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"."
Sounds reasonable (Score:3, Interesting)
proxies (Score:3, Interesting)
Blame Canada (Score:1, Interesting)
I mean, correct me if I am out of line here, but doesn't the US version of MTV, which isn't shown on any "legal" cable or satellite provider in Canada get multiple times the number of viewers of the various Canadian music television programs (I.E. Much Music)
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.
Blanket tax? *puts gun to head* (Score:2, Interesting)
As far as taxing at the ISP level goes... why should a file marked "madonna" be assumed to be an MP3 of a particular singer. It could be any number of things.
Re:Something to think about.. (Score:1, Interesting)
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!
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
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:Then never complain... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
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.
How to make a $1500CAD iPod ... (Score:3, Interesting)
10GB iPod: $439.00 + $210 tax = $ 649.00CAD
20GB iPod: $579.00 + $420 tax = $ 999.00CAD
40GB iPod: $729.00 + $840 tax = $1569.00CAD
BTW, you can buy the 12" iBook for 1500.00CAD. I love Canada but this tax is nuts.
Send SOCAN the bill (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember that if Canada taxes the whole internet, then businesses, which usually have more bandwidth than individuals, will likely pay a higher percentage of this so-called tax.
That's going to make for an interesting backlash.
Compulsory Licensing (Score:3, Interesting)
Once that is law, just imagine how easy it would be to find a high quality copy of your latest favourite song instead of a buzzy Kazaa mp3.
It doesn't imply that the end user is a criminal, it does imply that it's an activity that almost everyone partakes in. This seems like an equitable way to solve the problema and make it go away. Very Canadian.
Invoice (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I don't think he quite got it (Score:3, Interesting)
Kidding aside, your post did make me realize I should clarify a little bit... obviously, if the music is freely available, and there is no commercial version of it (on CD, CD-R, as pay-for downloads, or any other media)... then it wouldn't make sense to expect money. I should only expect a percentage of what I charge for the songs.
I do however, have a commercial disc coming out in December, and another in February/March... neither of these, will be available as free downloads (of course, I will have no problem with people ripping, and sharing the music... if they don't make money from it, then there is no harm done for me... quite the opposite, it means more potential fans, and potential CD sales)... so at that point, since we can assume the music will be traded eventually, one way or another, I can assume that I would be owed some of this 'tax'.
Of course, we all know 'indie' artists will never see a cent... not without making a lot of noise about it, at any rate.
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.
Re:Then never complain... (Score:2, Interesting)
For example, let's say I have a band, perhaps "Alien Ant Farm". Further, let us assume that I have taken leave of my senses, and wish to cover a Michael Jackson tune. Extant compulsory licensing laws are what permit me to cover "Smooth Criminal" for a set price per album sold, regardless of what the Gloved one or his lawyers may wish.
There is one catch, though. The gotcha is that the compulsory license only covers the originally published arrangement.
To take an example, let's say that I'm such a severe alcoholic that Metallica kicked me out in 1983, and that I have gone on to have some success with a competing enterprise of my own, called "Megadeth". Further, again suppose I have taken leave of my senses and wish to cover a song originally recorded by Nancy Sinatra in 1966. I can cover the song, but if I want to throw in additional lyrics, then Lee Hazelwood (who wrote the song), can and probably will successfully sue me for corruptiing "These Boots were Made for Walkin'."
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
A tax on MY internet usage? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Actually... (Score:1, Interesting)
My guess is that Canadian copyright law is somewhat similar to American copyright law in that it places the burden for determining what is and what isn't copyrighted on the provider of the content, not the recipient.
Despite all that the [MP|RI]AA would have you believe, downloading a movie/song is not illegal in the US and probably not in Canada as well. Uploading, however, is a blatant copyright violation.
Small minds have short memories (Score:3, Interesting)
So, because something has worked for the last fifty to one hundred years that is how it must always be? Just keep a bad idea on life support for about a generation and that's it you can go to court and be declared a national necessity.
It is not the artist but the industry that has popped up to support the commercialization of music that are in trouble here and since they all have skills other than being artist they should be able to find work in other industries. End of story. Thanks music biz, it was nice knowing you but as of about now you are all dinosaurs. You have to do what so many others before you have done, go somewhere else and get a job.
Now back to the artist, my friend is in a band that has been around for over twenty years. They have had a few "record deals" but have always kept ownership of the music. They tell me they have always made more money touring and selling from the fan club than any contract. Now with the internet they are making more money than ever and the fan club (paid members) is the largest it has ever been.
It is the opinion of this band that "music sharing" helps them because they would never get on the radio any way or not enough to help but when someone finds their music and likes it, it eventually leads them to the web site or a show and that, is what brings in the money.
So this proposed tax (and that is what it is, Canadian's have a problem being honest with taxation) will increase costs to the consumer, devalue what ever funds are collected (the cost to process this tax), and what little gets back will likely go into the wrong hands.
Now more bad effects, by propping up a dying system with tax dollars you not only put off the enviable but the wasted (now) tax dollars put a negative effect on the economy, exactly the opposite effect you were hoping for in the first place. Gee thanks.
What rate to be paid? (Score:3, Interesting)
What would the rate be based on? Would it be based on actual download/trade/share traffic? Or would it be based on total traffic volume? If an ISP passes the charges on to their customers (how can they not do so?), how is it divided up among customers? Will it be by connection capacity? Actual bandwidth used? Or will they monitor and see how much is actually illegal music (assuming they can crack the next generation encrypted protocols which I doubt they can)?
Merely having a copy of music is not the same as listening to it. Someone who has a collection of 20 songs they regularly listen to is actually getting as much benefit as someone who has a collection of a million songs but regularly listens to about 20 of them (though he might have a larger ISP bill). Maybe the rate should be based on the maximum capacity to listen to music, which tops out at 168 hours a week. So why not a fixed price per person regardless of how much they download, since they can't listen to more than a certain amount (unless they listen to 2 or more songs concurrently)?
Re:Nice theory, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Also if the owner of a restaurant buys a CD and plays in int thier establishment they also have to pay royalties. I can sort of understand this statement, as they are not suppoesed to use these CDs for public performances.
The first statement is ludicrous though as the radio stations already pay for the broadcasts.
Are we as consumers going to have to start paying to listen to radio stations?
Re:ARGH! Net Myth! (Score:3, Interesting)
How much clearer can I be? I consulted with a judge. To expand on that, I mean I sat down with a judge and discussed the act with him at the dinner table, just to be sure that it said what it looked like it said. I have 3 lawyers and one judge in my immediate family, and all of them agreed that yes, you can make copies of a CD that you do not own, so long as it's for your own private use. We went over the act as published, point by point. I don't know how many other ways there are to put it.
It may not seem logical to you, but who ever said that the law made sense? Honestly, if this bothers you so much, go out and pay a lawyer for an hour of his time to go over it with you and explain it to you.