Will The Recording Industry Pay For ISP Monitoring In The UK?

from the come-on,-pay-up dept

Wed, Feb 3rd 2010 2:05pm — Mike Masnick

Recently, as the BPI was arguing yet again that ISPs were exaggerating how much it would cost to implement a three strikes type regime in the UK (which would be required under Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill, aka DEB), we wondered if BPI would be willing to foot the bill, since it's so sure that it'll be cheap. After all, since the whole law is designed to prop up BPI's own business model, it seems to only make sense that BPI should be the one paying for it, right?

Turns out that we're not the only ones to think so. In a recent post about the DEB, Jeremy Silver (who I had the pleasure of meeting at Midem) points out that BPI is in the troubling position of trying not to make it sound so cheap that it's expected to pick up the bill, while still arguing that it's not so burdensome for ISPs to pick up the bill. But, various proposals actually are suggesting that BPI should pay the cost:

The Digital Economy Bill that is wending its glacial way through the UK parliament has produced an interesting row between the BPI (representing the interests of the major record labels) and the ISPs, telco's and mobile network operators. They are arguing over who should pay how much to fund remedial measures to clamp down on illegal file-sharing. The BPI is in a tough place since the cheaper they argue the cost will be, the more the ISPs respond by saying "well then you can pay for it." Minister Stephen Timms recently suggested the split should be 75/25 (with the BPI paying the greater amount).

Honestly, I fail to see why BPI shouldn't have to pay 100% of the cost (or, perhaps in conjunction with other copyright industry organizations) if such a plan goes through.

Silver recognizes the bigger issue of course, which is that almost no one actually thinks that a three strikes plan "will make a blind bit of difference," and that this whole game is really about rights holders "wasting their money by trying to control file-sharing." On that we agree. However, I have to disagree with his suggestion that the answer is a collective licensing regime, because I think that introduces way too many questions where it's not needed. A collective licensing scheme puts yet another bureaucracy in the middle, just for the music industry (well, not for long, because then suddenly everyone else wants one too: the movie industry, the software industry, the video game industry, the newspaper industry, etc. -- and why should it stop there, new industries will jump on board too: don't we need a collective license for people who view blogs too?). As it stands, I just think that we're finally seeing free market business models that are working, and it's way too early to jump in and distort the market with a collective licensing scheme.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: collective licensing, cost, isps, record labels, three strikes, uk, who pays
Companies: bpi

43 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2010 @ 2:07pm

Don't forget the porn industry!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 2:22pm

Re: The porn industry
Nobody needs to pay for 'Monitoring' the porn industry, lots of people are keeping an eye on porn all the time.

;P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 2:46pm

Two things...
1. "and it's way to early to jump in and distort the market with a collective licensing scheme." needs a typo correction on the "to" to "too" (to two too toooooo!)

2. "the BPI was arguing yet again that ISPs were exaggerating how much it would cost to implement a three strikes type regime in the UK" This is going to be REALLY fun! It's like a battle of the lobbyist douchbags! Who can throw the most money/hookers/cocaine/free-dentist-visits at British lawmakers to sway their votes? Llllets get ready to ruuuuuummmmbbblllle!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Anti-Mike (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 2:47pm

There is no proof that 3 strikes style laws won't work, as they have never been tried anywhere.

So I think it is premature to make any assumptions about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alan Gerow (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 2:54pm

Re:
You? Think it's premature to make an assumption?!?

Have you gone meta? The Anti-Anti-Mike?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 2:55pm

Re: Two things...
1. "and it's way to early to jump in and distort the market with a collective licensing scheme." needs a typo correction on the "to" to "too" (to two too toooooo!)

Oops. Fixed.

2. "the BPI was arguing yet again that ISPs were exaggerating how much it would cost to implement a three strikes type regime in the UK" This is going to be REALLY fun! It's like a battle of the lobbyist douchbags! Who can throw the most money/hookers/cocaine/free-dentist-visits at British lawmakers to sway their votes? Llllets get ready to ruuuuuummmmbbblllle!

Ah, politics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 2:56pm

Re:
"There is no proof that 3 strikes style laws won't work, as they have never been tried anywhere.

So I think it is premature to make any assumptions about it."

Ah, but there are plenty of things that haven't been tried that we can say/tell are not such a good idea.

My own proposed "Nuke all duckbilled-platupi for looking silly" proposition, for example....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 3 Feb 2010 @ 3:03pm

YOU OWE ME FOR EVERY DOOR YOU USE
thats right i want WORKERRIGHT 95 years plus life of the maker
ME
every time you open a door i want me money and if you dont pay YOU WONT be able to open your doors cause were putting DRM LOCKS on them. THAT'S right noobs i want my cash too so i can be a lazy good for nothing jerk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Anti-Anti mike, 3 Feb 2010 @ 3:10pm

proof it don't work
0 tolerance in schools has worked out well acccording to Anti mike right?
Interesting concept this copyright...
We citizens giving you authors and creators a right to make a buck, and what are you fuckin doing kicking us off the net cause you can't figure out that its capitalism and if you can't do it cheap DONT FRAKING DO IT.

you could sell a cdr a music to a 5 megabit user at cost of about 4-5 cents per download A WHOLE CDR
so 25 cents a movie sound ok. MY father always told me of business if he could make ten percent returns he'd be happy.
YOU PEOPLE wants thousands of percents and imperial star empire made on thoughts and imaginations of BS.

