Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada Government Music Piracy The Almighty Buck News

Canadian Songwriters Propose $10/mo Internet Fee 407

Posted by timothy
from the let's-just-call-it-rent-shall-we? dept.
BitterOak points out this Windsor Star story, according to which "Canadian songwriters are proposing a $10 fee to be added to monthly ISP bills, giving users a license to download music using peer-to-peer file sharing technologies for free, without fear of reprisal. The money collected would be distributed to members of a Canadian association of songwriters (SOCAN). The story doesn't make clear whether the license would apply only to Canadian music, or how musicians in other nations would be compensated otherwise."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Songwriters Propose $10/mo Internet Fee

Comments Filter:
  • Intl. Distribution (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rueger (210566) * on Saturday March 05, 2011 @06:03PM (#35391960) Homepage
    how musicians in other nations would be compensated

    SOCAN (and most other country's performing rights organizations) collects foreign royalties for members of ASCAP, BMI etc through reciprocal international agreements.

    So in answer, USian composers whose work is played in Canada still get royalties.
    • by ScentCone (795499)
      And so the Canadian government will just divide the money evenly between all musicians, everywhere? You do understand how absurd that is, right?
      • by iamhassi (659463) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @06:14PM (#35392064) Journal
        If this passes I'm so becoming I'm a "musician"....
        • by Rei (128717) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @08:19PM (#35393084) Homepage

          There are lots of ways you can deal with this equitably. The simplest would be to distribute it proportional to their conventional music sales. There are other approaches that could be done, however -- for example, they could create opt-out or opt-in add-ons to be shipped with popular music players that collect statistics about who listens to what, and use that to weigh receipts. I think most listeners would opt-in, wanting the artists they like to be rewarded.

          One neat thing that could be done which you can't do with conventional sales is that you could use a non-linear distribution formula -- that is, support small artists to a greater degree than big artists proportional to their audience (something like, "SharesOfRevenue = FansWho'veRecentlyListenedToThem ^ 0.5". To greatly oversimplify, if there were two artists, A and B, and A has 1 million recent fans and B has 10 thousand recent fans, and there's $1m to go around, a linear distribution would say that A gets $999,010, and B gets $9,990. Under the above formula, A gets 1000 shares and B gets 100 shares, meaning A gets $909,090 and B gets $90,909.. Artist A hardly suffers, but artist B can now live on their work.

          I've long supported ideas like this, so I really hope it comes into practice. It's a way for new to allow new artists to truly make a living without having to contractually give away the overwhelming majority of what they earn to leaching record labels. Take the labels out of the equation, and it takes a lot total less money to give equal compensation to the artists. Also, it's a way to stop people who actually pay for and compensate artists for their work from having to pick up the slack for those who leach.

        • by multisync (218450) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @08:34PM (#35393188) Journal

          If this passes I'm so becoming I'm a "musician"....

          I propose we charge everyone a $10.00 fee on their ISP bills for all the free tech support they receive from a relatively small number of geeks. To collect your share of the fee, you'd just have to produce an email from a relative saying they need help "downloading" their camera on to their iPod or something.

        • by swordgeek (112599) on Sunday March 06, 2011 @12:18AM (#35394256) Journal

          Good luck with that.

          My brother is a full-time professional musician. He has been on at least seven albums that I can think of, one of which was nominated for a Juno. He has received *exactly* nothing from the tarrif on blank media. Nothing. Nada.
          Celine Dione, one of Canada's top-selling artists, made a comment once about how she never saw enough money from the tariffs to make any difference in her income.

          This will be the same, if it goes through. A cash-grab by the industry that goes to middle-managers, never artists.

      • by hedwards (940851)

        If only, it will almost certainly be divided up by SOCAN without anybody knowing how they're making the decisions and none of the artists having any idea as to whether or not their getting their fair share. Plus those with no reputation may or may not get anything at all, even if some people do listen to their work.

        But on the balance this would likely be good for the unknown performers because it would likely open up a new audience, one which wouldn't likely pay just to sample.

