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"."
All of a sudden I *don't* want to be classed as an ISP any more (re: that story
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Finally Canadians get a taste of RIAA's medicine. Theyve had these freedoms for way too long.
Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
when your stuff gets downloaded. If you're gonna tax everyone, then you can't complain when they take what they paid for.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
Relatively speaking, of course. If "Screw the big labels, who overcharge for music and cannot assemble a coherent internet strategy - I'll just get it for free" is a reasonable response to the status quo, then a blanket tax on traffic to "reclaim lost media revenue" is also reasonable.
We already pay royalties on blank CDs. That is supposed to cover the cost. On the other hand if it means i can't get a 2 billion dollar find for sharing. why not?
That's great. Raise internet prices for everyone for no apparent reason to the consumer. Reminds me of some of those obfuscated extra charges on my phone bill.
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
Hey lets tax internet access.
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.
Sounds good. I'll download gigabits of stuff via a Canadian proxy and see some poor bloke get screwed. ;)
A blog like any other.
Or how about STFU (SOCAN Takes money From end Users)
As much as the DMCA is unpopular among Slashdotters, and rightfully so, at least it gets one thing right. It establishes that the ISP isn't responsible in any way. As the article states, if the music and movie industries get their way in Canada, they could soon be responsible for the traffic through their network. I know the DMCA gets a lot of things wrong, but protecting the ISPs is one thing it actually gets right. Think about it.
Surely payment upfront on the assumption that people will be using their connection for legally questionable activities will help to justify the 'crime'* to people before they even sign up? "If I'm paying for it, I may as well be doing it"
* I say crime, I mean 'copyright infringement' (or whatever - Lets not start this one again!)
Judging by this article, it looks like they do!
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Friggin America, always trying to take away my rights! I'm moving to Canada!
Oh wait...
After all, the food companies keep illegal downloaders alive, so ultimately they are responsible!
...who would never sign with a 'major' label (or even a really large indie one)... when is my cheque coming? ...and how much do I get?
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?
If our Internet bill helped to fund the music industry, I would suddenly have an attitude that I can copy and download music freely without restriction.
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.
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.
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 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.
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
... I feel like freakin' moving!
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!
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 -
Personally, I would quite happily pay a premium if they repeal all copyright law as well... but we know this probably isn't going to happen.
At the moment, this seems like another excuse for the labels to grab money from somewhere.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
There is a way that the Canadian people could actually end up having a sorted system if this does become law. Unfortunately it requires a high degree of faecal unity on the part of many people.
..... obviously it makes a difference to the record company - just like it makes a difference to McDonalds when you eat at Burger King.
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.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
SCAM PC? Sounds reasonably accurate to me...
Well now, if the ISP's can be made to pay for theft that occurs on their infrastructure, why, then the government is obviously required to do the same for every thief that uses a car to drive on a street during the getaway. I mean - hadn't the street been there, he wouldn't have gotten away. So therefore the street owner is partly responsible for the success of the theft.
Does everything include nothing?
In canada, there's already a levy on blank CDRs which goes to the music industry...
Speaking as a non-Canadian, they should pay me for having to endure that Celine fucking Dion at all hours of the day and night.
All things in moderation; including moderation
Speaking as a Canadian, I apologise for inflicting both Celine Dion and Brian Adams on the world. Now, don't you have something to say about the Backstreet Boys and Barbra Streisand?
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.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
holy shit, canada has music?!
10GB iPod: $439.00 + $210 tax = $ 649.00CAD
20GB iPod: $579.00 + $420 tax = $ 999.00CAD
40GB iPod: $729.00 + $840 tax = $1569.00CAD
BTW, you can buy the 12" iBook for 1500.00CAD. I love Canada but this tax is nuts.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
Can't you just see it when the ISP that hosts SOCAN's website (or provides them with connectivity) sends them a $50,000 per month bill (Canadian, or about $25,000 US) due to the "higher costs" of being a part of the internet?
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.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Business needs to change, to adapt to the benefits of our technology.
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...
Justin. But call me Darl.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
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
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
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.).
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.
This isn't so bad. It actually means that they're giving up the fight over control. They still get paid, but I can download whatever I want. It's the same logic as the CDR levy. It's really not that heavy for the end user. I suspect that the pool will be expanded at some point to include movie publishers, software publishers, etc.
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.
What if I'm dl'ing a copy of a new Linux distro but all the ISP's see is bandwidth usage?
Does that mean I'm to pay extra to obtain freeware?
I'm not "legal educated", but can the empty pocket publishers generalize justification to everyone despite whether they're dl'ing slopyyrighted garb or not? Would that not be the equivalent of burning everyone and calling them witches?
Some aim to please, I aim to tease.
Speaking as a non-Canadian, they should pay me for having to endure that Celine fucking Dion at all hours of the day and night.
;-)
Hey, we had to endure her singing for YEARS before we finally convinced her to move away. She's your problem now...
You can't take the sky from me...
The above was an attempt at humor
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Since I don't download music or movies on my net connection that I already pay $50/month for, SOCAN will be getting a bill from me if this passes. I'm not paying for something I don't "use". I'll send a monthly bill to them for whatever the increase is and let a collection agency have it with them. They can come and look over my computer to see what I have/don't have on it.
An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.
I'm waiting for the tax on all people with ears. Those people with ears are untrustworthy! They could be walking along one day and hear music created by starving artists just trying to get by. They should pay royalties to be able to listen to other people's music!
SOCAN is the Canadian equivalent of ASCAP or BMI. Performance Rights royalties. ie: any public performances of a copyrighted work.
The model which was created for radio, we're talking back in the 1920's here, was that radio stations apply for licenses to be able to play copyrighted works over the airwaves. All well and good. It means that radio - for the consumer who's listening to it - remains "free," since the stations are the ones paying for the music itself.
What SOCAN is asking for here is the equivalent of asking a record store - a place where a consumer already pays for recorded music - to also pay this licensing fee. Which is retarded. Unless they are limiting this only to single hosts who provide ONLY streaming audio (which they are not) I could see it. An entire ISP which may or may not be carrying audio files, audio streams, etc.: that's ridiculous.
Canada's government - and the governments of other media-producing countries - require someone under the age of 75 in these organizations (and the legal community) to speak to both the legal and technological aspects of the changing nature of music distribution. Continuing to apply this nearly two-century-old model to something as "new" as streaming and file downloads is just stupid.
ad
Because I can! [Brainrub.com]
Here's the thing:
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
I think, therefore I am...I think.
I see a lot of "this isn't so bad" comments, but you really need to take things one step further.
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.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
Okay let me just iron out this issue. I will be forced to pay more for my internet access because they are going to assume I'm downloading illegal/copyrighted material? Thats idiotic, everyone knows assumptions are the mother of all fuckups. I download on average maybe 1-5songs a year. Usually they're songs from the collection of old cds I have boxed up in my closet which I failed to unpack after moving here three years ago. If my internet fee's go up even $1 for this crap, you can expect me to go buy a few 200+gig drivers, and download, download, download. What garbage, I allready have to pay royalties when I buy cd's and burn knoppix, or debian or anything personal for that matter. I wonder if Rogers' (Canada's largest ISP) new limit of aprox. 30gigs a month has anything to do with pressure from groups like this? Considering if you call Rogers they will not give you an exact number just say 'I guess about 30gigs' pretty pathetic if you ask me.
No, this is
"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."
But remember, the law would be for your protection and to serve the interestes of the people, as all laws must do.
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.
I see this same idea again and again and I HATE it.
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 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)?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I realize that Canada is like... America's half brother, or just another American state. But damn, it feels good that some other country is making or propsing idiotic laws.
I don't feel so isolated now, even if it is just a illusion.
Don't spoil my fantasies. Shush.
