UK Consumers To Pay For Online Piracy 300
Wowsers writes "An article in The Times states that UK consumers will be hit with an estimated £500m ($800m US) bill to tackle online piracy. The record and film industries have managed to convince the government to get consumers to pay for their perceived losses. Meanwhile they have refused to move with the times, and change their business models. Other businesses have adapted and been successful, but the film and record industries refuse to do so. Surely they should not add another stealth tax to all consumers."
Doesnt this make Pirated stuff, now free to all? (Score:2, Informative)
If everyone is being taxed for the "perceived loss", shouldnt that then make piracy legal? Wouldnt the pirated material being downloaded have been paid for by the people... thus making piracy completely legal?
Re:This makes my day. (Score:3, Informative)
The tax is only on CD-Rs and audio cassette media, and personal media players (as somehow wanting to play your legally downloaded mp3s entitles the record companies to an additional tax, go figure). The tax does not apply in any way to DVDs.
Seems like the bill hasn't passed Parliament yet (Score:4, Informative)
Mr Petter said that the Bill, which is being rushed through Parliament before the general election next year, had been poorly thought out.
And they're not giving music guys free money (yet). The proposal is about cutting off repeated offenders from the net.
TFA seems to imply that the cost of "identify offenders, notify them, and cut them off" procedure would amount to 500m GPB, though it is not very clear about the numbers and whatnot.
Summary is Wrong and Dumb (Score:5, Informative)
This bill is about requiring ISPs to shut off service to repeat copyright infringers, which the ISPs estimate will cost them (and by proxy, consumers) 500 million pounds.
It's not a "tax" and none of the money is going to subsidise the record and film industries, that's just complete crap from the summary writer, as is the crusty old "update your buisiness model, wah wah wah" copperlite.
The bill is also completely retarded, but you do no service to your cause by misrepresenting (and apparently, not even understanding) the enemy.
Know your enemy (Score:5, Informative)
Anytime I feel bad about the current state of affairs here in America a story shows up with EU, UK, Australia, or Canada doing something that would be worse.
Dont' let that lull you into a false sense of security - The US is the main actor behind most of these laws being passed so you will probably find that it is just the boiling frog method of shafting these laws in. Know your enemy. "THEY" are the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) [iipa.com], and they have the full political clout [ustr.gov] of the US government behind them - working to subvert democratic process in just about every country in the world [iipa.com] via stealth taxes/three strikes/no presumption of innocence for the sheeple. Countries sign on to this in exchange for "Free Trade" deals. Examples:
New Zealand Reintroduces 3 Strikes [slashdot.org]:
"IIPA testifies in support of the initiation of negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement [ustr.gov] (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam."... "Specific problems in some of the TPP countries are outlined in the Special 301 reports from 2009 for Chile [iipa.com], Peru [iipa.com], Brunei [iipa.com], and Vietnam [iipa.com]".
Where "specific problems" mean: No three strikes laws, no trade deal.
Spain's Proposed Internet Law Sparks Protest: [slashdot.org]
IIPA report card on Spain [iipa.com]. resulting [expatica.com] US political clout [latimes.com] result: local laws and taxes supporting mafiaa industry.
The sad part is that even though countries that want to be in on these trade "deals" are required to implement draconian anti-internet laws and filters [wikipedia.org], obliged to extradite civil cases to the US for trial (software piracy in this case) [wikipedia.org], the resulting "Free Trade" agreement rewards generaly do not benefit [wikipedia.org] the countries involved! Which begs the question, who does benefit... perhaps just the politicians who signed off on the deal?
The only way I can see to fight this kind of slide is to create a black list of any group/industry that lobbies any government in support these kinds of anti-democratic process trade deals. If any group supports trade deals that required destroying the internet, then the internet could become one humongous nightmare of bad press blog artices against your industry group. Seems only fair - shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too.
Re:I just wonder... (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe you are taking it too it's logical conclusion (if this stops filesharing in the UK, then how much of the extra revenue will artists see). So maybe I am being harsh, in which case sorry. But I don't think that is the case.