OFF: One possible digital music future

[M Holmes]

Paul Mather writes:

> On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 11:59:30AM -0000, HawkFan wrote:

> => On average I buy around a CD a week, say £60 a month.  If I could
> get them => for $6 a month as the article suggests that would be
> great, but I don't see => it happening.  Even if it did, human nature
> being what it is many peope would => still try and get the music for
> nothing.

> There would be no point in doing so.  If I read the article correctly,
> the $6/month figure represents an increase in Broadband subscription
> costs to finance the "free" download system.  (Think of it as a flat
> $6/month "arts and entertainment" tax on your high-speed connection.)

> So, given you've already paid it, and it's high-speed downloaders who
> are downloading large media content, why would you try and get the
> music for nothing when you've already bought legitimate access to it?

> Of course, the tricky stumbling block is getting the system in place.

The argument as to how this will come about is essentially that the
music industry and Hollywood, being faced with massive loss of revenue
in face of widespread piracy and the failure of Digital Right
Management, will cry uncle and agree to the system given that their
current levels of revenue will be guaranteed in perpetuity. Any increase
would essentially be like the BBC begging for an increase in the Licence
Fee.

There's little doubt that the ISP's have an interest in having the
system in place: guaranteed extra cash as folks get access to an entire
planet's entertainment output for 6 Dollars (3 quid pretty soon the way
things are headed) per month on top. They'd easily build up subscribers
and the folks with all that extra glass under the roads would get to see
it lit. Also it'd end the legal harassment of their current customers.

The advertisers would probably get some of their wares in there too. The
main downside I can see to it is that it's as likely as not to get
implented by politicians as by those in the business.

> But, if it were in place, I can't think of any real incentive why Joe
> Blow on the street would want to download material outside that
> framework.

Essentially Danny Downloader would be being subsidised by folks who only
got time to occasionally graze online entertainment, just as folks who
watch a lot of TV are essentially subsidised by those who watch only a
little. Seems we're able to live with that.

I wouldn't go so far to argue that this is certainly the future but the
article is persuasive in putting it forward as a future that makes
economic sense. I wouldn't be surprised to see some variant of it once
every effort has been expended by the entertainment indudstries to
create a sound'n'vision police state. What's being tried right now
though is based on the model of the Child Catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang
Bang and just about as unrealistic in practice.

FoFP