Internet users to pay £30 annual 'licence fee' to download m

[Fat Bob]

Internet users to pay £30 annual 'licence fee' to download music

Intersting article on how to make everyone happy re music downloads. Would be keen for something like this, maybe proportioning it to the bandwidth of your internet connection.

30 quid (S$81) annual fee in order to download what I want, when I want would be a positive way to stop the music industry bleating about how the internet is hitting their profits. Bring in other forms of media too, films and TV and make it worldwide, and I'll happily pay.

[Lili Von Shtupp]

WARNING - rant ahead - this is one of my peeves.

FB, I will also happily pay. I'm sick and tired of the music industry. How they advance artists gobs of money, only to take it back, dollar by dollar, charging the artsists to use the studio, the production team, every little thing, so that by the time the album is made, sometimes the artists actually owe the label money (TLC is a good example) - all for the opportunity of streaming into their distribution and promotion channel. Music companies don't sell music - they sell little round pieces of plastic in little plasic jewelcases. In the end the artist gets maybe 2 or 3 cents from each unit sold.

It is a LIE that buying music from record companies somehow protects the artist's integrity, when the record companies have the artists bent over their desks.

Robert Fripp has been railing against it for years. Radiohead put their last record on the net for anyone to download - pay any price you want, but they keep all of it, and I believe they did well. Barenaked Ladies and other indie acts have gone to underground record labels who are operating not as mini-record companies, but are actively trying to change the entire system to give more money and credit to the artists themselves, some of these little companies have been pretty successful. Beck is sick of the whole medium, believes printed CDs stifle creativity, so he puts his music up on the net and invites people to download, manipulate the files and upload them again for others to hear.

There just has to be a different way, but the record companies have a stranglehold over everything and since it's still lucrative, they don't want to change the shitty system they created.

Interestingly the keynote speaker at this year's International Symposium on Electronic Art (which starts today, incidentally) Lawrence Lessig is a law professor at Stamford University who is an expert in the laws of cyberspace, and he believes that the current system of copyright laws on technology strangles creative development. Very interesting that he's the keynote at a symposium in Singapore. He's speaking on Sunday afternoon, if you're interested.

EDIT - could I possibly use the word 'interesting' one more time in that last sentance?

[baloo]

nice rant. What we need is Mrs H to appear and give us the "record companies are being raped by the internet" rant she's famous for.

[slinky]

Where is Mrs H?? Has she been on since we moved house??

[baloo]

Not listed in the members list so unless she's using an alias, she's not here.

[Lili Von Shtupp]

Oh no, see, people still believe that crap! You guys better hope this Mrs H doesn't show up with a debate because there's plen-ty more rantin' where that came from! Hahahahaha!

[Burbage]

No question. If the music publishers go bust there won't be many tears shed. What they want is to control how artists reach the public. Not how the public reaches the artist.

[baloo]

Oh no, see, people still believe that crap! You guys better hope this Mrs H doesn't show up with a debate because there's plen-ty more rantin' where that came from! Hahahahaha!

I think Mrs H worked in the industry, or at least once shagged someone who knew someone who had a sister that was a receptionist at one.

[Fat Bob]

He's speaking on Sunday afternoon, if you're interested.

EDIT - could I possibly use the word 'interesting' one more time in that last sentance?

Last sentence? You only used it once.

Where is Mrs H?? Has she been on since we moved house??

SSHHHHH!

[Raffles]

Interesting that the proposals give people the right to copy as much as they want but if, as in France, they can 'block' somebody after two warnings why bother in the first place? I ask because of various events lately a large number of people are none too happy about the cost of various other items in their annual budget, in particular food and fuel. Adding another tax to people's leisure I feel is not going to go down to well. Bit of a rant but I have recently noticed something about people here that I haven't before.

[Fat Bob]

Choice is a tax on liesure or a more heavily regulated liesure. Which one is the better evil?

It may reduce your household bills as well, depending on what people download and what is available to download.

And hey, you tax the TV.....

[Raffles]

depending on what people download and what is available to download.

And hey, you tax the TV.....

Fine for those who use those services since I have no idea what many may or may not be up to if anything. However, I rarely if I ever download music at all! Should the ISP have to impose a £30 levy or whatever one wants to call it on their services then that is unfair to somebody such as myself (and I won't be the only one). As for the point about the TV that is rapidly becoming a sore point given the annual increases now making, in making cases, the license more than the cost of the TV (not to mention the crap that is on). I think this will be seen as just another 'assault' on those least able to afford it since a good number of charges and taxes have appeared on a number of other things and at the same time people's wages are not rising to meet the cost.

[Lichtgestalt]

There was an article in the Telegraph recently and apparently now other companies (think Codemasters) are sending letters to people and demanding a settlement fee or bring them to court. They claim to have evidence from the ISP that the software was downloaded from an IP address which was linked at that time to your account. Not sure what happens if you have Wifi and anyone could log on?

Filesharers face £2,000 fines for illegally downloading computer games

By Lewis Carter
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 14/07/2008

One hundred people face fines of up to £2,000 for illegally downloading computer games from the internet, lawyers have warned.

London law firm Davenport Lyons has launched civil proceedings against dozens of people suspected of illegally downloading copyrighted works onto their computers.

The action is on behalf of Topware Interactive, which produces the computer game Dream Pinball 3D.
advertisement

The case is focusing on peer-to-peer networks, which give subscribers direct access to each other's computers allowing people to download files without paying fees to the copyright owner.

The technology allows computer games, films and music albums to be transferred with ease.

Earlier this month the Central London County Court ruled against four file sharers in a case brought by Topware Interactive. Each was ordered to pay the company interim damages of £750, but the final figure could be as high as £2,000 plus costs in the region of £1,500.

David Gore, a partner at Davenport Lyons, said: "These judgments send a clear message to illegal internet file-sharers that they cannot continue stealing from copyright owners without facing the consequences.

"There is no difference between stealing a DVD from a high street retailer and downloading it on a peer-to-peer network."

The High Court in London had already ordered internet service providers to release several thousand names and addresses of suspected file sharers, the firm said.

The providers have argued that they bear no legal liability for illegal file sharing because the content is not hosted on their servers.

Last year the Government revealed it was considering passing new laws to crack down on peer-to-peer sharing, in a bid to offer greater protection to intellectual property.

[Fat Bob]

I suppose if you have WiFi it's your responsibility to know who is using it.

As for whether someone gets taxed or whether the ISP regulate more heavily, well, I suppose we have different points of view. It's a potential method and it's not a perfect solution.

The other choice would be to tax you by your band width, or how much you download. Though that's also not good because there's plenty of free stuff out there for downloading that is not copyrighted (or is freeware), so you'd be paying a tax to the music industry for downloading the latest Windows SP, for instance.

At the moment the Internet is pretty unregulated, and I like that. I'd hate to have everyone of my downloads and uploads being checked out by someone. For instance all my email.

I liked this quote:"There is no difference between stealing a DVD from a high street retailer and downloading it on a peer-to-peer network."

Yes there is a difference. It's easier using a peer-to-peer network.....