What if I told you that there was an easy way to let consumers enjoy
more access to music, for less money than most of them pay now? And
what if I told you that this solution would also help Internet access
providers and technology companies, plus produce economic growth? Would
that interest you?

Sorry to sound like the old guy from Entourage, but it's true. And a few radicals who believe information should be free are already against it.

Over
the course of the last year, the music industry has started to take a
more analytical look at the file-sharing that has led to so many of its
problems. The most eloquent, best publicized expression of this view —
but by no means the first — was a speech that U2 manager Paul McGuinness made at MIDEM,
the annual music industry convention, about how Internet access
providers need to take responsibility and prevent their services from
being used to steal millions of dollars of music. It's not an
unreasonable request. As McGuinness pointed out, "The real 'killer app'
that many of their businesses are founded on is our clients' recorded
music."

McGuinness shook an iron fist in a velvet glove — he
called for ISPs to use the technology at their disposal to prevent
illegal downloads, then pointed out that the law might soon force them
to do so. A plan presented by the new French president calls for ISPs
there to deny access to repeat offenders, and other European
governments are in various stages of discussing similar plans. Before
long, the European Union will have to take up the matter.

As it
happens, limiting file-sharing would also help ISPs. Illegal
file-sharing almost certainly accounts for more than half of all ISP
traffic — exact figures vary — even though it's used by a relatively
small number of customers. Since almost all ISPs offer all-you-can-eat
service, they may well be losing money on the customers who aren't
playing by the rules. On the other hand, McGuinness suggested, if ISPs
charged consumers $5 or $10 more a month for unlimited access to music,
everyone would win. Labels would get paid for their music, access
providers would get paid for their bandwidth, and consumers would have
an easy way to enjoy all the music they want at a fraction of the cost.
Instead of hiring lawyers to sue teenagers, the music business would
pay them to create a new business.

Of course, some people in the technology industry have already come out against this. A study by the Electronic Frontier Foundation revealed that Comcast was blocking BitTorrent
traffic, which has already led to a lawsuit. Basically, Comcast
customers are claiming that their ISP is infringing their right to
steal. Other "digital liberty advocates" have said that it would be
unfair for ISPs to charge everyone for music when only a small number
of people use it. Which, I suppose, is true. But it's also unfair that
I pay for ESPN as part of my basic cable package, even though I don't
watch sports. Some people never even use the lighters in their cars!

An
additional music charge from ISPs — whether created by them or imposed
by the government — is almost certainly the best solution to balance
the rights of content creators with those of technology companies. And
most of the people who object to it simply can't abide the idea of
protecting any intellectual property at all — unless it's their own
software patents. We all have to grow up sometime.