Author of British ISP “Levy” Paper Explained His PositionAdded: Tuesday, July 27th, 2010
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Current Events
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
The co-author of the recently published paper called “Moving Digital Britain Forward, Without Leaving Creative Britain Behind”, which was produced on request of PRS for Music, explained his position on the issue of the need to revitalize the online market for licensed music venues.
Recently the British major royalty collection group PRS for Music has found itself in the public eye due to suggesting “market-based solutions” to tackle the problem of copyright infringement in the Internet. The collecting society pointed out that the Digital Economy Act demands the UK’s Office of Communications develop a methodology for assessing the rate of unauthorized file-sharing so that it could estimate the efficiency of the Act itself. As soon as the problem can be measured, it can be priced, PRS for Music believes.
The above mentioned paper proposed two different approaches to address the problem: a “negative” spillover and a “positive” one. The first one is considered to estimate a level of a fine depending on the piracy level ISP allows to exist in its network, while the second actually represents a license fee the ISP is required to pay for the permission to transmit copyrighted content on its networks.
David Touve, one of the authors of these suggestions, clarified his position on the approaches. He explains that the two perspectives described in the article aren’t supposed to be the only ones, but were taken just as an example. Moreover, the requirements set for the ISPs in the “positive spillover” suggestion are not mandatory at all, and the word “demand” or “require” should really sound as “may”. ISPs are suggested to opt for the license only voluntarily, if they saw value for themselves. The providers can’t be forced to choose between the two options even by a legal decision or a law.
Actually, the whole article was created just for the information and as the invitation to think over the proposals, not as a guide for action. Unfortunately, it was immediately interpreted as a position paper, which it wasn’t. The authors only intended to trigger a debate inside the article, as these things usually benefit the industry providing the opportunity to free speech about such controversial issues.
Finally, it’s worth mentioning that David Touve doesn’t actually work for PRS for Music and therefore expresses only his private opinion.
July 27th, 2010Posted by:
Tuesday, July 27th, 2010
|“negative” spillover and a “positive” one WTF is this rump ranger trying to push through beside his boyfriend running the heresy road express?||
Most Popular Stories