Printable View
This is the first sensible proposal about p2p from
any government.
http://business.bostonherald.com/tec...ticleid=118405Quote:
the amendments voted would legalize file-sharing by anyone paying a monthly royalties duty estimated at $8.50.
Even better, why not slap the $8.50 tax on internet service and declare a truce on the p2p war?
:cool:
Hey Hey,
I think that taxing everyone and just legalizing it is a great idea.... I love all these musicians that are crying that it will kill the music and film economy... A lot of people buy DVDs and CDs now even though piracy is still popular... they still will if you were to legalize it... All it means is maybe they'll go from making millions a year to only a couple hundred thousand a year... oh no... heaven forbid.... I think it's time that they step in and put salary caps on musicians and movie stars anyways... similar to sport's teams salary caps..
Could you imagine if we limited the amount of money a celebrity could make.... No more crap like Britney or Christina.... Real music from people that want to be in the industry... it'd be amazing and I'd love to see it... The greedy money grabbing people would gone and only people who love what they do would remain...
Peace,
HT
I totally agree with the 'salary caps' idea..
Today I congratulated two French friends of mine.. One of them being a musician..
He too was glad..
P2P gives his band a bigger audience than any big company could ever..
And thus more gigs -> more income..
I appreciate the sentiment, but wonder how much the complaining is coming from the performers as opposed to the industry moguls?Quote:
I love all these musicians that are crying that it will kill the music and film economy... A lot of people buy DVDs and CDs now even though piracy is still popular... they still will if you were to legalize it... All it means is maybe they'll go from making millions a year to only a couple hundred thousand a year... oh no... heaven forbid....
Now, whilst I have to support copyright law because it is the law , I have yet to see a really convincing financial/economic argument to support the fact that file sharing actually loses revenue to the industry. Sure "piracy", AKA "counterfeiting" does but there was never any real argument about that?
A true "fan" is going to want a top quality original, not some tacky download or copy?
The concept of music licensing has been around over here for a long time. We have an outfit called the "Performing Rights Society".............also pubs, clubs, restaurants etc need a music licence.................it isn't a quantum leap to go to individual licensing?
I suspect that the industry might well substantially benefit from this?
Just my £0.02 :)
they could just push up the prices of the ISP back to what they were a couple of years back .......
no one would be any worse off .............in real terms
and the bitching and whining would HAVE to stop.........
and I'm not sure about caps ??
I used to believe that if you 'capped' somebody, that that was what you got
A BODY :D
Hey FoxyQuote:
I used to believe that if you 'capped' somebody, that that was what you got
Depending on where you live "capping" someone has a whole different meaning :D
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/14/174001.phpQuote:
Sure, we don't want people going around capping people randomly, but in the end the citizens are the best able to respond because before you can think to call the police there are body parts all over the block. Sure, someone with a gun might not get the guy in time... but if it prevents on bombing that kills a bunch of people, isn't that enough?
The industry would definately see an increase, as everyone hooked up to the internet would have to share in the costs, so a broad tax/userfee/subscription would certainly fill someone's coffer's, now wether or not some of the revenue is passed on to the artists, well I am sure they have been screwed in the past by the middlemen/marketers, so who decides which or how much percentage does in fact go to the artists????
One good thing out of this would probably be that new or fringe artists will benefit by being lumped into the same pool, so they could then get quality recording time??
How will this affect the radio stations, who also suffer from so much product being available on the net, is radio a dying media?
Edit: Foxy, didn't see the body :p thought it was part of your Sig????
I HOPE so :DQuote:
is radio a dying media?
I just cannot stand those self effacing pillox who think that what we want is to listen to them
call me odd - but I want to listen to MUSIC :Odd:
Hi dalek
I can see a problem with that.................why should people who have no desire to download music subsidise those who do?Quote:
The industry would definately see an increase, as everyone hooked up to the internet would have to share in the costs
Over here you need a license to receive public TV broadcasts. The authorities are aware of whether a premises has a license or not.........................if one of their detector vans catches you receiving broadcasts and you don't have a license you are SOL :eek:
I am not really sure how such a scheme would work for music, but I would guess that the uploading bit is where you would want to address it? I am guessing at human nature/reaction here, but I would have thought that if you have to pay to do something, you are not going to tolerate freeloaders? I would almost expect the file sharing community to regulate itself?
I do object to the almost neanderthal approach that the RIAA are taking. They are just refusing to accept new technology? If I were a stockholder, I would not be best pleased.............there is potential revenue being lost there?.......................I guess I take the view that 10% of something is better than 100% of nothing?
:mad:
Hey nihil
I can agree with that, however...as I have seen more and more lately, it doesn't much matter what Joe Q, wants or not want...It's like what the cable companies did a few years back, charge you fees for certain packages and make it so if you did not want to recieve said packages "you" would have to inform them of this, in other words, the onus was on the customer to make sure they were not charged for certain packages....Quote:
.why should people who have no desire to download music subsidise those who do?
So this is like the shotgun effect...fire it off and see what sticks, what doesn't well okay that's like maybe 5% loss, so they reap 95% in the process from all of the people who just like well.....accept (resistance is futile) it..... :rolleyes:
So what will happen is they will see to it that a package deal is set up, something like a select music channel for downloading, but to get that you will have to agree to watch Martha Stewart reruns :D That's how they spread the wealth around for the cable shows.....scary eh!
Public broadcast TV here is free/not free...free as all you need is a TV, and a plug...not free as it is a publicly owned entitiy (CBC) so our taxes subsidise it.(I feel they should privatise it, as all it is, is a mouthpiece for the sitting Gov't)....that's another story...
Also, we are pretty much stuck with freeloaders as far as sharing bandwidth,(cable) the set up here, is the bandwidth is shared amongst zones/neighbourhoods, so if everyone in my zone just so happens to like downloading, it's dog eat dog, and it's thinned out.
The other thing is, we are stuck with one cable company here in Nova Scotia (Rogers) and without competition, you are kinda forced to accept what is offered, if our demographics were better, then maybe a competitor would move in, but I am skeptical of most of these companies which provide services, I believe there is alot of collusion when it comes to setting rates...like the gas companies, everyone shares in the wealth.....
As for the RIAA, they must be spending a huge amount of monies to prosecute, not only is this losing them money, but the PR must be having an effect as well, I can't believ that even given the judgements in their favour, how are they going to collect, seeing as how it's the college and university students they are going after, I bet they are in debt up to their eyeballs with student loans, so what's the result, bankruptcy for most I would imagine..
Hi dalek ,
Interesting..................our BBC sounds like your CBC.............they are the ones funded by the licence fee. The privatised channels are funded by advertising.
Cable?...............I live in the boondocks mate...............out here that would be two cocoa tins and a length of string :D
I use ADSL, and yes, we have the same contention issues as you describe. Fortunately, in this part of town I don't think that there are many downloaders, so it isn't really an issue. I also suspect that 50% of the CD/DVDs in this town are pirated, and I don't mean downloaded ;)
I agree about the RIAA...............they are funded by the industry, hence my comment from a stockholder's point of view.
Not sure about the rest though...................I would guess that over here there are far more non-downloaders with the vote than downloaders.......................ISPs have to be licenced?.........makes the politics kind of interesting?
:)