Headlines - Warner Music wants an ISP tax

[manwithnoname]

It's not going to work ... just in case I think I'll set up a limited company record a song and claim my cut of this tax as I will be part of the music industry, anyone else want to make music?

[flashing lights] manwithnoname top rock and pop entertainer [/flashing lights]

Do I need a stage name? May be I need to abbreviate: manwithname

Ok I need a title for my song how about 'You ode me from the ISP tax fund for this'

Just need some words...

[Saracen]

But open internet services shouldn't be arbitrarily charged for by the ISP on behalf on an unrelated organisation.

If want to download a couple of linux ISOs (as an example) using P2P, so it doesn't cost the community that created it, I hvae to sign up to an extra service with my ISP, the revenue going to the music industry?

Yeah, thats going to work out just great for everyone!

If you want the Linux distro by P2P, pay for it. After you, you get the benefit. It's certainly fairer than charging all internet users for P2P whether they use it or not.

[Saracen]

...... why not embrace it, accept that initially their profits might be lower and setup online shops to sell digital content at a reasonable price and not at the current inflated prices they seem to feel is their rightful privilege.

That's the thing. The copyright owners aren't selling at inflated prices. They're selling at the price they want, and it IS their privilege to set that. Your privilege is to refuse to buy if you don't like the price.

[Funkstar]

If you want the Linux distro by P2P, pay for it. After you, you get the benefit. It's certainly fairer than charging all internet users for P2P whether they use it or not.

Paying for it is one thing, but paying the music industry for something that is completely unrelated to what you actually download is unacceptable.

[Saracen]

Paying for it is one thing, but paying the music industry for something that is completely unrelated to what you actually download is unacceptable.

Agreed. It's more or less what I said right at the start, except that I object to paying for it as someone who doesn't download ANYTHING via P2P, related or not. But I wonder what percentage of P2P is legit, like those Linux distros .... and what percentage is pirate music, pirate films or pirate software?

What the music industry seem to be suggesting is a modern online version of the levy some countries used on blank media, like blank tapes, years ago. The same objection was raised then - what about people that use blank media fore legit purposes and don't record copyright material on it. That's why it wasn't implemented in the UK, but also a factor in why our copyright law is tighter and more restrictive on personal fair use than, say, the USA.

[Funkstar]

Canada had this levy on blank CD and DVD media still

[Agent]

If you want the Linux distro by P2P, pay for it. After you, you get the benefit. It's certainly fairer than charging all internet users for P2P whether they use it or not.

And would you apply the same to HTTP traffic? Newsgroups? SSH?....there is almost a unlimited number of transfer types with more appearing every year.
I see nothing wrong with the current system of supplying a connection and letting the user use it for whatever. You pay the ISP for transmission of 1's and 0's in the end, it shouldn't matter what they are encapsulated in.

Canada had this levy on blank CD and DVD media still

So does the majority of Europe IIRC

[Sinizter]

Canada had this levy on blank CD and DVD media still

But does it mean that any music recorded on it becomes legal no matter how you got hold of it ?

If not, its just another stealth tax.

[Saracen]

And would you apply the same to HTTP traffic? Newsgroups? SSH?....there is almost a unlimited number of transfer types with more appearing every year.
I see nothing wrong with the current system of supplying a connection and letting the user use it for whatever. You pay the ISP for transmission of 1's and 0's in the end, it shouldn't matter what they are encapsulated in.

It doesn't matter ..... right up until you start levying a "tax" for using it, whether people use it or not.

If they were to charge a tax for newsgroups, there ought to be a way to decline to have access to newsgroups. If you use it you pay for it, but outside of the provision of public services (like police, fire service, etc) it's a flaming liberty to expect to impose a "tax" for providing a service a lot of people don't "use" and don't want. Copyright owners are perfectly entitled to expect to be rewarded for the use of their IP, but not by people that don't use it.

When you pay a fee to your ISP for access, and what you access is down to you, then fine. But when you start including a charge for a particular type of service, that's being paid to an external body for using that service, then it's not fine.

