UK Royalty Group Wants ISPs To Pay For Pirating Customers 289
Idbar writes "A group representing British songwriters and composers will on Wednesday call for the introduction of a levy on broadband providers based on the amount of pirated music they allow to pass through their networks. Will Page, chief economist at PRS for Music, will argue at a Westminster conference that a piracy fee would better align the financial interests of internet service providers with rights holders at a time when the two industries are at odds over who should bear the costs of online song swapping."
OK but only so long as you pay us ISPs too (Score:1, Interesting)
I run an UK ISP called UKFSN and my response is that if they are willing to pay me the same proportion of the gross turnover arising from their activities I will be willing to consider their proposal.
GM? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Conflicting Ideas (Score:1, Interesting)
Actually wouldn't the easy way to do this be to aggregate the torrent/filesharing traffic (what's not encrypted) and use the headers to figure out which songs are being downloaded. Each ISP provides a list of these to the government, who is responsible for recieving the taxes, and then redistributing them to the proper licensing firm (after taking their cut of course.). In the end people never pay for music anymore because they're being taxed to download it whether or not they did. Licensing firms are only getting money for songs they actually maintain the licensing for, and us regular consumers get all the free music downloads we want, yay! :D Let's see how long their stupid model lasts if they do that.
Hint: All it'll take is people starting to download the 'wrong' songs off p2p and the whole kebash will crumble down on them. It might take a few years, but this practice would most likely accelerate it. (Since why waste time listening to the radio/tv/whatever when it's cheaper to just download them all anyway? :D
So even if you don't download, you're fined (Score:3, Interesting)
Might as well increase road tax if there are more people speeding.
AMAZING IDEA! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No further prosecution? (Score:3, Interesting)
yep, its mostly the same as some nations have had on the sale of things like blank cassette tapes and CD-Rs for decades.
now if the media companies want it both ways, any sane judge should tell them to get lost.
OK (Score:1, Interesting)
As soon as phone companies start paying royalties for drug shipments done over the phone.
So, if they succeed with this... (Score:5, Interesting)
...then presumably, it will be legal for me to download their clients' work, as I will already be paying for it.
Re:They mean, a group representing big business (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd have to call BS on this. I don't for a second believe that the artist gets 5% or frankly anywhere near that. I believe the another article on slashdot within the last few days indicated that artists get 23 dollars out of every 1000 and that is for traditional cd's. As I understand it from other articles I have read, artists usually make far less on digital media than on traditional media. So if your going to claim that artists are receiving 5% of the gross price of a track from itunes your going to have to list some references before I'll put much stock in what you're saying. Even if we discount the fact that your posting as an AC.
Re:well great .. no really... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Rights Holder (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. This is like charging phone companies for any scams done through their lines. Or charging gun dealers for each gun they sell that is used in a crime. Or charging car dealers for each car they sell that is used in some sort of crime. etc. etc. etc.
I understand that (Score:2, Interesting)
Copyright (as in law) in the modern world is supposed to exist so as to allow those whom are engaged in the creative sector can profit from their creativity and thus earn a living from their endeavours
My sole source of income is from the work I do as an editorial and commercial photographer, so copyright legislation supposedly benefits me as it serves to protect my income from less than scrupulous entities whom would rather appropriate my work without compensating me
Of course the trouble with photography is that it's largely those who do have the funds and ability to legally license my work that are the most reluctant to "cough up" - even when caught red-handed
I do think that the RIAA and PRS are at best more than a little misguided in their efforts - and, at worst, they're practising corporate extortion.
I'll quote from Wikipedia article on Statutory Damages [wikipedia.org]
"the original rationale for statutory damages was that it would often be difficult to establish the number of copies that had been made by an underground pirate business and awards of statutory damages would save rights holders from having to do so"
So: in pursuing individuals for damages of between $750 (minimum) and $150,000 (maximum) per work infringed, a person whom downloads a movie or song is being treated like a for-profit criminal gang
I believe that copyright legislation needs to undergo reform so that the penalties for infringement more appropriately reflect the scale and intent of the infringement.