Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Music Group Proposes 'Copyright Tax' On Internet Use (torrentfreak.com)
After ongoing discussions and proposals about new taxes and fees to compensate creators for "missed revenue," the Screen Composers Guild of Canada is calling for a copyright tax on all broadband data use above 15 gigabytes per month. TorrentFreak reports: A proposal from the Screen Composers Guild of Canada (SCGC), put forward during last week's Government hearings, suggests to simply add a levy on Internet use above 15 gigabytes per month. The music composers argue that this is warranted because composers miss out on public performance royalties. One of the reasons for this is that online streaming services are not paying as much as terrestrial broadcasters. The composers SCGC represents are not the big music stars. They are the people who write music for TV-shows and other broadcasts. Increasingly these are also shown on streaming services where the compensation is, apparently, much lower.
SCGC's solution to this problem is to make every Canadian pay an extra fee when they use over 15 gigabytes of data per month. This money would then be used to compensate composers and fix the so-called "value gap." As a result, all Internet users who go over the cap will have to pay more. Even those who don't watch any of the programs where the music is used. However, SCGC doesn't see the problem and believes that 15 gigabytes are enough. People who want to avoid paying can still use email and share photos, they argue. Those who go over the cap are likely streaming not properly compensated videos. SCGC writes: "[W]hen you're downloading and consuming over 15 gigabytes of data a month, you're likely streaming Spotify. You're likely streaming YouTube. You're likely streaming Netflix. So we think because the FANG companies will not give us access to the numbers that they have, we have to apply a broad-based levy. They're forcing us to."
SCGC's solution to this problem is to make every Canadian pay an extra fee when they use over 15 gigabytes of data per month. This money would then be used to compensate composers and fix the so-called "value gap." As a result, all Internet users who go over the cap will have to pay more. Even those who don't watch any of the programs where the music is used. However, SCGC doesn't see the problem and believes that 15 gigabytes are enough. People who want to avoid paying can still use email and share photos, they argue. Those who go over the cap are likely streaming not properly compensated videos. SCGC writes: "[W]hen you're downloading and consuming over 15 gigabytes of data a month, you're likely streaming Spotify. You're likely streaming YouTube. You're likely streaming Netflix. So we think because the FANG companies will not give us access to the numbers that they have, we have to apply a broad-based levy. They're forcing us to."
It's the tax on blank CDRs all over again.
The whores get mad when the sluts give it away for free.
Taxes on internet data to punish internet users or as an action to permit free copying of content on the internet? Here in Sweden we have to pay taxes on storage medium to compensate creators for "missed revenue" due to piracy, but piracy is not allowed even though you pay this fee.
Isn't Canada the place that put a media tax on CDR/RW disks and such -- because their poor music industry was so hard-done-by?
My advice to Canadian musicians and singers: take a teaspoon of cement and harden up!
I'm defending the rights of artists all the time, arguing for reasonable and moderate copyright and ways to empower the artists. And every time you try that, some of the associations they're forced into says something absurd and stupid like that.
With groups like SCGC it's really no wonder when people start pirating music again, for example by downloading it from Youtube, which is surprisingly easy.
Get bent, which means, try to self-fellate.
One of the reasons for this is that online streaming services are not paying as much as terrestrial broadcasters.
Then get streaming services to pay you more, not Internet users in general.
As for me, I don't think I've ever used more than 15GB in a month, but if I did, it wouldn't be because I downloaded (or streamed) music or video.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
You mean, "Lies are now recognized." Thanks for playing though, you get a conservative Justice. You get a conservative Justice. YOU ALL get a conservative Justice!
Lets tax people who don't use are products! poof! profit! Cool! ;)
You can buy anything from the corrupt politicians!
Just my 2 cents
They have unquantifiable lack of gains (which they are calling losses), so they are saying they're forced to hurt everyone indiscriminately to make up for it? It's hard to have anything but animosity toward people like that.
I thought it was the broken government's attempt to get Canadians to stop endlessly watching mockery videos of their idiotic PM.
Why don't I just stop you on your way to work to your law firm and take some money out of your wallet because I think you should give me money.
Oh wait, I can't. Because that's called robbery.
Get out the guillotines and execute everyone on the "Screen Composers Guild of Canada". Execute anyone in government who is considering their proposal.
Fun fact: The music industry sued to try and stop the production of player pianos because they will put the musicians out of work. The musicians cash cow is concert ticket, not album sales.
Perhaps the music industry should pay for all the free promotion they are getting.
--- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
> SCGC writes: "[W]hen you're downloading and consuming over 15 gigabytes of data a month, you're likely streaming Spotify. You're likely streaming YouTube. You're likely streaming Netflix.
First of all, I transfer 10s of gigbytes of data per month for work, and I work from home.
Nothing to do with your shitty music.
Second, I pay for netflix already.
Third, I watch youtube videos by people that put their content up there.
Fuck off and go work for a living instead of leeching off the rest of us.
I have a certain device in my house that does lots of Netflix throttled. (Bluray player plugged into TV)
It starts at 4 Mb/s and goes down as it uses more in a day. (resets about midnight each day)
If it pulls more than 9 GB in a day it is limited to 1 Mb/sec. (It is set so if you do more than 2 Hours at a given rate I've set, it limits you down, the specific #s are about 2/3 of the existing rate)
It can routinely hit that, partly due to someone starting it and walking off, or binging series.
If I didn't start at 4 Mb/sec, or limit it down as it keeps going it could probably hit 15 GB in a day routinely.
So what am I saying? Netflix stream, perfectly legal, can exceed 10 GB/day without trouble.
However, SCGC doesn't see the problem and believes that 15 gigabytes are enough.
Who died and made you king of anything?
People who want to avoid paying can still use email and share photos, they argue.
Which they do using Internet data - ding dongs.
Those who go over the cap are likely streaming not properly compensated videos.
[citation needed]
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Bigger games these days are easily 45GB.
These backwards, tech illiterate rights organisations can go fuck themselves.
