site Search:


 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery






how-to block ads


 
Search Topic:
Uniqs:
200
Share Topic
Post a:
Post a:
AuthorAll Replies


Matt_

@comcast.net

Theres a Better Way Forward

The RIAA has this wrong they should be offering ISPs a revue share agreement where the ISPs continue to Allow filesharing to continue and integrate a subscription type fee for music shared across thier network .

In the UK one innovate ISP has agreements with several of the record labels and part of the montly service fee pays royalites to the content owners for unlimited "sharing" they do this via digital fingerprinting and deep packet inspection within the IPSs network

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayLouder

The EFF has also been proposing such a scheme for the past 5 years and we already know that the technology is available where ISPs can filter certain traffic like P2P so why not try and monetize that same traffic and turn the "illegal" file sharing into legal file sharing without frivolous lawsuits and threats to shut off peoples acess to the internet.

»www.eff.org/wp/better-way-forwar···-sharing


asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf

@Level3.net

I agree. Thumbs up.



Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA

reply to Matt_
Who would pay the subscription fee? The customers? Would it be required or optional? If optional, how would the RIAA tell that User A who is sharing files has subscribed while User B hasn't? If required, what about deaf people or folks (like myself) who have no intention of sharing music files illegally. Why should we be charged to share music when we don't plan on doing so (or, in the case of deaf people, physically can't hear the songs that the RIAA is assuming we'll pirate)?


Thursday, 31-May 17:50:55 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.
Most commented news this week
Hot Topics