Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadians May Face 25% Download Tariff

Posted by timothy on from the show-me-the-clause-in-the-social-contract dept.

C-Yo writes "While Canadians have battled against an iPod tariff for more than a year, now comes news that Canada's copyright collectives are seeking a tariff on iTunes as well. Professor Michael Geist (who last week dismantled music industry claims about peer-to-peer) reports that one collective is demanding an incredible 25% of the gross revenue of music download services as well as 15% of webcasters' gross revenue and 10% of gamers gross revenue (free version of report or Toronto Star reg. version). When combined with other tariff proposals, it would appear that Canada's collectives want to the kill the download industry, demanding at least 40% of everything iTunes, Napster, and other new services earn."

84 of 615 comments (clear)

  1. It isn't just downloads.... by Greg+Wright · · Score: 5, Informative

    I am not so sure that Canada's collectives want to "kill the download
    industry" as much as they are still upset about the United States
    failure to comply with the WTO ruling on the Byrd Amendment. In fact,
    on March 31st of this year Canada put this out:

    "The Government of Canada announced today that it will retaliate
    against the United States in light of its failure to comply with the
    World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling on the Byrd Amendment. Following
    extensive consultations with domestic stakeholders, Canada will impose
    a 15 percent surtax on U.S. live swine, cigarettes, oysters and
    certain specialty fish, starting May 1, 2005"

    Seems to me this download tariff is just another retaliation like the
    above. It isn't just Canada either, several countries are upset that
    the US has not complied.

    For those that don't know, The Byrd amendment, passed by Congress four
    years ago, provides that when foreign manufacturers are found to be
    dumping goods in the U.S. market -- that is, selling at unfairly low
    prices -- any anti-dumping duties that are imposed can be handed over
    to the U.S. companies that brought the dumping case, rather than to
    the Treasury. It has benefited U.S. firms in industries including
    steel and pasta, with one of the largest beneficiaries being Timken
    Co., an Ohio maker of bearings, which collected about $40 million last
    year.

    --
    --greg Vulcan quiescent... Q: What machine shutdown with this message?
    1. Re:It isn't just downloads.... by eviloverlordx · · Score: 5, Funny

      Canada will impose a 15 percent surtax on U.S. live swine...starting May 1, 2005

      I knew it was pretty easy and cheap to buy politicians, but now Canada is taxing them? How do I get into this racket?

      --
      'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
    2. Re:It isn't just downloads.... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um... if you're going to post that there's a trade surplus, maybe you shouldn't link to an article that talks about a record trade deficit.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    3. Re:It isn't just downloads.... by Oracle+of+Bandwidth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well I am a person and I belive this is wrong.

      Anyone who farms the heck out of their land and makes their land useless for decades probabbly deserves barren land. Crop rotation is a great thing, but why force it on land owners?

      Price fixing is never justified (IMO). If it kills off farmers who can't compete that's survival of the fittest.
      I am not an economist, so I honestly am probabbly not the most qualified to do this. I just think that social engineering usually is not good.

    4. Re:It isn't just downloads.... by aichpvee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't see what corporate farm subsidies are getting me for my money. Maybe you, the master of economy, could explain it.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    5. Re:It isn't just downloads.... by ikkonoishi · · Score: 2, Funny
      Maybe you should mention that to your government, which is hell bent on fucking our timber and livestock

      What are you talking about? We leave the fucking of livestock to the individual farmers. As for the lumber, well, those trees are just too damn sexy.
    6. Re:It isn't just downloads.... by Brushfireb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Im no economist, but I have taken enough classes in it when I was in school and recieved a minor for such classes. Im willing to bet the same is true for you, give or take.

      That said, I firmly believe you are DEAD wrong. Economic theory, as I learned it, states that those owners of the land would not overfarm it but would take care of their land to produce for decades. Such is the argument for privatization of public fishing grounds, etc. If someone owns the lake (or in this case, the land), then they wont let the fish (crops, land, etc) disappear from overfishing (overfarming). Think about it.

      I also disagree with your point about "the community can't afford to allow the natural process to occur". The US Government purchases excess crops only to dump them on foreign economies. These "gifts" serve as a way for US farmers to have a built in sale point for many crops. They also serve as a great way to squash local farmers where the grain is supplied, creating a farming dependence upon grain-rich countries like the US. I wont comment as to my opinions on this, as it would certainly be offtopic to our discussion.

      However, there is certainly much room for improvement, and a shakeout in the farming system can occur without much negative impact. Again, we MUST weigh any grain price fluctuations against the real gains we would see from not dumping billions to farmers who do nothing.

      Real shortages are pretty much non-existant in the US when it comes to grain commodities. Even in the case where farmers with less than adequate education about crop rotation and their ability to compete without subsidies, I believe that these prices would not get to a horrible point.

      The traditional argument for your point of view is that subsidies kept grain prices low so that bread was easy to get ahold of and cheap for inner city residents. I have never really understood that argument, and have never seen any good documentation or articles that describe the economic basis for such an argument.

      Surely any system put in place to eliminate subsidies would not just cut them off all at once. I think a more acceptable solution, both for the farmers and for the economy, would be to phase them out over 5 or 10 years. This would allow the effects to occur gradually and wouldnt force any immediate price shocks. This also allows time for farmers to make choices knowing the future instead of forced into bankruptcy immediately, etc.

    7. Re:It isn't just downloads.... by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Price fixing is never justified (IMO). If it kills off farmers who can't compete that's survival of the fittest.

      If it was just the farmers' fine. Problem is, it may make economic sense for farmers to "mine" their land -- to maximise production for several years, take their profit, and leave a desert. Same as the timber industry -- given the choice between moderate profits indefinitely and high profits for 10 years and cashing out, economics pushes you to go for the shorter term, clearfelling, rather than selective harvesting. Or fisheries -- take all you can this year and don't care about wiping out the next generation. And if any competitors go for the long term, they go broke as they can't compete on price with someone who doesn't care about is destroying their land.

      The quarter-by-quarter business model is fine for some industries, but not agriculture.

    8. Re:It isn't just downloads.... by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Informative

      In case you're not aware, the "Byrd" in "Byrd Amendment" refers to the venerable Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, a very, very pro-labor Democrat whose primary interest in the law was to provide support to the coal companies from the southern reaches of his home state, as well as some steel workers in the northern portions of West Virginia (though most steelworkers in that area are actually in Pittsburgh).

      Ohio still has large remnants of old labor-intensive commodity-based industries, such as steel and rubber, in the large cities like Cleveland and Akron, and so it's not surprising that Ohio would benefit from such a law.

    9. Re:It isn't just downloads.... by mp3phish · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Crop rotation is a great thing, but why force it on land owners?

