A scheme that would shift the cost of digital music from users to Internet service providers is gaining international support.
August 26, 2005
Though legal forms of digital distribution of music like iTunes and Rhapsody that charge users to listen to songs are gaining steam, some experts propose a more radical system for collecting revenues: making Internet service providers pay.
“There should be a tax on the people who really make money off the free music, which is the computer makers, the CD burner makers, the MP3 player makers, [and] the ISPs,” said Steve Gordon, an entertainment lawyer and author of The Future of the Music Business.
One new ISP, PlayLouderMSP, set to launch later this year, is bundling unlimited downloads with the regular cost of broadband. It announced its first deal with a major label, Sony BMG, early this week (see U.K. ISP Wins Music Contract).
RIAA Coming Around
File-sharing, the bane of the entertainment industry since the late 1990s, hasn’t been all bad—even for musical artists and labels. Peer-to-peer (P2P) technology for quickly and efficiently distributing files is now catching on for legitimate purposes, though major labels remain cautious and resistant.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling against the business practices of P2P file-sharing networks in June (see Grokster Loses), even Mitch Bainwol, chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, had kind words for legit P2P.
“The Supreme Court has helped to power the digital future for legitimate online businesses including legal file-sharing networks,” said Mr. Bainwol. He called the decision “an opportunity that will bring the entertainment and technology communities even closer together.”
Read the Rest
Read the complete article
why pay?
they cant track everything that is downloaded. all this will make them do is block more ports and disconnect downloading users. Will not solve downloading because you can't find them all, and you just lose customers, and then money.
edit:
ok i only read the title. thought that the record industry was going to sue isps instead of sharers, to try and get them to crack down on sharing. DON'T GET ANY IDEAS.
Isp's will never pay for it, it might look that way on paper but in the end it is still us the user, the consumer who will bear the costs.
I think its a good idea, might actually make it legit if you paid a levy on your internet service.
The question is at what point would the ISPs be asking too much?
You have to figure greed would find its way in there until we pay out the ass to an isp for the goods we download for free for the same reasons.
Because it costs too goddamn much
______________________________________________
In the 60's, people took acid to make the world weird.
Now the world is weird and people take Prozac to make it normal.
won't happen. all the buisnesses which use the internet for buisness activities would throw a fit if they had to pay for mp3 piracy, and only applying the levy to personal internet access would violate equal protection.
DILLIGAF
I don't care for today's music anymore, so I don't download any music. However, I do pay for a plan that gives you more bandwidth than the basic. Don't we paid for what you get already???
Hi everyone, having your ISP pay for the file-sharing programs could be a good thing. Maybe a tax of 1-5 dollars a month could be passed along to the consumer, that would go to a pool to help the artist. They then need to figure out which artists are downloaded the most for that given month, to give then the agreed portion of the pooled money. Once these things are worked out, they should make all the file-sharing programs officially legal. Let people share whatever they want to, since they are doing it anyway. This is "earlymusic1925", also known as "philcord". I am the person responsible for putting most of the recordings that are before 1925 on kazaa. I am using kazaa lite resurrection 0.7.6 F. If you type in the search Billy Murray, and make it an unlimited search, you should be able find the user name philcord or earlymusic1925, then do a "find more from the same user" and you can see all the mp3s that I have.
nah no1 should pay for any music
candy for nothing in God's Beautifull Kingdom
i had a simular though a while back. but instead of making the ISPs pay, it should be the RIAA hosting the service, making the money. if they offerd fast reliable internet for those who like to download music, they could stand to make a bit of money. its too bad they shot themselves in the foot when they started suing people. i dont think any downloader can trust them enough now for a system like this to work.
No, no one, under any circumstances, should give more power (money) to this copyright-mafia. They will find a way to use it against us.
It's a good idea; but should be optional, as not every users download music or video.
Don't know if it would be easy technically to enforce.
I personally think its a good idea. Even if the isp's charged an extra 5 bucks a month. If it would shut the record industry up it would be worth it.
$5 exta....Id pay that...but then if they get money hungry itll go up and up and up..now f that.
Originally Posted by black_magiic
Nothing will shut them up until they have ALL the money. If they did get the $5 a month then I'd have to shut off my internet connection...I'm not going to give them a single dime.
CAPITAL punishment for infringement is a CAPITAList's dream.
Here in Canada we already pay a levy on cdr's which is ridiculous.Not everybody that buys cdr's or has the internet uses it to download music.
I'm sure the recording industry had this in mind the whole time.They figured they would use a scare tactic like suing people,then people would accept the ideas the industry comes up with to compensate them for imaginary losses.They win.
If it looks like crap and smells like crap,it's crap period.Don't fall for this BS.
It still comes down to the fact that what we do (downloading music) is illegal. If paying 5 bucks a month extra means it becomes legal and it will shut them up for good then I say go for it. There also needs to be a stipulation that it STAYS that way and they cant jerk it around until you need to go without food to pay your net bill.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks