Megglen Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 *falls off chair* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peroxide Pixie Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 'Matt killing birds' thread.. I think he'd be rather amused by that thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L. Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I think for the 1st time there are almost as many people in the news section as in banter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Besides, is it fair to tax ISPs for creating effective infrastucture? Wouldn't it halt progress right there and then? yeah i dont agree with the idea of isps being involved, their job to me is the provision of data. i mean you could apply the same logic that because electricity is used to power computers they should be taxed for computers used to download illegally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarin Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 First of all A few clarifications are needed! (Some of you think this was well thought out, but I swear I wrote it in 10 minutes after a few drinks without going too deep!): Second - Regarding usage, obviously I didn't factor in that people exchange enormous amounts of legal data through FTPs etc. for work purposes. What I meant to say was that it may be worth devising a method to create a charge for ISPs based on the downloading of digitally labelled data only. Everybody is familiar with paying more or less for things like electricity, heating and telephone based on usage and these are also services associated with modern basic human rights. It cannot be ignored that billions of gigs of copyright owned (and independently created) data are being exchanged, bringing in large gains for ISPs which for some reason the ISPs do not have to pay for. All emails, browsing websites, work etc of course should always be included in a LOWER overall monthly subscription charge. Of course, if ISPs were forced to pay independent collection agencies like PRS (who would trace ONLY labelled or coded files) the result would almost certainly be this cost being passed on to the consumer, but personally, if we were talking pennies per MB usage for music added on to an already lowered ISP subscription (as opposed to 79p per track for every download), I would be all for it, and I am sure the millions of up and coming artists out there who at the moment cannot get a record deal without signing away all of their rights (including merch, publishing and touring) would be interested too. - Anyway, I just wanted to throw in an alternative view. You are right. I just have to agree. Taking myself as an example, I literally always try and search for the cheapest way possible to get new music. Thinking about it, I don't have problems with paying my other bills, though, because "it's just the way it is". Guess I also need to start the rethinking right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoisonMeteor Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Maybe he read the thread about it on here. Let's hope he didn't see the PMT and 'Matt killing birds' thread.. :chuckle: seriously though, all this computer talk is making my brain hurt, i really don't understand computers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user5b32ccf1ba Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 He most likely doesn't want to be branded as an anti-piracy copyrightist () and wanted to clarify. Exactly what I was thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Problemfanatique Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I think for the 1st time there are almost as many people in the news section as in banter. Lolz, Matt's posted a thread! Quick everyone, to Main Muse! *points* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I get your argument Mr Bellamy, but it's just unworkable...impossible to implement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mozza Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 i gave him an infraction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mozza Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I get your argument Mr Bellamy, but it's just unworkable...impossible to implement. Yeah I agree, this is what should have been done years ago. Unfortunately the record industry took too long in adjusting to the internet and the time has passed. Good to see someone in a big band actually proposing something rather than bitching and moaning about illegal downloading or promoting it because its 'cool to rebel' He actually reads the boards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ril Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I like how we all want to address the issues he raised but in reality we're just here to spazz about Matt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkshineskitty Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 - Regarding usage, obviously I didn't factor in that people exchange enormous amounts of legal data through FTPs etc. for work purposes. What I meant to say was that it may be worth devising a method to create a charge for ISPs based on the downloading of digitally labelled data only. Everybody is familiar with paying more or less for things like electricity, heating and telephone based on usage and these are also services associated with modern basic human rights. It cannot be ignored that billions of gigs of copyright owned (and independently created) data are being exchanged, bringing in large gains for ISPs which for some reason the ISPs do not have to pay for. All emails, browsing websites, work etc of course should always be included in a LOWER overall monthly subscription charge. Of course, if ISPs were forced to pay independent collection agencies like PRS (who would trace ONLY labelled or coded files) the result would almost certainly be this cost being passed on to the consumer, but personally, if we were talking pennies per MB usage for music added on to an already lowered ISP subscription (as opposed to 79p per track for every download), I would be all for it, and I am sure the millions of up and coming artists out there who at the moment cannot get a record deal without signing away all of their rights (including merch, publishing and touring) would be interested too. That's an interesting idea actually. Although, I could easily see big problems arising with unwanted downloads. Obviously people who download movies or songs via the internet are doing with intention, but if there were a new kind of 'pay according to usage' fee devised (which is what I'm reading your