Thread: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
View Single Post
Old 08-05-2008, 18:32   #6120
AlexanderHanff
Permanently Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,028
AlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful one
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
Originally Posted by oblonsky View Post
Oh dear. Are you insinuating I'm crazy? I really wish you would try and read and understand what I wrote before replying. I was suggesting that content owners should not expect to an absolute right to all the revenue from their works when they publish online.
I disagree and so does the law, specifically the Copyright Designs and Patents Act which explicitly states all copyright owners maintain sole rights to their works and licensing of those works is through choice not mandatory, as is who they license them to.

Quote:
They have an absolute right, bit when they choose to publish online it is only reasonable to expect that others will be making money off the back of the decision to publish online, just as record companies make significant money off the back of the artists when really they are just providing a distribution and marketing channel.
I find it unreasonable and utterly unacceptable and again so does the law and again this is one of the reasons the Net Neutrality debate is so crucial at a global level, because the second you start employing that model is the day that providers start blocking content because content owners refuse to be extorted. Then that devolves even further and providers start blocking content because competition to that content is paying them to do so, and then it devolves further where political and religious content gets blocked and so on and so forth until eventually the net is nothing but a manuscript with 98% of the words blacked out and censored. Am I passionate about this never being permitted to happen? Damn right I am and so should everyone be.

Furthermore, no the record label is again a terrible analogy and does not fit. The record label pays scouts to find the bands, they pay studio time to make the records, they pay manufacturing costs, they pay distribution costs, they pay marketing costs and most importantly they usually -buy- the copyright, which gives them the right to monetise it anyway they see fit (legally) and they then pay royalties to the artist. So as you see a completely different scenario altogether.


Quote:
What is the difference between the existing model and the Phorm model (considering only the copyright arguments)?
The difference is the ISP making money off me to access the internet is exactly that, it is nothing to do with the content on the Internet and they don't read everything I do on there, profile me from it and hit me with behavioural advertising so some company in the US can get minted off the back of my personal data and communications and off the content (not licensed) provided by the resources I visit.

From the content owner's perspective, the ISP is not making a derivative works of -their- content and then using that works to build a profile of their users for the purpose of hitting them with behavioural advertising in order to generate revenue which the content owner will never see, the content owner will never get any fiscal benefit from their own work whilst unlicensed 3rd parties make billions.

Alexander Hanff
AlexanderHanff is offline