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."

Comments

blank CDRs

[marvinglenn]

It's the tax on blank CDRs all over again.

Re:blank CDRs

[darkain]

Came here to say the exact same thing. GG Canada. Nobody is buying CD-Rs anymore, so these asshats are trying to find other ways to force money out of people that have nothing to do with the work they're producing.

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

If CDRs were food I could see being exempt from tax, but I pay take on just about everything else (on the economy) so why not CDRs? It's not like it's some special liberal DEM tax on an inanimate steel rod to appease REP copyright holders.

Oh, Canada? What happens in the tundra stays in the tundra.

Re:blank CDRs

[Layzej]

I agree. Given that Canada has signed on to the US copyright system, there is no need to look for alternative/additional compensation methods. It should be one or the other. According to the new rules, the Log Drivers Waltz will not be public domain until 2072. Crazy.

Re:blank CDRs

[barc0001]

And just like the CDR tax, all of us took that as a "license" to pirate anything that moved because hey, we'd already PAID for it.

Law of unintended consequences, SCGC...

Re: blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

The "tax" was an additional fee levied on top of the normal sales tax. There are data-only and CD audio capable CD-R. Many, but not all, CD audio players would refuse to play a data only CD-R.

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

We want more money!

Re:blank CDRs

[GuB-42]

In France, the tax on CD-R is on top of the usual VAT. And as the price of the media went down, it became more expensive than the disk itself.
The funny part is that most pirates (or should I say "private backup copy makers") bought their CDs in illegal shops or imported them in order to avoid paying the tax.

Re:blank CDRs

[BeauHD (5555555)]

What is a CDR? Please define.

[citation needed](TM)

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't dismiss this. The state has realised that it badly wants to get rid of internet anonymity.

"Tax" and claims about security and "won't somebody please think of the wahmen" will be the way they do it.

You'll need an internet license soon.

Re:blank CDRs

[The Original CDR]

CDR = Commander

Re:blank CDRs

[BeauHD (5555555)]

Um, nope. Found it. This is kind of like the thing we used to get Windows 8 Blue Ray ISO's on back in high school.

Re: blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

Other way around.
AudioCD recordables were more expensive but had no way of telling the player they were audio-only.

Data recordables where the levy was not paid, were usually sold with bare labels (intended to be printed on, not permanent marker) but otherwise unless the recordables were set redbook only, many audio players would try to play data tracks, eg car audio.

Re:blank CDRs

[Snotnose]

Hell, it's the tax on blank cassette tapes again. When they imposed it I lost all qualms about copying friends records, and making copies of my records for them.

Re:blank CDRs

[Applehu Akbar]

It's the tax on blank CDRs all over again.

This proposal is so stupid that Hollywood will ram it down out throats in 3..2..1..

Re:blank CDRs

[Archfeld]

It was something AOL developed in the 80's to spread viruses and associated malware marketed under the AOL Trademark.

Re:blank CDRs

[dryeo]

In Canada, we just switched to DVD-R's, plus the courts ruled that due to the levy, we were free to copy music for personal use.
Perhaps if this idea goes through, it'll mean being free to download movies.

Re:blank CDRs

[dryeo]

It was a license to copy non-commercially as ruled by the courts.

Re:blank CDRs

[dryeo]

Making copies of records for them was illegal, you should have just let them make the copy to meet the licensing that the copyright levy created. As long as they pressed the record button, perfectly legal thanks to the levy.

Re: blank CDRs

[c6gunner]

Yep. And with this new levy I guess it'll be a license for me to torrent every song and movie ever made, since that's also noncommercial.

Sounds like a pretty good deal. They've got my vote!

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

Christopher Dale Reimer (aka creimer, The Original CDR, etc.) has been identified by JSOC as a Russian troll.

The Reimer family is typically from the Eastern part of Germany and it has been found that Chris have maintained contacts with homeland influencial people.

I would like to point out that East Germany was communist and controlled by Russia (CCCP) before Ronald Reagan took them apart.

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys have no idea how long it took me to train my cat to press "record".

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

Work they're producing? What work is that? Roughing up customers, trying to steal everything the customers actually do work for?

By "streaming" spotify, netflix, youtube, whatnot, all the "dues" are already paid for you greedy fucking dinosaurs.

Fuck the SGCG, the RIAA, the MPAA - they all need to just die.

Pay the artists directly, they'd be better off in the long run, and the greedy fat-asses of the SGCG, RIAA, MPAA can go to an old-folks home (or fall into a dog-food plant grinder, but that might kill our beloved pets) to die because nobody wants to take care of their dinosaur carcasses.

Re:blank CDRs

[GuB-42]

The French law affects all forms of storage capable of storing audio and video: CD, DVD, USB drives, smartphones, tapes, memory cards, DVR with built-in storage... It is just that the tax is particularly high, and often evaded on CD-R and DVD-R.

And it means we are free to copy music we already bought, but not to share it, also, DRM circumvention is still illegal. As you might imagine, this tax is very controversial.

Re:blank CDRs

[William Baric]

we were free to copy music for personal use

We were free to make copies of music we already bought. We didn't have the right to copy music we didn't buy ourselves first, nor to distribute copies of music we bought to someone else.

Re: blank CDRs

[LinuxIsGarbage]

Other way around.
AudioCD recordables were more expensive but had no way of telling the player they were audio-only.

Data recordables where the levy was not paid, were usually sold with bare labels (intended to be printed on, not permanent marker) but otherwise unless the recordables were set redbook only, many audio players would try to play data tracks, eg car audio.

