. No thanks.

In such a service, carriers are probably only going to make tracks available that are popular sellers. Most likely, you won't see material from independent artists or those rare tracks you can find on p2p.

The reduced availability of music tracks that are not current and overwhelmingly popular is a major fault of the music industry. It's an industry driven by profit making practices that sell large volumes of a limited number of items - rather than please a larger customer base by selling a larger number of items at a modest price. It's easier (and more profitable to the seller) to make millions of copies of the same CD and rake folks over the coals to pay for it. It's harder to please all music fans by making a larger variety of tracks available.

Add to that the compilation CD makers that purchase rights to distribute alternate takes of a popular song by a given artist. These alternate takes are sometimes very different from the originally released track.

These problems are what got me into p2p. I do not mind paying a reasonable price for music tracks. However, if the music industry wants my money, they have to supply the tracks I want.

If the music industry would put out a quality product for a reasonable price, they would not have to complain about declining sales - excepting loss of sales due to a recessive economy.