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"."
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).
Actually... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
But paying for music I'm not copying, damn, it'd make me start copying.
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.
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.
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.
Re:Actually... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Actually... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Finally (Score:4, Funny)
Then never complain... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Then never complain... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Then never complain... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Then never complain... (Score:2)
Isn't this exactly the compulsary licensing the that EFF and company have been asking for? I thought people liked that...
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.
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.
Re:Then never complain... (Score:2)
Isn't this exactly the compulsary licensing the that EFF and company have been asking for? I thought people liked that...
"People" liked that? Heh! If you were paying attention, you'd notice that the vast majority of
-a
Re:Then never complain... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Then never complain... (Score:2)
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.
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.
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.
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.
In Canada. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In Canada. (Score:2)
Seriously though, there are many other things that are wrong with this scheme, and the CD royalty that came before it. Things like the fact that not all Canuck pirating is for Canadian artists, or that CDR's have uses besides music, or that once you've crossed the CDR line there's no reason to not tax hard drives, flash, or, int
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.
Re:In Canada. (Score:2)
The levy is $0.20/CD. The price of blank CDs is in the $0.20 range.
N.
Re:In Canada. (Score:2)
Anyway, does this affect CDRWs and DVDs also? My homedir backups would be quite expensive in Canada. Are there 'bootleg' CDRs available?
Sorry, I'm just shocked by those numbers.
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)
Re:Something to think about.. (Score:2, Funny)
- The DMCA is just gay
..
As a raving faggot, I object to your use of the word 'gay' in this context.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?
Re:So, as an artist... (Score:2)
Of course, since (at least last time I checked, which was quite a while ago) they've never actually gotten around to distributing any money to any artists, the independent artists are getting an equal cut. If it worked properly, I'm pretty sure I've read about provisions that allow any Canadian artist to apply to get their portion of the money.
This post is, like most on Slashdot, mainly coming out of my ass. I haven't
I don't think he quite got it (Score:4, Funny)
The above was an attempt at humor
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
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:Horrible idea, but... (Score:2)
Why wouldn't you be able to? That's pretty much the music industry's point...
We already have legislation that lets us copy pretty much any musical work we want for our personal use. They're looking for compensation, because of this. If this were to go through, Canadians would probably get a clairified law, too, that direcly addresses copying music in t
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.
note on exchange rate (Score:2)
Re:we already pay through the nose for cd-r's (Score:2)
They go through a 100 spindle of CD's a week, easily. The increased CD tax would seriously hurt their business... This is dumb, I thought canada was smarter than this
Re:we already pay through the nose for cd-r's (Score:2)
There's a levy in the UK on these, but not on normal blanks.
Re:we already pay through the nose for cd-r's (Score:2)
Proposed tariffs [cb-cda.gc.ca] (currently held up):
Re:we already pay through the nose for cd-r's (Score:2)
And if many of us will do it then we might be able to make a class action case. But if we will continue buy CDRs with music royalties included and do nothing about it - then we should not compain when next royalty will cover the coper wir
Re:we already pay through the nose REVESE SMUGGLIN (Score:3, Funny)
The Answer:
Reverse smuggling. Send USA CD-R's and cigarettes north in trade for cheaper Canadian drugs. The free market works.
ipod and other hard disk media players (Score:2)
How to make a $1500CAD iPod ... (Score:3, Interesting)
So that means if this proposed tax goes through an iPod would cost:
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 bu
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!
Re:As a Canadian resident ... (Score:2, Funny)
> happen to mumble out a tune while showering?
Heh - you're a `Tom the dancing bug` fan too, eh?
http://images.salon.com/comics/boll/2000/08/24/
Re:As a Canadian resident ... (Score:3, Informative)
Plus, the major ISP (Bell) actually has to get *permission* from the CRTC to raise rates. Let
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
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: (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: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)
Call it what it is, then (Score:2)
If they wish to impose such a fee for Internet, just call it Information Tax and at least be honest with it. It is a tax because it's a legal obligation set by the government that requires people to pay a fixed amount of money. It's Information Tax because it is imposed on all people doing generic information exchange. It's obvious that if you don't pay the Information Tax, you are not allowed to access any information on the net.
If they want to charge ISP's (Score:2)
In all seriousness, this is exactly what I want (Score:2)
In Europe, people pay a small yearly fee for media already. They pay a fee for access to public service television. I see a parallel here...
There has been much talk of compulsory licensing being the only sensible answer to the current situation.
This kind of response is what I want: a blanket scheme where you can choose to pay (to a trusted government entity (1)) a blanket fee, in exchange for the right to download any works for p
no way! (Score:3, Funny)
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.
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...
*I* claim the right to tax the internet! (Score:3, Funny)
Justin. But call me Darl.
SOCAN != RIAA (Score:3, Informative)
Eric
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.
Re:Compulsory Licensing (Score:3)
Now explain why the _publisher_ should be getting any money, if I'm legally downloading a copy of a song from a P2P service. Any money that is paid should be going to the people who made the song, not to some middleman who's become totally irrelevant.
And what if you're downloading a song that I recorded with some mates in my garage? How am I going to collect my money from this "compulsory license
Re:Compulsory Licensing (Score:3)
The RIAA is not a publisher, but the holder of the mechanical rights (the right to reproduce). In the US, the guardian of copyrights is ASCAP. They pay money directly to artists. If you analyze the famous Courtney
Invoice (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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)?
Ya know... (Score:3, Funny)
I don't feel so isolated now, even if it is just a illusion.
Don't spoil my fantasies. Shush.
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)
Re:SOCAN? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Blame Canada (Score:2)
Eh, I doubt it... I know all sorts of annoying people that watch muchmusic... I don't think I've seen even a speck of MTV anywhere around here since they stopped including the french version in Vancouver cable subscriptions a half dozen years ago.
Re:Blame Canada (Score:2)
Re:Blame Canada (Score:2)
MTV US is on satellite, usually DirecTV systems configured / pirated with zipcodes for the US. This is not surprising considering that 85% of the Canadian population lives within 200 miles of the US border. A lot of people have satellite dishes in Canada. (My father has one, for instance)
However, MuchMusic is on cable as a basic channel. Meaning if you get cable, you get MuchMusic. Canada is one of the most-cabled countries on Earth, if not *the* most, at something like 96, 97%
Re:Blame Canada (Score:2)
You have to *receive* the channels in the first place in order to decide whether or not you want to watch the shows, right? If you don't receive the channels, you can't be said to watch their shows. More people in Canada receive MuchMusic than MTV US, by probably a factor of 2, if not more.
As to your second point, congratulations. Learn to spell before casting insults. But I digress. Watching a music channel does not mean
Re:Blame Canada (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Blame Canada (Score:2, Funny)
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...
Re:Blame Canada (Score:2)
*So* *Fscking* *What* ?
Canadian people download. They pay a small tax for downloading. This money is redistributed to Canadian artists. This means that Joni Mitchell [jonimitchell.com] and Lynda Lemay [lyndalemay.com] get money from Britney downloads. So damn what ?
Hell, the French do the same with movies. A small tax is levied on
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
Re:An Question from the US (Score:3)
This is the cost of living in a socialistic country. We get