        • by jonsmirl (114798)

          About 5,000,000 Internet households. $10 month, $120 a year. 95,000 members of SOCAN.
          That's $7,000 a year for each member of SOCAN.

          I find it more amazing that 1 out 300 people is a SOCAN member. Does Canada really need 95,000 song writers?

          • by pronobozo (794672) <pronobozoNO@SPAMpronobozo.com> on Saturday March 05, 2011 @07:54PM (#35392890) Homepage
            Canada has 28 million users, over 80% of the population(wikipedia). Also, it doesn't get divided amoungst everyone evenly, last time I checked you get "popularity credits" and based on the amount of credits, you get a higher percentage.

            Anyways, this is the exact reason why I didn't sign up to SOCAN, I had a gut feeling they'd end up being some type of "voice" for all the songwriters, when really they should just act as the hub for collecting the royalties and getting them to me.

            Even if I was signed up to SOCAN, how would they decide how many credits I'd get. From proven downloads? That'd be great cause I've had over 820,000 downloaded. But that wouldn't work because then it'd dilute the big winners, they wouldn't like that. What if my music was for free(because it is)? Would I still get credits?

            First the UBB and now this... geesh.

            Not all canadian artists are disgruntled and thinking they are "owed" something and feel the need to enforce a tax. With that said, feel free to download my music from my site pronobozo.com, maybe it'll help calm the nerves a little.
        • by dgatwood (11270) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @06:53PM (#35392436) Journal

          But on the balance this would likely be good for the unknown performers because it would likely open up a new audience, one which wouldn't likely pay just to sample.

          Unlikely. It would probably be distributed in the same way as royalties for audio CD taxes are, which means it's based on radio airplay counts. Translation: unless you're writing music for a major label, you're not going to see a cent.

          That's the real reason the big music publishers want bullshit like this. It ensures that artists and songwriters will be forever beholden to the major labels. The songwriter organizations are playing right into the larger players' hands, and are basically defecating on the indie music scene.

          For musicians as a whole, this law, if passed, will be a tremendous step backwards. By further institutionalizing the dependence on radio play and other highly restrictive channels, and by effectively reducing the value of sold music in Canada to zero (because you'll be able to legally share and download it for free), the proposed law would make it so that you can't make money with music except by teaching it.

          In an era when the rest of the world is embracing the Internet as a great equalizer, Canada's law is threatening to destroy that---to eliminate the usefulness of the Internet as a medium for independent musicians to sell their music and make money outside the context of a major label. Frankly, any law like this is downright criminal.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 05, 2011 @07:46PM (#35392846)

            .

            ..the proposed law would make it so that you can't make money with music except by teaching it.

            You mean musicians will have to make money by passing on the skills they learned for a fee; by selling tickets to live performances; by selling physical, branded merchandise or licensing such sales to third-parties; by selling commissions to write songs for others; by having a patron; etc.

            rather than

            using government to establish artificial scarcity of a non-scare resource in order to apply old business models to new technology.

            Perhaps stepping back to the way musicians previously made money before the recording industry took over might actually be a Good Thing(TM) Perhaps it'll be harder to become a millionaire rock star that way, but the world might be better for it.

        • by commodore6502 (1981532) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @07:05PM (#35392532)

          >>>this would likely be good for the unknown performers

          Why should I have to pay another $128 (taxes) just to listen to crappy pop music? Frak that. This is nothing more than Government tyranny to subsidize megacorporations (Sony, Warners, et cetera).

          Megacorps == Dirty pieces of shit.
          Let Sony and the rest of them die.

      • by langelgjm (860756)

        The various collecting societies have data and estimates about how often songs and artists are playing, and royalties are distributed accordingly. This has been going on for years, it's nothing new. When it comes to downloading, they'll figure out a way to estimate whose work is being downloaded, and how often. It won't be exact, but it'll probably be good enough for them. Also, it's usually not the government, it's a private organization, albeit often with special privileges.

