Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Music Group Proposes 'Copyright Tax' On Internet Use (torrentfreak.com)
After ongoing discussions and proposals about new taxes and fees to compensate creators for "missed revenue," the Screen Composers Guild of Canada is calling for a copyright tax on all broadband data use above 15 gigabytes per month. TorrentFreak reports: A proposal from the Screen Composers Guild of Canada (SCGC), put forward during last week's Government hearings, suggests to simply add a levy on Internet use above 15 gigabytes per month. The music composers argue that this is warranted because composers miss out on public performance royalties. One of the reasons for this is that online streaming services are not paying as much as terrestrial broadcasters. The composers SCGC represents are not the big music stars. They are the people who write music for TV-shows and other broadcasts. Increasingly these are also shown on streaming services where the compensation is, apparently, much lower.
SCGC's solution to this problem is to make every Canadian pay an extra fee when they use over 15 gigabytes of data per month. This money would then be used to compensate composers and fix the so-called "value gap." As a result, all Internet users who go over the cap will have to pay more. Even those who don't watch any of the programs where the music is used. However, SCGC doesn't see the problem and believes that 15 gigabytes are enough. People who want to avoid paying can still use email and share photos, they argue. Those who go over the cap are likely streaming not properly compensated videos. SCGC writes: "[W]hen you're downloading and consuming over 15 gigabytes of data a month, you're likely streaming Spotify. You're likely streaming YouTube. You're likely streaming Netflix. So we think because the FANG companies will not give us access to the numbers that they have, we have to apply a broad-based levy. They're forcing us to."
SCGC's solution to this problem is to make every Canadian pay an extra fee when they use over 15 gigabytes of data per month. This money would then be used to compensate composers and fix the so-called "value gap." As a result, all Internet users who go over the cap will have to pay more. Even those who don't watch any of the programs where the music is used. However, SCGC doesn't see the problem and believes that 15 gigabytes are enough. People who want to avoid paying can still use email and share photos, they argue. Those who go over the cap are likely streaming not properly compensated videos. SCGC writes: "[W]hen you're downloading and consuming over 15 gigabytes of data a month, you're likely streaming Spotify. You're likely streaming YouTube. You're likely streaming Netflix. So we think because the FANG companies will not give us access to the numbers that they have, we have to apply a broad-based levy. They're forcing us to."
It's the tax on blank CDRs all over again.
The whores get mad when the sluts give it away for free.
Taxes on internet data to punish internet users or as an action to permit free copying of content on the internet? Here in Sweden we have to pay taxes on storage medium to compensate creators for "missed revenue" due to piracy, but piracy is not allowed even though you pay this fee.
Isn't Canada the place that put a media tax on CDR/RW disks and such -- because their poor music industry was so hard-done-by?
My advice to Canadian musicians and singers: take a teaspoon of cement and harden up!
One of the reasons for this is that online streaming services are not paying as much as terrestrial broadcasters.
Then get streaming services to pay you more, not Internet users in general.
As for me, I don't think I've ever used more than 15GB in a month, but if I did, it wouldn't be because I downloaded (or streamed) music or video.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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.
Why don't I just stop you on your way to work to your law firm and take some money out of your wallet because I think you should give me money.
Oh wait, I can't. Because that's called robbery.
Get out the guillotines and execute everyone on the "Screen Composers Guild of Canada". Execute anyone in government who is considering their proposal.
Fun fact: The music industry sued to try and stop the production of player pianos because they will put the musicians out of work. The musicians cash cow is concert ticket, not album sales.
Perhaps the music industry should pay for all the free promotion they are getting.
--- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
However, SCGC doesn't see the problem and believes that 15 gigabytes are enough.
Who died and made you king of anything?
People who want to avoid paying can still use email and share photos, they argue.
Which they do using Internet data - ding dongs.
Those who go over the cap are likely streaming not properly compensated videos.
[citation needed]
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Bigger games these days are easily 45GB.
These backwards, tech illiterate rights organisations can go fuck themselves.
I say people who demand money for nothing in return are likely abusing their spouses. Have you stopped abusing your spouses Mr. Posner and Mr. Novotny?
