I subscribed to eMusic when it had a similar plan. $12.95 a month (I think that was the fee) and I was supposed to be able to download to my heart's content. I had been a member for about a year when I, and a number of other subscribers, began getting letters telling us to back off--that we were, it seems, "eating" too much. Within the year, eMusic had changed its plan to what it now offers: not a bad deal, but not what I had bought in the first place.

The problem was one that I think has relevance here. Some subscribers had crummy download speeds while others had terrific speeds that allowed zillions of downloads per day. I, for instance, work with a university computer. I was able to put ten songs in my queue, go to class, and come back fifty minutes later with an album (or nearly an album) downloaded. As I did my emailing, I'd queue up another ten, and so on. Every day, as per the agreement I had entered into with eMusic, I'd download to my heart's content.

Here's the question: Will Apple keep the all-you-can-eat bargain if it turns out that download speeds exceed Apple's expectations? If not, then paying the "premium" price (what does that mean??) is a bad move.

This already exists in Canada. there is a tariff on blank cd's and mp3 players. The money collected is to be distributed to artists. The problem is while the government has collected the money, they have not given any of it to artists. It is just another revenue stream for the government.

Meanwhile, blank cd's cost $50 for 100 while blank dvd's (no tariff) cost $30 or less for 100.

A better solution would be to include the address of a working musician with every package of blank discs. I will gladly send them the $.

Why is everyone so economically challenged when it comes to understanding what is going on in the music business?

The situation we have today is unsustainable chaos. There is no respect for IP and little enforcement. This cannot continue. I don't care how many of you say "but it is...and no one is going to stop us" you are wrong. You cannot expect to continue stealing others' property without consequence.

One way or another the world is going to return to sanity and pay for the music they demand. It has value, people want it and it costs money to produce. There is no logical explanation for why it should be free. Just because people have temporarily found a way to steal it? That's not a good enough reason.

Subscription music is a good and viable alternative. I'm talking about the Rhapsody or Napster variety. The model being discussed in which a certain collection of songs is preloaded on a device makes little sense when you stop and think aobut it. How do they know what you like? Are you supposed to be satisfied with just that collection and nothing else? What about new releases? It makes little sense. In the mean time, Rhapsody and Napster provide excellent value propositions most people ignore them because they think they can get a better deal -- either by stealing or just holding out until the labels cry uncle. Subscription music is not mutually exclusive from owning music. They can go hand in hand. You should give Napster a try. I've been on it for three years and cannot imagine being without it now.

Jesus. If we're not willing to compensate the schlockmeister du jour and their team of songwriters 99 cents for their current hit crap pop song... if that's too much, what is the reasonable amount? 5 cents? At what point does the whole thing become ridiculous?