Slashdot Mirror
iPod Fee Proposed For Canada
innocent_white_lamb writes "The Canadian Private Copying Collective is pushing for the implementation of an iPod fee in Canada to compensate them for 'losses' when people copy music to their digital music players. They have collected a fee from every CDR sold in Canada since 1997 and now want to extend that to digital music players. From the article: 'Some have argued that once they buy a CD they shouldn't have to pay again and again to listen to those songs — which they already purchased — on a personal compilation CD or on their MP3 player. But for people like Milman and Basskin, it's about recognizing the value of those works. "There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music," Milman said.'"
a refund on all purchased music in Canada to compensate :-P
"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music," Milman said.
Yes, and that happenned when you *bought* the song from iTunes. Why would you want some blanket fee for then moving it onto your iPod?
There has to be some way for people to compensate me for having to hear the shit reasons these people spew out for being greedy.
The artist never receives a penny of that extra fee! Damn those pot smoking hippies!
Sarcasm aside I really do doubt that any artist on a major label gets half the money that they should. This Milman guy is clearly a douche (put simply) for trying to even suggest that the fee is for the greater good.
Or when you paid for the cd. Just because you made an mp3 and listen to it on your iPod doesn't mean you should have to pay for it again. You paid to listen to their music, you can listen to it on whatever device you want.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
The hours, sweat, blood and tears are what the music is about, not compensation. Is studio time expensive? Yes. Is accumulating money the reason you make music? Not in any dimension we can readily access with our current level of technology.
> "extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music,"
Bullshit, there are no extreme expenses in making music.
"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music," Milman said."
How about saving the artists all their toil by educating them on the fact that their works might be enjoyed free of charge? It's Canada we are talking about, where a health-care bill is guaranteed never to force you into bankruptcy.
I subscribe to the thought that "when you you make your bed, you must sleep in it."
They should recognize the blood and sweats and, well, that's enough, we don't want to know more, do we, anyway, all that stuff put into posting the brilliantly important stories and blindingly insightful comments, not to mention side-busting jokes, to bring about slashdot. Story "editors" and comment posters should be recognized and compensated properly, and slashdot corpo overlord can take a small cut.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Extreme expense that goes into making music? What extreme expense? I am an artist and I have yet to encounter this. I recorded an album for about $100 and then posted it for download on the internet. These people want to insert themselves into music and sap money away from artists and listeners, they contribute nothing.
living in suburban wasteland, but I can break out, I can be free.
There has to be some sort of way to safeguard the buyer from undue taxation by private companies given the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense (in terms of time) that goes into making a decent salary.
Isn't that so Mr. Milman?
- "They misunderestimated me."
nothing encourages people to respect copyright law like charging them regardless of any actual infringement... No different than the auto industry, failing to adapt and then when it finally bites them go looking for a way to prop up their doomed business practices.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
I have no illusions that the implied presumption of guilt hasn't been brought up previously, especially wrt Canadian CD-R fees. But the arrogance of it never ceases to amaze me. Same goes for the acceptance of it.
If this kind of logic were applied to a car, then there'd be a "excessive speed fee" applied to every new or used automobile, and perhaps even a "getaway car penalty" for particular models.
Astounding.
I can see the fnords!
Who ends up with the money from this CDR tax? There is no way to know what is going to be copied onto the cd, so there is no way to know who should be paid the cd tax. The article talks about how it helps the starving artist, but do they really end up with the money from this cd tax.
Here's the funny thing though... when they try to incorporate that fee into the sale price, people just bitch about the high cost of music and pirate it "on principle".
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Isn't this silly idea just a blanket permission to copy music?
They want to extract money from users who aren't even their customers. Copyright parasite: "I created content, so you will give me money whether you consume it or not. I have the right to your money."
I sure am glad these leaches cannot tax my data storage devices where I live. Of course I make sure to educate people about how if you buy CDs that are marked for audio, the parasites get a bit of the proceeds.
If it came to it, I would pay more for blank media just to avoid funding the parasites.
If they want to raise the price, then so be it, and don't waste my time with arguments about why fees are "justified". I'll decide what I'm willing to buy at the new prices.
But why raise the price of the ipod and not the music?
1) Make a site where everyone in Canada can karaoke into and sing whatever they want, or upload their garage band songs. however badly (bring on the Thrash yodling).
2) Have the EULA of the site say the uploader releases his revenue via the iPod Fee to the site.
3) Make said songs available for ipod download.
4) Go to the Canadian Private Copying Collectivem and demand the percentage of the fee your users represent.. if there are 10.000 artists and you have 10.000 users, you should get half.
5) Profit.
Did anyone else bust out laughing from just reading that summary? I did.
There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music," Milman said
..., as if it was 1989.
Seriously, we all know that the average bedroom rocker has a better setup than the top studios back in the 80s. It's over.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
It's strange that it costs the music industry so much to make music--I just made (and recorded!) 45 minutes of music and it cost me virtually nothing. How on earth can these people expect to remain profitable while having such a stupendously idiotic business model? OH wait I get it, just have the government add a "music tax" to products from completely separate sectors and the industry will never die, they wouldn't even have to produce music to make money anymore... it's genius.
the most powerful intellect is that unbounded by indubitable preconception
I was going to write something but now I just greet all of this DRM / Copyright / ClusterDMCA crap with one phrase:
Fuck you.
Because of this tax, have I /already paid for/ any and all music I download?
If yes, then I don't mind it so much.
Actually, I do mind it - fuck them for preemtively thinking me guilty. But if they /are/ charging me for something I am not guilty of, then I will feel zero guilt for getting my money's worth.
There is no natural right to make a profit. You have the right to try. But if you fail, even if you've previously been successful, that's not society's problem: it's yours.
You paid to listen to their music, you can listen to it on whatever device you want.
In an ideal world, yes. You pay for something, you use it. But not these guys. They want you to pay for every format shift. In the case of televised programs, they want to you pay for every time shift. But what if you need to time or format shift it to properly use it? Tough luck, bucko, then you just bought a very nice coaster, good luck returning opened merchandise to the store. They've already pushed the idea that you're only borrowing their music, that putting down money for a disk doesn't grant you the right to use it in any legal way you please.
Their ultimate goal appears to be pay PER USE. Did your daughter put the latest bubblegum pop princess single on repeat ALL this afternoon? Fifty cents a play autocharged to your credit card. Good thing you pay $50 a month for the discount plan, or that would have been a buck fifty a play! We can also sell you the ultra-discount plan that's only $100 a month and ten cents a play! This week only, get TEN FREE PLAYS of any Flava Flav song already in your collection with a three year contract!
Banning or restricting time shifting and format shifting is of no use to the busker on the street, but allows a company to profit by re-selling the same product to the same customer in different wrappers should technology or even a person's work schedule change. Many of the 'little people' (or people who claim to represent the 'little people' or the 'starving artists') who insist that Canada needs copyright reform so they can better feed their families strangely don't explain why their neighbor, whose family won't see paychecks in the fifty years after he dies, should have to enjoy the things he has bought and paid for only on their terms, even if it means he never gets to enjoy them at all.
To my fellow Canadians: The more of this shit we put up with, the more that they'll shovel on us.
http://copyright.econsultation.ca/ - Let them know what you think of the copyright reforms - like this one - being discussed right now.
http://www.pirateparty.ca/sign-up - Let's see if we can get an actual political party off the ground, one that actually fights for the rights of the people!
(Do I sound like an activist? I was completely politically apathetic, voted twice in my entire life, until they started pulling this garbage. We can't put up with this anymore.)
Look for iPod sales in Buffalo and Seattle and Vermont to increase.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
trademark and all.
It won't affect me any my non-iPod Ogg Vorbis player.
Seriously, do Apple give out free tee-shirts every time someone uses their trademarks to describe everyday items?
Wait, go to go, there's a call coming in on my iPhone. The one with "Nokia" on the front.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
I'm sorry, the Collective just isn't doing their job. What are they thinking charging a fee for just iPods and CDs? What about all those humans with their ears, brains and mouths? What they really need to push for is charging everyone living homosapien a fee! What if they remember the song and hear again inside their brain without paying for it? Or worse, what's to stop pesky humans from singing a song they heard from memory to a group of cronies who haven't paid it? Think of the poor artists, they're not getting compensated for those lost sales!
Except, there is not proving innocence.
This practice takes away ANY moral higher ground claims against "piracy". You've already paid for the product, so it certainly must be yours. Oppose such wicked system. Resist thoughtcrime!
Unless that CD is blank, then you pay again.*
Canada needs to stop repeating it's ridiculous history regarding this corporate puppetry.
I'm sick of trying to explain to people why DVDs cost less than CDs where I work.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy
They want to have their cake and eat it too. It's not a physical CD, that's why I can't import it and send it around - I don't 'own' the music. But apparently I don't have a license either... a license is independent of the media, so by purchasing a license for something on LP, I retain the license for a newer recording (8-track? tape? CD? you can make the argument that remasters are different).
So I've given up the idea (a while ago, actually) that these people are just fucking douchebags and nobody should care what they think. I sure as hell don't. They'd be a lot more successful - in the long run, at least - if they weren't so batshit. Nobody cares what they think any more; sure the politicians do but nobody else does. They have no moral legitimacy and everyone knows it.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
After all, that photographer or 'shopper deserves to be compensated for the time they spent getting that shot or creating that image... and every time you - yes YOU, you ungrateful bastard! - load that web page, you're starving their families!
News flash : the creators are (in non-internet cases, anyway) paid to Create. Once the work Exists, where it goes after that is ultimately up to the fans of that work - not the cartels that have taken control of music, television and film. You think the actors and musicians will see a penny of any money the cartels extort in the form of media taxes, lawsuits, etceteras?
Yeah, musicians and authors do make royalties on their works - and one day, somebody will figure out a meaningful, useful way to extend that concept to the internet so that the content creators get paid. Until then, BS like the .ca "media tax" is as much a solution as the present (see timestamp) state of the proposed US "health care reform" legislation.
We've had The Web for, like, more than fifteen years - economies have risen and fallen, wars fought and won (or lost).. innumerable cultural and technological milestones and yet nobody has figured out a way to make money over the internet? What gives?
Okay yeah we've had the wheel for over five thousand years and we still can't build a shopping cart that rolls straight, but that's neither here nor there...
"Grandpa, is it true that back in the old days music didn't have gps location built in? You didn't have to pay the record studio executives a fee when you listened to music in a different room of your house?"
"Hell, back in the day, we didn't even have the skin cell DNA identification built into the iPods!"
"OMG!!! You could listen to OTHER PEOPLES IPODS?? EWW!!! That is just wrong."
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
I wonder how much those bumpkin lawyers are being paid to spout such nonsense. One of the biggest faults in their "rationale" is their definition of "losses" - losses are not a hypothetical "money we 'could have' made' (if we had full control of the market and consumer habits)". Consumers will form their habits around the tools available to them (today, internet; in the past, radio, cassette, etc.) and the market just has to adapt to the same. If the record industry refuses to change their habits (most likely because of their 1990's record profits from CD sales - they want that 'working formula' to remain the same), TFB for them.
If I buy a CD, I am buying the rights to listen to that particular recording and paying a share of all the work that went into it. I am perfectly free to transfer that recording to any format or device as long as it's for my personal pleasure - at no extra charge. If the recording that is on my iPod is exactly the same as the one in my iTunes library, why should I pay for it again? What's more, the only additional 'work' in having multiple copies is mine - there is no improvement or service by the record industry at all - so again, what justification is there for asking for additional payment?
IMHO, the flailing 'fat man' record industry thinks government 'obligatory tax' involvement, and the possibility of the record industry benefiting directly from the millions collected from everyone, is the fastest way back to the front of the marathon.
Insert any chain of expletives here.
No, no sig. Really.
ThePromenader
"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music," Milman said.'"
And I think programmers and their heirs should be paid too.
And we certainly need to recognize all those DEAD artists like John Lennon so we can encourage them to make more songs.
Hell- I say go for it-- let them charge $10 a song and lock everything up digitally with DRM.
I won't listen to it anyway and the huge hordes of artists out there willing to work for less will take up the slack.
Doubt it? Look at "primer"... look at Magnatune... look at "Star Wreck".
There is a huge glut of entertainment. Already- I can't keep up with it. I have a 500 hour backlog that increases by a couple more hours every day. Every time I go to the beach, play a board game, or watch You-tube, read and post on slashdot, more entertainment builds up.
Just relistening to the popular 1970's music would take me 10 hours.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the RIAA for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into promoting shitty music,"
Fixed that for you.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music,"
Really? I went to a college with a conservatory, where 500 students made music all the fucking time. All they needed was an instrument, and themselves. They performed, recorded, mixed, etc. etc all the time.
My sister somehow manages to make music, play shows, record with bands, and she doesn't have jack in terms of cash.
I know a math PhD who makes/made music in his spare time in a group called "Klein Four". You can buy their music on iTunes Music Store. Sure, it takes time, effort, and talent to make music, but you can get it from your brain into your customer's paying hands (ears?) on a shoestring budget these days.
This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
A lot of smaller bands burn their own CDs to sell at concerts. So they're paying the record companies for the privilege of copying their own music, which the record companies had no part in creating.
And where is their cut if someone copies a CD bought at one of these smaller concerts? Such bullshit.
If they already found everyone who buys a ipod of pirating, then there is no reason not to pirate every song now. Do not spend another single penny on buying another song and instead just pirate the shit. If you want to help the artist, then send them a money order with a letter telling them that they want to support the artist but will not send a dime to the music industry.
This is one of the most disgusting things I can ever imagine, a complete travesty of both capitalism and democracy at the same time. "Give us money or we'll make sure you don't get elected" is the message here, as they have done nothing to earn it in any way. They figure that since they're big and there's a tenuous link between piracy hurting them and digital music players they can bully the government into outright stealing peoples money and then giving it to them in turn.
That they have already done it with something else, and that similar things are happening elsewhere in the world is frightening. In a sane world the people responsible for this would be serving life sentences for high crimes.
wants to change the world, else their little brains blow up from the thought that the world has changed from the 20th century.
How about something a little more rational? The world is changing, so change with it. Make money off of live events and keep selling CDs, but stop alienate customers with this BS. Continuing on this path is only going to put the music industry deeper in its grave.
Above all, if you can't afford to operate, the market demands that you exit. In layman's terms, that means you suck and no one likes you.
Right, because you don't hear everyone else in the world bitching about how X group puts their blood sweat and tears into X thing. The only music that will die if people stop paying for it is the music made by people who are only doing it for the money. Though, I guess you could argue that some people might be working enough hours that they never have enough time to go down to a studio and record an album.
It is like, if you buy big knife, you must under-go charges of murder :( even if you have bought it for cooking
Right now, it's legal in Canada to copy music under the personal copy provision. In exchange, we pay a levy (not a tax) on blank media.
Extending this to ipods (and, in general other personal media players) makes sense. Especially if those devices play media other than just music. Perhaps the levy will then have to be extended to cover tv programming and movies. After all, the ipod touch I use can certainly play stuff other than music (spoken books, movies and tv shows come to mind).
In answer to "do the artists get the money"? my reply is "I don't really care -- that, in particular, is not my problem". I just don't want to be bothered with being branded a "pirate", kthnxbye.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
This has been raised before, many times. The same thing happened with the Quebec referenda...they said No, the other side waited a bit, then said "How about now?". Is this what we've been reduced to in Canada, asking the same questions every couple of years?
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
Bit dramatic isn't it, would have though that all the free stuff they get for being walking billboards and the like would be more than enough compensation; as for the extreme expenses, http://www.tuaw.com/2009/07/02/the-88-song-recorded-on-iphone-and-released-in-itunes-store/; looks like they should do some cutting back then.
In Google we trust.
they're discussing how to compensate for losses by charging more to the customers who actually BUY the music, meanwhile even more average joes are sitting in a CD store contemplating why they put up with this crap when all their friends get their music for free
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
I suppose they could always give it up and choose an easy job like coal mining or something.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
These people seriously need to get lost - they spent years overcharging for music because their distribution method was the only practical one. Guess what guys? There are new, better ways to get music now, both free and legal. And you think we should PAY YOU because..... you want us to? Too fucking bad.
"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music"
Such as, for instance - paying for the song, and then being allowed to *DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT WITH IT*
These people have entitlement issues.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
In an ideal world, yes. You pay for something, you use it. But not these guys. They want you to pay for every format shift.
Indeed, while logically it should be the other way around. You should get a compensation off the original price for doing the work (converting to a different media) that logically is the job of the publisher (to publish the work in a playable format).
In fact we should move towards a model where the music you buy isn't in any playable format to start with. You buy the music in the non-playable distribution format, and then whatever you use to play it converts it to a suitable format.
Do software companies also get a cut of the CPCC money? After all, there has to be some sort of way to compensate the developers for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into writing code. Now if I back up a program on a disc, who gets compensated for that? I have a hard time feeling sorry for Canadian musicians after they gave the world Celine Dion and Bryan Adams.
In an ideal world, yes. You pay for something, you use it. But not these guys. They want you to pay for every format shift.
Indeed, while logically it should be the other way around. You should get a compensation off the original price for doing the work (converting to a different media) that logically is the job of the publisher (to publish the work in a playable format).
In fact we should move towards a model where the music you buy isn't in any playable format to start with.
If it wasn't playable to start with, it would be encrypted, since any nonencrypted format could be made playable simply by writing a player. It would play into their hands - they could sell you something you couldn't use until you bought the digital keys for their digital locks. And they've already gone through pains to establish that digital lockpicking is as vile a sin as robbing the poor sound engineers at gunpoint.
You buy the music in the non-playable distribution format, and then whatever you use to play it converts it to a suitable format.
Oh, they'd love that, because they'd require you to buy every shift you do. 100 transfers to your iPod for $x, 10 to your PC for $y, burn it to a CD for $z. They'd sell you the razor AND the blades.
Wait, all CDRs? Is this for real?
People have to pay a tax to back up all their e-mail and spreadsheets?
Really, their argument is Bullshit. That money won't go to the artist it will go to the publisher.
Personally, I find this sort of thing to be a perfect example of the 'I'll drag you to hell with me' syndrome. The music industry as we know it sees its demise, and it wants to get as much money as it can out of everyone as it slips down the series of tubes and, if this added cost makes the instruments of their demise that much harder to procure, well, so much the better.
That said, I can't help but wonder how much this fee would be. I mean, really, how often does one have to buy a music player? I have an iPod photo from 5 years ago that still runs like a champ, to say nothing of the -minidisc- (remember those things?) player/writer I've had for probably 10 years now and with the only problem being finding new, blank ones when I accidentally leave one in the pocket of a pair of pants destined for the washer machine. It'd have to be somewhat substantial, given that people don't need a new one as often as they do/did CD-Rs, assuming the industry wants to make the same amount they were before, let alone what it'd have to be if they wanted to make more. (Yes, yes, I know. Don't be silly, of course they want to make more.)
All glory to the hypnotoad!
In fact we should move towards a model where the music you buy isn't in any playable format to start with. You buy the music in the non-playable distribution format, and then whatever you use to play it converts it to a suitable format.
I can't help thinking that here your "non-playable distribution format" is either tiny pits on a silvered disk, charge variations in a semiconductor chip, or magnetic variations on a metal platter. When you use something to play it, it's converted into the only suitable audio input format for humans; namely, vibrations in the airspace near our ears.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
At least the expense is not extreme, extreme, extreme ^.^
It is what it is.
"[...] it's about recognizing the value of those works.
Maybe the value isn't infinite, as the record companies seem to assume.
Besides; value != price.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Why not just charge every man, woman, and child who has working hearing an annual fee for every snatch of music they hear and MIGHT remember while you're at it? Come on, you'd do it if you thought you could get away with it!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music," Milman said.
Isn't that what paying for the music in the first place is for? I mean I realize that once you copy it to your ipod you technically have 2 copies of the same track, but its not like the artist came around and copied the CD for me. Perhaps I should be charging the artists for doing the format shift for them? Those lazy artists making money off their music and not even bothering to give it to me in the format I need, making me do all the work.
Trouble is, the artist will never see that money.
"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music," Milman said.
Will he also agree to some sort of way to compensate me for being exposed to the plethora of horribly irritating, repetitive and over processed NOISE POLLUTION that also gets passed off as music?
artists. Poor, poor, sobs.
"...for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music."
Maybe they're doing it wrong then.
Artists aren't going to get any of those money anyway. Why? It's not on their contracts.
The fee or levy is not for the person who orginally bought the CD but for his friends who copy it. In Canada it is legal to borrow a friends CD and copy it for yourself. This levy pays the right. It's really a silly law as the CD owner is not allowed to copy it for a friend. I guess the government figured it was easier to tax blank media than attempt to stop copying. The RIAA is pushing to have the law changed in Canada however.
Who gets the Money and how its divided?
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
Hell, I'm USian (just south of Toronto). I don't even *own* an iPod or a tivo, or anything. And yet I say "Wow, this is bullshit." This is just .... bullshit. I am *so* glad that I got my Rush collection back when it was all on vinyl LP's.
C|N>K
I believe people already do:
Enough said.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Or bought it on CD. Or even Vinyl (yeah, they do still exist). Or from some other download source (yes, not everything on the internet that isn't ITS is illegal...). Or, or, or...
To make matters worse, you don't get that iPod tax back if you buy from the ITS. IIRC, the whole "CD tax" concept is based on the idea that you don't pay again for media shifting. Even though I don't really understand why I should pay a fee for playing music I paid for on a different medium. I think the recording industry is about the only non-governmental organisation that is entitled to collecting fees for nothing.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yeah! I've always wondered how the artists are supposed to be compensated by all this money being collected. I could say that I'm in a band, and get money...right?
They want you to pay for every format shift.
And I want to rule the world. So? Nobody cares about that, why should we care about their wishes?
I don't give a flying fuck about what the content industry wants. They obviously don't care about what I want, the quality of what has been released lately is enough proof of that. Gimme a reason to waste a nanosecond pondering what they could possibly want.
The first thing that will happen if such restrictions appear is that people will break out their digital crowbars and break it. Simple as that. Why? Because they don't care what someone wants who doesn't care about what they want. Illegal? Here's a phone, iPhone, no less, call someone who cares. Crack down? Ok, go ahead. Encryption works like a charm and sorry, that isn't encrypted, that's data garbage from my last HD crash, I saved it but so far couldn't get around to figuring out what this is, but you're experts, right, have fun.
If everything else fails, dear content industry: I can live without music. Can you live without my money? I hope not. Please die.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music," Milman said.'"
There is a way... cut out the recording industry that have never properly compensated the artists.
Since when is any money going to the artists?
Ok, I agree that when you sell millions of CD's, you'll be a wealthy person. But your average artist can be famous, but still not wealthy.
But somehow I really do not believe that any of this proposed "tax" (theft is a better word) is going to the artists to compensate them for all the blood sweat and tears.
I propose we build a giant space ship and stuff all the lawyers and those who come up with obsolete ideas like this into it.
I only buy music via Apple iTunes for individual songs or entire albums and directly from the artists if they have a web site. The last time I was in a record/CD store was in the early 1990s.
Now, I'm a Canadian, and one thing I've always been fuzzy on is exactly how the CD-R fee benefits "The Artist". My understanding, based on hearsay and no research, is that the fee is pocketed by the corporations and never trickles down to the artist.
However, I do know that the federal and provincial governments do provide funding for "The Arts"; presumably some of that must go to this mythical "The Artist", right? I wonder if any of the CD-R fee goes to fund those grants. And I wonder how many "The Artists" apply for and get those grants?
Music in the past was about live performance. This required a lot of musicians. The recording companies then discovered they could change it to an industry that depended almost entirely on recordings, thus killing off a lot of the demand for live performance. Did they compensate those out of work musicians? No. So why should they be paid now? How is their case different?
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
You buy the music in the non-playable distribution format, and then whatever you use to play it converts it to a suitable format.
Some companies already tried that, selling your silver discs that allegedly contained music but couldn't be read in most players. People weren't too impressed with the idea of buying another player to "convert it into a suitable format" (read: oscillations in the air). They vanished.
Seriously now. There is no such thing as a "playable" or "unplayable" format. Everything you get that is "readable", from an MS-Word document to an executable program follows a certain set of rules that tell how this program is stored on the medium that carries it. The same applies to music. If you now change the format, all someone has to do is write a program that can make sense out of those 0s and 1s, and it's "playable" again.
This is, btw, one of the reasons why DRM isn't going to work as the pipedream dictates.
You may of course put a shield of encryption in front of it. Encryption, now, requires a key to decrypt something again. Now, since the medium and the player are both in the hands of the user, so has to be the key because you cannot somehow automagically supply a key only when it is played because, well, everything the user will ever get is already with him. You have to hand him the key. Basically, this is like having a peep show, but instead of those sliding door viewports you have doors that you can lock. Now, you have to give the customer a key to the door and you tell him he may only look but not go in and molest your girls. But you can't stay with him to enforce these instructions, because ... ya know, privacy and all that. You have to give him the key, though, because the door is opaque and he wouldn't pay if you don't give him the key because he couldn't see the girl gyrate either. Most people will unlock the door and peek in and be happy with that, some will unlock the door, kick it open and have wild sex with your girl. I'll spare you the multiplication jokes now. But I guess you get the idea.
See the problem? This is btw also the reason why DRM doesn't work.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We should tell him we agree with him, and all he has to do is send us the addresses of these artists and we'll mail checks made out directly to these musicians for the added usage we get from their creation.
After all, this is about compensating the artists. Right? :-D
A publisher buys up the rights to music or books, then carries the risk of not selling enough. Artists do get royalties, very small ones to the point that giving concerts is their mainstay, not having their albums go platinum. So paying again and again only fills executive's coffers and this guy's arguments are so many more lies from the industry. Feel good lies to get the politicians to do what he wants, but lies nonetheless. Compare how the British music industry managed to get their lies official government statistics.
The RIAA is pushing to *racketeer* manufacturers of music playback devices to cover imaginary losses so they can get perpetual income whether or not they continue to produce music or distribution mediums that people still want. They have collected a fee from every CDR sold in Canada since 1997, far more than the actual amount every stolen by pirates and now want to extend that to digital music players. From the article: 'For analogy, some have argued that once they buy a novel they shouldn't have to pay again and again to read that same book -- which they already purchased. But for people like Milman and Basskin, it's about recognizing the the middlemen, and their plight of only being able to afford three yachts and six homes. "There has to be some sort of way to compensate these poor under-appreciated record industry business executives, many of whom milk far more money than the band members ever see. These misunderstood music media giants, who only want all the money a record makes and typically charge band members into debt for services music distribution, tours, and advertising putting many of these band members into the red and never breaking even. These poor overworked recording executives who pour their sweat, blood and tears on the golf field while the uncaring band members enjoy the luxury of cramped tour buses, understaffed concerts, and hectic unrelenting work hours." Milman said.
So, if you have to pay a fee for blank media and media players; does that imply that you do NOT have to pay a fee when you purchase the music? I mean, why should you be forced to pay twice for something?
Move sig!
Like when Micky J died.... somewhere (I guess it was BBC, not sure though. Maybe someone can help me here) there was a list of n-facts about Michael Jackson.
The article said: 750Million albums sold. He made $700Million during his lifetime. Errr.... 750m albums / $700m $1/album. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen albums being that cheap. So where did the rest of the money go? I'm guessing not to the people putting their "sweat and tears" into it.
They want you to pay for every format shift.
And I want to rule the world. So? Nobody cares about that, why should we care about their wishes?
Because they've got the lobbyists to make it happen.
I don't give a flying fuck about what the content industry wants. They obviously don't care about what I want, the quality of what has been released lately is enough proof of that. Gimme a reason to waste a nanosecond pondering what they could possibly want.
Because of things like the blank CD levy, where you pay even if you don't do anything illegal, or even anything related to them. You buy no music whatsoever but back up your business data onto CD-R? If you're Canadian then congratulations, you've paid them money without even being a consumer of their product. So they add iPods to that. How long before flash RAM and hard drives get added to the list? They've already proven they can get a levy on a form of storage, regardless of what you do with said storage. If you want to pay an extra cent a gig, fine, but my terabyte drive array takes issue with that.
The first thing that will happen if such restrictions appear is that people will break out their digital crowbars and break it. Simple as that.
Which is just another sort of crime, and one which they're pushing for ever stiffer punishments for. Think they'll never catch you because everyone's doing it? Tell that to Joel Tenenbaum. Just because everyone does it doesn't make it legal, it just means they have more targets. And if they can think of a legal gimmick that lets them drag one hundred thousand people through the court simultaneously (or extort settlements out of same), you can bet they'll do it. Then the fact that there's a million people doing it is trivial. Suddenly you're not one of a million, you're one of TEN.
Why? Because they don't care what someone wants who doesn't care about what they want.
Disproven by the CD levy. Since it gets every CD-R, it's safe to assume they've made profit off deaf people.
Illegal? Here's a phone, iPhone, no less, call someone who cares. Crack down? Ok, go ahead. Encryption works like a charm and sorry, that isn't encrypted, that's data garbage from my last HD crash, I saved it but so far couldn't get around to figuring out what this is, but you're experts, right, have fun.
They've threatened people who don't even have computers. Do you really think hiding your data matters? They've hauled people into court on less than an IP address. Flimsy evidence? You bet, but you gotta pay your lawyer by the hour, not by the strength of the opponent's case. If they make it too expensive to fight, then they'll make money on settlements, and the evidence will never see the light of day.
If everything else fails, dear content industry: I can live without music. Can you live without my money? I hope not. Please die.
Again, you could be stone deaf and still required to give the music industry money. They don't even have to produce much music, all they need to do is convince politicians that your entire demographic group is stealing whatever they do produce and they can tax it out of you. Still doesn't affect you?
This is why I stuck with .mp3's and a cheap player...
That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
It's marketing that costs money. And its expensive to sell crap, the good stuff sells itself...
I personally have enough interesting music that I don't see a reason to buy any for the next 12 months. I am suggesting that we all refrain from the purchase of music. Don't listen to music on-line. Avoid the radio stations. Anything that is a revenue stream for the music industry. We will all be better off if they have less money to buy politicians.
Companies need to learn that copyright is not a business model. It is a license, granted by the citizens of a country, to have certain restrictions on the commercial use of a work for a limited time. There is no right to be paid or make money, it is simply an opportunity to do so and if you fail, too bad.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
When you stop to think about it, the music RECORDING industry is actually a parasitic one living off the blood, sweat and tears of the musos. It is a separate industry living off the fading body of one of the most ancient and universal professions.
Before I get modded down, think of it this way. Say I own 15 CD's. The artists received maybe $3 out of that - if that. Those CD's keep me pretty much entertained for a year or two. If we didn't have such ubiquitous mass released music recordings, where would I get my music from? Well, probably to a large degree from live musicians. On street corners, in concert halls, coffee shops. For any decent party I'd hire musicians. Same for big events in life. Weddings, funerals etc where a lot of people now just play CD's. The wealthy would be patrons of music again, sponsoring musicians to play in their homes. Just like in the developing world, there would be a lot more musicians making their living out of performing and writing music.
The big recording labels and organisations such as this one TFA refers to are not helping musicians, but stifling music as a profession.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
Like any other example of plundering the public for the benefit of a special interest, these kids of fees get legislated because the benefit is concentrated, and the burden is diffuse. The recording industry will always pay more in bribes to get this handout than members of the public will pay to prevent it.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
According to the article
"If this change isn't made there's no question that the continuing decline in the use of recordable CDs for copying music will have the long-term effect of draining all the value out of the levy, but the copying won't stop."
So if there is a decline in the use of recordable CD's for copying music, shouldn't we stop paying the fee on that media, as it is still used for many other legitimate purposes?
Maybe they should price it according to what the market will bear, not according to what they would like to.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Agreed. Perhaps Milman would like to reflect on the hours, sweat, blood and tears that average working people go through in order to pay for record company expense accounts.
""There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music," Milman said.'""
-There ALREADY IS A WAY: It's called "Record companies paying the artist what they deserve, and not the fraction that they are getting from the labels".
What a retard Milman is to actually say something like this. I hope his statement blows up in his face.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Companies need to learn that copyright is not a business model.
They do. But it won't happen while they can make a profit off it. You want a child to stop breaking things, you don't give him candy whenever he breaks something. As long as the laws let them do this and make money in the process, they'll do it.
It is a license, granted by the citizens of a country, to have certain restrictions on the commercial use of a work for a limited time. There is no right to be paid or make money, it is simply an opportunity to do so and if you fail, too bad.
Copyright - particularly modern variants that run for decades after the original producer has died, and thus are used best by ageless companies - is precisely that. "We own X and we have a right to make money off it, and bring the power of the courts down on anyone who attempts to use X without giving us money."
Don't like the idea? Be politically active, if only on this one topic. Push for copyright reform. It won't get better if we do nothing.
no, there doesn't have to be a way to compensate an artist for the blood sweat and tears, or the effort that it takes to make music. this is a fallacy, you don't make money for working hard, you make money for creating something of value, or perceived value to those who are paying you.
*NO* there should be no compensation for the effort of creation.
if you're going to impose a fee, let me choose the artists my fee goes to. and if this is in canada that would pretty much be The Real McKenzies and Great Big Sea.
stop upholding their lies and stop following their red herrings.
If people are paying a fee up front when they buy an iPod in Canada, then they should not have to pay again for music with they download from iTunes. That would be charging them twice for the same music.
>"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music," Milman said.
Ya know, I know a lot of coders, me included, that got paid salary or hourly for the code they wrote, but didn't see any more money from the individual software sales. How's about we charge a fee for every computer sold and then give it to all the coders out there- "There has to be some sort of way to compensate the coders for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making software," says I.
I am looking forward to the day when furniture is treated the same way.
Pay per use, pay to have others use them, pay to move it to a different room ...
"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music," Milman said.'"
Here, let me translate that into peoplespeak...
"Dude!!! I'm like driving last years model Porche! I gotta find some way of justifying raping both the sheeple and the music-making sheeple, so i can upgrade to a newer model! look at me slinging that FUD!"
translating from FUD to human speech makes me gag, though.
~men are from earth. women are from earth. deal with it.~
Go down the pub, I'm sure you'll find some geezer selling them for that.
Of course albums weren't his only source of income, and CDs don't fly to the store on their own so your calculation is quite an approximation.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music"
There already IS a system of compensating artists.
ITS CALLED THE STICKER-PRICE. You know, that number of monies that you pay when you first actually BUY the cd?
You know bullshit like this makes me feel TOTALLY justified for not spending a single cent on movies OR music. You try and charge me twice and you wonder why I don't want to give you a single dollar? How did you get into Business again?
good stats there to use as ammunition against this nonsense. as far as i'm concerned, the record companies can't justify this unless they offer EVERYTHING on their catalogue (even out of print) as digital downloads... if they think DRM is so great, the ipod and itunes is set up to do this for them. cos otherwise they are interfering with the market in PMPs, and implying that the vendors of these devices are selling devices to facilitate some kind of 'crime'.
record/movie/telecommunications companies are all still breathtakingly overcharging for their products... and with the government in their pockets the voices of the consumers is not being heard. i pay well over 50x as much for internet bandwidth on my mobile phone compared to my ADSL, the cd's here cost aud$25-30 dollars (out of that a dollar goes to the artist, and the materials to produce it maybe another dollar) and DVDs cost 30-40 dollars and the proportions of costs are about the same as for music. there's a word for marking up prices this much, but i can't remember right now what it is. it should be a crime to make unreasonable profit, imho.
i think if they are gonna try and justify this by talking about the money the artists are losing they should be made to reveal how much they are paying them and either raise the royalty rates or stfu and stop being such dinosaurs.
I'm pro-copyright, but I very much dislike RIAA, CPCC, and other such leeches - precisely because they evoke very strong negative emotions by their immoral and despicable words and actions, and make it very hard to uphold a reasonable pro-copyright argument ("Surely whatever those sleazy guys are supporting so eagerly cannot be good?").
For the record, I also think that copyright terms are unnecessarily long, and should either be significantly reduced, or cost money to maintain. But I do believe that reasonable copyright is a net benefit to the society.
"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music,"
Seriously? I have friends who play and have played in several bands, and in general 25.000 NOK (roughly 3200 USD) covers the cost of recording an album and having someone talented and experienced (but unknown) put it all together for you.
Of course, the cost of producing and distributing millions of CD's isn't going to be insignificant but how hard can it be to find one or more online services that will sell your music for you at a fraction of the money a RIAA associate would demand?
Seriously.. where are these extreme expences? I small band can pool their savings and record an album, then sell it online at a quarter of what a cd would cost and still make more per album than bigger, more established bands make.
Bigger artists, with multi-million dollar income on every damn thing they release don't have to pay a dime more than the newb guys to record an album, and they should be able to affort printing the cd's if they absolutely must follow that old, outdated business model.
Since when did the government every care about the individual artist.
They are protecting the big record labels and their tax revenue. Playing it off like you care about the artist is a lie.
Heres my advice, PIRATE MUSIC!!!!!!!!!
Share it with everyone you know, get them listening to the artist, and then take them to a CONCERT!!!!!!!
I've spent close to $200 for a ticket to go see a favorite band.
I've spent $0 on MEDIA.
Sometimes I really hate capitalism.
an ounce of weed, many pots of coffee, and an evening at the pub when the damned record is finished...
of course, back in the day we could actually play our instruments...
Can I please have money from everyone purchasing a crowbar, as they may some day use it to break into my house?
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
But thankfully we have the EU so you can easily buy from a number of neighbouring country that don't implement that scam/scheme. I can only guess it will be the same thing with the US.
There is something completely retarded about this concept of making iPod users pay. They're likely to buy overpriced crap from iTunes.
So once again the music industry is showing how much they despise their customer base.
I long for the day a jetliner full of music industry execs crashes into a volcano. I will pop the Champagne and dance in the street.
From the original article: "The non-profit Canadian Private Copying Collective was established to collect the levy and to date they have distributed more than $160 million to more than 100,000 songwriters, recording artists, music publishers and record companies." Let's see: $160,000,000 / 100,000 = $1600 per payee over the twelve years CPCC has been 'in business'. $1600 / 12 = $133.34 per payee per year. So even if the parasites, ("music publishers and record companies"), weren't getting a cut, that's about 37 cents per artist per day. Starving artists indeed! It would be interesting to know what the parasites' portion of this levy is. How much money goes to the 'sine qua non' here, namely the artists? A quarter a day? A dime? Less?
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music
This compensation already exists. It's colloquially referred to as "drugs and groupies".
One of the things I find annoying about laws like this is that guilt is presumed and all are punished. My iPod contains nothing but freely (legally) downloadable material. Okay, I'm in the minority, but I (and others like me) do exist. Now I'm to be punished by being charged a fee up front for doing nothing that the complainants could complain about. Furthermore, the fee that I'm to be charged is to compensate the artists of the material on my iPod. However, since the material is free, and since the artists are not part of the collective, they will not, in fact, receive any part of that fee. The ones who will receive the fee had no part in the production of the material on my iPod. They are benefitting financially from the work of those outside the collective. One could reasonably argue that they are stealing from the artists in this case.
linquendum tondere
It's the same as with writeable cd's and such (don't know about the states, but in europe there is a copyright charge on empty cd's). If you charge people money for the illegal music they're gonna put onto the medium, while in effect there is no proof that is what they're gonna do, you're actually fining them before they committed the crime. I mean, it is still illegal to copy music, but now you're gonna pay for it because you're probably doing it anyway.
If musicians would be honest, they would be the first to react to this. After all, as a musician you're most likely to use the medium to carry your own music around. But you still have to pay this fee.
They don't give you the key - they give you a phone number, you call it and they send someone with the key who unlocks it for you and after a set time locks it again and takes the key with him. Of course if he's too busy to answer the phone or there's a problem with the line ... that's tough luck.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Some have argued that once they buy a CD they shouldn't have to pay again and again to listen to those songs
And how is this in any way illogical? It's format-shifting. This isn't about piracy, but extracting MORE money from the people buying the music. This fits in with the music industry's assertion that we buy a license to listen to the music when we buy a CD.
This is why such fair use scenarios need to be explicitly stated in law.
This is extreme scummishness on behalf of the music industry.
A fee for cdr's sold is insane. You cant assume assume everyone that is buying a cdr is copying music onto it.
if the assumption is that you're guilty and need to be proven innocent, like in france, then canada should go ahead and charge a tax on all automobiles because they could be used as getaway cars. And may as well tax chainsaws because they could be used as murder weapons.
in the 1980's, president bush instituted a tax on blank cassettes in america because it was assumed that all blank tapes were used to duplicate copyrighted material. what a moronic idea. the cassettes i bought were for my 4 track so i could record MYSELF writing MY OWN FUCKING MUSIC. and for mixdowns to give to my bandmates to lose. i have read we also have a similar tax on blank cd's, although most of them I use to back up MY OWN FUCKING DATA not some stupid commercial recording. Whatever, I'm sick of paying taxes on the assumption I'm a thief, and having that money go to idiots like madonna, michael jackson, and the RIAA fuckers.
however, ipods are now used not just for playing music, but for playing back podcasts and as the hard disk for recording live audio. if i'm using my ipod to record my buddies playing D&D, why the fuck should a penny of my money go to the RIAA and MPAA? because _they're_ the evil fucking asspirates.
http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProductPage.process?Product_Id=277661
http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProductPage.process?Product_Id=460128
http://www.belkin.com/tunestudio/
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Now hear me out first. I'm not sure about Canada, but here in the states the artists are not fairly compensated because most of the generated revenue (like most things corporate) goes to individuals with no actual talent (administrative, CEO, Executives, etc.... I really don't understand in this day and age with the technology that is available that record companies still even exist. Maybe somebody should create an online store much like Google's Marketplace but for music. A kind of independent label version of iTunes if you will. That way more of the actual revenue ends up in the hands of the artists, not some bloated over-the-hill exec who can't carry much of a tune while washing his/her fat behind in the shower. Besides there is a lot of music out there that will never be heard on the scale it deserves because it may not be viewed as "profitable" by a large company. Remember smaller companies will make for a more versatile economy. If we still had that we wouldn't have to worry about one or two financial institutions, or auto companies going under. I think Homeland Security should focus on that as well. In closing, instead of collecting an ipod tax maybe you should collect an "I don't have talent so I make money off of others" tax. You would generate so much more in taxes since it is so widespread. Qorona
Excessive affluence has already corrupted and destroyed modern popular music. Another unethical intrusion into the marketplace will only serve to replace real art and artists with even more greedy uncreative upper middle-class privileged bureaucrats and untalented children of the elite and powerful. This is just more of the same.
> ...the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music...
Odd. I've seen people make music without spending any money at all, and without sweating or bleeding or crying, either. In fact, they seemed to enjoy it. Perhaps Milman should consider a trade which she finds less stressful.
On the other hand, perhaps some of the "music should be free" enthusiasts here on Slashdot should try making their own music (and distributing it for free, of course. If anyone wants it.)
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Heh, I wanna see one guy with a lot of "pressure" willing to wait for the guy with the key. Either they kick the door in, ask a buddy to kick that door down for them or they simply leave and return to spying on people in the park.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'll take it as a license to download whatever music I want, since I'm presumed guilty and will be charged the fee in advance, and my conscience will be clear. Thanks, CPCC!
> Indeed, fair is fair.
Not to those who buy such media but never copy any music.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
a refund on all purchased music in Canada to compensate :-P
the article says something explicitly different. the fee is for you to be allowed to translocate your fairly putchased CD. if they lowered the cost of the cd it woul nuliffy the fee!
also this is not a piracy compensation fee. it says so explicitly. sharing is prohibited. its just for personal translocation of your own purchased music.
it might however make sense that they should lower the fee on downloaded music since presumably this music is actually intended for translocation and so logically that should be in the price.
i'd be for this if thr fee was to pay for piracy. it makes sense and is roughly fair though perhaps not individually fair. piracy is a problem for producers. there is no simple way to correct this that is fair. there are tonnes of unkowns like the fact that for somw artists piracy is helpful and for some it is not. while the cost of reproduction is negligible you still need some artificial scarcity to fairly compensate the reasonable revenue the artist should have.
so even though its not an ideal solution it is a good solution in yhat it is easy to implement. easier to police (will get tricky if removable SD cards are used) and has a social benefit. it would decriminalize sharing.
but this is not that law.
instead this will drive people to use SD card based music players as those can't be taxed since they are mostly used in cell phones and cameras.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Banning or restricting time shifting and format shifting is of no use to the busker on the street, but allows a company to profit by re-selling the same product to the same customer in different wrappers should technology or even a person's work schedule change.
If anything buskers are likely to be the targets of such things. Since they may well not "own" the music they perform.
Many of the 'little people' (or people who claim to represent the 'little people' or the 'starving artists') who insist that Canada needs copyright reform so they can better feed their families strangely don't explain why their neighbor, whose family won't see paychecks in the fifty years after he dies, should have to enjoy the things he has bought and paid for only on their terms, even if it means he never gets to enjoy them at all.
Also "reform" always appears to mean more rather than less copyright. At least to these advocates...
They seem to forget the blood sweat n tears we put into earning our money in order to finally afford the cd, then to be spat in the face with another fee to listen to it on a music device and have to buy another copy? In the end it only harms the musicians, people will resent paying for these goods more n more thus seek the avenue which is fast becoming the ideal one, illegal p2p. Musicians should just setup a lil paypal link somewhere, they'd probably get quite a few donations.