...in return, they made all non-profit copying completely legal.
"One of the reasons for this is that online streaming services are not paying as much as terrestrial broadcasters."
Translation: Ee cut a "shitty deal" on public performance royalties for online streaming so we want more money forced through government taxes!
"The composers SCGC represents are not the big music stars. They are the people who write music for TV-shows and other broadcasts."
Translation: We're not one of those big star assholes trying to wring out money, we're one of the small time assholes trying to wring out money!
"As a result, all Internet users who go over the cap will have to pay more. Even those who don't watch any of the programs where the music is used. However, SCGC doesn't see the problem and believes that 15 gigabytes are enough. People who want to avoid paying can still use email and share photos, they argue. Those who go over the cap are likely streaming not properly compensated videos."
Translation: Even though our music is so bad you intentionally mute all the stuff you stream, send/receive over 15 gigabytes worth of games with properly compensated music, and avoid us like the plague, we still figure you owe us money because hypothetically you might have for a split second in those 15 gigabytes listened to a few notes of one of ours songs, so give us money!
Gee, it sounds all so reasonable! While you're at it, why not have the government sue Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc for all the money you're due? Then have the government suing ISPs because they facilitated all this under payed streaming. And then the consumers for daring to stream music without making sure to double or quintuple pay just to make sure the music creator/owner gets "enough" pay. You'll know you've paid enough when each music owner has bathroom fixtures plated in latinum.
And it's not all about you, either. The issue is that it is a precedent. If this were to go through, guess who is next up because, you know, the Canadians did it, so we should, too.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Some of us are not using their ridicule low bandwitdh for pirating stuff. 15GB goes by pretty fast when you're using a *legal* streaming service (also known as Netflix & such). Besides, some games go easily over multi-GB downloads, PC or consoles (most recent console is a PS2, I'm more of a PC gamer). What about people streaming from Tou.TV or other channel's streaming services, in a legal way? it's CD-tax all over again because they are stuck in a model that doesn't work anymore... What about people using backblaze or any other cloud service? My DVR has a 3TB drive, and I stream a good percentage of it over my phone while not home, so my legally recorded OTA contents is gonna cost me is I stream more than about an hour and a half of free ATSC? And they're wondering why people are going illegal IPTV...
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
But back in reality it's just a stupid, ill thought out tax. People using Netflix or another streaming service, or downloading games are the ones who'll be hit by this. If I were a Netflix / Amazon / Hulu subscriber and I though I was going to be taxed for using a legal service that I already paid for, I might be strongly inclined to just cut out the middle-man and pirate stuff from source.
No problem. With such a tax we all cancel any paid subscriptions to legal movie/music services and turn to streamers and torrents. You PAID through taxes, so it's then legal.
While it may be true in this particular instance, simplistic thinking of that nature is a dangerous way too approach politics. Sometimes new agencies and government programs can be a good thing, even enough to justify the taxation to run them.
However, SCGC doesn't see the problem and believes that 15 gigabytes are enough. ... Those who go over the cap are likely streaming not properly compensated videos.
Or... Amazon Prime or Netflix. If you think those sources do not properly compensate you, negotiate with them, don't extort the entire Internet base.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Or, if you used more than 15GB/mo, maybe you just downloaded Monster Hunter World (19.5GB), or Overwatch (15.7GB), or Rise of the Tomb Raider (22 GB), or Destiny 2 (80.3GB), like I did this past week.
Jesus, what's that. 137.5 GB. I don't stream music, I don't have a spotify account, any music I download is paid for on itunes or amazon or whatever web store is cheapest that day.
This is blank media tax all over again. Idiots.
Majority of the data is netflix for a lot of house holds. Youtube also.
If you're a gamer, a lot of it is game updates. E.G Ark Survival ,that's 80 GB right there to install. They're going to charge me for installing games now?
If you charge that tax, you're saying I'm entitled to the content because I paid for it. I will absolutely start a new business of content for everyone as will many others and it will backfire so damn hard. Just like CDRs
So we think because the FANG companies will not give us access to the numbers that they have, we have to apply a broad-based levy. They're forcing us to.
