Slashdot Log In
Canadian Music Industry Wants Royalties on Net Usage
Posted by
michael
on Fri Nov 28, 2003 03:59 AM
from the greed-kills dept.
from the greed-kills dept.
Dr. Zoidburg writes "Apparently Internet music and movie sharing in Canada has gained enough popularity to turn the heads of the music and movie industry. CTV has a report about a Canadian organization named SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors, and Music Publishers of Canada) that will "ask the Supreme Court of Canada next week to force Internet service providers to pay them royalties for the millions of digital music files downloaded each year by Canadians". Says the president of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, "Consumers could very well see an increase in their Internet costs and they could see a slowdown in the transmission speed of their Internet communications"."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Whoooah (Score:5, Funny)
Simon.
Re:Whoooah (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not, this is just preemptive, this is in case of : if you accept the tax, then you reckon you are a thief and you obviously have to accept further investigation in order to complement your "subscription fee"...
In France, they had a similar problem : every blank CDR's price include royalties for the musical industries as they consider these media may only be used in order to copy copyrighted music.
The money only goes to a handful of famous "singers".
Now, if you only need CDR to backup stuff, then you're fucked.
What's next, the MPAA will also ask for royalties ?
Then I will (I just have to find a reason which will prove that people may use anything I invented without my consent).
Parent
Actually... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
But paying for music I'm not copying, damn, it'd make me start copying.
Parent
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
No it's not. TechCentralStation is wrong. In 1998, the Copyright Act was amended to legalize private copying of music. It specifically says that only the original media can be copied, but that the copier isn't required to own it. Basically, I can borrow your CDs and copy them, legally. Note that you cannot copy them yourself and give me the copies (though you are, of course, allowed to copy your own CDs for your own use) - I must copy them myself.
TechCentralStation mistakenly believes that this applies to music sharing. This position has already been rebutted in other articles, because the files that you are sharing (the MP3's) are NOT the originals. They are copies taken from the owner's CD. Therefore the owner has made the copy, not you. Also, you're making a copy of a copy, which is not permitted under Section VIII of the Copyright Act.
However, with the advent of online music stores (itunes.com, buymusic.com, etc.), now those MP3's in your shared folder could be argued to be the originals, and the people coming in and downloading them are making copies.
You were correct, however, in stating that none of this has been tested in court yet.
Parent
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Informative)
That's 100% correct.
The fact that the CD (or songs) was transmitted from one person to another via the internet has no effect on the enforcement of the law. We pay taxes on it, therefore it's legal.
That's 100% WRONG.
It matters. It matters very much. Read the law yourself. [justice.gc.ca] Specifically, see section 80.
Parent
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
According to the CCFDA [ccfda.ca], there's a fee on both - 21 cents on a regular CDR or 77 cents on an audio CDR.
Parent
Re:Whoooah (Score:5, Interesting)
But this leads to interesting dilemma. Am I automatically criminal when I'm supposed to pay such payments when buying CDRs? I thought person was _not_ guilty until otherwise prooved.
Parent
Cabs, churchgoers and kids will pay license fees (Score:5, Interesting)
The taxi companies must pay Teosto license fee if their drivers wish to keep the radio on when they've got a customer in the car. It doesn't matter if the broadcaster already paid for the songs...
They also tried to extort money from kindergartens, schools and churches for the copyrighted children songs/hymns that were being sung by the kids and churchgoers. That didn't go through - yet. I bet they'll try again soon.
Parent
Finally (Score:4, Funny)
Then never complain... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Then never complain... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Then never complain... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Nice theory, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
you are assuming that laws are logical. Let me challenge that assumption: here in Germany we pay sort of a tax on blank media and recorders. Music industry is even trying to broaden the scope of these royalties: they are currently pushing for a copy tax on printers (older link here. [harvard.edu]).
In addition to that, there is an entity called GEMA which makes sure that radio stations pay for each song they play. Public radio and TV cost consumers a monthly fee, too.
Recently they made a new copyright law. Copying for private use used to be legal, and strictly by the letter of the law still is, but circumventing copy protection mechanisms in order to do something the law explicitly allows you to do is now illegal. In other words: They didn't outlaw crossing the road. They made touching the ground with your feet while crossing the road a crime.
So consumers over here are forced to pay for the same product multiple times. All attempts to set that straight have failed so far. I have a hunch that this kind of legal creativity may become an exportschlager.
Parent
Re:Then never complain... (Score:5, Insightful)
But I have a very good complaint: My web site has my music on it. If this goes through, any Canadian downloading my music from my web site will be paying a tax to the recording industry. So, while I won't get any income from those downloads, someone else with no rights to my music will.
It's bad enough that the recording industry can force "standard" contracts on musicians that give all rights and profits to the recording company, and claim that this is "voluntary". Yeah; it's voluntary; you always have had the choice of nobody hearing your music because you can't get it distributed without signing one of these contracts.
But this sort of tax gives them profit from my music when I haven't signed any contract at all.
Somehow, I'm not too happy with this idea.
