The article I'm going to talk about is over a month old, but I just read it for the first time the other day, so 'round these parts (read: my blog) we get to treat it like news. ;-) Now, there are a lot of ways to get music. Some folks buy it from iTunes or some other digital equivalent. Some enjoy the "free-dom" of Limewire or a torrent. Some import CD's they bought way "back in the day" (like, circa 1999). Some listen to radio (AM/FM/XM/WWW). Some frequent the MySpace. "Piracy" has been a music industry buzzword since the days of Napster. It's also been the Industry's blatant and somewhat pathetic scapegoat for the fact that they simply didn't see the "digital age of music" coming. Well, almost a decade has now past since the lovable Shawn Fanning helped incite the music revolution, and the music biz has finally come up with an idea that just might work. If it flies, the thought is that it will preserve the Suit's high-paying executive job, pay the artists, and -- GASP -- maybe even create a workable solution for consumers. The idea, in a nutshell, is to provide consumers with an unlimited supply of music downloads for a monthly fee that will be bundled into their internet service charges. Here's the article that explains it more fully:

Fee For All Warner's New Web Guru

As always, critics already have their guns drawn, but I, for one, am having a hard time coming up with a downside to this agreement. I would GLADLY pay $5/month to get all the music I want, especially knowing that the artists I love would get paid! (Now, if we could only pay the artists fairly, that would really be something, eh?) But, existing within the current system, it's frankly the best idea I've heard in a long time. Am I missing something? //