UK ISPs To Pay 25% of Copyright Enforcement Costs 255
Andorin writes "The UK's Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) has released a report (PDF) related to the new Digital Economy Act. The debate between copyright holders and ISPs about who should front the costs for the enforcement of the Act's anti-piracy provisions has come to a close: Rights holders will pay 75% of the copyright enforcement costs, with the remaining 25% of the bill going to ISPs (and therefore their customers). Says the Minister for Communications, Ed Vaizey: 'Protecting our valuable creative industries, which have already suffered significant losses as a result of people sharing digital content without paying for it, is at the heart of these measures... We expect the measures will benefit our creative economy by some £200m per year and as rights holders are the main beneficiaries of the system, we believe our decision on costs is proportionate to everyone involved.' Not surprisingly, some ISPs and consumer groups are up in arms about the decision, with one ISP calling it a government subsidy of the entertainment industries."
Eh... (Score:4, Insightful)
They instead should have figured it based on how likely the Act would have come into law had the copyright holders not lobbied.
If the answer is "not likely at all", then the copyright holders should foot the bill.
What do UKers think? (Score:4, Insightful)
'Protecting our valuable creative industries, which have already suffered significant losses as a result of people sharing digital content without paying for it, is at the heart of these measures... We expect the measures will benefit our creative economy by some £200m per year and as rights holders are the main beneficiaries of the system, we believe our decision on costs is proportionate to everyone involved.'
Wow this quote is gold, I am curious how those of the UK will react. Seems a load of tripe to me.
It should go both ways. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:taxation without representation (Score:4, Insightful)
Corporations should have zero rights. The people INSIDE the corp has all the various right due a human being, but a corporation should have no more rights than a rock or tree or cow.
In related news... (Score:3, Insightful)
UK ISPs To Pass 25% of Copyright Enforcement Costs To Customers
It's only fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only fair that if you are "subsidizing" an industry because of claims of "lost profit", then said company should open up their books so the public can see what losses they are talking about. And I guarantee that ain't going to happen.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What do UKers think? (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually 10-15 years is just fine. Most sales tend to be in the first 1-2 years of release anyway for the vast majority of things. Copyright isn't suppose to be about making sure your kids get an old age pension off some tripe you scribbled off one day.
Re:What do UKers think? (Score:4, Insightful)
As a member of Britain's creative industry
If you're not a "Rights Holder", you're nobody. If you merely produce "creative" things but hand over the rights to someone else, you're no more part of the creative industry than a lettuce-farmer is part of the fast-food industry.
Re:What do UKers think? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not the kids though it is. It's the corporations that buy the "rights" to become the "rights holders", and get perpetual income from works. Yes, copyright does have a limit, but we all know when that gets nearer, it'll be bumped up again. Each year we should be getting a new bundle of out of copyright works coming into the public domain, reality is we get nothing.
Elvis died in 1977 IIRC, John Lennon three years later. All their works are under copyright and will be long after my death. Why? They're not creating anything, and not performing. Why should their works still be locked away 30 years after their death?
Re:Eh... (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you figure? It's something that directly impacts the ability of ISPs to provide customers with the same quality of service for the same cost...while NOT enacting the Act wouldn't affect the ISPs in any way.
This is purely being done in the copyright holders' interest, with zero positive effect for the public or ISPs. Why should one company have to either increase the cost to their customers or reduce their own bottom line because another company had the means to buy a law?
Shooting the messenger (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you penalize those that build highways for giving road racers the smooth and long pavement on which to drive recklessly? It's not their fault that people choose to break the law (or in this case, violate copyright).
I don't see how it's the responsbility of the providers to be liable for their customers use or abuse. That smacks big time of collusion in politics. Who in the UK parliament is supporting this bill?
Re:What do UKers think? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Thank you for legitimizing bittorrenting (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Eh... (Score:2, Insightful)
The Copyright holders probably didn't lobby for anything. It's usually those "organizations that represent the interests of copyright holders" that are involved with the government.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the public wont hear about it. The companies that lobbied to get this Act passed are
very closely connected to the companies that show most of the people their news & current events.
Filesharing in the media is almost always shown in a bad way and they never mention it's legal uses.
Re:Thank you for legitimizing bittorrenting (Score:5, Insightful)
.. the entertainment industry as it pretends to die from losses to piracy while reporting massive profits.
Last time I checked they also pretend to not make any money. They may report huge gross income and brag about biggest box office sales ever, but somehow they never make a net profit (even before the days of internet piracy).
