Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It was funny except for troll Matt.

 

 

Happy Christmas!

 

Troll is just a word used to describe someone who goes on internet sites simply in order to make silly posts, sometimes in order to wind everyone up. It was tongue in cheek and not a slight on Matt. I love the guy to bits! :LOL:

 

He has said he might do that one day and I reckon it would be very funny if he did! :D

 

Happy Christmas!

 

PS I think it's nice that Matt came on to explain the ISP thing. It must be something he felt strongly about and maybe he just didn't want people to think him daft (which he isn't) or he didn't want people to think that he was compromising his original ideals (which he wasn't). Mind you there must be so many incidences when they have to sit back and allow people to misjudge them or talk a load of crap about them. :stunned:

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!):

 

- When I say tax I don't mean governmental tax, I mean a new law where ISPs have to pay copyright owners a share of the revenue that is generated from broadband subscriptions in acknowledgement of the value that the sharing of copyrighted content online has to those subscriptions and the profitability of the ISPs.

 

- When I say 'creative industries' I also meant to include all original content creators, including content by people who have no record label or representation of any kind. E.g. If someone decides to make a DIY film or song with no budget which then goes viral to 20m people, there should be some universal method in place (like a bar code) where that person can trace how their film/song etc has been used and potentially claim some money back from the ISPs who will be gaining from such activity. If revenue could be generated (however small) for all content creators, it would be extremely liberating as many people would find not only mass recognition, but also a potential income without needing to sign their rights away to record companies, publishers and Hollywood production companies first. This could also reduce the 'creative bottle neck' that some writers and artists have to go through to impress the boards of directors of corporate companies and encourage a wider range of content and views to be expressed with independent budgets generated (increasing quality) due to the fact that most big investors in creative content (both music and film) tend to avoid anything politically controversial.

 

- 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.

 

Original quote below...

 

My current opinion is that file sharing is now the norm. This cannot be changed without an attack on perceived civil liberties which will never go down well. The problem is that the ISPs making the extreme profits (due to millions of broadband subscriptions) are not being taxed by the copyright owners correctly and this is a legislation issue. Radio stations and TV stations etc have to pay the copyright owners (both recording and publishing) a fee for using material they do not own. ISPs should have to pay in the same way with a collection agency like PRS doing the monitoring and calculations based on encoded (but freely downloaded) data. Broadband makes the internet essentially the new broadcaster. This is the point which is being missed.

 

Also, usage should have a value. Someone who just checks email uses minimal bandwidth, but someone who downloads 1 gig per day uses way more, but at the moment they pay the same. It is clear which user is hitting the creative industries and it is clear which user is not, so for this reason, usage should also be priced accordingly. The end result will be a taxed, monitored ISP based on usage which will ensure both the freedom of the consumer and the rights of the artists - the loser will be the ISP who will probably have to increase subscription costs to compensate, but the user will have the freedom to choose between checking a few emails (which will cost far less than a current monthly subscription) and downloading tons of music and film (which will cost probably a bit more than current subscription, but not that much more).

 

We should set up a meeting with Lord Mandelson as he is on this issue at the moment, I'm sure he would meet us for breakfast!

 

Is it bad that I understood what he was babling about?

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!):

 

- When I say tax I don't mean governmental tax, I mean a new law where ISPs have to pay copyright owners a share of the revenue that is generated from broadband subscriptions in acknowledgement of the value that the sharing of copyrighted content online has to those subscriptions and the profitability of the ISPs.

 

- When I say 'creative industries' I also meant to include all original content creators, including content by people who have no record label or representation of any kind. E.g. If someone decides to make a DIY film or song with no budget which then goes viral to 20m people, there should be some universal method in place (like a bar code) where that person can trace how their film/song etc has been used and potentially claim some money back from the ISPs who will be gaining from such activity. If revenue could be generated (however small) for all content creators, it would be extremely liberating as many people would find not only mass recognition, but also a potential income without needing to sign their rights away to record companies, publishers and Hollywood production companies first. This could also reduce the 'creative bottle neck' that some writers and artists have to go through to impress the boards of directors of corporate companies and encourage a wider range of content and views to be expressed with independent budgets generated (increasing quality) due to the fact that most big investors in creative content (both music and film) tend to avoid anything politically controversial.

 

- 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.

 

Original quote below...

 

My current opinion is that file sharing is now the norm. This cannot be changed without an attack on perceived civil liberties which will never go down well. The problem is that the ISPs making the extreme profits (due to millions of broadband subscriptions) are not being taxed by the copyright owners correctly and this is a legislation issue. Radio stations and TV stations etc have to pay the copyright owners (both recording and publishing) a fee for using material they do not own. ISPs should have to pay in the same way with a collection agency like PRS doing the monitoring and calculations based on encoded (but freely downloaded) data. Broadband makes the internet essentially the new broadcaster. This is the point which is being missed.

 

Also, usage should have a value. Someone who just checks email uses minimal bandwidth, but someone who downloads 1 gig per day uses way more, but at the moment they pay the same. It is clear which user is hitting the creative industries and it is clear which user is not, so for this reason, usage should also be priced accordingly. The end result will be a taxed, monitored ISP based on usage which will ensure both the freedom of the consumer and the rights of the artists - the loser will be the ISP who will probably have to increase subscription costs to compensate, but the user will have the freedom to choose between checking a few emails (which will cost far less than a current monthly subscription) and downloading tons of music and film (which will cost probably a bit more than current subscription, but not that much more).

 

We should set up a meeting with Lord Mandelson as he is on this issue at the moment, I'm sure he would meet us for breakfast!

To Matt Bellamy

 

I have read your ISP report, after annotating it too be able to fully understand it, because it was pretty complex, in fact majorly complex! Anyway, i totally agree that ISPs (internet service providers) should be taxed better.the copyright companies would get payed! But too me the most important issue is the DIY film and song creators. The bar code is a good idea, because the creators would be able too get most of they're money that they have earned. And i am sure that this will be backed up fully, by lots of people.

I think, and and a few other surveyed people think that the fact that ISPs don't have too pay anything where as emails/browsing websites as examples have too pay monthly, and these are the ones who have too work. (Getting a bit defensive there.)

 

My friends, dads band is trying to get a record deal. I sent them your report and they replyed that they are having trouble, because to be able to get the deal they have too sign away too many of they're rights. So many people with the same problem would probably back up the proposal. But not only those people have the problem, also the ones like me. Because i would like my band too go a long way, and i know a friend who loves too make films and he would'nt want to be restricted with all the rights, but we are too young at the age of 13 to try and get a deal so we need the future too be able to have good choices. (hopefully that made sense too you.)

 

I hope i read your repot right, and i hope this actually means something too you i may have started to babble on.

 

By megan203

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Matt Bellamy

 

I have read your ISP report, after annotating it too be able to fully understand it, because it was pretty complex, in fact majorly complex! Anyway, i totally agree that ISPs (internet service providers) should be taxed better. The copyright companies would get paid! But too me the most important issue is the DIY film and song creators. The bar code is a good idea, because the creators would be able too get most of they're money that they have earned. And i am sure that this will be backed up fully, by lots of people.

I think, and a few other surveyed people think that the fact that ISPs don't have too pay anything where as emails/browsing websites as examples have too pay monthly, and these are the ones who have too work. (Getting a bit defensive there.)

 

My friends, dads band is trying to get a record deal. I sent them your report and they replied that they are having trouble, because to be able to get the deal they have too sign away too many of they're rights. So many people with the same problem would probably back up the proposal. But not only those people have the problem, also the ones like me. Because i would like my band too go a long way, and i know a friend who loves too make films and he wouldnt want to be restricted with all the rights, but we are too young at the age of 13 to try and get a deal so we need the future too be able to have good choices. (hopefully that made sense too you.)

 

I hope i read your report right, and i hope this actually means something too you i may have started to babble on.