Parent
Re:Then never complain... (Score:5, Insightful)
I dont want to pay extra money to my ISP just because some wad somewhere downloads a metallica album, why should I pay money to my ISP for crappy music?
Compulsory License sounds ok - but it still means you're paying money for a lot of shit you dont want.
I can pay money directly to the composer when I buy their CD - no need for compulsory license or other crap - and best of all - RIAA/The Enemy/trashy musicians wont get a single $ from me
If you're not listening to their music - why should they get money from you?
-
Also: This sounds like a legalization of downloading music from the net. After all - you've paid for it.
Parent
Re:Then never complain... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Then never complain... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wasn't arguing for or against compulsary licensing, but asked a question since I know a lot of other people have. I thought this was the whole point of compulsary licenses: everybody pays whether they use it or not, and the money is distrubuted according to some metric of who is downloaded the most.
I can pay money directly to the composer when I buy their CD - no need for compulsory license or other crap - and best of all - RIAA/The Enemy/trashy musicians wont get a single $ from me
The RIAA is not the root of the problem. The laws necessary to support this model _require_ a perpetual war on free communication: if the RIAA were out of the picture then somebody else would be waging it.
Parent
Sounds reasonable (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sounds reasonable (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sounds reasonable (Score:4, Interesting)
Fortunately as an apprentice computer nerd he already had an installation of Linux. I suggested he avoid all the BS by installing mplayer, which he did, and it worked. My relatives visiting at his place were mighty impressed.
I also use DeCSS-derived products to copy movies to my laptop hard drive, so I can put an extra battery in the drive bay, and save on the power and noise of the DVD-Rom when flying.
I think DeCSS is great.
Parent
In Canada. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In Canada. (Score:5, Interesting)
The Copyright Board has actually found that the source needn't be a legitimately purchased or owned medium for a perfectly legal personal copy to be made. There's no reason downloading music shouldn't be covered by the existing legislation. You run into trouble if you start uploading music, though, as it violates the legal restrictions on usage of a personal copy. It violates, off the top of my head, the prohibitions on transmitting copies across a telecommunications system as well as the prohibition on distributing your personal copies.
The gist of it is, uploading is sure as hell illegal under the current legislation, but downloading is fine unless some magic way to argue against it is found.
Parent
Stupid . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
everyone wants a piece of this pie (Score:3, Insightful)
I dont feel like we are making enough money.
So lets try to get the govt to tax other businesses
to make up for what we feel like we are not
getting. right...
I think this whole movie and music thing is way
overblown.
proxies (Score:3, Interesting)
Something to think about.. (Score:4, Insightful)
So which is it to be then, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
* I say crime, I mean 'copyright infringement' (or whatever - Lets not start this one again!)
Does SCO have an office in Canada (Score:3, Funny)
Argh (Score:3, Funny)
Oh wait...
Tax the food companies (Score:5, Insightful)
So, as an artist... (Score:5, Insightful)
I make a good portion of my music freely downloabable from my site... and if they're going to tax people for downloading my music, then I should see that money, shouldn't I?
I don't think he quite got it (Score:4, Funny)
The above was an attempt at humor
Parent
Horrible idea, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Currently I believe that it is important to respect the owner's copyright and that music should be payed for, if the artists ask for payment.
we already pay through the nose for cd-r's (Score:5, Informative)
There has been a lot of opposition to the proposed $0.59 levy lately, spearheaded by large retailers, so the music industry has turned elsewhere, and that is to ISP's.
Riiiiight (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems the SOCAN technical advisor only seems to know about downloading illegal content from web pages. Let's hope the courts have access to someone slightly more savvy.
I'm totally against piracy of any sort, so it makes me mad when they'd tax me (because you know the ISPs would just pass the costs onto the users) for something I didn't do! This is just the same as those damned proposed taxes on CDRs and HDDs, because they "might" be used for piracy.
Verdict: not a chance in hell, if common sense prevails. If ISPs inform their users that costs will go up because SOCAN considers them all criminals, there'll be enough of an outcry to squash it.
As a Canadian resident ... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the first I'd heard SOCAN had gotten this far and quite frankly I'm pissed. I don't even have a P2P app installed in my computer, my MP3 collection consists solely of my own CD collection and is in that format for ease of access.
What's next? Royalties on showerheads, shower curtains and bathtubs in case we happen to mumble out a tune while showering?
The problem with our Supreme Court is they'll likely side with SOCAN and we'll end up paying. This is the same court who sided with our domestic DTH satellite providers and outright made it illegal to subscribe to US services in our country, yup for years we did our darndest to broadcast signals behind the iron curtain but when it comes to protecting a few broadcasting monopolies it's ok to ban foreign signals.
Shit we don't get to vote for a new government until next spring but the media have all pretty much named the new PM who is just the guy taking over from the retiring PM, lucky for us in the rest of the country it only takes Ontario and Quebec to vote in the same idiots time after time, the new guy is very pro big business, heck in his private career he made an effort to get around Canadian tax laws by using ships registerd at foreign ports, just the guy to put in charge!