suggestion as) I'm sure it would be possible for someone to create a virus to exploit this. Like, you might download a single song, knowing that you will be charged for this content via your ISP fee, which is fine. But then with this file someone might create a virus that causes you to download music or movies without the user's knowledge. Next thing they know, their usage fee skyrockets and they're left paying for content they didn't want or need. I guess the answer to that would be firewalls and anti-virus protection, but just thought it was an interesting point I'd throw out there. Solve global warming next plzkthnx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Ed_ Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I like how we all want to address the issues he raised but in reality we're just here to spazz about Matt! I still haven't actually read his post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobytoss Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 A few clarifications are needed! (Some of you think this was well thought out, but I swear I wrote it in 10 minutes after a few drinks without going too deep!): <stuff>! I can see something like this working, but I reckon it'd be most successful through a musical vendor's own internet service; that is to say, if Apple were to start their own ISP (maybe they already have in America or something? I dunno) you could most likely charge a higher subscription which would enable limited/unlimited downloads of film/music/whatever through the iTunes Store service. It'd keep everything very clean-cut and easy to handle if it were dealt with through such a 'universal' provider as Apple. Thinking about it, it'd probably be reasonably simple for a non-Apple based ISP to notify Apple to start/stop an iTunes subscription service when the customer began/terminated their subscription anyway. I know I'd pay a bit extra on my monthly fees for access to this music/film/whatever as part of my all-in-one ISP service Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepybear Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 i only quickly scanned through your post so if i missed something i r soz in theory its a good idea but putting it in to pratice would be some what hard (if not impossible). Watching what people download would difficult to monitor with the amount of data which is downloaded everyday. Also the way they would go about distrubuting the money taken from the ISPs in a fair way would be a difficult task as it would need to based on what is being downloaded which goes back to the point above and hi Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Dommeh] Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 The text was too long, didn't get huge part of it but it was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mozza Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I like how we all want to address the issues he raised but in reality we're just here to spazz about Matt! I added him as a friend /idiot fanboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niall Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Having read Matt's post after the shock of seeing him actually use his account I'd have to agree that his idea is a good one, providing you could accurate monitor all the traffic each individual subscriber contributes, the nature of that traffic, and then bill them accordingly. But it would cause problems when it comes to things like tracks that are meant to be free, for example, wouldn't it? I don't see how ISPs can discriminate as to when something is meant to be charged for and something that isn't. The labelling is a good idea if you can label data like that in a way that such labels aren't removed and are generated whenever tracks are ripped from CDs etc. Which would essentially be enforcing a kind of DRM, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mozzie Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Omg it's Matto Berami. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Problemfanatique Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Yeah I agree, this is what should have been done years ago. Unfortunately the record industry took too long in adjusting to the internet and the time has passed. Good to see someone in a big band actually proposing something rather than bitching and moaning about illegal downloading or promoting it because its 'cool to rebel' He actually reads the boards I like your av. Classic moment indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest QueenOfNerds Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I read it all but my fragile young mind could not process and understand all that. However I do understand and agree about the barcode method, it'd certainly be great for new upcoming artists. Don't worry my fragile old mind didn't entirely get that. But it was hot..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ril Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 A few clarifications are needed! (Some of you think this was well thought out, but I swear I wrote it in 10 minutes after a few drinks without going too deep!): I just wanted to quote Matt Bellamy! And if you check back any replies, can you tell us if there will be more keytar on the tour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mozza Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Having read Matt's post after the shock of seeing him actually use his account I'd have to agree that his idea is a good one, providing you could accurate monitor all the traffic each individual subscriber contributes, the nature of that traffic, and then bill them accordingly. But it would cause problems when it comes to things like tracks that are meant to be free, for example, wouldn't it? I don't see how ISPs can discriminate as to when something is meant to be charged for and something that isn't. The labelling is a good idea if you can label data like that in a way that such labels aren't removed and are generated whenever tracks are ripped from CDs etc. Which would essentially be enforcing a kind of DRM, right? People will find ways of getting around it, plus the costs of monitoring it all. Might as well just make all downloading legal, abolish pay-sites and make the internet really expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mozza Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I just wanted to quote Matt Bellamy! And if you check back any replies, can you tell us if there will be more keytar on the tour? I want to know if he liked my Showbiz parody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.