Comments on: Big Music angers UK ISPs

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 07:07:11 +0000

good points to the 2 subcomments above – but the vulnerability to watermarks only arises where there is incentive to remove them – ie. they are being used to track you for prosecution; there is significantly less incentive to remove a watermark when it means it will ensure the artists is getting paid… other options include voluntary traffic analysis – some have suggested that users WILLING to have their downloading activities monitored could be given software to enable this – there are certainly other options than suing users.

Royalty collection societies, if they were selected to distribute the funds, would need to have open accounting and audited books to ensure public and artists faith in the process.

IT CAN BE DONE>!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 01:41:12 +0000

Some problems here…

“with the use of watermarks to track and distribute funds”

Watermarks are useless for the stated purposse, as mp3 files doing the rounds at present have no watermarks and if they did, they can always be removed. also the data in the mp3 files can be esily edited.

“or users need to pay a license to a royalty collection society”

Collection societies are basically accounting scams that never work except for a few music publishers. If these, with so many years in operation cannot keep a straight accounting and royalty payment system within one country, why would we want to think that ISP’s could internationally?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:13:21 +0000

I’m starting to think that, at least so long as we persist in being in hock to money, a *voluntary* p2p license is the way to go. Keep the price low (5 quid a month?) and set up a government agency to collect and police the fee, like we do with TV licenses in the UK. Of course there are all sort of debates still to be had – how to divvy up the dosh, how to catch evaders, etc – but this keeps it neutral, with record labels and ISPs out of the picture in terms of enforcement.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:48:43 +0000

A music tariff, known in other words as a comulsory license, is the right way to go – in exchange for no liabilty – but the $ collectors need to be either p2p networks themselves or users need to pay a license to a royalty collection society -with the use of watermarks to track and distribute funds. This system would also enable many artists to side step record labels altogether while still getting paid.

I agree with the ISPs that there are very significant policy reasons why they should not be put in any position other than neutral communications provider. Once they are targeted to collect funds for big (and crappy music) their position is compromised and all of a sudden they are potentially responsible for everything that happens on their services.

AIM should be congratulated for selecting to take the non litigation path but their submission is flawed in relation to who collects the money.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:40:43 +0000

It wouldn’t surprise me at all if this were to actually promote P2P and reassure people that they are not going to get their accounts terminated for downloading music.

Yet another example of some silly Big Music action that has the opposite effect to what they intended.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:15:50 +0000

Being as I don’t generally download files other than from software sites, I am sort of new to this issue, and have a question.

Why couldn’t ‘A’ provide several ‘B’s with encrypted content (whatever that means) or even facilitate through an encrypted site the sharing of content between one or more ‘B’s and ‘C’s, were ‘A’ to provide the means to decrypt only to those who agreed to a restricted use policy which excluded all parties’ ability to hold the site liable for anything?

I am sure this is not a novel approach and may already be operating in some cases at which point one who knows need only reply and say “It is being done.”

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:54:57 +0000

The cartels are doing their very best to make it someone’s problem to do the policing. After all, for them it is about collecting money; not having to spend it on things other than CEOs, board members, and changing laws.

To date they haven’t really been very successful with the court option against Joe Public. Their reputations are taking a collective hit in the reflective thoughts of the public. The evidence that they are continually in court for various illegal actions they have preformed (such as the Sony rootkit affair) doesn’t leave them the moral high ground to stand on they would like to portray.

The dinosaur model they defend requires more and more effort to keep it afloat. The ISPs long ago had an out to this sort of intimidation legally. So it can only be thought that this is nothing short of a shot in the dark hoping to gain some advantage out of it as the cartels well know of it.