Will The Recording Industry Pay For ISP Monitoring In The UK?

from the come-on,-pay-up dept

Recently, as the BPI was arguing yet again that ISPs were exaggerating how much it would cost to implement a three strikes type regime in the UK (which would be required under Peter Mandelson’s Digital Economy Bill, aka DEB), we wondered if BPI would be willing to foot the bill, since it’s so sure that it’ll be cheap. After all, since the whole law is designed to prop up BPI’s own business model, it seems to only make sense that BPI should be the one paying for it, right?

Turns out that we’re not the only ones to think so. In a recent post about the DEB, Jeremy Silver (who I had the pleasure of meeting at Midem) points out that BPI is in the troubling position of trying not to make it sound so cheap that it’s expected to pick up the bill, while still arguing that it’s not so burdensome for ISPs to pick up the bill. But, various proposals actually are suggesting that BPI should pay the cost:

The Digital Economy Bill that is wending its glacial way through the UK parliament has produced an interesting row between the BPI (representing the interests of the major record labels) and the ISPs, telco’s and mobile network operators. They are arguing over who should pay how much to fund remedial measures to clamp down on illegal file-sharing. The BPI is in a tough place since the cheaper they argue the cost will be, the more the ISPs respond by saying “well then you can pay for it.” Minister Stephen Timms recently suggested the split should be 75/25 (with the BPI paying the greater amount).

Honestly, I fail to see why BPI shouldn’t have to pay 100% of the cost (or, perhaps in conjunction with other copyright industry organizations) if such a plan goes through.

Silver recognizes the bigger issue of course, which is that almost no one actually thinks that a three strikes plan “will make a blind bit of difference,” and that this whole game is really about rights holders “wasting their money by trying to control file-sharing.” On that we agree. However, I have to disagree with his suggestion that the answer is a collective licensing regime, because I think that introduces way too many questions where it’s not needed. A collective licensing scheme puts yet another bureaucracy in the middle, just for the music industry (well, not for long, because then suddenly everyone else wants one too: the movie industry, the software industry, the video game industry, the newspaper industry, etc. — and why should it stop there, new industries will jump on board too: don’t we need a collective license for people who view blogs too?). As it stands, I just think that we’re finally seeing free market business models that are working, and it’s way too early to jump in and distort the market with a collective licensing scheme.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: bpi

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Will The Recording Industry Pay For ISP Monitoring In The UK?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
43 Comments
Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Two things...

1. “and it’s way to early to jump in and distort the market with a collective licensing scheme.” needs a typo correction on the “to” to “too” (to two too toooooo!)

2. “the BPI was arguing yet again that ISPs were exaggerating how much it would cost to implement a three strikes type regime in the UK” This is going to be REALLY fun! It’s like a battle of the lobbyist douchbags! Who can throw the most money/hookers/cocaine/free-dentist-visits at British lawmakers to sway their votes? Llllets get ready to ruuuuuummmmbbblllle!

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Two things...

1. “and it’s way to early to jump in and distort the market with a collective licensing scheme.” needs a typo correction on the “to” to “too” (to two too toooooo!)

Oops. Fixed.

2. “the BPI was arguing yet again that ISPs were exaggerating how much it would cost to implement a three strikes type regime in the UK” This is going to be REALLY fun! It’s like a battle of the lobbyist douchbags! Who can throw the most money/hookers/cocaine/free-dentist-visits at British lawmakers to sway their votes? Llllets get ready to ruuuuuummmmbbblllle!

Ah, politics.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“There is no proof that 3 strikes style laws won’t work, as they have never been tried anywhere.

So I think it is premature to make any assumptions about it.”

Ah, but there are plenty of things that haven’t been tried that we can say/tell are not such a good idea.

My own proposed “Nuke all duckbilled-platupi for looking silly” proposition, for example….

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“Oh my god you’re right… he’s John Cleese in The Argument Clinic!”

He could be the guy in the cheese shop saying no we dont have that cheese … ah no we dont have any cheese

Oh my god TAM is actually the guy saying the parrot isnt dead its actually just sleeping

I should slip a TAM insult-reference to the lumber jack song in here … dress in womens clothing and hand around in bars, but I am being nice tonite….

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Yeah, let’s just try out a new law that will ruin lives, disrupt entire other industries, cost a ton of money, and generate new bureaucracy because, hey, there’s some small chance it might actually make people want to buy overpriced music again, and the recording industry is all that really matter.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Laws, no. Idiotic ISPs trying to kick off innocent people, threatening their livelihoods, for so-called crimes they did not commit? Yes.

It doesn’t need to be tried as a law, because it’s already been shown to be completely unworkable by private industry. Did you upgrade your router from the pathetic WEP system, yet? You know, before someone shows you how stupid your support for this is…

NAMELESS.ONE says:

YOU OWE ME FOR EVERY DOOR YOU USE

thats right i want WORKERRIGHT 95 years plus life of the maker
ME
every time you open a door i want me money and if you dont pay YOU WONT be able to open your doors cause were putting DRM LOCKS on them. THAT’S right noobs i want my cash too so i can be a lazy good for nothing jerk.

The Anti-Anti mike says:

proof it don't work

0 tolerance in schools has worked out well acccording to Anti mike right?
Interesting concept this copyright…
We citizens giving you authors and creators a right to make a buck, and what are you fuckin doing kicking us off the net cause you can’t figure out that its capitalism and if you can’t do it cheap DONT FRAKING DO IT.

you could sell a cdr a music to a 5 megabit user at cost of about 4-5 cents per download A WHOLE CDR
so 25 cents a movie sound ok. MY father always told me of business if he could make ten percent returns he’d be happy.
YOU PEOPLE wants thousands of percents and imperial star empire made on thoughts and imaginations of BS.