If you can create a levy on ISPs, you can create a levy on FANG companies. That they don't want to give you the numbers today doesn't matter if it becomes law. This is just a fake play to create outrage that no we can't have bandwidth taxes so we have to pick the other half of the false dilemma.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I download more than 15GB/month in game patches for a variety of games across 4 computers and a playstation 4...
I'm certainly no fan of SJWs, but even the worst ones still support more civil liberties than the right. The right support civil asset forfeiture, the right is by far more strongly supportive of stripping 4th amendment rights, they're for continued marijuana prohibition, they're for stripping abortion rights, they're by far more strongly supportive of mass surveillance, they're more supportive of police in civil rights abuse cases, they're against sentencing reform and bail reform. Against marriage rights, discrimination protection for LGBT. For dictator-like levels of executive power. For subverting voting rights of the poor. For subverting voting rights of democrats in general, with gerrymandering. Then you have a whole list where they're both just as bad, and then a much smaller amount where they're better, such as gun rights and... what else, really? First amendment cancels out... better on free speech, worse on press freedom. Though that shifts depending on how much you think using religion to discriminate in non-religious settings is a right covered under it. Due process in limited circumstances (better for it on sex crimes, worse on all other crimes charged in courts).
The right, as always, is the bigger threat to civil liberties, to anyone who actually cares about all of them, instead of the favored subset of their party at this time.
Oh and by the way, if they do try to impeach Kavanaugh, no judge will adjudicate it, it's a purely political process conducted in Congress. If it was pursued criminally, having several people contradict you can indeed win a perjury charge. You don't need a video of him drinking to blackout and a doctor attesting to his memory loss, you just need witnesses who say they saw him do so. People are convicted exclusively on witness testimony all. the. time. I personally don't think that's a good strategy, but your claim that 'actual law' wouldn't support such a charge is false.
I have an Xbox One. Sometimes, twice in the same month, it'll download a 4.7 GB update. That's almost 2/3 of the 15 GB they're proposing, without me even doing anything past turning on a console and hitting ok.
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!
So coders (downloading and running a full gentoo environment for kernel or glibc development work) and physicists (downloading the five parameters needed for the 3D positions of 1.693 billion stars) are expected to pay music royalties?
I've heard of the music of the spheres, but Canada had better be able to produce solid proof the score is encoded in the galactic position.
I have no issue with rightful payment for rightful dues. But to demand a ransom from the innocent to pay for the follies of the guilty, a reverse Robin Hood, that gets me annoyed.
Claim the silver from those that owe and leave free software and galactic explorers alone.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The right support civil asset forfeiture, the right is by far more strongly supportive of stripping 4th amendment rights,...
The only element of the right which supports these things is the police lobby, which is why such a yawning airgap has recently appeared between cops and real conservatives. Exhibit A in the right-wing critique of the police viewpoint is their assertion that without civil forfeiture they would no longer have enough money for all that paramilitary gear they hide behind while gunning down people at random and never being prosecuted for it.
No, they wouldn't have enough money if they lost civil forfeiture, and this is our whole point.
Europe has saved your arse so many times when it comes to the Internet, and there would have been no new copyright law there if it weren't for America rejecting data protection, abandoning net neutrality and supporting the RIAA/MPAA in their efforts to terrorize young children in other countries.
And our healthcare remains superior.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
"[W]hen you're downloading and consuming over 15 gigabytes of data a month, you're likely streaming Spotify. You're likely streaming YouTube. You're likely streaming Netflix. So we think because the FANG companies will not give us access to the numbers that they have, we have to apply a broad-based levy. They're forcing us to." Your likely keeping Windows up to date, you likely bought a game on steam, your likely a little too into porn, your likely developing on the web. 15gb a month is pretty much everyone that works or consumes any type of entertainment on the web.