I say people who demand money for nothing in return are likely abusing their spouses. Have you stopped abusing your spouses Mr. Posner and Mr. Novotny?
Music must have been used at some point to woo your potential spouse, as musicians were not directly emotionally compensated it is only fair that they can claim prima nocta.
Gof*ckyourself
Sarah palin is on my watch list ;)
...in return, they made all non-profit copying completely legal.
"One of the reasons for this is that online streaming services are not paying as much as terrestrial broadcasters."
Translation: Ee cut a "shitty deal" on public performance royalties for online streaming so we want more money forced through government taxes!
"The composers SCGC represents are not the big music stars. They are the people who write music for TV-shows and other broadcasts."
Translation: We're not one of those big star assholes trying to wring out money, we're one of the small time assholes trying to wring out money!
"As a result, all Internet users who go over the cap will have to pay more. Even those who don't watch any of the programs where the music is used. However, SCGC doesn't see the problem and believes that 15 gigabytes are enough. People who want to avoid paying can still use email and share photos, they argue. Those who go over the cap are likely streaming not properly compensated videos."
Translation: Even though our music is so bad you intentionally mute all the stuff you stream, send/receive over 15 gigabytes worth of games with properly compensated music, and avoid us like the plague, we still figure you owe us money because hypothetically you might have for a split second in those 15 gigabytes listened to a few notes of one of ours songs, so give us money!
Gee, it sounds all so reasonable! While you're at it, why not have the government sue Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc for all the money you're due? Then have the government suing ISPs because they facilitated all this under payed streaming. And then the consumers for daring to stream music without making sure to double or quintuple pay just to make sure the music creator/owner gets "enough" pay. You'll know you've paid enough when each music owner has bathroom fixtures plated in latinum.
Some of us are not using their ridicule low bandwitdh for pirating stuff. 15GB goes by pretty fast when you're using a *legal* streaming service (also known as Netflix & such). Besides, some games go easily over multi-GB downloads, PC or consoles (most recent console is a PS2, I'm more of a PC gamer). What about people streaming from Tou.TV or other channel's streaming services, in a legal way? it's CD-tax all over again because they are stuck in a model that doesn't work anymore... What about people using backblaze or any other cloud service? My DVR has a 3TB drive, and I stream a good percentage of it over my phone while not home, so my legally recorded OTA contents is gonna cost me is I stream more than about an hour and a half of free ATSC? And they're wondering why people are going illegal IPTV...
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
But back in reality it's just a stupid, ill thought out tax. People using Netflix or another streaming service, or downloading games are the ones who'll be hit by this. If I were a Netflix / Amazon / Hulu subscriber and I though I was going to be taxed for using a legal service that I already paid for, I might be strongly inclined to just cut out the middle-man and pirate stuff from source.
No problem. With such a tax we all cancel any paid subscriptions to legal movie/music services and turn to streamers and torrents. You PAID through taxes, so it's then legal.
But it's open season on raping Conservative women until then, Kavanaugh proves it's legal now.
Except not surprisingly all the women who accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct were all far left liberals.
While it may be true in this particular instance, simplistic thinking of that nature is a dangerous way too approach politics. Sometimes new agencies and government programs can be a good thing, even enough to justify the taxation to run them.
However, SCGC doesn't see the problem and believes that 15 gigabytes are enough. ... Those who go over the cap are likely streaming not properly compensated videos.
Or... Amazon Prime or Netflix. If you think those sources do not properly compensate you, negotiate with them, don't extort the entire Internet base.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Or, if you used more than 15GB/mo, maybe you just downloaded Monster Hunter World (19.5GB), or Overwatch (15.7GB), or Rise of the Tomb Raider (22 GB), or Destiny 2 (80.3GB), like I did this past week.
Jesus, what's that. 137.5 GB. I don't stream music, I don't have a spotify account, any music I download is paid for on itunes or amazon or whatever web store is cheapest that day.
This is blank media tax all over again. Idiots.
Majority of the data is netflix for a lot of house holds. Youtube also.
If you're a gamer, a lot of it is game updates. E.G Ark Survival ,that's 80 GB right there to install. They're going to charge me for installing games now?
If you charge that tax, you're saying I'm entitled to the content because I paid for it. I will absolutely start a new business of content for everyone as will many others and it will backfire so damn hard. Just like CDRs
and here I thought the american tax theft was bad, the shameless thieves behind this scheme should be revolted on by good canadians
Eat shit and die. Fuck you! I'll see you in hell first. I don't download your shitty fucking music and I'm not paying any fucking tax for it. You can go fuck yourselves. If this were instituted in the U.S. I would make it my mission in life to start a "group" to hunt you all down and put a fucking bullet in your fucking brain pan. Fucking worthless goddamn pieces of shit!
>"It's a shame that [modern left]* liberals don't actually value civil liberties anymore."
Or facts (which also don't care about feelings)
Or due process
Or assumption of innocence
Or freedom of speech (for those who disagree with them)
Or that speech is not violence
Or that group identity politics promote stereotypes, hatred, segregation, intolerance, and racism, and destroy individuals' rights
* My addition, since the left has corrupted the term "liberal" now.
So we think because the FANG companies will not give us access to the numbers that they have, we have to apply a broad-based levy. They're forcing us to.
If you can create a levy on ISPs, you can create a levy on FANG companies. That they don't want to give you the numbers today doesn't matter if it becomes law. This is just a fake play to create outrage that no we can't have bandwidth taxes so we have to pick the other half of the false dilemma.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
certified meters?
I download more than 15GB/month in game patches for a variety of games across 4 computers and a playstation 4...
Not again...
I mean, seeing how poorly this worked the last time around, one could question why they'd even think of trying this another time.
This is your fault I am fucking you again!
