As I said last week, this post will cover the extremely sensitive subject of illegal music downloading and sharing via the internet. The debate over whether an artist's work should be made freely available through the internet is hotly contested, to say the least, but extremely important because of the ramifications illegal downloading entails.
An article in BBC covers a very interesting and innovative approach to ending the music piracy conflict. The article follows a foundation named the Association of Independent Music (AIM) in their efforts to find a solution to the growing issue of illegal music downloading. In essence, AIM aims (no pun intended) to incorporate a cost for music sharing in every internet users monthly bill, essentially eliminating the need to illegally stream music. By doing this, clients would have access to every song available on the web as long as they had access to an internet server. The company would also provide the option of purchasing music from licensed companies like iTunes and Amazon in order to provide users with hard copies of songs as well.
The article goes on to explain that the closest example to a free music sharing interface is the radio, although stations maintain complex negotiations with artists and record labels. The internet has been a forefront for ideas since its inception. Freeing the restrictions on music could potentially be the next logical progression in social and economic reform in the 21st century.
Hopefully you all enjoyed this concept and can have a good discussion in the comments below. Look out for my review of some hot new tracks next week!
Gavin
This is a very interesting way of going about the music piracy conflict. As everyone knows, it is a huge controversy; however, I think I can say that everyone has downloaded a song illegally. Despite that, I think that there should be a way to make music sharing legal. I think this is an interesting concept because it doesn't seem very hard to implement. One problem I see in it though is through the use of Wi-Fi. Does this mean that Cornell would have to pay the fee so that anyone using RedRover could listen to music?
ReplyDeleteI think this could potentially be a way to solve this mess; however, it does need some work in order for it to be successful.
I think that this is a very good idea, and it could definitely solve the problem of illegal music downloading and sharing. I think a lot of people would be happier and more willing to pay a music sharing fee in their monthly bill than to pay for individual songs and albums through a program such as iTunes. I think a lot of people (myself included) get frustrated when they see that they are putting out a lot of money to buy music that they hear for free on the radio, on TV, and even on the internet. Even though buying a song on iTunes is just a little over a dollar, this definitely starts to add up after a while. This is why I think that many people would like the idea of a monthly music sharing fee that would give them unlimited access to songs on the web. I agree with sohny15 that the use of Wi-Fi could be a potential issue, but overall I think that this is a great idea.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that this concept will work because not every internet provider would agree to incorporating a fee. Those that do would most likely lose business, and internet piracy would continue.
ReplyDeleteI understand the concept of including a fee in the internet bill, but what is this money for? Is it a royalty for the artist? If so, how would he recieve this money? It seems like a good idea, but it is too complicated and highly unlikely to be put in place. Internet piracy will continue, I believe, for the duration of our generation's lifetime.