Now playing on dirty.radio: Loading...

  Dirty Forums > world.

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old 09-17-2009, 11:31 PM
matt
old man einstein
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 386
Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean View Post
Great point.
Yes & no.

If bas is using 1 gig of data a day then surely he should pay more than someone who just wants to check a few emails daily and maybe browse a few web pages. I understand that in this case why should the PRS get a cut if it's not copyrighted data, but I'd imagine the majority of people d/l a gig or more a day are involved in illegal file sharing
  #132  
Old 09-18-2009, 01:25 AM
Deckard
issue 37
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: South Wales
Posts: 1,244
Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
True. People's bandwidth requirements vary hugely, and from a purely resource-based perspective, charging according to usage amount seems fair enough to me, irrespective of any assumptions about what the bandwidth is used for.

While it's a good bet that most are indeed currently illegal file sharers, it would be hugely unfair to assume that, say, 94 per cent =100 per cent, and have 6 per cent of users being unfairly charged (Figures courtesy of my ass!) without some more accurate way to identify illegal downloading.

With the increasing use of BBC iPlayer HD and other services, it'll become harder and harder to make that assumption anyway.
  #133  
Old 09-18-2009, 01:52 AM
bas_I_am
vision
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: living on a psychedelic pig farm
Posts: 514
Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt View Post
Yes & no.

If bas is using 1 gig of data a day then surely he should pay more than someone who just wants to check a few emails daily and maybe browse a few web pages. I understand that in this case why should the PRS get a cut if it's not copyrighted data, but I'd imagine the majority of people d/l a gig or more a day are involved in illegal file sharing
and how much more should I pay than US$79 a month I currently pay for my home business static IP via COX cable?
  #134  
Old 09-18-2009, 11:06 AM
Sean
Where in the world...?
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: US
Posts: 1,437
Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt View Post
Yes & no.

If bas is using 1 gig of data a day then surely he should pay more than someone who just wants to check a few emails daily and maybe browse a few web pages. I understand that in this case why should the PRS get a cut if it's not copyrighted data, but I'd imagine the majority of people d/l a gig or more a day are involved in illegal file sharing
I was referring mainly to how his point applies to assumptions about ownership. I do a lot of uploading and downloading to storage sites and such too, because I'm working on an album that I listen to on all the systems I can to check production quality. I also do a lot of photography work online. So what I'm up/downloading is all mine, and I wouldn't want people charging me more because they've assumed that the files I'm dealing with are being illegally traded.
__________________
Download all my remixes

Last edited by Sean; 09-18-2009 at 06:57 PM.
  #135  
Old 09-20-2009, 03:58 AM
chuck
i'm getting older too
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: my house!
Posts: 438
Send a message via ICQ to chuck Send a message via AIM to chuck
Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
Agree with bas - data does not = copyright infringement.

Quote:
Someone who just checks email uses minimal bandwidth, but someone who downloads 1 gig per day uses way more, but at the moment they pay the same. It is clear which user is hitting the creative industries and it is clear which user is not, so for this reason, usage should also be priced accordingly. The end result will be a taxed, monitored ISP based on usage which will ensure both the freedom of the consumer and the rights of the artists - the loser will be the ISP who will probably have to increase subscription costs to compensate, but the user will have the freedom to choose between checking a few emails (which will cost far less than a current monthly subscription) and downloading tons of music and film (which will cost probably a bit more than current subscription, but not that much more).
My wife works from home - is always connected to her work network, uploading/downloading data files, terminal sessions etc. We use VOIP a lot - for work, for keeping in contact with family. All data - nothing to do with the RIAA or any artists.

ISP's should not be judge and jury of data monitoring. I think it's a ridiculous claim to make that because someone uses 1 gig of data a day - they're obviously breaking copyright and ripping off an artist.
__________________
Doesn't information itself have a liberal bias?

- S. Colbert
  #136  
Old 09-29-2009, 03:36 AM
chuck
i'm getting older too
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: my house!
Posts: 438
Send a message via ICQ to chuck Send a message via AIM to chuck
Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
A local media commentator here in NZ posted this recently.

Why Public Libraries are just a form of theft.


Has some interesting ideas - and the comments section after the post is excellent - as his ideas get roundly condemned. Fair play to him for defending his point of view, but ignoring what others are saying.

And no - I don't agree with his argument. Bold emphasis is mine.


Why Public Libraries are just a Form
of Theft


Posted by BE on September 23rd, 2009


So you’ve just been reading in the paper about the zillions of dollars Dan Brown will make from The Lost Symbol to add to the zillions of dollars he made from The Da Vinci Code and the zillions more he made from the re-release of all his earlier books. And you’re thinking, ‘I should write a book. Even with a fraction of Dan Brown’s royalties, I’d be sitting pretty.’ You would, but you won’t - unless, like Lloyd Jones, you’re shortlisted for the Booker Prize and that’s unlikely. For the rest of us Kiwi hacks, there’s very little money in writing books.

