What about those other who have no interest in music? Or the deaf people who can't hear it? Does this make forcing them to pay a monthly royalty in anyway fair?
I was reading this article on arstechnica when this snippet popped out.
"by paying an extra monthly fee to their ISPs, for instance) and would
then have access to all the music from all the labels that participate
in the scheme."
Other scary words such as "Blanket licensing" are in there too.
Now, do not get me wrong. i think all artist should be paid for their work but forcing people who have no interest in music or cannot hear it to pay is quite simply wrong. If, the whole thing is voluntary then fair enough but from that article it appears it will not be. By forcing a blanket license and ISP levy on those who couldn't care less about music is morally wrong.
I was reading this article on arstechnica when this snippet popped out.
"by paying an extra monthly fee to their ISPs, for instance) and would
then have access to all the music from all the labels that participate
in the scheme."
Other scary words such as "Blanket licensing" are in there too.
Now, do not get me wrong. i think all artist should be paid for their work but forcing people who have no interest in music or cannot hear it to pay is quite simply wrong. If, the whole thing is voluntary then fair enough but from that article it appears it will not be. By forcing a blanket license and ISP levy on those who couldn't care less about music is morally wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment