how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2008-12-10 13:51:25: Last March the music industry announced they'd created a new organization tasked with trying to implement a music "piracy tax. ..
| |
 
asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| Don't let your hatred of the industry... cause you to ignore your own interests. It is in nearly everyone's interest to be able to freely exchange copyrighted material in exchange for a small monthly fee. Nearly everyone consumes copyrighted music in one way or another.
It is very inaccurate and unfair to characterize this licensing idea as extortion.
Extortion implies the threat of doing something illegal to a person if they don't hand over property. Negotiating to refrain from engaging in legal remedies against illegal behavior, if one is properly compensated, is not extortion.
The industry policy of suing is stupid but it isn't illegal. They have the legal right to sue to stop people from infringing copyright. If people license material properly then they won't be susceptible to being sued. This doesn't make the license extortion.
The argument about bureaucracy is largely bogus. This type of license is already in place and has been used before. It has a long history and there are already mechanisms in place to determine who gets what and how money is distributed. The system may not be fair to the artists but that is an issue to be worked out between the industry and the artists that choose to function within it. That isn't our issue and it isn't up to us to resolve it. It also isn't an argument against applying the collective license idea in this case. This doesn't have to lead to a new bloated bureaucracy.
The voluntary question is a valid one. I don't want to see anyone coerced into paying for what they don't want. At the same time we are coerced in such ways all the time in society. I don't see any practical way to allow each individual to opt in or not. If the isp has to start keeping track of who can share and who can't and has to monitor the individuals behavior this would create a much more extensive and privacy invading environment then simply doing it all or nothing at the isp level. Those who don't want to opt in may have to change isp. If it turns out that all isps end up opting in then that is a pretty good indication that the number of people who want to opt out is very small. If there are significant numbers who really want to opt out then the market will settle out and there will be isps that will draw customers based on their refusal to participate.
Finally we would do well to remember that if we sneer at every attempted solution what will ultimately happen is that the industry will convince the government to accept draconian and intrusive mechanisms to try to stamp out infringement. Many legislators are already sympathetic to the "let's crack lawbreakers heads" approach. We are liable to end up with far worse approaches if we don't seriously try to work with this approach to find a solution to large scale copyright infringement. | |
| | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Don't let your hatred of the industry... Extortion implies the threat of doing something illegal to a person if they don't hand over property. Negotiating to refrain from engaging in legal remedies against illegal behavior, if one is properly compensated, is not extortion. Seriously. I love you people. There is no truth to you guys, is there? Just a nebulous concept of what's real based on how compelling your argument is...The argument about bureaucracy is largely bogus. Really? The creation of a massive, multi-billion dollar new, unregulated billing system with ISPs as the middle-men and the RIAA as the treasurer strikes you as a recipe for success?Those who don't want to opt in may have to change isp. That would be great could most Americans actually do so....Finally we would do well to remember that if we sneer at every attempted solution what will ultimately happen is that the industry will convince the government to accept draconian and intrusive mechanisms to try to stamp out infringement. So don't sneer or you'll get something worse than a shoddy plan cooked up by dying companies? Sounds like a stretch, Mr. talking points memo. | |
| | |
asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| Re: Don't let your hatred of the industry... "Seriously. I love you people. There is no truth to you guys, is there?"
Of course there is truth to me and part of that truth is not trying to redefine words in ways that mislead people. I feel you are being misleading in trying to make it sound like there is something dark and criminal about this. There is a pretty clear definition to extortion and, while I don't like the music industry, they are not practicing extortion by using their legal right to sue or punish those who illegally infringe copyright, nor by trying to find a way to be paid by infringers.(BTW although I have called this behavior illegal, which it is, I have also argued in favor of people practicing this illegal behavior so long as things were so unbalanced toward industry interests). At the same time I don't think that perpetual large scale illegal behavior is a very socially constructive and, at some point, people have to be willing to give something to get this situation resolved.
"Really? The creation of a massive, multi-billion dollar new, unregulated billing system with ISPs as the middle-men and the RIAA as the treasurer strikes you as a recipe for success?"
Are we sure there will be a massive new system? My point was that there are already collective licensing systems in place that cover a lot of money and a lot of activity. I suspect, though we don't know the details, that much of this present system and approach would be covering this new arrangement as well.
"That would be great could most Americans actually do so"
I don't like the state of the telecommunications market any more than you do nor do I like the idea that it could have unpleasant side effects here. I don't know that this should be an argument against this licensing idea though and I'm not convinced that this will really be a problem for the vast majority of people, especially given that I think most people would willingly participate in this.
"... Mr. talking points memo."
That is unjust. I'm not a corporate lackey, I don't work for any of the interests involved in this and I don't feel that I should be assumed to be guilty unless I prove otherwise. | |
| | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
3 edits | Re: Don't let your hatred of the industry... There is a pretty clear definition to extortion and, while I don't like the music industry, they are not practicing extortion by using their legal right to sue or punish those who illegally infringe copyright, nor by trying to find a way to be paid by infringers. ex⋅tor⋅tion
/ɪkˈstɔrʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ik-stawr-shuhn] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. an act or instance of extorting.
2. Law. the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.
3. oppressive or illegal exaction, as of excessive price or interest: the extortions of usurers.
4. anything extorted.
I'm going to guess definition number 2 will apply here, when we're talking about efforts to create an entirely new piracy tax, that will likely be aimed at broadband users whether they pirate or not...in exchange for not getting sued under an already conflicted and unjust DMCA/legal system.
I get that some people are willing to give the industry the benefit of the doubt here, but perhaps they're just trusting souls. I see absolutely no evidence to support the idea that this will work out to the consumer's benefit.
Maybe we should bookmark these discussions and revisit them in a year or two? | |
| | 
SnowyOne
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| said by asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf :
It is very inaccurate and unfair to characterize this licensing idea as extortion.
Extortion implies the threat of doing something illegal to a person if they don't hand over property.
Mahalo for pointing out early that you do not know what you are talking about. | |
| |
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| The key point is this. We have been hoping for years that the industry would move away from its drm lockdown approach toward something that better balanced the interests of the industry with the interests of consumers. This is an attempt to do that. There is every reason to distrust the industry but this industry wouldn't have turned to people like jim griffin if it just wanted to play some stupid deceitful game. There is good reason to believe that the industry is really trying to move beyond the lockdown drm approach and to allow customers greater freedom and flexibility. Now that they are trying to move we have to be willing to try to meet them halfway. If we just spit in their faces then we are going to be right back where we started with an even more aggressive industry and a government even more willing to crack down. This is counterproductive to the interests of nearly everyone on this forum. Please consider this carefully. | |
| |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: The key point is this. There is good reason to believe that the industry is really trying to move beyond the lockdown drm approach and to allow customers greater freedom and flexibility. There is? Based on what, their word?If we just spit in their faces then we are going to be right back where we started with an even more aggressive industry and a government even more willing to crack down. Yeah, or we wind up with far more innovative and creative payment systems not controlled by industry giants who've proven they can't adapt.... | |
| | |
asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| Re: The key point is this. Based on the fact that they have turned to people like jim griffin. I don't know jim but I have paid attention to this issue for long enough to know that he is a true believer. I think he was advocating this to everyone, including industry leaders, back when industry leaders thought such an idea was insane. One can't claim that this idea is just the ploy of the industry. There are many people who aren't sympathetic to industry who have supported such an idea for a long time(such as the eff).
If the industry was just trying to jack everyone around again I think they would have turned to one of the many legal or lobbying monkeys they have at their disposal to concoct something.
I think they are realizing that their dreams of drm are not panning out, that the present standoff is not sustainable and I think they are serious about trying to come up with a viable approach. | |
| | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: The key point is this. If the industry was just trying to jack everyone around again I think they would have turned to one of the many legal or lobbying monkeys they have at their disposal to concoct something. Again, I'm to give the benefit of the doubt here based on what? I'm to assume the RIAA isn't going to spend millions in lobbying on this new system based on...their history of...what exactly? | |
| | 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by asdfdfdfdfdfdf :
We have been hoping for years that the industry would move away from its drm lockdown approach toward something that better balanced the interests of the industry with the interests of consumers. you can get DRM free music from many places legally. Amazon is one. Just pay 99 cents. In some caes less. I mean jeez 30 years ago I was paying that much for a 45 single. That's $2.50 in today's money.
The problem is to many people want everything for fucking free. Nothing in life is free. There is cost somewhere. | |
| | | mrvid
join:2007-06-19
Levittown, NY
4 edits | music downloads is a fair alternative, protection for CDs Yes, I purchase music all the time that way, my fav is walmart music downloads and it works great, yes this is fair.
Also, they cna come out with protected CD's (by, say, putting a code in the "normally out of range for older players to play" area of the CD disc which states whether it can be played/ripped or not and the disc's serial #). Copying to a blank would be useless cause the serial # wouldn't match and it wouldn't play; until they break though & thus likely replaced, older players that can play CD-R's would play it though. | |
| Gardener
Premium
join:2006-10-19
Burnaby, BC
 ·TELUS
| Coming soon to a tax statement near you? Sooner or later, everything ever written, filmed, or recorded will be instantly available online. Someone has to pay. If the ISPs don't collect the fee, it will just be another tax, like the $62 of our city taxes that supports an excellent library system. | |
| chronoss2009
join:2008-09-23
·TekSavvy Solutions..
1 edit | and you trust these people that sue... and you trust these people that sue poor hospitalized disabled to actually do right.
And with such a tax, what then is the incentive to make a decent product.
NONE.
And there fore good buy
leave the cdr levy add blank dvdrs
after all more people use dvdrs for what? tv and movies
add bluray disks and leave canada alone
considering throttled internet crap speed even if not we make the list when there are more other places that commercially sell and do other bad stuff.
GO HOME and to actors and musicans you are the ones at fault
your support of the mpaa and riaa are your doing.
YOU SUE LIL KIDS
YOU SUE DISABLED INNOCENTS
not us
and if such a tax comes i hereby then demand that all govt computers be turned into using opensource so that the 2 billion we save would fund it so we dont have to raise another dime and that in law it would be enshrined and a inflation ONLY increase per 5 years | |
| 
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
2 edits | What is Up is Down, and Left is Right COPYRIGHT = THE RIGHT TO COPY!
After 200 years of church and crown censorship and monopoly, a reform "...An Act for the Encouragement of Learning..." known as the Statute of Anne (1710) established the right for the public to resell their purchased printed works after first sale, gave the right to anyone to be an author and publish their own work, and put almost everything else into the public domain (public can copy, distribute, share, anything).
The exception was the first 14 years (perhaps 28 if renewed), during which only the author could copy/distribute. This limited time was to encourage authors to keep creating new works.
For the first time in over a century, authors could self-publish instead of being paid whatever the monopolist wanted to pay. Buyers were free to sell the copies they purchased during this time.
The idea here wasn't to prohibit copying, it was to encourage it! This was a COPY RIGHT. The Stationers' Company monopoly had become a closed and censored market both to authors and to distributors (sound familiar?) so the solution -- as were many reforms -- was to blow it wide open.
COPYRIGHT IS a public right to publish, to resell, and after a brief while, to copy and distribute. It's not supposed to last a lifetime.
The law has become corrupted. It needs to be blown open again. I don't even listen to this stuff, I shouldn't have to pay a tax so high as I would pay if I willingly subscribed to a service. But on the other hand, we're a better society with art and culture -- so creating a system that supports them all generally has some rational sensibility. That's not an Internet benefit, that's a societal one.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| 
aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA | I only download music legally I have no desire to pay a fee for people that are getting their music illegally. | |
| | bgraham
join:2001-03-15
Smithtown, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: I only download music legally said by aaronwt  :I have no desire to pay a fee for people that are getting their music illegally. I agree 100%. I don't download music and movies so why should I pay. The music industry keeps telling politicians and the world that they are loosing billions so they want the government to tax us for billions.
My feeling is that 99% of the illegal downloaders would not buy the music anyway even if they had the money. The music and movie industry are really loosing only a minuscule amount of what they say they are loosing. | |
| | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| they are loosing lots of money to piracy, just not the P2P kind of piracy they publicly target in front of the media. of course they can make more off suing uploaders then chasing the pirates who sell billions in fake copies and are connected to organized crime.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| |
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| "I only download music legally"
If you download music legally, why would you be opposed to having the license to download the music you wanted freely in exchange for a $5-10 a month fee(of course we don't know the details yet. I am basing this on what jim griffin and key advocates of this type of license have called for in the past). The chances are good that you would get more material at lower cost than what you are presently getting. This would all be legal once licensed this way. Using p2p would no longer be illegal, it would be licensed and legal behavior. If you used p2p freely you would not be doing anything illegal at that point. Why would you oppose this? | |
| | |
aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: I only download music legally said by asdfdfdfdfdfdf :
"I only download music legally"
If you download music legally, why would you be opposed to having the license to download the music you wanted freely in exchange for a $5-10 a month fee(of course we don't know the details yet. I am basing this on what jim griffin and key advocates of this type of license have called for in the past). The chances are good that you would get more material at lower cost than what you are presently getting. This would all be legal once licensed this way. Using p2p would no longer be illegal, it would be licensed and legal behavior. If you used p2p freely you would not be doing anything illegal at that point. Why would you oppose this?
