[cc-community] A monthly charge for music, a taxing reality or a fictional freedom?

Greg London email at greglondon.com
Sun Mar 30 21:42:23 EDT 2008


I don't know what the general consensus is, but I don't like the idea.
I currently subscribe to Rhapsody. A flat fee per month and I get to
listen to their entire music library. Making such a subscription
mandatory, though, for anyone accessing the internet, is absurd.

What I'd rather see is some sort of compulsory license that
applies to music, that allows anyone to create some sort of
hosting company like rhapsody, to be able to stream music to
subscribers, and some sort of flat fee is paid per song played
over a minute (less than a minute as a free sample to skip
through the junk)

And most importantly, all music must be made available.
Probably the biggest issue with rhapsody is the artists
who want to withold their music for a bigger piece of the
action, or for whatever reason. So, your subscription ends
up paying for everything but this, and that, and those,
and these guys, who are simply unavailable.

The way compulsory licenses work now to allow an artist
to record their own cover version of a song for some fixed
fee, something similar to that could be created to allow
various companies to become music sources for subscribers.

Maybe one fee per song for internet radio, and another fee
per song for user-directed listening.

> What's the general consensus with regard to the new proposals coming out
> of Warner?
>
> http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/top-5/2008/03/27/Warners-New-Web-Guru




More information about the cc-community mailing list