ISPs Dragged Into Swedish File Sharing Battle

paulraps writes "Swedish internet service providers may soon be required by law to take greater responsibility for unlawful file-sharing. Although rejecting the ludicrous idea of an overarching broadband fee which would be shared out among copyright holders, a government report published on Monday called for internet providers to be 'bound to contribute to bringing all copyright infringement to an end'. Under the proposal, copyright holders whose material is being shared illegally would be entitled to compensation from ISPs which did not ban users. Needless to say, the country's ISPs are not happy."

Uh oh...

[revengebomber]

the ludicrous idea of an overarching broadband fee which would be shared out among copyright holders,

Next week on Slashdot: US government passes new legislation...

Belgian isp lost similar lawsuit

[matsuva]

Here in Belgium Scarlet telecom has recently lost a lawsuit issued by the belgian RIAA (SABAM). The judge has ruled that the ISP should ban P2P traffic, needless to say Scarlet has appealed against this bs decision. All other Belgian ISP's have received a letter treathening to sue them too if the don't cut off P2P traffic.
I'm sorry for my poor knowledge of English and i am currently fortifying my house out of fear for the grammar nazi's.

fee to be shared out among copyright holders

[presidenteloco]

Actually, an overarching broadband fee which would be shared out among copyright holders
might be the most sensible way to deal with this whole mess. And not just in sweden.

Why not put in systems that measure, based on statistical sampling at some representative
routers, a rough idea of the number of copies of content item x,y, or z that are making their
way across the net at any given moment, then average that out over a week, say, and use
that figure to determine the weekly share of the copyright tax.

This is essentially a financial reward for providing popular content to the masses.

We may have to get over our high-minded view of our cultural tastes, when we see how
much of the take is going to the pr0nographers, but if that's the way it is, then that's
the way it is. Let's just hope the artists are being compensated fairly, and middle-persons
aren't taking the lion's share of the loot.

I think a system like this could support artists of all kinds quite well, without the need for
a corporate distribution channel, and it could also end the
police takedowns of 12 year old copy-criminal-masterminds.

Re:Obvious

[ScrewMaster]

You certainly have a small mind. If I were you, I'd open it up a little and look at the damage the media companies and their lawyers are doing to individuals and legal systems around the world. In the case of the United States alone, they're helping to destroy an economy that employs hundreds of millions of people, and ruining the chances of all of us having a decent standard of living in the future. I'll not shed a tear for the demise of the current entertainment industry ... it deserves no respect.

So you're right ... it's time those responsible got dealt with. It's just not the people that you seem to think it is.

And if people are compelled to pay?

[severoon]

I think this is a fantastic idea. They should be very careful to spell out the terms, but provided that it's not an exhorbitant amount per person (say, 5 cents per month), think about the flip side of that deal: for say 5 cents per person per month (or whatever nominal fee they work out), copyright holders are paid. That means that all people are free to copy as much music as they want. No more need for sites like pirate bay to operate in the shadows.

I mean, surely the copyright holders don't want to be paid and give nothing in return at all. Right? Guys? ...guys?

Re:It's just a silly debate

[RAMMS+EIN]

``Why is the ISP supposed to police its customers, when it is clearly the police dep's job?''

Ah, yeah? Friends sharing a song they enjoy is cause for police involvement now?

The problem with the Copyright Cartel's rhetoric is that there is so much of it. Even if most of it is rejected as obvious bullshit, some of it apparently sticks.

Copyright infringement is not theft. It's breaking the law, but it's really quite innocuous. In fact, it is not even completely clear that anyone is harmed by it at all. We certainly don't need our tax money being spent on more *AA propaganda on one side, and police frightening the wits out of children on the other. It's all been blown vastly out of proportion, and this thanks to the folks at copyright monopolies worldwide. While I am willing to believe that they benefitted society in the past, I am starting to feel that society is better off without them now.

nothing ludicrous about a broadband royalty fee

[spage]

the ludicrous idea of an overarching broadband fee

How exactly is that ludicrous? If you paid a 15-20% surcharge on your ISP fee to download anything and everything anytime and the money went to artists on a straight popularity basis (easily monitored at the network level), all kinds of good things would happen.

The devil is in the details. A good system would render record labels and TV networks obsolete so they would fight it. But it's a great solution.

The EFF has suggested something similar, a $5/month Voluntary Collective Licensing Fee [eff.org]. Making it voluntary is fantasy (and I say that as one of a handful of people who actually gave money to FairTunes each time I made an MP3 for friends). Making it a percentage of broadband cost (so someone on DSL pays less than broadband, and dial-up less still) is fairer than the subscription model Rick Rubin proposes in the NYTimes article, and making it compulsory makes DRM irrelevant.