I rarely spend over $100 a year on music. Why would I want that extra cost. The way I can use my downloaded music is just fine for me right now. I have no problems with it since I use my Zune player. It isn't restrictive for me. | |
| | | | | nitzan
Premium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
| This is actually not such a bad idea. I wouldn't mind paying a few bucks if it guaranteed me the legal right to download whatever the hell I want. If and only if:
1. The system was overseen by a government entity and not the MAFIAA's.
2. The system would guarantee me absolute immunity from lawsuits regarding downloading any media - not just MAFIAA. Such "protection" is useless if a third party could come in and file lawsuits even if you paid the "tax".
3. The system would be guaranteed not to rise in price beyond the rate of inflation.
4. The system would be voluntary and not just an add-on to any internet connection. Not everyone downloads and therefore not everyone should pay.
5. I would have some control over who gets my funds. I see no reason why the RIAA should get any of my money if I've never downloaded a single RIAA-covered song (and I haven't - not into mainstream music personally). Personally I would like my funds to go to more indy record labels, for example.
Although I think the **AA's are a bunch of scumbags - the underlying problem of dying record sales is still there. I wouldn't mind contributing a few bucks if it solves the problem in a fair manner.
Knowing the **AA's though, they'll go about this completely the wrong way, and it'll fall through.
--
Nitzan Kon, CEO
Future Nine Corporation | |
| 
ARGONAUT
got ping?
join:2006-01-24
New Albany, IN | This is Self Incrimination What if your not downloading?
If all ISPs adopt or made to use this fine/tax it's basically self incrimination if you sign up. | |
| 
KlanXX
Premium
join:2003-03-19
Hamtramck, MI | Whaaaaaat !! Who in their right mind would agree to this......... | |
| clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| No, No and NO! It is an arrogant and incorrect assumption by the entertainment industry that just because I have a broadband internet connection, I pirate their material. I think if they had real studies, they'd learn that a very small percentage of people engage in the activities.
I refuse to have to pay a license fee for something of which I do not engage. I do not need clemency, I do not need forgiveness and I do not need to support an industry that can't get their act together.
Fortunately, the ace in the hole argument against such a proposal has already been listed in this forum; if the motion picture industry and the music industry think they are damaged by piracy, what do you think the pornography industry has going for it? The second the porn industry lines up in Washington looking for their ISP tax, the proposal is dead. So start lobbying for this to include porn. | |
| | | mpteach
join:2003-11-22
Manchester, CT | beuracracy The more a song is pirated the higher percentage of the piracy tax that artist or label should recieve. If nonone bothers pirating your song you shouldnt receive tax payments. | |
| wispalord
join:2007-09-20
House Springs, MO | taxes gee i think i pay enough of them allready, so they can kiss my *ss! remeber when mp3s and stuff was on irc with private ftp, it'll just go back to that! | |
|
Francisco3688
@optonline.net
| Who wouldn't want this deal Are you guys crazy!!!! I would much rather pay $5-$10 a month for unlimited music, plus you can go to limewire or bitTorent to download as much songs as you want, and not get suied!! I pay for my music, and if this tax happens, I would just stop going to walmart or iTunes to buy tracks, I will just download all the music I want. Matter of fact, I hope the game industry and movie industry does the same thing, because I would rather pay $10 more a month to download all the movies I want, then going to a movie theater and spending about $25 on 1 movie. Let me do the math you would rather watch 1 movie for a cost of $13 (without popcorn, etc.), over paying $10 and watching as many movies as you want???? Well finance and common sense will tell me take the $10 deal, I don't care who gets the money, as long as I'm entertain I frankly don't care. Same with the game industry. A game for the wii cost about $50, with the tax I don't have to wait in line for that game just
get up and download it, for 10 bucks, and belive me that won't be the only game I download. Some actually posted you will probably be paying a total of $120-$130 more a month on you internet bill, well if you add all the shot I will download when I pay that $130, I know I will be downloading $500 worth of music, movies, and games a month saving me $370. For those who's said people that say it's not fair if you buy your music, well stop buying muisc pay your monthly fee and get all the music you want. You can't sit there and tell me you would rather pay $50 worth of songs, instead of paying $10 for those 50 songs, it will be legal do download from limewire and bittorent, so just get your music there. It's call COMMON SENSE people. | |
| | Walter Dnes
join:2008-01-27
Thornhill, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: Who wouldn't want this deal If it was voluntary, ON AN ACCOUNT BY ACCOUNT BASIS, OK. At least it won't affect me personally.
