“The proposed law would not make P2P both free and legal, although this popular misconception has persisted. Rather, P2P usage would be made legal in exchange for a monthly surcharge on Internet access, to the tune of circa EUR 5 [$6] per month. Some users are jumping for joy at the idea of being indemnified against copyright infringement for a mere EUR 60 [$72] a year, but not everyone. Like all taxes and surcharges, the fees would have to be paid by everyone, but not everyone thinks it’s a great idea (especially the entertainment industry).”
well…not really but it is pretty cool.
You pay some taxes on the internet, some taxes on removable media, some taxes on computers and this money is distributed to the “artists” – then you have a carte blanche for downloading? cool!
You mean Legalization of P2P millimeters Forward in France.
So, inches for for THE English, metric system for the rest of the world.
Heh, how ridiculous. Nothing ‘millimeters’ forward. The correct term is ‘inches’ regardless of your measurement system 🙂
It’s called an idiom.
p.s. The metric system is also used in Britain. I was taught it exclusively at school (back in the ’80s).
In France, mm not inchs.
“Inch” the verb, not the measurement.
In France, mm not inchs.
-which we all know … and your point is?
Please, the correct translation would have to be, “centimeters”, unless it moved only 4/100ths of an inch ahead.
I’d prefer a different system for legalisation. It might be combined with this type of surcharge, but I’d like to see a system based on limiting the quality of the files that can be shared. It would keep sharing alive, and sharing isn’t going to go away for anything short of totalitarian measures, but it would provide an incentive for people to buy what they like.
If the limit for a shared file is 96 kb/s MP3 or OGG there will be an audible difference with CD quality, or a high quality file purchased legally. The same thing could also be done for video the 96 kb/s would then apply to the soundtrack, with a different limit set for the video, at a guess I’d say something like 500 kb/s.
The bitrates might have to be revised from time to time because of new codecs (or they could be set per codec), but the basic system could survive changes in that area. It might even make file-sharing generate revenue for the music and film industries. People who have a chance to try a reduced quality sample legally will have a reason to buy official, high quality, versions of the stuff they like.
I would much rather see it de-criminalized than legalized, in other words let’s remove the bad legislation rather than pile more on top of it.
Ooooh…how about this whacky idea. What if, and work with me here, this is kind of an outlandish thought, but what if you actually paid for the stuff you used? I know, I know, it sounds like crazy talk.
What is proposed here is a terrible idea. We have a similar system in place in Canada with regard to recordable media. From what I understand many other countries tax recordable media as well. The idea is that the recording industry gets money from consumers of blank media on the assumption that consumers are using the media to infringe on copyright. My problem with this is two fold:
1) Why should Joe Consumer pay the tax if he is using the blank media to backup data or music/video that he has created and owns the copyright for?
2) Why is a group representing some artists given the proceeds while other artists outside the group have their music ripped off without reimbursement?
Now, this idea is being extended beyond recordable media to the Internet in France. Again, my concerns remain the same; however, with even greater emphasis on my first concern. Why should someone who uses the Internet for only email and checking their bank statements have to bare the cost of those that use it for ripping off music.
I think this whole concept is akin to saying “we can’t catch everyone who speeds on the highway, so instead we are going to charge everyone an additional $25 in tax every year when they renew their license plate.” To me, this faulty logic.
Over in Germany, we also have a tax on blank media and certain devices – even photocopiers. In exchange for this money, we get the right to make copies for private use and you’re even allowed to make a few copies for friends.
So all is well over here. Except that last year, we got some DMCA like legislation that makes it illegal to copy protected material. And over here, nearly all CDs and DVDs come with some sort of copy protection.
So we’re paying for a right that we cannot legally make use of.
Talking of being f–ked both ways: When you go to the cinema or watch a DVD, you’re presented with a lovely (unskippable) spot that threatens “pirates” with up to five years of jail time and suggests that you’re likely to be raped in jail. And that spot is even in material targeted at children.
Does something like that exist in other countries as well?
not that bad but along the same lines, yes.
I think Rhapsodie is the way to go, just way too expensive. So expensive that people who is it actually buy a software to unlock all the files they are interested in !
I think they should just forget about it and live with it. People who exchange 1000s of tracks wouldn’t buy them anyway but they end up making all that material available for people like me, who are on the lookout for the next CD to buy, cause radios are so useless at doing their job ….
I guess the answer would be internet packages with p2p ports blocked for those who don’t want to pay.
A UK ISP did have such a package in the past. It was a bandwith limitation exercise then but you get the idea.
The answer is probably to tax bandwith based on port used.
We have a similar system in place in Canada with regard to recordable media.
Not exactly. We do have levies on blank media, but it does not grant you the right to download copyrighted music (since the levies are going to record associations). Sure, a judge from the supreme court refused a subponea to the CRIA, preventing ISPs from disclosing informations on their users and basically allowing file sharing at the same time, yet it won’t be long before our dear corporate-friendly government fix this hole with a special law. The liberals were going to, the conservatives will probably finish the job.
Soon, we are going to pay the levies without being allowed to share, which is going to differ from France. Between both, I’d rather have the one where I get something for my money…
Edited 2006-02-07 02:59
Not exactly. We do have levies on blank media, but it does not grant you the right to download copyrighted music (since the levies are going to record associations).
Actually, the act of downloading copyrighted music does not constitute copyright infringement on the part of the downloader. Sharing copyrighted material, however, definitely does.
So it’s not illegal to download illegally-distributed mp3s, but it is against the law to offer them for downloading.
When I said ‘similar’ I did not mean ‘same’.
I’m sure the cost of the bureaucratic overhead will be negligible.
And someone will think of a fair system to distribute the money so that the brasilian artist can easily get his fair share as well as the one whose songs are only distributed online.
Taking into consideration the global nature of music commercialisation, it would be best if artists could register worldwide for compensation. So ideally the culture flatrate should be managed by an UN organisation.
I’m assuming as its France.. the fees will be disproportionally funnelled to those producing mind-numbingly boring “artistic” (but french language) fair at the expense of anyone whos copyright is really abused.
I’m assuming as its France.. the fees will be disproportionally funnelled to those producing mind-numbingly boring “artistic” (but french language) fair at the expense of anyone whos copyright is really abused
…as in, mind-numbingly boring (but English-speaking) artists?
Idiot.
Oh, and it’s “fare” not “fair”, “whose” not “whos”, “disproportionately” not “disproportionally”, and you have to capitalize the first letter of a language name.
(Don’t you hate having your English corrected by a native French-speaker?)
Edited 2006-02-06 23:20
I don’t see how this can be a good thing. Software infringement comes to mind for me… TMK software EULA’s are only legal based on their copyright, so if they don’t have that then how will things like AutoCAD and ProE and Matlab exist in France? You know, those big expensive programs (expensive because of their niche market size). How will they make money if they can be copied without the permission of the author?
Or maybe this is just for music and movies?
These big value-added packages should just get their act together and be based on machine bound license files or floating license servers. But they know that it might cost them dearly in air-time:
They rely on illegal distribution to extend their reach in academia and arts schools to an extent…
There is a lot of hypocrisy out there.
…if this law is passed, ISPs operating in the area will traffic-shape P2P out of existence, if they haven’t already. Or they’ll charge per-GB (the way it should be).