$6 month for nothing?
I’m intrigued by the idea of taxing people $6/month so that music downloading would be otherwise free and unrestricted.

The big drawback is that I don’t want to download any non-free music, and I’d resent paying the $6 for something I don’t want. I’m not sure that fogeys like me really want to subsidize the music habits of teenagers.

It sounds like a way for the music labels (which produce a nearly uniformly boring product) to be ensured of making a profit and getting my money. They have no interest in creating something I personally would like—and they’d have even less reason to try, since they’d be getting my money anyway.

But I must be missing some larger point about society or copyright law or something. Feel free to enlighten me.

P.S. I like music—that’s not what this is about. In fact, I just bought a new Stratocaster.
10:56 pm #

NetNewsWire and NetNewsWire Lite 1.0.8
NetNewsWire and NetNewsWire Lite 1.0.8 fix a couple small but important bugs and add a bunch of feeds to the Sites Drawer.

See What’s New in 1.0.8 for details.
07:01 pm #