March 28, 2008 6:32 AM PDT

Report: Music downloads on your Net access tab?

by Caroline McCarthy
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 25 comments

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.

Griffin did not make it clear whether this would be an opt-in service, or whether customers of an Internet service provider would ideally all be charged even if they don't plan to download music. But, he said, he hopes that it would be much bigger than Warner, with the project eventually spun into its own company.

Recent weeks have seen a number of media and technology companies toying with the idea of unlimited-access plans as they grapple with the reality that iTunes and its ilk haven't stopped rampant music piracy. And legal efforts to curtail pirated downloads often proceed at a snail's pace--it took nearly two years and immense legal pressure before BitTorrent finally shut down the TorrentSpy search engine earlier this week.

Caroline McCarthy, a CNET News staff writer, is a downtown Manhattanite happily addicted to social-media tools and restaurant blogs. Her pre-CNET resume includes interning at an IT security firm and brewing cappuccinos. E-mail Caroline.
Recent posts from News Blog
Nvidia puts NForce chipset development on hold
Opera 10 browser is here
Neil Young Archives Blu-ray: Rip off?
Acronis revises survey results about backup habits
Acronis miscalculates data on users' bad backup habits
Flickr co-founder presses beta button
Comcast, Sony open retail store
Cox to try coaxing the Internet into submission
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (25 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
Another person who don't get it!
by gsmiller88 March 28, 2008 6:56 AM PDT
The music and record companies already got their way in
Canada, where blank media is taxed because it's assumed they
will be used for piracy, now this! FYI Warner, the internet is
used for far more good than evil, and all internet users aren't out
to steal from poor little struggling Warner Music.

$20 billion for the artists and record companies.....Hah! I think
the last thing this country needs right now is to see Britney
Spears in a new wig or Kanye West in a new pair of sunglasses
he flew to Europe just to buy!
Reply to this comment
This money won't even get to them
by Leria March 28, 2008 11:10 AM PDT
It will all be soaked up by Warner Music, and the artists will get none!
This has to be opt in only
by mgdvt March 28, 2008 7:05 AM PDT
Why should I pay for something I'm not using. I will cancel my internet access if this is imposed. I have no problem paying for it if I use it. It could be a good idea as long as only the downloader would pay
Reply to this comment
Tax the RIAA
by georgiarat March 28, 2008 7:11 AM PDT
Perhaps the public should be given a refund each year from the
RIAA companies based on the ratio of music fostered on the
public that is deemed worthy and the amount of music it deems
crap. They would have to provide an online survey for all music
published and for all the "music" that does not get a significant
vote the companies would have to pay to reduce our internet bills.
Reply to this comment
agreed
by tektaktyks March 28, 2008 7:36 AM PDT
yea,i wanna refund for all the cd's and tapes i bought since i was a kid,after hearing 1 song that was good and finding out the rest of the album was crap,same goes for the movies,i want a refund for all the movies i went to see and all the tapes and dvd's i bought after watching a trailer or reading "great" reviews only to find out the movie suck...i really want my money back!
"BitTorrent finally shut down the TorrentSpy search engine"????
by Sbell42 March 28, 2008 7:23 AM PDT
"...before BitTorrent finally shut down the TorrentSpy search engine on Thursday."

When people talk about TorrentSpy being a BitTorrent indexing site, they're referring to the BitTorrent protocol used for the files - as far as I know, there is no other link between the TorrentSpy operators and BitTorrent Inc. It'd be like saying "MP3s finally shut down the Napster search engine."
Reply to this comment
Ever heard of a mirror or torrent search in a zip
by zeroplane March 28, 2008 9:33 AM PDT
Umm this is amusing considering the fact that there are already 50 mirrors of the site out on the net. And I remember finding a site that provided a zip file containing all the php code for the indexing interface and management and a install script for the MYsql database. Anyone could download the zip file an in minutes have another server up and running.