Nor, for that matter, is it fine for an external body to charge for using a service that they don't own and that is used by other people to access materials they didn't provide. I wonder if the directors of those record companies would be happy if I offered a service whereby they can the results of dog-racing in Azerbaijan by text to their mobile, and then charged them for those results whether they wanted them or not, and used them or not ..... and even whether they actually got sent them or not. I'd rather guess they be miffed at the idea - as am I at the notion of these pillocks wanting to charge me for their copyright material because someone else is downloading it. They need to go after the people downloading it. Find then, take them to court, by all means. But leave me the hell alone.

[Agent]

I wasn't disagreeing (I agree) with what you were saying, merely saying at what point would you stop the taxation on specific 'services'?

Its back to the old chestnut: P2P gets taxed, people opt out and use another form of transition....back to square one
Stupid ideas put forward by people who just want more money.

[Sinizter]

It just shows that the music industry still hasn't really caught up with what's happening online.

The music "industry" can go hang itself as far as I am concerned. The real problem is that government is even further behind to actually even listen to such drivel beyond the opening sentence.

[crossy]

So WMG want to get ISP's to collect their tax - great idea
___

Not only is this damned lazy (we're too busy counting our scheckels to actually do anything) but - as many have said - they've got a bit of a cheek adding a mandatory tax to everyone's bill. (Now there's a thought - what about non-UK resident ISPs, how are they caught in this...?). This strikes me as the easy option, rather than trying to address the problem properly - by providing DRM free downloads at a price which isn't a mickey-take.

Oh, and I also object to the suggestion that I'm forced to pay a tax because of other people ripping WMG off (by their view). And a small followup question - how exactly are they going to divide this windfall up? ... what's that? .... Oh, they're not planning to give anyone else a share.

[TAKTAK]

if the media (music /films) are any good, regardless of if i download them, if they are good i WILL go out and buy it, if its rubbish then it gets erased from my memory (technologically and mentally), i even pick up their loss by buying overinflated special editions instead of the standard dvd. but every single person shouldnt be penalized because of a few people that do just download everything and give nothing to the company for their hard work.

edit: and correct me if im wrong, but im sure i read that the uk downloads less copyrighted content than most other technologically developed countries. i.e. sweden, germany, america, canada most 'seeds' come from those countries so surely they should foot the bill?

[Sinizter]

edit: and correct me if im wrong, but im sure i read that the uk downloads less copyrighted content than most other technologically developed countries. i.e. sweden, germany, america, canada most 'seeds' come from those countries so surely they should foot the bill?

I dont know if that is true or not. But what is true is that, only UK has people dumb enough to actually look at this idea seriously.

[crossy]

if the media (music /films) are any good, regardless of if i download them, if they are good i WILL go out and buy it, if its rubbish then it gets erased from my memory (technologically and mentally), i even pick up their loss by buying overinflated special editions instead of the standard dvd. but every single person shouldnt be penalized because of a few people that do just download everything and give nothing to the company for their hard work.

I'm with you TT - heck, I don't even do a lot of iTunes shopping because it's better to have that CD in my hand, (and let's be honest - from Play etc - it's often cheaper to get the physical medium).

edit: and correct me if im wrong, but im sure i read that the uk downloads less copyrighted content than most other technologically developed countries. i.e. sweden, germany, america, canada most 'seeds' come from those countries so surely they should foot the bill?

Hmm, that's my perception too, in which case this'd be my take on WMG et al asking for their extortion money (apologies for the slightly xenophobic note - apologies to the citizens of the countries named):

o Sweden - "Goet steuffed!"
o Germany - "I know my rights, zis is not legal here, zo please leave NOW!"
o USA/Canada - "Click!" (body armor on standby...)

Personally I don't think we'll have to worry about this - it's a dead fire 100% guaranteed vote loser, and an ISP who adopted it unilaterally would be committing commercial suicide.

[dangel]

But what is true is that, only UK has people dumb enough to actually look at this idea seriously.

QFT. Our government is pathalogically ignoring the common man thesedays - but the sad truth is that the opposition is also swallowing this crap too. It's not the job of government to support creaky old business models which don't work in the modern era - be it Rover or Warner.