Warner Music's brilliant new idea: Re-hash old ones

Umm... yeah. I didn't hear anything in the post that sounded overtly wrong. While this may be an issue for independents, what do you propose that would let major labels offer easy digital downloads to consumers without potentially harming independent artists?
Did I miss something about this fee being mandatory?

Agreed. This actually sounds like a good idea. If you don't want, or need it - simply opt out.

But if you opt out, and still download, take your medicine. You were given the opportunity to do it for what sounds like a small fee, don't complain if you get popped after that.

This will most likely run into resistance from places like iTunes etc, who charge by the song - it could kill that whole DRM laden revenue stream for them - and as far as I'm concerned, good.

As far as what "entitles them to a subscription fee" - that's easy: they own the copyright. Like it, or not. People act as though the artists and companies that provide the music aren't entitled to anything - and in some cases, I don't think they are; See the story about the RIAA going after the guy playing his radio too loud in his shop, but I digress. (The RIAA is another monster altogether, and needs to be put down, and fast.)

They're (The label) offering what is tantamount to an olive branch, and people still want to kick them in the teeth.

Ridiculous.

Yeah, that's pretty much the problem -- it *will* be mandatory. I agree that it it were non-compulsory, it might be great.

But why should everyone in America with an internet connection have to shell out $60/year (the proposed "fee" is $5/month) regardless of whether they have any interest in downloading music?

That's like taxing everyone who has electricity as if they had bought a Sony TV, and telling them they're allowed to go down to the store and get a free one if they want.

@Andy Norris: You're looking beyond the scope of the article and the intention of my post. While you have a valid argument if the service is mandatory, for now it is not. The article treats it as an open ended service right now.

Jobs is a clever, maybe brilliant, opportunist who saw an opportunity and took it. Not necessarily a bad thing, but let's keep it realistic and not call him Saint Steve just yet. Keep in mind. the guy wouldn't even have a job right now if it wasn't for MS saving them from bankruptcy.

Before anybody gets riled up, I know, it was supposed to be an "investment" and a "settlement" over purported copyright infringement, but let's call a spade a spade - they were reporting 700 million in post tax losses, controlled a paltry 5.3% of the market, and were slated to cut over 1000 jobs. MS Steps in, tosses some bucks their way and voila, problem solved - granted, this helped spread Office onto Macs, and it helped with MS's antitrust problems at the time, but it is what it was, an uncharacteristically altruistic action on the part of MS to bail out a rival rather than going for the kill. Thus saving Job's career, and putting Apple where it is today.