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."
This cost will get passed on to the ISP's customers. Everyone with broadband will be required to subsidize the entertainment industry as it pretends to die from losses to piracy while reporting massive profits. If they're forcing me to compensate them for losses based on arbitrary made-up amounts for 'imaginary' lost sales then I will force them to compensate me by giving me free movies & tv shows based on my arbitrarily assigned figures for its value. I think a 2500th of it's retail price (as they like that figure and use it to calculate lawsuit settlements) is fair. I'll be more than happy to bittorrent the equivalent value with my broadband connection.
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.
The Government is indirectly subsidizing the Creative industry by taxing the internet industry and giving the taxes to Rights Holders
No they aren't. As a member of Britain's creative industry, and someone who has been a 'victim' of copyright infringement, I doubt I will see a penny of this money. It is a subsidy on the litigation industry, not the creative industry. Those of us who actually do create things are more worried about turning potential customers into real customers than suing people.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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
Those of us who actually do create things are more worried about turning potential customers into real customers than suing people.
I feel like this should be shouted from the rooftops.
It's getting depressing the amount of time, money and effort the government is spending in the vain hope of protecting some special interest groups who generally speak for a tiny minority of the creative industry. What's worse is the amount of collateral damage in the form of both technical and legal measures that can be used to infringe on our freedom to speak.
Copying someone's hard work without paying for it is a dick move. Restricting said work with onerous DRM so that it's not possible to pay for a copy that can be used as one wants, or taking my money on the assumption that I'm infringing your copyright, or crippling the connection between my PC and monitor, or trying works up in copyrights so long that we'll never see them made public in our lifetimes, or tracking my online behaviour, or any number of other moves made by the entertainment industry lobby, is such colossal asshattery that the initial act of infringement pales in comparison.
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?