4 ms·
I actually like the idea. Many things pay-per-use are actually cheaper unless you use it basically constantly, because if it isn't cheap enough, many people wou
by stkdump 3y ago
I actually like the idea. Many things pay-per-use are actually cheaper unless you use it basically constantly, because if it isn't cheap enough, many people would stop using it, thinking: is listening to it right now really worth X amount? People have a strange attachment to the concept of ownership, so that they are willing to pay extra for it. Pay-per-use is actually a more profitable concept only when people are hesitant to buy something fully, because they are not sure if they would use it enough.
- qup 3y agoWould they send me a bill after a night out at the pub?
- stkdump 3y agoI would assume the pub would pay for playing it, same as radio is paying for playing it.
- Simulacra 3y agoWell we already have this, it's called Spotify and Apple Music. I collect vinyl and I rather like having the whole album to listen to without paying anything more. If I had to pay per song which is IIRC the RIAA proposal, I would be less likely to explore music. I would stick to only music I can be reasonably certain is going to be good. Wouldn't a pay-per-song scheme destroy independent bands so that only the biggest and most shared get listened to?
- stkdump 3y agoI don't get it. If you pay per use, i.e. pay the same if you listen to the same song 5 times vs 5 different songs, why should it inhibit exploration?
- jlokier 3y agoYou'd listen 3 times instead of 5 to save on the monthly bill. Same as when dialup Internet access was billed by the minute. Most people would limit their time online to reduce the bill, and didn't feel free to browse for hours every day if they found something interesting. Email and to some extent Usenet were popular because you only needed to go online for a few minutes to download and upload your messages; you could read and write offline for free. When unmetered "always on" connections arrived people's habits changed radically.
- stkdump 3y agoAll makes sense, and that is why I said pay-per-use is usually less profitable, because back when dail-up was available, my internet bill was really lower than it is now. Granted, I am comparing apples and oranges, because I am also using the internet much more nowadays. But the argument that the greedy music industry wants to milk us by asking us to per-per-use is nonsense. They would make less money and probably people consume music more consciously.