Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Royalty Group Wants ISPs To Pay For Pirating Customers

Posted by samzenpus on from the sins-of-the-user dept.

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."

37 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. Rights Holder by jaminJay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Silly me, thinking that it should be up to the rights holder to protect their rights.

    --
    Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
    1. Re:Rights Holder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      My dear fellow, every Brit knows that it is "Kiss my arse"

      I have no desire to be near a donkey

    2. Re:Rights Holder by zebslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A federal offense ? In the UK ? That's new for me.

    3. Re:Rights Holder by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah; that whole thing about being the 51st state isn't actually true, it just feels like it sometimes...

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
    4. Re:Rights Holder by bjourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Um no. It is up to the state to protect and enforce the rights of its citizens. Otherwise we'd had a society where only the rights of the strong is worth anything.

      --
      Football Odds
    5. Re:Rights Holder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it's like charging road builders for speeding tickets the police failed to collect. The end result would be roads of such quality, that you can barely drive on them, let alone speed.

    6. Re:Rights Holder by Zironic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's the entire reason we have government. The most basic service that government provides is protection, when that service is not provided then you get anarchy and your rights quickly become "none whatsoever". Just look at post-invasion Bagdad or post-hurricane New Orleans.

      The reason I said that the government provides your rights is because ultimately they're the only ones that can enforce them, what would be the alternatives, pay the corporations to do it? I'm sure they'd be honest, vigilante justice? that works GREAT.

      Sure it's to some extent problematic since some of the rights we expect to be enforced is the freedom from the government, but that's why we have to hold the government accountable. However I'll maintain that thinking that the government is not enforcing any of your rights is profoundly ignorant.

  2. well great .. no really... by powerspike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Great,
    If i'm going to paying a mothly fee for pirated music, i'll be sure to download my allocation's worth every month, after i've then paid for it then haven't i?

    1. Re:well great .. no really... by thijsh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm currently paying for music in the following ways (probably more):
      - Legally downloaded music
      - Donations to great internet radio
      - Last.FM all- you-can-eat subscription
      - Concert and festival tickets
      - Monthly fees for radio (comes with cable)
      - Tax on my blank CDs and MP3 player
      - And newest proposal: tax the internet

      There are countless ways they want our money for music made by others... But somehow I am still a criminal who owns them a gazillion for downloading some music??? When will this madness end?

    2. Re:well great .. no really... by Vanderhoth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Good question, how can you "steal" or infringe on something you've already paid for. Someone being sued by the *IAA should bring up that point. I'd like to see the out come.

    3. Re:well great .. no really... by thijsh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You'd think so, but sadly according to them, you can't. And the politicians seem to agree with the bribes ... uhhhh I misspelled lobby ... from the industry.

  3. No further prosecution? by some_guy_88 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If this would mean that no further prosecution of end users would be allowed then this may not be such a bad idea. The levy would be passed on to consumers making our connections slightly more expensive but I'd pay more money to not be hassled about file sharing.

    1. Re:No further prosecution? by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really? Only slightly more expensive?

      Think more along the lines of, well, each file going through any file sharing method, probably includes at least one song, so that'll be a US dollar [or like amount]. Now multiply the number of files flowing through the ISP to all it's subscribers each month times $1 = monthly levy.

      This number is unlikely to be acceptable to the ISP's subscribers.

      A smaller number, like say, $10 or $15/month/subscriber [roughly what subscription music services charge] is a no-go, because that is for renting the music for a month. File downloads don't expire, so it's only fair that they are charged as purchases instead.

      Of course, no need to track which specific songs are downloaded, or even if the file is a music file [or contains music], as ALL the money stops at the labels, rather than say, even paying the couple percent royalties to artists for the music.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:No further prosecution? by swilver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not in favor of giving some organization, that does not represent ALL rightsholders, money for counting bits going through my connection. If they however can sort the bits into nice buckets so I can clearly see who they belong to, than it might work. I'd prefer an organization like this on my monthly bill:

      1) total amount of bits downloaded
      2) number of copyrighted bits downloaded
      3) number of copyrighted bits downloaded without permission of the rightsholder
      4) number of copyrighted bits downloaded without permission of the rightsholder represented by this organisation

      Plot them in a nice graph, with green, yellow, orange and red bars, so I know which flavor I downloaded the most. /sarcasm

  4. Conflicting Ideas by Spad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which would be fine in principle if the PRS were the only game in town, but they're not.