        A better question about this pr

        • When it comes to downloading, they'll figure out a way to estimate whose work is being downloaded, and how often

          what a way to make money - buy a script kiddie to plant trojans to download your music and send the traffic (and canadian moolah) your way
        • by commodore6502 (1981532) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @07:23PM (#35392690)

          Is they are so "good" at it, how come the Canadian artists had to sue in order to recover nearly 1 billion in unpaid royalties? (Their songs were used on greatest hits CDs, but the sales never credited back to the singers, writers, etc.)

  • Hmmmmm...... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Donniedarkness (895066) * <<moc.liamg> <ta> <ssenkradeinnoD>> on Saturday March 05, 2011 @06:04PM (#35391966) Homepage
    Hmmm.......

    No.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      Actually, I would not have a problem with this...if it meant that nobody could be sued for downloading. Paying a tax that goes to artists (or recording companies, but at least there is some path toward music production there) and being allowed to download music as I see fit sure sounds like a good deal to me.

      Of course, we know that is not what is going to happen (now you are going to pay and still get sued), so yeah, no deal.
      • by MoonBuggy (611105)

        I don't think they'd be stupid enough to keep trying to sue - the major labels would be more than happy to have a guaranteed monthly income stream from essentially everybody in the country. I also don't doubt that labels would also graciously offer to take the job of passing the money on to the artists who deserved it, less a reasonable fee for all their valuable services, of course... Oh, and good luck getting any payment if you aren't signed to one of those companies doing the distribution.

      • by Sancho (17056) *

        Only I have no interest in downloading music, so the tax does me no good.

      • I have no problem with money going to artists.

        However, I do have a problem with them getting money when I'm not using their content. I do not wish to pay for my neighbor's teenage daughter's music addiction.

      • Re:Hmmmmm...... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by iamhassi (659463) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @06:28PM (#35392210) Journal
        I have no problem either, we should all pay for our music on iTunes and then pay an extra $10/mo to... wait, I already paid, why am I paying again?

        But I don't think it should stop with music! What about that copy of Office you downloaded? We should all pay $XX/mo to the BSA [bsa.org] (Business Software Alliance... not boy scouts) for downloading programs.... also remember the MPAA needs their $XX for the movies.... and the Entertainment Software Association needs their $XX for those games you download.... am I leaving anyone out? Music, software, movies, games... PORN! We owe the Adult Film and Video Association of America [wikipedia.org] a TON! $XXX/mo sound alright? Ok so your monthly internet bill is $1,800, we offer a convenient payment plan of only $20 charged three times a day...
        • by md65536 (670240)

          I have no problem either, we should all pay for our music on iTunes and then pay an extra $10/mo to... wait, I already paid, why am I paying again?

          Yes, but many people will download their music for free. You have to share in paying for that, too.

          If they raise my internet bill $10 per month, I will probably cancel my internet service. This is a loss of business for internet providers. They will have to raise it another $10 to make up for that.

          am I leaving anyone out?

          Yes, me. I run a carrier pigeon messaging service, delivering any message within a 100 km radius within a week. New technology has reduced my profits, and therefore new technology should be taxed so that I can mai

      • by Imagix (695350)
        Are they also going to provide the locations to which Canadians can download the content that they are thus legally purchasing, with no DRM? (What do you need the DRM for, the entire population may download at will...) And at reasonable bitrates?
      • by gstoddart (321705)

        Actually, I would not have a problem with this...if it meant that nobody could be sued for downloading

        I sure as hell would.

        I buy a lot of music on CD, don't down muskc, and I'm sure as hell not willing to pay a $10 monthly 'tax' on my internet connection so these greedy bastards can double-dip. I can guarantee, the artists I'm listening to don't get paid for in this scheme.

        If they introduce this, I'm going to download so much &%^$*() music it's not even funny. They're already charging me a 'levy' on b

        • by houghi (78078)

          Please also seed after you download, but most likely THAT will still be illegal and that is who they will still go after and sue.

