0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Says that it’s merely looking for “market based solution to the problem of unlicensed content on the Internet,” and uses the words “compensation” and “collective licensing” instead.PRS for Music, the UK’s leading royalty collection society, is trying to clarify the positions it expressed in the recently disseminated “economic insight paper” it produced so as to help further discussions among stakeholders in the debate over online copyright infringement.“Moving Digital Britain Forward, Without Leaving Creative Britain Behind” spelled out two different possible approaches to solve the problem: a “negative spillover” approach that would assess a fine that “would rise and fall based on the level of piracy on an ISP’s network,” or a “positive spillover” approach that would require ISPs to pay a fee to obtain a blanket license that would allow them to transmit copyrighted material on their networks.It first says that it is “not calling for a levy on broadband companies.“Compensation, licence and levy have been considered in different countries at different times,” it says. “We propose a framework to help the stakeholders think through all options in order to illuminate a debate as to how to achieve a market based solution to the problem of unlicensed content on the Internet, a problem which will become more pressing with the advent of Next Generation Networks.”The words “fee,” “fine,” “license,” and “compensation” all sound like the word “levy” to me. Levy means “to impose or collect” and that’s precisely what it wants to do. It wants ISPs, and therefore subscribers in the form of higher monthly broadband bills, to help fund a “well-functioning marketplace for…creative content.”