Actually, it has been in the U.S. for a long time.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Actually, it hasn't. There is no Internet Tax that goes to the Music industry.
via GIPHY
sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I'm all for it, as long as part of the tax law requires people to be allowed to share and download whatever content they want without restrictions. That would fix a lot of what's wrong with the copyright system.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
None of those are piracy sites. They pay the creators or remove unauthorized content.
Was facts and due process used for Hillary or was she just judged in the court of public opinion? It's not like there were numerous investigations into her, yet the new Supreme Court Justice was screaming about the Clinton crime family.
43% of Republicans support censoring the news and many are in favour of forcing private companies to post stuff they don't agree with.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Repu...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Actions speak louder then words. Has the Republican Congress tried to fix the civil forfeiture thing? How about the President through executive power?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
So much for amateur astronomy. Seriously, serious people should collect a tax whenever a proposal this stupid is taken seriously.
I foresee bad karma by the metric firkinton for these Halloween wet-wipe razor blades.
In my experience, hardly any machine learning courses have an upbeat backing track.
Worst case scenario: because under this proposal I would have effectively already paid for the music, they might add one.
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.
This is such total bullshit. If they're going for a legislative solution, why not pass a law requiring online streaming companies to open their books and share details of what they're streaming? That would solve what they claim is the real problem (lack of information) without imposing a new tax. But of course that's not what they really want. They want a nice guaranteed revenue stream they can leech off no matter what's actually using that bandwidth.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Work they're producing? What work is that?
Screencomposers Guild of Canada is just trying to strongarm a handout from Canadians.
No one is watching, let alone pirating, the dreck like Anne With An E. And we heard enough of the Tragically Hip's Bobcaygeon in the 1990s before FM radio was replaced with services that gave us the option to avoid ever hearing its constant CanCon rotation again.
But this still avoids addressing the central problem. Information wants to be free - that's what the Internet is about. The old distribution and revenue models have to change; RIAA, MPAA and all might as well be typewriter and sliderule manufacturers whining about the invention of the microprocessor.
I can really see an eventual return to product placement being a prime revenue generator for TV and movies; even if the movie is pirated a million times, that becomes a million more views for what effectively becomes an ad for a company's products.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Obama advanced some, but not all, of those. And made others worse, especially mass surveillance. I've posted my long list of complaints of Obamas civil rights violations several times now, but it doesn't change the overall direction of the parties.
They keep trying to make this shit fly again and again and again. It's no different than trying to put a tax on email usage.
If they can't negotiate better royalty deals for music then fuck 'em, they suck and they get what they deserve. No doing an end-run around the negotiation process and fucking us with an 'internet tax'.
A couple issues there, first, I've heard tons of liberals calling for reforming police civil rights abuses, and crickets from the right. They're by and large all pro-police and against every measure the left proposes to restrain them. See e.g. Stop and Frisk; clear racial profiling, the left sued to stop it, the right parroted the police arguments for it.
Another issue, the military gear comes from a Pentagon surplus program. They receive it for only the cost of shipping. Civil asset forfeiture money would not limit their acquisition of military hardware. Speaking to the majorities, the left opposes this program while the right supports it. The right defends military-style SWAT raids on non-violent drug offenders, the left opposes them. The right complains about DOJ civil rights settlements, the left supports them (and Sessions rolled them back). The right defends obvious bad shoots, the left wants charges.
Sorry, but supporting and enabling police civil rights abuse is a problem with the whole right.
Obama is not in power and the post I replied to claimed that Republicans (excepting the police) are against civil forfeiture.
Just because Obama was a huge disappointment doesn't mean everyone has to disappoint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
To be fair on this, there is a Republican who's taken a bold stand against it: Don Willett, a judge on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. He's opposed that (sadly, dissenting), and several other of the rights awful civil rights positions. And he was on Trumps SC list... why oh why couldn't we have gotten him... he's the only (R) judge I'd ever support for SCOTUS, despite disagreeing with him on plenty of other points.
You are a fucking idiot. Stupid fucking idiots like you ARE the problem with this country.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
You too are a fucking idiot.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
We of the dark side brought this up with Trump when he appointed Jeff Sessions, a civil forfeiture supporter, as AG. That was when we discovered that Trump did not understand what forfeiture was.