          So this is what will happen:
          1) 10$ per month is extra you pay
          2) All up loaders will be prosecuted as that is still illegal
          3) Only pay sites like iTunes will offer it for money
          4) Profit (X2)

      • As an Option, such an offer would be relatively attractive(the history of IP, particularly culture-related, contains a fair few instances of compulsory licensing along standardized lines). If, however, it isn't optional, it's just a screwjob, amounting to the assumption that 100% of internet lines are used for "piracy" and that musicians deserve the right to tax everybody.

        (The slightly subtler thing to also watch out for, of course, is the downloading/uploading distinction: if this fee only protects you
      • Except for the people who have no desire to download music and just get stuck paying $120 a year to subsidize everyone else.
  • No. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sarten-X (1102295) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @06:06PM (#35391978) Homepage
    As someone who simply doesn't listen to music, pirated or otherwise, I'm going to go with "no way in Hell".
    • Re:No. (Score:4, Informative)

      by ToadProphet (1148333) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @06:11PM (#35392038)

      It appears to be opt-in. So if you don't want to have a 'license to download', you don't pay.

      It doesn't seem like a terrible idea, though I'd need to see a few more details.

      • I'd be very careful to see how it treats "uploading". Unless it very specifically protects that as well, it essentially changes nothing for any user of common p2p setups. If it doesn't do that, it is basically a scam, because the right to download without legal threat is rather useless if nobody has the right to upload without legal threat. Everybody already has the right to purchase downloads from entities that have licensed the music in question, so paying more for that is absurd, and a p2p setup that con
        • by dryeo (100693)

          The Canadian courts have handled the making available argument the opposite of the States. As I understand it, if I have a FTP server with a bunch of music on it and you download from it, it's your action and legal. If I upload to your FTP server then I'm distributing and it's illegal.
          So all the people who want to share is make available their collection and as long as the downloader initiates the download it is legal.

    • by Baron_Yam (643147)

      I'm in a similar boat - I listen to the radio if one of my coworkers puts it on, otherwise I very rarely listen to my 70s and 80s stuff that I probably purchased more than 20 years ago (though have since digitized, of course).

      Basically, fuck them. With rusty barbed wire. Rectally.

      • by Zenin (266666)

        I listen to the radio if one of my coworkers puts it on,

        BZZZT! Your company must ASCAP for a public performance license if anyone at your work is playing a radio that can be heard by anyone besides themselves (your office is not a "a small circle of a family or its social acquaintances"). If that isn't acceptable, listeners are welcome to use headphones.

        http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html [ascap.com]

    • by QuoteMstr (55051)

      I'm not sure whether you should be so quick to dismiss the proposal. Rampant copyright lawsuits hurt everyone, not just those who download.

      • by sharkey (16670)

        Rampant copyright law hurts everyone...

        FTFY

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Oh please.

        Do you really want to pay $10 for downloading songs? You know, even if you don't, it's because everybody does it. How about an extra $10 for downloading movies? It makes sense, everybody does it. And an extra $10 for downloading pirated Microsoft software? There's studies about that, you know. And an extra $10 for ebooks, let's not forget the publishing industry.

        The internet surfing population does not owe artits a living. The world has changed, and (music) piracy is here to stay. It's time to

  • They negotiated a levy on all blank CDs long ago, for this same reason.

    This is double-dipping.

    Better idea - why not make it a levy on iPods and other music players. Why should I have to pay a royalty when I don't download music?

    • by Kenja (541830)
      You pay for blank audio cds. Does anyone really use those?
      • by hedwards (940851)

        Depends, do they still make those stupid CD players for component systems that can only write to audio CDs?

    • by Mashiki (184564)

      I'd call it closer to triple dipping. They got years of cassette fees, years of CD fees, and fees from other sources. Fuck'em.

  • Wow, is this how desperate the music business is? Hell, as an artist I'd be pissed; I'd much rather get money from fans willingly, than from everyone by force.

    Seriously, how does this make sense?

    • It makes sense if people are going to be allowed to download whatever they want without having to fear a lawsuit. Pay the artists (through the record companies, which is suboptimal but good enough), stop suing everyone, and start talking about bringing copyright law in line with new technology, rather than trying to fight against the growth and progress of computers and the Internet.
      • by Tragek (772040)

        Perhaps; But hasn't iTunes already done most of that? Or am I alone in finding that iTunes is far easier than piracy? Hell, I like iTunes better than piracy because I can hope that at least some of my money gets to an artist.

        • by hitmark (640295)

          I guess it depends on the obscurity of the content.

          • by Tragek (772040)

            So is this better or worse then, for obscure artists? Are they going to monitor people's downloading to ensure proper distribution? Or is SOCAN just going to flat rate distribute to all it's members? Neither seems tenable nor acceptable (of course, I've a beef against SOCAN ever since they started going after coffee shops).

  • Eh, that pretty much says it all. /thread
  • by vik (17857) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @06:12PM (#35392046) Homepage Journal

    Seriously. There are a lot of deaf people and they won't take kindly to pre-paying for something they can't possibly use.

    Vik :v)

    • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @06:16PM (#35392084)
      Funny, because blind people still pay taxes that are used to construct highways, at least as far as I know. People without children still pay taxes that are used to support public schools. So what exactly is wrong with deaf people paying a tax that supports the creation of music (in theory, anyway)?

      My issue with this tax is that it is probably not going to result in an end to the recording industry lawsuits. That is the real problem here: they want taxpayer support, while retaining the ability to attack taxpayers who dare to download music.
      • by gman003 (1693318) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @06:27PM (#35392200)
        But blind people still benefit from highways (even though they don't drive, they still ride), and people without children benefit from educational taxes (because, seriously, would you want to put up with someone else's uneducated brat?). The only people this tax would benefit is the RIAA (or whatever the Canadian equivalent is).
        • Theoretically, doesn't the population at large benefit from creating an culture that is conducive to creating art? I rarely go to museums, but it is my understanding that the NEA puts a great deal of financial effort into many of the things that hang on those walls. What's the difference between childless adults fostering education compared to artistically-agnostic (either due to disability or disinterest) adults fostering the creation of art?
      • My issue with this tax is that it is probably not going to result in an end to the recording industry lawsuits. That is the real problem here: they want taxpayer support, while retaining the ability to attack taxpayers who dare to download music.

        No, the bigger issue is that you take a group of people who now feel entitled to a perpetual payout because their business model changed. It may be 'reasonable' in this case (I think it's not) but it opens the door for everyone who feels that the Internet has hurt them financially to seek redress by tacking on fees. So we'll see:

        $5.00 for still photographers
        $25.00 for movie producers (hey movies cost a lot of money to produce)
        $10.00 for the poor forlorn advertising agencies
        $15.00 for the porn factori

    • but an old friend of mine is deaf and he listens to music, well he feels music. As such most of what he plays in his car is bass heavy but he does get enjoyment out of it. Now sometimes this leads to some hilarious choices in what he plays.

  • 10 bucks a month? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by the_Bionic_lemming (446569) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @06:13PM (#35392050)

    So they would want me to add over 25% of cost to my monthly bill in order to download songs - which I wouldn't and don't?

    I have a better idea. for that ten bucks a month I can download any song, movie, or game I want. No media protection, no online DRM, and no exceptions. Iron Man 3 would be available for me to grab and watch for free the day it's released.

    Otherwise - Get bent.

  • When a government does this sort of thing, it's called a tax. When an established church does it, it's a tithe. Sorry, SOCAN, but when anyone else does it, it's just plain old stealing, and I don't mean copyright infringement.

  • by Tablizer (95088) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @06:14PM (#35392058) Homepage Journal

    How does it tell good musicians from bad musicians? If I spray my crotch silver and put furniture in my hair while playing toilet rolls and call myself a "musician", what keeps me from getting the same amount as Lady Gaga?......oh, wait

  • It's already responsible for all sorts of idiotic laws and levies in Canada that shouldn't exist. It's idiotic.

    If you have a wedding at a public venue you rent, you will be charged the 'SOCAN' fee.

    Even if you don't play any music.

