×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK ISPs To Pay 25% of Copyright Enforcement Costs

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the oh-sure-that's-fair dept.

Piracy 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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

255 comments

Thank you for legitimizing bittorrenting (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33589264)

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.

Re:Thank you for legitimizing bittorrenting (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589416)

Only if they get payback on the enforcement.

More likely the money is wasted, with 75% of the waste coming from the producers, and 25% the ISP customers.

Better than the enforcement being paid by the taxpayers in the form of government paying the enforcement by far.

Re:Thank you for legitimizing bittorrenting (3, Insightful)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589950)

Canada has a blank media levy (from the 80s era of mix tapes I believe, but that's not explained in this article [wikipedia.org]) 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.

Re:Thank you for legitimizing bittorrenting (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590310)

Either way, I bet at 75% of cost on them, it's a money loser.

it's very mush ideal that these costs are being defined as being paid 75% by the people that want it. It is a MAJOR win IMO.

Re:Thank you for legitimizing bittorrenting (2, Insightful)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590484)

Not if they use reverse "Hollywood Accounting".

That way they ISP will be paying WAY MORE than the 25%.

Re:Thank you for legitimizing bittorrenting (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33589468)

And the ISP that does the best job of covering up its users actions pays the least in fees. Ex:
Constant IP changes, supporting / promoting encrypted traffic, deleting logs often, preventing Torrent traffic for users unless they turn on encryption...

Re:Thank you for legitimizing bittorrenting (4, Insightful)

dubbreak (623656) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590170)

.. 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:Thank you for legitimizing bittorrenting (3, Insightful)

nacturation (646836) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590316)

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.

Eh... (3, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589284)

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.

Re:Eh... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33589508)

Uh, no.

Sorry but responsibility doesn't work that way. If anything, that would be contradicting the right to have an interest in your government, and petition it.

Re:Eh... (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589712)

Nice ethical theory.

Also, welcome to reality, where ethical theory gets bulldozed by "enlightened greed" every time. Because unlike former that can only offer warm and fuzzy feelings, latter pays in cold, hard cash.

Re:Eh... (3, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589908)

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?

Re:Eh... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33589988)

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.

taxation without representation (1)

spikenerd (642677) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589316)

It naturally follows that the ISPs should have a say in how much total money should be spent on copyright enforcement. Otherwise it's taxation without representation. ...or is that exclusively an 18th century American concept?

Re:taxation without representation (3, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589574)

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.

Re:taxation without representation (1)

spikenerd (642677) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590352)

Corporations should have zero rights.

Are you saying there is nothing wrong with charging a corporation for something that is none of its business? I'm no corporate sympathizer, but in my mind, that still seems to be a violation of something. What do you call that thing, if not a right? Perhaps it's an "expectation of being treated fairly". Can corporations have an "expectation of being treated fairly"? If so, how does that differ from a ...right?

Re:taxation without representation (1)

ModernGeek (601932) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590144)

This is about the United Kingdom, not the United States; so it does not matter whether or not this is taxation without representation in the context you speak of. To the other poster, Corporations DO have rights in the United States, according to the 14th amendment and the precedent set in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

Re:taxation without representation (2, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590240)

However, corporations should not have rights, even if they do. A corporation is not a person, and should not be treated like a person.

Re:taxation without representation (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590562)

If a corp was TRULY treated like a person, then it should got to jail like a regular person does when it kill people etc.

Currently they just pay a fine. They should instead have all of its operations suspended for the duration of "incarceration".

What do UKers think? (3, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589338)

'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.

Re:What do UKers think? (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589408)

This quote was the one I found particularly offensive:

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.

Re:What do UKers think? (4, Interesting)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589456)

How can we become your customer (I'm a fan of putting my money where my mouth is)?

Re:What do UKers think? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33589694)

Silly customer. You don't eat money!

Re:What do UKers think? (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590104)

Silly customer. You don't eat money!

Sure you do. It's the only way to make sure it ends up in the same place this enforcement money is going to go.

Re:What do UKers think? (3, Interesting)

eudaemon (320983) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589546)

So you don't mind if we restore copyright to something 10-15 years, then, since the likelyhood your getting paid is almost nil in any case?

Re:What do UKers think? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33589734)

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? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33589886)

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:What do UKers think? (0)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590018)

30 years seems fair, 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. 30 years seems reasonable, provided it's 30 years after creation. At this point we'd have the entire catalog of Louis Armostrong, most of Miles Davis' stuff, every movie that Murnau ever made. Not to mention that the Beastie Boys could go back to sampling and perhaps try to top Paul's Boutique.

Re:What do UKers think? (2, Insightful)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590184)

You're exactly right! Boy back in high school when I was in my band that's all I could think about...how my great grandkids wouldn't have to work if I could just get famous!

providing for their loved ones if they died (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33590224)

I have to get insurance to do that. Why shouldn't they?

How many programmers do we have? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33590252)

How many programmers do we have? Would we have more if us programmers had rights to the code for 30 years as an incentive?

How many plumbers do we have? Maybe we'd have more if we gave them rights to the work they did on your bog for 30 years.

OR, maybe, just maybe, the people who go into the music business could do the same as a plumber or programmer or damn near any job apart from "creative industry" and SAVE UP for their kids if they die an untimely death.

What a load of bollocks you are talking.

10 years. If someone hasn't made 90% of the money from that copyright then they're crap or they have no customers.

Neither case warrants extended copyright.

Re:What do UKers think? (5, Insightful)

schon (31600) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590264)

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?

Re:What do UKers think? (1)

Urkki (668283) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590552)

30 years seems fair, 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.

How does this sound: Fewer people would go into the "wage slave" business if they had no way of providing for their loved ones if they died an timely death.

Re:What do UKers think? (3, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590438)

10 years would be fine. My sales drop to close to zero after 3 years, so I doubt it would affect me much, other than by giving my publisher an incentive to commission new stuff more frequently.

This, by the way, is exactly what the Gowers report, commissioned by the last UK government, recommended. Labour extended copyright terms shortly after reading this report. Apparently we're getting more of the same from the ConDems.

Re:What do UKers think? (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589582)

I think this puts you as a creator. It has been very difficult to determine the dividing line between the "creative industry" and the litigation industry. Litigation has been one of the creative industries primary assets for some time, and this is just another step towards monetizing a potential income stream. You happen to be another income stream that management of these companies have available. The management is not creating, the industry is not entirely about creating.

Re:What do UKers think? (1, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589612)

>>>Those of us who actually do create things are more worried about turning potential customers into real customers than suing people.

Then why do you join organizations like RIAA, MPAA, Authors Guild, SAG, and/or others that support suing people? Quit them and rally your other authors/creators to do the same.

Re:What do UKers think? (0)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589978)

Because artists who actually want to make money by doing their craft aren't so naive. Independents are great and all, but cash, not ideals, is what pays the bills. If music is your hobby, great. But if it is your career and source of income, you have to play the game a little.

Re:What do UKers think? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590062)

Same reason why people don't quit jobs that pay sub living wages, if you want to work in that industry the opportunities are significantly limited if you're not working for them. And people that have sub living wages would quit if they had a reasonable opportunity to make a living wage.

I realize that fresh water economists don't believe it, but the reality is that choices are not without consequence, and the government mucks about enough on the business side of things so as to make it necessary for the government to provide the people with some means of protecting themselves.

Re:What do UKers think? (0)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590328)

>>>jobs that pay sub living wages

There is such a thing? Where? Walmart pays 8-something an hour, or nearly $1400 a month. I could live off that. I wouldn't be able to afford overpriced cable TV, but then I don't have cable tv now either, so no change.

Anyway -

I see your point about authors/musicians needing to join these Corporations in order to survive.

Re:What do UKers think? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590462)

I'm not a member of any of these organisations (and I don't know anyone who is), but that doesn't prevent them from claiming to represent me. For example, I was part of the class in the lawsuit by the Authors' Guild against Google - I only found this out when they sent me a letter asking if I wanted to be part of the settlement.

Re:What do UKers think? (5, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589670)

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.

Re:What do UKers think? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33589768)

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? (3, Insightful)

delt0r (999393) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589948)

This is depressingly insightful. It has never been about the artists. Or they would be permitted to be independent.

Re:What do UKers think? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590524)

Interesting. I'd define 'Rights Holder' to mean 'person who owns the copyright'. And that's me in the case of most of my stuff. I did some stuff as work for hire when I started writing, but the rights for that are owned by the author of the rest of the book, not by the publisher. The only stuff I've done recently as work-for-hire was under open source licenses which explicitly permit free redistribution so they aren't going to be covered by this.

Re:What do UKers think? (1)

RKThoadan (89437) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589982)

This is because you're just a creator and if you sign up with a label you usually sign over the rights and are for the most part no longer the "Rights Holder". They are using intentionally deceptive language to make us think they are helping the creators when they really aren't. In the US this would basically extrapolate to "Rights Holders... which are incredibly large and massively companies who donate lots of cash to political campaigns which was not matched by the cash contributed by ISPs." I was under the impression that political campaigns ran a bit differently over there and are slightly less reliant on corporate donations, but it appears I may be mistaken.

Re:What do UKers think? (1)

smi.james.th (1706780) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590318)

So should the government put a tax on the motor industry because cars are usually used to facilitate bank robberies? Do they penalise the steel mines because knives that are used in violent crimes are made of steel? Do they make paper manufacturers pay a percentage of the costs of various fraudulent transactions that are no doubt carried out on their paper? That's more or less the same thing, as far as I can see. If you consider "copyright infringement" to be a crime, that is.

Re:What do UKers think? (1)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590398)

Agreed, same in Canada. Most royalties don't get paid to artists without high-profile representation, and therefore the artists that need the royalties most aren't getting them.

In particular SOCAN is basically a bully for the music labels, literally threatening lawsuits against music venues (who also can least afford this) for having live music unless they cough up a percentage, which is then handed over to the big labels, _even if the bands are playing their own original music_. Must be nice to have the government do your extortion for you! Welcome to Toronto...

Re:What do UKers think? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33590494)

Sorry, but I see things this way: If I don't pirate anything then I'm getting taxed for nothing, therefore I'll pirate some music and movies, to get my money back.

Re:What do UKers think? (1)

Tailhook (98486) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589496)

I am curious how those of the UK will react

Those of the UK will assert that this is the result of US corporate media interests controlling the UK government.

Anything else I can help you with?

Re:What do UKers think? (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589530)

I've long since given up on thinking of corporations as being 'US or UK' or anything else. Corporations don't have any sort of allegiances. Corporations are just corporations they want to screw everyone regardless of where they are.

Re:What do UKers think? (0, Offtopic)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589676)

Good point.

Microsoft demonstrated the philosophy when they announced the shop would relocate to India if Obama followed-through on his rhetoric to tax ALL corporate profits. Notice how Obama stopped talking about that plan shortly afterwards. Nobody wants to see microsoft move out of the US, so the threat worked. (And it's not just MS; it's true of all megacorps.)

Re:What do UKers think? (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589792)

Yup, every day we get closer to the game Syndicate.

I'm beginning to realize that not only was that game amazaballs, it was also prophetic

Pissed off of course (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589512)

Intellectual property gone nuts, will eventually strangle the western world to death.

Thankfully I'm no longer domiciled in the UK, but when I do return, I miss my 1000Mbit/s symmetric net connection, no caps, and being where the DMCA TDNs can never find me.
Seriously, UK is digital 3rd world.

Re:Pissed off of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33590134)

You say that but speaking as someone from the UK, our US office shows just how crappy a place* can be at Internet connections. Seriously, I can get more speed for less on a household line than they get.

*I say place as I know the US is a big place and a single city in Arizona is not representative...even if it is the fifth most populated city in the country.

When will ISPs grow a couple of balls? (1)

coder111 (912060) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589576)

I cannot wait until ISPs and electronic industry grow a couple of balls and do what other industries do- establish a lobby, buy a bunch of MPs (preferably more than "creative" industries), and make sure laws like this never get passed.

I mean, Internet providers with electronics industry should earn more than "creative" industries, why do they still deal with this crap and allow RIAA to walk all over them. ISPs and device manufacturers should be the ones writing the rules.

--Coder

Re:When will ISPs grow a couple of balls? (1)

CyprusBlue113 (1294000) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590190)

Because it costs a lot of money, and the real ISPs (not the big telco operators) are already very thin on profits thanks to said telcos.

Re:What do UKers think? (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589954)

It's like gathering a group of Daily Mail readers, and on their recommendation, taxing the ethnic minorities they feel to be most responsible for things not being the way they used to be.

Assuming the money is split between the "big three" record companies - and that's ignoring all the smaller ones, then I'm certain that Vivendi's £66 million, when added to their annual revenue of upwards of £20 billion, will encourage them to take their creativity to levels that mortals could previously only dream of.

Sod this. Soon as they introduce this then I begin torrenting content to cover the cost.

Good (1)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589352)

Maybe the "common" public will start to see how the entertainment industry is corrupt, awful, and generally falling behind the times with no mass adoption of the "new methods" to make money.

Unfortunately in the mean time, the costs will get passed on from the ISP to the customers, who will end up paying more. But, hopefully that causes the above statement to be even more true. Maybe they should do this in the USA too so the MPAA and RIAA will fuck off and leave other non-US countries alone.

Re:Good (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589462)

The people will bitch abit about it & then carry on with their lives, the bigger problem is that we'll see this pop up in other countries next

Re:Good (-1, Flamebait)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589744)

>>>Maybe the "common" public will start to see how the entertainment industry is corrupt, awful, and generally falling behind the times with no mass adoption of the "new methods" to make money.

More likely the UK republic will respond the same way the Canadian public responded when a ~10% surcharge was added to cassettes, CD-Rs, and DVD-Rs. Nothing. The public will convince themselves it is reasonable to pay this extra tax, in order to support authors/musicians/creators.

If this was enacted in the US, my yearly internet bill will jump from $180 to $225.
Sucks.
And just gives me justification to steal ~$50 worth of content.

Re:Good (2, Interesting)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590198)

Not really, the public accepted this tax in Canada because the way it is done the 10% surcharge basically gives us free license to pirate anything we want without having to worry about it. They can only really successfully prosecute in Canada nowadays if you made money off of your piracy. There is a legal situation where if you are the originator of a file that could be considered to be damaging to the company that you can get charged but basically as long as you're not the originator you're fine.

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

click2005 (921437) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590016)

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.

downfall of an era (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33589358)

nonsense has arrived

It should go both ways. (5, Insightful)

Zeek40 (1017978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589376)

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.

Re:It should go both ways. (1)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589458)

Actually the ISP's should bill the content providers for the cost of delivering their goods to the end user. The content providers want to rent movies on line, ISP's want a piece of the action.

Re:It should go both ways. (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589828)

ISPs are already trying to double-bill both Users and Website Providers (like Google) for transferring data, but pro-net neutrality supports oppose the idea.

Re:It should go both ways. (1)

iammani (1392285) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589466)

ha.. haha.. The artist themselves wont get a penny out these and you expect the ISPs to get a cut?

Re:It should go both ways. (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589608)

record labels are primarily a distribution network. Why cant the ISPs supplant them? If they split their 25% 50-50 with the artists, then all the artists will get a HUGE raise.

Re:It should go both ways. (1)

space_jake (687452) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589848)

They'd allow it but all of *AA's profits were eaten up by *AA2's "consulting" fees. Sadly there are no profits left.

Re:It should go both ways. (1)

Even on Slashdot FOE (1870208) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589964)

And if someone finally notices that, magical lawyering aside, that *AA and *AA2, *AA3 will be created to charge massive "consulting" fees to *AA2 before they can be accused of making a profit.

And so on, until everyone runs out of money trying to prove that giving yourself money does not make you broke.

Re:It should go both ways. (2, Funny)

pacinpm (631330) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590122)

Profit? What profit? Didn't you hear pirates take it all? And there is always Hollywood accounting after all.

Re:It should go both ways. (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590288)

Also it would mean that customers would have a right to download 25% of everything.

Re:It should go both ways. (1)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590538)

But that's our money we paid our internet bills with. We should get 25% for paying the ISP's bills for them.

Then there's the lawyers, they'll take at least 25%.

Then there's 25% for the artist's management.

Another 25% goes towards the interest on the loan needed to produce the artwork and promote it etc.

Makes sense to me, I don't see why these artists keep whining...

Hmm..... interesting (2, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589424)

So does that mean that if someone is copyright holder that hasn't had any issues with trying to enforce their copyright, they can claim some sort of tax benefit to receive a portion of that 25%?

Charge user, prosecute pirate; leave others alone! (1)

MessyBlob (1191033) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589480)

It assumes that all Internet users are pirates: not so! Is this a statistical "taxation at the point of use", which assumes that the population has pirates in it, so we charge the population for use? I don't understand how the entertainment companies can justify the many ways they are taking money, other than direct payment for consumption. Solution (perhaps impractical, but ethical) is to charge users, and prosecute pirates.

Change the model (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590404)

Solution (perhaps impractical, but ethical) is to charge users, and prosecute pirates.

It is neither ethical or practical to do that. Instead, what needs to be set up is a new way to compensate artists -- not the RIAA or MPAA, but the artists who actually give us entertainment -- that is compatible with the Internet age. That means a system that is not based on people being unable to copy music and movies.

