Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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

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!):

:LOL:

 

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. :erm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :LOL:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- 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 :happy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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 :LOL:

 

I like your av. Classic moment indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest QueenOfNerds
I read it all but my fragile young mind could not process and understand all that. :LOL: 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

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! :awesome:

 

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

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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...