WE the people are going to rise up and declare NULL and void the laws pertaining to copyright. WATCH AND see after ACTA comes out lil Anti-Mikey boy. As i said better get back to that table quick and get rewriting what i have seen or these folks all around you are gonna eat you for breakfast and i wont lose no sleep over downloading everything i can get my hands on.

I have seen ONLY how the labels abuse the musicians and actors , NOT US folks. IF YOU over priced sacks a shit suits would get on that iranian rocket program we might actually advance as a world.

The Anti-Mike (profile) says:

Re: proof it don't work

First, I have to say “you people” as you refer to them doesn’t refer to me. I am not a movie or music producer, nor am I part of the MPAA, RIAA, or any of the (hated) *AAs.

you could sell a cdr a music to a 5 megabit user at cost of about 4-5 cents per download A WHOLE CDR
so 25 cents a movie sound ok. MY father always told me of business if he could make ten percent returns he’d be happy.

That would be fine, if you ignored the 100 million it took up front to produce the movie, and that a large number of the movies produced every year lose money.

Only looking at replication costs without looking at all the fixed costs up front is truly a fail.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: proof it don't work

You know, one doesn’t have to make a $100 million movie. And if you do are you also magically expected to see a return on your investment? Just because?

Still waiting for Hollywood’s first $100 billion movie. If they can make a $400 million movie and get over $2 billion for it, worldwide, then a $400 billion movie would earn them at least $2 trillion, worldwide, right?

Isn’t that how it works? With that fancy Hollywood accounting?

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: proof it don't work

AC – There was a guy in a couple months back that did a hollywood level CGI flick for $500 USD. He was hired on the next Spiderman movie. Watch the flick

It doesnt require $100 million USD to make a movie. He did a 5 minute movie for $500 USD. That equates to $100 USD per minute or the movie independance day for $14,500 USD at 145 minutes.

The sooner people realise that the movie industry pads the books the same way the recording industry, the sooner this copyright bubble will end.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 proof it don't work

Sorry to correct you, but he wasn’t hired for the Spiderman movie (the director of that will be the appropriately named Marc Webb, director of 500 Days Of Summer). Federico Alvarez’s project is as yet untitled and probably an original work.

Your point is taken, but I don’t think anyone is unaware of Hollywood’s accounting techniques. I’d like to think that the successes of lower budget movies like District 9, Paranormal Activity and Zombieland last year will start a trend toward lower budget, but I also hoped that in 1999 when The Blair Witch Project and The Sixth Sense were big hits. After all, most people admit that the script of Avatar was a big mess and Transformers 2 was awful and at least 30 minutes too long with a bloated script. Don’t think that will help good writers get work though, even if they are desperately needed.

AdamR (profile) says:

Re: Re: proof it don't work

“First, I have to say “you people” as you refer to them doesn’t refer to me. I am not a movie or music producer, nor am I part of the MPAA, RIAA, or any of the (hated) *AAs.”

If it looks like a duck, walks like and a duck and quacks like a duck guess what. You are solely to blame for that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: proof it don't work

That would be fine, if you ignored the 100 million it took up front to produce the movie, and that a large number of the movies produced every year lose money.

Please plot the numbers you see in this link here and tell everyone what you did find.

It is the same pattern for every year listed and that is not counting DVD revenues, so if they are in the RED maybe is because of some dubious accounting habits. Because the numbers listed public point to another story completely.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: proof it don't work

“if you ignored the 100 million it took up front to produce the movie”

Successful films cover their upfront costs in movie theatres – after all that used to be the ONLY source of revenue and plenty of good films were made.

Also – who says we need such expensive films?

Also – how much of that cost goes on overpaid stars (not to mention movie executives etc etc)?

My guess is that most of that 100 million is fat that could be lost if the need was there. We all have to make efficiency savings these days – why should the movie industry be exempt?

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: proof it don't work

Only looking at replication costs without looking at all the fixed costs up front is truly a fail.

True you have to consider both- but you are putting them in the wrong order.

Spending fixed costs without having worked out how you can recover them is the fail.

If the economic and technological environment doesn’t allow you to recover those fixed costs then you don’t make the investment.

Simples

mike allen (profile) says:

IP addresses

lets look at how IP addresses are alocated in the UK Most people are on a DYNAMIC IP this means that your IP changes (I guess everywhere is similer). But depending on ISP how often for example Virgin may change monthly. Pipex/ Bulldog change every few minutes. I really dont see how a track on who has what address can be kept on the later.

jilocasin (profile) says:

We don't need blanket licenses, what we need are no copyrights.

Yep, you read that correctly. We don’t need more bureaucrats, collection societies, or other leaches draining the collective culture dry.

If the purpose of copyright was to encourage the creation of creative works, I think it needs to be retired. More works are being created by people that won’t collect a penny directly off their works than by those that do. Guess what? That isn’t stopping anyone from creating. All that copyright is doing these days is keeping our collective culture from us. The only one’s winning are large companies that have gotten way too fat suckling at the public teet. Well them and the lawyers.

If you can’t figure out a way to make money from creative works without copyright, then you really need to be in a different line of business. Funny thing, most of the people creating actually are. Creative works should be attributed (assuming the author wants to be known) and downstream uses should be credited. Obscurity is and has always been a worse fate for a creator than anything else.

There you go, simple. Let us enjoy our culture and get back to actually doing things. We’ve wasted too much time/money/effort thinking that we can ‘own’ ideas and performances.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...