News - Cost of Digital Economy Art could push broadband prices up

[HEXUS]

Govt defends piracy prevention Act that providers warn could cost customers dear.

Read more.

[cameronlite]

i hate this country.

[watercooled]

Hmm, so legit users are going to have to pay (again) for selfish pirates? Nice...

[Biscuit]

So we are going to throw money at something just to further prove it doesnt work... great.

Piracy is IMPOSSIBLE to beat, all you can hope to do is minimize it by providing good service at a good price. if iTunes hasnt proved that then what more do they need?

[watercooled]

All these stupid anti-piracy measures (DRM and copy protection for example) do is harm legit users, neither are even a minor hindrance for pirates. Something needs to be done about piracy but it shouldn't be at the expense of legit users!
I'm not surprised there are so may pirates though - what do you get for paying for stuff? Shafted. What happens if you steal it? Nothing plus you get a DRM, crapware-free version! And obviously ethics don't come into it for a lot of people...

[Funkstar]

"Cost of Digital Economy Art" in the title

[MaddAussie]

Its a no win situation for the consumer, if you are a good little denizen of the net and dont download copyrighted content (games, music, tv etc) you get a) nasty DRM hoops to jump through and now it looks like you are gonna have to pay for for the internet police to hunt down the ones that do.

Its about time that all media companies have a rethink about their strategy and come up with business models that mitigate the cost and impact of piracy. Companies like Stardock seem to be able to survive without imposing DRM on their customers.

[Funkstar]

So every broadband user will be paying to help media companies protect their copyright?

I guess the end result from this will be people feeling more justified in downloading illegal content in the first place. If you are going to charge people for doing something illegal, you may as well just make it legal in the first instance.

[Jimbo75]

So every broadband user will be paying to help media companies protect their copyright?

I guess the end result from this will be people feeling more justified in downloading illegal content in the first place. If you are going to charge people for doing something illegal, you may as well just make it legal in the first instance.

If I'm going to be charged for downloading illegal stuff, I'll be sure to get my money's worth. This is just another hair-brained scheme that will backfire on them.

[crossy]

Piracy is IMPOSSIBLE to beat, all you can hope to do is minimize it by providing good service at a good price. if iTunes hasnt proved that then what more do they need?

Agree with both of these - except to comment that iTunes made digital download popular, then had to go DRM free because other stores sprung up that were doing that for a cheaper price. These days I use Amazon, Play or 7digital's stores because the purchasing 'experience' is nicer - plus being cheaper than iTMS doesn't hurt. As far as I can see, a lot of the artists have got the idea - a good few DVD's I've bought recently have had a 'digital download' copy for putting on portable player. It's just the 'fat cats' (sorry for the cliche) that are still in the last century.

Ed Vaizey, the minister for communications, reportedly said: "Protecting our valuable creative industries, which have already suffered significant losses as a result of people sharing digital content without paying for it, is at the heart of these measures." "The Digital Economy Act serves to reduce online copyright infringement through a fair and robust process and at the same time provides breathing space to develop better business models for consumers who buy music, films and books online," he added.

Notice that the Honorable Gent () made no mention of games. Kind of reinforces, in my mind at least, that the current bunch of luddites in the HoP are clueless numpties who don't regard Rockstar etc as 'valuable creative industries'. Certainly not enough to give them the tax breaks they were looking for.

The ISPA, which represents the ISPs is said to believe rights holders should cough up the whole sum as they stand to benefit the most from the scheme.

Hear, hear - couldn't agree more!

But Vaizey has reportedly said the Government's decision is ‘proportionate' to the huge problem. "We expect the measures will benefit our creative economy by some £200m per year. As rights holders are the main beneficiaries of the system, we believe our decision on costs is proportionate to everyone involved," he reportedly added.

As the ISPA is saying - if the music (etc) industry is going to benefit, then why in the name of all that's holy aren't they being asked to stump up for the costs. Tell me how this is different from a shopkeeper having to put in CCTV to cut shoplifting?

Sound like one bunch of gits (the current government) making sure that their pals in the rip-off biz are going to be okay. Gargh!

[aidanjt]

Hmm, so legit users are going to have to pay (again) for selfish pirates? Nice...

Nope, legit users are going to have to pay the price for corporations paying off politicians to pass immoral acts.

[watercooled]

True, but without pirates they wouldn't have an excuse. As much as I'm against censoring/monitoring or anything like that there's no justifying theft.

[aidanjt]

True, but without pirates they wouldn't have an excuse. As much as I'm against censoring/monitoring or anything like that there's no justifying theft.

In English law, theft was codified into a statutory offence in the Theft Act 1968 which defines it as:

"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".

So, not theft, therefore no justification is required nor excuses warranted. And if copyright violation is so vastly widespread, that the government must urgently pass an act of law to combat it, then surely it is against the will of the people, and thus invalid anyway. Furthermore, no law which violates human rights for the extended profit and welfare of corporate entities can in any way be considered just by any measure.

The answer to 'piracy' is not more restrictions and laws, it's deceptively simple, publishers need to be competitive. Copyright law has already granted them an artificial monopoly on publication of individual articles, that alone should be good enough. If they can't create value, reduce costs, and out-compete market forces *with* a government granted monopoly, then they deserve to go out of business.

[watercooled]

OK then, TWOC, copyright infringement, however you want to put it. You are acquiring something for free which other decent people have to pay for, and to make up the cost of others who don't pay, increasing the cost per item. Ethically if nothing else, it's still stealing. Just because something isn't clearly defined in a rulebook with definitions though up years before the issue became a problem doesn't mean it's OK to do it. Like I said, I'm not for this specific act as again all it's going to do is screw over honest people as usual which actually makes me like pirating even less. And I have little sympathy for ruthless mega-corporations. Either way, someone needs to pay for movies, games, etc; they're not exactly made for free.

Edit: Oh and even if you're not permanently depriving the owner of a physical object, you're still permanently depriving them of the cost of the object which they should have received. But as I've said, I see the reasoning behind people pirating, people think no-one else pays, why should I? There's little incentive not to pirate ATM.

[miniyazz]

You're still making the assumption that those who pirate would buy what they pirate if they did not get it illegally, which is just not the case in many (possibly most) cases.

[watercooled]

I know people who download pretty much every movie they watch, so by your terms they would never buy any films if they had no choice which is simply untrue. People pirate because they know they can, they would think differently if pirating was impossible, what you say is certainly true for a few cases but there's no way it applies to most. But again, it's still very selfish and unfair that some people get for free what other people have to pay for. Personally I'm a student so I'm not exactly rolling in money but I'm no thief and I pay for media so I think I have a right to say this.