|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Music Executive says "ISPs Must Pay Up for Music-Swapping"
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Asmodai
This sort of news really aggravates me, but here's to hoping it won't get far in court.
A top music executive said on Saturday that telecommunications companies and Internet service providers (ISPs) will be asked to pay up for giving their customers access to free song-swapping sites.
"We will hold ISPs more accountable," said Hillary Rosen, chairman and CEO the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), in her keynote speech at the Midem music conference on the French Riviera.
Source: Yahoo News
Posted by: Asmodai
Now let me say while I do not condone piracy in any shape or form, this is going too far. I use the Internet for FAR more things than to download music. Games & web browsing are the things I do most when online, and them spouting off this kind of nonsense is irrational and makes me angry.
Posted by: d!g!talhardcore
They should charge the ISPs, but they can do what a few broadband ISPs are doing, and that is charge in a Tier type service based on the amount of bandwidth. If you download Gigabytes and Gigabytes of junk a month then you should be charged more than the people that just Surf, check email and the like.
Posted by: TotalRecall
An ISP isn't a guardian. They should not be held responsible for what a user does online.
Can you imagine the trouble monitoring every user's actions will create?
Should we hold Ford responsible for every user's car accident? No.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
 Quote:
Originally posted by d!g!talhardcore
If you download Gigabytes and Gigabytes of junk a month then you should be charged more than the people that just Surf, check email and the like.
|
If that's all anyone needs to do, then they should stick to dial-up. Broadband is costly enough without getting charged for bandwidth usage. Why the hell even have it if it's limited?
Anyway, the RIAA is getting pretty desperate. There's no way in hell an ISP can be held accountable.
Posted by: SKYHN
The RIAA is very desperate. The problem is they keep releasing charts and statistics showing they are losing money from file swaping when its far from that.
Take this one for example:
------------------------ 1999 -------- 2000 ---------- 2001
===============================================
Total Dollars (millions) -- 14651 ------- 14404 -------- 13700
Dollars per release ----- 376,632.39 --- 533,481.48 --- 507,407.41
Looks like they are losing money which they claim is from fileswapping. Well now lets look at the WHOLE chart.
----------------------- 1999 --------- 2000 --------- 2001
==================================================
Total Dollars (millions) -- 14651 ------- 14404 -------- 13700
New Releases ---------- 38900 ------- 27000 -------- 27000
Dollars per release ----- 376,632.39 --- 533,481.48 --- 507,407.41
I guess the part about them releasing 11900 fewer new releases wasnt important?
But anyways, making ISP's pay for it is rediculous. The RIAA thinks everyone with broadband is using p2p apps to get music, its becoming a campaign against broadband now. I bet the RIAA would s*** themselves if they saw how much the software industry loses on filesharing from Warez.
Posted by: tkron
This is ridiculous, I have never downloaded a published song in my life. And I will be damned if I will pay for the cost of others using the internet to download records.
Maybe the RIAA should be held responsible for how the content of the material they publish may have affected people to commit crimes or hate crimes or other violent actions. etc. etc.
They are just as responsible for that as an ISP or printed media is responsible for what a person does after reading/browsing its available content.
Posted by: AtariFX
Quote:
Originally posted by tkron
Maybe the RIAA should be held responsible for how the content of the material they publish may have affected people to commit crimes or hate crimes or other violent actions. etc. etc.
|
Are you saying that music has caused people to commit crimes? Sorry, I disagree with that theory. 
Posted by: Gunslinger
As long as you don't apply the slippery slope, then it is certainly a case-specific fact. Which way should it be looked at? Should we say that the producers of music/games/media are responsible for making bad ideas available to the impressionable? Or should we fault the person for being impressionable in the first place? Either way, it's bad, because you would be attacking the symptoms and not the disease.
...and I don't see any medicine for ignorance being approved by the FDA anytime in the next bazillion years. So, indirectly, you can assert that a specific piece of product inspired a specific person to commit a crime--whether that person made the final decision or not. I'm not saying it's right to do that, but the legal system (and a large chunk of our culture) currently lacks a better way to address the problem.
What do you do when you have the flu? Take lots of pain killers and drink lots of water. Why? Well, there isn't really any medication available that just naturally kills influenza. So what's the next best alternative? Treat the symptoms until the problem 'magically goes away'.
I don't really think that's the best way to do it, but, other than a total laissez-faire stance, I can't come up with a better way to deal with. But as you can see, with cultural issues becoming a matter of politics, hands off does not apply.
Posted by: AtariFX
I think that if they were to ever 'charge' let's say Metallica for a murder that someone else commited and claimed "the music made me/inspired me to do it", I would leave the country. For me, I always look straight at the parents for blame in any situation.
Posted by: tkron
Just a point of clarification...
I am not saying that the ISP (or for that matter the RIAA) should be held responsible, I am just saying that setting a precident that the ISP is responsible and should pay fees because users could access the internet and download songs, is just wrong.
Posted by: Gunslinger
Agreed. Basically what my post says, is that people attack the creators and/or distributors of such media simply because they lack a more appropriate target.
Posted by: AtariFX
Definetly. I just thought you were saying that you agree that artists can be blamed for other peoples actions.
Posted by: AOTY2KB
The RIAA is just facing the same crunch many other industries already have including, Televisons Computers, etc. It is the slimming of the fat, cutting out the middle man. They're just on their last legs trying to fight a losing battle of survival. All good things come to and end and nothing lives forever as we all know, in this case the RIAA knows their being zoned out by the end consumer. Hey it will be a good thing to see the death of the RIAA as most artists get less than 25% of the profits.
|
|
|
|
|
