DISQUS

hyokon · 1 year ago

I am not sure if I understand you correctly even after taking some time reading other blog posts of yours. At least I could understand McGuinness's speech.

- I think McGuinness was trying to share his frustration with the status quo and suggested general direction (of sharing revenue with tech companies that are profiting from free music), not anything like a police state.
- In a way, your suggestion seems similar to his in that we need to monitor the music 'usage'. I don't understand what material difference there is. I would think he may even buy your suggested model, as long as it can feed musicians (and their supporters like himself). Why are you so mad at him?
- You seem to propose a flat(=fixed and same for everyone for universal access to any music. Correct me if I am wrong.) fee license for streaming and something similar for downloads. On a high level, I agree with you. My own suggestion, which I am about to post on my blog, is directionally similar. One thing I feel uncomfortable about this whole 'what should be the future of music' discussion is that it tends to be "either A or B": Free vs. non-free, access vs. downloads, etc. How come the advent of Internet, a great innovatino of our age, reduce our choices? There must be ways to make all these possible. I think the problem is that we lost some choices. How reasonable a new model is, I would like to have it as a choice not requirement.