Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Music Industry Wants Royalties on Net Usage
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"."
We already pay $0.25 per cd-r, "they" want to increase it to around $0.59. As an example, that would increase the take by the music industry of a 30 pack of cd-r's to $17.70, from $7.50, an increase of $10.20. I for one find it offensive that the recording industry is charging me for the right to back up my own, non-musical data, and I doubt that any of the levies collected are rightfully distributed to pornstars that most /. readers have stored in the way of movies on cd-r's. Large per GB levies have also been proposed for portable players, and if I recall correctly, if implemented, the levy on an iPod would be around $200.
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.
ABSOLUTELY.
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 "name of the artists".
-No public accountability.
-Their income is enforced by the Canadian Government by way of levies - guaranteed cash flow!
If only every business could be so lucky.
It's time for the Government to dissolve the levies on this sad, sad excuse for ripping off Canadian consumers.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
In canada, there's already a levy on blank CDRs which goes to the music industry...
SOCAN is a performing rights agency. It is the Canadian equivalent of BMI and ASCAP in the United States. These organizations collect money for the composers and publishers of music. They do not collect money for the recording artists. (Note that the composers and publishers are often different from the recording artists.) And they're not an industry lobby group like the RIAA.
Eric
No. A judge found that if *I* borrowed a music cd from a friend and *I* ripped/burnt a copy of that music cd for *myself*, then that is perfectly legal. If a friend made a copy of his music cd and gave that copy to me, that is illegal. Downloading is not considered legal. Uploading is a definite no-no. I would like to understand why I should pay a surcharge to compensate someone else for an activity that I do NOT participate in. If suddenly I get hit with surcharges and I'm not p2p file sharing, my assumption is that music/video downloading from Kazaa or wherever is perfectly legal and I may participate in such activities to my heart's content.
Plus, the major ISP (Bell) actually has to get *permission* from the CRTC to raise rates. Let me tell you, they're not about to give money to *anyone*.
It will be interesting to watch though...
This fear of lawsuits is so strong that many corporations won't even challenge a false copyright. Have you picked up a copy of Shakespeare and looked at the backside of the title page? What's there but a (c) declaration by the publisher. On what? They clearly have a coyright on the modern introduction but not on the plays and sonnets. Brooklyn Law School published an article about this disturbing trend entitled "False Copyrights" about publishers that claim copyright on public domain works. The fear of lawsuits (or aversion to paying to lititage) has driven many universities and publishers to begin denying fair-use rights of students, faculty and authors. In many cases universities are agreeing to royalty licenses when fair use would allow them to use the materials. Publishers are requiring authors to get explicit written permission to quote the works of other authors when fair use would grant them a priori permission.
I don't really have a problem with churches and schools paying standard tarrifs on copyright songs (we make them buy text books) but I absolutely draw the line at chilling fair use through fear of litigation and will not stand for publishers that claim copyright on public domain works.