I guess the Canadian Music Group are starting smoking marijuana early if they think that if I'm using 15GB of data I'm either streaming music or downloading it. Purchasing 1 Xbox game is over 60GB usually (x2 since I have 2 of them). I easily go over 100GB a month just in Fortnite updates! (weekly updates x 5 machines). They are seriously out of touch. And how the heck does watching Netflix have anything to do with Canadian music? Absolutely nothing. Bunch of money grabbing ignorants.
I'm certainly no fan of SJWs, but even the worst ones still support more civil liberties than the right. The right support civil asset forfeiture, the right is by far more strongly supportive of stripping 4th amendment rights, they're for continued marijuana prohibition, they're for stripping abortion rights, they're by far more strongly supportive of mass surveillance, they're more supportive of police in civil rights abuse cases, they're against sentencing reform and bail reform. Against marriage rights, discrimination protection for LGBT. For dictator-like levels of executive power. For subverting voting rights of the poor. For subverting voting rights of democrats in general, with gerrymandering. Then you have a whole list where they're both just as bad, and then a much smaller amount where they're better, such as gun rights and... what else, really? First amendment cancels out... better on free speech, worse on press freedom. Though that shifts depending on how much you think using religion to discriminate in non-religious settings is a right covered under it. Due process in limited circumstances (better for it on sex crimes, worse on all other crimes charged in courts).
The right, as always, is the bigger threat to civil liberties, to anyone who actually cares about all of them, instead of the favored subset of their party at this time.
Oh and by the way, if they do try to impeach Kavanaugh, no judge will adjudicate it, it's a purely political process conducted in Congress. If it was pursued criminally, having several people contradict you can indeed win a perjury charge. You don't need a video of him drinking to blackout and a doctor attesting to his memory loss, you just need witnesses who say they saw him do so. People are convicted exclusively on witness testimony all. the. time. I personally don't think that's a good strategy, but your claim that 'actual law' wouldn't support such a charge is false.
I have an Xbox One. Sometimes, twice in the same month, it'll download a 4.7 GB update. That's almost 2/3 of the 15 GB they're proposing, without me even doing anything past turning on a console and hitting ok.
Where the fuck do these facists come from? If they get to tax people, i want to be able to tax aswell. Go fuck yourselves.
Your argument doesn't stand. I want a broken government, but not due to tax increases. So much for your "always."
If I pull a fake gun on you and scream "I'm going to shoot you". That's not violence?
I was a semi liberal supporter until reading this. Fucking cunt working that out and Justin sucking Trump's cock. We should have just turned the hydro and water off to the eastern states and closed down the rail system that handles Alaskan coal through our territory. Meanwhile in BC we have government and SOME of the indigenous groups holding up a oil pipeline to the coast that could be used to ship stuff off to China.
We NEED to develop / put in place more refineries here so we can process our own resources and say fuck your Cheezie Poof haired prick.
You need to learn to read. And whoever up voted you is an idiot as well. Your point has nothing to do with what he said.
so if im already paying for it with "tax" that means i can dl all i want does it not? but i guess they want to double dip again...
Lol, 15 gig is a breath of air. How about paying me an air tax for the trees in my yard they’re breathing?
Silence criminal scum! You have broken the law, pay the fine or pay the fine. What? No I don't care if you proclaim innocence, nor if you pay us already. You'll pay twice, if you're lucky. Three times should be mandatory, and you'll get nothing in return!
International Socialism, the ruling theology of Canada, is the hate child of Communist International and National Socialism. A key element of economic policy taken from the National Socialist parent is the institutionalization of "crony capitalism", whereby nominally private industries and companies that support the international socialist party/government are guaranteed some level of profitability. Basically, every important industry is run as a utility. The entertainment industry has done its part - they support left wing policies nearly exclusively, so now they expect the government to do its part and ensure they get rich doing so.
So coders (downloading and running a full gentoo environment for kernel or glibc development work) and physicists (downloading the five parameters needed for the 3D positions of 1.693 billion stars) are expected to pay music royalties?
I've heard of the music of the spheres, but Canada had better be able to produce solid proof the score is encoded in the galactic position.
I have no issue with rightful payment for rightful dues. But to demand a ransom from the innocent to pay for the follies of the guilty, a reverse Robin Hood, that gets me annoyed.
Claim the silver from those that owe and leave free software and galactic explorers alone.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The right support civil asset forfeiture, the right is by far more strongly supportive of stripping 4th amendment rights,...
The only element of the right which supports these things is the police lobby, which is why such a yawning airgap has recently appeared between cops and real conservatives. Exhibit A in the right-wing critique of the police viewpoint is their assertion that without civil forfeiture they would no longer have enough money for all that paramilitary gear they hide behind while gunning down people at random and never being prosecuted for it.
No, they wouldn't have enough money if they lost civil forfeiture, and this is our whole point.
... And this is a stick-up, internet. Your money or your life?
Europe has saved your arse so many times when it comes to the Internet, and there would have been no new copyright law there if it weren't for America rejecting data protection, abandoning net neutrality and supporting the RIAA/MPAA in their efforts to terrorize young children in other countries.
And our healthcare remains superior.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
"[W]hen you're downloading and consuming over 15 gigabytes of data a month, you're likely streaming Spotify. You're likely streaming YouTube. You're likely streaming Netflix. So we think because the FANG companies will not give us access to the numbers that they have, we have to apply a broad-based levy. They're forcing us to." Your likely keeping Windows up to date, you likely bought a game on steam, your likely a little too into porn, your likely developing on the web. 15gb a month is pretty much everyone that works or consumes any type of entertainment on the web.
Actually, it has been in the U.S. for a long time.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Actually, it hasn't. There is no Internet Tax that goes to the Music industry.
via GIPHY
sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
If you think about me when masturbating, isn't that sexual harassment?
I'm all for it, as long as part of the tax law requires people to be allowed to share and download whatever content they want without restrictions. That would fix a lot of what's wrong with the copyright system.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
None of those are piracy sites. They pay the creators or remove unauthorized content.