DATs and CD-Rs are already taxed here for the benefit of Canadian artists.
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
They've been trying since 1996 to place a Tariff on Canadian Internet broadcasters, only to be shot down each year. It's little known that this 'tax' is worse than the most expensive proposal from the US counter part from the RIAA and also more intrusive into listeners personal listening habits.
I've been fighting against Tarriff 22 (the tarriff aimed directly at broadcasters) for a number of years now with a lot of support from other Canadian radio stations and listeners. Our fight has seemingly not fallen on deaf ears because each year it gets shot down again. This new blanket 'tax' on ISP's falls directly in line with similar unfair blanket taxes they have implemented in the past with blank media.
SOCAN doesn't seem to realize that by charging these huge tariffs on people and ISP's enjoying music on the Internet it doesn't benefit musicians but actually prevents the incentive for people to seek out music.
But then again, music is all about profit, right?
The Answer:
Reverse smuggling. Send USA CD-R's and cigarettes north in trade for cheaper Canadian drugs. The free market works.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Why? Because last time I checked, theft was both illegal and immoral. Taking money from someone without giving them a choice in the matter is theft, no matter how good of a cause you dress it in. If you don't believe me, I hereby demand that you send me $50, which I will immediately send to an African food relief agency. They need that $50 more that you.
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 some of my money, they can write music that appleals to me. If I choose not to support them by buying a CD, why should I be compelled, through the threat of force, to subsidise them?
The CRTC, music and movie subsidies have ruined it for Canadian artists. They replace the will of the media-buying public with the opinion of a beaurocrat in Ottawa. If they produced material that people wanted to buy, it would sell, Now instead of creating material for consumers, they have to create material that appleals to the CRTC, the CBC, or whatever Heritage $ Culture board hands out cash.
It boils down to a couple of simple questions: why should I be coerced into supporting entertainment that I don't care for? What gives the CRTC, the government, or YOU the right to decide how to spend MY money?
This is such bassackwards logic! By their reasoning car makers should pay royalties to banks, since cars are used to rob banks.
as you may or may not know, first nation natives are allowed to trade goods according to theire original laws (no tax)
So just find a couple of local natives reserve and ask them to order a shit load of blank cdrw from tawain (cost a few pennies) and load them here on a boat (a few pennies again), et voila!
Seriously, the ISP tax would kill the music industry. People tend to use as much as they pay for. i.e.: who does not pig them self out at the buffet (eat-all-what-you-can-restaurants)
That's a few different scenarios, with different implications.
Speaking from Australian perspective...
- Supermarkets playing radio, or companies using radio for "music on hold" need to licence via tha radio station. It could be argued to extend that to taxis, but that's getting picky.
- Churches and schools don't need to licence what they sing internally. You can't stop people singing a song just for themselves... (it's not going to take income away from anyone).
- They do have to pay to reproduce words (overhead projection, or songsheets), and photocopies of music (treated differently). The hard part is copying recorded music to practise with - illegal, but danged near impossible to get around without buying heaps of CDs.
- Public performances are different to singing "in church" or at school; a concert would require licence payments.
- Public performance of new items are often be refused by copyright owners. e.g. performing a collection of songs from a musical that is still on its first world tour.
-- All your bass are below two Hz
What do you mean by "consulted with a judge"?
How much clearer can I be? I consulted with a judge. To expand on that, I mean I sat down with a judge and discussed the act with him at the dinner table, just to be sure that it said what it looked like it said. I have 3 lawyers and one judge in my immediate family, and all of them agreed that yes, you can make copies of a CD that you do not own, so long as it's for your own private use. We went over the act as published, point by point. I don't know how many other ways there are to put it.
It may not seem logical to you, but who ever said that the law made sense? Honestly, if this bothers you so much, go out and pay a lawyer for an hour of his time to go over it with you and explain it to you.
You've got it all wrong. It simply fills in the sentence:
If the RIAA can get money, SOCAN we.