‘Licensed’ file sharing in the UK?
p2pnet news Music:- | P2P:- In a move which would, “represent the most radical supply-side reform ever considered by the music business in the modern era,” ‘legal’ file sharing broadband subscription services could appear in the UK by year’s end, says The Register.
Quoting “music industry sources, “The UK would become the second country after South Korea where the music business has agreed to offer licenses to file sharing services in a bid to reverse declining revenues,” says the story, going on:
“The co-operation follows the intervention of “Brown’s Fist”, the former advisor and Parliamentary Under-Secretary at BERR (the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform) Baroness Shriti Vadera (right). Vadera is understood to have threatened both the ISP and music businesses with reform and policy intervention, threats which encouraged both parties to open negotiations.”
But, “No deals have been signed yet and significant details have yet to be addressed,” says Andrew Orlowski the post.
As envisaged, “the new music services track exchanges of songs within a network using non-intrusive technology, and reward rights holders by their popularity,” he says, going on:
“The new services provides advantages for subscribers, networks and rights holders.
“For music lovers, activity that previously fell under copyright infringement becomes legal – lifting the threat of prosecution or disconnection. A more positive attraction is that there is no incentive to go to sites that distribute malware, or support phishing or child pornography in order to obtain music. Nor is there a need to obfuscate song names in Pig Latin, for example. More significantly, the supply side effects for consumers should lead to superior discovery tools for music: neither the consumer nor the music company has an interest in material being hard to find.
“For the ISPs, music services offer a powerful customer attraction and retention tool, and ultimately relieve the pressure of dealing with high-bandwidth infringing users. (Contrary to their public statements, ISPs are keen to boot these infringing downloaders off their networks). If ISPs can convert a significant number of subscribers to use above-ground services, the appeal of hard-to-manage, badly-behaved protocols such as Bittorrent diminishes, making networks easier and cheaper to operate”
At the very least, “the negotiations currently underway break new ground for both music and network businesses,” says The Register.
.
.Stumble It!
The Register – Legal, British P2P ‘by end of year’, June 26, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Duh – and what’s your take on this Jon?! I was really looking forward to it and you have sorely disappointed this loyal reader.
I can’t quite decide what to make of it.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:54 am
To clarify: I can’t quite decide what to make of this music industry move.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:19 am
“Bait and switch” tactics like this are just a waste of everyones time, heavy encryption is the suggested way ahead.
Speaking as a creative file sharer I ceed no rights to any commercial entity to steal my work and profit from it as the media giants would doubtless try to do, our rights to distribute our own work are not for sale, thats the bottom line.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:59 am
As envisaged, âthe new music services track exchanges of songs within a network using non-intrusive technology, and reward rights holders by their popularity,â. They found a new use for their media defender friends: artificially inflating the numbers so they enrich themselves to the expensive of smaller labels. I mean, they have been manipulating the charts (if you can really call them that) for years…
June 26th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
hmm, spoof?
June 26th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
In other news, the candle industry has been granted a percentage of revenues of electric light bulb sales
to offset their losses due to infringement of ” creating light ” which is the intellectual property of the candle industry.
The horse and buggy industry also won a major victory against auto manufacturers for infringing on their
“getting from one place to another” intellectual property.
Soon book authors, photographers, and any other media that can be digitized will insist on their piece of the pie.
How much can YOU afford to pay for internet service ?
btw , I noticed that once again there are no mention of ARTISTS getting conpensated fpr their work.
Rights holders are almost never the artist.
Rights holders are almost always the label, with very few exceptions.
Tell the truth , please.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:09 am
wont work
the SAC canuck proposal is the ONLY way such would work and is a blanket liscene fee on the users net acount and they can go where every and do whatever they wish.
NO one will GO FOR a service that forces you to some mpaa/riaa site.
A) we are already peeved enough at three meddling
B) no one trusts them.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:18 am
as too anything that is not MOVIES, TV , GAMES
goto thre site and buy it, or if they want adverting give the users a fully functioning game that requires somehting added on to play multiplayer ( which is what the best games already do)
as to imagery people if you place a few things on site, then sell you dont need a piece of any pie
I dont buy images so why shuld i pay is the attittude and its very valid.
SO book autors and photographers can get bent. There alternatives are there and are very workable.
Besides, if you want to have them get a piece of a pie pace a fee on the sale of all scanners and printers,
this then gives EVERYONE free reign to p2p it to death.
The current levy system that the CRIA is collecting aobut 60-70 million for blank media
the artists are complaining they are nto getitng ANYTHNG IN CANADA.
ALSO
the new copyright bill will make everyone who has ever dled and place dit on that levied media a criminal.
( Section 12 Charter violation on top of the anti circumvention that WILL AFFECT PUBLIC DOMAIN MOVIES AND TV)
feel free to drop into the eastern chapter of fair copyright and i will give anyone a run at how to make a levy on net accounts work.
Remember that in canada with 25 million net accounts the levy on blank media gets 60-70 mill/year
SAC wants 5$ per net accounts thats over a 1.1- 1.2 billion
A bit greedy
so
1$ for music = 300 million per year
2$ for movies = 600 million
2$ for TV = 600 million
AND remember people will still have tvs
and if they get off the crazy trip of COPYRIGHT abuse
people might start returning to theatres ( providing they don’t charge 16$ for a pop and popcorn)
June 27th, 2008 at 3:10 am
If it costs more I’m against it. Isn’t it about time they started charging for free to air tv content since its digital? Also it can be recorded unless its coded. The stage is set to broadcast uncoded content for a price. If they could only figure out how to make it selective.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:15 am
What I want to know is how much are the cartel levies on external storage devices and hard drives?
June 27th, 2008 at 6:00 am
You need a license for everything in the UK, im currently waiting for my public smiling license and my green sock license to arrive in the post.
June 27th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Fuk fascist taxes. I don’t pay tv licences because I watch it through my pc hahaha. I wont pay isp taxes either. Nor will I pay any device taxes come up with. I would rather import the stuff from china than feed those fascist RIAA / IFPI / BPI losers. fuk the law, fuk the fascists. It’s not relevant to the public. They can enact any laws they wish, but will they will adhered? Not a chance. It’s like pot. Who actually takes any notice of the law? they can classify it as a class Z drug for all any cares. Another irrelevant law… zzz….
June 30th, 2008 at 4:34 am
“Rights holders are almost never the artist.”
Artists and songwriters are the most and first mentioned.
And the last and least paid.