Both Audio and Data CD-R(W)s had levies on them, but they were higher in the Audio ones.

Some set top CD-Recorders could only use the more expensive audio CD-Rs.

Computer CD-Writers could write to either disc, and can create either a Data or Audio disc that will play in virtually any player.

Then DVD-R media didn't have the levies on it, so quite quickly they were cheaper than blank CDs. Unless you had to have a CD, they were cheaper, even if you just wanted to write 100MB on them. Then came along DVD-Decrypter and DVD-Shrink, and copying borrowed DVDs, removing all the forbidden actions, and fitting them on a single layer blank was child's play.

Re:blank CDRs

[commodore64_love]

My downloading from piratebay had dropped to zero, since I was obtaining my entertainment legally from Netflix.com or Slingtv.com........ WHY should I have to pay a "piracy" tax when I'm not pirating anything?

Stupid.

Re:blank CDRs

[dryeo]

We are free to copy music we didn't buy. While we were not free to distribute, the courts rulings on making it available were pretty lax. I could put music on an ftp server and you could pull it, but I could not upload it to your ftp server.
From http://www.musicbymailcanada.c...

"Private Copying" allows Canadians to make copies of pre-recorded material for personal use, either from music recordings they've purchased or music recordings they've borrowed from a friend. But there are still rules that must be followed to make this copying legal.

Copying Music Legally

As previously mentioned, Canadians are allowed to make copies of the recordings they've purchased and strangely enough, even recordings they borrowed from friends. But several rules as to how copies are to be made and what can be done with the resulting copies are specified in section 80 of the Copyright Act :

        A Canadian must perform his or her own copying. You can't ask a friend to do it. It's your "Private Copy".
        You can't give, trade, rent or sell the resulting copy. So basically your copy must remain in your possession.
        You can't broadcast or play the copy in public or allow anyone to do so. This means your copy can't be aired on radio, even on the net and that its public performance is limited to private gatherings, not including any paid event or large gatherings. Additional information for DJs can be found by clicking here.

Re:blank CDRs

[dryeo]

Didn't finish my posting, here's the actual law. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca... which basically agrees with the above post.

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

CDR = Commander

That's great the way you found a way to insert your self into a situation that has nothing to do with you personally.

Classy!

Re:blank CDRs

[commodore64_love]

IRONY: The biggest pirate of all is the Music industry itself. Please take a moment to read this old article: "The plaintiffsâ(TM) (musicians) claimed compensation for use of work listed on what are known in the Canadian recording industry as âoepending lists.â These lists, accumulated over many years, contain works for which no licence was obtained and no compensation paid........ â" the action could have been worth up to $6-billion."

In other words the music industry owed 6 billion dollars to musicians for non-payment of songs they used w/o comprensation. - LINK : https://business.financialpost...

And the followup: The record industry only paid 50 million of the 6000 million owed to artists:
  https://entertainment.slashdot...

Re: blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

Then came along DVD-Decrypter and DVD-Shrink, and copying borrowed DVDs, removing all the forbidden actions, and fitting them on a single layer blank was child's play.

The truth is, watching something without the "forbidden actions" and unwanted advertisements on media that *I paid for* is a big reason that I torrented a lot of movies that I actually did buy on DVD. I used the pirated copy on my media server.

I got so fed up with this that soon I just quit buying the DVD. Why would I pay hard-earned money for an inferior experience that treats me like a mindless/powerless consumer who is a captive audience (not a valued customer) when a better option is available that doesn't try to make me captive to anything and doesn't try to tell me what I can or can't do with hardware I own and use inside my home? That's just asinine and was a big factor in helping me decide not to keep feeding the beast with my money. I'd have quit buying movies anyway -- that I can still pirate them anyway is just the icing on the cake. Fuck 'em.

The whole industry is like a spoiled child that was used to always getting its way for decades. Rich Daddy Government is always eager to bail it out of any problems caused by its bad decision making. So it never learned to associate cause with effect. It takes its customers for granted so it hasn't learned how to play nice with others. I really would like to do things legally and above-board but not under these terms. Like Carlos Castaneda wrote, I "refuse to honor agreements in which I did not participate."

I doubt very much that I am alone in feeling the way this industry insists on alienating its customers. This and the way copyright has expanded far beyond its balanced original purpose has caused their interests to lose respect for the simple reason that they are not respectable.

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you breathe air?

You need to be paying the RIAA.

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

They want it both ways. They charge a tax AND it is still illegal to infringe. And the tax is imposed on people as a blanket, with no relationship to their use of the service in question. And the amount of the tax is based on completely made-up numbers.

And they use the tax money (the bit of it that doesn't line their pockets) to enforce anti-infringement laws, including pushing disobedient and privacy-invading technology on everyone.

They want this, not because it is fair, but because it benefits them. Everything else is just bullshit to try and win hearts and minds.

Re:blank CDRs

[William Baric]

The "borrowed from a friend" was a loophole in the law, it was not in the spirit of the law. I'm not aware of any attempt by the recording industry to test it in court. However, since this way of sharing music generally encourage buying music, I suspect the music industry would never try to make this illegal.

As for the FTP server, it is "communicating to the public by telecommunication", and therefore clearly illegal. The reason a judge dismissed a case against the 29 P2P users was not because it was legal, but because the judge denied a request to order the ISPs to disclose the identity of their customers. The judged dismiss the case because of a lack of evidence, not because putting music on an FTP server or a shared directory is legal. Many people interpreted the case being dismissed as a proof file-sharing was legal, but that interpretation is completely wrong.