Spotify, Pandora, Youtube, etc are all funded based on ad revenue. They get a cut already. They're just greedy pieces of shit who want MORE. So, to that I say FUCK OFF; this extreme amount of greed drives people to piracy out of spite.
Was facts and due process used for Hillary or was she just judged in the court of public opinion? It's not like there were numerous investigations into her, yet the new Supreme Court Justice was screaming about the Clinton crime family.
43% of Republicans support censoring the news and many are in favour of forcing private companies to post stuff they don't agree with.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Repu...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Actions speak louder then words. Has the Republican Congress tried to fix the civil forfeiture thing? How about the President through executive power?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
So much for amateur astronomy. Seriously, serious people should collect a tax whenever a proposal this stupid is taken seriously.
I foresee bad karma by the metric firkinton for these Halloween wet-wipe razor blades.
In my experience, hardly any machine learning courses have an upbeat backing track.
Worst case scenario: because under this proposal I would have effectively already paid for the music, they might add one.
Need to tax copyright holders and content holders for using Internet. They are hijacking that Internet to play CDs and video slowing everyone down.
Culture is getting plenty of "money" already out of the very heavily taxed tax base. If your stuff is so lousy or so unspecial or so weirdly unappealing that it doesn't sell, get a real job.
Imagine someone who does everything he or she is supposed to do (Legally speaking). Pays Netflix and/or other legit streaming services a monthly fee for video that pay royalties to the rights holders and artists. Buys paid licensed music album downloads from Amazon or iTunes, or subscribes to a paid licensed music streaming service like Spotify. Gets games from Steam. Buys ebooks from Amazon for their Kindle. All legal, all compensating artists and rights holders.
Now, why should that person have to pay a tax to further compensate the people he or she is already compensating through royalties on everything he or she does? Just claiming exceeding a certain usage threshold makes someone a pirate automatically is not fair. I don't pirate, but my usage is easily over 100 gigs a month. Were I Canadian, I'd be caught up in this tax to compensate rights holders, even though I am already doing everything by book in a way that compensates rights holders.
Therefore, my feeling is that, if they are going to impose a tax or a fee like this to compensate rights holders, paying it should entitle you to access the content the tax or fee is being used to compensate rights holders for the use of. Either make it so that you can't be prosecuted for pirating if you pay the tax, or give you a gift certificate in the amount of the tax to be used at the paid music download, paid video download, paid ebook download, paid video streaming, or paid audio streaming site of your choice on an ongoing basis.
It's not fair to double dip on the people who are following the law and avoiding pirating content by assuming they pirate just because of their Internet usage. It's easy to exceed 15gig usage on a home wired broadband connection with legal streaming video, for example. It's not a fringe use case that anyone would, you could do that by watching an hour of streaming TV three times a week (Which is probably a lot less than most people who cancel cable and subscribe to streaming services instead watch, on average).
I don't think we even have to delve too deeply into fringe cases here to see that this law as currently proposed is unfair. If we did get into it, though, we could talk about the person who's a Linux enthusiast who downloads his favorite distros and updates them all on multiple machines each month, or whatever. Even a Windows 10 major update is basically downloading and reinstalling almost the entire operating system now, and that's multiplied by however many computers are in the household. Maybe a person has a loved one they Skype with for an hour or two most nights, or works from home and has to participate in all kinds of video conference calls each workday. In theory, someone might even really love to download old public domain content, or newer content that is offered for free by the license holders (Like a bar band that just releases it's stuff for free online because they want to be heard and they know they aren't good enough or mainstream enough that many people would pay to listen to their albums or recordings of their every Wednesday night gig at the local pub).
I don't know if this is available in Canada, but Roku boxes and streaming sticks, in addition to allowing you to watch any paid subscription services you may have (Netflix, Hulu, etc.) on your television, also offer a dedicated Roku Channel, that pays to license a small collection of television shows and movies. I guess Roku does this to give customers a reason to buy their product over a Chromecast device or an Amazon Fire stick- Roku takes a loss on their special channel available only on Roku so that more people will buy Roku hardware. Customers like that their Rokus don't become bricks if they can't afford to subscribe to a streaming service that month- at least they can still legally watch whatever content is on the Roku Channel to get them through. It doesn't have the best content, but it has some good content, and even though it's free to the customers who own the Roku devices, Roku pays the royalties to the rights
Ok so the creators of this music are upset that they get less money when their music is played on a streaming service than they do when their music is played via more traditional means. The answer then is to increase the royalties streaming services have to pay for using this music to the same level as for traditional means of distributing content.
Music publishers get the money they used to get before streaming exists and consumers aren't hit with some big new tax.
Canadians should 'thank' the Sacem (french copyright association) for inventing those crappy laws.
We're so proud of them.
Now we're paying a tax on smartphone,tablets...
Keep telling yourself that, nazi shit.
Did Obama during his eight years as President?
This is such total bullshit. If they're going for a legislative solution, why not pass a law requiring online streaming companies to open their books and share details of what they're streaming? That would solve what they claim is the real problem (lack of information) without imposing a new tax. But of course that's not what they really want. They want a nice guaranteed revenue stream they can leech off no matter what's actually using that bandwidth.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
I am going to stop watching all movies/TV series and play video games, if that is the kind of entertainment you want us to have.
Good luck trying to get us to pay more. We already pay a lot for Internet and TV.
Because they didn't innovate and their revenue stream is out dated. /s
you sir are completely devoid of any facts about the right.. Please refrain from trying to represent them. Stick to representing idiotic leftists who think that presumed innocence before evidence of guilt is a bad idea...
Work they're producing? What work is that?
Screencomposers Guild of Canada is just trying to strongarm a handout from Canadians.
No one is watching, let alone pirating, the dreck like Anne With An E. And we heard enough of the Tragically Hip's Bobcaygeon in the 1990s before FM radio was replaced with services that gave us the option to avoid ever hearing its constant CanCon rotation again.
But this still avoids addressing the central problem. Information wants to be free - that's what the Internet is about. The old distribution and revenue models have to change; RIAA, MPAA and all might as well be typewriter and sliderule manufacturers whining about the invention of the microprocessor.
I can really see an eventual return to product placement being a prime revenue generator for TV and movies; even if the movie is pirated a million times, that becomes a million more views for what effectively becomes an ad for a company's products.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
If the members of SCGC didn't keep making all their stuff, then people wouldn't be tempted to pirate it. Thus their products are clearly an "attractive nuisance" that almost compels the hapless average Canadian to waste the precious resources of Canada in downloading them.
The only way to control this ever increasing waste of Canadian resources is to make the producers of this media compensate Canada as a whole for the burden the SCGC themselves create.
Hey, it makes as much sense as what they proposed.
Obama advanced some, but not all, of those. And made others worse, especially mass surveillance. I've posted my long list of complaints of Obamas civil rights violations several times now, but it doesn't change the overall direction of the parties.
They keep trying to make this shit fly again and again and again. It's no different than trying to put a tax on email usage.
If they can't negotiate better royalty deals for music then fuck 'em, they suck and they get what they deserve. No doing an end-run around the negotiation process and fucking us with an 'internet tax'.
A couple issues there, first, I've heard tons of liberals calling for reforming police civil rights abuses, and crickets from the right. They're by and large all pro-police and against every measure the left proposes to restrain them. See e.g. Stop and Frisk; clear racial profiling, the left sued to stop it, the right parroted the police arguments for it.
Another issue, the military gear comes from a Pentagon surplus program. They receive it for only the cost of shipping. Civil asset forfeiture money would not limit their acquisition of military hardware. Speaking to the majorities, the left opposes this program while the right supports it. The right defends military-style SWAT raids on non-violent drug offenders, the left opposes them. The right complains about DOJ civil rights settlements, the left supports them (and Sessions rolled them back). The right defends obvious bad shoots, the left wants charges.
Sorry, but supporting and enabling police civil rights abuse is a problem with the whole right.
Obama is not in power and the post I replied to claimed that Republicans (excepting the police) are against civil forfeiture.
Just because Obama was a huge disappointment doesn't mean everyone has to disappoint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
To be fair on this, there is a Republican who's taken a bold stand against it: Don Willett, a judge on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. He's opposed that (sadly, dissenting), and several other of the rights awful civil rights positions. And he was on Trumps SC list... why oh why couldn't we have gotten him... he's the only (R) judge I'd ever support for SCOTUS, despite disagreeing with him on plenty of other points.
You are a fucking idiot. Stupid fucking idiots like you ARE the problem with this country.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
A couple issues there, first, I've heard tons of liberals calling for reforming police civil rights abuses, and crickets from the right.
That's because they're too busy getting screamed at when they come out of elevators.
You too are a fucking idiot.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
We of the dark side brought this up with Trump when he appointed Jeff Sessions, a civil forfeiture supporter, as AG. That was when we discovered that Trump did not understand what forfeiture was.
And no, though Obama did know what civil forfeiture was, he did nothing about it in his terms.
One reason why I was a Johnson voter.
If you are downloading more than 15GB/month you could also be a content creator, or a professional working remotely.
If I was an American, I couldn't imagine voting for either of the main candidates. I found it depressing that there weren't more 3rd party votes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Democracy is supposed to be about compromise, but America seems to be about sticking it to the other side lately, something that can't end good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I think you may be comparing the left in general with a particular extreme subset of the right (which, to be fair, is something that is sometimes done the other way around).
Let me try a neutral example: imagine if a law were proposed that simply banned all discrimination on the basis of race, sex or sexuality. Would it be opposed more strongly by the left or the right? There are certainly aspects of it that the right wouldn't like - but I think that this would be trivial compared to the outcry from the left, when they found that it illegalised affirmative action. So when it comes to discrimination, I really have to say that the right is stronger than the left on civil rights.
So rather than stream each track multiple times, more people will download each one once and listen to their local copy. At least that should free up some bandwidth for other uses.
Democracy is supposed to be about compromise, but America seems to be about sticking it to the other side lately, something that can't end good.
Democracy maybe.. But not constitutional republics.. That's why we have a constitution. The whole idea of a constitutional republic is to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
I see no reason, whatsoever, to compromise if I think my core rights are being infringed. I didn't get these rights from government, they exist independent of it.
I have the... well, I'm an aethiest, but for lack of a better term, God given right to defend my life, to speak my mind, to associate with those I want to associate with, and to live in peace.
I also believe you have those same rights.. But if you try to take mine away, we'll have serious violence.
Obvious troll, but I'll bite. I know plenty of republicans, and I'll give you my anecdotal evidence (not really a true representation of republicans since it's anecdotal) to combat your made up absolutions (also not a true representation of republicans since it's all in your head).
> The right support civil asset forfeiture
0%. They are in favor of someone getting on their property and taking their land getting a bullet to the face, government or not.
> the right is by far more strongly supportive of stripping 4th amendment rights
50%. Some are extreme anti-surveillance, some are extreme authoritarian.
> they're for continued marijuana prohibition
25%. Even John Boehner doesn't want this. Most republicans I know are potheads treating PTSD from the Iraq War and/or continued service afterwards.
> they're for stripping abortion rights
80%. This one is fairly true.
> they're by far more strongly supportive of mass surveillance
Already dealt with that above. 50%.
> they're more supportive of police in civil rights abuse cases
Depends on the case. Everything is case by case to republicans on this one.
> they're against sentencing reform and bail reform
I, nor they, have any idea what that is.
> Against marriage rights, discrimination protection for LGBT
I'll give this 5% since I've heard of people who are against it online. I've never met one in person, though.
> For dictator-like levels of executive power
0%. Even the Trump supporters I know want either the federal government to be abolished or they want less power in the federal government.
> For subverting voting rights of the poor.
0%. Baseless accusation.
> For subverting voting rights of democrats in general with gerrymandering.
0%. Baseless accusation.
