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.
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.
If you're using >15GB Pornhub are probably 1st in line, not musicians, Canadian or otherwise.
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. . . .
"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.
And it's not all about you, either. The issue is that it is a precedent. If this were to go through, guess who is next up because, you know, the Canadians did it, so we should, too.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
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.
> If you're using >15GB Pornhub are probably 1st in line, not musicians, Canadian or otherwise.
Or you just cut the cord and use Netflix, Amazon, iTunes, and friends.
Ya, I just checked and I actually do use more than 15GB / month -- watching Amazon Prime. If the SCGC thinks Amazon (and, by extension, Netflix) does not properly compensate their member, they should negotiate with (or sue) them, not extort the entire Internet base.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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.
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