As for now, since piracy has been replaced with subscription services, the recording industry doesn't care that much about it anymore.

Re:blank CDRs

[dryeo]

The law doesn't say anything that stops borrowing a recording and copying it. You could call it a loophole or it could be something that was done on purpose.
How is having a ftp server running in the background equal communicating to the public by telecommunication. You're part of the public but without an invitation or being lucky in guessing, you won't get very far on my ftp server. My private circle, I could give a login to.

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 8 in high school? Damn, you're just a little kid.

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's a racket.

That's some nice internet you got there....be a shame if something happened to it.....pay us some money and we'll make sure you can continue using it.....heh..heh.

These scumbags should be shown the door, and ensured that it hits them on the way out. The world can do without them and it's long past the time that reality is made.

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The blank CDR tax ostensibly covered unauthorized copies. This is more like if they decided to charge a tax on all CDs, recordable or not, because the pressing plants had all managed to coerce labels into signing really low flat-rate royalties. The actual solution would be to regulate the tech companies which have capped and driven down royalty payments to unsustainable levels, but that would be hard! Tech companies have lawyers; but we can totally just tax vaguely related customers completely arbitrary amounts instead for the bravado of choosing a licensed service. Fantastic.

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

Did someone get between you and your mum on open john night?

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

and these days I can fit more than 30000 mp3s on a $30 flash drive. lol cdr's.

Re:blank CDRs

[stealth_finger]

By "streaming" spotify, netflix, youtube, whatnot, all the "dues" are already paid for you greedy fucking dinosaurs.

Yes, but they want more dues. All the dues that could be due.

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is some video footage of them stating their demands.
SCGC want more money from internet services.
I mean, their reasoning isn't sound but I can't blame them for trying.
Anyone catering to their demands on the other hand is a corrupt asshole.

Re:blank CDRs

[AmiMoJo]

To be fair they explain why in TFS, it's because they think that streaming services don't pay enough.

They may have a point there, streaming services don't adequately compensate artists. But the solution is not to hit the consumers, it's to force the streaming sites to pay up. It's hard for them because a lot of the services are based in the US outside Canadian jurisdiction, but there are ways to handle that.

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

WHY should I have to pay a "piracy" tax when I'm not pirating anything?

Stupid.

Because they want more money.

It has nothing to do with piracy and never has.
They have paid lobbyists with nothing better to do than try some bullshit and if it goes through they get a nice tax funded income source that doesn't require them to do anything to keep the money rolling in.

Re:blank CDRs

[thegarbz]

No it's not. The primary purpose of CDRs was to copy stuff kind of like Bittorrent where the legitimate use is actually far lower than the alternative.
On the other hand 15GB of internet? I just bought, paid for, and downloaded Doom. Why should I pay a tax on 55GB of that download, especially when the vast majority of the several hundred GB that gets used in my house is gobbled up by streaming services which I already pay for.

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

No those were their free floppies. Their CD's weren't CD-R's. They were just free targets for shooting , or free coasters, or free bird scarers.

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

mp3s? how GAUCHE. its 2018, not 1998.

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

Too much (bad) music ... like drunk Scotsmen ... let the pro creative types starve in their hot-tubs, while local untutored bards flourish.

Re:blank CDRs

[Killall -9 Bash]

Sorry, us non-Apple-using troglodytes haven't switched to M4-GAY yet.

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

You're goddam right. If this motion goes through, I will cancel my LEGAL streaming music and video subscriptions and pirate everything I can just out of spite. Whoever thought of this scheme can go fuck themselves if this is the thanks I get for being legal.

Re: blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

The situation as you point out is that there might be a choke point at the streaming service level. Too much control by one or a few companies. But the anser is the artists need to fight the people who control the distribution not fight the consumers.

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

JHC....

The solution isn't to make the streaming services pay up. It's to make the labels pay the damned artists.

The services are paying a shit tonne of money, but the artists aren't getting it... hmm I wonder where the problem could be?

How fucking stupid are you?

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have pulled a creimer and blame the Call Detail Records for your problems.

Re: blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they, the publishers, do not pay enough to people who didn't want to hear it. I propose a two hundred percent tax of their gross income, to be paid to all the non composers.

I propose this as legislation, because they demonstrated they are in favor of third parties seeking revenue from non members, so they should have no objection.

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

can the cat click yes to EULAs too?

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing as how you clicked the reply and submit buttons, the answer is yes, pussies can click yes buttons.

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 8 came out six years ago.

Re:blank CDRs

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh* meaning the person is under the age of 25, so yeah, a kid pretty much.

NASTY IDIOTS

[JimSadler]

People who want a broken government always push for expensive new agencies that force all kinds of tax increases. One can easily predict hundreds of new agencies as society becomes more and more complex. It won't work.

Re:NASTY IDIOTS

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was the broken government's attempt to get Canadians to stop endlessly watching mockery videos of their idiotic PM.

Re:NASTY IDIOTS

[SuricouRaven]

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.

Re:NASTY IDIOTS

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument doesn't stand. I want a broken government, but not due to tax increases. So much for your "always."

Re:NASTY IDIOTS

[stealth_finger]

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!

Re:NASTY IDIOTS

[Cinnamon Beige]

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...

Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[Anonymous Coward]

Find a Conservative woman and show her how much you appreciate her support of legalized rape.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, until he's impeached for perjury in 6 weeks. But it's open season on raping Conservative women until then, Kavanaugh proves it's legal now. Thank you dumb bitch Collins! Now which Republican female will be raped first I wonder?

