Jump to content
Muse

ISPs

MattB

By MattB
in Other Muse Topics

Recommended Posts

Mozza Assassin

Mozza

Posted
Posted
Dude, we're the resistance! We can accomplish anything we put our minds to! Derren proved this with his wisdom of the masses!

 

Stick pirates to their chairs and rig lottery draws? I don't see how that helps, they're sitting down when they upload anyway :LOL:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Roderigo Mao Escapee

Roderigo Mao

Posted
Posted
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!

The trouble is distinguishing between what is open source and what is supposedly stolen. With this new-found freedom of information, larger less strategically mobile businesses like the record industry have taken years to fully catch onto a flowing, reactionary system of distribution like the internet. Programs like spotify, itunes and other methods of legally sharing and previewing content are growing over the spontaneous use of bit-torrent and other file sharing methods. Charging people how much they use over a connection is a bit of a step backwards really, in terms of how media will be distributed over this fantastic new media.

 

In my opinion, record companies have been making a loss due to the fact people have this ability to preview the work of artists and creatives, and then go onto buy their favourite cd. In your case, I can only assume a large number of people pirated (YARRR) your bands work, and then went out to buy it as either a thank you, loved the work and wanted it for them selves, or just bought it to add to a collection. Not every artist gets fans like these.

 

As market penetration of these new methods of distribution become commonplace and trusted, record companies need to really radically think about their future, with so many artists, creatives (like myself) and musicians becoming independent of the older methods, I believe this is a good evolution and stimulates competition. Yes the older businesses have a larger operating budget, share holders to appease with yearly bribes, however dabbling with these people is tantamount to slitting your own throat when it comes to helping them. They have no interest in the end user. As a designer dealing with these huge businesses, i see a large problem. they become obsessed with safe options which are guaranteed to make them money, regardless of the lack of social advancement (see modern British homes for instance) also these huge conglomerates have no real interest in little dave down the street. They don't care if he lives, dies or becomes a god. They have one person to appease, and thats the shareholder. Their responsibility isnt to the artists, creatives or fans. Its to themselves. This is why smaller, localised, more reactionary (meaning they are smaller and have the ability to hotfoot from one direction to another with little or no re-investment/invention) will be the future as more and more information becomes freer. Imposing a tax of accessing creative content should be deemed a crime, as it influences not only the people you come into contact with, but other creatives further along the line who are inspired to create through your creation.

 

Apologies for the essay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mozza Assassin

Mozza

Posted
Posted

I briefly skimmed through Popey's suggestion, make music available for free on the internet but with heavy advertising. Then if you don't want the ads in the middle of your albums you pay for a physical or digital copy.

 

Done

 

Where's my coffee gone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ril Assassin

Ril

Posted
Posted
The trouble is distinguishing between what is open source and what is supposedly stolen. With this new-found freedom of information, larger less strategically mobile businesses like the record industry have taken years to fully catch onto a flowing, reactionary system of distribution like the internet. Programs like spotify, itunes and other methods of legally sharing and previewing content are growing over the spontaneous use of bit-torrent and other file sharing methods. Charging people how much they use over a connection is a bit of a step backwards really, in terms of how media will be distributed over this fantastic new media.

 

In my opinion, record companies have been making a loss due to the fact people have this ability to preview the work of artists and creatives, and then go onto buy their favourite cd. In your case, I can only assume a large number of people pirated (YARRR) your bands work, and then went out to buy it as either a thank you, loved the work and wanted it for them selves, or just bought it to add to a collection. Not every artist gets fans like these.

 

As market penetration of these new methods of distribution become commonplace and trusted, record companies need to really radically think about their future, with so many artists, creatives (like myself) and musicians becoming independent of the older methods, I believe this is a good evolution and stimulates competition. Yes the older businesses have a larger operating budget, share holders to appease with yearly bribes, however dabbling with these people is tantamount to slitting your own throat when it comes to helping them. They have no interest in the end user. As a designer dealing with these huge businesses, i see a large problem. they become obsessed with safe options which are guaranteed to make them money, regardless of the lack of social advancement (see modern British homes for instance) also these huge conglomerates have no real interest in little dave down the street. They don't care if he lives, dies or becomes a god. They have one person to appease, and thats the shareholder. Their responsibility isnt to the artists, creatives or fans. Its to themselves. This is why smaller, localised, more reactionary (meaning they are smaller and have the ability to hotfoot from one direction to another with little or no re-investment/invention) will be the future as more and more information becomes freer. Imposing a tax of accessing creative content should be deemed a crime, as it influences not only the people you come into contact with, but other creatives further along the line who are inspired to create through your creation.

 

Apologies for the essay.

Did you just register just to reply to Matt? How sweet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sade Escapee

sade

Posted
Posted

Heh, I'm gone for ten minutes and this thread explodes...understandable, though.

 

I'm guessing Matt felt the need to post as I can assume he had a shitstorm waiting for him after the comments made rounds on the Internet as people assumed he wanted to charge people twice for the same content(I'm assuming they weren't meant to be published in the first place, but anyway).

 

His fans especially should give him a little bit of a benefit of a doubt as the little we know of him points to the direction that he/the band is not about grabbing people's last cents but seem to have a rather fan-friendly approach (not shutting down Muselive's SYS for example). And now some people are making him out to be Lars Ulrich's step brother, the evil one, or something.

 

Even if the idea was flawed, it was still an idea, so good for him.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RachelDickens Escapee

RachelDickens

Posted
Posted

I disagree Matt that this is not well thought out, on the contrary, you seem to have some very interesting and workable ideas albeit a few holes which I'm sure could be got around......

 

Unfortunately, I would dearly love to have the time to critique fully, but time does not allow.....one thought though, as a lover of music and all things creative, I already pay a higher price to my ISP for unlimited download as opposed to the basic packages on offer that restrict usage, but again, you quite rightly lay the responsibility on the provider.

 

Anyway, after months of glorious uninhibited irresponsibility that my life has become (HOORAH for redundancy, reassessess the importance in life....having fun tee hee), thank you for a moment of real "thinking" time :D

 

I missed you guys at Teignmouth boo hiss, down there just one week before for Shaldon Regatta, but did manage to catch a jar or two at your local at the Helen Foundation Event....ooooh how I purred holding the Resistance Guitar chortle chortle.

 

Best track on the new album, Undislosed Desires.....I get it, and so right in my world at the mo...YEEHAH ;o)

 

See you in Birmingham again....cant bloomin wait, long live all things ITALIA (no, I'm not Italian, just a great lover of the country and culture) x

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nohopeinfear Escapee

nohopeinfear

Posted
Posted
Not to harp on since we've agreed to disagre but they fucking deserved it :LOL:

 

This.

 

Muselive is the retarded cousin of Muse.mu who always hangs around with you even when you're getting some with the sexy girl from down the street who's always had a thing for you but never wants to go "All the way" and the one time she decides to go for it is when Muselive turns up and knocks on the car window saying it wants to go to the toilet! :facepalm:

 

FML!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...