    So you'd have the PRS collecting their piracy levy from users (via the ISPs) and the BPI suing the same users (and ISPs if they can wangle it) for the same piracy, while doubtless also collecting a levy on blank media just in case someone puts some pirated stuff on it. Presumably if you then posted that media to someone the PRS would want to collect a levy from the Royal Mail for sending pirated stuff via the post.

  5. Hmmm... by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That makes about as much proportional sense as a crazy local militia demanding the national army hand over all their tanks and missiles, because "we paid for some of those with our taxes".

    However extravagant the audio media monopolies are represented - they're economically dwarfed by the telecom organizations. Their argument to shift the burden of, well pretty much whatever they can imagine, over to the bank accounts of the entire telecom industry is just absurd on its face, and isn't the kind of fight even a larger media ownership group could win.

    It's one thing to ask for the moon, in order to settle for something else - but this seems a game they could get hurt for playing.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Hmmm... by c0lo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      However extravagant the audio media monopolies are represented - they're economically dwarfed by the telecom organizations.

      Telco companies may be bigger but they are not as well connected because their main "product" isn't lobbyism. I am not suprised that these rights management abominations get away with everything they ask for in our corrupt political systems.

      On the other side, usually the telcos are national companies: guess who the UK government is most likely to give preference in hearing their plea? To British Telecom (UK) or to Sony BMG (Japan)?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  6. Just another theft by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My money is already stolen if I record the sound of my own band on my own CD. I don't need another theft if I want to let someone hear my songs on the net. Off course, the stolen money should go to the rights holder, but as a rights holder to my own songs, I never saw even a cent from it. And my songs have been played in public and broadcasted.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  7. Perhaps while they're at it by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps while they're at it they could pay for online fraud, substandard goods sold on the internet and child protection. Lets extend that so that transport companies, taxis, car sales have to pay a surcharge to cover people who are travelling to commit a crime.

    1. Re:Perhaps while they're at it by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which means two things are guaranteed:

      1) Costs will be passed on to the consumer, ensuring that the companies themselves are not affected.
      2) The incidence of infringement of the laws these levies are intended to cover will increase, as th general population feel they have paid for a service which they should now make use of, and the costs these levies are intended to cover will increase exponentially.

      Best of luck to them. I say 12 months down the line, they're out of business as nobody is buying music anymore. Why buy it a second time when I've already bought it once with my levy payment?

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  8. Of course by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Naturally, the fees will be turned over to the artists whose works are copied and rather than considering the copiers thieves, they will be paid in full.

    HA HA HA...I crack me up!

  9. GM? by hairyfish · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I heard that GM got so big that they ceased to be an auto company and evolved into a finance company (and shortly after went bankrupt). SCO ceased to become a technology company and changed into a lawsuit company (then folded). Now Music is moving from selling records, to suing customers to becoming a tax collectors? The death throws of Big Music are clear and present. If I owned shares in these companies I'd be selling up while they're still something.

  10. Difficult to implement by OpenSourced · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A difficult law to implement. How are they going to know how much pirated content travels by one ISP's lines? Even the ISP itself has no idea. Are they going to suppose that all bittorrent traffic is pirated content? What is the percentage of pornographic content? I assume that they don't represent the pornographic content providers, specially foreign ones. What about encrypted content? If they implement such a law I assume that the level of encrypted content will rise. There is no reason why all pirated content is not encrypted, except that it's at the moment not needed.

    In the end they probably just want to get a fixed levy an all ISPs. And all blank CDs, DVDs, hard disks, memory cards, diskettes, memo pads, pens, photo cameras, and people with good memory.

    --
    Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
  11. AMAZING IDEA! by Buttink · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I make awesome song A. I then host "leaked" song A torrent on popular trackers. Copy all IPs. Sue users. Sue ISPs. Get pirating tax. profit.

  12. Right. That's going to work well. Sure. by Mathinker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > ISPs that have knowledge

    They can't have knowledge of infringement because only the rightsholder knows what licenses he has given. The ISP doesn't know that. Oh, and real infringement can only be decided in a court of law because of those pesky exceptions like fair use/dealing.

    > or notice of infringement

    Great, so we're in the DMCA-mode, where it's trivially easy to game the system because there is no real penalty for delivering a mistaken notice of infringement?

    1. Re:Right. That's going to work well. Sure. by beowulfcluster · · Score: 3, Funny

      What if I set the comment on an mp3 file I seed to 'Shiver me timbers, yarr'. Will it match their MD5 then?

