My idea about solving the piracy crisis. And still giving the copyright holders their money!
40 replies, posted
This sounds like the business model of Netflix ...
Pay small amount per month, give unlimited content ..
I think this might violate some laws in Canada
(Punishing everyone for the crimes of the few)
Not sure though, Gonna have to read the Charter of rights and freedoms again
On the subject of TV shows, I think the networks should be mandated by law to archive [B]all[/B] the episodes of [B]all[/B] the TV shows they air and have aired historically (as far back as the 60s?) on their websites. They will be allowed to have the same amount of commercials they do on TV (20-22 minutes of TV plus 8-10 minutes of commercials for 30 minutes total/40-44 minutes of TV plus 20-16 minutes of commercials for 1 hour total). Thus, they can still make advertising money, and we get to watch TV online.
The same could be established for movies. The film making/producing companies would have to archive all their movies online (commercials would have to be put in between because if they were at the start then nobody would watch them).
I've yet to come up with a solution for music.
Online TV should also include paying for a subscription that disables commercials.
I've yet to come up with a solution for music.[/QUOTE]
I know Mr. Dotcom was going to launch something to help deal with piracy for the music industry, MegaBox.com.
[QUOTE]The kicker was Megabox would cater to unsigned artists and allow anyone to sell their creations while allowing the artist to retain 90% of the earnings. Or, artists could even giveaway their songs and would be paid through a service called Megakey. “Yes that’s right, we will pay artists even for free downloads. The Megakey business model has been tested with over a million users and it works,” Kim Dotcom told TorrentFreak in December. Megabox was planning on bypassing the labels, RIAA, and the entire music establishment. [/QUOTE]
Of course, the music industry didn't like that idea.
Spotify is already the way for music though. On the free package, you've got all the songs on Spotify with short 30 second adverts after every 5th-6th song. The only problem with that is that Spotify recently added a new limit that you can only listen to the same song 5 times until you're not able to listen to it again and that some of the record labels don't allow their music to be on Spotify because they think it will reduce their profits.
So your basically legalizing piracy. So i could download something for less rather than go to a store an buy it. So what's the point in having stores which sell films when you can just download them legally and for far less. That would result in companies shutting down, thus creating job losses.
Big-ass publishing/producer companies don't need financial help, they are swimming in money. In fact, the royalties you might pay for copyrighted work end up at the publisher, not the artist itself. This would just make them more rich, and I would really mind paying that extra $15 every month.
[editline]19th February 2012[/editline]
Hey, let's make everyone pay $20 per month to ensure that even those who didn't have insurance can get their money back if their stuff get's stolen!
Where and when does greed play a role in all this? People getting the money will eventually want more money.
1-10% of people who download things illegally would actually buy them in the first place.
[QUOTE=znk666;34774385]1-10% of people who download things illegally would actually buy them in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Wow. Why does it not surprise me that OP lives in scandinavia? There's shitloads of flaws in your system, I'll try to list some the others didn't yet. A pirated game is not a lost sale. Thus your "compensation" for the company is not compensation, it's additional money that would not have necessarily been paid to them were it not for piracy. Not every household with internet access plays games. There's no reason for them to pay an industry they don't care about. The big companies that you would give the money to are not the people who made the game. Most developers have to sell the license of their games to publishers to finance it, so the money you propose to give the "big companies" would probably go right past anyone who actually worked on the game in question.
Crime, especially theft, or piracy, whatever you define it as, is not solvable like health care or unemployment money is. This is not a social service issue, you can't make everyone pay for other's crimes. You can't transform the public into an insurance company for game publishers. The publishers don't deserve the money and the public has no reason to pay it.
[editline]19th February 2012[/editline]
You gotta remember, the "copyright holders" are not the people who made the content.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.