Slashdot Mirror
Australian Gov't Lobbied To Implement Media Levies
TheScream writes "Screenrights has been activly promoting its proposal for a CD-R DVD-R levy (similar to that implemented in Canada, as previous reported on /.) with a 5 minute interview on popular Australian breakfast television show Today. News.com.au reports that Screenrights and APRA "...want a recording levy of between 3 per cent and 10 per cent..." and includes highly debateable mis-truths such as "Every kid does it, so let's facilitate some standards in the marketplace.""
Right. Soon we'll be having taxes levied on shower cubicles in recompense for the copyright violations caused by showerees whistling Hit Me Baby One More Time as they clean themselves.
-Mark
...highly debateable mis-truths such as "Every kid does it, so let's facilitate some standards in the marketplace."
Nobody buys CDs anymore dude... why do you think new releases are $10.99 again? I don't think the music industry should entitled to having the government place a levy on CDRs, but don't try to argue that music piracy isn't rampant.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Not to mention the FACT that this is a slap in the face of people that have programs THAT THAY MADE to back up not to mention small bisnesses that require acouting records backed up on to CD.
:)
Hell I wouldent be to surprosed if Micro$soft isnt suporting this as one of the main ways Linux gets spread is from mates with CDs and net conections (I know meany people that wouldn't have even SEEN Linux becuse thay dont have net conections - or god forbid 56k ones)
Hell even backing up CDs and Games is alowable by law(I FUCKING wish I backed up operation flashpoint CD got snaped by doggy DVD case (happend to a mate of mine too but he still was in warenty))
And like it will get to the same people whos information you coping - I dont want to give the RIAA (cuse thats who these people are acting on behalf of) if im backing up say CIV 3! Such a fucking arrogant statment there!
A halirios consicence will happen if these laws are enacted though - every atomican in the country will buy as meany 100cd silos as thay can
(unfoutunetly this will be interpreted as "lost earnings" by the RIAA assholes)
if they charge you for cd's can you legally copy copyrighted stuff to them?
anyone know if a charge like this exists in the uk?
As long as people consider it the right of Government to steal from others through compulsory taxation, this is the kind of thing we'll be seeing. The only difference between this and compulsorily-funded social welfare is that the money is going to private companies, rather than private individuals.
The way I think about it is this: If i'm getting charged to use something, they obviously must be providing a service. I mean, they aren't getting paid for nothing, right? So, logically thinking, the service they provide or allow is the reason they want the tax, namely the mp3 files themselves. Farewell to any guilt I might have had if i ever felt like downloading mp3 files.
How, exactly, is this not fair? Many people do use cdrs and cdrws to distribute pirated music. I know that some of my friends do, and I have myself once or twice in the past (shh!) Is it fair for the music and video industry that they get no money for their products?
Really, it's not that large of a tax compared to the money that people save from pirating music instead of buying it. I think that it's not unreasonable for the music and movie industry to get 3 cents for every time a product of theirs is burned by some warez kiddie instead of being bought.
Also, maybe this will make the industries stop trying to make copy protection mandatory, if they make some money even when their products are pirated.
Signed: Omicron15
I wonder when hard drives will be taxed to death by ignorant government goons?
Most serious pirates I know, don't even put their music on CDs, they just by another hard drive to back everything up.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Well, the sudden surge of traffic to .au will probably cause the satellites to melt.
I can't get there at the moment, anyway. And we're about 3 posts in.
Get your own free personal location tracker
I'm on the official list of objectors about this particular levy law. Don't worry, we've got some pretty convincing evidence to show at the hearing that illustrates that the proposed levies are much too high and should be struck down like a red-headed stepchild.
It will be interesting to see the outcome. If it passes, the market for blank media and mp3 players will be hit hard.
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
This will become law sooner or later. The media companies lobby politicians heavily and usually get what they want, particularly since users aren't typically as well organzied.
The truth be told, most users are rather ignorant of the politics involved in these areas; Slashdotters are on the oppostite end of the spectrum.
What I would like to see howerver is a repudiation of anti-copy tactics currently in place by media companies. If you're going to charge users a levy tax, we should be free to make copies. There shouldn't be any impediments in our way. This will require a few courageous politicians to step up and go against the grain.
Unfortunately for us, courageous and politician are two words that don't often go together.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
I have the same opinion on marijuana. Every kid does it so lets facilitate some standrds in the marketplace. Time for legalization ands quality control. You know the makers of marijuana should levy a tax on the RIAA. Without drugs, there wouldn't be as much quality music in the world. I think Mrs. Rosen should write a fat check to Columbia right now.
How will they figure out whether one is using a CD-R for copying music or data files? Why should someone pay a levy, if he/she is using CD-R for copying data files and porn :)
Listen, if you were making an absolute boat load of money off of other peoples' work, wouldn't you get upset if some newfangled Internet thing came along and disturbed your flow of income?
All this proves is that all of us, together, can help to stomp out the music executive thieves over time with continued support of decentralized pee two pee programs like KaZAA, Napster, and GNUtella.
The RIAA et al. can see ten years down the road and realize that things don't look good for them. Don't worry, we'll all get through this and then the music artists will finally get some penance for their years of hard work, singing, and dancing.
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
I remember reading something recently here on /. where the recording companies want to file an ISP surcharge to recoup losses to piracy...
media tax, isp surcharges, what are we consumers ever going to get in return for this? No, they're not going to drop the issue and stop acting like a bunch of crybabies, but the fees imposed on end-users are only going to inflate their warchest so they can afford more powerful influence in the government.
So, if they charge a levy, don't they end up legitimizing copying, and therefore making it legal for me to make copies with levied media?
Someone had to do it.
Sure, that sounds like a great idea. Swamp the law-abiding users with paperwork, so everyone will bend over and take it.
Of course, the cry that, "We offer a refund!" will be the sound byte, not the 12 page invasive rebate form.
I think I'll hire the people that sign up for Yahoo accounts all day to fill out thousands upon thousands of applications. I might even break even....
Maybe someone should tell them that CDR's are not only used for Music burning but for DATA backup!
And besides that, most people that download mp3s from the internet are not going to burn CDRs from them, they're going to keep it on their hard disks. Thats the whole point of mp3, play it on your PC instead.
Sign, when will these people get a clue?
They should give a percentage to go to free software development. I don't particularly like most open source software, but a lot of people use a lot of CD-Rs to burn Linux distros. It only seems fair that they get a chunk.
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.
So the industry wants a 3 - 10 % penality on a presumption of guilt (which will clearly be paid by the innocent as well), and they also want to Subpoena information on ISP subscribers and shut down downloads. How can they have it both way?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Hopefully the australian gov. will actually give that money to the artists and not keep it under the matress like the Canadian government has so far. Still this is not good news. The long arm of the RIAA strikes again.
Levies are not good, but what should music companies aim to do? I just wrote a short piece on a related matter in light of the Verizon decision. Some of you might find it interesting.
"Greplaw's editors, although we are reporting indepently of each other, often tend to criticise the RIAA's efforts to stop illegal music trading online. One may still wonder what a proper action might be."
(---)
"The Internet is a new kid on the music industry's block. From the right holders' perspective the digital domain is often presented as a problem and not an opportunity. In this column, I have identified five possible ways for the music industry to treat this new kid on the block."
Read the entire article.
Regards,
Mikael
Pawlo.com
The canadian tax included $21/gig on physically tiny hard drives that can be used in portable mp3 players
A tax on cd-rs, they say, and piracy they condemn
To me, the whole thing seems rather odd
Do they think of those who have legit uses for them?
NO, those INSENSITIVE CLODS!!!!
Don't give me none of this "nature theme" business.
The word levy originally descended from Middle English tongue as levite, which came from Old German as the word leviet, which was the masculine past participle of levi, an old Amish name for pants.
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
Remember when CD-R discs first came out, and everyone was like, "WTF is an 'audio CD-R'"?
Hint: it's the same thing, but more expensive.
I can't remember exactly how it worked, but it was a levy, sort of. IIRC, the manufacturers tacked on a few extra cents to the cost of the "audio" CD-R and (supposedly?) gives that money to ASCAP or whoever. Sorry, i'm too lazy (read: sick) to do any serious research. All I remember is from working at Staples.
Sony ha
I knew they favoured casual clothes in Australia,
but this is a bit too much...
Oh you mean Levies not Levis...never mind
... we might as well do it, even if we've never done it before. If I'm being taxed on CDRs etc. because the media whores think everyone is pirating, then I'm going to damn well make sure I'm not paying for nothing. Kazaa, here I come!
Don't they understand that this will only serve to legitimze the very behavior they complain about? Everyone I know that has found out about the levies in the US has cared even less because of that.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Australia will almost definitely roll over to this type of law given their policies in the past, so anyone living there might want to push their representatives to at least give you something in return.
What they really need to do is levy the AOL CDs that keep clogging my mailbox! Now that's a law I would get behind!
I watched some of the report on the today show this morning, they were spewing so much rubbish I had to turn it off. It was a one sided reported that basically said two things: 1. All kids are pirates 2. Everyone who buys CD-R, does so to pirate CDs An interesting note, is that they had already tried to get the levys on CD-R through the court system but it was thrown out because it was a tax.
My housemates bestfriend recieved an email for trying to sell his housemate's soul on ebay. Received a very strongly worded email stating that the soul was not a physical thing that could be sold... [and wasn't a service either]
Yay me!
Didn't I see this exact same thing posted yesterday, word-for-word? What gives?
0 59216.shtm l?tid=129
Specifically in THIS article:
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/01/21/0
Do a search on 'objectors', it's the first hit and almost word-for-word what is said by this poster.
If the RIAA gets compensation for piracy with each customer purchase of a CDR does the customer have the right to not be nagged by the RIAA for pirating? I actually like the inaccounatability the RIAA is imposing (not every CDR purchaser pirates content). It means that there is a magical shield which protects all CDR purchasers from RIAA investigation and not just the ones pirating.
Thank you Hilary Rosen!
I'm surprised you missed out on media. Originally a Latin word meaning 'carrier', it reentered common usage during the Dark Ages as a reference for the cereals that made up a staple of the average serf's diet: something we today call 'grits'. Many have theorized that this was a reference to the fact that while they were served hot, they were an essentially tasteless item that 'carried' the butter or milk peasants could sometimes find to put on it.
"There's nothing novel in this," Mr Lake said. "Forty-three countries including the US, Canada and most EU nations have enacted private copying royalty schemes."
...and knowing full well how myopic and sycophantic our current Australian goverment are, it will be implemented here as well.
Why the hell should I pay money to APRA when I burn copies of music that I wrote and produced?
My music is art for art's sake (I give my music away for free) and now I may have to give money to record companies, AND the artists whose music I despise the most... and don't bloody listen too!
http://jesus.everdense.com/
But this ones about a story on a breakfast tv show in australia about a lobby group wanting to introduce levies, not about Bill C-32 Copyright Legislation getting passed in Canada.
There is a difference.
We might be able to get the entertainment industry off our backs if we just go ahead and give them some money every time anything happens that could possibly involve proprietary material. In Finland they want to collect royalties from daycare centers because workers sing songs to the kids. No problem. Just institute a daycare tax payable to the recording industry. Churchgoers singing hymn-ized pop songs during services? Fine, just fork over some of that collection plate to the RIAA. Cab drivers playing CDs with passengers present? Gas tax! People going to the bathroom during commercials? Water tax! [You do flush, don't you?] In fact, the simplest thing would be to collect an ongoing daily entertainment tax from everybody to cover any copyright infringement we might commit during ordinary activities. Then maybe the entertainment industry would finally ** SHUT THE FUCK UP ** and leave us alone.
Having been involved in the production of a fair amount of material which is distributed on CDs bearing a standard copyright notice, I expect someone will be posting me a cheque fairly soon for my share of the loot.
Flamebait? It's not flamebait - it's common sense. Substitute whinging bludging person with whinging bludging media company, and you get media levies instead of social welfare.
Putting a tax/levie on CDRs because of widespread piracy is like placing a tax/levie on mugs/china cups because of rampant tea theft and smuggling.
Guess what? Some of us drink coffee!
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Smoke home-grown and give an American kid a mercedes and a machine gun!
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
I actually watched the broadcast, and it was disgusting.
The shmuck claimed that "every family" does it, as does "every kid". When asked how much it would be, he said they have no idea yet, but wants it to be worked out in consultation. Obviously thats a lie, as other posts point out they want anywhere from 3-10%.
He pointed out that this levy would make it OK, but not for those who do wholesale copying.
What was worse is the show didn't have anyone else on there representing the other view.
My question is: If a levy is set, does this mean I am free to download any mp3 I wish? Could I borrow all of my friends CDs and have hundreds of thousands of mp3s legally? Cause if it does, bring it on! I will never buy a CD again!
At the moment I don't mp3 illegally (IE I buy my own CDs and mp3 them, but not others), but if it was made legal through the levy, I would certainly burn hundreds of CDs from friends.
Cut the marketing bullshit. They're lies. Not all the kids on the entire Australian continent burn ill-gotten music to CD or DVD. If I can find one kid who burns perfectly legal CDs all the time (hey, there goes one now), I've proven this statement false.
Call a spade a spade and call bullshit when you see it from now on. This site doesn't need to put a spin on such blatantly false crap.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
So they impose a levy on CDRs. Who gets that money? If I start my own band, and we produce our own album, can we get a license that will let us burn our own CDRs without paying this levy, or will be be forced to pay the incumbents a fee for competing with them?
Honestly, this makes as much sense as Ford, GM, and Chrysler paying residuals to buggy whip manufacturers. For chrissakes, medical imaging scanners (MR and CT) now burn their data to recordable CDs. Do you think it makes any sense to pay a consortium of music companies a fee when you get your medical scans done? What about paying that fee when the next release of RedHat comes out?
We need to find these people and beat them repeatedly with cluesticks until they wise up.
If music was harder to copy, would music publishers be less eager to tax media? Ever since the NES in 1985, video games have had some sort of copy protection. Have game publishers been persuing media levies as vigorously?
If this is reasonable as long as they waver any rights to prosecute copyright infringement. They shouldnâ(TM)t be able to collect twice.
They'd better watch out, or we'll send a bunch of blokes from Boston who will throw all their tea into the harbor!
P2P wasn't the music industries biggest problem. Do you think that this will really help solve the problems, are people going to buy more CDs because of this. So 5 - 10 cents per CD well a pack of 30 is at the most going to make them $3.00, while the music cd cost $10 - 20. I don't see how your going to recoupe yourself. Also the crap that the RIAA and other organizations like them is trying to pull isn't going to make people want to jump and buy a CD either.
I hope the record companies are prepared to kiss their existing business model good-bye.
I've refrained from "piracy" of music, and would continue to do so. However if I'm being taxed like this then what incentive is there to buy CD's. After all, why pay for something twice?
Oh, how silly of me: The cover art and liner notes are worth an extra $30 (AUD).
It the goverment is to tax the recording media and pass the fee onto the recoding companies then this implies that the artists/riaa/apra are getting paid for their works, thereby legitimising the practice of music sharing.
So yet again, we're being presumed guilty until we manage through some effort (Dealing with red-tape seems a god given right^H^H^H^H^Hburden now) to prove ourselves innocent.
Mind you, I'm wondering how they're going to fine (that's what it is) the grey market users who buy from swapmeets as opposed to John Doe who's buying 2 cd's to send a movie of his kids first steps to the grandparents.
Another well thought out blunder from money hungry bastards.
Speaking as ain Australian, I am willing to support the proposal on three conditions:
I've never copied a audio CD or DVD in my life. I have made compilation CDs for two schoolteachers based on CDs that they own for educational purposes (I believe this is legal), but I'm willing to try if this becomes law. I promise to make it fair by adding up the levies that I have paid on blank CDs and only pirating CDs worth up to the value of the levy. When I've effectively paid for a CD, I figure I deserve a copy of it.
What do you think, APRA?
Incidentally, I'm not quite sure how you calculate what is a fair levy to pay for losses which are, in the admission of the CEO of Screenrights, "incalculable". I'd like to see how they managed to work it out.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
This has been before the supreme court before, and it was knocked back becasue the court said that it is in affect adding a TAX on media for a party other than the government.
As such this will NEVER get passed into law now, as it would take a serious cahnge in what is now precedent.
lounge around on the blue couch
In the U.S., naturally, we get no rights in return for the tariff [...]
So I wonder how long until someone hauled into court by the RIAA says:
"But, your Honor! I already PAID them their royalty when I bought the disk I downloaded the music onto. I paid [this amount] extra, according to federal law, and that money was given to them to pay for music I might copy onto that disk. I move to dismiss on the ground that they've already been paid any royalty they were due and thus have no case."
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Wise up and smell the coffee. Anyone who tries to argue that the MAJORITY of CD-Rs they use are for data backup are either telling less-than-half-truths, seriously non-informed about what you can put on a CD (can you say DivX?), or legitimate business users. Like always, it'll only be legitimate business users that get shafted, not Joe public.
I admit it, I go though about 100 CD-Rs a year and about one of those would be for data. The rest are movies and other stuff, usually downloaded from the internet.
Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
The point here is that not ALL of the uses for CDRs involve copyright violation therefore its wrong/unfair/illegal? for them to charge a levy on such CDRs.
I shower as a result of singing Britney, not while I shower.
I feel so dirty when I sing cruddy pop songs to myself
Read with interest today on News.com.au that you are seeking a levy on blank data media. I can only assume you're serious, and am hence interested to know - a) are you still planning to pursue small scale copyright violators in the wake of such a scheme. b) If so, do you find anything unethical about such 'double dipping', pursuing these people for something they already 'paid' for.
I'm interested, because talking with friends, we'd be interested in a possibly much, much higher levy on specially designated CD blanks, provided we were legally allowed to fill the CD as with tracks of our choice acquired from whatever source. Perhaps APRA could provide some sort of music on demand service where tracks are selected from an online database, paid for by credit card, and burnt and mailed out to the recipient?
Yours,
Music Lover.
When was the last time you went to a market/swap meet? The majority of the people there who are buying blank DVD/CDs in bulk (200+) are usually using them for one of three things.
1. Pirate PC/Playstaion Games
2. Pirate DVDs
3. Copying Audio CDs
Even the local PC shop around the cornere from me knows it's best market. 60% of the stuff on the flyer they put out each week is CD-R/DVD-R related. Even 30% of the shop floor is stacked to eye height with blank media.
So while I don't agree that lobbing a tax on blank media is the solution, there is definitely a massive and rampant problem with digital media.
And every kid IS doing it.
Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
I remember reading something recently here on /. where the recording companies want to file an ISP surcharge to recoup losses to piracy [...]
Recouping losses isn't the only motive.
Another is that it gives them a slush fund, to spend on more lobbying and legal action.
But IMHO the biggie is that it penalizes their competitors. Consider:
The media conglomerates are in the business of selling the viewers' eyeball time to the sponsors. (The viewer is NOT the customer. The viewer is the PRODUCT.) And for years they have been taking swipes at any industry that competes with them for that eyeball time. For instance:
- Cable companies were luring viewers from broadcast TV. So broadcast TV did a bunch of pieces slamming cable companies and their operators. (One I recall: A cop show where the murderer and victim were two cable operators fighting over a franchise.)
- Early video games were luring viewers from broadcast TV. Result: A spate of shows, both fiction and newscast, where games were causing medical syndromes, juvinile delinquency, drops in grade point, drug use, and radio and TV interference.
- Netnews was luring viewers from broadcast TV, especially from news programming. Result: A spate of news items on internet addiction, child porn, urban myths (i.e. only believe OUR myths, especially those on the news shows...), unreliability of network postings (have YOU ever seen a reporter get anything right in a story where YOU know what happened?), etc. Some of this is still going on.
- Now the Web is luring viewers from broadcast TV and network news - and working on a much wider audience. So more of the same, plus use of the Internet by terrorists, racists, cults, and of course music and video "pirates" (a term formerly used for people who SOLD unauthorized copies via commercial enterprises).
In addition to creating an ENORMOUS rakeoff, charging a "piracy fee" for internet access means significantly raising the price of a broadband connection. That means the fewer people will buy one and switch from the Empire's offerings to the "free market of ideas". The TV audience eyeball time is thus higher, while potential customers for internet alternative streaming entertainment are reduced, producing yet another roadblock to the creation of such a medium.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If this law is passed I'm going to use it as a precedent to lobby for a coaster rebate and try to re-coupe all my losses from countless failed CD burns.
It doesnt take much time to send off an email to your local federal representative about this otherwise they'll only hear APRA's side of the story.
They may donate $$$, but everybody has to vote.
The Australian had a negative editorial on this proposal, so not all of the media lobby is behind it.
---
Silence is consent.
Another example:
- Roleplaying games were luring viewers from broadcast TV. Result: A spate of programs and stories on how RPGs led to Satanism, lower gradepoints (actually they tended to go up...), brain damage, social ostracism, introversion, and suicide.
(Interesting sidelight: I hear the suicide cited was a young man who advertised in the classifieds for a dungen master to try to get an RPG session together. He ended up in a very different sort of session doing a very different sort of roleplaying with a very different sort of dungen master {of the same sex}, enjoyed it, but became suicidally depressed over the fear that he must therefore be homosexual. Seems to me it's quite a leap to blame THAT on RPGs.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Why not sell CD-RWs with a song pre-recorded on them (this should work in Canada too.)
.sig
I can see three advantages;
1. You beat the tax (I'm assuming they include an exemption for pre-recorded media like Canada and virtually everybody else.)
2. You become a music producer, so you can collect the tax that your competitors pay.
3. You probably have the number one song on the charts, since people will buy far more than
one copy of a CD-RW- basically free advertising.
You could probably sell the title track for money too -
Coke would pay to have the number one song in Australia be a commercial for their product,
especially if they got to pick the name of that song.
-- this is not a
The price paid for music CDs in Aust is already higher than in any other county mentioned in the list of places that charge levies on black CD-Rs, $30 Aust dollars and even more for imported disks, the justification for this is because some people may make illegal copies, just how many times do they want to tax us? I'll happily pay the levy, but it's the last time I'll buy a music CD, I'll just use P2P instead.
If this goes before the government for real, there's a few points I'll be talking to my MP about:
1) The money better go to the artists, not the record companies. After all, what expenses do the record companies have for stolen music? (Well, maybe advertising)
2) The money had better go to the artists in a proportional matter. So some mechanism for working out which artists get copied the most better be decided on. Don't look at what's selling well; arguably, that's what's being copied the least.
3) I should be able to take a CD that hasn't been used for copying music, and get a refund on the levy. Not sure how this would work for CDRWs, but that's not my problem.
4) Fair use rights should be encoded explicitly in law. They are there in Australia's copyright legisilation implicitly (and have been upheld in court), but let's end the legal challenges, okay?
5) Copy-protected CDs should be illegal; after all, by paying the levy on the media, I've explicitly paid for the right to copy music on to it, haven't I?
6) I should have the right to return a CD that I don't like to the distributor (ideally, to the store), and get a full refund on the price.
7) People who use that lame excuse that CD sales were down last year should be shot unless they immediately point out that so were new titles and that sales/title were actually up in 2002, same as every year in the last 10.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
I saw from most threads that people do admit that most people or people they know use Blank CDs for "less-than-legal-reasons". In reality, what's the use in trying to stop them from doing this levy?
What can be the arguement? I for one do not like the idea and will go against it all the way. But I must ask: out of what context? What support do I have?
I understand that this is hard on people with legitimate reasons for CDRs (promotional CDs, research projects, etc), but question is, what % is that of the total CD consumption? I do make audio CDs, but from existing CDs I bought (to avoid damage during my high rate of traveling). I don't think that would make a reasonable arguement (if it breaks, buy another one. The record companies do make more of a profit that way....)
Some said that this is infringing our rights. Rights to do what?
Innocent until proven guilty, probably won't work anymore, especially when the battle of the lawyers is how much dough you have in reserve. Guilty, until proven more guilty, seems to be the trend
I seem to remember that at one point the recording industry tried to put a levy on blank tapes as well, because they could be used as a copying media. IIRC this attempt was knocked down by the Supreme Court, hopefully this will go the same way.
What really amazes me however is the consumers are told that the reason we have such high prices for cd's is because of the illegal copying of cd's and costs need to be recouped some how. So aren't we getting hit twice for the same thing ?
I can't believe the number of comments based around "this is going to happen, there's nothing we can do". Yes there is: CALL (don't fax, write or email) your MP (Member of Parliament). I just called mine and he wasn't aware of it, but was definately interested.
How do you get the number? First find out the name of your MP. Then put his/her name into the search engine here. Call the number displayed. Most likely you will get straight through - at least to a knowlegable side-kick.
Be brief, just let them know what's going on - send them a copy of the URL. Give them your name and address and ask for an update.
Hopefully we'll get some democracy going on this.
Burried deep inside the paper is the following in respect to users engaging in "format shifting" (ie: copying their legally-purchased CDs to tape or MP3):
(the emphasis is mine).
It should be noted that there is no fair use exclusion for NZers - any copying of music, even just backing up your CDs or creating a compliation disk from legally-purchased disks is illegal.
The hinted-at levy in the position paper would be solely to reimburse the music industry for the losses they would be incurring when users ripped their own CDs to MP3 for use on their own MP3 players or PCs.
Besides which, it leaves consumers asking: in these days of copy-protected CDs, how can the industry even think of collecting a levy for something that they've made it impossible to do?
And you think the Canadians and Aussies have got it tough?
according to the article "piracy ..... inflicts "almost incalculable losses" on copyright owners."
Correct me if i am wrong
Now according to maths almost any number is calculable. The only ones that cannot are ones that are infinitely large or infinitely small...
if the losses to the industry were infinitely large there would be no industry at all.. therefore.. the losses should be infinitely small..
Suchetha
<i think therefore i think i am>
learn from yesterday, plan for tomorrow, party tonight
or one out of three ain't bad
What of the companies that are using the media to backup their data.?
Should these companies be forced to increase their consumables costs and have to cut spending on other areas of IT because somebody with no idea (hasn't bought music since it was vinal, gets it all free through work) thinks that little timmy might be able to make a copy of a cd he owns?
Why dont they go the next step and ask the companies that make the blank media for the money?
The cynic in me thinks that they are already making money out of this, if not then why didn't they levy on the sale of cassettes or VCR's
All I can say is bah
--All your CDR's are belong to us.I spent a long time on the phone the other day to the ACCC and the Copyright Council only to discover that there is absolutely NO copies allowed under Austrlian law of music. "Fair use" here does not allow for backup copies, copies to tape for (older) cars, creating mp3s for personal use, etc. In fact the term fair use when dealing with copyright of music recordings means don't do anything except listen to it yourself (no public broadcasts, but I didn't manage to find the definition of private/public).
[repetitive=on]
;-D [just kidding], <a href="http://www.peerfear.org/rss/permalink/102764 5742.shtml">bribes, sportscars</A>, lawyers)
c a.org/show.php?p=45&a=19">Screwing Over Your Local McDonalds</A><P>What we need is a similar guide to "Screwing over the RIAA"
The RIAA is obviously evil, but they really want to look good.