  13. They mean, a group representing big business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work with digital sales accounts.

    Every time you download a track from Itunes most of your money goes to, the government as tax (in the UK), the retailer (Itunes in this case), the distributor, and the label. The artist gets maybe 5% of what you pay.

    Unbelievable but that's how it is.

    Don't let these liars and crooks fool you into thinking otherwise.

    1. Re:They mean, a group representing big business by tehcyder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every time you download a track from Itunes most of your money goes to, the government as tax (in the UK), the retailer (Itunes in this case), the distributor, and the label. The artist gets maybe 5% of what you pay.

      Unbelievable but that's how it is.

      Why is it unbelievable? The artist has signed up to a deal where they have to do no additional work and still get royalties.
      If you don't want the whole iTunes/retailer/distributor/label deal just do it yourself, no-one's stopping you.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:They mean, a group representing big business by MadKeithV · · Score: 3, Informative

      no usually what happens is the artist gets a lump sum and then royalties on top for each sale. the lump sum buys their rights for cents on the dollar in the hope their work will make it big.

      on their own there's a high certainty of failure for a new starter.

      No. What happens is the artist gets a large "lump sum", but that sum is actually an open "loan" in the small print of the contract, and the label can just keep making shit up to add to the "loan". The artist gets a small amount of royalties while most of the income goes to the label. However, the artist has to pay back the loan out of their royalties (small print!). So basically, the label passes the checkout twice: they get most of the profit from sales, AND they recoup the lump sum loan from artists. Only if the artist sells a LOT of records do they start earning a little real money, and even at that time the label is still making more money than the artists.

  14. So, if they succeed with this... by The+Fanta+Menace · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...then presumably, it will be legal for me to download their clients' work, as I will already be paying for it.

    --
    -- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
  15. Do this by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am for this and when this new law is introduced so will another one. Were EVERY single artist will be locked up for life for the countless drug offences they are bound to commit on average.

    Every performer in England will serve life for Mick Jaggers drug abuse. That is fair isn't it? If I have to pay for someone else downloading, why don't they got to do time for someone elses snorting?

    But I know the real reason behind this proposal. The lawyer introduced, hoping that the people will have wasted their bullets on the entertainers before they can get busy on the lawyers.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  16. Just doing their job by slim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Look, we all know this is a ridiculously unfair idea - and PRS has history of promoting ridiculously unfair ideas (e.g. taking a car mechanic to court because having the radio on in their premises constitutes a "public performance").

    But, it's their job to push for a world that's skewed towards the people they represent. It's the rest of the world's job to push back.

    The best reaction is to say "well, you would want that", then say no.

    1. Re:Just doing their job by Eivind · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Almost correct.

      It may be their "job" to push for a world, skewed towards the people they represent.

      In practice, they tend to end up pushing for a world skewed towards THEMSELVES.

      The RIAA might claim to work for musicians. In actuality, they work for the RIAA first, for record-labels second, and for musicians a distant third.

  17. It's simply not the ISP's business ... by AGMW · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It's simply not the ISP's business to care what people use their connections for, in the same way it's not up to the Post Office to care what people post!

    It's also just bare-faced cheek for the record companies, et al, to lobby for legislation that makes some other industry pay to shore up their failing business paradigm!

    The ISP's should tell 'em to take a running jump!

    --
    Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
    handmadehands.co.uk
  18. If they do, I will download by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I do not download movies or music now, cause I think I should pay for it.

    but.. if the forces ISP to pay, I will gladly download all movies and music there is.. cause then I have already paid for it.

    So if the movie and record companies want to increase the download, then force ISP to pay up.

  19. Re:Gee by Pop69 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If it was genuinely the artists who were getting the money I'd be quite happy to cough up the cash.

    As long as such a massive percentage of what I might pay goes to the companies rather than the artists that create the work (composer, lyricist, performer) then I'll just stick with downloading.

    Besides, I've already paid for most of my music twice already. Bought on vinyl or tape cassette and then replaced with CD. Why should I have to pay for it a third time to put it on my iphone ?

  20. Irony incoming, in three... two... one... by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Dear music lawyers. Following on your request that we should pay for illegal music downloads we allow to pass through, here is a detailed list of how much we allowed, which you will notice is empty. We 'allow' none to pass as we do not condone this practice, please find enclosed a fine payment cheque of zero dollars and zero cents. Love, the IPS."