1. So I have an idea that could solve the problem about piracy. There is no proof that it will or work or not but I would like you to hear me out.

So, in the current state many companies are blaming piracy for losing revenue (especially the big companies). So how would we then be able to solve that problem?

My idea is as follows (based on the Swedish currency "krona/kr" or SEK):

Every household (let's say 1 million households) get to pay 100SEK (about 15 dollars) more per month on their internet connection. If you take all that money, you have 100 million SEK (about 15 million dollars) per month. During a whole year you would get 1.2 billion SEK.
If you then take all that money and put it in a fund that will get shared amongst everyone that have a work that gets copied on the web every year. If you for example give every copyright holder 100SEK for every work that gets copied. So if 10,000 persons download a copyrighted work, the copyright holder would then get 1 million SEK as compensation.
So then if every household on the whole planet (let's say 1.5 billion households) get to pay the fee of 100SEK per month, it would lead to 1,800 billion SEK that could be shared every year amongst the copyright holders that get their works copied.
And to distribute the money amongst the copyright holders I have come up with an example equation (should not be taken seriously, is just an example):
(The average amount of downloads per P2P website divided with the average amount of torrents per website) times the total number of P2P websites with the copyrighted work, short: (average downloads/average torrents)*websites.
So let's say we have a film that is being shared on 10 P2P websites, and it have an average of 100,000 downloads per website, and an average of five torrents per website.
So the sum of downloads that the company would get in compensation is (100,000/5)*10 (200,000 downloads) or 20 million SEK in this example. But I believe that there is better ways to calculate how much a company should get in compensation.

But there is a number of flaws with this idea like:

It would be rather easy to follow the amount of downloads a torrent get if every P2P site would a download counter for every torrent. But since it would not be good to add download counter that could easily be exploited so is there a need for a system that can't get exploited so easy as it could be.

Would you want to pay this extra fee?
I as a person would pay it since it's an indirect way to help the big companies without me thinking to much about it. Since almost everyone want to get as much as possible out of their money, it would not be easy for everyone to sacrifice some extra money for a fee that would help the copyright holders.

How much should the fee be?
That is one of the main questions behind this idea, since I don't know how much every person is up to giving away extra money to help copyright holders while they could just get their things for free otherwise. But would you rather spend some extra money and help many rather than spend some money and help one person? Sure, one person would get a bigger share than if it was divided amongst many persons. But if a lot of people would collect some money and then share amongst other people, wouldn't it give you a better feeling than giving that money to just a single person? Since more people can enjoy the money and continue their works, wouldn't it be better? Wouldn't it be better to be making the need of the many go before the need of the one?

Would this system be reliable?
If it was done right, it could be something reliable and good working since everyone would benefit on it. People would get their stuff and the companies would get their money. Right?

So now I would like to hear your opinions about this idea of mine. Let it be good or bad opinions as long as they are opinions. Thank you!

2. yes GREAT idea, make EVERYONE pay more because some people steal things, and distribute the money based on claims of theft

3. wow

4. I don't see why everyone should pay for this because a select few are downloading warez.
It's like taxing everyone because some people steal items from a store, it makes no sense.

5. yes GREAT idea, make EVERYONE pay more because some people steal things, and distribute the money based on claims of theft
Would you rather pay 15\$ per month and get as many films as you would like than going and rent one for 5\$? Since the copyright holders get their money either way I don't see a problem. But of course there would be a solution where you would not have to pay if you don't want to.

6. There isn't even a crisis to be resolved. It's just a few corporations clinging to the idea of shutting the internet down because it doesn't fit their business model. I'd rather not pay \$15 and continue committing piracy at will.

7. I don't see why everyone should pay for this because a select few are downloading warez.
It's like taxing everyone because some people steal items from a store, it makes no sense.
Put yourself in store owners position, wouldn't it be good to get compensation for the items that got stolen rather than having to pay up from your own pocket that could have gone to other things? Since many people are helping rather than one, the cost per paying person would be smaller than if you had to pay it yourself. And since it helps many stores rather than a few stores the benefits would be large. Since they could get compensation for the things that got stolen, they might be able to get larger sales that might lead to them getting in new items.

Edited:

There isn't even a crisis to be resolved. It's just a few corporations clinging to the idea of shutting the internet down because it doesn't fit their business model. I'd rather not pay \$15 and continue committing piracy at will.
If that's the way you want to go, so be it. But I'd rather pay some money that could also help the smaller copyright holders and not just the big ones.

8. Put yourself in store owners position, wouldn't it be good to get compensation for the items that got stolen rather than having to pay up from your own pocket that could have gone to other things? Since many people are helping rather than one, the cost per paying person would be smaller than if you had to pay it yourself. And since it helps many stores rather than a few stores the benefits would be large. Since they could get compensation for the things that got stolen, they might be able to get larger sales that might lead to them getting in new items.
sure, if I put myself in the shoes of a shop owner, it would be absolutely super if people gave me free money for me to invest on making more money.

9. the flaw in your premise is the assumption that the music and film corps need more money

10. If that's the way you want to go, so be it. But I'd rather pay some money that could also help the smaller copyright holders and not just the big ones.
Why not push them to accept the reality of the situation, that the internet is happening and they should change their business model to fit it? We have this fucking amazing tool for transmitting all kinds of information on a near infinite level, why should we allow the state to limit its power just for the sake of protecting a few corporations who refuse to accept reality?

11. sure, if I put myself in the shoes of a shop owner, it would be absolutely super if people gave me free money for me to invest on making more money.
But since you can't get compensation if you haven't lost anything so is it still a bit like insurance, but a community driven insurance (if I'm allowed to state it as that). And if the crime can't be proven, you can't get a share of the money.

Edited:

the flaw in your premise is the assumption that the music and film corps need more money
Is it be just the big ones that are being affected by piracy? No. Even the small guy that wrote a book that is now being spread on the internet without him getting a penny for every time someone downloads a PDF of his book. It's not only big corporation that are affected, it's just that they have more to say since they have the money.

12. Why not just have the government take in ownership of all public information, and maintain the upkeep of that information through taxes whilst allowing anybody to access this bank of information at any time?

Like, everybody has free internet, can freely share all the data they want, there are taxes to support this, and the companies that distribute this information are dissolved. That way the people who actually make up these music tracks or films can distribute out their services, and in return have free access to the rest of the internet and what it has to offer. If they want money for it, set up a donation service for them and give them money from the government based on how popular their work is or how much of a contribution it has made to to knowledge.

13. The issue is, that the corps are good at two very massive things, mostly due to the fact that they exist for profit.

Marketing and financing.

You don't get a terrible large lot of grass roots artists these days for example due to the marketing machine.

Financing is on similar levels aswell.

14. I don't see why everyone should pay for this because a select few are downloading warez.
It's like taxing everyone because some people steal items from a store, it makes no sense.
Actually shoplifting, or "shrinkage" as they like to call it to sound professional, does drive prices up for everyone when it happens. Or at least that's the reason they give for driving prices up.

Personally I think this is a terrible idea. Although it happens at the retail level, making everyone pay more because of the actions of a few is bullshit. I wouldn't want to pay more money because a few people needed to download their "My Little Pony" or whatever the children are pirating these days.

15. Lets tax the world!

Ambitious, but maybe politics isn't in your future, although i'm sure the developers would love this!

16. The "crisis" is a bunch of suits trying to make the world conform to their obsolete business model, rather than spending the money to advance with the rest of us.

17. Why not just have the government take in ownership of all public information, and maintain the upkeep of that information through taxes whilst allowing anybody to access this bank of information at any time?

Like, everybody has free internet, can freely share all the data they want, there are taxes to support this, and the companies that distribute this information are dissolved. That way the people who actually make up these music tracks or films can distribute out their services, and in return have free access to the rest of the internet and what it has to offer. If they want money for it, set up a donation service for them and give them money from the government based on how popular their work is or how much of a contribution it has made to to knowledge.
that's dumb
if I create something it's mine, not the government's

18. that's dumb
if I create something it's mine, not the government's
Not quite, in this system everything created is shared between everybody for free. The government merely maintains the infrastructure to do so.

19. the flaw in your premise is the assumption that the music and film corps need more money
I say they have every right to attain more money. "They have a lot already!" is no excuse.

Edited:

Not quite, in this system everything created is shared between everybody for free. The government merely maintains the infrastructure to do so.
How about when I produce a copyrighted work I decide the terms by which it is distributed?

The OP is essentially like making something like Spotify or whatever on a massive, obligatory to copyright holders scale (don't quote me on this, I've never used Spotify or anything.

20. What they should really do is realize that their business models suck ass and provide a service that people actually want to pay for. If they could come up with things like Neflix, Spotify, and Steam they'd be fine, but unfortunately they're greedy fucks, and the shitloads of money they make won't help them get over piracy.

21. If everyone started pirating everything they wanted (which they could legally do under this model) then companies would get payed less then they currently do. And do you seriously think 1.5 billion households are going to pay for this? Also, what if a website doesn't put the tracker up?

22. I wish I could rate dumb.

23. Pirate own music, become even more rich!?

24. this was some good solid thinking put into this, but it just avoids the real issue of how are they supposed to actually get their money, a compensation is a terrible way to keep your business running.

what would fix this is too allow the faulty functions of the old industry to just die off, with how advanced the net is too the original format, we should be discarding them. this is the equivalent of a person revoking your rights from using your new round wheels over HIS square wheels.

25. If this were implemented worldwide a simple 3 step plan to becoming a billionaire.

1. Make some terrible piece of music. Can be 11 seconds long it doesn't matter.
2. Set up a huge server farm to torrent said piece of music millions of times.
3. Claim your billions in compensation.

26. The reason most people pirate things is because DVDS/games/music/other stuff is too expensive. Making people pay tax would only increase piracy. The only way I can see piracy decreasing (and I doubt it will ever fully stop because there are lots of cheapskates out in the world) is to decrease prices. E.g. saw a Rise Against CD the other day at JB Hi-Fi (Australian shop, dunno if its in the US) and its \$20. 5 years old. Great album, but for a 5-year-old album it should be at the most \$10. And over in Aus it costs minimum \$70 for a new game.

27. The idea could work on another level: Pay the £15/month and then you have that as credit to download things, rather than compensation for piracy. This means your money is spent on YOU and the rights holders get their money, although this is more of a business than a solution to piracy...

28. Pretty sure we couldn't afford the extra 15 dollars.. for that.

29. If there are 100 of the sites from the example, then you've already spent all of the money you got. . .

30. how would ISP's make money?
why would ISP's bother?
what if you refused to pay?
what if you refused to pay and pirated?
what if you pirated more than 100SEK/£10 worth of stuff (yes, that means in the UK if u pirate 1 single modern game you make the companies lose ~£20-£40 but only pay 10)
and how do you plan to get this to every household in the world lmao

31. This sounds like the business model of Netflix ...

Pay small amount per month, give unlimited content ..

32. 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

33. On the subject of TV shows, I think the networks should be mandated by law to archive all the episodes of all 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.

34. Online TV should also include paying for a subscription that disables commercials.

35. I've yet to come up with a solution for music.
I know Mr. Dotcom was going to launch something to help deal with piracy for the music industry, MegaBox.com.

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.
Source: http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/24/was...kebox-service/

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.

36. 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.

37. 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.

Edited:

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!

38. Where and when does greed play a role in all this? People getting the money will eventually want more money.