      You must apprentice for 4 years to become certified as a brick layer. Why force it on the people? Why not just let people lay their own bricks, and bricks all over town? Why go through any kind of government regulation if all it is is just laying bricks? Lets all just tell the Joe Schmoe's around town to start laying bricks, and when they all fall on Granny Smith next year and cause her to fall and break her hip and have a heart attack, we will just rebuild it like we did origionally... Nobody will feel bad because Joe Schmoe didn't know any better that he layed them in a verticle stack.. Then another brick wall falls on Joe Sixpack. But nobody really cares... He is just a drunk. Suddenly, all the bricks in town fell over and hit Dick and Jane, knocked down the neighboring house, cave in a grocery store full of Jills and Franks, and let all the small time drug users out of state prison. How about that? I bet you think that is a good idea to ehh?

      --
      Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
    10. Re:It isn't just downloads.... by mp3phish · · Score: 3, Insightful

      " Dont be prey to false logic. People protect their stuff."

      Yea right.. We aren't talking about generation to generation farmers here. Start looking at the greater economic picture, where every industry turns into a small number of large coporations who leech off the resources. It will always be more profitable to leech off the land for 5 years and dump it, only to buy new land and do the same, over and over again. I'm not talking about Farmer Brown who sits around driving his tractor and taking care of his crops. He has a vested interest in his land and his family farm. But the same absolutely CANNOT be said about a coporation, no matter how you slice it.

      Even if coporations outsoruced all their farming to the locals, they would just cut big bonus checks to them to crank out the max in the short term and then drop them. The local wouldn't have a problem because he would probably be set for life after that point. What does he care if his soil is useless... He is rich now and has a retirement account.

      Your points only make sence if every farmer in the country ran like a small family business and passed it down through the generations selling to local grocery stores and farmer's markets. This lala land you dream of doesn't exist. There are greater economic factors at work here. Walmart sells produce now if you haven't noticed. Small businesses don't sell to walmart. Small businesses don't sell to Walmart's competitors. The economics are so significantly more complicated than you can imagine, and you boil it all down to "People protect their stuff." Give me a break.

      --
      Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
    11. Re:It isn't just downloads.... by maxpublic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One word: Weyerhauser.

      Weyerhauser owns a lot of land in Oregon. Because they own the land they're obsessed with making sure it yields maximum production. They work with the Forestry department and with large universities to determine how best to protect their land, since that's their livelihood at stake. Because of this they're moving away from monoculture crops and recommending selective harvesting, rather than clear-cutting. This is a timber company, mind you. In opposition to extremist greenie thinking they're at the forefront of sustainable land management; not because it's the 'right' thing to do (whatever that means) but because it'll keep the land productive for centuries to come.

      Other timber companies rent public land and clear-cut the hell out of out, then often renege on their minimal replanting duties until they can tuck away their profits and dissolve the company (Southern Georgia, anyone?). Why should they give a shit about the land? The public will bail out their mess, after all.

      For people with half a brain owning the land means taking care of it. Anything else spells disaster in the long run. This must be why Weyerhauser plans *100 years* into the future in terms of land management.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    12. Re:It isn't just downloads.... by tokabola · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about a better idea. Legalize industrial hemp. It doesn't deplete the soil, and you can make diesel fuel from the seeds. We could be paying US farmers to grow oil instead of invading foreign counties for it. We could be making plastic, paper, cloth, and hundreds of other usefull products from it.

      The only downside to industrial hemp, from my point of view, is that I can't catch a buzz from it because it doesn't have enough THC to get anyone high.

      Tommy
      --
      Open Source for Open Minds
    13. Re:It isn't just downloads.... by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're just ignorant, although that's not surprising considering how little coverage the softwood timber tariffs get here in our beloved United States of America.

      Basically, the US has imposed the tariffs because we say Canada is giving illegal subsides to its timber industry. Outside observers, including the WTO, side with Canada in saying the tariffs are unjust. The American timber industry has a strong lobbying organization, which may have an influence on our trade stance.

      This is all very similar to the steel tariffs that were eventually rescinded. I suspect the main reason the steel fees went away and the lumber ones didn't is that the steel consumers (e.g. autos) were able to mount an effective political protest, whereas lumber consumers (e.g. home builders) are unable to do the same.

      I have no idea how much aluminum is replacing wood in buildings, but if the wood prices were where they should be it wouldn't be as much. So perhaps the aluminum industry has joined the lumber industry in lobbying for the tariffs.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    14. Re:It isn't just downloads.... by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      'some leftie ecogroup says it's bad'

      Interesting...you're saying that, lo and behold, the "leftie ecogroup" was actually right in saying that clear cutting was bad all along?

      You think that's just some coincidence, or maybe that they actually know what they're talking about?

      You don't clearly state it, so I won't accuse; but your tone is coming close to saying "Weyerhauser invented non-homogenous tree planting and has moved away from clear cutting because they learned it was bad for the land. Coincidentally, 'leftie greenies' have been saying the same thing for 40 years, but it's just luck that they had it right this time."

      You think W would have ever even considered this strategy if it wasn't for the education and research that leftie greenie organizations and PhDs have done?

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
  2. And your little dog too! by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 5, Funny
    "one collective is demanding an incredible 25% of the gross revenue of music download services as well as 15% of webcasters' gross revenue and 10% of gamers gross revenue"

    And 7% of gross revenue from hamburger sales since it's been shown that copyright violaters eat them, and 11% of posters of 70s rockers in cheesy poses since their images retain valuable copyrightable money-making potential, and 3% of the sale of every wheelbarrel since they can be used to haul off copyrighted material, and 1% of every breath you take since that's part of a copyrighted song lyric...

  3. That doesn't make any sense... by the_skywise · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The whole point of the tariffs were to collect funding based upon implied piracy. (IE tariff's on blank video tapes because blank tapes were used to "illegally" copy movies and broadcast NFL games and such)

    But, at least in the case of iTunes, you're already PAYING for the product. So there's no need to tariff it because the product is being legitimately purchased.

    (Of course, that won't stop your friendly government from figuring out how to tax you...)

    1. Re:That doesn't make any sense... by iamnotanumber6 · · Score: 5, Informative

      actually it's not a government tax, the government doesn't get any of the money. it's a copyright collective representing the copyright owners that gets the money, which is called a "levy" rather than a "tax". the money goes to the musicians. and their lawyers. well mostly to their lawyers i'd guess :-)

    2. Re:That doesn't make any sense... by jdunlevy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It makes sense if the interests behind the "copyright collectives" are losing significant revenue to competition from sales on iTunes, e.g. of tracks by more independent artists not represented by the "copyright collectives." Sometimes shutting down the competition is easier than actually competing.

    3. Re:That doesn't make any sense... by /dev/trash · · Score: 2, Funny

      Somebody somewhere HAD to have bought a CD legit, and then shared it. This tax, just eliminates the need to track that person down.