Perhaps instead of paying for enforcement, ISPs should pay into a fund for artists, and entirely cut the RIAA and MPAA out of the picture. That fund should be managed in a way that legally requires nondiscriminatory access for artists, perhaps with some sort of review process to decide who receives how much funding (e.g. to prevent abuses or outlandish requests).

Flag in front of cars (2, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589558)

In other news, the UK Parliament passed a law requiring car owners to have a flag bearer walk in front of cars. The Minister of Roads claimed it was to protect the safety of pedestrians, but critics say the law is to protect the locomotive industry.

This new 25% Law is equally preposterous/bullshit
.

Re:Flag in front of cars (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589648)

I'm waiting for the law requiring mining companies to pay for the damages to the families of people killed with knives and bullets. They're obviously benefiting from such crimes and doing nothing about it.

interesting... (2, Interesting)

Essequemodeia (1030028) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589568)

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. Looks like media companies are attacking pirates socially rather than financially.

Re:interesting... (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589956)

+1 insightful.

The 95% who don't bittorrent/download content illegally are being forced to subsidize those who do. It's very ingenious of the MAFIAA to setup this antagonistic "blame your neighbors" situation.

Re:interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33590146)

Not really, if I were an ISP I would make it as expensive as possible to send a warning letter. What is the hourly rate for corporate council to write a letter on behalf of a 3rd party anyway?

buggy whips (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589588)

It bears repeating that protecting the buggy whip manufacturers only hurts the manufacturers of the new-fangled horseless carriage, while doing nothing to ensure people will actually pay for buggy whips in the future.

It's only fair... (5, Insightful)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589646)

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.

J. public pays 100% of corepirate nazi life0cide (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33589728)

the recipients;

google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+blair+rumsfeld+wmd+cheney+wolfowitz+clinton+obama

another interesting 'expense' (weapon) we pay for without being asked;

google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation

meanwhile; (all we'll have left is time, hopefully); the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their (slippery/slimy) 'platform' now. see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

never a better time to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

boeing, boeing, gone.

Higher Cost (0, Redundant)

gsmalleus (886346) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589764)

This is just going to cause internet prices to go up. The ISP's are not just going to eat the cost, they will pass it on to their customers as additional fees.

Re:Higher Cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33589918)

-1, "Fucking Duh"

Shooting the messenger (3, Insightful)

southpolesammy (150094) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589912)

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:Shooting the messenger (1)

Even on Slashdot FOE (1870208) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590002)

The answer is the same as with nearly every other law, even the good ones. The parliamentarians in question are the ones who have bank accounts that always get bigger thanks to "campaign contributions".

How do you prove damages? (1)

Nailer235 (1822054) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589962)

I'm certain my album would have sold a billion copies if not for piracy. Where do I get my check?

Losses so significant, they're immeasurable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33590050)

Losses so significant, they're immeasurable...

ISP's are all basically bastards anyway, so I won't miss it. Bye bye, ISP. I'm a customer, not a consumer and I'll take my money with me. NONE of you are going to get it.

Queue "hollywood" accounting in 3..2... (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590060)

Okay, so RIAA plays EIAA 7.5 million dollars to enforce copyright law.
The ISP's are forced to pay 2.5 million dollars.

And EIAA, a wholy owned subsidiary under the same parent organization as RIAA passes the money uphill where it is distributed back down to RIAA.

And this can be raised to any amount up to the point where the ISP's are collapsing. And it's been done for close to 95 years now (at least the earliest I've heard of it was in the 20's but I guess it may have been done by plays and vaudeville beforethat).

It's cue, not queue. Learn English, damn it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33590450)

Queue "hollywood" accounting in 3..2...

The word you are looking for is "cue", which refers to a signal for something to happen at a certain time, such as an actor's line that immediately precedes and serves as a reminder for some action or speech, or a theatrical cue for a lighting effect for example.

The verb form of "Queue" means to stand in line, as in a line for the next available bank teller, or at a bus stop.

Pass the costs back (1)

nattt (568106) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590138)

Given games companies use ISPs for internet access, could they not pass the full costs costs directly back to the games companies in their internet bill? Somehow, I think that would be appropriate.

Let's get our definitions right (3, Insightful)

serutan (259622) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590296)

By "creative industries" they mean of course, "businesses that sell copies of other people's work and pay the creators a tiny portion."

Yet another lawyerism tax (2, Funny)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590344)

... that will subsidize artists who are convinced that there is no link between poor sales and their complete lack of talent.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...