Slashdot Mirror
UK ISPs To Pay 25% of Copyright Enforcement Costs
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."
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.
Living With a Nerd
'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.
If they're being forced to foot the bill to protect the Right's Holders interests, ISP's should start getting 25% of the profit the Rights Holder's make from those Interests.
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.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
UK ISPs To Pass 25% of Copyright Enforcement Costs To Customers
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
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.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
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?
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Canada has a blank media levy (from the 80s era of mix tapes I believe, but that's not explained in this article) that a judge ruled gives us carte blanche to download (but not upload) music to burn to those media. Maybe the *IAA pushing for levies will backfire on them.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
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.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
.. 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!
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
However, corporations should not have rights, even if they do. A corporation is not a person, and should not be treated like a person.
Palm trees and 8
By "creative industries" they mean of course, "businesses that sell copies of other people's work and pay the creators a tiny portion."
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.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Not if they use reverse "Hollywood Accounting".
That way they ISP will be paying WAY MORE than the 25%.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
It's the wrong way round. The entertainment industry should fund my internet costs for all the shitty adverts they keep stuffing down my internet connection.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
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.
Free Martian Whores!
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.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.