Would You Pay $20 a Month for Unlimited DRM-Free Music?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:36PM EDT

See Comments (11)

As the anti-DRM brigade rolls on, more and more creative ideas continue to emerge about how to keep the record industry afloat without further angering consumers who're tired of restrictions on how they consume their music. Radiohead's "pay what you want" experiment has the makings of a huge success (some are saying $10 million in sales so far). In Europe, things are getting even stranger. Specifically, Denmark's equivalent of the RIAA, the International Federation of Phonogram and Videogram Producers, has reportedly floated an idea (at least abstractly) to allow users to have unrestricted downloads of all the music they want over peer-to-peer networks, in exchange for a flat fee of about 100 Danish kroner, or about US$19.

The catch is that the fee, at least in the IFPI's version of it, wouldn't be optional. Rather, all Internet service subscribers would have the fee tacked on to their bills. It'd be a great deal for mega-downloaders, but casual listeners, or those who don't consume their music online at all, would get the short end of the stick on this one. $19 seems awfully excessive to me. I'd be willing to accept a media "tax" of, say, $5 added to my bill... maybe a little more if the price included video/movies, too.

O'Reilly's Andy Oram notes that there are myriad problems with pricing per ISP connection, namely that many households share one ISP connection, or have none of their own. Would businesses have to pay the media tax? What if you pay by the hour at Starbucks? Would you be billed on a prorated basis? 

Still, it's an interesting idea and one that I hope promotes more discussion on how to remove onerous technological restrictions on music while fairly compensating those who create it.

LINK: Music industry association recommends flat-rate file sharing 

Comments on Would You Pay $20 a Month for Unlimited DRM-Free Music?

Post a Comment

Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

  • 1 Posted by rogueist on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:49PM EDT Report Abuse

    A little excessive, but I am sure that as time goes on, the fees will be tuned to match reality a little better - but this is definitely the way to go - dont punish anyone, embrace the future, and make it mandatory that it IS the future. Everyone gets paid, nobody loses out, and everyone thinks they are getting stuff for "Free" - but they are paying for it anyways. I like forward thinking ideas like this.

  • 2 Posted by collarncuffsboy on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:28PM EDT Report Abuse

    I dont like the idea of making everyone pay for. Personally I dont download music from the internet, so why should I have to pay for it? How about making that a sign up option for when someone creates an ISP account. In the case of connecting to Wi-Fi at Starbucks/Airport/etc, then the option would not be taken when setting up the service.

  • 3 Posted by wmtyrancz on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:49PM EDT Report Abuse

    I would go for maybe 10 a month. 20 seems like it would be alot if you don't download music. Its a good idea though.

  • 4 Posted by 76500245compuservecom on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:42PM EDT Report Abuse

    Silly to make "eveyone" pay for it. Next they'll tack on fees for video streams? Then what? Music was copied long before the Internet came around. The only difference is the ease and quality that music can be copied. $20 or even $10 per month? What about someone with dial up? That's potentially more than the cost of their Internet access. Not well thought out.

  • 5 Posted by mdstaats1946@sbcglobal.net on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:14PM EDT Report Abuse

    Any amount per month is too much if you don't ever download music. I never have!! The internet is for more things than music and video, like home business, photo sharing, e-mail etc. If you don't want to pay for the service then we should have the option to opt out during ISP sign-up.

  • 6 Posted by dwalsh70 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:50PM EDT Report Abuse

    MP3 players and ipods, they're hoping that there will be repeat business due to equipment problems and hard drives crashing. I'd rather see more money going back into developing and promoting new bands than trying to put locks on what people already have. The only time bands make any real money from recorded work is when they license it for a movie or commercial or if they own the masters and can use it as leverage .

  • 9 Posted by bookworm_2244 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:11PM EDT Report Abuse

    $19, that's it? That seems like a very good price to me. I download music all the time. And on iTunes, it's $.99 a song. Come on people, wouldn't $20 be worth it for avid listeners?

  • 10 Posted by oyetom2005 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:47PM EDT Report Abuse

    i feel good.but will like to download more

More Posts: First Prev 1 2 Next Last

Post a Comment