BF2S Forums Voluntary blanket licensing agreements

ghettoperson wrote:

I think the second one is what I meant. I don't really know the specifics; just that there are rumours on the internets that in Canuckistan you pay a tax; not sure if everyone pays this or just on the purchase of certain products, and this goes to artists and so people can legally download music.

Ahhh.  I gotcha.  The problem that I have with such a measure is that it forces people who don't consume the product to pay for it.  There are times when this is acceptable, like taxes to pay for public education, but levying a fee to keep a private corporation afloat is ridiculous. 

Let the corporations live and die according to how they do business, not by the will of the government.

some_random_panda wrote:

I'd support it if the tax was opt in/opt out sort of thing, and if my ISP made the download unmetered (yes, in Australia we have download caps still).

If it's an opt-in/out measure, why have the ISP collect the fee?  Why not let people pay for a service directly? 

The big failing here is that the music industry is failing to offer a method acceptable to consumers.  Since consumers can either pay for something that sucks (DRM won't let it work on media players, etc...) or get it for free, many choose the free option.  If the industry offered something that was the same quality, or better, than the piracy methods while keeping the costs low, more people would probably opt for that.  The other thing the music (or even more generally, media) industry needs to realize is that not everyone who downloads is a potential customer.

That's ridiculous. Another desperate measure by the music industry to get massive, steady revenue streams going. If this was a $5 thing you could opt out of, it'd be a hell of a deal, but knowing the music industry, this is $5 for every connection anywhere, no opting out, and special provisions in small print saying ".. up to 10 downloads per month.."

May these people die fiery deaths for trying their hardest to prey on other people to recoup the losses that their short-sighted and failing business cases, and their abusive litigious nature have earned them.

I'm fine with how it is now. Free Music, for free.

Downloading music is probably the most laughable law, next to underage drinking.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Toenails, does Britney Spears really need more cash? She's already proven she's not actually mature enough to handle what she has.

That's not the point at all.  The logic you propose is so fundamentally flawed that it's just sad.  Maybe you should just be honest and say you are too cheap to actually buy your music?

Apply that same logic to anything else in life.  Walmart doesn't need more money, so it would be OK to not pay them.  The supermarket doesn't need more money, so it would be OK to not pay them.  Similarly, what if your employer decided that you did not need more money?  I bet you wouldn't be happy at all.

Point well made but I do have another problem as far as buying CDs goes. I live in a veeery remote place and am 500+ km from the nearest music store, once I start earning money again I'll probs get on itunes. As far as food goes there is a national enquiry here in Australia into overpricing of fresh fruit, vegetables and meat in supermarkets.

Why would you start paying for something if an item is easily attainable, low risk and free.

The#1Spot wrote:

Why would you start paying for something if an item is easily attainable, low risk and free.

because the 'low risk' would go to 'no risk'...