 

By megan203

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope I've understood the original message. Apologies if not. Two things could happen here if this became compulsory. One, ISP's would not foot the bill but pass the costs onto their customers. This would probably in the form of a flat universal fee put on top of the usual broadband fee. This would piss of a lot of people whom do not use the internet for viewing artistic content. ie, my hubby only uses internet for E-bay, weather, news etc. ISP's would also take delight in 'blaming' the new legislation for increasing the fees on artists. Two, and much worse, ISP's would say fcuk off and stop their customers from viewing any artistic content. Leaving us with carp like Ebay, and department store websites, etc. Artist wouldn't get any recognition and the bands wouldn't get the much needed launch pad that is the internet for self-promotion. I see where you are coming from though, and I don't know what the solution is. I just know that ISP's wouldn't foot the bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree belleoo, first thing that came to my mind when I read Matt's post, was "sure, as if ISP's would ever take the charge of such taxes". But then again, Matt seems to realise that as well; he mentioned it later on. Everyone knows who will be paying the bill once again. And we pay enough already, at least in Belgium we do. I don't know how that is in other countries, but we pay a lot for an ISP subscription, and have only limited download volume in return (except when we choose the most expensive packages).

 

Also when Matt says "All emails, browsing websites, work etc of course should always be included in a LOWER overall monthly subscription charge", I know for sure that we're not talking about a LOWER monthly subscription for those who only use the internet for e-mailing and stuff, but a much HIGHER subscription for those who do download stuff. And what is "browsing websites"? And how would they make the distinction? I guess something like we have in Belgium: there are "packages" with lower download speed, and a download limit of 4GB per month, which is cheaper than a "package" with 25GB download and higher speed, or an "XL package" (expensive!) with unlimited download volume etc... But then again, when you only want to watch your friend's silly video's on YouTube or Facebook, which isn't copyrighted material, you can't do that because of your 4GB limit. I guess that's more or less where the barcode-story could fit in: making a distinction between watching and uploading your friends' and your own videos, or really downloading and watching music videos, movies,...

 

But then again I'm having second thoughts on the idea of people putting something they created with no budget, on the internet and see it go viral, and then go "oh I got a million views? Yo Isp, I want some money". When we're talking about people making a movie or putting songs on-line that record companies don't want to hear at first, fine. As Matt said: it wil give them the opportunity to earn some money with their work without "signing their rights away". That can only be encouraged... But I can imagine some guys making a silly video during a singles night, put it on the internet and finding out that the whole world is watching it on YouTube... And then go: "I want money from ISP's because they are actually gaining from my silly video". In the end, they are gaining from us ALL, how are you going to make the dinstinction (once again)?

 

Oh and another little something: "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", well I don't think we will ever be talking about "a few pennies", and neither will we ever talk about "an already lowered ISP subscription". Or I should be the pessimistic one because of the Belgian ISPs (apparently about the most expensive ones in Europe), but I don't think it's all that better in other European countries... I don't know actually.

 

Okay, maybe I'm going to need to add I had a glas of wine as well, but anyway, these are only some "first impressions" :LOL:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi! Here is IMAO fan. That is not me. But, thanks for the imagry. I posted personal items. I took a shot that I would be able to just let some of the bad stuff that I was going through just post and go away. I was quoted and disected. No problem. I took the chance. I'm did contribute to ISPs ideas. It's difficult because there are no laws about ISPs in place at the wrong side if the pond. This subject is inter-connected with too many other large topics that it's hard to not bring in iTunes, YouTube, ect. Somebody in the end will foot the bill. I don't see any legislation going in this direction. Who knows what the future world will offer on tis subject. If we want to talk further about this subject we need to bring in some of the contributing factors into this thread as well. Christina

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, i agree with you, i understand since i have family in the music bussiness that has the same problem... I thought of it all night, and im not gonna write more since i know you just wanted to make a point, and you are not going to read every reply in the thread... im just saying that i would pay for music, since i really love it, but much people will think its unfair, its almost impossible to stop non-illegal downloading.

 

(well, at least you love your fans a lot enough to post this and say your point, cause what my uncle does with his fans is: he comes home and gives me all his fan-mail to choose what bracelests i wanna keep and to read the letters... Hes meeeean. But you are :awesome:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...