    Even if you have a band playing music that will only play their own songs and they aren't a member of SOCAN.

    So I say again,

    SOCAN can DIAF.

    (I also remember reading a story some time ago about the idiotic SOCAN levy on blank media not actually being paid to any actual musicians.)

    Howe

    • I don't know if this is the same in Canada but in the UK shops that sell musical instruments have to pay a levy to the PRS because someone, while testing their potential purchase, might play a copyrighted song with it which to them is a public performance. What a bunch of utter wankers.

  • Now that there are good online services available, I almost never download music over peer-to-peer.. Now if I can get spotify for movies and tv-shows, I will stop pirating.

  • Sure, we can talk about adding a 10$ fee to internet bills, but only *after* you rescind the levy on blank media.
    Canadians already pay a levy on blank CDs for the expressed purpose of compensating artists.

  • May need to iron out the kinks a little and fine-tune the dollar amount, but conceptually, this is a workable idea (and surprisingly so, coming from the music business!). We've been screaming at the music industry to come up with ideas to allow them to adapt to and survive the new internet reality, and they're delivering on it.

    It's not unlike the monthly license paid by commercial entities to Muzak and its ilk for playing background music in public locations or some of the licenses paid by churches for disp

    • May need to iron out the kinks a little and fine-tune the dollar amount, but conceptually, this is a workable idea (and surprisingly so, coming from the music business!). We've been screaming at the music industry to come up with ideas to allow them to adapt to and survive the new internet reality, and they're delivering on it.

      If you really think this is a good idea then you have absolutely no understanding of how the music industry works.

      Let's say that the $10 a month fee in enacted. In a couple of years, the record companies will be complaining that too many people are downloading music for free instead of buying it, so the fee needs to be raised to $20. A couple years later, still not enough. Sales are still way down. We need to raise the fee higher. And Higher.

      Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

    • It's not unlike the monthly license paid by commercial entities to Muzak

      Yes, and it represents a similar level of quality. Really, you think a sanctioned 33% tax (and absolutely certain to grow!) on your internet access is worth supporting and even further entrenching all that auto-tune crap coming from the major labels and clear-channel radio stations?

    • by rotide (1015173)

      Scary thought.. Assuming they can get the kinks out and make it equitable while also being fair..

      The recording industry could then open up servers that only those connecting from "taxed" ISPs can go and download every song held by them and potentially the other industries? While you're at their site downloading, there could be advertisements for upcoming shows, merchandise, etc. They might actually make a profit off it.

      The only problem I see now is, how will iTunes (not that I use it) survive this? Who

    • by c (8461)

      > If ISPs have a way of identifying these sorts of users to content providers like
      > Pandora, those content providers could provide a different tier of service, since
      > they wouldn't have licensing to deal with either.

      Services like Pandora (who say they can't even afford to offer services to Canadians due to the cost) need to get paid, and why would anyone pay Pandora for something they're already paying to get from other sources? Why would anyone buy something from iTunes? Why... And do you think th

  • Bridge toll. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by unity100 (970058) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @06:25PM (#35392174) Homepage Journal
    Why not cut to the chase and just toll everyone passing any bridge, junction, road crossing, waterway and then divert the loot to the "intellectual property 'rights' holders" ?

    because that is, entirely this.
    • by md65536 (670240)

      Why not cut to the chase and just toll everyone passing any bridge, junction, road crossing, waterway and then divert the loot to the "intellectual property 'rights' holders" ?

      What a ridiculous and exaggerated idea.

      Really, they should just add an "ear tax" on anyone who can hear. Because, they might use those ears to hear some precious, precious music that doesn't belong to them.

  • I live in Denmark, and I pay a TV license because I own a computer. Around $400 a year.

    Apparently, since the TV network is a "public service", they can charge me, because MAYBE I might go on their website and look at their stream, which isn't even HD. Greed in high places always manages to fuck everyone over in the end... I guess that's the lesson learned.

    If I had those $400 extra a year, maybe I could afford a TV set.