said by Francisco3688 :
Are you guys crazy!!!! I would much rather pay $5-$10 a month for unlimited music, plus you can go to limewire or bitTorent to download as much songs as you want, and not get suied!! I pay USD $41.70 every 6 months ($6.95 / month) to Live365.com to listen to music I like. I prefer it that way. I'm paying $29.95/month for 512/512 kbits service ( Look Ma, I got SDSL  ). It's perfectly adequate for 128 kbits/sec streaming audio.
said by Francisco3688 :
Some actually posted you will probably be paying a total of $120-$130 more a month on you internet bill, well if you add all the shot I will download when I pay that $130, I know I will be downloading $500 worth of music, movies, and games a month saving me $370. For those who's said people that say it's not fair if you buy your music, well stop buying muisc pay your monthly fee and get all the music you want. You can't sit there and tell me you would rather pay $50 worth of songs, instead of paying $10 for those 50 songs, it will be legal do download from limewire and bittorent, so just get your music there. It's call COMMON SENSE people. Gee it must be nice to be someone with no friends and and no job, who lives in his mother's basement, and has nothing better to do than listen to downloaded music and watch downloaded movies and play downloaded games all his waking hours. And it's really nice of your mother to subscribe to an ISP with REAL unlimited bandwidth. And your mommy also buys you an additional terrabyte of hard drives every month to store all the crud you download. Tell me, does she also sort, catalogue, and backup your downloaded files for you?
I happen to hold down a day job, and I also happen to have a life. To paraphrase an old saying "having a life gets in the way of an internet". I have maybe 1 or 2 free hours weekday evenings. I'd rather watch TV or "flip the switch" and pay Live365 to play the music I like, rather than waste my time downloading and organizing a bunch of files. On weekends, I watch football/hockey/baseball/NASCAR/etc on my 50" plasma HDTV.
And $130/month to bail out a bunch of dying media industries won't be the end. Is the auto industry in trouble? No problem; simply tax everybody $1,000 per month, and give them a coupon every 4 years to buy a new 2-ton-lead-sled pimpmobile from Detroit. | |
| | |
Francisco3688
@optonline.net
| Re: Who wouldn't want this deal First off, I'm a 20 year old college student who lives on campus and I don't care if I still live with my parents on vacation time. I have time to do these things, because one thing I learn in College was how to manage my time. I have friends, I go to the movies, clubs, parties, and I still have time to sit down and play video games. My mother pay my bills, yes and I'm grateful she does, because not a lot of people are fortunate as me, to live during college worry free. Now back to the main topic, the one before you made up this life I live, I don't care about these companies, and where the money is going. If they fail they fail, if they become mega rich good for them I could careless, as long as I'm entertain, and a buffet full of music, movies, and games I'm happy. Should you be judging yourself, think about it, you don't want a tax or fee like this to happen, because you don't want to save these companies?? Umm why should you care if they are saved or not???you don't work for them, and you don't have any affiliation I assume. Get over it. Pay your monthly bill, and download anything you want. Obviously you had time to read my message, and respond back, with a fee or tax like the one being place you could have download 3-5 songs during that time period. Add it up 3-5 songs a day hmm I'm sure I will brake even ( download 10 songs) in 1 week, and I still have 3 more weeks worth of free music to download. | |
| | | | mrvid
join:2007-06-19
Levittown, NY | Re: Who wouldn't want this deal We pay enough from property tax to now likely higher federal taxes. Leave the innocent alone and go punish those who keep thefting your stuff. | |
| | | |
|
And then the Movie & TV tax, the Game Tax, The porn Tax...