[repetitive=off]
Hillary B. Rosen <a href="http://www.riaa.org/MD-US-7.cfm">can't produce a breakup of CD costs</A> because she doesn't want anyone to know where the money goes. (her ass wiping fund?
Some contact information is avalible <a href="http://www.riaa.org/About-Who.cfm"> here</A>
The only thing good about the RIAA is their <a href="http://www.riaa.org/About-Members-1.cfm"> boycott list</a>.
This news is pretty depressing stuff. The RIAA just needs to die.
If you want to laugh, check out Phrack's guide to
<a href="http://www.phrack-dont-give-a-shit-about-dm
Everytime a bell rings... the Riaa gets .50 cents
The Australian Government is so f***ing corrupt, all the lobbiers need to do is make a generous cash payment to the Liberal Party, and they'll get it. Recent case: In Australia most Petrol Companies have been adding 10% or more Ethanol to Petrol, decreasing mileage and screwing up car engines. Yet the Australian Government refuses to do anything about it. Turns out the Mildura Corporation, who thanks to special government legislation now have a monopoly on Ethanol supply, is a major corporate donor of the Liberal Party. Every knows this, but the Government doesn't give a damn, cos they've found a few racist policies will get you the redneck votes necessary to win the next election. So RIAA, make the check out to THE LIBERAL PARTY OF AUSTRALIA, and start counting them $ flowing back.
I'd agree that the majority of CD-R's aren't used for data backup. They're used to make coasters.
I move to dismiss on the ground that they've already been paid any royalty they were due
There's a compulsory mechanical license for musical works, but there's no compulsory license for recordings of those works. A major label could argue that the royalty for reproducing a CD in a CD-R is $15.00, the full retail price, or even higher for a recording that's been deliberately put out of print.
Will I retire or break 10K?
i'm an australian record producer,and i'd like to know how these funds will be distributed. somehow i don't think anyone is going to have their royalty statement updated with 'CDR levy - your share'.. especially when 'your share' cannot be linked directly to your particular project.
let me guess.. the 'administration fee' that each company charges to maintain the distribution of funds will exactly equal the levy.. every time.
thats how a label usually steals from its' artists...
also, the assumption that consumers are never creators is a bogus one.
the whole thing may go ahead, though. both ARIA and the australian government assume that people are stupid and non-creative, and they won't ask any questions (as the artists and producers aren't really 'in the loop')
..I have no idea why anybody pays twice the price for Michelin tires, while Bridgestones on my BMW and Kumho's on my girlfriends Honda work just freaking awsome, thank you..
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Why not sell CD-RWs with a song pre-recorded on them
From what songwriter would you license a song for producing a recording? If from yourself, how will you verify that in writing the song, you haven't unconsciously copied somebody else's song?
Will I retire or break 10K?
welcome. we are accepting memebers even if you dont want to join. too bad suckers. america, europe, canada, soon aussies.
Wise up and smell the coffee. Anyone who tries to argue that the MAJORITY of CD-Rs they use are for data backup are either telling less-than-half-truths, seriously non-informed about what you can put on a CD (can you say DivX?), or legitimate business users. Like always, it'll only be legitimate business users that get shafted, not Joe public.
Apparently, I'd be telling a "less-than-half-truth" if I told the truth. I go through dozens of cd's every month, and I'd say maybe 1 of them max is for burning mp3 files. The rest? Try these: backing up my personal files (including artwork, papers, programs, music recorded by myself), burning linux distros (many discs right there), and burning (freely downloadable) programs for my friends still on dial-up. I'm not saying that their are no people who really are as you describe them, but I think you are very wrong for making such sweeping generalizations.
I honestly don't see any strengths in these pro-taxation arguments anyways. For example, before I purchased an iPod, I carried around a cd player almost everywhere I went. There is no way that I would be carrying my original discs with me, as they get scratched, bent, warped, etc. So I'd make a backup of my cd, and carry that around instead. Why should the recording industry get more money off of that? It's plain theft! No one should be taxed for carrying around their music in a different format, be it carrying them on an iPod or burning a cd. On the other hand, if in the US they actually legalized copying audio due to the levy similar to Canada, it's a bit more justifiable than if they do it just to recover their "losses".
Sometimes so-called "Corporate Welfare" is a good thing. For example, you give a corporation a tax break to set up shop in your town. In turn they provide jobs for the citizens. Cities compete for businesses just like people compete for jobs, which I do not thing is a bad thing.
Secondly sometimes "Corporate Welfare" is to help an otherwise good business get through bad times. Having the entire US Airline industry collapse after 9/11 would have been a bad idea. Thousands would be laid off and the 1 or 2 airlines that survived would charge much higher rates due to the lack of competition. Not to mention that 9/11 was an unexpected even out of their control.
The problem with the music industry wanting to tax blank CD's is the fact that it is a crutch. What the industry really needs to do is grow and evolve. Competition should weed out those companies that don't change, and the ones that are left should provide a much better product.
Instead they blame everyone except themselves. Maybe I'm getting too old, but the music nowadays is absolute crap. It's not that it is too wild or ground breaking or revolutionary. It is just crap. Same boring generic crap. That is why the companies are losing sales.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
problem with such a levy the criminals to not end up paying. and if this makes it ok to make copies then who is going to buy anything from retail? who cares if there is a small levy of cd media if it makes it legal to copy anything you want (i am assuming you dont have to have the original copy). since the levy is the counter balance the 'losses' they incurr. shouldnt they be pushing a levy in asian the piracy capital of the world? (or is this a misconception these days?).
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
Regarless of your taste in music! You know you thought it, however breifly. Now pay up. I wish I could sue them for everytime that happens.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Imposing the levy on the CDRs and any other form of media storage device to cause sales to drop significantly. This of course should lead to losses in sales and profits for these companies. Now, it would definately be poetic if these companies sue the Record industries back for losses in sales caused by the levies and the damage to their business, in exactly the same manner in which the Record companies sued the P2P software companies to shut them down.
My 2 cents.
Paladiamors
We know, shut up! Everyone walks around with their ipods and equivalent. You can't fit shit on a 650M CD-R, duh! 10 gigs? That's a start. Don't let those numb-nuts at the RIAA know, or they will want to tax hard drives.
Oh no, too late they already want a moderate ... rate ...of ... $2.50 per gigabyte. I suppose they just want to tax everything because they can.
I've never "pirated" a piece of comercial music ever. I have made personal copies and I have shared music with friends, but I've never published someone else's work and I'm not part of any music sharing network. I don't have a problem with other people's music sharing networks, and I refuse to pay becuse some shit head in Holywood thinks they are not making enough money.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Now when the RIAA comes calling, we can show them our receipt to prove we already paid our MP3 taxes and send them on their way.
Does this
Apart from bitching and complaining can someone tell me what i can do as a person. And dont spin me this line that i shouldnt by any cd-r's. As an Australian citizen i should be able to do somthing to stop this. Any one got any practicle idea's on stopping this?
=If life was easy, i would be out of a job=
If levies are implemented (or the proposed ISP fees are universally implemented), how many CD's do I need to rip until I have got my moneys worth?
I don't copy/download music, but if I am paying for it anyway..........
hey, i burn a CD a day of music.... MINE!
so now when i finish a demo of a track i've been working on, and cut a CD to listen to in the car or send to a record label, i have to pay the government a levy so that a record label with some two bit mass media pop loser can get paid.
WHERE'S MY MEAL TICKET ARSEHOLES!
fuck this shit, i'm getting an arts grant, you're all paying now!
How many CD's do I need to rip until I have got my moneys worth - after paying the levies?
You go to a swapmeet and find that cd's are used to copy stuff. Wow, big deal. You go to a busines, on the other hand, or a data centre, or to a digital artists house/place of work (audio, video, 3d, whatever), and you'll find that they use their cd's for...data! And let me tell you: business use FAR outstrips private use. Why? Because businesses need those backups, for legal purposes and just plain backup purposes. As do artists.
As an aside...I hardly listen to music, and all the stuff I do listen to I bought. There are no mp3's on my pc, except where they are used by the games I bought. Yet I go through about 20 cd's per month. What's on there? Financial documents, rapports, artwork, (3d) movies of my own making. And trust me, I am not the only one. Sure, copying is a part of the pie, but legitemate use is far, far larger.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
"How many CD's do I need to rip until I have got my moneys worth - after paying the levies?"
i really don't care about that.
every month i buy 100-150 worth of vinyl records, 30-50 worth of cds. none of this is that cheesy **** you hear on radio.
it's true that i listen to mp3s. mixes of different djs so i know who to book to my parties. but i never burn them on cd-r. so why i have to pay?
i also use taxi quite a lot, since i don't have my own car and move a lot during nights when there isn't public transportation available.
why should i pay for our local RIAA for that idiot cheese played on radio when i always ask the driver to shut it off. this britney spears crap almost makes me puke. they play the music i wanna hear on radio maybe 2 hours once a week, and that time i'm not home, and i already own those tunes they play.
why should i pay for these idiots when i buy a cd-r?
if p2p networks destroy entertainment industry, fine, let it happen, since i really don't need it. go away riaa & others. don't force me to be your respirator. unless they come up with a real solution, they're just postponing the inevitable
Citing a loss of revenue in CD sales because of mp3 piracy is like citing a loss of automobile sales because of matchbox cars. Well, not exactly but sort of.
The RIAA or APRA hs no basis to claim that equivalent intellectual property has been stolen, because by it's nature the MP3 algorithm is an adaptive masking algorithm, and supplies the user essentially with shaped white noise.
A 128kbps mp3 only contains 1/10th of the mastered original. FM Radio, which is a free to air medium trannsfers data before transmission at no less than 256kbps or in some cases up to 512kbps although it is further degraded by using dynamic compression. In any case, the product users recieve via p2p or even by copying from their friends, unless it is a Redbook clone is INFERIOR to FM radio.
Therefore users who distribute tracks using this medium have a right to counter claim payola from the record labels for providing the exact same service as FM radio stations.
I'd agree to the levy.
Obviously, the same bill should make it perfectly legal to copy any copyrighted CD or DVD music made by recipients of the levy, because after all they're receiving dues for it, aren't they?
If you are being taxed on the basis that you already are using blank CDRs to copy copyright materials then it follows like day after night that it cannot now be illegal to make copies.
If the media companies are being subsidised by the state because they are suffering from illegal copying, they cannot any longer complain that the are suffering from illegal copying.
... NOT.
In Denmark we have had an empty media tax for a few years now.
On December 22nd the Danish Parliament ratified a law to make it illegal to make backup copies of digital media (such as CDs) if the media has any copy protection. This means that putting a green marker to a copy protected CD is illegal. - And this has happened even though a different law states that everybody is entitled to make backup copies of CDs.
