UK Trade Group Proposal Suggest ISPs Pay for File-Sharing

July 15, 2010

A trade group representing the music industry in the United Kingdom wants internet service providers in the region to pay a fee to combat piracy. The group, PRS for Music, represents around 65,000 songwriters and publishers and is also comprised of another group - the Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society.

The group proposes that ISPs either combat unlicensed media files on their networks or pay a fee to blanket license copyrighted material and offer it to its users. In other words, copyright enforcement becomes the job of ISPs. The organization also suggests an alternative where ISPs could be charged for "blanket licenses" so that they can "determine for themselves how best to capture the raw value of media on networks."

"Operators would face a fee for the transmission of unlicensed media on their networks though that fee would be reduced in line with reductions in the volume of unlicensed media transmitted," according to the proposal from PRS for Music.

Meanwhile, the Internet Services Providers' Association UK, a trade group that represents about 200 companies, said that it strongly opposes the ideas put forth by PRS For Music. Instead the group would prefer a "market-based approach, reforming "the licensing framework so that legal content can be distributed online to consumers in a way that they are demanding."

"We reject the idea that ISPs should have to pay a fee for levels of copyright infringement that may occur on their networks," the group told PC world in an e-mail statement.

Copyright infringement in the U.K. has been getting a lot of attention lately; politicians in the country recently passed the Digital Economy Act, which assigns new responsibilities to communications regulator Ofcom. Ofcom is obligated to create a "code of practice for ISPs aimed at reducing online copyright infringement." Ofcom has already drafted and published a plan and is open to public comments through July 30. The draft includes guidelines for ISPs to limit or cut off Internet access for users accused of illegally sharing files without copyright holder permission.

But PRS For Music faces another hurdle in its plan, which it notes in its proposal: "safe harbor" legislation in the U.S. and Europe:

"In the United States and Europe, the ISP is not necessarily liable for the infringement of rights by their customers because of the safe harbors granted through e-commerce legislation," it said.

PRS for Music noted in its paper that it would be necessary to revisit these safe harbor rules so that rights holders could license ISPs content for file sharing on their networks.

 

Source: PC World


Comments

Re: UK Trade Group Proposal Suggest ISPs Pay for ...

HAahahaahahahahhaa....file share is the cost of business these days since the internet and all makes it impracticable to try and stop people from shareing. Its easier to go after sites that make money of the trade of files than the people who download.....


I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/cigital-disobedience/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: UK Trade Group Proposal Suggest ISPs Pay for ...

By the same logic, should car manufacturers pay damages when one of their customers manages to run someone over?

Re: UK Trade Group Proposal Suggest ISPs Pay for ...

Should, then, the recording industry pay a set amount each year to the courts, for the legal cases their artists might get involved in etc? Should they pay money to hotels, to cover the cost of damage that their artists might cause? Better still, and a closer analogy, should they pay for the acts of their customers?

Re: UK Trade Group Proposal Suggest ISPs Pay for ...

I don't see ISP companies paying up for the piracy there customers could do.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: UK Trade Group Proposal Suggest ISPs Pay for ...

These shenanigans aren't anything new.  Remember the blank tape tax the RIAA proposed in the mid-1980's?

Probably not; Tipper Gore was so busy trying to regulate content that it slipped under the radar.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
NyuRenaYou nailed it James! Yikes..06/18/2013 - 1:56pm
james_fudgeWith MS willing to share with the government, an always listening device should give everyone pause.06/18/2013 - 1:37pm
james_fudgeyou can't turn off the Microphone on the Kinect and it has to be plugged in. It's not rocket science.06/18/2013 - 1:35pm
E. Zachary KnightThe Humble Bundle Guys just don't like me having money in my pocket do they? https://www.humblebundle.com/06/18/2013 - 1:12pm
E. Zachary KnightCMiner, I know that my Android camera is off unless I am using an application that turns it on. Same with the microphone.06/18/2013 - 12:38pm
CMinerCan you turn off the camera on an iPhone? Like, -really- turn it off, not just change a setting that -tells- you the camera is off?06/18/2013 - 12:13pm
james_fudgewhen they make it a requirement, yes they are06/18/2013 - 12:10pm
CMinerI just don't think Microsoft bears any more (or less) responsibility for privacy with its Kinect camera than do the makers of laptops or smartphones with integrated cameras.06/18/2013 - 12:00pm
ImautobotThe ability to operate the console without the camera is key. It's a peripheral, not directly integrated into the console, and yet it behaves as if it is. Thankfully I don't have kids, and won't have an Xbone either.06/18/2013 - 11:49am
CMinerOh, I agree that the decision to make the kinect mandatory/always listening is terrible.06/18/2013 - 11:48am
E. Zachary KnightCMiner, and the easier the provider makes to do such things, the better. The fact that the XBone will not even funtion without it plugged in and turned on in some fashion makes a world of difference from a PC Webcam.06/18/2013 - 11:38am
CMinerIt takes steps on the user's part to ensure 100% privacy (unplugging, uninstalling, putting tape over it, not putting it in the kid's rooms, etc)06/18/2013 - 11:29am
CMinerMy point is that no webcam producing company can guarantee that no one will ever ever ever be able to access video from that webcam without your knowledge and permission06/18/2013 - 11:28am
E. Zachary KnightOf course at that point, you are still opening up yourself to Windows zero day vulnerabilities and back doors that they are happy to share with the government before Windows users.06/18/2013 - 11:26am
E. Zachary KnightCminer, I don't because I wipe the OS and reinstall something more secure, Linux. Even still, just wiping the OS and reinstalling Windows fresh removes all the bloatware PC companies install.06/18/2013 - 11:26am
E. Zachary KnightI agree that the Kinect requirement of the XBone has my civil liberty senses tingling. Just another nail in the coffin for me.06/18/2013 - 11:25am
E. Zachary KnightHonestly, I wouldn't put anything with an integrated camera in my kids' rooms. You are just asking for trouble. Of course, I am not a fan of having tvs/videogames/computers in kids rooms in general.06/18/2013 - 11:24am
CMinerIn the case of integrated webcams on laptops, do you have the same concern that people at Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc might be spying on you?06/18/2013 - 11:24am
E. Zachary KnightI love awesome indie devs. Incredipede is free if you run linux! http://www.incredipede.com/linux.html Thanks @ColinNorthway You're the best.06/18/2013 - 11:23am
ImautobotMore creepy is that the Xbox Camera can see in the dark. Now we're in Buffalo Bill territory.06/18/2013 - 11:21am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician