Unfortunately this is already in place in several countries, notably here in
Spain but in a different form. It's called the Digital Canon and is a tax on
storage media on the assumption that people will be inevitably infringing
copyright with that media. It was introduced by a state undersigned rights
management society deeply hated in Spain by the name of SGAE.
yes, I read about this. if enforced fairly/intelligently - and with proceeds
actually going to copyright holders - I thought this might even have worked,
but terrible if it's so heavy-handed and there's no exceptions for
non-private users... also seems a bit pointless now with storage media being
used less and less.
The opponents of 'net-neutrality' have also
talked about what you propose
I'm certainly for net neutrality and against ISPs fudging their bandwidths
for commercial reasons while claiming to offer advantages. I actually think
ISPs aren't being held accountable enough for their role in
fostering/hindering different aspects of net traffic; our much-publicised
data privacy is also a bit of a joke from an ISP perspective, seeing they
can (and do?) monitor almost everything.
interesting wikipedia read, thanks.
The problem isn't the fact people are downloading
the content the problem is
corporations to which artists have willing signed non-pro-copy right licenses
are making a lot of money claiming they're losing billions to downloads, a
logical fallacy when you give it a second's thought. Meanwhile those same
corporations are absolutely embracing moves from CD content to digital media..
They're just trying to make a buck in while CD content transitions out of the
industry, with their help...
Secondly artists are choosing to sign with these labels/record deals giving
their rights in the first instance. It's their fault: don't sign with Island
records and then complain you don't have rights over your stuff.
well yes, these are all valid points and are well familiar from the music
copyright discourse, but the point I was trying to make was that file
sharing today mostly infringes film/tv copyright, and that this makes it a
different ballgame due to the dramatically higher production costs involved.
supposing that film/tv was in fact "losing billions to downloads" (which it
can't be far off from), I think this might spell a fairly rapid end to
either film/tv or to downloads... or maybe I'm too pessimistic, maybe the
millions of downloaders watch all their illegal content on top of their
regular idiot box diet (but I doubt it). if I'm right though, and film/tv is
the biggest loser right now (and for the foreseeable future), then that's
what the copyright debate should jump on - some workable fair ideas as
alternatives to the inevitable cash-cow ideas from the industry.