1) “A dynamic compensation model, akin to the ‘cap and trade’ market for carbon emissions ... Operators would face a fee for the transmission of unlicensed media on their networks, though that fee would be reduced in line with reductions in the volume of unlicensed media transmitted…”

2) “Alternatively, there is the ‘positive spillover’ approach, one that converts infringing media to non-infringing by way of a legal agreement ... Network operators would
pay ... a fee, and determine for themselves how best to capture the raw value of media on networks. A reduction of such fees might occur as a result of changes in the level of media transmitted that has been directly licensed from rights holders.”

It’s not just a thinkpiece in isolation. PRS For Music tells paidContent:UK: “We support it and think it is something that needs discussion and thought. We’ll be communicating it to government, industry bodies and the EU. The Digital Economy Act has changed the landscape and means that this potentially can now be considered whereas before it wasn’t really an option.”

Page reckons: “Conditions now appear to exist which might support the development of novel, market-based solutions to the harm caused by illegal file sharing over the internet.” Essentially, he’s using the provision in the Digital Economy Act - that Ofcom must quantify infringing activity on ISPs - to re-ignite now-faded notions of somehow introducing a blanket license for P2P.

Virgin Media (NSDQ: VMED) had in 2008 planned a bundled service in which consumers would pay it to carry on getting music over P2P networks, but it canned the idea after some labels got jitters.

More conventional legal music services are slowly gaining popularity, but the Digital Economy Act largely stops at compelling ISPs to educate, warn and negatively affect the connections of persistent offenders, at the behest of copyright owners.

The suggestion in Page’s paper is an admission that this alone will not convert illegal activity to legal, revenue-generating activity…

“There is scarce evidence to suggest the costs of the ‘stick’ are balanced with the benefits of new monies or even a reduced financial impact of the dilemma,” he writes.

“It is ironic that the music industry has resisted debating compensation models based on access fees in order to avoid the appearance of a levy, while the UK Government was willing to tout the idea of a levy to allow the consumer faster access to content” (the ConDem government has since scrapped the Labour government’s plan under which a levy on copper wire lines would raise finance to support next-generation network roll-out).

This is all well and good, but many of the big ISPs are already rebelling against the Digital Economy Act’s compulsion they should warn and throttle their customers, and they’re currently worried that growing video consumption will force them to invest heavily in infrastructure. They likely won’t take too kindly to the additional suggestion that it’s they who should pay extra for what happens on their networks.

Page is telling the ISPs that faster broadband speeds is going to mean more than just music piracy - and, hence, stronger pressure from other content industries.

But legalising black-market music transfer, which the industry estimates makes up 95 percent of all music consumption, could leave legal operators like iTunes Store mere bit players.