Except it doesn't stop them. We have a media tax on recordable CDs labelled for music use meant to cover copying CDs, and in Canada they have a media tax on almost everything that is purpose built for digital media playback for that exact reason. But they still piss and moan and try to sue people for "piracy". On that hand though, I think until a pay structure that can be developed to reimburst content creators outside of direct sales numbers comes out, any sort of proposal that allows or otherwise legitimizes free and open downloading of copyrighted content is stupid.
I think the proposal here is distinguishable in that it's not a levy on the media product itself, but Internet in general. It's a cost-spreading scheme, and a recognition of the fact that much of the value of the Internet comes from the remix culture and, well, downloading free stuff.
Of course, the problem--like most cost-spreading schemes--is that you essentially punish people for
not downloading. So obviously there's a network capacity issue, and you need to have the compensation structure in place. Most problematically, if this idea ends up not working, it's very difficult to go back. The proposal is mainly academic to be sure, but I thought it would be interesting to note in light of the discussion about how the Internet is affecting IP norms.
I myself personally think if it's worth the time for you to listen/watch/consume it then it's worth enough for you to pay for it. In the case of anime a lot of shows I literally can't consume. If it's licensed I will seek the local releases to support localization efforts. Unlicensed stuff is a grey area but I don't really fault people who do get fansubs. I bought the R2s for unlicensed shows I really really REALLY liked, but they're otherwise useless to me and more for sentimental value. In the case of domestic TV shows, I already pay for DirecTV and I don't have a Nielsen Box in my house so the difference in revenue between me watching it when it airs and me downloading it is absolutely zero, so I have no qualms with people who do that.
What rightsholders have lost sight of, I think, is that copyright has always been about incentivizing creation. Where the only market harmed is a market that the rightsholder cannot or will not exploit for himself, I don't necessarily see a moral issue. Legally, however, the courts have been willing to credit speculative future uses in finding market harm. In
Castle Rock v. Carol Publishing, the Second Circuit found that making a Seinfeld trivia book was an infringement because it hurt the producer's prospective market in Seinfeld trivia books, never mind that Castle Rock had no actual plans to publish one. In short, the cornerstone of copyright is some monopoly on the part of the creator, but right now that monopoly is being extended to
any use* of the work, anywhere, and that's more monopoly power than is probably needed to keep the creator going.
* Subject, of course, to fair use and some other rather cabined exceptions.