  • There has been some discussion about having a similar system in Sweden. However, the finer details made it clear that while it would be legal to download via BT, it would still be illegal to upload, so you could still be dragged to court for doing something you are paying to be allowed to do. I didn't see any mention of whether or not the Canadian version would allow people to upload as well. Does anybody know?

    And let's face it: if you are only allowed to download there is no point is paying the fee sinc
  • "Songwriters Association of Canada" a business that claims to represent song writers, proposed this idea.

    The president of this company is famous for writing a song by the name of ""Does a Fool Ever Learn"
    Ironic eh?
    • The president of this company is famous for writing a song by the name of ""Does a Fool Ever Learn" Ironic eh?

      No, it's not ironic. It's just a coincidence. For some reason Canadians have a real problem understanding the concept of irony. What the hell is wrong with you people? Irony is not 10,000 toques when all you need is a can of endangered seal meat.

  • What, exactly, do they think instituting a $10 "download all you want and now we can't sue you for it" tax will do for sales?

    How about just saying "we're not assholes, so we're not going to sue you for downloading (or uploading in a torrent), but we'd better not catch you selling pirated copies"? I think that would do wonders for sales; especially given that I don't buy an album until I've listened to the whole thing and people I know who listen to the same music I do are all the same way, so borrowing it f

  • by no-body (127863)
    From: http://www.windsorstar.com/entertainment/Canadian+songwriters+propose+music+sharing/4387146/story.html [windsorstar.com]

    "We aren't entirely sure that anybody other than those people who are directly involved really understand all of the nuances. Without monetizing what happens on the Internet, which is mostly file-sharing, it is going to be very hard for anybody (in music) to make a living."

    (emphasis mine)

    In essence, if it can be spun and makes money, it's ok. I wonder how many are already salivating on a cut fr
    • by Tragek (772040)

      ... no, what happens on the internet is mostly porn.

      Oh wait. They're file sharing porn.

      \me shuts up.

  • Wait let me get this straight, they refuse to provide an easy access to full online music catalogs so people can buy any song they want online yet they want to impose a $10 fee for Internet usage. Yah no thanks I can download all I can already since the 500+ cdr I have in my house paid for that right.

  • Make it Opt In (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rinnon (1474161) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @06:47PM (#35392366)
    Shooting this down without having a discussion about it is terribly short sighted. We keep complaining that the RIAA and co need to think of better business models. Maybe this is it. I am not opposed to paying 10 dollars a month to download as much music as I want. I am however opposed to it being tacked onto my Internet bill against my will. So why not make this an Opt In option? People who don't download music don't need to Opt In. I could Opt In and download whatever I want without fear of legal reprisal. I don't think that's such a terrible deal. Next it'll be Hollywood wanting it's 10 bucks a month, or Book Publishers. Again, I'd be happy to pay 10 bucks a month to be able to legally download all the movies or books I want to. As long as it's my choice, I think that's a really reasonable price to pay. Having the Internet cost 100 bucks a month because of Entertainment Taxes when all you want is Wikipedia is ridiculous. Being given the OPTION to pay 100 bucks a month with all that Entertainment legally included is actually fairly reasonable.
    • by Tragek (772040)

      This could be workable; But only if I get to dictate to SOCAN to whom my dollar goes. I don't want to fund Justin Bieber's haircuts, I want to fund the bands I want to hear more of.

      Like that's going to happen.

  • If I am a musician selling music and am not a part of that cartel? And I don't want my music downloaded freely? Let me hear an argument how this would HELP musicians.

  • So this organization's idea is: they perceive that they are being robbed, hence to rectify the situation, they are going to rob the masses by force. Second, they're not going to provide any downloading services at all despite taking money from people. These people suck at business and morals.
  • by Stumbles (602007)
    Racketeering at its best. The MAFIA only wish they could be so blatant.
  • I've just written a song so that I can get on a share of that cash. Will I get an equal division of the cash? No? Why not??? Then why the fuck should they charge people an equal share of their imaginary cost?

COBOL is for morons. -- E.W. Dijkstra

Working...