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 :

Poll

Should 'Hatred' have been removed from Steam Greenlight?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
PHX Corp@Adam802 We'll break out the popcorn in June12/19/2014 - 9:23pm
ZippyDSMleeMaskedPixelante: I'm itching to start it too but I will wait till the patch goes live. >>12/19/2014 - 7:52pm
Adam802Leland Yee and Jackson get trial date: http://sfbay.ca/2014/12/18/leland-yee-keith-jackson-get-trial-date/12/19/2014 - 5:24pm
MaskedPixelanteNevermind. Turns out when they said "the patch is now live", they meant "it's still in beta".12/19/2014 - 5:07pm
MaskedPixelanteSo I bought Dark Souls PC, and it's forcing me to log into GFWL. Did I miss something?12/19/2014 - 5:00pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/republicans-may-have-plan-to-save-internet-providers-from-utility-rules/ this is intreasting. congress may put net nutrality in to law to avoid title 2 classification12/19/2014 - 2:45pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.polygon.com/2014/12/19/7421953/bullshit-cards-against-humanity-donated-250k-sunlight-foundation I have to admit I like the choice o organization. congrats to CAH.12/19/2014 - 1:51pm
E. Zachary KnightIf you are downloading a copy in order to bypass the DRM, then you are legally in the wrong. Ethically, if you bought the game, it doesn't matter where you download it in the future.12/19/2014 - 12:06pm
InfophileEZK: Certainly better that way, though not foolproof. Makes me think though: does it count as piracy if you download a game you already paid for, just not from the place you paid for it at? Ethically, I'd say no, but legally, probably yes.12/19/2014 - 11:20am
ZippyDSMleeAnd I still spent 200$ in the last month on steam/GOG stuff sales get me nearly every time ><12/19/2014 - 10:55am
ZippyDSMleeMaskedPixelante:And this is why I'm a one legged bandit.12/19/2014 - 10:51am
ZippyDSMleeE. Zachary Knight: I buy what I can as long as I can get cracks for it...then again it I could have gotton Lords of the Fallen for 30 with DLC I would have ><12/19/2014 - 10:50am
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/12/19/marvel-vs-capcom-origins-leaving-online-storefronts-soon/ Speaking of "last chance to buy", Marvel vs. Capcom Origins is getting delisted from all major storefronts. Behold the wonders of the all digital future.12/19/2014 - 9:59am
MaskedPixelanteSeriously, the so-called "Last Chance" sale was up to 80% off, while this one time only return sale goes for a flat 85% off with a 90% off upgrade if you buy the whole catalogue.12/19/2014 - 9:37am
E. Zachary KnightInfophile, Tha is why I buy only DRM-free games.12/19/2014 - 9:37am
MaskedPixelanteNordic is back on GOG for one weekend only. And at 85% off no less, which is kind of a slap in the face to people who paid more during the "NORDIC IS LEAVING FOREVER BUY NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE" sale, but whatever...12/19/2014 - 9:28am
InfophileRe PHX's link: This is one of the reasons the digital revolution isn't all it's cracked up to be. There's also the flip side where Sony can block access to games you've bought if they ban your account for unrelated reasons. All power is theirs.12/19/2014 - 8:52am
MaskedPixelantehttp://uplay.ubi.com/#!/en-US/events/uplay-15-days You can win FREE GAMES FOR A YEAR! Unfortunately, they're Ubisoft games.12/18/2014 - 6:29pm
Papa MidnightAh, so it was downtime. I've been seeing post appear in my RSS feed, but I was unable to access GamePolitics today across several ISPs.12/18/2014 - 6:06pm
james_fudgeSorry for the downtime today, folks.12/18/2014 - 5:54pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician