Andrew Orlowski, technology journalist and author, said, in a keynote speech at the Interactive In The City conference being held in Manchester, Pop piracy should be decriminalised and the music industry should realise that efforts to stop illegal downloading are doomed, and istead they should embrace file-sharers. Ok, so this is something most of us have been saying for a while. Stopping illegal illegal file-sharing, is going to be hard. Mr. Orlowski made a suggestion that maybe record companies should find other ways to generate the cash for artists. A radical idea proposed was the introduction of a smal surcharge to net subsciption fees, which would then be distributed amongst those whose music is being shared.
Although he said that the current form of peer-to-peer networks let the music industry track down the most prolific file swappers, the next generation of technologies will render such efforts futile. These next generation networks and technologies could make it easier to swap, and harder to stop.
News source: BBC News
View: The Full Story
Although he said that the current form of peer-to-peer networks let the music industry track down the most prolific file swappers, the next generation of technologies will render such efforts futile. These next generation networks and technologies could make it easier to swap, and harder to stop.
News source: BBC News View: The Full StoryHe added:
Copyright law is fine. We just need to enforce it in a more enlightened way.
I do not have kids and I do not have a car but I do not have any objection to paying for roads and schools because it is better that they are there rather than not.
He concluded that the idea of a surcharge was winning the broad backing of many in the music industry including legendary figure Tony Wilson formerly of Factory Records.
.
[edit] nm, i guess the brits don't use Z's
Actually it is there. You must have spelled it wrong?
I wonder what the OED says =)
As this article is about the UK, and it was taken from the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), the spelling of "legalise" is correct
In both cases, England's the confusing one. From what I understand, 's' is unvoiced, 'z' is voiced, and the s/z in 'organise' is voiced, so it should technically be a 'z' if you want it to make phonetic sense. As for the 'ou' thing, that's just friggen stupid. WTF do you need an extra letter there for, except to say, "Look at me! Look at me! I spell better than Americans!"
Have Fun!!!
hey here's a radical idea - tax blank media. canada's been doing it for years and it works absolutely great. i mean, sure i pay more for a spindle, but i can also download mp3's legally.
It is communist. But at least people are throwing ideas out there, because the current system isn't working. There is so much money just being waisted trying to fight music piracy right now it is ridiculus. I understand that the music industry can't just turn a blind eye, but they can't be complaining about profit loss either while they are throwing expensive legal suit after expensive legal suit around.
If ANYONE can figure out how to make everyone happy, then they will have a million dollar idea. I don't have it....yet.............
which is true, and like he says, its an online community. In the UK, I don't know what the american system is like, but we all pay to use hospital services, but some of us may go through an entire lifetime without using them.
This is not a solution to the problem, and I doubt there ever will be one. IMO it should be perfectly legal to download copywrited works. Now what should be illegal is uploading, distributing and making a profit off others works.
Is it illegal to go to a friends house and watch a dvd he rented? Yes.. yes it is, does the mpaa condone such acts? Yes they do! I've even seen comercials condoning the acts. Copyright laws are utterly immoral to me.
Here I think we only pay for Electricity and Water. Hospitals costs $1 per entry, and if you own the land theres no tax on it. Gas comes in containers costing about $25 each. Only problem... Internet is crap expensive. S$168 just for 256kbps. $88 for unlimited 56k... $98 for 128kbps. Scary and stupid pricing altogether.
About this tax for online file sharing, well for those of you who dont share files, you should get yourself a computer and start on it.
Thats justice for you!
and to say that elimating medicare and government income suppliments would get ppl off their "lazy asses" and work just makes you sound ignorant. please think before you post.
When you guys wake up from la-la land, come find me; I'll be over in reality.
That said, I'm quite happy to pay the tax, it's not noticeable, and I don't have the FBI kicking in my door when I download a song when you'd think that maybe they'd have some more pressing issues to dedicate their time to - anyone remember a couple of months after 9/11 when many of our American friends got arrested and their equipment confiscated? I'm glad that the government here has their act somewhat together (in this regard at least), and doesn't waste their time being at the beck and call of the RIAA.
It's best to have companies competing like now (Real vs Apple vs MS etc), so they try harder to add new features that will satisfy the customer.
"I do not have kids and I do not have a car but I do not have any objection to paying for roads and schools because it is better that they are there rather than not."
I fail to see this guy's logic. I shouldn't have to subsidize a business with my taxes. The other items are for govenrment and communities. His reasoning is fundamentally flawed.
They are the ones that are going to be pocketing the money!
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=52&t=220902
Also there would be large uproar from people who do not (and people to claim to not) download music from p2p networks
realise, istead, 2x illegal, smal
istead - genuine typo
illegal - correctly spelled. How do you spell it?
smal - genuine typo
That makes two typos.
I only buy music of northern kali sacramento and bay area rap there the ones i support because they put out good hip hop
just my two cents
When I want to give money to an artist, I go to their concerts and I buy their albums.
If I'd pay taxes for file sharing (which I won't, or have I already said that
And one more point: from these extra taxes who would get the most share ? Okay lemme tel you: RIAA. Right. So let's make them richer. Why ? Cause we like'em ! Or we don't ? Oh, I'm loosing my grip on reality here
I know I'm not -- my music equipment is quite average, and I'm not crazy about only using lossless music.
Do you simply not know what an audiophile is?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=audiophile
I don't know what 'Audiophiles' you know, but the ones I know simply won't download music. Not because it's illegal or anything, but because they say it "sounds like crap". They'd rather buy the album so they can listen to the original lossless version on their $5000 home entertainment setups.
A "surcharge" for internet access has nothing to do with taxes. The tax you pay on your connection is tax. A surcharge would be separate entirely. I however don't promote bumping prices for such venues either.
The idea of a surcharge built into media is not going to work either as I would guess over 50% of mp3's never make it to a CD and are played from HD or portable MP3 players using HDs.
I'm not sure where they could get their money.... with the death of media sales, that would only leave them with the prospect of re-inventing themselves and giving us a reason to buy media from the store.
Kill the CD entirely, offer nothing but DVD's (yes they are burnable, but keep reading) with in concert stuff, extra features, in-studio film footage, discount concert tickets, discount tickets on t-shirts or other memorabilia, etc. They could include back door access to alternate websites via passcodes included in the disc like software does, offering incentives to log into the site and have access where someone who "stole" their copy of the song wouldn't get to see things like interviews, commentary, videos, etc.
If someone wants to RIP his or her DVD and pop it up onto a fileshare, it will take longer to rip (larger file size), lose serious quality (if dropping from SACD to mp3 for example), not come with any additional benefits, etc.
Point is that they need to make the purchase of music cheap enough and packed with enough benefits to make the end user say "its just not worth the time it takes to download and burn this disc" when I get so much more than just the music for my $10 (where the price should be if it included some of the stuff I mention above.)
Example buy 5 cds and get a free concert ticket or
buy 4 cds and get 10 free downloads from apple's music store,
or whatever.
If they were to just "think" they could easily figure out a way to attract customers rather than alienate them.
What I still think is wrong is when the RIAA, etc. say they are loosing "billions of dollars" when they are still making huge profits, just not as huge as before. They are not really loosing any money at all, just not making as much. If they never made it (which they have not made as not as many people doubt the [cd/dvd, etc.]) then they can't call it a loss IMO. Afterall they can't say that every user who downloads an album/dvd, etc. illegally would have bought it in the first place.
Stupid lawmakers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1265840,00.html
http://www.dmeurope.com/default.asp?ArticleID=1388
http://www.silicon.com/networks/webwatch/0,39024667,39119638,00.htm
http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2003/statistics.html
albums are around 15bucks, and involve around 20 people working for around 3 months
dvd's have video and music and are usually longer, hmm something's wrong here
Record companies are dying to generate money for themsel.....uuuuggg, I mean.. artists.
'istead"
"illegal illegal file"???