Re: Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarah palin is on my watch list ;)

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[jedidiah]

> Well, until he's impeached for perjury in 6 weeks.

Even liberal judges aren't as shamelessly partisan as you are. They will apply the actual law and this will go nowhere.

> But it's open season on raping Conservative women until then, Kavanaugh proves it's legal now.

It's a shame that liberals don't actually value civil liberties anymore.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you not understand, idiot? You're ALREADY the party of rape! You have all the trannies, muslims and blacks on your team. 90% of rapes already happen in Democrat stronghold cities. You're the biggest rapists on the planet and cheered on your Rapist President for decades.

The good news is that you're one of the very few honest Liberals who is actually open and truthful about what degenerate scum you guys are. That's always appreciated.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[Anonymous Coward]

Rapepublicans will always be the party of rape. Usually of their own daughters, they're nasty inbred hicks more than not. They rape the family dog sometimes too.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[markdavis]

>"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.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[fafalone]

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.

Re: Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[Anonymous Coward]

If I pull a fake gun on you and scream "I'm going to shoot you". That's not violence?

Re: Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[Applehu Akbar]

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.

Re: Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think about me when masturbating, isn't that sexual harassment?

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[dryeo]

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...

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[dryeo]

Actions speak louder then words. Has the Republican Congress tried to fix the civil forfeiture thing? How about the President through executive power?

Re: Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[Cmdln Daco]

Did Obama during his eight years as President?

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re: Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[fafalone]

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.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[fafalone]

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.

Re: Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[dryeo]

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.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[fafalone]

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.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[meglon]

You are a fucking idiot. Stupid fucking idiots like you ARE the problem with this country.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[meglon]

You too are a fucking idiot.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[Applehu Akbar]

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.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[dryeo]

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.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[dryeo]

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.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[jpaine619]

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.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[dryeo]

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.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[goose-incarnated]

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...

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[jpaine619]

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.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[dryeo]

They're all Americans and none of them seem to be interested in fixing such a way to get around due process.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[Anonymous Coward]

Kavanaugh should rape Collins as a thank you.

Re: Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[Cinnamon Beige]

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.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[dryeo]

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.

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[Cinnamon Beige]

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.)

Re:Rape legalized, thank you Conservatism!

[fafalone]

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.

Free copying

[Vitdom]

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.

Re:Free copying

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonderful -- "Here, you must use these-here government-issued belts and suspenders! Your pants will still fall down."

Re: Free copying

[Cassini2]

The movie industry fought hard against a CD-R style tax on DVD-R's and on internet streaming. Apparently the courts in Canada asked why the music industry was chasing pirates when they already had a tax to deal with piracy.

The movie industry noticed this decision and did not want the same thing to happen to them.

Much of the current copyright fee structure had been created by a few very large corporations guarding their profits on a relatively sma number of works, and they don't care about any other concerns, people or artists. It really doesn't surprise me that this proposal is coming from a group of smaller artists. The current system is completely broken for smaller works, orphan works, and near orphan works.

Re: Free copying

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that most content pirated is out-of-region.

The irony is that levys are taxes on domestic production. So if my dad is pirating American films while in Canada, such a levy in theory goes to Canadian artists if they are part of the pool. So the American creators are not paid, and anyone not part of the Canadian RIAA doesnâ(TM)t either.

A relatively easy fix to this, is to change how DMCA types of laws place penalties. Instead of sueing the downloading user, have the ISP authorized to charge the user a generic VOD fee with the title accused of pirating, and if the user wishes to dispute it, they can, but generally the ISP has more incentive to collect fees to get a cut.

So a film VOD might be 9.99 but an audio on demand could be 0.99

Re: Free copying

[Megane]

The problem with that is there is no reliable way to identify content, so this would surely end up as identified data being taxed and paid to the music/movie industry by default. Because "nobody could possibly be" downloading that much data unless they were downloading major studio content, there is nothing else that they could possibly be downloading. Even content from minor studios would end up with these taxes being paid to the major studios.

Impossible for this to happen, you say? It already happens with live performance royalties. Even if all you ever play is your own self-composed music, playing it in public at a place of business subjects you to fees that will get paid to the music industry, that will never reach you unless you first go through a bureaucratic process that is designed to require the resources of a major studio.

Re: Free copying

[Shaitan]

I don't see that it matters. "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."

All of these services stream content they've licensed and paid the rights for. That cost is collected from their users either in privacy sold at auction and/or a monthly fee. Why should those users pay a tax just because some of the parties don't like the deal they negotiated with the service?

Re:Free copying

[Anonymous Coward]

That tax has nothing to do with piracy. The tax is to compensate for PRIVATE copying, not pirate copying.
Private copying is when you e.g. make a backup of your own legally obtained CD, or when you borrow a legally obtained CD from a friend and you make a copy of that.

Does Canada's music suck or something?

[NewtonsLaw]

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!

Re: Does Canada's music suck or something?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just optical media. We pay extra for flash and magnetic drives.

Re:Does Canada's music suck or something?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nickelback is Canadian.

Re: Does Canada's music suck or something?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

How do they divide up the procedes? Per copyright? Per sale in normal media?

How does a band with 20 songs and 1 hit fare againse music copyright trolls who write "1000 songs", none of which are hits, and they aren't really a recording musician, but are happy to sue a hit song that happens to vaguely sound like one of their planted scatershot?

Re:Does Canada's music suck or something?

[SuricouRaven]

One of several places.

Re:Does Canada's music suck or something?

[TomBauserman]

That explains alot.

Re: Does Canada's music suck or something?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do they divide up the procedes? Per copyright? Per sale in normal media?

How does a band with 20 songs and 1 hit fare againse music copyright trolls who write "1000 songs", none of which are hits, and they aren't really a recording musician, but are happy to sue a hit song that happens to vaguely sound like one of their planted scatershot?

I don't necessarily have a problem with government making sure things people tend to want or need are funded if they turn out to be the best way to fund those things. Your normal set are education, military, law enforcement, fire departments, etc. You could add funding (truly) independent investigative reporting, internet, and I guess music, though I'm less certain about the last.

As far as how to distribute money, well at some point you need to employee enough people. You might even tap some of that independent investigative reporting for some input. You just can't trust a purely technological solution for this kind of thing since it would be gamed. I'd imagine courts might need to be involved as well. Of course if the net apparatus required to do the job right makes the government solution worse than the non government solution then the government solution should be phased out or never exist.

The problem with government solutions is the problem of electing competent people. Power corrupts. When a corrupt organization gains power they often use that power to gain more power. The republican party in the US, particularly under Trump, but really for awhile is a perfect example of "ends justify the means" thought, though it goes behind this. Voters will twist them self into knots to reject facts as necessary to stay with their tribe's teachings. Hell a bunch of our representatives just did this, by somehow convincing themselves that the one accuser had something happen, but it couldn't have been by their guy when all they could really prove was they couldn't prove one way or another. If it was a job interview, the normal interviewer would have looked at the next candidate.

The danger of government funding of, well, anything, is when these corrupt tribes take over they corrupt everything connected to government. I'd like to hope that somehow Canada's system is resilient enough that it will never happen there, and say, the group in power won't suddenly start not paying for music that doesn't fit party standards, to say nothing about the other possible consequences.

I guess I don't see a huge problem with Canada's approach. It is just something to be watchful of, as is anything that has to do with government. Often times it is not the proposal that is the problem but the details and the implementation.

Re: Does Canada's music suck or something?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Sweden the organization (Copyswede) that collects these fees denied reporters to look into how the fees are distributed among artists. Something tells me that something fishy is going on...

Re: Does Canada's music suck or something?

[Anonymous Coward]

CopyGate movie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFN_Z8d0lpQ

Yeah, there's definitely something fishy going on.

Re:Does Canada's music suck or something?

[Gabest]

Hungary, too. Also on anything with a flash drive, like mobile phones. Must be a common practice in the world.

Re: Does Canada's music suck or something?

[dryeo]

Not just optical media. We pay extra for flash and magnetic drives.

No we don't. After the courts ruled that the levy on blank CDR's meant a license to copy music, they lost interest in more levy's.

Re: Does Canada's music suck or something?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does a band with 20 songs and 1 hit fare againse music copyright trolls who write "1000 songs", none of which are hits, and they aren't really a recording musician, but are happy to sue a hit song that happens to vaguely sound like one of their planted scatershot?

Frankly, I have problems these days distinguishing bona fide hit songs from recordings of sewer rat fights or mating sessions. I think it may be a problem with the hearing aids. Of the singers. Or of the sewer rats. Whatever this thing they were recording actually is.

Re:Does Canada's music suck or something?

[anegg]

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?

The current attempt at upping revenue sounds even more obnoxious. The claim doesn't seem to be that the tax is needed because of pirating, the claim seems to be that the tax is needed because the legally-negotiated compensation they receive through a streaming service isn't enough (as compared to other public performances, apparently). Is it really the case that having failed to negotiate what they think is a high enough amount of compensation through normal legal channels, they are seeking a government mandate to be paid more from anybody who uses over a certain amount of Internet download data, regardless of whether it was even for a streaming media service? (Because they can't imagine any other use of that much data unless it is streaming media that they feel they aren't being well enough compensated for?) Cheeky!

Re:Does Canada's music suck or something?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, they'll push this line for as long as it makes them some small amount of money. Eventually the ISPs will get wise and say "Hang on...every byte after 15GB is a music byte?". Fine...every byte after 15GB gets billed to the RIAA.

Now watch how quickly this whole thing comes undone.

Re:Does Canada's music suck or something?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it does, as does the local TV and movie industry, hence why we have to impose some 50/50 law on importing entertainment and try and shove it down citizens' throats... Yet it still doesn't take hold.

I'm trying...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I'm trying...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the usual Rent Seeking not by Composers, but by "Rights Holders". The Composers, Arrangers, and Musicians in order to get work have to basically sign their Rights away to the Producers/Publishers, and in fact this is stated quite clearly in the SCGA Model Contract right at the very beginning:
"1a- Model Contract Assignment: A long form document that is the boilerplate for all forms of screen composition and rights sharing where the copyright is assigned to the producer."

_All_ Composers in the SCGA have to sign this or the equivalent; the Legal Term in Copyright Law is "Work For Hire".
If this goes through, I doubt that the Composers and other actual Artists will see a Canadian Dime out of a Canadian Dollar from it.

Money-grubbing whores, looking to rent air...

[Anonymous Coward]

Get bent, which means, try to self-fellate.

Find a more appropriate target.

[fahrbot-bot]

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.

Re:Find a more appropriate target.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're using >15GB Pornhub are probably 1st in line, not musicians, Canadian or otherwise.

Re:Find a more appropriate target.

[jedidiah]

> 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.

Re:Find a more appropriate target.

[fahrbot-bot]

> 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.

Re:Find a more appropriate target.

