[LINK] Copyright Infringement as Stealing: Pfft!

Tom Koltai tomk at unwired.com.au
Wed Oct 29 17:00:55 EST 2008


Whilst I think the following is more aimed at http searches and/or
Global Servers searches, its an interesting twist.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/kazaa-foes-join-up-to-fight-p
irates-and-porn/2008/10/28/1224956013205.html 

Personally, I don't think it has a hope in hell of working.
Most P2P downloaders no longer search the web for content. They ask KAD
or one of the known file sharing indexes (eg: TV Unferground or
sharethefiles).

Unless of course someone has worked out how to interpolate a hash file
and interpose a new ed2k replacement hash on the fly.
In which case I would sit up and take notice... (he says - looking up
the old MD5 sources).

I still think the only methodology that would work is unfortunately:

(Stolen from :
http://www.cippic.ca/en/faqs-resources/file-sharing/#faq_affect-nusic-in
dustry )
/Quote
Compulsory Licensing Schemes

Compulsory licensing schemes must be "compulsory" for consumers as well
as content providers in order to work. From the consumer's perspective,
a compulsory scheme works by requiring consumers to pay a flat fee for
access to copyright material. Various compulsory schemes have been
suggested. For instance, a compulsory system could be achieved by adding
a tax or fee to broadband Internet service, collected by the Internet
Service Providers (ISPs). Consumers would pay a flat fee for the right
to download and share as many copyrighted music files as they wish. The
record industry would divide the money based on accepted measurements of
downloading. (See, "Is the War on File-sharing Over?"). Others have
suggested implementing a fee on university students as part of their
tuition fees to cover licensing costs. Professor Michael Geist suggests
targeting the cost of the license to the two most identifiable groups of
file sharers - students and home broadband users that use large amounts
of bandwidth. ISP's could institute a tiered system, charging the
heaviest users the highest fee.

If consumers are required to pay a fee for access to copyrighted
material, there must be material to access. Refusing to license, or
cross license material so not all P2P software providers have access to
it would limit the success of a licensing scheme, and make free
file-sharing even more appealing to consumers. That is why in a
compulsory scheme, record companies and artists must license their
content to P2P vendors used by consumers for file-sharing. It is
unlikely the major record labels would be willing to license their
material on a voluntary basis. Legislation will be necessary if a
compulsory scheme is to be created. In the US, a representative of five
P2P software vendors has called on the US Congress to pass a law
requiring record companies to license their content to P2P vendors if
they are unwilling to voluntarily license their product.
Voluntary Collective Licenses

The most promising alternative according to some experts is voluntary
collective licensing. Under a voluntary collective license, the music
industry would first form a collecting society which would offer
file-sharers the opportunity to share as much music they like for a
reasonable regular payment. This collection agency eliminates the need
for individual record labels to license their material to each P2P
software vendor. Once a record company becomes part of the collecting
society, their material can be made available on a P2P network. Licensed
file-sharers would be free to download whatever they like, using
whatever software they prefer.

A voluntary system is dependent on consumers' willingness to pay a small
fee in order to file-share. Although there will always be a small
percentage of people unwilling to pay who continue to attempt to
file-share for free, it is believed that as long as the voluntary fee is
reasonable, effectively invisible to file-sharers, and does not restrict
their freedom, the vast majority of file-sharers will choose to pay,
instead of attempting to evade the system.

Consumers could agree to the voluntary license by paying the monthly fee
to the collecting society directly, or as with compulsory licenses, fees
could be paid to the collection society by intermediaries, such as ISPs
or universities. The money collected would then be divided among artists
based on the popularity of their music on various file-sharing services.
A monthly fee of $5 has been suggested as a reasonable amount to collect
under a voluntary licensing scheme. Radio broadcasting currently works
on a similar voluntary system. Stations pay a fee to collection groups
such as the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada
(SOCAN) and in return, broadcast the music they wish. The collection
groups distribute the money to the artists.
/Endquote

Yes I can see you all throwing up your hands in dispair. Koltai has lost
the plot. Bear with me folks.... All will gradually be revealed.
But I ask the that you do the math. X users connected at streaming 1024
Kb or better doesn't divide into ISP total bandwidth by a very high
number. A P2P Neural Network is the only potential future I currently
see.


Tom



More information about the Link mailing list