Says that it’s merely looking for “market based solution to the problem of unlicensed content on the Internet,” and uses the words “compensation” and “collective licensing” instead.
PRS for Music, the UK’s leading royalty collection society, is trying to clarify the positions it expressed in the recently disseminated “economic insight paper” it produced so as to help further discussions among stakeholders in the debate over online copyright infringement.
“Moving Digital Britain Forward, Without Leaving Creative Britain Behind” spelled out two different possible approaches to solve the problem: a “negative spillover” approach that would assess a fine that “would rise and fall based on the level of piracy on an ISP’s network,” or a “positive spillover” approach that would require ISPs to pay a fee to obtain a blanket license that would allow them to transmit copyrighted material on their networks.
It first says that it is “not calling for a levy on broadband companies.”
“Compensation, licence and levy have been considered in different countries at different times,” it says. “We propose a framework to help the stakeholders think through all options in order to illuminate a debate as to how to achieve a market based solution to the problem of unlicensed content on the Internet, a problem which will become more pressing with the advent of Next Generation Networks.”
The words “fee,” “fine,” “license,” and “compensation” all sound like the word “levy” to me. Levy means “to impose or collect” and that’s precisely what it wants to do. It wants ISPs, and therefore subscribers in the form of higher monthly broadband bills, to help fund a “well-functioning marketplace for…creative content.”
The recently enacted Digital Economy Act already provides for solutions to help tackle the problem of online infringement, but PRS for Music narrows its focus on the part that requires the country’s Office of Communications (Ofcom) to establish a methodology for estimating the level of illegal file-sharing in order to assess the effectiveness of the Act’s measures. It asks the question “what next?” after the govt has that data in hand.
It reiterates the notion of a “market-based solution” to the problem, but still ignores the fact that its own economist and co-author of the paper, Will Page, concluded last year that total music industry revenues are up 4.7% since 2007! How can there be a problem when its revenue is increasing?
And it knows that taxes and levies – yes levies, despite what it wants to call it – will all find stiff resistance from both ISPs and their customers who don’t find it fair to have the pad the bottom line of others for services and content they may not even use.
That’s why PRS for Music slyly says it wants to “move this debate forward based on a partnership approach.” By using the word “partnership” that means they know there’s no chance of govt legislation forcing ISPs to “cap and trade” pirated content or buy blanket network licenses. It wants people to acquiesce to its demands outright.
Stay tuned.