    4. Re:That doesn't make any sense... by miles_thatsme · · Score: 2, Informative

      Legally, it is not a tax. Tax measures must be introduced at Parliament by ways and means measures. The Tariff has already been challenged on the grounds that it is a tax but was not so introduced. The attack failed in the Federal Court of Appeal: http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fca/2004/2004fca424.h tml

      And no, the government doesn't administer the program. Collection and enforcement is directly administered by the private collectives (e.g. http://cpcc.ca/english/collPayment.htm).

      This isn't to say the whole thing isn't completely ill-conceived and unjust. But Ottawa isn't getting rich off this.

  4. As a Canadian by mark*workfire · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't really like our new music & movie association overlords. Thank goodness for sites such as www.allofmp3.com. Since I already pay a tax on my blank media, I feel no shame in downloading from KaZaA or Usenet or Morpheus or IRC. And the music & movie industries blatant cash grabs such as this are simply going to make it harder for legitimate business to prosper, since users won't be as eager to move to them. Quite frankly, since I pay the copyright tax, I really haven't bought that many CD's. However, the movie industry still makes a killing off my kids

    1. Re:As a Canadian by drg55 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, kill the golden goose, the return that a record comapny makes from a retail cd is at least a fifth of what they charge on line.

      You idiots, set a reasonable fee, like 5 cents, and watch 200 million people download your song. Charge $1 and get nothing.

      I use Allofmp3 because they do pay royalties, I do not condone illegal copyright violations.

      Dave from Downunder

    2. Re:As a Canadian by zakezuke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Quite frankly, since I pay the copyright tax, I really haven't bought that many CD's. However, the movie industry still makes a killing off my kids

      As a Canadian, do you know who gets money from the media tax? I don't mean this as a flame but rather a legit question. In principal it's seems like a very good idea to tax the medium in order to support media to put on it. But do copyright holders actually get compensated, and if so is it limited to Canadian copyright holders? What is the purpose of this tax and where does it go?

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    3. Re:As a Canadian by mark*workfire · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope, Canada Customs, which is directly linked to the TAXMAN sees everything coming across the border. While it could be possible to 'sneak' some across marked as a gift, etc, there's probably a good chance they'll get it on the way across. So, then I'll pay the GST, plus duties, and then even worse, the 'shipping' company will charge me $10-20 for the 'convenience' of not having to pay the customs charges myself, and pay them, whether or not I wanted them to.

  5. As if. by Staplerh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It doesn't stop with the cited sources either, this proposal has an extremely wide scope. From TFA:

    SOCAN's proposal does not stop with music download services. The new Tariff 22 also calls for a tariff of 15 percent of gross revenues from both audio webcast sites that feature content similar to conventional radio stations as well as from established radio stations that webcast their signal. Moreover, gaming sites that communicate musical works as part of their games face a potential tariff of ten percent of gross revenues. In fact, to ensure that no one escapes Tariff 22, SOCAN envisions a tariff of ten percent of gross revenues for all other sites that communicate music.

    Ultimately, this is all a bunch of legal poppycock. It's a proposal, and I'd argue that it's a damn stupid, untenable proposal. We need to let the Canadian government know that its a stupid proposal, but I have a feeling that they'll see it for what it is. After all, they've ruled positively in downloading cases before - what with our tariff on blank media.

    --
    "There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
    - Bob Dylan
    1. Re:As if. by DM9290 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ultimately, this is all a bunch of legal poppycock. It's a proposal, and I'd argue that it's a damn stupid, untenable proposal. We need to let the Canadian government know that its a stupid proposal, but I have a feeling that they'll see it for what it is. After all, they've ruled positively in downloading cases before - what with our tariff on blank media.

      The Canadian Government does not make rulings. It passes laws.

      Courts or tribunals make ruling.

      The government on the other hand, merely votes and passes a law. The government is essentially free to completely ignore reality if it chooses to, and put anything a majority of MP's would support into law.

      What the government puts into law has nothing to do with any kind of "ruling". It is just politics.

      It is illegal to lobby the courts in Canada. (at least in any way the court would notice your lobbying).

      This makes sense, because to lobby the court, suggests that the court's ruling would be based on external factors beyond the "law" and the "facts" of the case at hand. It is insulting to the Court to suggest that sign waving and yelling has any relevence to the case. If you have anything RELEVENT to say, you would be permitted to testify under oath just like all the other witnesses.

      So, unless you want to get slapped with a contempt of court charge, I would restrict your act of "let the Canadian government know" to the actual Government. Which does not make rulings.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    2. Re:As if. by qeveren · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Standard strategy, propose some ridiculous thing that outrages everyone and will never get passed, so that later you can implement the slightly-less ridiculous tariff/tax/law that you actually wanted, and it will seem like you're being reasonable.

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
  6. Kill it in Canada, maybe by winkydink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When combined with other tariff proposals, it would appear that Canada's collectives want to the kill the download industry, demanding at least 40% of everything iTunes, Napster, and other new services earn."

    I can't see it killing these globally, just in Canada.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  7. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    But thats 25% Canadian so its less than 25% American.

    1. Re:Anonymous Coward by AvantLegion · · Score: 2, Informative
      >> But thats 25% Canadian so its less than 25% American.

      Not by much these days! :(

      I saw someone confuse the Canadian price of a video game recently as being just a slightly-high price of an American video game.

      I miss the days of, "$100 Canadian? Izzn'at like t'ree-fi'ty US?"

    2. Re:Anonymous Coward by Obasan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not for long if the US currency continues to slide the way it has in the past year...

      (As a note for Americans, a weak US dollar is actually GOOD for US exporters and may help to balance the US's trade deficits by making foreign goods more expensive and domestic goods cheaper).

  8. Potential problem for all access monopolies by wheelbarrow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a manifestation of one fear I have about publicly owned internet access monopolies (municipal WiFi). Some activist city council somewhere could decide that these sorts of taxes are just the thing needs to fund libraries, kiddie daycare, free everything, etc. Or, perhaps, activist city councils could decide to ban access to politically incorrect activities on the internet (e.g. cigarette purchasing).

    There are dangers to collectivist centralization. Give me the hell of high stakes competition and unclear standards.

  9. Canadian Petition for Users' Rights by saforrest · · Score: 2, Informative

    Since it's on-topic, I'll repost a link from a recent Slashdot story about the petition for User's Rights:

    http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/

  10. Dammit, they're taxing the wrong ones... by nxtr · · Score: 4, Funny

    They should tax the illegal downloaders. Then again 25% of 0 is... um... uh... get back to me.

  11. Re:What the hell is wrong with Canada? by zoeith · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are they gonna start driving across the border for cds then? Maybe we can get an exchange going!

    --
    Zoeith
  12. France has something similar... by Sprotch · · Score: 5, Informative

    In France all blank writable media is subject to a special tax. The proceeds of this tax are distributed to the various copyright agencies. The idea is that since they are going to be used to rip music or videos anyway, the copyright holders should get some compensation. Uterly silly, but it has been effective since the first blank audio cassettes arrived on the market....

    1. Re:France has something similar... by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yep, same in Sweden too... And in place since the cassettes here too.

      It's a compensation for our fair use laws, it's said. Because you can copy music to your close friends and not violate any laws, they're said to need this compensation.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:France has something similar... by scowling · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not informative at all, actually. The MP3 player and DVD levies were proposed but never implemented. So the "huge amount for iPods" is exactly zero.

      --
      www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
    3. Re:France has something similar... by TrancePhreak · · Score: 2, Funny

      What about paper? You can write their lyrics down on the paper! Or the liner notes! Someone should tax paper! ;) j/k

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
  13. Will Canadian musicians be affected.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    [Greg Wright wrote :] I am not so sure that Canada's collectives want to "kill the download
    industry" as much as they are still upset about the United States
    failure to comply with the WTO ruling on the Byrd Amendment. In fact,
    on March 31st of this year Canada put this out:


    Will this produce a negative impact on any Canadian artists such as k.d. lang, barenaked ladies, Celine Dion, Avril Lavigne, etc., etc.?
    1. Re:Will Canadian musicians be affected.? by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 5, Funny

      Will this produce a negative impact on any Canadian artists such as k.d. lang, barenaked ladies, Celine Dion, Avril Lavigne, etc., etc.? We can only hope...

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
  14. Re:Oh Canada! by renehollan · · Score: 2, Funny
    Wow! What is wrong with these Socialists?

    Er, they're Socialists ...?

    --
    You could've hired me.
  15. So does this make downloading files legal? by pagefaultca · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So if I am paying for them with a tarriff does that mean I can download anything I want now and not pay a cent. Since technically I just already paid for it?

  16. I don't think this applies to me. by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 4, Informative

    I mean, honestly. I don't know a single person who's ever BOUGHT a song online. Absolutely everyone I know has a ridiculously huge music collection that's come from napster, bittorrent, kazaa, morpheus, winmx, you name it. Anything but an officially sanctioned music site.

    There's no incentive for us. We already pay a tax on our blank media, and downloading and uploading music are perfectly legal in Canada. Somehow I don't think that the online music companies are going to be shaking in their boots at all.

  17. Re:Oh Canada! by Soko · · Score: 2, Informative

    We pay a reasonable tariff on blank media that has the ability to play back content protected by copyright. This is to compensate the artists for any violations of copyright due to selling blank media. It works out pretty well. Its Socialist in that we're trying to be fair to everyone.

    SOCAN doesn't think anything is fair unless they say it is.

    SOCAN - these people would have the government tax air if they could, since it is capable of carrying copyrighted material - is proposing a totally unreasonable tariff in order to ensure that they still control the channels of distribution. Make no mistake, this is not about getting money - it's about making sure some garage band in Sarnia doesn't produce a CD quality track, release it via p2p and suddenly everyone realises they don't need the big content companies anymore.

    That's what al the bluster is about.

    Soko

    --
    "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
  18. Maybe NOT a 40% price increase? by mh101 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My first reaction from reading the blurb, was "Oh crap, a 40% price increase on iTMS?"

    After reading the article and re-reading the summary, the key point here is that these groups want up to 40% of the gross revenue. Unfortunately I'm not 100% certain as to the definition of "gross revenue," but if as I suspect, that means "whatever is left in the bank after paying the related expenses" then this would be 40% of Apple's cut. If they (or the runners of other music download services, for that matter) only get to see 5% of my $0.99, and assuming they raise their price to cover this tarriff, then that would only be a 2% increase.

    Of course, I may be wrong in my understanding. IANALOA (lawyer or accountant).

    --
    Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
    1. Re:Maybe NOT a 40% price increase? by swv3752 · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, that is net profit.

      Out of the $.99 they want $.40.

      It is even more ridiculous in that at least in the US, $.70 on average already goes to the various copyright holders.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    2. Re:Maybe NOT a 40% price increase? by amliebsch · · Score: 2

      I don't think you are correct. "Gross" usually means before any deductions. For example, "gross receipts" referrs to all money collected, whatever it was used for. "Net revenues" would be what you describe, the actual revenues calculated when expenses are deducted.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    3. Re:Maybe NOT a 40% price increase? by cgenman · · Score: 2

      Actually, I believe what you're looking for is net revenue, which is the total after expenses. Gross revenue makes a few exceptions for returned merchandise and how much stayed sold, but overall it is how much cash was raked in, period. Movie numbers are released in gross dollars.

      And remember, you always want a cut of the gross, not the net, because movies never make any profit.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    4. Re:Maybe NOT a 40% price increase? by roju · · Score: 2
      Nope, you're thinking of the net. The gross is their take before expenses.
      Before tax or other items have been deducted. After the deductions, the amount is described as "net".
      www.btplc.com/Siteservices/Servicesforinvestors/Gl ossary/Glossary.htm
  19. Woah, exactly when by hypergreatthing · · Score: 2, Insightful

    did non-gov't organizations get the ability to tax people or even suggest a tax? Hell, I'd love to start a company and propose they tax the hell out of everyone and collect it. Considering that those "collectives" do not represent everyone, it seems quite unfair. I'd say boot them out just for thinking about it.

  20. absurd by YayaY · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't see why anyone would think this tax would be a good idea. After all, if a compagny thinks that music downloaded from online store are going to get rip, why don't they just raise the price? Plus, how do you distribute fairly the amount of money raised by the tax? IMHO, the song that get downloaded the most get the largest piece of the pie. From my point of view, it seems the same as raising the price tag for a song.

    --
    Votator.com implements a fair voting scheme (free
  21. As a canadian... by meanfriend · · Score: 4, Interesting
    There might be a scenario that would be acceptable to me. The blank cd levy may not be perfect, but as we saw in a previous slashdot story, it more than compensates the industry for *ahem* lost revenues due to illegal copying.

    From the article:

    "...The SODRAC/CMRRA proposals demand the greater of either 15 percent of gross revenues or ten cents per permanent download..." Emphasis mine.

    If by "permanent download", they mean non-DRM encumbered file that I may have unlimited personal use in perpetuity, then to me, that is a fair tradeoff for a small tarriff. The 25% figure quoted on the front page would be way too high, but if I can legally download an mp3/flac/ogg/whatever and burn it as many times, put it on as many portable players, and stream it from as many computers as I want for my own personal use, without some retarded DRM app phoning home to ask for permission, then that might be worth a small surcharge.

    If they insist or crippling it with DRM or if (download price + tarrif) > (price I'm willing to pay), then guess what? They've just outsmarted themselves out of potential revenue (though we know who they'll want to blame for that...)

    True, legimate buyers end up covering the costs of the thieves, but the same goes for any other industry (retail, insurance, etc). I think it's more important for both sides to compromise a bit to keep the system usable for the vast majority of legitimate users, then to screw everyone in sight.

  22. Canadian Gov. by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Canadians wouldn't retaliate in this way against U.S. companies, the Byrd proposal is in direct violation of Nafta which was a pretty damn big deal and Canadians were largely against.

    That out of the way I have faith in Canadian regulators to find public methods of stimulating Canadians arts into which to dump the money so it won't benefit corperations (like it would in the states)...

    The main reason, well if the RIC (or whatever is pushing it) then it's simply because they don't want to negotiate with apple which is silly because we have the same large music corperations (Sony etc.) but who knows maybe they're bitter.

    The main thing that Canadians have and many other countries also have is regulations requiring media distributers to distribute a certain level of Canadian content (it's not bad maybe 15% or 25% but it's well regulated and has to be in prime time etc.) This leads to strange effects where artists become huge in Canada without any international acclaim.

    Anyway this tarriff could be used to replace this clause, since we're getting RIC lawsuits anyway (Despite the fact that our laws will rule against them) it seems the only possible reason.

    It's nice to be able to trust our government to have the interest of the citizens and artists at heart rather than industry, they do get a trifle misguided sometimes though I'll admit.

    1. Re:Canadian Gov. by doc+modulo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      At the moment, in Canada and the Netherlands. It is legal to download copyrighted "works of art". This is because we all pay a tariff on blank tapes, CDs and DVDs. The money ends up in an organization that's supposed to distribute the money to the artists that received less money from you because you copied their CD from a family member instead of buying their offical CD with money.

      There are a few problems with this, but overall it's a good system:

      * I'm not sure about this one but it might not be a government organisation that receives and redistributes the tarrifs, but an organisation that's tied closely to the entertainment industry. If you're not a member of that organisation you won't be able to claim "home copy" money. MAYBE the home copy money is only ending up at the big record companies and at 5 different other layers between the "buyer/home copier" and the artist that made the "work of art". If the distribution organisation would be run fairly, by the government, and money would be paid to everyone (not just members) I wouldn't have any problems with this model. At the moment, I'm afraid David DeAngelo isn't getting money from me because he's probably not a member of that organisation.

      * At the moment only the people buying blank CDs, DVDs and other blank media are the ones paying "home copy" money. This is actually good in my opinion. Because only the stuff that you thought was good enough to burn on CD will end up costing you money. NOT the crap that you downloaded and decided to delete. In a very roundabout way you're paying the tariff for a CD that you know is going to become something in the future that you like. It's like you've become a mini factory that creates music CDs and at the same time you're your own factory's customer because you've "bought" that "manufactured" CD with the tariff. Or something like that. I like this system because it makes it legal do download stuff and "they" don't have to care about what you do with your internet connection. ONLY the stuff that you thought was good enough to "buy" by putting it on the DVD will cost you money. They try to figure out how much copyrighted stuff will end up burnt onto DVD and decide on the height of the tarrif based on that. I guess. As long as they don't snoop on my internet traffic to determine how to distribute the money I'm okay with the tariff.

      * It might not be fair to the people who are buying CDs ONLY for backup of non-copyrighted material. They're paying extra for blank media for no reason. However, I think this scenarion is uncommon. They could look at it as something to prevent breach of privacy for society. If the people who aren't downloading, ONLY want the downloaders to pay. Then people who wanted to buy blank DVDs would have to somehow prove that they're not downloading copyrighted material. In other words, you'll get an internet tap just so you could buy DVDs without a tariff? I don't think so. It sucks that you have to pay for something that you don't buy (your future self-manufactured music CD). But it's better than paying nothing and living in a 1984 society. And as I said, I think most blank media buyers are also people who download a movie or .mp3.

      * You could also say that it sucks that you have to "buy your privacy" but that's not the only area where privacy is an issue (the selection of who's paying). There's also the question of: "how do we select the person who's going to RECEIVE the money?". I don't know how they select that in the Netherlands at the moment. I know they're not wiretapping internet connections so they must be holding polls and get a statistical measurement on who gets the tariff'd money. It's good that they don't have to internettap me with this system but what about the "artists" who are being downloaded only by a small number of people? They're not getting an inscentive to produce more "works of art" because they're being downloaded but don't get any money for entertaining people. Maybe this is not the actual situation because they will be able

      --
      - -- Truth addict for life.
  23. They don't want to KILL pay-for-play, by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    they simply want to be the only ones that can do it. The simplest way to do that is to have the government tax any competition out of existence, and then make any such competition illegal. iTunes is certainly competition (even though it has to pay royalties for every song it sells). And, sure as Hell's a mantrap, you can bet that there will "exceptions" to any such tax regulations that exempt the big boys from forking over a penny. It stinks, any way you look at it.

    Where it got written (in either Canadian or U.S. law) that monopolies are entitled to maintenance and protection by either of our respective governments is beyond me. It's ridiculous. I'm sorry, I like music as much as the next man, but I don't consider the studios to be such an important national treasure that they can't be allowed to stand a little competition. And, if that competition proves to be a little too stiff and the music cartels just happen to go under ... well, I certainly won't shed many tears for them.

    I believe they are the "evil entities" that both Captain Kirk and Captain Picard referred to in a number of episodes.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  24. Not so bad by cmcguffin · · Score: 2, Funny

    You have to put it in its proper perspective.

    25% Canadian is only 20% American, after all.

    And that's before converting from metric to Imperial.

  25. Fat Chance by IamLarryboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Canadians May Face 25% Download Tariff"

    Canadians are not facing ANYTHING. The governing party is in the midst of the biggest political scandal in 50 years. In addition, they are a minority government. They were only able to pass the budget because the conservatives were not ready for an election and allowed it to pass. By all the indication of the polls the next government will be a Conservative minority. That government won't be able to pass a bill against murder let alone something as complex as copyright. Canadians, for the forseeble future, have a government that is for all intent and purposes, nuttered; Just as it should be :-)

    1. Re:Fat Chance by optimus2861 · · Score: 2

      The irony being, Klein just proposed a provincial budget that is under no definition of the word, "conservative". Double-digit spending increases in various domestic programs, an increase in the amount of oil revenue the province is allowed to spend, no tax break anywhere in sight. I've read a number of editorials in the Edmonton & Calgary papers calling Klein a Liberal over it. In Alberta, that's a pretty harsh insult ;).

  26. Re:Drinkin' the koolaid by scowling · · Score: 2, Informative

    How come copiers aren't taxed?

    Actually, there is a tariff on photocopiers and toner in Canada, with the proceeds going to rightsholders. And libraries have to keep complete logs send in part of their copy machine income to CanCopy as well.

    I don't think the tariffs are high enough. There's no "punishment", and you don't help your argument by using such loaded language.

    --
    www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
  27. Yes! Re:So does this make downloading files legal? by templest · · Score: 2, Informative

    Keep up with the news man. It already is legal to download music in Canada. You just can't upload anything. So just make sure to download your stuff off of foreign servers and you're in the clear.