[TomBauserman]

It's really easy to go way over 15GB if you don't have cable and use Netflix, Amazon Prime. I don't pirate anything, don't use pornhub. Our family used about 700-800 GB a month. We have a 1Tb cap.

Re:Find a more appropriate target.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Some Steam games are more than a 15GB download. I've used up 15GB in just a few hours from downloading one game.

Re:Find a more appropriate target.

[fahrbot-bot]

It's really easy to go way over 15GB if you don't have cable and use Netflix, Amazon Prime. ... Our family used about 700-800 GB a month. We have a 1Tb cap.

Ya, I actually just checked and I have used more than 15GB this month - watching Amazon Prime (binging BSG and Doctor Who). I don't do this every month and, you're right, 15GB isn't actually very much these days. Still, if the SCGC has a problem, they need to negotiate with (or sue) the streaming providers, not extort money from the entire Internet base.

Re:Find a more appropriate target.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah right. Running a single full bitcoin client alone will use WAY more than 15GB a month. Let alone multiple coins.

This is on top of OS updates from the likes of Linux and Microsoft which each could easily top 15GB alone.

The OP is lying or doesn't know how much bandwidth they ACTUALLY use.

Re:Find a more appropriate target.

[Anonymous Coward]

those are rookie numbers
https://www.gamesradar.com/big...

plus. one failed windows update can re-download repeatedly over and over. when that happens to be a feature update, that means 100+ gigs *a day*, or more. whatever your connection is, windows update will try to use it all up in its efforts to ram that update up your ass.

Re:Find a more appropriate target.

[Bert64]

Or big software updates...
I blow through much more than 15GB, and most of it is software updates for the various devices in the house.

Re:Find a more appropriate target.

[Anonymous Coward]

700-800GB a month?!?!?!

That's 685-785GB of pirated songs per month - you filthy pirate.

Re:Find a more appropriate target.

[Anonymous Coward]

Try downloading a Steam library sometime.
Some games (like TERA) are >30GB.

Re:Find a more appropriate target.

[TomBauserman]

I know right. I just can't help myself. I know I have a problem. That's the first step right. Admitting that you have a problem.

Re:Find a more appropriate target.

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely correct.

They complain they are losing money from "public performances." Simple fix: Don't have any of their musicians give public performances! They'll never lose revenue again.

Re:Find a more appropriate target.

[Anonymous Coward]

Team Fortress 2 is a 20GB+ download on Linux. Not to mention the GBs you'll use up playing anything multiplayer on Steam at all.

Glad that true unlimited plans exist in Canada, but this is bullshit if they want me to pay even more for the low-tier speeds I'm currently grandfathered into (won't change to a fibre-capable ISP until resellers can get something from Bell's monopoly supply).

Re:Find a more appropriate target.

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to forget, in one case, they have to negotiate with big scary companies that have lots of lawyers and accountants at their disposal, in the other, they just need to brib... lobby some politicians to screw over their citizens.

Re:Find a more appropriate target.

[houghi]

You have a family. Your son watches porn.

Re:Find a more appropriate target.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm consistently over 700GB of Internet data usage per month - even twice as much on one occasion - and everything I do is legit. Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Prime, streaming music, OS upgrades for 6 different systems, cloud backup. 15GB is a pitiful threshold and their argument is extremely weak (to put it mildly). I shudder to think what they think I should pay in tax at 700+GB/month.

Re:Find a more appropriate target.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention XBox downloads - 65GB for _one game_ digital download.

Re:Find a more appropriate target.

[Cinnamon Beige]

[...] 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.

Should, yes, but it's easier to get some politicians to team up with them for some rent-seeking. Interestingly, there's reason to consider that the major driver of income inequality--that it's the product of rent-seeking, so there's some very significant reasons to be against this other than just not liking IP trolls.

get the f..uck out a hear muscian lazy piece ashit

[Anonymous Coward]

so f i dont download music , dont stream it , they still want to STEAL MY MONEY , its gonna quickly devolve into punch all the musicans out soon

not like you added 20 years a copyright is not an abomination of humanity for the utter laziness it promotes

this goes through millions will turn off the internet , this leads to the over priced fucktards rising prices more cause they need more gold toilets to shit in while dreaming of the next yacht they will buy

What a crock!

[oldgraybeard]

Lets tax people who don't use are products! poof! profit! Cool!
You can buy anything from the corrupt politicians!
Just my 2 cents ;)

No logic needed

[warm_warmer]

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.

Re:No logic needed

[maglor_83]

They actually have a quantifiable lack of gains. They're not complaining about pirates, they are complaining that they don't like *the deal they made* with streaming services.

I have a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I have a better idea.

[bzipitidoo]

Let's tax people when they enter a grocery store and give the money to members of the National Restaurant Association.

If you cook your own food you are Stealing From McDonald's!

Re:I have a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite an analogy. More aptly, if you eat out more than N meals per month, we need a special tax to compensate farmers because restaurants are paying bulk rates for the food they purchase from farmers.

It's time to execute everyone and start over

[Anonymous Coward]

Get out the guillotines and execute everyone on the "Screen Composers Guild of Canada". Execute anyone in government who is considering their proposal.

They are at it again...

[umask077]

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.

This is complete bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

Re: This is complete bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you Canadian? Cause if you are not this got nothing to do with you.

Re: This is complete bullshit

[mschuyler]

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.

15 GB in month?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:15 GB in month?

[stealth_finger]

So what am I saying? Netflix stream, perfectly legal, can exceed 10 GB/day without trouble.

