Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Songwriters Propose Collective Licensing
aboivin writes "The Songwriters association of Canada has put forward a proposition for collective licensing of music for personal use. The Right to Equitable Remuneration for Music File Sharing would legalize sharing of a copy of a copyrighted musical work without motive of financial gain, for a monthly fee of $5.00 applied to all Canadian internet connections, which would be distributed to creators and rights holders. From the proposal: 'File sharing is both a revolution in music distribution and a very positive phenomenon. The volunteer efforts of millions of music fans creates a much greater choice of repertoire for consumers while allowing songs — both new and old, well known and obscure — to be heard. All that's needed to fulfill this revolution in distribution is a way for Creators and rights holders to be paid.'"
Sorry, but posts like this drive me mad.
You should've sobered up before responding.
Your complaint could be applied to most things we fund by taxation. For example: "why should I pay for public health care when I don't get sick?"or "Why should I have to pay tax to fund schools when I don't have any children or I want to home school mine?"
Utter nonsense.
I probably do disagree with you as to the extent that taxes should fund healthcare. However, "get sick" isn't something you choose to do or not do, so the analogy is completely flawed anyway.
Moreover, in both the healthcare and education examples, the extent to which it is appropriate to use tax dollars is exactly the extent to which there is a public interest in those services being funded. It doesn't matter if I am putting a kid through school or not; society recognizes that I benefit from a certain level of education being freely available.
There is no public interest in free music-sharing, regardless of the fact that a minority of people would be better off if they could get the majority to subsidize their music purchases.
What you are assuming here is that only those who use the service should pay for it,
What a novel concept!
Where you go wrong is that schemes like these are instituted because markets fail to produce efficient outcomes
Wrong. That alone is not a justification for tax subsidy. You don't have the right to use of my resources just because it makes your transaction more efficient. Where you go wrong is in thinking that free music is as fundamental a need as healthcare or education.
Moreover, the market is perfectly capable of solving the problem of "distribution of digital music". It's getting there in spite of RIAA interference, and it's leading to solutions that are better for both artist and consumer than this subsidy crap.
this is Economics 101: anyone who denies it is an idiot like those free market fundamentalists
Oh, I didn't realize you were trolling. I'm done; carry on.