http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_ ... efbbc6c6b9

Based on this, it our ISPs that have to pay 25% of the cost of enforcing all these measures, 75% the rights holders. Both of which will inevitebly mean we have to pay for what in my opinion, is just protecting failing business models. Surely companies should try to adapt to the new age (I'm not condoning piracy) instead of making bull shit laws made to just make things harder for people to get whatever "fair use" they have left.

What do you guys think about the bill in general, and our paying to keep these business models alive (if you agree with me).

Just a thought... we could bring ACTA into this, thoughts on that too

what do this mean compared to say, downloading music illegally?

Bascially all this makes it your ISPs job to determine if they believe that you are downloading music illegaly and then (I can't remember what happened with this in the DEC but it is in ACTA) 3 ACCUSATIONS and your banned from the Internet for life. Prove you're innocent

I believe DEC makes it so if someone uses your open wifi and pirates, its you that has to pay the cost.

Also what comes to mind is (only in America (yet)) the RIAA and MPAA wanted Homeland Security to focus less on terrorists and bombs, etc. and focus more on checking everyones laptops/iPods/MP3 players/etc. for illegal content, because that was as if not more important!?!?

I doubt ISP's will ever bother to actually do that lol. Seems like a lot of hassle for a £0.79 song.

Music should be made free anyway. Then, the bands should just put £10 extra on concert tickets. Noone will notice increase in price, they make their money still (maybe more) and the songs are basically free advertising themselves for people to buy concert tickets. More people listen as it's free = more fans.

But hey, dats just me y0

I agree. I believe there have been studies showing that piracy is directly linked to price. Services like Spotify that are basically all you can eat for a nominal amount eliminate a lot of piracy.

Something like advertising every few songs such as spotify is another example, the advertising would cover the costs. Just to pretty much copy what you already said lol.

As you say, it's a pointless effort to protect a broken business model. The companies need to adapt to the modern technology. When it's easier, cheaper and provides better quality to pirate something than to download it legally, then you're doing it wrong.

The problem here is that the record companies don't like that, they make their money by controlling the artists and selling their records, but if digital distribution actually takes a proper hold (of Steam like service quality - good prices, easy to use, added functionality etc), they will lose their power and die. The artists themselves probably want to embrace the new stuff, it makes it better for them, but the record companies won't let them.

A good point about record lables. I'm sure a lot of bands get given a set lump price to make an album and don't see anymore money than that. So if they could hire a studio and make their music free in a way they would stand to make more money.

Made sense when I wrote it ;s

pretty much...
i'm not saying i agree with piracy but it hasn't hurt musicians one bit ^^

The only people who suffer from piracy/free music are people like simon cowell and talent agencies who just leech off other peoples talent to begin with.

30 years ago they were useful in spotting talent and giving them a helping hand off the ground. but back then it was hard to get your music out. now thanks to the internet, its fast and cheap.
they should just quit now before they loose everything imo.

if i see an album from a band i've never heard of i wont even consider spending £10 on it.
but i would listen to them if i could play for free. then i might buy it, or go see them live.

on the bill itself.
well its stupid... how do you even ban one person from the internet?
you'll be banning whole families which could massively impede there life.
it encourages library's to close down there IT sections and free wi-fi spots will be a thing of the past which may damage tourism etc. etc.

...They'll eventually refute the bill