That's their point. They don't think netflix et al are paying them enough so they want everyone using the internet to cough up what they think should be the difference. You can go way past 15gb a month without even touching any streaming services quite easily these days.

Dumb reasoning.

[fahrbot-bot]

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]

Re:Dumb reasoning.

[Pseudonym]

Nobody died and made anyone king. Canada already has a queen. But it's also a democracy and as such everyone is allowed to propose dumb ideas.

Having said that, read the last two sentences again. This looks a hell of a lot like a negotiating tactic to me.

Re:Dumb reasoning.

[Anonymous Coward]

And what IF some of them/us use that kind of bandwidth for work-purposes? 15gig/month = ~500meg/day and THAT isn't unreasonable for some occupations/uses.

That's like a third of a video game

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:That's like a third of a video game

[Anonymous Coward]

And how much of a typical surveillance video? There has to be a business use levy in this proposal, hidden like meth stash in the Canadian wilderness.

Re:That's like a third of a video game

[Anonymous Coward]

yup this is jokes, if Steam messes up and I have to reinstall some of my games. Or just downloading the free games on PSN every month....

Prima nocta

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

One word

[Anonymous Coward]

Gof*ckyourself

I'd pay if...

[Anonymous Coward]

...in return, they made all non-profit copying completely legal.

Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Latinum is liquid at room temperature which is why it's usually found encased in worthless gold (so called gold pressed latinum).

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take all your quatloos. You can keep your bullshit latinum.

Rule of Acquisition 1966: The original is better.

15GB, really?

[Hamsterdan]

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...

Re:15GB, really?

[dissy]

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)

Some of my Nintendo Switch console game downloads:

15.6 gb - Zelda, breath of the wild
14.5 gb - Skyrim
17.3 gb - SouthPark, the fractured but whole
21.3 gb - Doom
12.1 gb - Wasteland 2
13.7 gb - Wolfenstein 2
12.8 gb - Hydrule warriors

One doesn't even need a computer to overshoot 15gb, or nearly so.
Even Fallout 4 at 37.6 gb from Steam is about 250% of their limit.

Re:15GB, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Red Dead Remption 2 is over 100gb.

Re:15GB, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

15GB are easily exceeded just by regularly tracking the updates of an alpha release of Ubuntu. No streaming needed at all.

Re:15GB, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. I just downloaded a 33 GB game patch.

Re:15GB, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shadow Warrior 2 was free for a short while at GOG to celebrate their 10 year anniversary. Size? 14GB. Oh, right, I just have to avoid going over 1GB for the rest of the month or I'm a dirty pirate. :)

Well if they're going to do that...

[DrXym]

... and be compensated then the implication is that piracy should be made legal. Pirate / copy anything you like, since you get billed for it.

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.

Re:Well if they're going to do that...

[Anonymous Coward]

it is elitist, Trudeau will love it.

Re:Well if they're going to do that...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly it. I wonder how the legal ramifications would play out - busted for downloading a movie torrent, but legally you've paid copyright fees on it via the tax.

Or is that the way forward? Have we been stuck in the middle of a "war on piracy" without really knowing it? And the answer isn't fines and convictions, but rather legalise it and tax it? Much like the new marijuana industry could take the wind out of the Mexican cartel's sails, is this how to deal with piracy? Tax everyone using the internet, and then download whatever you want?

Don't want to watch anything online? Don't use more than 15G. Simpiles.

Sounds fair

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Extortion is not the answer.

[fahrbot-bot]

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.

Assumption of Guilt

[iCEBaLM]

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.

I don't fucking think so

[Tyr07]

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

what the fuck???

[Anonymous Coward]

and here I thought the american tax theft was bad, the shameless thieves behind this scheme should be revolted on by good canadians

I have one thing to say to these "Copyright Groups

[gerald.edward.butler]

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!

Dirty liars

[Kjella]

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.

meter fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

certified meters?

Games... OS updates... etc...

[JDLazarus]

I download more than 15GB/month in game patches for a variety of games across 4 computers and a playstation 4...

They just don't ever seem to learn

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Look at what you made me do!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is your fault I am fucking you again!

More than 15GB=streaming or stealing?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Xbox One?

[umdesch4]

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.

Re: Xbox One?

[jd]

Be grateful you're not using Gentoo.

It was to be expected

[Anonymous Coward]

The recent EU ruling over copyright was a resounding victory for the media industry which destroyed every hope we still held to bring the laws in tune with the 21st Century and the Information Age. Europeans, enamored with the dead past, decided to bring the 21st Century back inti the 20th. The internet is dead. You can thank the Europeans for that. If you know any European, let them know that. May they all develop cancer. Shouldn't be a problem for them, what with the free healthcare.

Re: It was to be expected

[jd]

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.

Re: It was to be expected

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep telling yourself that, nazi shit.

Re: It was to be expected

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes what a shame they have invited criminals to enter their nations and create problems.

Once again

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Once again

[Anonymous Coward]

From Europe, of course. National socialism and fascism have been invented in Europe by europeans. Many civilizations in the past have managed to come up with egalitarian laws and religious tolerance, and democracy. But national socialism and fascism are uniquely european. It tells a lot about the self-appointed "bringers of civilization".

Signed on to US Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Signed on to US Copyright

[dryeo]

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.

