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.
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. . . .
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.
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. . . .
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?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
"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.