Canadian Music Industry Wants Royalties on Net Usage 572
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"."
Then never complain... (Score:5, Insightful)
In Canada. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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!)
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?
Re:Then never complain... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sounds reasonable (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Then never complain... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sounds reasonable (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Whoooah (Score:0, Insightful)
EVERY STOLEN SONG/ALBUM/MOVIE BECOMES LEGAL!!!!
bhwah hahah hah
They can't make money from illegally downloaded stuff and then still have it illegal.
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 -
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.
Staggering possibilities! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Then never complain... (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
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.
10 per cent of any gross profit? (Score:1, Insightful)
How the fuck can SOCAN ask for a % of adevrtising revenue made by the ISP?
This is gonna open up a can of worms. Next thing you know software companies will create their own lobby/protection group and we'll see more ISP taxes beacause everyone is a thief and the ISP is providing the tool to commit the "crime"
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...
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
But paying for music I'm not copying, damn, it'd make me start copying.
An Question from the US (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Cap Canadians from dl'ing Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Does that mean I'm to pay extra to obtain freeware?
I'm not "legal educated", but can the empty pocket publishers generalize justification to everyone despite whether they're dl'ing slopyyrighted garb or not? Would that not be the equivalent of burning everyone and calling them witches?
Ridiculous (Score:2, Insightful)
The model which was created for radio, we're talking back in the 1920's here, was that radio stations apply for licenses to be able to play copyrighted works over the airwaves. All well and good. It means that radio - for the consumer who's listening to it - remains "free," since the stations are the ones paying for the music itself.
What SOCAN is asking for here is the equivalent of asking a record store - a place where a consumer already pays for recorded music - to also pay this licensing fee. Which is retarded. Unless they are limiting this only to single hosts who provide ONLY streaming audio (which they are not) I could see it. An entire ISP which may or may not be carrying audio files, audio streams, etc.: that's ridiculous.
Canada's government - and the governments of other media-producing countries - require someone under the age of 75 in these organizations (and the legal community) to speak to both the legal and technological aspects of the changing nature of music distribution. Continuing to apply this nearly two-century-old model to something as "new" as streaming and file downloads is just stupid.
ad
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.
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.
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
My fight with SOCAN (Score:2, Insightful)
I've been fighting against Tarriff 22 [rantradio.com] (the tarriff aimed directly at broadcasters) for a number of years now with a lot of support from other Canadian radio stations and listeners. Our fight has seemingly not fallen on deaf ears because each year it gets shot down again. This new blanket 'tax' on ISP's falls directly in line with similar unfair blanket taxes they have implemented in the past [sycorp.com] with blank media.
SOCAN doesn't seem to realize that by charging these huge tariffs on people and ISP's enjoying music on the Internet it doesn't benefit musicians but actually prevents the incentive for people to seek out music.
But then again, music is all about profit, right?
Re:Blame Canada (Score:3, Insightful)
Why people try to defend the subsidy one person's entertainment at the expense of another is beyond my comprehension. If Joni Mitchell and Lynda Lemay want some of my money, they can write music that appleals to me. If I choose not to support them by buying a CD, why should I be compelled, through the threat of force, to subsidise them?
The CRTC, music and movie subsidies have ruined it for Canadian artists. They replace the will of the media-buying public with the opinion of a beaurocrat in Ottawa. If they produced material that people wanted to buy, it would sell, Now instead of creating material for consumers, they have to create material that appleals to the CRTC, the CBC, or whatever Heritage $ Culture board hands out cash.
It boils down to a couple of simple questions: why should I be coerced into supporting entertainment that I don't care for? What gives the CRTC, the government, or YOU the right to decide how to spend MY money?
Re:As a Canadian resident ... (Score:3, Insightful)
As a fellow Canuck, I must state the following: SOCAN will most likely be told to go insert their little idea where the sun doesnt shine.
The three biggest canadian ISP's are Bell, Rogers and Videotron (THE phone company, and the two biggest cable distributor). Bell (or BCE) has enough money to buy out the music industry, and the two cable provider do not want any more laws. In fact, Bell already told SOCAN to go f*ck themselves.
Now consider that the law usually sides with the money, and they're ahead. Bell actually markets it's internet broadband service as a good way to get music online.
This is only a dying industry begging for another party to foot the bill, and unfortunately for them, the other party has more money, ressource and motivation to fight this off... So do not look for that new law anytime soon.
Nonsence... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Whoooah - solution (Score:2, Insightful)
as you may or may not know, first nation natives are allowed to trade goods according to theire original laws (no tax)
So just find a couple of local natives reserve and ask them to order a shit load of blank cdrw from tawain (cost a few pennies) and load them here on a boat (a few pennies again), et voila!
Seriously, the ISP tax would kill the music industry. People tend to use as much as they pay for. i.e.: who does not pig them self out at the buffet (eat-all-what-you-can-restaurants)
Re:Cabs, churchgoers and kids will pay license fee (Score:2, Insightful)
Speaking from Australian perspective...
- Supermarkets playing radio, or companies using radio for "music on hold" need to licence via tha radio station. It could be argued to extend that to taxis, but that's getting picky.
- Churches and schools don't need to licence what they sing internally. You can't stop people singing a song just for themselves... (it's not going to take income away from anyone).
- They do have to pay to reproduce words (overhead projection, or songsheets), and photocopies of music (treated differently). The hard part is copying recorded music to practise with - illegal, but danged near impossible to get around without buying heaps of CDs.
- Public performances are different to singing "in church" or at school; a concert would require licence payments.
- Public performance of new items are often be refused by copyright owners. e.g. performing a collection of songs from a musical that is still on its first world tour.