I’m not really complaining. There are only 4½ million of us and, despite the fact that we’re keen readers, that’s a pretty small market.

What pisses me off as an author is that for every person who buys your book, dozens of others get to read it for nothing. Let me give you an example. A few years back I wrote a biography of Helen Clark. It took about six months to write and during that time I had effectively no other income. The book retailed at $45. On the standard author’s royalty of 10%, I got $4.50 for every copy sold. Helen, Portrait of a Prime Minister sold 9,000 copies, a reasonable if not spectacular figure in the New Zealand market. So I got $40,500 before tax for my six month’s work.
I’m not complaining about that either. But…

Every public library in New Zealand bought at least one copy of Helen. And they lent each of those copies to other people to read for… nothing. Last year there were still 227.4 copies of the bookin New Zealand public libraries. If each of those copies was taken out by one person a month, that’s 2,729 people who read but didn’t pay for my book - my six month’s work. At $4.50 per unsold copy, that’s a theoretical loss of income to me in one year of $12,280.

But wait! We have something in Godzone called the New Zealand Authors’ Fund. Recognising that easy access to books is in the public interest, that authors should therefore be encouraged to write books for people to read and that, as Jesus taught, ‘the labourer is worthy of his hire’, the Fund was set up to pay New Zealand authors a sum of money for each and every copy of each and every one of their books held in a public library, providing there were at least 50 copies of each book. Hooray!

But wait, there’s more! Regardless of the length of the book, the time it took to write or how many people borrowed it, everyone was paid the same. Good old Kiwi egalitarianism in action. The current rate is $2.6488 per copy. So for the 227.4 copies of the Helen biography I get paid $602.34 to compensate me for the $12,280 I would have earned if all of those borrowers had bought a copy for themselves. Nett loss per annum $11,677. The Helen book was published 8 years ago. Do the math.
OK, it’s a good thing that people can go to a public library and borrow a book to read. Lots of books even. And obviously only a fraction of the 2,729 people who notionally borrowed Helen, Portrait of a Prime Minister, would have bought a copy from Whitcoulls, Borders or Paper Plus if public libraries had been banned. And yes, fewer and fewer people would have taken the book out each year after publication.

But there’s a principle here: when one person buys a book and lends it to another person to read, they effectively become an accessory to theft. Their generous act amounts to little more than stealing the author’s work. When a public library buys a book and lends it to thousands of other people to read, it’s grand theft copyright and really no different from illegally downloading music or movies or copying CDs or DVDs on your computer.



If governments want to argue that it’s in the national interest for citizens to read and be informed, then either the governments or the citizens should recognise the principle that the labourer is worthy of his hire.
There would be two ways of doing that - direct and indirect. The direct method would involve borrowers paying a fee each time they took out a book, that fee to go to the author or the author’s estate. The indirect method would link the Authors’ Fund payments to the number of borrowings rather than the number of books held in libraries. Why should already impoverished writers have to subsidise the public good? And why should the author with a permanent waiting list for his or her books at the library subsidise the author nobody wants to read? User pays, my friend, user pays.

As to what the fee should be, I’m not suggesting it should match the author’s royalty. We don’t want to be greedy. But 25% of the royalty might be reasonable and just enough to keep the wolf away from some future Janet Frame’s door.

And, by the way, a fee based on borrowings would hugely benefit the authors of children’s books and therefore the nation’s children.
Finally, will the person who failed to return .6 of Helen, Portrait of a Prime Minister to their local public library, thereby reducing the total number of available copies to 227.4, please do the decent thing and return the missing pages. You may want to use the after hours box to avoid embarrassment. No questions will be asked.
__________________
Doesn't information itself have a liberal bias?

- S. Colbert
  #137  
Old 10-14-2009, 08:31 AM
34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j
blue
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 929
Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
The link to that page is down. It's an interesting argument but I wonder how many 'lost sales' there really are. Doing your calculations based on how many people theoretically would have bought your book if they hadn't checked it out is very dubious. And again, I'd argue it works both ways. I've bought books that I had rented for free because I liked them so much, or bought books from the same author, etc. The problem with this logic is that it basically says that everyone who has ever lent a book, CD, movie, etc. is a criminal. Do we really want to go down this path?
  #138  
Old 10-19-2009, 08:51 AM
34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j
blue
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 929
Re: The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?
A really good article about the history of the music/movie industries and the innovations they tried to kill:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-own-words.ars
Post Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.