Do you really think the Conservatives would have handled the NAFTA stuff better? Any which way we were fucked, and have been ever since the PC's negotiated the first Canada US free trade deal that saw all our manufacturing go south to the States and we had to adjust in such a way that we were even more dependent on the States for trade. As long as Trump acted like they didn't have a trade surplus with us and we aren't a brutal dictatorship that he could love, we were fucked.
The pipeline is just another way to ship bitumen to Texas so they can refine it and ship it back as expensive gasoline. There's no way they're going to use half full small tankers to ship the Bitumen to China or anywhere across the Pacific.
I personally feel we should have played more hardball, besides the points you make, we could have ramped up pharmaceutical manufacturing, ignoring American IP amongst other things but the truth is that it is hard to win in a fight with someone 10 times bigger.
Refineries would be nice but for some reason, no one wants to invest the money when we basically give away the raw resources for a quick profit.

bloodsucking leaches.

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

15g?

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

[locater16]

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!

Crony Capitalisim

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Ummm.

[jd]

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.

Re:Ummm.

[Kurotaka]

When I was a student I was routinely over 1TB/mo of data pulling down VMs, and entire virtual networks for homework labs.
My data use spikes massively on days when I'm working from home due to remoting into the company network.
So they should be entitled to a cut of that because...?

We are the Canadian Music Group...

[Anonymous Coward]

... And this is a stick-up, internet. Your money or your life?

Your like actually using the internet.

[MytQuinn]

"[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.

Re: I have one thing to say to these "Copyright Gr

[jd]

Actually, it has been in the U.S. for a long time.

Re: I have one thing to say to these "Copyright Gr

[gerald.edward.butler]

Actually, it hasn't. There is no Internet Tax that goes to the Music industry.

"Missed revenue"

[volodymyrbiryuk]

via GIPHY

I'm All For It

[Greyfox]

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.

Spotify, Youtube, Netflix?

[Gabest]

None of those are piracy sites. They pay the creators or remove unauthorized content.

Fuck off

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

wee little verb

[epine]

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."

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.

you don't say

[epine]

You're likely streaming YouTube.

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 for using Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Paying that Tax Should Give You Unlimited Content

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Just charge the streaming services more...

[jonwil]

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.

Not invented jere

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Alternative strategy

[rgmoore]

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.

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.

Up yours.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Coal Power Owners want Solar Power Taxed

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they didn't innovate and their revenue stream is out dated. /s

Because EVERYONE is pirating "Anne With An E"...

[BigBlockMopar]

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.

No, tax the members of SCGC

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Oh look, it's THIS bullshit again

[Rick Schumann]

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'.

Or you could just be working remotely.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are downloading more than 15GB/month you could also be a content creator, or a professional working remotely.

Download instead

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Canada Derps right into this one...

[Anonymous Coward]

This makes as much sense as a violence tax on every hockey puck. Wake up canucks, you don't want to set this precedent.

No more piracy claims?

[manu0601]

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.

Sure, if it means a licence to download.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only fair - if I pay for the "copyright charge" on my internet, it should make any music download legitimate.

15GiB

[Anonymous Coward]

Dialup speeds. The data traffic from playing video games can be more than 15GiB per month.

If this goes through, I will personally sue SCGC.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Here's an idea

[CanadianMacFan]

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.

How... small-minded these fools can be.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

They are forcing us

[uldics]

By refusal to answer police officers questions, the man at the door was forcing them to shoot him immediately.

So get your royalties

[HalAtWork]

"[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.

Proof they own the music first!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Shitty musicians

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

Guild members have nothing to do with this; they are pawns of the SCGC, and have little choice in the Contracts that they are required to sign, giving their Rights away for peanuts. Paul Novotny, who cowrote the proposal, has just one composition credit for the last decade, on a barely seen Film Short. He runs a Production/Publishing House and makes a living by screwing other composers out of a living.
Producers/Publishers are _not_ the Friends of Artists; they do not have their best interests at heart. This is true around the World now, not just in Canada and the US, and not just in Music.
We've seen this tactic before; it's happening on a massive scale in Internet Photography, where outright thieves like Getty are hoovering every photo they can find on the Internet, and then going after the original Photographers to force them into relinquishing remaining Rights, (Highsmith v Getty et al.), or stealing the work of underage Photographers to promote pornography, (Coton v Burge.)
The biggest Copyright thieves are _all_ Corporate, and not some kids downloading more than 15GB a month playing vidya games, or collecting some really stupid things done by other kids just like them from YouTube.

Tax for copyright holders

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Netflix will be part of their concern

[evanh]

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.

Re:Netflix will be part of their concern

[Anonymous Coward]

So instead of taxing everybody, write a law that states Netflix et. all. have to report to X source, that source payed for by the music companies, not by tech companies because the music companies are the ones who want the data, all the needed music data. Problem solved.

Now instead of some generic slush fund of money to an organization who doesn't know who to pay the money to, one can get the exact numbers, and bill the appropriate streaming entities rather than everyone. Including all the in-fighting over who actually owes what for "public performance" rights and who signed what contract.

Comparison to CD tax, this is different.

[thegarbz]

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).

There should have already been one required

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Biggest bullshit about this:

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

It's here

[Anonymous Coward]

Guilty until proven innocent, phase two

Slow acceptance is the slippery slope. Beware.

Here's an idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Blame Canada

[rickb928]

At least in the US you're innocent until proven guilty.

Oh, wait...

How about a global internet copyright tax?

[FB36]

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.)

Bogus reasoning, False logic

[mysidia]

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.

Re:Because EVERYONE is pirating "Anne With An E"..

[Cinnamon Beige]

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.

1998 Called...

[Anonymous Coward]

It wants its dumb ideas back...

Their arguement for 15Gb seems odd.

[Rhipf]

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.