But what if it fell entirely on broadband users? Some might find the figure surprising: excluding all of the other penny taxes we've just mentioned, the cost will be $6 per broadband user per month. Um, is that all? Well, actually, yes it is.
So what do consumers gain from suddenly being able to exchange music? It's perhaps the most delicious question that's ever been asked - and there are so many advantages to the free exchange of culture that we may have forgotten what they are.
....The simple idea is very powerful. Fisher identifies four constituencies necessary to accept the model: consumers, artists, device manufacturers and finally the intermediaries: the studios and labels. The model has huge advantages for three of the four. And what incentives, we asked, would the labels and studios have?
After hearing his presentations, Fisher says industry is intrigued but hardly feels impelled to jump. The biggest 'carrot' is that it would see its revenues guaranteed at 2000 levels. If it believes its own rhetoric, that could be a very powerful incentive indeed.
Extremely interesting - read the whole thing.
Article comments
1 - Mark Saleski
it's an interesting idea...but so far i don't hear a lot about this approach coming out of either record companies or the riaa.
what i do see are more & more items taking the punitive & "gotta stop this" route...
as much as i'm opposed to paying extra in my broadband bill (because i download nothing), i probably wouldn't complain if the end result is that the record labels get back to getting music out there (though i'm not convinced that would happen either...at least not with the big labels)
2 - Eric Olsen
The labels will be the last to agree to something like this because they have the least to gain - especially in their minds where they still think they can end file sharing with litigation DRM and threats.