Antipiracy Bill Would Cost UK Consumers $800 Million
Antipiracy Bill Would Cost UK Consumers $800 Million
Posted 12/29/2009 at 6:31am
| by Paul Lilly
2
Comments
Print
Should consumers be the the ones to foot the bill to fight piracy? That's what will happen to UK residents should a new proposal go through that would suspend Internet service to those accused of illegally sharing music and movies online.
It's called the Digital Economy Bill and it would make it mandatory for ISPs to send warning letters to anyone caught swapping copyrighted material illegally, as well as slow or suspend connections if the letters don't work. So what's the big deal to consumers? Ministers have admitted that the initial letter-writing campaign could cost an extra $2.02 per subscription. Other estimates include 40,000 households giving up their Internet service, $2.45 billion in extra sales for the film and music industries over the next decade, and $505 million for the Government in extra VAT, the UK's Times Online reports.
While ISPs are ready to comply with the new rules, some have stepped forward in opposition of passing costs on to the consumer.
"Broadband consumers shouldn't have to bail out the music industry," said Charles Dunstone, chief executive of Carphone Warehouse, whose subsidiary TalkTalk is the No. 1 consumer provider of broadband in the UK. "If they really think it's worth spending vast sums of money on these measures then they should be footing the bill; not the consumer.
Image Credit: Zazzle.com
More like this
2
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
DasHellMutt
December 29, 2009 at 2:01pm
When are these big companies going to realize they have no right to dictate terms to anyone? They are only digging themselves in deeper.
If you provide content people really want, at a price they are willing to pay, and in a format they want, you will make money. For some reason they don't believe in supply and demand. They think they can charge whatever they want for whatever drivvel they put out. Then when people pirate it because there basically isn't any other content or circumvent their draconian DRM schemes to do what they want with content they paid for, the big corporations turn to the court system to generate a revenue stream the consumer was intentionally depriving them of.
If the courts would refuse to hear these cases, the issue would resolve itself because the corporations would be forced to participate by the rules of the market or die. These companies need to stop hiding behind the courts and start making an honest profit by producing a product that is in demand at a price the market will support.
spentnickles
December 29, 2009 at 7:33am
That's a load of BULL! Why should the burden be placed on everyone's back? Why is it acceptable for businesses to charge those who do NOT violate the law. I see this coming to the US as well - just give it some time. Why is it that the company can't take the cost of the letter out of the offender's subscription? Bill them the $12.50 instead of splitting it among all users.... Since they are capping (slowing or suspending) the connection they are saving money anyway...so this doesn't make any sense, except that it's another way to make money. This type of stuff really pisses me off. If I lived there and they did that, I would start "offending" so at least my $2 would be well spent... That way at least I'd be paying for a service that I'm receiving...
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
The gang discusses the GTX 690, Trinity, Ivy Bridge, Amazon, big-box stores, MMOs,...
This month's issue
Feature
Build a PC On Any Budget
Feature
Cloud Services Showdown
How-To
Encrypt Your External Drive
Build It
Upgrade an X58 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Original RickRoll Video Returns to YouTube After 24-Hour Copyright Hiatus http://t.co/MaH9Sxyy21 hours 43 min ago
- maximumpc: Corsair has decided not to go forward with its $78 million IPO, citing weak equity market conditions http://t.co/A5a4DAzj21 hours 52 min ago
- maximumpc: Want to work at Maximum PC? Our Online Managing Editor, Alex, is moving away, so we need a new one. http://t.co/9Z7JCh0E2 days 19 hours ago