Oh well, good luck with that effort to "shut them down" considering any form of communication can be used to provide a centralized or de-centralized index of torrents. Like, usenet, IRC, email, hotline, instant messenger, website, list server, etc.. there is no way they can block the sharing of torrents and if you set your torrent client to randomly change ports how can they block the transactions? I guess you could build an open source client that masks the headers of each requires via TCP/IP to be something else, like a web-request but really it is a torrent packet request..

Totally a waist of time, instead perhaps they should focus on providing valued content and services and make it easier to buy their product then to steal it. Right now it is still way too easy to steal their product then to go through the pain of buying it legally "so I have heard" ;)
So if I get billed
by Mercury23 March 28, 2008 7:29 AM PDT
every month for music downloads, does that mean it's a free ticket to pirate?

I mean if I am paying the music industry a monthly service fee on my internet bill, then it should be OK to download pirated music right? I am paying for it after all...
Reply to this comment
That is the point...
by kmomrik March 28, 2008 9:11 AM PDT
If this were to take hold... there wouldn't music to pirate. I would think that this idea would only work if ALL labels agreed to it (which I doubt will ever happen). I don't see why people are bashing this... I've been thinking about something like this for years now.

If I had to pay $35 per month instead of $30 just to be in the clear from pirating and copyright violations... I'd do it in a heartbeat.

I'm sure those people who are comfortable pirating and feel that "they won't get caught so why should they PAY for something they can get for free" wouldn't like it much, but seriously... if ALL the labels signed on and you could download unlimitedly, legally, quickly, and easily... why WOULDN'T you want to do it.

Personally, I always felt P2P to be slow and unreliable... BitTorrent is better and usually faster, but still unreliable at times. If, somehow (magically most likely), we could agree on a single course of action regarding music purchasing, download, burn, copying, sharing... we wouldn't be getting gouged $.99 per song.

Why would I pay $17 for an album to download it when I can go to K-Mart and get the same thing on physical media for $13? Doesn't make sense to me. I can buy the media, rip it to my machine, then I have a free frisbee.
Bite ME!!!
by Stephen Russell March 28, 2008 7:34 AM PDT
I don't need to pay for content that I don't take, want or use.
Reply to this comment
Life is Not a Bowl of Cherries
by dascha1 March 28, 2008 7:37 AM PDT
If you check facts of music-on-demand (i.e. the "ones" working on
it in pre-91), you'll find this 'later' version of decision making could
be deemed 'inappropriate'. 'Earlier' definitions could re-shape and
make recording industries move ahead on all-fronts.

Strong foundation, better future..
Reply to this comment
"Reimburse Artists" lol ....
by Dead Soulman March 28, 2008 7:46 AM PDT
The RIAA is such a mafia venom-filled thieves that are hated by everyone, even the artists. I can't believe they have the audacity to always use "the artists" as the excuse to extort money and blackmail. The public is aware what kind of thieves they are and how they rip off artists on a regular basis. But, they use "make sure the artists get paid" because it sounds better than "our executives get their bonuses so they can buy that yatch they've been wanting since, well, last week. GTFOH Anyone who falls for this is an idiot.

Also, why would I want to pay anyone $5 if I'm not interested in whatever they're offering. Don't get fooled by these people, they always start it as optional, and once they see how much more they can make and have bribed enough politicians; bam, make it mandatory because againg "we have to combat piracy so the artists can get paid for their work."

Oh, I get it. When they mean "the artists" they mean "the con-artists working for the RIAA." Now it's clear.
Reply to this comment
Suck My @!@#$
by Thomas, David March 28, 2008 7:59 AM PDT
I can't believe this crap. This isn't even logical in the slightest
since, and anyone contemplating this should be slapped, or jailed.
Can you imagine if entities like this get their way, they will be
putting artificial taxes on ANYTHING they can.