> Then you have a whole list where they're both just as bad, and then a much smaller amount where they're better, such as gun rights and... what else, really? First amendment cancels out... better on free speech, worse on press freedom
Most republicans are opposed to the bias in the media, but are not for abolishing or interfering with them.
> Though that shifts depending on how much you think using religion to discriminate in non-religious settings is a right covered under it
The tea-party's beliefs of instituting religion into schools is only believed by really really old people (Greatest Generation republicans) which are dying out. Tea party supporters tend to dislike this particular aspect of the Tea party itself.
> Due process in limited circumstances (better for it on sex crimes, worse on all other crimes charged in courts).
Due process in all circumstances, baseless accusation.
I am not a republican. I am pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, pro-light-regulation, anti-drug law, anti-copyright law, anti-police brutality, etc. Most republicans, even police officers I know, respect me quite a bit because I talk to them about their values and mine in a polite manner and don't baselessly accuse them of believing something they don't. I live in a very red county and do not fear for my life, nor do the democratic minorities that live here. We all get along just fine with our differences because we don't resort to rioting, disputing due process, civil disruption, etc.
Marijuana is illegal in this state, and most police officers do not prosecute it because they find it to be a waste of time. Only if you are causing disruption to society by your trafficking or additional crimes will they charge you with drug crime.
Democrats in big cities are really out of touch with reality, and it's pushing me away from the Democratic party. I don't disagree with the ideas or principles of the Democratic party, I disagree with 99% of the individuals that call themselves Democrats.
This makes as much sense as a violence tax on every hockey puck. Wake up canucks, you don't want to set this precedent.
In the 21st century, democracy usually means representative democracies, which include Constitutional Republics where you vote in representatives such as America.
And of course, tyranny whether it is the tyranny of the majority or tyranny of the minority, is bad and where the idea of compromise could limit the tyranny.
And while, for example, you have the right to speak your mind, there are still limits. No amplifying your words to cause physical damage to others, this is usually extended to noise bylaws where the volume that you speak is limited depending on location and time. No screaming outside of others houses in the middle of the night.
Rights often involve some compromise, with the famous example of your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Self defence being limited to credible threats and so on. Even your freedom of association may be limited by who your neighbours are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Right, if users are taxed, then there should be no more piracy claim about their usages. All sources should become legal to use. Even The Pirate Bay.
2016 had record numbers of 3rd party votes (12%+ in some states), and current polls have 3rd parties with massive gains for these midterm elections.
Yes what a shame they have invited criminals to enter their nations and create problems.
It's only fair - if I pay for the "copyright charge" on my internet, it should make any music download legitimate.
Dialup speeds. The data traffic from playing video games can be more than 15GiB per month.
I do well over 800GB/mo in traffic.
Why?
3D graphics.
I freelance doing animations and motion graphics for various companies around the world. Typical animations range from 1-8 minutes. At 30 frames per second, you're looking at anywhere from 1800 frames to 14400 frames of data. Each frame is typically comprised of anywhere from 4-8 32-bit EXR images (depends on what passes I need to composite the shot), and each of those files is usually around 40mb. At the high end, I'm pulling down close to 450GB of data for a single month long project. Depending on who I'm contracting for, I might actually need to upload that much data and deliver those files as-is rather than compositing and encoding them into a single = 4GB movie file.
Throw in the data that most modern day games take to download and ISO files for various applications and operating systems, and it's not uncommon for me to hit 1TB/mo.
If these fuckers want to tax me on anything over 15GB/month when I don't even bother watching movies anymore (I haven't seen a single film I've been interested in, in well over 8 years), then they can deal with the damages they've caused to my business. They have absolutely no fucking proof that I'm using my internet connection for illegitimate means (which I'm not)- and let's face it, that's basically what this proposal is saying- everyone who uses more than 15GB of data per month is a pirate.
Just to make sure this shit hits home, I might even go after the individuals who actually penned this proposal personally. I know quite a few people in the industry who deal with legal shit on a regular basis, and it would be pretty trivial to hire any one of them. The SCGC can kiss my fucking ass, and I have no problems going nuclear if they're going to threaten my fucking business like this.
Make your stuff worth buying. The only music that I've bought has been from the independent artists which aren't represented by these idiots. Any TV or movies are foreign series because the quality is much higher.
I use between 100GB and 200GB a month and none of it is from streaming music, TV, or movies.
Like other have said, if the streaming services aren't paying enough (supposedly) then don't go after your customers, go after the streaming services.
I work remotely for a software company as a consultant. Part of my job involves downloading nightly builds of our development software, and machine learning dataset updates (among other things). These downloads range into tens of gigabytes per day, nearly everyday, essentially dwarfing the precious few instances I listen to indie bands on YouTube with respect to consumption.
Whoever proposed this tax is an unimaginative simpleton with much fondness for undeserved money.
By refusal to answer police officers questions, the man at the door was forcing them to shoot him immediately.
"[W]hen you're downloading and consuming over 15 gigabytes of data a month, you're likely streaming Spotify. You're likely streaming YouTube. You're likely streaming Netflix"
So what... Are they not collecting royalties from Spotify, YouTube, and Netflix? If not, why is that the problem of consumers? Contact Spotify, YouTube, and Netflix and sort it out there.
Twinstiq, game news
Actions speak louder then words. Has the Republican Congress tried to fix the civil forfeiture thing? How about the President through executive power?
Did a Democrat congress try to fix it? How about a Democrat president? After all, actions speak louder than words...
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
No no no.. You misunderstood. I wasn't making a statement about titles. I know we normally are referring to Representative Republics when we say Democracy. I was going beyond that.
In a pure democracy (California has a hybrid of Democracy and Republic, whereby the people can directly propose, vote, and enact laws) compromise is what you have to have to get shit done.. It can also lead to a tyranny of the majority...