And no, though Obama did know what civil forfeiture was, he did nothing about it in his terms.
One reason why I was a Johnson voter.
If I was an American, I couldn't imagine voting for either of the main candidates. I found it depressing that there weren't more 3rd party votes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Democracy is supposed to be about compromise, but America seems to be about sticking it to the other side lately, something that can't end good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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.
In the 21st century, democracy usually means representative democracies, which include Constitutional Republics where you vote in representatives such as America.
And of course, tyranny whether it is the tyranny of the majority or tyranny of the minority, is bad and where the idea of compromise could limit the tyranny.
And while, for example, you have the right to speak your mind, there are still limits. No amplifying your words to cause physical damage to others, this is usually extended to noise bylaws where the volume that you speak is limited depending on location and time. No screaming outside of others houses in the middle of the night.
Rights often involve some compromise, with the famous example of your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Self defence being limited to credible threats and so on. Even your freedom of association may be limited by who your neighbours are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Right, if users are taxed, then there should be no more piracy claim about their usages. All sources should become legal to use. Even The Pirate Bay.
Make your stuff worth buying. The only music that I've bought has been from the independent artists which aren't represented by these idiots. Any TV or movies are foreign series because the quality is much higher.
I use between 100GB and 200GB a month and none of it is from streaming music, TV, or movies.
Like other have said, if the streaming services aren't paying enough (supposedly) then don't go after your customers, go after the streaming services.
I work remotely for a software company as a consultant. Part of my job involves downloading nightly builds of our development software, and machine learning dataset updates (among other things). These downloads range into tens of gigabytes per day, nearly everyday, essentially dwarfing the precious few instances I listen to indie bands on YouTube with respect to consumption.
Whoever proposed this tax is an unimaginative simpleton with much fondness for undeserved money.
By refusal to answer police officers questions, the man at the door was forcing them to shoot him immediately.
"[W]hen you're downloading and consuming over 15 gigabytes of data a month, you're likely streaming Spotify. You're likely streaming YouTube. You're likely streaming Netflix"
So what... Are they not collecting royalties from Spotify, YouTube, and Netflix? If not, why is that the problem of consumers? Contact Spotify, YouTube, and Netflix and sort it out there.
Twinstiq, game news
Actions speak louder then words. Has the Republican Congress tried to fix the civil forfeiture thing? How about the President through executive power?
Did a Democrat congress try to fix it? How about a Democrat president? After all, actions speak louder than words...
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
No no no.. You misunderstood. I wasn't making a statement about titles. I know we normally are referring to Representative Republics when we say Democracy. I was going beyond that.
In a pure democracy (California has a hybrid of Democracy and Republic, whereby the people can directly propose, vote, and enact laws) compromise is what you have to have to get shit done.. It can also lead to a tyranny of the majority...
I was simply stating that in a true democracy, you do have to compromise.. I don't like compromise, most of the time. I want "my guy" to stick to his guns and not back down.. I prefer a Republic to a True Democracy. Compromise leads to bastardized solutions and, quite often, it's used to strip us of our rights, a little bit at a time.
Side A wants all guns gone.. Side B wants no guns gone.. So we compromise and take away some guns... I don't like this.. I want my Side B legislator to hold his fucking ground and not let Side A strip me of my rights a few guns at a time, as an example.
Hopefully that makes a little more sense for what I was trying to get across.
They're all Americans and none of them seem to be interested in fixing such a way to get around due process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Society needs to impose a tax on copyrighted material, similar to real estate taxes. The tax should be progressive by term of copyright, say 0.05% for each year after the first 10 years. The valuation of the material used to calculate the taxes, should limit damages claimed for copyright imfringement. Say, if Disney claims that Mickey Mouse is worth 1B, it should pay 400M in taxes to keep the copyright and should be able to sue anyone for infringement assuming the value of 1B.
I'd agree with you on the games downloads and even playing of certain games, but I think you'll find they consider Netflix in the same group as Spotify. Netflix is operating outside of their control while also impacting on them.
