$5 per month works out to be $60/year, to download all the music you want. And if it were the case then many more people would be inclined to download music and it would be easier as more sites would open up to offer the service as easy as possible (think of the Ad revenue these sites could generate… if the music industry could say pull 20% of that revenue, they may even strike deals to let these sites open shop.)

The only issue I really have with the scheme is that it has to cover Music & video both. Trying to explain to the non tech-savvy that you can legally download music, but not movies is not really a good idea. If that mean a $10 fee instead of $5, I'd go for it.

In Canada, the R...

$5 per month works out to be $60/year, to download all the music you want. And if it were the case then many more people would be inclined to download music and it would be easier as more sites would open up to offer the service as easy as possible (think of the Ad revenue these sites could generate… if the music industry could say pull 20% of that revenue, they may even strike deals to let these sites open shop.)

The only issue I really have with the scheme is that it has to cover Music & video both. Trying to explain to the non tech-savvy that you can legally download music, but not movies is not really a good idea. If that mean a $10 fee instead of $5, I'd go for it.

In Canada, the RCMP already stated that they aren't going to bother going after media pirates who are just downloading for personal use, as long as they aren't making pirated DVDs and selling, etc, they'll leave them alone, its just not worth their time. (link: http://torrentfreak.com/canadian-police-tolerates-piracy-071110/)

It just makes sense to do it this way. Artists could be paid based on how often their data is downloaded. This could be done by licensing sites to offer the free music (and allowing them to generate ad revenue), but they then send in logs of how many times each item was downloaded (not by who). This data would be used to offer artists who's music was downloaded more often a larger cut. I'm sure there are kinks to work out with the plan, but it is feasible and would work better than trying to sue anyone who copies their own bloody CD.

Taxing people for a system designed to bring aid to everyone in life and death matters is quite different than taxing everyone for a system that is merely for entertainment. Also, the attitude of "its just another x dollars, what's the big deal" is a fast track to everyone quickly tacking on those "inconsequential" cost riders to quickly make it a big deal.

The next question is what comes next? Movies? Then books? Then media subscriptions? Should another $5 be tacked on for each of those? They have just as much right to having their entertainment niches filled as the music listeners have theirs. Suddenly that $5 a month/ $60 a year inflates to $25 a month $300 a year.

Take it a step furthe...

Taxing people for a system designed to bring aid to everyone in life and death matters is quite different than taxing everyone for a system that is merely for entertainment. Also, the attitude of "its just another x dollars, what's the big deal" is a fast track to everyone quickly tacking on those "inconsequential" cost riders to quickly make it a big deal.

The next question is what comes next? Movies? Then books? Then media subscriptions? Should another $5 be tacked on for each of those? They have just as much right to having their entertainment niches filled as the music listeners have theirs. Suddenly that $5 a month/ $60 a year inflates to $25 a month $300 a year.

Take it a step further. Why not just tax everyone another flat rate to make ISPs available to everyone? Just because someone doesn't use them doesn't mean anything. As you pointed out, not everyone is using their healthcare and they still pay taxes on it.

Then how long is it before someone demands recompense for allowing people to view their websites. They have costs and fees in order to maintain. Do you really want to open a door to allow giants like google, yahoo, AOL, etc to suddenly declare they want to be paid too?

I don't listen to music, but I would love to play video games. Are the taxes going to cover the cost of those as well? People pirate video games too.

Finally, do you really believe that money is going to actually get to the artists? I think this is just a huge scam for big cooperation middlemen. It's the same system that cripples charities because by the time the money reaches those that actually need/deserve it the "processing and working fees" have watered it down to a pittance of what was given.

I understand Canada is a bit different than the U.S., but I think the idea is terrible in both places.