    --
    I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
  28. Re:Who cares about the WTO? by Bullfish · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Funny thing is the NAFTA tribunals have as many americans on it as canadians and they have consistently ruled against US trade actions. Frankly the US has shown itself time and time again to bargain in bad faith.

    Free to retaliate, anyone is free to retaliate. I wonder how the US would like to see a 25 per cent surtax on energy exports to the US. Before you laugh, see how much of the US engery requirements are imported from Canada in terms of electricty, natural gas and oil.

  29. Actually... by templest · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think the scope of that includes anything that isn't music either. And you could download off of local servers too. You wouldn't be breaking the law, although they would.

    --
    I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
  30. The Conservatives will put a stop to that by Retief65 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Official Conservative Party policy is to eliminate the levy on blank recording materials. Since they are about to win the next election to be held (most likely) in June, this particular problem is solved.

    1. Re:The Conservatives will put a stop to that by JohnnyCannuk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't hold your breath on them eliminating any tarrifs or winning the next election, no matter what goes on a Gomery. They brought us the GST remember?

      --
      Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
  31. Not going to happen by KillerBob · · Score: 5, Informative

    Title says it all. This is a proposal from SOCAN, which represents some Canadian musicians. It's just a proposal. As long as the government is still collecting the tariff on blank media, there's no way this would ever actually happen, because organisations like SOCAN are *already* receiving funds as anti-pirating compensation.

    The government's already decided that the blank media tax more than pays for lost revenue from the artists, and I doubt very much that SOCAN et al. will ever be willing to give that up.

    --
    If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
  32. When will the music industry accept ..... by olddotter · · Score: 2, Insightful
    When will the music industry accept their own slumping market? We all saw the headline that men spend more on video games than on music.

    I mean yes there is piracy, but there always was. Before P2P, there was FM radio and tapes. When I was in college CD's were still kinda new, and people swapped CD's all the time. Little known fact is that a hifi-vcr will record audio at CD quality in an analog medium.

    All this MP3 stuff is compressed and less than CD quality. Frankly things have gotten better for the music industry. They are just looking for reason for why people don't want to buy the crappy music they keep trying to shove down our throats today.

    --
    Think Deeply. ...
  33. Too easy to circumvent and go around this tariff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Fire up a 2nd-generation onion-router, called TOR.

    Nothing will stop this baby.

    If you got Gentoo, simply do "emerge tor"

    Enjoy all your P2P, bittorrent, and everything with perfect forward-secrecy.

  34. Re:Drinkin' the koolaid by scowling · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You guys really have that corporate welfare thing kicking up there

    CanCopy doesn't represent corporate interests. It represents individual authors.

    Tell you what: you get informed, and then we can talk. Until then, you're just another jerk with a Canuck-bashing agenda. You can "call it like you see it" all you like, but you see it wrong and I'd rather not waste my time with you.

    --
    www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
  35. Tarriff's compensate for non-purchase by PhYrE2k2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are a lot of flames going around as to how this is very bad, but it's the way things have worked above the border for a LONG time. We pay a tad more for MP3 players and blank CDs, and in exchange legally download and burn.

    So why should online be treated differently from regular purchases in this case? This money then gets sent off to the music industry.

    -M

    --

    when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
    1. Re:Tarriff's compensate for non-purchase by Mant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The music industry already gets paid for the download. The compnay (like Apple) have an agreement with the record lables, and a cut of the download goes to them.

      Further, how is buying a blank CD like a download? Itsn't the download more like buying a pre-recorded CD? The download is a purchase, so why would they need compensation for a "non-purchase".

      This is like wanting 40% gross on non-blank CDs, when they already get money from them.

  36. Re:Oh Canada! by Frogbert · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why the hell are drug companies making you americans subsidise the world? Are you saying that they have no option to sell drugs at a loss in canada and thus they have to ramp up prices where they can? Thats perhaps the stupidest thing I've ever heard, if it was so inconvenient to sell your drugs in Canada why do the drug companies do it? Why would a company sell drugs in Canada if they were losing money doing it. It makes no sense.

  37. Re:Drinkin' the koolaid by MKalus · · Score: 2, Informative
    Even countries generally considered more socialist have realised the folly of this: long lines for everyone, and critically ill people dying like flies.


    I've grown up in Germany, lived in the US, Netherlands and Switzerland and currently in Canada, and guess what: I have had the same experiences in all the countries. Only difference? In the US the first thing they did was take my Credit Card.

    Wait times? Not that much worse in Canada than in other places. Granted, in the US I could have just gone and paid, but when I needed an MRI I would have to pay $700 in the US, I got it "free" in Canada. Wait time? 1 month.
    --
    If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
  38. Re:Drinkin' the koolaid by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How bout this... why don't you just stay in the states, drive drunk and shoot ppl with your handguns? We don't need those sorts of ppl here... so you just stay where you're happy.

    This whole socialism thing you're going on about? I think it's a better way to live, and so do most of the other ppl here. If I'm going to pay my taxes towards funding the operation of a society and live within it, I'd like one that is structured to support the people who live here. I'd rather see the ignorant educated, the homeless given food and shelter, the criminals given social treatment and so on. I think investing in improving the lot of everyone is good for the every individual involved in addition to being good for the society.

    I like living in a place where people care about each other to put their money where there mouth is rather than spouting rhetoric, cutting government programs, shifting responsibility for education and health care to the individuals who can afford it least when they need it most and looking for another country to bomb into submission and exploit.

    I want to see this trend progress further along Socialist lines, a la the Nordic countries, rather than becoming more like the US. I consider your country to be a prime example of how badly things go when people don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. Fortunately for me, most of my countrymen seem to agree.

    Rest assured though... if I become bitter and selfish and decide I want to live in a place where the social structure is set up to make it easy for me to exploit my fellow man, I'll be sure to pay your country a visit.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  39. Re:Drinkin' the koolaid by renehollan · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Are you a Canadian citizen or landed immigrant? How else could you get an MRI without paying?

    A month wait?

    Heck, I had three when I was deathly ill in intensive care in a Chicago hospital in 1998. I would have surely died in Canada.

    --
    You could've hired me.
  40. Re:Fat Chance... thanks to NAFTA Ch11 by cheshiremackat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Remember also that Ch.11 of NAFTA states that any Foreign Corporation (say Apple) can defeat any domestic Law, if found to inhibit " property, ownership, the right to market and sell a product, and the right to earn a profit" by the foreign corporation.

    So considering that Apple makes $.01-.02 cents a track, and now they want to charge .25 levy... well Apple gets to sue, especially if this law makes it unprofitable to sell (or unpopular).

    Apple will probably win, far more nefarious businesses have usurped popular Environmental law, so expect Apple to have a hay-day with this law.

    Nope, the Canadian government is weak, so any unpopular laws are out, and even if it passed, I would expect Apple to sue under Ch.11 to have this law reversed.

    As an aside, Ch 11 (IMHO) has largely been terrible for Canadians, so using it for our benefit would be nice. [Please don't cloud the issue with *DRM is good for you FUD*]

    --
    Bad spellers of the world untie!
  41. Re:For the clueless by kalinh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Explain to me how this makes the US a "nice guy"? Where I come from, we call that "ripping everyone off".

    I'll take a stab at this. Domestic demand in Europe and Japan is stagnating, Japan has been in and our of deflation for over a decade, Germany is toying with it. Germany is facing 12.6% unemployment right now the highest numbers since the thirties. Europe can't escape the massive future liabilities the government has amassed due to its low birth rates, and therefore has to import as much labour as it can simply to keep going. The threat of low-cost labour from the rest of the EU, and the curtailing of benefits that have come to be seen as a right threaten to harm the social structures of Europe in irreperable ways.

    You've been paying attention only to people who say what you want if you really believe that there has ever been any chance of the Euro becoming a reserve currency in the world economy. Ireland even began issuing some of it's sovereign debt in USD a few weeks ago! Extrapolating this assertion and saying this was the reason for the Iraq war borders on voluntary lunacy. The US trade deficit has been nearly the only thing that has kept Europe and Asia from operating in a severe recession over the last few years.

    Basically America's consumer, partially aided by the Fed's policy of low interest rates, has been supporting the world's economy. Economists have been wringing thier hands for years over how the world economy is running on only one engine. Part of the hope was that during this period Europe (really talking about Germany here, the largest economy in Europe by far) and Japan would reform thier labour laws, and banking system respectively, creating domestic growth and genuine domestic demand, and start to buy stuff not only from themselves, supporting thier own economies, but also from America.

    Aside from the fact that the social structures of Japan and Germany, as well as the government leaders have pretty much failed to address the structural problems that have brought their domestic economies to thier knees while they had a chance. The consequences of this so far have been a falling US dollar, but could easily be protectionism, which is really unfortunate.

    But that's just what I've grokked over the last few years. I could be wrong. But I doubt I'm more wrong than you in this case.

    Kalin

    --

    Metamuscle.com - News in the Iro

  42. Re:For the clueless by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You really think having the population of Japan and Germany ripping resources out of the ground, turning them into useful goods and sending them to the US in exchange for pieces of paper that are never redeemed is doing those countries good?

    I think you're a little too close to the problem to see the big picture there mate. The people of Japan and every other nation would be a lot better off spending their time and resources to improve their own lot in life rather than improving yours.

    And your dismissal of the Euro as a global currency are totally unconvincing and not based on fact. Countries hoard US dollars and swap them around as a global currency instead of redeeming them because other countries won't accept them, particularly where oil is concerned. If you can't see that having a huge source of oil like Iraq accepting Euros and removing that necessity to hoard US Dollars would have changed things, then there's not a lot I can say to enlighten you. It's an obvious chain of events. It was just swept under the table at the time... I mean, they were really there to get all those WMDs, right?

    And that motive carries over to Britian, their major ally in that war. They were fighting very hard to put the breaks on the Euro at the time.

    The current weakness of the currency that makes you so disparaging of the possibility is a
    result of the invasion of Iraq. It would be a great deal stronger now if that war hadn't occurred.

    The US are looking out for themselves. It's been an accepted fact among the ruling class there that their standard of living depends on exploiting other nations for decades, and that those exploitive power structures must be preserved.

    Think I'm wrong all you like... but do even a little research and the pieces all fall into place. The changes that brutal dictator would have brought to pass would have gone a long way towards breaking the US stranglehold on the global economy and making the world a better place to live in. Too late now though.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  43. Re:For the clueless by kalinh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Repeat after me: Indymedia is not a source of respectable economic research.

    Your arguments are big on grand sweeping statements but short on details and evidence. I'm afraid you're playing your hand as someone who has not looked deeply into competing explanations for what is going on. Seriously, can you point to any large-scale flight to safety from US treasuries to other currencies or assets? It just isn't realistically happening. Do you really think that some scheme cooked up by Chirac and Hussein to sell Iraqs meager oil output in Euros would have been likely? Do you honestly think that this fairly insignificant move would cause the trillions of dollars in treasuries held as a reserve currency to be liquidated in favor of Euros? Do you have any idea how momentous that move would be, and how massive events that have triggered a change in global reserve currency have been in the past? Are you actually suggesting that Saddam Hussein had a great beneficient financial program for the world?

    Occam's Razor my friend, look into it.

    Some sort of Baran-Wallerstein type theory of global immiserization is not "an accepted fact" as you claim, but actually widely discredited. Because post-war Germany and Japan, South Korea, Canada, all the greatest trading partners of the US are not 'exploited'. I'm sorry, you lose, move away from the table.

    Look, I can tell that you're not going to be convinced by anything anyone says about this that doesn't fit your world-view, but I'm going to give a simple analogy for anyone who might stumble across this discussion. If you buy stuff from me, I prosper more than if you don't. If I am Germany, and I have stuff for sale then I am better off if people buy my stuff. If no one offers to buy it, then I have less money to spend on things I need. It would hurt me, as Germany a great deal if suddenly the US started trading with me less. OK, that's not too hard to understand.

    Yes it would be good if Japan was also buying more Japanese goods and services and Germany more German goods and services. It would also be nice if Japan's banks weren't supporting billions upon billions of bad debt, and if German firms weren't regulated out of hiring new employees in defference to those who already have jobs. Having high exports, built on the back of American sovereign and consumer debt hasn't made these problems worse, but it may have forestalled their domestic resolution. It certainly isn't good for the long-term in America to have such high debt and low savings, but that's the price you've got to pay when you're basically supporting the world's economy. The alternative of allwoing Japan and Germany to sink into depression is too harsh for everyone.

    BTW, I don't live in the US, not that I see what difference that makes, I thought we were discussing ideas here.

    --

    Metamuscle.com - News in the Iro

  44. Re:For the clueless by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Informative

    Indymedia is not a source of respectable economic research.

    What is Indymedia? Never heard of it.

    Seriously, can you point to any large-scale flight to safety from US treasuries to other currencies or assets? It just isn't realistically happening.

    No it's not. The logical chain of events that would precede that goes as follows:

    1) Countries start accepting an alternative currency for oil, such as the euro. 2) Other countries start purchasing oil in those currencies where it's appropriate 3) Those countries no longer need to keep a reserve of USD, so they maintain it less as they become more comfortable in the new business relationship 4) As time progresses, more countries become a party to the new trading relationship and thus also become less motivated to trade for USD 5) As the number hoarding USD becomes less and less, there are fewer places to spend that currency. 6) The US dollars start coming home like so many bad cheques.

    The last country that tried to accept non US currency for oil got bombed and invaded, so no, we're not seeing that happening.