Government thinking, an oxymoron if I ever heard one.
as a human living in a modern society i expect to give a percentage of my money for the "greater cause". be it federal taxes to protect me, my health, my family or small levy's to protect an artist's right to make music for a living. i don't mind paying taxes as long as how much they want and what they want it for stays within certain guidelines. i mean i'm sure there's a lot of things out there that my money has gone towards that i wouldn't normally support but to quote a little melody from the 80's, "you take the good, you take the bad, you take em' all and there you have, the facts of life" (i was partial to "jo" in the early years). either way it is ridiculous to make people pay for a "service" they could very well not be using. i just don't get how these agency's claim to be so inclined to protect the artist yet from what i've read the artist doesn't ever see any of this money as they very well should. i am a musician and all i know is that if i were to start a band i wouldn't see any of these dollars. i am aware that money can be spent to further protect copyrights therefore keeping the musician employed but the technique, i feel is all wrong. you don't make people pay for something that they don't use (blank cd-r for data recording, not audio). copyrights may not be honored as far as any p2p user is concerned but from an artists perspective it really isn't fair. create a system in which audio cd's (or whatever the format may be) can only support audio files and cd's for other purposes do not support audio. this way you levy the audio, protect the copyright and keep people from using the blank media from having to pay that extra penny. an idea that may seem farfetched but maybe in a new medium other than cd this can be done.
fact: microsoft > linux
What are they thinking? This again supposes that people are generally crooks and "steal" content. Attaching a levy only serves to tell folks who are on the fence that it's ok, since you are PAYING FOR IT ANYWAY!
Everyone speeds while driving, so let's start issuing speeing tickets to everyone once a month.
Everyone litters, so let's start fining everyone.
Everyone videotapes a show off tv, so let's start sending a bill for buying those movies.
I am a doctor, operating a group practice. Each day, we burn 8 CDs and 2 DVDs - data backups of our health recordsand financial records. That is 2920 blank CDs and 730 DVDs a year, coasters not counted. I can account for every single medium I burn - I have to in fact, for tax deduction reasons.
I do not pirate copy CDs or DVDs (I do not even own a TV, and in our waiting room we play exclusively recordings from local artists), thus my patience with those shameless parasites (RIAA, APRA and the likes) has reached the limits.
What right do they have to abuse law abiding citizens and steal their money? Yes, steal, sine they would take my money against my will without giving anything in return.
Their wrists should be smacked forcefully and repeatedly, and they should be subjected to a class action for libel.
I guess I must be in the minority here - though I don't have any statistics to back it up (hell, this is Slashdot, who needs 'em) I've been under the impression that most users -do- use CDRs for data most of the time.
:-)
Out of the people I know (granted all work with computers for a living), none use them for music/dvds. As someone else noted, why would you waste time on CDRs when you can get a couple 80+ gig HDs (external, whatever) and use those.
If any type of tax/tariff/bonus is put on CDRs, I will make it a point to crack as many jewel cases as I can while visiting some of the major record shops.
Juvenile? You betcha. Do I care? Nope. If I'm going to be treated like a criminal, I may as well act like one.
"but what should music companies aim to do?"
1) Lower prices on existing media
2) Give consumers as much flexibility as they want in terms of copying and format-shifting
3) Develop cheap, easy, flexible ways of streaming music from a wide variety of non-RIAA sources
4) Develop cheap, easy, flexible ways to download music
5) Develop a wider range of music talent to expand the market to more than 14-21 year olds.
6) Stop treating the customer like a thief.
I think that sums it up pretty nicely.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I burn hundreds of data CD's every few months. I rarely burn audio CD's, and if a CD I downloaded is any good, I buy it. When I do burn audio CD's, they're generally legitimate copies.
But hey, y'know what? If I'm gonna get treated as if I pirate this music, I may as well. I have no moral problem with it. If anything, this will promote piracy.
Let me ask... if the music industry decides to levy CD-R's, what happens if the movie industry decides to? And then the software industry? And then... etc. Can so many levies be piled up?
-------
One pissed off Australian
Yes, you are not alone, I have never burnt pirited music to a CD. Though this is more because I don't listen to music then anything.
Give up on being legal. There is too many laws and you are bound to break some sooner or later. If it doesn't do direct harm to anyone, feel free to do so, and cover your tracks. If you cause no meaningful harm, your conscience can stay clear, and if you leave no tracks They can't nail you down legally.
The Campaign for Homegrown American Marijuana Production wants to remind you that "If you're not smoking homegrown American marijuana, you're helping to finance terrorism!" It's America's number one agricultural crop! If you aren't growing your own, you should be buying from your friendly neighborhood Hippie, who'll arrange to get if from the nice friendly Northwest farmers. Even better, you're helping Save The Planet, because hemp helps prevent erosion in areas where clearcut logging has disrupted America's Old-Growth Forests.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I realize that these prices are in Australian dollars, which are about half a US dollar, but if the price of CD-Rs is AU$1 each, they're pricing the premium product, not the El Cheapo product. Here in the US, good CD-Rs are about US$0.50-60, but cheap CDs on sale are about US$0.15. They aren't local products - the stack on my desk are from Taiwan - so if they're more expensive in Australia because of import taxes or whatever, it's purely artificial. If the levy wants 10% of the price of the expensive product, that's 30% of the price of the cheap product, presuming they take it as a flat charge per CD.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
(ok, it was a cheap shot :-)
How much of the copying will be Australian music, which gets funded by the levy, as opposed to US and European record labels like Columbia and BMG? Will those companies get to collect their own levy, 10 times the amount of the AU one, or will the get 90% of the money from the levy?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I want to charge a levy on all licensed drivers within the country, because some of them might have a car accident with me where it is their fault.
All drivers which don't have an accident with me are entitled to apply for a refund.