If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
Because they've got the lobbyists to make it happen.
Ironically an industry which was truely in trouble probably could not afford to lobby.
He just calls a Latvian teenager. To pick the lock. Not for any other purpose, that would just be wrong.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Companies need to learn that copyright is not a business model. It is a license, granted by the citizens of a country, to have certain restrictions on the commercial use of a work for a limited time. There is no right to be paid or make money, it is simply an opportunity to do so and if you fail, too bad.
That's not going to happen until they are told "no". That isn't going to happen unless you get at least one major government consider the interests of their citizens and their whole economy on a long term basis. Considering the kind of people you currently see vastly over represented in governments all over the planet that dosn't appear likely to happen.
Copyright - particularly modern variants that run for decades after the original producer has died, and thus are used best by ageless companies - is precisely that. "We own X and we have a right to make money off it, and bring the power of the courts down on anyone who attempts to use X without giving us money."
Which makes little sense from the POV of encouraging publication of new works. Mr Jackson isn't going to write another note and Mr Crichton isn't going to write another word. Nor does increasing copyright terms on pre-existing works.
No, you should be billed every time you listen to the song, regardless of format.
( ya, that was sarcasm )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
In what time and age do we live that it's more acceptable to break content protection than to rape teens?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"The cost of making music"
I am loosing my legendary politeness and can only say Fuck you, you sucker, and give me a fucking break
Creating good music is difficult but is free as in beer (you need a brain, usually ears, maybe hands)
Where it gets expensive is when you need to record at a decent quality level.
Where it gets VERY expensive, it's when you need to purchase advertisement, produce 10 million albums of shit, add the fireworks to your show with huge screens that show...unrelated stuff usually..., or pay MTV to broadcast you,
All the above cost has about nothing to do with making music. It's called producing a show. It could well be a contest of pinguin hookers boob size, it wouldn't even make the difference.
"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music,"
That should really say, "There has to be some sort of way to compensate the labels and lawyers for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into squeezing every last fucking nickel out of consumers", because its closer to the truth.
Yup, and it isn't just the music industry. Every industry now appears to be trying to turn you in an annuity. Another way to phrase that is every mosquito wants to insert its straw into your behind. This is what happens when one turns industries over to Business School Product. Service agreements are another example of this insidious trend.
This was already implemented in Canada five years ago. Apple collected the money but when the Federal government overturned the ruling the money was given back to the consumer (or the Red Cross if the consumer didn't know about the refund program). The government decided it didn't make sense to collect money since you could fill the iPod with legally obtained music. http://www.apple.com/ca/ipodlevyrefund/
They buy the congressmen that make the whole world sing.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
How much of that $700 Million was made from concerts, TV appearances, product placement and selling Beatles music?
He also probably had a relatively good music contract so got a larger proportion of the price of his CDs compared to most musicians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
"Because of things like the blank CD levy, where you pay even if you don't do anything illegal, or even anything related to them. You buy no music whatsoever but back up your business data onto CD-R? If you're Canadian then congratulations, you've paid them money without even being a consumer of their product."
Yeah, I'm with you. 99.9% of the CD-R I have ever bought have been for storage of my own data. They've gotten plenty of undeserved money from me. And I'm sure I'm not alone. I hereby bequeath that already-paid, undeserved money to cover the "lost revenue" from people moving their music from CD to iPod. There, Mr. Milman, you can stop your whining, because I'm all paid up.
PS: they already got compensated when I bought the audio CD or the track from iTunes anyway. The bunch of double-dipping greedy idiots.
I believe that what he was getting at was you buy the "binaries," and then whatever device you use "compiles" it to the proper format automatically, no encryption, no DRM, nothing like that. Sorry, couldn't come up with a car analogy.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Entitlement is bullshit. And furthermore, I PAID them their fee when I bought the CD. If that wasn't enough, maybe the companies in charge of the CD distribution shouldn't be taking such a cut from the artist. I hate their arguments that it's for the singers. Bullshit. It's to line your own pockets trying to take advantage of consumers and the government before they catch on that you're robbing people blind.
In Nepal, there is a bill being pushed through the parliament now that would entitle artists to Nepali royalties PERIOD. Right now they get squat. I run a studio, but I never hear anyone on the soundstage crying. Get over it. There is more to life then money, and doing things to make it. Take a trek, build a mandal, or make love. Forgettabout getting a few more pennies per song from some poor appreciator with an iPod. In the grand scheme of things, is it going to matter? Well, that's some advice from a Nepali artist who just feels satisfaction when there is someone who just listens and then enjoys.
I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
If anything buskers are likely to be the targets of such things. Since they may well not "own" the music they perform.
Actually it's worse than that, ask any small time musician about the copyright levy and they'll tell you that they have to pay the levy on the blank CDs they buy to record their own music on to sell to you, and because they are way too small to get any money back from CIRA you end up paying for music you don't want whenever you buy the music of these small time performers. No longer can you say that instead of supporting the big names you will support the true independent artists, because by supporting them the big names also get their cut!
OK Canada, you keep selling us cheap pharmaceuticals, We'll sell you cheap CDRs & iPods.
If they make this levy reasonable and if it's enough to keep DMCA-like legislation out of Canada, this is a better solution by far.
Once again, it appears that a DMCA-like bill is likely to die on the order paper going into an election. Once again, it is not going to be an issue in the actual election (although it should be). If the result is this kind of a levy and the RIAA and MPAA are shut out from writing Canadian copyright law, I call this a partial but important victory for Canadians.
Sometimes even toads can sing. (toads == politicians; song == good legislation, croak == bad legislation)
Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
No surprise, but these Canadian artists seem to believe in the Labor Theory of Value - a product is worth only what labor was put into it. Supply and demand be damned. An artist put so much blood sweat and tears into an album, they deserve at least $15.99 for an album, no less The other view is the Subjective Theory of Value - a product is worth exactly what price a willing buyer and a willing seller will agree too. One of these views has been the foundation of Western economies for two-and-a-half centuries. The other was the view of Marx. I'll let you figure out which is which.
Canadians will be going over the border to buy ipods. Makes sense.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Here in Canada, it's about the same price to buy 75 blank DVDs as it is to get 30 blank CDs. I'm assuming that this is due to the "tax" on blank CDs. I guess they're just too stupid to realize that you can fit a hell of a lot more mp3s onto a DVD than normal audio onto a CD. Furthermore, they sell blank "Audio CDs" which are about twice as expensive as "normal" CDs, despite the fact that there is absolutely no physical difference between the two (it's all zeroes and ones at that point).
This hits the nail on the head. I would bet that iTunes generates far more revenue for artists than this tax. Furthermore, iTunes has a capitalist element that pays money to artists when you actually buy their songs. When the free market functions better than government, it should be a signal to government to leave it alone.
How would you feel knowing a small amount of your fee winds up in the pockets of Bryan Adams and Anne Murray?
"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music," Milman said.
Yes, and that happenned when you *bought* the song from iTunes. Why would you want some blanket fee for then moving it onto your iPod?
Besides, the "extreme, extreme expense" that Milman prick is talking about isn't what the artist invests in his music ... it's what the record companies choose to spend marketing certain artists, and that's really not the artist's responsibility (although most record company contracts seem to make the artist pay for it anyway.) What they really want is compensation for ... oh, I don't know ... taking up space I suppose. Face it, about the only good thing a typical record company exec does is exhale carbon dioxide, which is needed by plants.
Regardless, I'm just sick to death of these assholes continuously pretending to be the champions of the artists. It's a lie. If it were true, there'd be a lot more musicians enjoying the money they've earned, and a lot more executives just barely making ends meet while working in a restaurant waiting for their first big break.
