Hacker News Reader

Comment by Simulacra | Hacker News Reader

Well 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?

View on HN

I 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?

You'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.

All 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com