Increase the cost of electricity! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's common knowledge that electricity is only used by illegal filesharers, so increasing its cost to recoup diminishing profits^W^Wdamages makes a lot of sense.
Naturally, this also includes batteries. Solar panels are allowed (for now) but there's going to be a tax on sunlight soon which should be able to close that gap.
Remember folks: You are consumers. SO START CONSUMING ALREADY! Your unwillingness to consume our drivel^Wproduct is costing us MONEY. If this trend keeps up, we'll be forced to sue you.
Cooper
--
I don't need a pass to pass this pass!
- Groo The Wanderer -
Could be good news (Score:5, Interesting)
While this is going on, you could lobby your MPs {assuming that is what they are called in Canada} to ensure that if any royalty fees are charged on downloaded music, they should be payable directly to the performer {assuming the performer is the copyright holder} and not exceed the amount that would have been paid had the songs downloaded been obtained on the least expensive pre-recorded medium available {whether this be cassette, CD, LP, MiniDisc or To Be Invented}. If Avril Lavigne {faute de mieux} gets x cents when I buy one of her albums, I don't see why it makes any difference to Avril Lavigne if I just make a copy of the album and pay her the same x cents directly. I mean
And, of course, in the case of unauthorised downloading, you would only ever be held liable for those x cents per track - not the thousands of dollars the RIAA conjures up out of thin air. Call me quaint and old-fashioned, but if you steal a dollar you should pay back a dollar; or at the worst no more than what would buy when you come to pay it back,whatever a dollar would have bought when you stole it.
It would be interesting to see exactly what objections anyone could raise to this proposal. I've even come up with a name for it: non-discriminatory licencing. Basically, if an artist allows a record company to package up and distribute their work for a fee, they have to allow anyone to do the equivalent job for the same fee; anybody's money is as good as anybody else's.
Re:Could be good news (Score:3, Informative)
I would have NO PROBLEM AT ALL if royalties for music went DIRECTLY to the artist involved, and not through the record label, managers, agents, etc.
Whatcha wanna bet that SOCAN would drop the idea in a split-second if they were unable to fill their own pockets with cash.
Quite a wonderful scam they have going here:
-Private Organization, doesn't have to release their books, profit information, membership list, etc.
-Never has given out ANY of the MILLIONS of dollars they've collected in the "nam
Staggering possibilities! (Score:3, Insightful)
Same ol Same ol... can't keep up... (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at it this way:
Technology advancements are supposed to be good for us. They are supposed to make our world better, our quality of life better.
At what point does the old economic systems need to change in order to work in accord to such benefits of technology?
The whole point of money is that of a value exchange system, but what happens when our production of value reaches the ultimate point of being able to supply everyone with the basic needs for near nothing?
Lets say I'm an artist, I produce some work that is popular, I want value I can use to exchange for other things, including investments, etc.. and all of this is a matter of my quality of life and influence on the direction of things (personal power)...
At what point of world quality of life and wealth does money hinder more than help?
We need incentive to keep going, we need to be doing something productive that adds or helps to maintain the wealth we have..instead of becomming fat and lazy..
But its clear that music production is alot less costly then it used to be and distribution can ultimately be practically free. Making it possible to have a higher percentage of return against the investment... which might be less than the old expensive way.
But if cost reduction is spread across all products and services...at some point it can be reduced to near nothing.... leaving only the need for incentive to keep going...
Next proposed tax? (Score:4, Funny)
Programmers Unite! (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't mind those taxes on blank CD's and wouldn't mind taxes on bandwidth. As long as they are for the end user minimal in impact. No tax should stiffle growth.
But the stupid thing is: why should the music industry have sole benefit?
Come on, guys/grrls! Programmers Unite!
A shitheap of illegal and legal downloads and copies are made of your work.
In the end, if the money is well spent I say: "More power to you", but for every ten CD's I burn, maybe one is music - LEGALLY aquired, thankyouverymuch - and the rest is backups, pictures, my own work and programs. I actually don't think I'm very different in this than most people.
Cheers
You guys aren't taking this one step further (Score:5, Insightful)
So $5 per month gets added to our ISP bill (it won't be a tiny amount), and now the music industry is happy. Now it's the movie industry's turn -- let's add another $5. Oops, software association is losing their money too -- $5. Almost forgot ebook publishers -- $2.
And if past performance on our CD-levy is anything to go by, that rate will just keep rising. Every year the "levy" we pay on blank CDs keep climbing. What's to stop them from hiking the "levy" on ISPs each year?
This could turn into a mess quickly.
Remember... (Score:4, Funny)
But remember, the law would be for your protection and to serve the interestes of the people, as all laws must do.
We already have a media tax in Canada (Score:4, Insightful)
But if ISPs are taxed, I curious how you can then enforce laws claiming that the 'sharing' is illegal? Might become an interesting test case.
-psy
Re:SOCAN? (Score:5, Funny)
Or how about STFU (SOCAN Takes money From end Users)
Parent
Re:SOCAN? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Blame Canada (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, we had to endure her singing for YEARS before we finally convinced her to move away. She's your problem now...
Parent