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. . . .
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.
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?
"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.
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.
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)
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
"[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