6 ms·

I've argued about this numerous times: ISP's need to provide customers with an opt-in p2p license that adds a small fee to their monthly bill. This monthly fee

I've argued about this numerous times: ISP's need to provide customers with an opt-in p2p license that adds a small fee to their monthly bill. This monthly fee is transferred to a central authority, the ISP does not make any profit from this fee. The license would allow users to torrent whatever content they want. Torrent trackers would be fully legal, their only legal obligation would be keeping track of torrent popularity and reporting this to the central authority every month or so. The central authority that receives the money from the ISP's then forwards the money to the creators of the content being distributed, divided based on the popularity reported by the trackers. A minimum baseline amount is provided to each creator to subsidize indie and struggling creators. And obviously geoblocking should be illegal but as the media companies would be making more money if they didn't geoblock, it gives them incentive to not do that.

deelly 7y ago
M-m-m... "small fee" for "unlimited access to millions of music/movie/software/game/books entities that can cost billions of dollars". How exactly it should work, again?
- omniscient_oce 7y ago
  I think he/she means per title that you watch. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense yeah.
- summerdown2 7y ago
  You realise that's exactly the model of libraries, right? A small fee (taxation) in return for open access to literature, and in most cases music and film too.
  - rhino369 7y ago
    Libraries buy the books (and movies, music, etc.).
  - lrem 7y ago
    There is snowflake's chance in hell libraries would be legal if introduced now. The only reason we have them, is they were grandfathered in from times with less corporate power.
slazaro 7y ago
In Spain we get the worst version of this. Media organizations (the equivalents to MPAA or RIAA) get a percentage of the price of all storage devices (hard drives, flash memory, anything) that are sold, implying that they might be used for piracy. But it's still illegal to pirate! So we're paying for something we MIGHT do, but we still can't do it.
- hyperman1 7y ago
  The same is true in Belgium. But i heard there is a strange benefit: You are allowed to copy anything if the source is legally yours at the time of copying. So person A lends some music to person B, person B copies it and returns the original to A. This scenario is legal. The nice thing is person A can be a library. Now if person A makes a copy and gives it to person B, this is illegal, even if the end result is identical. Bits have color.
  - kaybe 7y ago
    Same in Germany.
- RedShift1 7y ago
  There would be no levies on storage medie. And it would be opt-in. It would only be illegal when you torrent and have not opted in to the p2p fee.
DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
> I've argued about this numerous times: ISP's need to provide customers with an opt-in p2p license that adds a small fee to their monthly bill. brb downloading Windows Server 2019 Enterprise Datacenter iso torrents to put into production
bigbob2 7y ago
It worries me because P2P is a powerful censorship prevention mechanism. Requiring a license to use P2P technologies would mean disallowing much more than just torrents by default. Not only that but lots of illegal content distribution takes place on standard HTTP servers which would presumably not be considered P2P. With that said, disallowing any protocol which is currently allowed today seems like it would open the door for large corporate and governmental interests to disassemble what we know as the open internet. Furthermore it sounds like it would be complicated to deal with ownership of derivative work and resolution of disputes.
Kalium 7y ago
Are you purposely modeling this on how ASCAP works?

deelly 7y ago

M-m-m... "small fee" for "unlimited access to millions of music/movie/software/game/books entities that can cost billions of dollars". How exactly it should work, again?

omniscient_oce 7y ago
I think he/she means per title that you watch. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense yeah.
summerdown2 7y ago
You realise that's exactly the model of libraries, right? A small fee (taxation) in return for open access to literature, and in most cases music and film too.
- rhino369 7y ago
  Libraries buy the books (and movies, music, etc.).
- lrem 7y ago
  There is snowflake's chance in hell libraries would be legal if introduced now. The only reason we have them, is they were grandfathered in from times with less corporate power.

slazaro 7y ago

In Spain we get the worst version of this. Media organizations (the equivalents to MPAA or RIAA) get a percentage of the price of all storage devices (hard drives, flash memory, anything) that are sold, implying that they might be used for piracy. But it's still illegal to pirate! So we're paying for something we MIGHT do, but we still can't do it.

hyperman1 7y ago
The same is true in Belgium. But i heard there is a strange benefit: You are allowed to copy anything if the source is legally yours at the time of copying. So person A lends some music to person B, person B copies it and returns the original to A. This scenario is legal. The nice thing is person A can be a library. Now if person A makes a copy and gives it to person B, this is illegal, even if the end result is identical. Bits have color.
- kaybe 7y ago
  Same in Germany.
RedShift1 7y ago
There would be no levies on storage medie. And it would be opt-in. It would only be illegal when you torrent and have not opted in to the p2p fee.

DaiPlusPlus 7y ago

> I've argued about this numerous times: ISP's need to provide customers with an opt-in p2p license that adds a small fee to their monthly bill. brb downloading Windows Server 2019 Enterprise Datacenter iso torrents to put into production

bigbob2 7y ago

It worries me because P2P is a powerful censorship prevention mechanism. Requiring a license to use P2P technologies would mean disallowing much more than just torrents by default. Not only that but lots of illegal content distribution takes place on standard HTTP servers which would presumably not be considered P2P. With that said, disallowing any protocol which is currently allowed today seems like it would open the door for large corporate and governmental interests to disassemble what we know as the open internet. Furthermore it sounds like it would be complicated to deal with ownership of derivative work and resolution of disputes.

Kalium 7y ago

Are you purposely modeling this on how ASCAP works?