WE the people are going to rise up and declare NULL and void the laws pertaining to copyright. WATCH AND see after ACTA comes out lil Anti-Mikey boy. As i said better get back to that table quick and get rewriting what i have seen or these folks all around you are gonna eat you for breakfast and i wont lose no sleep over downloading everything i can get my hands on.

I have seen ONLY how the labels abuse the musicians and actors , NOT US folks. IF YOU over priced sacks a shit suits would get on that iranian rocket program we might actually advance as a world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2010 @ 3:11pm

Re: Re:
That's our TAMMY!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Anti-Mike (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 3:19pm

Re: proof it don't work
First, I have to say "you people" as you refer to them doesn't refer to me. I am not a movie or music producer, nor am I part of the MPAA, RIAA, or any of the (hated) *AAs.

you could sell a cdr a music to a 5 megabit user at cost of about 4-5 cents per download A WHOLE CDR
so 25 cents a movie sound ok. MY father always told me of business if he could make ten percent returns he'd be happy.

That would be fine, if you ignored the 100 million it took up front to produce the movie, and that a large number of the movies produced every year lose money.

Only looking at replication costs without looking at all the fixed costs up front is truly a fail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AdamR (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 3:22pm

Re:
ROFL, you should writing be jokes for Monty Python.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pay cost, 3 Feb 2010 @ 3:40pm

Bengie
The record industry should not only pay the ISP cost, but any lost wages to online business lost due to a customer no longer on the internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 3:42pm

Re: Re: The porn industry
And their only criterion is "lots of"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 3:44pm

Re: Re:
I believe you are talking to Dark Helmet, but it's even funnier because you replied to The Anti-Mike :D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2010 @ 3:49pm

Re: Re: proof it don't work
You know, one doesn't have to make a $100 million movie. And if you do are you also magically expected to see a return on your investment? Just because?

Still waiting for Hollywood's first $100 billion movie. If they can make a $400 million movie and get over $2 billion for it, worldwide, then a $400 billion movie would earn them at least $2 trillion, worldwide, right?

Isn't that how it works? With that fancy Hollywood accounting?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2010 @ 4:10pm

Re: Re: proof it don't work
Oh, the tragedy, terrible movies and/or over-budgeted movies may not make a profit. THE HORROR (Movie).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2010 @ 4:13pm

Re: Re: Re:
No, I think the correct thing to say is that TAM seems to be a character from a Monty Python sketch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2010 @ 4:14pm

Re:
Yeah, let's just try out a new law that will ruin lives, disrupt entire other industries, cost a ton of money, and generate new bureaucracy because, hey, there's some small chance it might actually make people want to buy overpriced music again, and the recording industry is all that really matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2010 @ 4:15pm

Re: Re:
matters*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 4:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh my god you're right... he's John Cleese in The Argument Clinic!

http://youtu.be/wdoGVgj1MtY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 4:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AdamR (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 5:02pm

Re: Re: proof it don't work
“First, I have to say "you people" as you refer to them doesn't refer to me. I am not a movie or music producer, nor am I part of the MPAA, RIAA, or any of the (hated) *AAs.”

If it looks like a duck, walks like and a duck and quacks like a duck guess what. You are solely to blame for that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2010 @ 5:13pm

Re: Re: proof it don't work
That would be fine, if you ignored the 100 million it took up front to produce the movie, and that a large number of the movies produced every year lose money.

Please plot the numbers you see in this link here and tell everyone what you did find.

It is the same pattern for every year listed and that is not counting DVD revenues, so if they are in the RED maybe is because of some dubious accounting habits. Because the numbers listed public point to another story completely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
letherial (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 5:21pm

Re:
lets just put it this way, if it does work, ISP are not going to be happy about the amount of customers they will need to lose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2010 @ 5:38pm

Re: Re: Re: proof it don't work
He's a witch?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 6:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Oh my god you're right... he's John Cleese in The Argument Clinic!"

He could be the guy in the cheese shop saying no we dont have that cheese ... ah no we dont have any cheese

Oh my god TAM is actually the guy saying the parrot isnt dead its actually just sleeping ...

I should slip a TAM insult-reference to the lumber jack song in here ... dress in womens clothing and hand around in bars, but I am being nice tonite....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2010 @ 6:04pm

Re: Re:
My hovercraft is full of ells
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mad Hatter (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 6:12pm

BPI paying the costs
I just don't see them being willing to pay. And if they do pay, and compact disc sales continue to drop, they are in a Catch 22 situation.

That would be hilarious. Totally hilarious. BPI must be terrified that they end up having to pick up the bill.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 6:19pm

Re: Re: Re: proof it don't work
AC - There was a guy in a couple months back that did a hollywood level CGI flick for $500 USD. He was hired on the next Spiderman movie. Watch the flick

It doesnt require $100 million USD to make a movie. He did a 5 minute movie for $500 USD. That equates to $100 USD per minute or the movie independance day for $14,500 USD at 145 minutes.

The sooner people realise that the movie industry pads the books the same way the recording industry, the sooner this copyright bubble will end.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chargone (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 7:34pm

Re: Re: Re:
better letters than aquatic life forms, i suppose.
or are those the things that Christmas doesn't have?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mike allen (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 11:50pm

IP addresses
lets look at how IP addresses are alocated in the UK Most people are on a DYNAMIC IP this means that your IP changes (I guess everywhere is similer). But depending on ISP how often for example Virgin may change monthly. Pipex/ Bulldog change every few minutes. I really dont see how a track on who has what address can be kept on the later.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 12:52am

Re:
Laws, no. Idiotic ISPs trying to kick off innocent people, threatening their livelihoods, for so-called crimes they did not commit? Yes.

It doesn't need to be tried as a law, because it's already been shown to be completely unworkable by private industry. Did you upgrade your router from the pathetic WEP system, yet? You know, before someone shows you how stupid your support for this is...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 1:00am

Re: Re: Re: Re: proof it don't work
Sorry to correct you, but he wasn't hired for the Spiderman movie (the director of that will be the appropriately named Marc Webb, director of 500 Days Of Summer). Federico Alvarez's project is as yet untitled and probably an original work.

Your point is taken, but I don't think anyone is unaware of Hollywood's accounting techniques. I'd like to think that the successes of lower budget movies like District 9, Paranormal Activity and Zombieland last year will start a trend toward lower budget, but I also hoped that in 1999 when The Blair Witch Project and The Sixth Sense were big hits. After all, most people admit that the script of Avatar was a big mess and Transformers 2 was awful and at least 30 minutes too long with a bloated script. Don't think that will help good writers get work though, even if they are desperately needed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 1:50am

Re: Re: proof it don't work
"if you ignored the 100 million it took up front to produce the movie"

Successful films cover their upfront costs in movie theatres - after all that used to be the ONLY source of revenue and plenty of good films were made.

Also - who says we need such expensive films?

Also - how much of that cost goes on overpaid stars (not to mention movie executives etc etc)?

My guess is that most of that 100 million is fat that could be lost if the need was there. We all have to make efficiency savings these days - why should the movie industry be exempt?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 6:27am

Re: Re: Re:
I must say that these days seeing "That's our TAMMY!" reminds me of the fond memories I have of one AC who with regards to the RIAA would always post "Not one cent!".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jilocasin (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 6:44am

We don't need blanket licenses, what we need are no copyrights.
Yep, you read that correctly. We don't need more bureaucrats, collection societies, or other leaches draining the collective culture dry.

If the purpose of copyright was to encourage the creation of creative works, I think it needs to be retired. More works are being created by people that won't collect a penny directly off their works than by those that do. Guess what? That isn't stopping anyone from creating. All that copyright is doing these days is keeping our collective culture from us. The only one's winning are large companies that have gotten way too fat suckling at the public teet. Well them and the lawyers.

If you can't figure out a way to make money from creative works without copyright, then you really need to be in a different line of business. Funny thing, most of the people creating actually are. Creative works should be attributed (assuming the author wants to be known) and downstream uses should be credited. Obscurity is and has always been a worse fate for a creator than anything else.

There you go, simple. Let us enjoy our culture and get back to actually doing things. We've wasted too much time/money/effort thinking that we can 'own' ideas and performances.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 7:11am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I must say that these days seeing "That's our TAMMY!" reminds me of the fond memories I have of one AC who with regards to the RIAA would always post "Not one cent!"."

THEM STEALERS ARE DESTROYING OUR AVATAR RECOGNITION AND MEMORY RETENTION INDUSTRY!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2010 @ 10:00am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's hilarious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2010 @ 10:10am

Re: Re: Re: proof it don't work
If you look at the movies that made the most money this past year, not a lot of overpaid stars. Some, but who was the major star drawing power in Avatar? Or Twilight?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 11:14am

Re: Re: Re: Re: proof it don't work
who was the major star drawing power in Avatar?

Forgot to add "money wasted on inefficient special effects rendering".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 11:19am

Re: Re: proof it don't work
Only looking at replication costs without looking at all the fixed costs up front is truly a fail.

True you have to consider both- but you are putting them in the wrong order.

Spending fixed costs without having worked out how you can recover them is the fail.

If the economic and technological environment doesn't allow you to recover those fixed costs then you don't make the investment.

Simples
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Burgos, 4 Feb 2010 @ 2:55pm

Re: YOU OWE ME FOR EVERY DOOR YOU USE
DRM don't work on wooden doors coz they needs electric!
[ link to this | view in thread ]