I thought it was the broken government's attempt to get Canadians to stop endlessly watching mockery videos of their idiotic PM.
Like that one of him walking up the steps of his jet with toilet paper hanging off his show? What a knob!
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
So 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.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
So the CD tax sort of made sense given the primary purpose of a blank CD was used for piracy. In a way this is like Bittorrent. Sure there are legimiate uses for bittorrent but ultimately the illegitimate use has completely swamped the legitimate uses.
The internet on the other hand isn't like that at all. Netflix and Youtube represent 50% of internet traffic together. Throw in Pornhub, xhamster, and actual HTTP traffic and you're closer to 75%. Hulu and other streaming services add a few percent here and there, as does social media (Facebook representing 3% of all internet traffic). The actual illegitimate use of internet bandwidth is very small.
I can't pay for and legitimately download a AAA game now without hitting this limit. Doom is a 70GB download. Why should I pay a tax on 55 of those GBs (assuming that is I don't do any other internetting that month).
At least in the US you're innocent until proven guilty.
Oh, wait...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Imagine, a global internet copyright tax, as a flat tax (percentage), added to everyone's internet bills! In return, any/all content on the internet is absolutely free (including save/copy)! (But, of course, the main problem w/ that would be, how the revenue will be shared/distributed to copyright holders. What exactly could be a fair way to decide, which copyright holder should get how much payment exactly?) (Also, of course, if this works for internet, it could also be extended to include smartphone world.)
There are MANY reasons to go over 15 gigabytes a month, that have absolutely nothing to do with consuming music or video created by someone else. MOST content on Youtube is created by independent creators who wouldn't be eligible to receive a dime from this fund; Content streamed on Netflix is Netflix's responsibility to license and pay for appropriately --- so what they "Don't want to share their numbers" --- if you think the compensation is unfair legally compel them to share their numbers.
Metering connections for copyright is ridiculously unfair treatment for technical users who download and seed Linux DVDs; or who continuously upload their security camera footage for offsite storage or use ccTVs with cloud monitoring; People who purchase digital downloads of software; People who download or share large buckets of random numbers or portions other multi-Terabyte datasets for security, medical, engineering, or scientific research purchases; People who are mirroring or archiving public FTP servers containing open source software or other content to their home computer or for offline storage for future use or reference without necessarily disseminating much of that content; Gamers who use Steam; People who use Cloud backup/storage solutions; Content creators who upload stuff they've created; People who run their own websites or discussion forums or immersive MMORPG or shared world systems, such as Minecraft server shared with friends from a broadband connection
"[W]hen you're downloading and consuming over 15 gigabytes of data a month, you're likely streaming Spotify. You're likely streaming YouTube. You're likely streaming Netflix.
Only because for the average consumer when you're downloading ANY bytes per month: you're likely streaming Spotify or watching Youtube videos or Netflix --- Spotify is not a huge bandwidth user, so you can be doing A HECK OF A LOT of streaming before hitting 15 GB.
I suspect that you also could raise money more directly from consumers--cutting out middlemen like the Screen Composers Guild of Canada and just buying it directly from the composer and performing artists.
Honestly, proposals like this come off as simply rentseeking on the part of the industry associations--and I'm unfortunately very skeptical that they actually intend to share the money they gain with the people who are actually producing content...especially the ones without the resources to make public the abuse.
If you want to ensure that the majority of new agencies, government programs, and taxes are a good thing, and not rentseeking (such as this proposed tax which is in the original robber baron tradition), then you need to work from the assumption that any proposed new one is not a good thing--make the people proposing it have to prove that it will be beneficial...
Part of that's because US voting most places runs with 'person with most votes wins,' even if the majority of people who voted chose someone else--a switch to instant runoff/ranked choice voting, with nobody able to win without an actual majority of the (remaining) votes, would fix that.
But I fail to see how any of this relates to Canadian politics, no less how a Canadian IP group is trying to extort money from people using their internet because they feel they cut a bad deal with the streaming services.
Most of Canada's voting is also "person with the most votes wins" yet we have 3rd parties, especially at the Provincial level. Quebec just voted in a new party, along with another new party coming in second for example.