What is worse, the real money they are stealing, they can hide even
easier now.
Reply to this comment
since = sense ... who cares
by Thomas, David March 28, 2008 8:00 AM PDT
eom
you already do...
by Mercury23 March 28, 2008 5:53 PM PDT
any time you buy a spindle of CD-Rs or DVDRWs the RIAA gets a percentage of that sale. Doesn't matter if you buy 4000 CD-Rs and use every single one of them for data, the RIAA gets a little chunk of that profit pie.

So by your logic, everyone should stop buying any form of recordable media because the RIAA taxes it.
View reply
that's a good idea...
by gerrrg March 28, 2008 8:12 AM PDT
too bad they didn't listen to the pundits three years earlier.

now the only problem is determining how to create an equitable schedule and popularity tracking for artist revenue sharing.
Reply to this comment
What a scam!!!
by bobby_brady March 28, 2008 8:24 AM PDT
Sounds like the "Audio" CDR scam!!

Oh and these downloads will be infested with DRM too.

Nothing more than a crock of crap.
Reply to this comment
Ugh. What?!
by three_toed_frog March 28, 2008 8:42 AM PDT
That is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. I already use iTunes and AmazonMP3, and I also purchase CDs. I also rent movies from Movielink.

I am not a pirate.

Is this guy seriously telling us we have to pay TWICE for the content that we consume? Once to the service that's providing this content, and another fee "just in case" we ever get the sudden urge to torrent last week's Lost?

Remove this bozo from my sight.
Reply to this comment
This is complete Bullsh*t
by wangbang March 28, 2008 9:51 AM PDT
This is another attempt by the music industry to control everything. If they do this, this will kill all the paid download sites. This won't benefit the artists at all. They'll be lucky if they see a few pennies thrown their way. All the money will go to lining the pockets of the music companies.
Reply to this comment
Exactly right
by Leria March 28, 2008 11:12 AM PDT
Not one cent of this money will EVER get to the artists, in all reality.
the little guys
by trey710 March 28, 2008 9:51 AM PDT
Anybody consider the unsigned artists out there? This pretty much forces them to sign with a major label or give their stuff away. I want a blank spot on my bill to let me tithe to Hannah Miller.
Reply to this comment
Lawsuits coming...
by umbrae March 28, 2008 9:53 AM PDT
I hope ISPs do not fall for this. An internet connection is used for many things. I do not download music of any kind legal or illegal, so if I start getting a music tax I will be suing my ISP.

ISPs should remember that customers can sue in Class Action and be just as effective as the Music industry.
Reply to this comment
Like Music On Demand???
by Dalkorian March 28, 2008 9:57 AM PDT
I have Cox cable at home, which has something like 50 music on
demand channels. So what does this extra extortion money buy
me again?

We see right through your transparent arguments RIAA/MPAA.
You don't want to change and you really don't want to have to
supply us with anything, you think you should just get paid
because you're that righteous. Problem is you're delusional and
obsolete. They keep playing up the "money for the artists"
argument, but curiously enough never seem to pony up any
money to the artists after all these lawsuits against their own
customers.

Being on drugs doesn't make you this delusional. It's stupidity at
it's best, pure and simple. But not on the part you're thinking of,
it's not the RIAA/MPAA that's "stupid". They're counting on YOU
being stupid and buying into their lies so you can give to the
executives (who do nothing and are worth nothing to the rest of
the world). Artists will still get hosed, you get hosed, but these
crooks will have different colored mansions for each day of the
year. Sounds fair, don't it?
Reply to this comment
Fascists
by swamp_rat1967 March 28, 2008 10:28 AM PDT
So, what it boils down to is we're going to force everyone online to pay for music whether they listen to it or not and whether they like it or not.

Fascists.
Reply to this comment
(25 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

Behind the scenes: NORAD's Santa tracker

For decades, the defense group has let you follow the Christmas Eve travels of the jolly old elf. These days, technology is playing a bigger role than ever.

Intel redesigns Atom chip for Netbooks

The chipmaker officially announces the next generation of its popular Atom CPUs for Netbooks, the N450, weeks before the CES trade show.

About News Blog

Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right