    Do you really think that some scheme cooked up by Chirac and Hussein to sell Iraqs meager oil output in Euros would have been likely?

    Yes. If the US hadn't invaded, I would say it's pretty much a certainty that Iraq would take Euros instead of food, and that many european nations would take oil for Euros. Are you seriously suggesting that this wouldn't have occurred?

    Are you actually suggesting that Saddam Hussein had a great beneficient financial program for the world?

    No, I didn't attribute any altruistic motives to him at all.. I believe I referred to him as a brutal dictator. His motives aren't relevant.

    Some sort of Baran-Wallerstein type theory of global immiserization is not "an accepted fact" as you claim, but actually widely discredited. Because post-war Germany and Japan, South Korea, Canada, all the greatest trading partners of the US are not 'exploited'. I'm sorry, you lose, move away from the table.

    I disagree with that statement. And I don't see anything from you that backs it up. I know that up here in Canada we're contemplating how to effectively retaliate against the US for their crooked dealings across a multitude of industries ranging from lumber to cattle to power to water. This isn't something I pulled out of my ass, or Indymedia for that matter (whatever Indymedia is)

    Look, I can tell that you're not going to be convinced by anything anyone says about this that doesn't fit your world-view, but I'm going to give a simple analogy for anyone who might stumble across this discussion. If you buy stuff from me, I prosper more than if you don't. If I am Germany, and I have stuff for sale then I am better off if people buy my stuff. If no one offers to buy it, then I have less money to spend on things I need. It would hurt me, as Germany a great deal if suddenly the US started trading with me less. OK, that's not too hard to understand.

    Your analogy only holds true if the germans lack the capacity to repurpose their production. If you're making more cars than you have people to drive them, then yes, you need a trading partner or your screwed. But if you're an intelligent human being, you'll stop making more cars than you can sell and find something more useful to do. And considering that the US is operating at such a huge trade deficit, it follows that you're getting back much less from selling your cars than you're giving, so you're likely to see more returns by either finding another trading partner or keeping the fruit of your production within your own country. Given the choice between selling the fruits of my labour at a very low return and hopefully being able to buy the things I need or investing in my capacity to make those things myself, I know which I see greater value in.

    Yes it would be good if Japan was also buying more Japanese goods and services and Germa

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  45. Re:I'd bet not by FunFactor100 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Quebec...free? Those two words don't seem to go together.

    Are Quebecers FREE to publish something in a language other than french, without a french edition? Are they FREE to put non-french signs on their store fronts? Are they FREE to express themselves in a language other than french?

    Quebec seems quite oppressive to me.

  46. Re:For the clueless by kalinh · · Score: 2, Informative

    What is Indymedia? Never heard of it.

    I find that hard to believe, but I apologize for what some might consider an ad hominem attack. All attempts at humor aside.

    No it's not. The logical chain of events that would precede that goes as follows:

    1) Countries start accepting an alternative currency for oil, such as the euro. 2) Other countries start purchasing oil in those currencies where it's appropriate 3) Those countries no longer need to keep a reserve of USD, so they maintain it less as they become more comfortable in the new business relationship 4) As time progresses, more countries become a party to the new trading relationship and thus also become less motivated to trade for USD 5) As the number hoarding USD becomes less and less, there are fewer places to spend that currency. 6) The US dollars start coming home like so many bad cheques.

    You're assuming that capital markets see the Euro as a safe currency to store capital in. I believe that many of the points I made earlier show why it's not, and why private capital markets and independent nations choose to purchase US treasuries at ridiculously low rates of return in preference to other sovereigns. It's one thing to focus on the currency that is used to purchase a certain commodity, but ignoring the massive preference for US treasuries is not good for your argument.

    Basically your argument depends on a viable alternative currency. Not just among oil exporting nations (there isn't), but in global capital markets. The sad fact of the matter is that the euro area is not strong enough to offer an alternative currency. Save for Britain, northern Europe, and the nations that are liberalizing their economies in the east (the non-euro countries), Europe hasn't been doing so hot lately. The latest polls show France looks set to reject the EU constitution. The ECB has led Germany's economy to near ruin through it's inflexible policy of focussing on inflation targets and ignoring general economic growth and unemployment. The center-price economic policy of the euro-zone , the stability and growth pact, has all but been abandoned after several years of France and Germany completely violating it.

    Hey, Europe is trying some interesting things, and no doubt, the whole continent has benefitted enormously from the EU's trade liberalization, harmonization of regulation, privatization, and anti-trust legislation. But you have to realize that we are in the very very early stages of this experiment. It hasn't proven its stability. Sovereign governments do not bet on a horizon of a few years when making investments in reserve currency, they bet on several decades. The euro has existed for 3 years. I really do hope that the world will develop more than one reliable currency some day, but there won't be any serious flight away from the dollar for a while. The plans of a brutal dictator notwithstanding.

    The last country that tried to accept non US currency for oil got bombed and invaded, so no, we're not seeing that happening.

    I'm not going to touch this other than to say that there are a lot of good, moral reasons, and legitimately humanitarian reasons for why the war was supported. You don't have to agree that those reasons were enough to cause a way, but it's disingenuous to pretend that there was a single point of causality in such a complex event.

    Yes. If the US hadn't invaded, I would say it's pretty much a certainty that Iraq would take Euros instead of food, and that many european nations would take oil for Euros. Are you seriously suggesting that this wouldn't have occurred?

    No, I didn't attribute any altruistic motives to him at all.. I believe I referred to him as a brutal dictator. His motives aren't relevant.

    I wonder if you would have held your nose in disgust at the beneficiaries of this scheme if things had played out this way. You're suggesting that France (I'll single them out as the largest importer of Iraq oil, largest military s

    --

    Metamuscle.com - News in the Iro

  47. Re:For the clueless by SQL+Error · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think you are not fully taking the total interdependence of the global economic system into consideration. It is not to America's benefit in any way to see the economies of other nations collapse. Yes, it is in America's benefit to maintain it's leadership in innovation and wealth creation, but America is stronger, and in fact we all are stronger if there is more than one geo-economic center that is capable of taking up the slack when an economic slow down occurs.

    Absolutely.

    This is why the idea that we invaded Iraq to steal the oil (and sundry variations on this theme) is so absurd. We stand to make far more money by buying Iraqi oil than by just walking in and taking it.

    With Iraq free, and prosperity growing, the Iraqis will do the work of pumping the oil. They sell it to us. We give them money. They spend the money. They buy Fords and Chevys and Dells and Levis and iPods. And we buy more oil. And they build factories, and start selling us denim and tyres and hard disk drives. And we sell them X-Box 2's and Caterpillar bulldozers and The Incredibles DVDs and Boeing 777's.

    And round and round it goes. The whole point is, it's not a zero-sum game. Wealth isn't a pie you have to divide up among the people at the table. Wealth is a pie factory. The more effort you put in, the more pie there is to go around.

    Mmm, pie.