I was simply stating that in a true democracy, you do have to compromise.. I don't like compromise, most of the time. I want "my guy" to stick to his guns and not back down.. I prefer a Republic to a True Democracy. Compromise leads to bastardized solutions and, quite often, it's used to strip us of our rights, a little bit at a time.
Side A wants all guns gone.. Side B wants no guns gone.. So we compromise and take away some guns... I don't like this.. I want my Side B legislator to hold his fucking ground and not let Side A strip me of my rights a few guns at a time, as an example.
Hopefully that makes a little more sense for what I was trying to get across.
Given how many composers and up assigning their rights to publishers and other entities, they also assign away their right to get paid for the music.
This happens a lot in the us, where a somewhat famous act will stand up and claim they aren't getting paid a penny for streaming uses. But it turns out, they sold their rights years previously and aren't entitled to any revenue whatsoever. And in some cases, the streaming services ARE paying the rightful owners. Who simply aren't the composers and or performers.
Don't like it? Don't assign rights. Own your own shit.
Taxing anything over 15GB is ridiculous. Plenty of entirely unrelated things can easily use much more data. I used to work for a company based in Canada which uses to FTP massive amounts of data to their US offices every day, as a normal matter of business activities. Are they going to tax every such business use? Forget even caring that no streaming was taking place. Tax them all! Bullshit.
This is how the shitty ones can make money and stick around, by telling government that they would have made money if not for those meddling kids.
Guild members negotiated contracts with publishers, decided they were not profitable enough after the fact, and want to make the public pay for their failure.
They're all Americans and none of them seem to be interested in fixing such a way to get around due process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Society needs to impose a tax on copyrighted material, similar to real estate taxes. The tax should be progressive by term of copyright, say 0.05% for each year after the first 10 years. The valuation of the material used to calculate the taxes, should limit damages claimed for copyright imfringement. Say, if Disney claims that Mickey Mouse is worth 1B, it should pay 400M in taxes to keep the copyright and should be able to sue anyone for infringement assuming the value of 1B.
Kavanaugh should rape Collins as a thank you.
I'd agree with you on the games downloads and even playing of certain games, but I think you'll find they consider Netflix in the same group as Spotify. Netflix is operating outside of their control while also impacting on them.
I thought it was the broken government's attempt to get Canadians to stop endlessly watching mockery videos of their idiotic PM.
Like that one of him walking up the steps of his jet with toilet paper hanging off his show? What a knob!
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
So the CD tax sort of made sense given the primary purpose of a blank CD was used for piracy. In a way this is like Bittorrent. Sure there are legimiate uses for bittorrent but ultimately the illegitimate use has completely swamped the legitimate uses.
The internet on the other hand isn't like that at all. Netflix and Youtube represent 50% of internet traffic together. Throw in Pornhub, xhamster, and actual HTTP traffic and you're closer to 75%. Hulu and other streaming services add a few percent here and there, as does social media (Facebook representing 3% of all internet traffic). The actual illegitimate use of internet bandwidth is very small.
I can't pay for and legitimately download a AAA game now without hitting this limit. Doom is a 70GB download. Why should I pay a tax on 55 of those GBs (assuming that is I don't do any other internetting that month).
You'll need an internet license soon.
There should have already been one. Too many stupid people online. You must be THIS tall to ride th3 tub3z.
Right now I can use hundreds of gigabytes to terabytes of data each month by offering Tor/Virtual Currency/I2P/Legitimate Bittorrent seeding. None of those directly help infringe copyright, in the case of bittorrent seeding, in some cases it even HELPS copyright material, as in the case of Blizzard's update seeding via bittorrent, or Microsoft's via their p2p update network.
They are expecting to charge people on those huge uses of data for the fucking RECORDING INDUSTRY? I mean MAYBE if it was Recording/Movie/Software industry associations they might have some claim, with percentages commisurate to the amount of data needed to infringe on each. In that case Recording would get a small amount, Software a small amount, and Movies a small to medium amount based on the quantity of data consumed. While I am sure there is music infringement going on, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the data consumed by other media sources who have far more 'starving artists' involved in their production. Of course none of those starving artists have any rights to their products, just like most of the music industry.
Guilty until proven innocent, phase two
Slow acceptance is the slippery slope. Beware.
Hahaha. Sad that this needed to be posted.
Things "educated" people lack:
Knowledge of basic logic
Knowledge of basic economics
Knowledge of basic politics
Knowledge of basic biology
Knowledge of basic decency
What a time to be alive
How about the people doing the work take some responsibility for their failure to negotiate rates they deem acceptable for the work being contracted? If they can't negotiate better rates, then that would indicate the work isn't worth more than what's being paid. On the other hand, if they're attempting to negotiate better rates and are being undercut by people who are not members of their cartel, then all I say is this: Welcome to the world! You're not the only ones being undercut for your labor.
At least in the US you're innocent until proven guilty.
Oh, wait...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Imagine, a global internet copyright tax, as a flat tax (percentage), added to everyone's internet bills! In return, any/all content on the internet is absolutely free (including save/copy)! (But, of course, the main problem w/ that would be, how the revenue will be shared/distributed to copyright holders. What exactly could be a fair way to decide, which copyright holder should get how much payment exactly?) (Also, of course, if this works for internet, it could also be extended to include smartphone world.)
There are MANY reasons to go over 15 gigabytes a month, that have absolutely nothing to do with consuming music or video created by someone else. MOST content on Youtube is created by independent creators who wouldn't be eligible to receive a dime from this fund; Content streamed on Netflix is Netflix's responsibility to license and pay for appropriately --- so what they "Don't want to share their numbers" --- if you think the compensation is unfair legally compel them to share their numbers.
Metering connections for copyright is ridiculously unfair treatment for technical users who download and seed Linux DVDs; or who continuously upload their security camera footage for offsite storage or use ccTVs with cloud monitoring; People who purchase digital downloads of software; People who download or share large buckets of random numbers or portions other multi-Terabyte datasets for security, medical, engineering, or scientific research purchases; People who are mirroring or archiving public FTP servers containing open source software or other content to their home computer or for offline storage for future use or reference without necessarily disseminating much of that content; Gamers who use Steam; People who use Cloud backup/storage solutions; Content creators who upload stuff they've created; People who run their own websites or discussion forums or immersive MMORPG or shared world systems, such as Minecraft server shared with friends from a broadband connection
"[W]hen you're downloading and consuming over 15 gigabytes of data a month, you're likely streaming Spotify. You're likely streaming YouTube. You're likely streaming Netflix.
Only because for the average consumer when you're downloading ANY bytes per month: you're likely streaming Spotify or watching Youtube videos or Netflix --- Spotify is not a huge bandwidth user, so you can be doing A HECK OF A LOT of streaming before hitting 15 GB.
I suspect that you also could raise money more directly from consumers--cutting out middlemen like the Screen Composers Guild of Canada and just buying it directly from the composer and performing artists.
Honestly, proposals like this come off as simply rentseeking on the part of the industry associations--and I'm unfortunately very skeptical that they actually intend to share the money they gain with the people who are actually producing content...especially the ones without the resources to make public the abuse.
It wants its dumb ideas back...
If you want to ensure that the majority of new agencies, government programs, and taxes are a good thing, and not rentseeking (such as this proposed tax which is in the original robber baron tradition), then you need to work from the assumption that any proposed new one is not a good thing--make the people proposing it have to prove that it will be beneficial...
Part of that's because US voting most places runs with 'person with most votes wins,' even if the majority of people who voted chose someone else--a switch to instant runoff/ranked choice voting, with nobody able to win without an actual majority of the (remaining) votes, would fix that.
But I fail to see how any of this relates to Canadian politics, no less how a Canadian IP group is trying to extort money from people using their internet because they feel they cut a bad deal with the streaming services.
Most of Canada's voting is also "person with the most votes wins" yet we have 3rd parties, especially at the Provincial level. Quebec just voted in a new party, along with another new party coming in second for example.
We got sidetracked into a conversation about civil forfeiture and whether the right supports it or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
That's because Canada's got a Parliament, and/or 3rd parties that actually take themselves seriously--but I'm trying to be polite and not point out that the US's 3rd parties are not actually serious about winning, while proposing a system that will put them them in a position where they stand a good chance of being like a dog that has unexpectedly managed to catch a car.
Knowing a decent chunk of the people involved in the legal battle, the US right doesn't, it's primarily supported by politicians (both sides) because it makes them money and is easy to abuse. It is, however, probably something best fixed in the courts so a change in the political winds can't undo it--and if you fix it on the legislative or executive level you stand a good chance of the courts saying it's a waste of their time to keep going, so it's not necessarily a Good Idea if there's a civil forfeiture case with a good chance of getting the Supreme Court of the US to rule the entire damn thing a violation of the US Constitution. (About the only way to manage it legislatively with anything close to the same permanence would probably require getting a Constitutional amendment to actually get passed and the odds of getting any Constitutional amendments added now would likely require an infinite improbability drive.)
Is it really that hard to stay under the 15Gb limit if all you do for the month is stream Spotify? If so their reasoning that anyone using over 15Gb per month must be streaming is highly flawed.
Of course it is already flawed since it is very easy to use more than 15Gb per month without streaming one bit of content that these "artists" contribute to.
Every last one of the things you claim '0%' for Republicans implement with no opposition from anyone inside their own party. Civil asset forfeiture? Some are against in, like Judge Willet who I did mention, but the only organized opposition comes from the left. All your politicians love it. Ours not so much. You should be howling that your politicians won't do what the large majority of their voters want, instead crickets, the only way you ever know is polls.br> -25% on banning pot? False, it's only 51% as of the most recent polls (Pew), just this year inching over to that majority. But of course, the bigger problem is support for politicians that favor it far less. It's a problem on the other side, but to a far less extent. Almost as a rule, all organized pot legalization efforts are liberal groups, all opposed conservative.
-You didn't deal with mass surveillance above, since it's not under the private property right you falsely claim represented the civil asset forfeiture opinion. 50% is wildly understating it.
-In the vast majority of cases. And usually the best case scenario is silence, not calling for heads to roll.
-If you ask about the specifics of these, the opposition is unequal. Reducing sentences, eliminating cash bail, ending mandatory minimums, ending the crack/cocaine disparity, ending private prisons... these are all liberal sentence/bail reform policies, significantly opposed by the right, which at best supports token reforms. This played out very recently, republicans gutted reforms before announcing a 'reform' bill they'd support.
-No, they want resources directed away from social programs and scientific research and education etc, all instead to go to making our military larger, with few checks on executive dictation of this. Well above 50.
-You're completely ignorant here. Voter ID? A favored call of republicans, opposed nearly uniformly by the left. Why? Look into it, republicans take measures, opposed by democrats, to make it much harder for the poor to get an accepted id, even disallowing government ids the poor might have from welfare type programs.
-Republican gerrymandering has been extensively documented. You're extremely dishonest here.
-Oh, I'm glad you think that's the sum-total of all press freedom. Disingenuous ass. Also, I've never met a single republican ever who's recognized and complained that Fox News is biased and shouldn't be.
-This point is unrelated to schools. I was referring to business and housing discrimination on allegedly religious opposition. This is very strongly supported by the right, to deny service on that basis.
-Again, I think the problem here is once again your lack of familiarity. Whenever 'rights of the accused' comes out, outside of the brand new sex crime issue, it's always tough-on-crime republicans supporting the police and prosecutors over the accused.
I myself lived in rural Florida for half of my adult life. Came of age there, attended college there, then 8 years after, compared to only 7 in the nyc area (plus when under 10). Trying to claim I'm out of touch isn't going to work. I miss those people and that life a lot. You can also peruse my post history for my well documented opposition to left wing policies as well, I'm no ideologue left winger, they can't stand me.
As always, you've constructed a defense of the right entirely dependent on ignorance of reality.