Truth is, the relationship between a musician and his record company is generally not symbiotic: it's parasitic, and the artist is not the parasite.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Wait till they start charging you for writing stuff down.... or even remembering something... to quote dave mustaine, "Next thing you know they'll take my thoughts away!"
So that means Canada should also levy a tax on glasses and cups, which will be distributed to the companies which make drinks which can be consumed inside of a glass or cup.
There will also be a tax on toilet sales, which will be distributed to the food and beverage industry.
Here's my take on the situation... Canada Taxes Piracy, Won't Admit It
This is Canada's way of taxing piracy. Copying music legally is just an excuse for why they're imposing it.
if they wanted that extra fee for the portability of the music they could argue along economics lines such as the portable music is more valuable since it can be played more places. if every one made backup copies that lasted indefinitely sales of a particular cd would stop. have you ever gone and bought a cd even though you had already owned it at one point but lost it? obviously it is more valuable than the price tag so perishable media is their way to extract more of the consumers value from them, if it was not worth buying multiple times they would not but if it is worth that extra bit then both sides are getting what they want. by this i mean the music industry is better able to charge people what they are willing to pay if you only kind of want the cd you will buy it and once it inevitably gets scratched or lost you wont buy another. while the #1 fans will go and pay up for another copy because it is worth it to them. the industry gets extra money because instead of charging twice as much and limiting the number of people who buy the cd in the first place they charge half of what it is worth to some and exactly what it is worth to others. the people who only pay half of what it is worth to them end up paying what it is worth because they will have to go and buy another copy. its the same logic behind selling a hard cover book for twice the amount of the paperback that comes out latter. major fans of the author will pay extra to get the book early while every one else will just wait for the price to come down to what they are willing to pay in the end more people pay what they are willing to pay so the publisher gets more money. i do think it is ridiculous however to pay twice just sell in unrestricted mp3 format and let each artist release at different price levels. personally there are few bands i have to hear for the most part i just like certain music that sounds good and will pay a certain amount for each song but there are a few i would pay extra for and i assume there are others like me.
Oh, so you mean all those free CDs, posters, t-shirts, concert tickets, etc. are all illegal? I guess I'll be calling the FBI now. Oh, they're right on it, top of their priority list. I'm never going to hear Britney Spears on commercial radio again, apparently. Wish I had thought of that sooner. Oh yes, I'll call up the advertising standards group and wow, they are prosecuting every instance of lies that say I will "Save" money when they require me to first to *spend.* Oh, Clearchannel has now been shut down for multiple violations. Good thing for that law!
Honesty in advertising and commercial radio... That'll be the day. ;-p
Stupidity is its own reward.
Such a proposal would not bother me if the artists that actually produce the music actually got some of this fee. Usually they get nothing, it all goes to the CEOs of the big parasitic music industry.
As long as pirating any media of any kind EVER is fully supported by the law.
Actually, it is against the law for artists (or their representatives) to pay radio/tv stations to play their music. It is called "Payola" and was a HUGE problem a while back. Believe it or not, radio/tv stations pay to play the stuff, just like the rest of us.
Artists/producers can pay for advertising about a new album, but not to play the actual music.
That's not how I understand US payola law (47 USC 317). A record label can pay a radio station to play a song as long as a disclaimer to the effect of "Warner Bros. Records is responsible for the content of the following ad" precedes it.
Which makes little sense from the POV of encouraging publication of new works. Mr Jackson isn't going to write another note and Mr Crichton isn't going to write another word. Nor does increasing copyright terms on pre-existing works.
Of interest is Spider Robinson's Melancholy Elephants, a short story that's about copyright in the post-scarcity future. http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html
How is it a loss when I take music from iTunes and put it onto my iPod, or music from a CD an put it onto my iPod? If they're talking about losses from piracy, that's already illegal and punishable. What's the point of this again?
I so wish mainstream artists could see this and dump the RIAA for the excessive and usurious baggage that it is. When the cost of distribution is a download, artists are in a position to win big. They just need to wean themselves from the current, archaic mindset.
...but none of the discipline.
Corporations taxing People. AKA: The End.
"They confiscated everything, even the stuff we didn't steal!"
What is most important of all is that the CPCC successfully did this before in 2003 and then the courts ruled against it a year later.
For reference:
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2003/12/12/9084.html
The corporate shills from TFA make it sound like this is a brand new idea that's never been tried before...
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
In the US, copyrights covers all forms of copying. Nominally, the holder gets to determine what constitutes a legitimate copy (usually after a fee is paid). Illegitimate copies violate copyright law. If the copyright is registered then the holder can sue for damages. If not, they can sue to have the copying cease. The courts have carved out exceptions to this under the provision of Fair Use. However, fair use is an affirmative defense, meaning that you must admit to copyright violation in order to invoke it (like self defense or insanity). When the terms of fair use are clear you generally are under no threat of being sued. What major copyright holders have tried to do is eliminate or restrict fair use to greatest extent possible.
The market value of most music produced today is essentially $0. Beyond that the cost of producing, marketing and distributing a song or album is high enough to prevent most of them from seeing a profit. Part of this is simply bad industry habits, but the middlemen that control such things have essentially seen these blanks levies as a way to preserve their MO for as long as possible. Lobbying the govt. is thus rent seeking.
for my old worn out tapes and records that don't work anymore.
Inventor, Artist http://www.Rubber-Power.com
Just as much toil goes into manufacturing cars or computers or houses, yet our economic system doesn't provide to the people who make them a continuing share in the profits thereof. Musicians who take maximum advantage of their privileged position in capitalism must expect resentment from the vast majority of workers whose labour isn't compensated in the same way.
Im a bit tired of hearing the artist whimper: "we work soo hard". Yes we all know you work hard, we all do work hard for our living. Collecting fee for iPod and music players... how will this be done, flat fee or percentage of the sale? I have a good idea... why dont we put a fee on software sales. Yeah fee on software sale for those who work on Open source software. They outta make a living too, and since we haven't paid for their software, no one will be paying twice. And thats a good way for the big software compagny to repay the small guys who generously give their work for free. This should make a triving FOSS and beat the stiffling nature of proprietary software. And not encourage all those one hit wonders from recieving free money for life.
I am a photographer who (occasionally) sells a framed print. I think I should make an unstated, unsigned agreement with any purchaser that they will pay me a fee every time they move the photograph to a different wall. Do you think that would work?
Because we are ALL pirates up here in Canada dontcha know? The US media lobby said so, so it must be true! Also at least this way we know all those collected funds will go directly to those starving artists right?
If you don't have your sarcasm scanner on you need an upgrade.
Two problems with this article:
1) Private copying, as other people have mentioned, is legal. That is, if a friend loans you a CD, you may make a private copy for yourself. They may not, however, make a copy for you.
2) The levy doesn't change the legality of 1) in any way. It doesn't become more illegal or less illegal. As an analogy, imagine that a levy of $500 per bullet was made to compensate next of kin in gun related murders and accidents. The levy doesn't make killing people any more legal, it's just a levy. It's just a way to take a LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' money. People that behave illegally don't care about the levies and profit (or commit evil, however you want to define those terms) beyond the cost imposed on them by the government.
It's a money grab. It's ALWAYS been a money grab. There are artist organizations -- with popular, highly regarded artists -- that oppose the new copyright bills that make it harder for Canadians to enjoy the music that they've legally purchased for themselves. Even if the music has been acquired some other way, many of these artists agree that exposure is more important than making a dollar on each song. Eventually, they'll make the money that they deserve to make, whether that's through touring or donation or what have you.
My iPhone is largely filled with music that I paid for. I have my own reasons for paying for music instead of torrenting it. I feel I've made the right decision, and I don't think that I deserve to be penalized because other people make different decisions. I don't think draconian copyright law and stealing money out of people's pockets is the answer.