March 28, 2008 6:32 AM PDT

Report: Music downloads on your Net access tab?

Hotels tack extra charges onto your bill when you raid the minibar--or if they're really mean, when you steal towels. If a new Warner Music Group executive gets his way, your Internet service provider will be billing you each month for music downloads.

Jim Griffin, Warner's latest top-shelf hire and the former head of Geffen Music, told Portfolio.com the details of a radical new strategy to deal with the record industry's 21st-century crisis. According to Griffin's plan, to which he said Warner Music is "totally committed," a monthly fee added to an Internet service bill--say, five bucks--could give consumers unlimited access to music that they could download, copy, and share.

He estimated that this could provide as much $20 billion per year to reimburse artists and copyright holders.

Griffin did not make it clear whether this would be an opt-in service, or whether customers of an Internet service provider would ideally all be charged even if they don't plan to download music. But, he said, he hopes that it would be much bigger than Warner, with the project eventually spun into its own company.

Recent weeks have seen a number of media and technology companies toying with the idea of unlimited-access plans as they grapple with the reality that iTunes and its ilk haven't stopped rampant music piracy. And legal efforts to curtail pirated downloads often proceed at a snail's pace--it took nearly two years and immense legal pressure before BitTorrent finally shut down the TorrentSpy search engine earlier this week.

Recent posts from News Blog
Colleges fret RIAA push for state anti-P2P laws
Philly's Wi-Fi network in jeopardy
Wind power company Noble files for public offering
Virgin Mobile USA and Helio in merger talks?
Microsoft to appeal EC's $1.39 billion fine
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 25 comments (Page 1 of 2)
Another person who don't get it!
by gsmiller88 March 28, 2008 6:56 AM PDT
The music and record companies already got their way in Canada, where blank media is taxed because it's assumed they will be used for piracy, now this! FYI Warner, the internet is used for far more good than evil, and all internet users aren't out to steal from poor little struggling Warner Music. $20 billion for the artists and record companies.....Hah! I think the last thing this country needs right now is to see Britney Spears in a new wig or Kanye West in a new pair of sunglasses he flew to Europe just to buy!
Reply to this comment View reply
This has to be opt in only
by mgdvt March 28, 2008 7:05 AM PDT
Why should I pay for something I'm not using. I will cancel my internet access if this is imposed. I have no problem paying for it if I use it. It could be a good idea as long as only the downloader would pay
Reply to this comment
Tax the RIAA
by georgiarat March 28, 2008 7:11 AM PDT
Perhaps the public should be given a refund each year from the RIAA companies based on the ratio of music fostered on the public that is deemed worthy and the amount of music it deems crap. They would have to provide an online survey for all music published and for all the "music" that does not get a significant vote the companies would have to pay to reduce our internet bills.
Reply to this comment View reply
"BitTorrent finally shut down the TorrentSpy search engine"????
by Sbell42 March 28, 2008 7:23 AM PDT
"...before BitTorrent finally shut down the TorrentSpy search engine on Thursday." When people talk about TorrentSpy being a BitTorrent indexing site, they're referring to the BitTorrent protocol used for the files - as far as I know, there is no other link between the TorrentSpy operators and BitTorrent Inc. It'd be like saying "MP3s finally shut down the Napster search engine."
Reply to this comment View reply
So if I get billed
by Mercury23 March 28, 2008 7:29 AM PDT
every month for music downloads, does that mean it's a free ticket to pirate? I mean if I am paying the music industry a monthly service fee on my internet bill, then it should be OK to download pirated music right? I am paying for it after all...
Reply to this comment View reply
Bite ME!!!
by Stephen Russell March 28, 2008 7:34 AM PDT
I don't need to pay for content that I don't take, want or use.
Reply to this comment
Life is Not a Bowl of Cherries
by dascha1 March 28, 2008 7:37 AM PDT
If you check facts of music-on-demand (i.e. the "ones" working on it in pre-91), you'll find this 'later' version of decision making could be deemed 'inappropriate'. 'Earlier' definitions could re-shape and make recording industries move ahead on all-fronts. Strong foundation, better future..
Reply to this comment
"Reimburse Artists" lol ....
by Dead Soulman March 28, 2008 7:46 AM PDT
The RIAA is such a mafia venom-filled thieves that are hated by everyone, even the artists. I can't believe they have the audacity to always use "the artists" as the excuse to extort money and blackmail. The public is aware what kind of thieves they are and how they rip off artists on a regular basis. But, they use "make sure the artists get paid" because it sounds better than "our executives get their bonuses so they can buy that yatch they've been wanting since, well, last week. GTFOH Anyone who falls for this is an idiot. Also, why would I want to pay anyone $5 if I'm not interested in whatever they're offering. Don't get fooled by these people, they always start it as optional, and once they see how much more they can make and have bribed enough politicians; bam, make it mandatory because againg "we have to combat piracy so the artists can get paid for their work." Oh, I get it. When they mean "the artists" they mean "the con-artists working for the RIAA." Now it's clear.
Reply to this comment
Suck My @!@#$
by Thomas, David March 28, 2008 7:59 AM PDT
I can't believe this crap. This isn't even logical in the slightest since, and anyone contemplating this should be slapped, or jailed. Can you imagine if entities like this get their way, they will be putting artificial taxes on ANYTHING they can. What is worse, the real money they are stealing, they can hide even easier now.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
that's a good idea...
by gerrrg March 28, 2008 8:12 AM PDT
too bad they didn't listen to the pundits three years earlier. now the only problem is determining how to create an equitable schedule and popularity tracking for artist revenue sharing.
Reply to this comment
1 | 2 | Next 10 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement
  • About News Blog

  • Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader
Google
Yahoo
MSN

Latest from News.com

Featured blogs

Beyond Binary by Ina Fried A look at how technology is changing our lives and at the people behind all that life-changing stuff.

Coop's Corner by Charles Cooper Charles Cooper weighs in on Silicon Valley hijinks, and he doesn't suffer fools gladly.

Defense in Depth by Robert Vamosi Covering the latest in computer viruses and computer crime.

Geek Gestalt by Daniel Terdiman At the tech culture nexus of video games, fire art, and virtual worlds.

Green Tech Fresh green tech news and commentary.

One More Thing by Tom Krazit Tom Krazit takes on the tech phenomenon that is Apple, and keeps a close watch on the chip industry.

Outside the Lines by Dan Farber When business and technology meet, that's when things get interesting.

The Iconoclast by Declan McCullagh Exploring the intersection of politics and technology.

The Social by Caroline McCarthy Exploring all facets of social media and tech culture.

Underexposed by Stephen Shankland Coverage of digital photography, science, and open-source software.

advertisement
On CHOW: Does drinking ice water burn calories?
Advanced
search
Advanced
search
Visit other CNET Networks sites: