Licensing fee on Internet connections would be distributed amongst copyright holders, focused on New Zealand copyright content first.
Clare Curran, New Zealand’s Shadow Minister for Information and Communications Technology, has suggested the country consider a licensing fee on Internet connections to break the current impasse between ISPs, copyright holders, and the public on how to solve the problem of illegal file-sharing.
“It’s time to float a few ‘go forward’ ideas on protecting copyright in the digital age,” she writes in a blog post.
Curran says the real trick is to satisfy the concerns of all the parties involved.
ISPs are afraid to lose customers and don’t want to get in the business of enforcing copyright laws.
Copyright holders claim they’re losing revenue and are demanding a “three-strikes” regimen to punish illegal file-sharers by disconnecting them from the Internet.
The public is concerned that copyright holders will act as judge and executioner, and that more importantly, it will mean that people can lose access to a vital tool necessary for full participation in a democratic state.
Curran says the real challenge is to “protect the rights and incomes of those who create content rather than trying to just contain access or punish those who illegally access that content.”
She says in this regard the latest revision to section 92a of the Copyright Act is “short sighted” and fails to “take account of the wider issues.”
For even the new proposal still contains language that would authorize the termination of Internet connections of those accused of illegal file-sharing.
Curran thus proposes four ideas to tackle the problem.
She writes:
- Education about copyright is very important. Government has an important role to play and copyright education should become a part of the school curriculum and be integrated right through our education system. A public education campaign is also needed for people to understand that protecting the rights of people who create content is important.
- We should enable people to access the information/material they seek. And consider introducing a licensing fee attached to internet service provider (ISP) connections. This fee would then be collected and distributed by an external agency amongst copyright holders. In order to work, it would need the buy in of all ISPs and rights holders. It would likely be focused on New Zealand copyright content first.
- Establishment of an independent rights agency to distribute fees and rule on disputes. We still need an enforcement regime and a rights agency could also have the power to investigate and adjudicate on copyright disputes and alleged infringements aka the Section 92A model. However, I am of the view that internet disconnection is not a viable option. It simply won’t work and will drive hard core copyright infringers more underground. Financial penalties are more likely to work.
- A commitment to protect NZ content first. It’s our heritage, and the people who create NZ content must be able to make a living from their work and have that work valued.
All in all I think Curran has some excellent ideas. The problem of illegal file-sharing will never go away and so any rational solution must embrace that reality.
Disconnecting users will only mean that file-sharers will devise technology to circumvent any detection methods employed by copyright holders, and so a licensing fee will make it unnecessary.
A few bucks a month is certainly worth the peace of mind.
Now lets just hope people listen to her.
Stay tuned.
jared@zeropaid.com
Related Posts
- German Minister Announces Plans for Mandatory Web Filtering
- French Minister Pushes for Mandatory ISP Level P2P Filtering Across Europe
- British IP Minister Shoots Down Three Strikes Law Proposal
- Swedish ISP Calls UK Plans to Fight P2P ‘Amateurism’
- UK Minister Says “Three-Strikes” too Draconian
Loading ...
This is the ultimate slam-dunk for the entertainment cartels. Not only do they receive a guaranteed income regardless of their success or failure, but they are permanently institutionalized forever more. They have no more major legal costs or investment risk and also get to coast on their past catalog with no more necessity for A&R investment of any kind. They’ll just sit back and get fat and happy and kick some of this back to the governments that achieve it on their behalf to guarantee regular cost of living increases.
If entertainment actually manages to get a permanent compensation due them and gathered for them forevermore from everyone with an internet connection (whether you want to pay this fee or not, and you’ll have to), they will have shoved illegal p2p right up the collective asses of every pirate on the planet..
And you still like to think they are stupid, right?
History has shown that the copyright industry hates this idea and has done a lot to fight against a blank levy. They’d rather fight technology than compromise on a reasonable solution for both sides as they are use to having their cake and eating it too.
10 bucks a month is better than data packet inspection and Internet disconnection.
Up P2P asses? I couldnt care less what happens to record labels its the artists im concerned with, both in terms of revenue and distribution.
let the record labels sit back and get fat, at least they’ll leave college studnents, their prime target, alone.
Plus we both know record labels dont want it jst look at Canada which was really the first country where the proposal was first floated.
Really? It was first floated in Canada? I though it was the EFF in the US that first floated the idea. :S I could be wrong on that then.
What if I don’t want to let the record labels sit back and get fat? I stopped buying music from RIAA labels because I’m disgusted by the actions they’ve taken. I don’t want the big labels to thrive. I want them to die off. So I can’t accept a solution that artificially perpetuates a failed business model by forcing all Internet users to pay fees. I can’t sit by and watch criminals get fat.
It’s not fair to make everyone pay extra money so some people can download music. Not everyone downloads music from the internet. And some of us only download music thats already free (creative commons, etc). We already get taxed by the government. Why should we pay tribute to the record companies?
I actually agree it’s not a perfect solution. Unfortunately, every time you buy a blank CD/DVD or turn on the radio, the RIAA is making money somehow anyway. The best solution in my mind is a complete and total boycott of the RIAA owned music. Don’t buy their music, don’t support their artists in any way and do everything humanly possible to support indies.
It’s also a much more idealistic solution, not necessarily the most realistic as some are just trying to get the latest top 40.
It doesn’t matter if you’re supporting indies online or stopped listening to RIAA owned music. As long as p2p exists, the RIAA will argue that it’s only being used to download THEIR owned works. P2P is always going to exist in the forseeable future, thus the fight is perpetual. So the choice is this: Let the RIAA continue suing people on baseless accysations or institute a flat fee and be done with the RIAA problem online.
I’m still waiting for a better solution or if a total boycott is successful, but in the mean time, I can’t think of another way to finally end this dispute once and for all.
“This is the ultimate slam-dunk for the entertainment cartels. Not only do they receive a guaranteed income regardless of their success or failure, but they are permanently institutionalized forever more.”
This was a suggestion, but they never took it.
“If entertainment actually manages to get a permanent compensation due them and gathered for them forevermore from everyone with an internet connection (whether you want to pay this fee or not, and you’ll have to), …”
You are really naive to think that it would be that simplistic.
“… they will have shoved illegal p2p right up the collective asses of every pirate on the planet..”
You really have no idea what you are writing about. Indeed, you are that ignorant.
“And you still like to think they are stupid, right?”
Given sufficient information on how they act, it doesn’t take any thought to know how stupid they are.
This isnt a bad idea for those already sharing but im sure ppl would be pissed if they arent pirating and still paying that fee.
The MAFIAA wont go for it because the fight isn’t just over money its over channels of distribution which they will not give up on.They want control now and forever more,so the fight will continue.
But for me if i get a call from the tribunal i will dispute their evidence and collection method,force them to get a warrant for my computer and wipe my hard drive in the mean time! i will not pay any fine,i would rather spend a month or two in the can than pay those scum even 1 cent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Boycotting industry product is a good start, but taking it without paying for it just delivers the high legal cards right into the industries hands. It’s just common sense that any person or organization will fight for their own legal rights. To be angry at the recording industry for doing just–or ANY industry being ransacked for that matter–is pointlessly dumbass.
Better to persuade artists not to sign with labels in the first place so future product is not cartel controlled as past product inevitably slips into public domain. That’s how to put the major’s out.
But the problem is reality. For 50 years the recording industry has paid musicians and their support staff so that they can live decent lives from the value of their creation, and in 10’s of thousands of cases, they’ve paid out fortunes and enriched bands and other artists beyond their wildest dreams.
No piracy model brings anything to the artists even close to that. When those who disrespect copyright consistently bring their money to artists in similar or greater quantities, the artists will naturally follow. As long as signing a recording contract remains the more secure path to decent compensation and a life so an artist can concentrate on what they love to do, artists will sign, pirates will lose and the industry will continue to win. This is simple economics.
Either bring your cash and create a better market for the artists or they will align with the industry that pays them while pirates are marginalized and legally punished. Joel Tenenbaum is next.
“or 50 years the recording industry has paid musicians”
lol!
“they’ve paid out fortunes and enriched bands and other artists beyond their wildest dreams.”
LOL!!!
“No piracy model brings anything to the artists even close to that.”
LMAO!!!
Dude, the industry hasn’t even come close to adequetly paying their artists in years. If a whole band makes $1,000 a year in profit under a major, they are doing excellent. It’s slave labour.
“Boycotting industry product is a good start, but taking it without paying for it just delivers the high legal cards right into the industries hands.”
Surely you realize that in the case of mere P2P this does not logically follow? That is, unless you’re thinking of physical theft again.
“It’s just common sense that any person or organization will fight for their own legal rights.”
Wrong: what about the people are willing to, but not able to?
“To be angry at the recording industry for doing just–or ANY industry being ransacked for that matter–is pointlessly dumbass.”
Ad hominem doesn’t work here, you know. Again, your ideals are unrealistic, ungrounded, and just plain worthless due to their uselessness.
“Better to persuade artists not to sign with labels in the first place so future product is not cartel controlled as past product inevitably slips into public domain. That’s how to put the major’s out.”
Using awkward wording does not make you more credible. Or are you that weak in your ‘arguments’?
“But the problem is reality. For 50 years the recording industry has paid musicians and their support staff so that they can live decent lives from the value of their creation, …’
You’re trying to raise their reputation using false speculations of the past?
“But the problem is reality.” -Empty claim
“For 50 years” -Arbitrary number, speculation
“… so that they can live decent lives …”
The use of the word ‘decent’ is a strong indicator that you are not even certain; therefore you are speculating.
“… from the value of their creation …”
How did they ‘value’ creations and are you certain that musicians treated their own creations that way? More speculation.
Quite silly, frankly.
“… and in 10’s of thousands of cases, …” -Arbitrary number, speculation, yawn
“… they’ve paid out fortunes and enriched bands and other artists beyond their wildest dreams.” (*)
Exactly how much are these fortunes and exactly how many bands were enriched? More speculation.
“No piracy model brings anything to the artists even close to that.”
That is the same, exact, repeated garbage from your previous posts.
This is such an empty claim, as you directly depend that the previous claim [(*)] is factually true, which it is not as it is mere speculation.
“When those who disrespect copyright consistently bring their money to artists in similar or greater quantities, the artists will naturally follow.”
Elaborate; otherwise that is an empty claim.
“As long as signing a recording contract remains the more secure path to decent compensation and a life …”
What do you mean by “more secure”?
Again, the use of the word ‘decent’ is a strong indicator that you are not even certain; therefore you are speculating and you lower the credibility and strength of your argument.
“… so an artist can concentrate on what they love to do, …”
“So”? Do you mean that an artist cannot concentrate on what they love to do if they do not sign with a label? That is an affront.
“… artists will sign, …”
Will? Where is your proof of that?
“… pirates will lose …”
There are still artists signing with labels, but these ‘pirates’ don’t seem to be affected by that.
“… and the industry will continue to win.”
Win what? Infamy?
“This is simple economics.”
What does your speculation saying “artists will sign with labels” have anything to do with economics? Absolutely nothing, dumb ass.
You know nothing about economics. And do you know why? It’s because you neglected the consumers.
“Either bring your cash and create a better market for the artists or they will align with the industry that pays them …”
Arbitrarily excluding all other possibilities in the selection severely discredits your arguments.
“… while pirates are marginalized and legally punished.”
Promoting your hysteria and deluded ideals does not work in real arguments.
“Joel Tenenbaum is next.”
Surely you realize it’s not only what the judgment is, but how it’s made?
You are a fool.
This is a solution. Combined with DPI the program could work quite well. i.e.: Only those that download would be taxed.
However as for allowing a flat fee on all ISP connections – that is obviously ridiculous.
Think of the conept of all non-smokers being charged the same tax as smokers.
Don’t smoke? that’s okay, we’ll collect it form the corner store where you buy your bread and milk.