Good thing we have all these philanthropists funding the movie industry, because between piracy and films just not being profitable all the big film companies would collapse under a mountain of debt!
Re:What do UKers think? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:taxation without representation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What do UKers think? (Score:5, Insightful)
fewer people would go into the music business if they had no way of providing for their loved ones if they died an untimely death.
Yup, just like fewer people would go into the janitorial business if they had no way of providing for their loved ones if they died an untimely death.
Or fewer people would go into the plumbing business if they had no way of providing for their loved ones if they died an untimely death.
Or fewer people would go into the lawyer business if they had no way of providing for their loved ones if they died an untimely death.
So - if people won't go into "X" business unless they can guarantee they'll get paid for years after they're dead, how does anything get done?
Let's get our definitions right (Score:4, Insightful)
By "creative industries" they mean of course, "businesses that sell copies of other people's work and pay the creators a tiny portion."
Re:Thank you for legitimizing bittorrenting (Score:4, Insightful)
Last time I checked they also pretend to not make any money. They may report huge gross income and brag about biggest box office sales ever, but somehow they never make a net profit (even before the days of internet piracy).
Yeah, it's too bad that Titanic, which cost $200M to make and grossed over $2B worldwide ended up losing $200M. A shame indeed.
Re:Thank you for legitimizing bittorrenting (Score:3, Insightful)
Not if they use reverse "Hollywood Accounting".
That way they ISP will be paying WAY MORE than the 25%.
Re:What do UKers think? (Score:5, Insightful)
As a copyright holder I wouldn't object to a twenty year term (and I have two registered copyrights that would have expired if that were the case), but I object vehemently against the insane lengths of today's copyrights. Having a copyright last longer than a human life hinders and harms creativity. Like science and technology, art is built on what has come before. Imagine how badly technological innovation would be stifled if patents lasted as long as copyrights? These insane lengths help nobody but corporations.
Cory Doctorow credits the fact that anyone can read his books for free, whether hardcover from the library of downloaded from his website, for his status as a New York Times best seller. Nobody has ever been shown to have lost any real money to copyright infringement, but many have been greatly harmed by obscurity.
Ten years is a little short; I wrote a series of journals back in 2003-2005 that I'm just now getting into book form. But OTOH I'm using the CC license; any noncommercial use is OK with me, and I'll thank anyone for uploading or downloading or torrenting or sharing in any other way. Like I saw on an indie music DC, "Be kind and burn a copy for a friend."
Anybody who doesn't want anyone to see his work until it's paid for probably isn't very good.
Re:Thank you for legitimizing bittorrenting (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
So the people who pirate are forcing the ones who don't to help rights holders regain a portion of revenue that would otherwise be lost to them.
Nobody has ever been shown to have lost a penny to piracy, but studies show that music pirates spend more money on music than non-pirates. There is no revenue lost to piracy. Most people have a limited amount of money. If a broke college kid pirates a $900 image editor, the publisher didn't lose any money because the kid didn't have the money to spend in the first place. In fact, it might result in a sale of that program down the road, because college pirate is now employed and is likely to buy the later, updated version of the software rather than the competitor's because that's what he's used to and comfortable with.
If he hears a song he likes on the radio and shells out $20 for the CD, only to find that there's only one good song on it, he's going to stop buying CDs from that artist and maybe even that publisher. In that case, a sale has resulted in lost sales.
If he spends $20 on two indie CDs, that's $20 he doesn't have to spend on one RIAA CD, and the label has indeed lost a sale -- but not to piracy.
There is one instance where piracy can hurt sales, and that's when the content is crap. If a crappy movie gets on the net before it's released, people will find out it's crap and not go see it.
Piracy only hurts crap. It helps good content. The people who pushed for this law are selling crap.
Re:Thank you for legitimizing bittorrenting (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't matter that it's 25% paid for by the ISP and 75% by the content owners it will eventually be 100% passed on to the consumer.
Re:What do UKers think? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should there be a time limit when someone is no longer entitled to the fruits of their labor?
Because the author does NOT own the work, at least in the US. If you're an American citizen PLEASE read the constitution. It grants a limited time monopoly to encourage more creativity, NOT ownership of the work. Intellectual Property belongs to the people, not the "content creator".
I suppose you'd like people to pay the hundred dollars that you used to have to pay for paroxetine when it was till under patent (Paxil), rather than the ten you pay today? The construction worker doesn't get paid for the next hundred years for the house he built today, why should a filmmaker or band or novelist? A patent only lasts twenty years, why should a copyright last longer?
The greed is on the part of the people who want to be paid forever for work that took a limited time to produce.