We got sidetracked into a conversation about civil forfeiture and whether the right supports it or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
That's because Canada's got a Parliament, and/or 3rd parties that actually take themselves seriously--but I'm trying to be polite and not point out that the US's 3rd parties are not actually serious about winning, while proposing a system that will put them them in a position where they stand a good chance of being like a dog that has unexpectedly managed to catch a car.
Knowing a decent chunk of the people involved in the legal battle, the US right doesn't, it's primarily supported by politicians (both sides) because it makes them money and is easy to abuse. It is, however, probably something best fixed in the courts so a change in the political winds can't undo it--and if you fix it on the legislative or executive level you stand a good chance of the courts saying it's a waste of their time to keep going, so it's not necessarily a Good Idea if there's a civil forfeiture case with a good chance of getting the Supreme Court of the US to rule the entire damn thing a violation of the US Constitution. (About the only way to manage it legislatively with anything close to the same permanence would probably require getting a Constitutional amendment to actually get passed and the odds of getting any Constitutional amendments added now would likely require an infinite improbability drive.)
Is it really that hard to stay under the 15Gb limit if all you do for the month is stream Spotify? If so their reasoning that anyone using over 15Gb per month must be streaming is highly flawed.
Of course it is already flawed since it is very easy to use more than 15Gb per month without streaming one bit of content that these "artists" contribute to.
Every last one of the things you claim '0%' for Republicans implement with no opposition from anyone inside their own party. Civil asset forfeiture? Some are against in, like Judge Willet who I did mention, but the only organized opposition comes from the left. All your politicians love it. Ours not so much. You should be howling that your politicians won't do what the large majority of their voters want, instead crickets, the only way you ever know is polls.br> -25% on banning pot? False, it's only 51% as of the most recent polls (Pew), just this year inching over to that majority. But of course, the bigger problem is support for politicians that favor it far less. It's a problem on the other side, but to a far less extent. Almost as a rule, all organized pot legalization efforts are liberal groups, all opposed conservative.
-You didn't deal with mass surveillance above, since it's not under the private property right you falsely claim represented the civil asset forfeiture opinion. 50% is wildly understating it.
-In the vast majority of cases. And usually the best case scenario is silence, not calling for heads to roll.
-If you ask about the specifics of these, the opposition is unequal. Reducing sentences, eliminating cash bail, ending mandatory minimums, ending the crack/cocaine disparity, ending private prisons... these are all liberal sentence/bail reform policies, significantly opposed by the right, which at best supports token reforms. This played out very recently, republicans gutted reforms before announcing a 'reform' bill they'd support.
-No, they want resources directed away from social programs and scientific research and education etc, all instead to go to making our military larger, with few checks on executive dictation of this. Well above 50.
-You're completely ignorant here. Voter ID? A favored call of republicans, opposed nearly uniformly by the left. Why? Look into it, republicans take measures, opposed by democrats, to make it much harder for the poor to get an accepted id, even disallowing government ids the poor might have from welfare type programs.
-Republican gerrymandering has been extensively documented. You're extremely dishonest here.
-Oh, I'm glad you think that's the sum-total of all press freedom. Disingenuous ass. Also, I've never met a single republican ever who's recognized and complained that Fox News is biased and shouldn't be.
-This point is unrelated to schools. I was referring to business and housing discrimination on allegedly religious opposition. This is very strongly supported by the right, to deny service on that basis.
-Again, I think the problem here is once again your lack of familiarity. Whenever 'rights of the accused' comes out, outside of the brand new sex crime issue, it's always tough-on-crime republicans supporting the police and prosecutors over the accused.
I myself lived in rural Florida for half of my adult life. Came of age there, attended college there, then 8 years after, compared to only 7 in the nyc area (plus when under 10). Trying to claim I'm out of touch isn't going to work. I miss those people and that life a lot. You can also peruse my post history for my well documented opposition to left wing policies as well, I'm no ideologue left winger, they can't stand me.
As always, you've constructed a defense of the right entirely dependent on ignorance of reality.