Songwriters voice approval for $5 Internet fee
Newsbot @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:28 pm
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=30541" target="_blank">Songwriters voice approval for $5 Internet fee</a> (click to view)
<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/news/topic/17-business" target="_blank">Business</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=usababe" target="_blank">usababe</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2008-02-21 09:31:28
<strong>Canadian</strong>
Public_Domain @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:28 pm
RUEZ @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:51 pm
No thanks. I buy my songs from iTunes, I'm not going to pay even more so freeloaders can download.
Knoss @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:31 pm
That is obsured. A mucis board? Is this going to have a quota system? What if 100 are willing to pay $2.00 for a song and 10 000 are willing to pay $.20 for a song?
I tunes, puretracks, and other legal download sites help the consumer and the seller. Such a scheme is not the solution, breaking up illeagal download sites is the solution.
commanderkai @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:07 pm
Thats bullshit. They can go fuck themselves. Charging EVERYBODY for a few people downloading is unfair. I think we should tack a $50000 fee for every shitty song they make too. They can screw themselves.
uwish @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:10 pm
screw them, we already have a 'tax' on blank writable media, screw off! if it is good they will buy it, if it is crap, go broke.
I am tired of supporting this BS for people who download thousands of songs and haven't paid for a dam thing in decades.
Why is a tax Canada's answer for everything?
bootlegga @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:26 pm
They are going to charge me $5 because I might download songs? Waht's next, a tax because I might speed?
mtbr @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:33 pm
That will go as far as the "ipod and MP3 tax" that was shot down a couple of months ago 
I think some of these people need to get a real job.
SprCForr @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:51 pm
I just posted:
They owe me $5.00 per month for listening to that trash.
Call it even.
fire_i @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:56 pm
I'm all for it... but only if ALL song downloads become legally free for everyone.
westmanguy @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:58 pm
No. No. No.
I don't download illegally (mostly cause I don't care for music in the first place...), so why the hell should I be penalized?
fire_i @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:03 pm
If all downloading costs were to be dropped and the base fee to get internet increased by 5 bucks a month, you wouldn't be penalized. Personally I'd actually suffer from that in the long run but who cares?
The only problem I'd see with that is a few less people wanting to pay for access to the infoweb. That's a loss for sure. Don't think there'd be a huge difference for $60 a year though.
mtbr @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:05 pm
fire_i fire_i:
If all downloading costs were to be dropped and the base fee to get internet increased by 5 bucks a month, you wouldn't be penalized. Personally I'd actually suffer from that in the long run but who cares?
The only problem I'd see with that is a few less people wanting to pay for access to the infoweb. That's a loss for sure. Don't think there'd be a huge difference for $60 a year though.
The only problem I'd see with that is a few less people wanting to pay for access to the infoweb. That's a loss for sure. Don't think there'd be a huge difference for $60 a year though.
I wouldn't find 60 bucks worth of music that I would want.
xerxes @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:10 pm
mtbr mtbr:
fire_i fire_i:
If all downloading costs were to be dropped and the base fee to get internet increased by 5 bucks a month, you wouldn't be penalized. Personally I'd actually suffer from that in the long run but who cares?
The only problem I'd see with that is a few less people wanting to pay for access to the infoweb. That's a loss for sure. Don't think there'd be a huge difference for $60 a year though.
The only problem I'd see with that is a few less people wanting to pay for access to the infoweb. That's a loss for sure. Don't think there'd be a huge difference for $60 a year though.
I wouldn't find 60 bucks worth of music that I would want.
Then you're not looking hard enough.
mtbr @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:11 pm
xerxes xerxes:
mtbr mtbr:
fire_i fire_i:
If all downloading costs were to be dropped and the base fee to get internet increased by 5 bucks a month, you wouldn't be penalized. Personally I'd actually suffer from that in the long run but who cares?
The only problem I'd see with that is a few less people wanting to pay for access to the infoweb. That's a loss for sure. Don't think there'd be a huge difference for $60 a year though.
The only problem I'd see with that is a few less people wanting to pay for access to the infoweb. That's a loss for sure. Don't think there'd be a huge difference for $60 a year though.
I wouldn't find 60 bucks worth of music that I would want.
Then you're not looking hard enough.
wanna bet
