Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canadian Songwriters' Collective Licensing Bid Goes Voluntary

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the optional-taxes dept.

Music 93

Last year, the Songwriters Association of Canada (SAC) proposed a plan to legalize the file sharing of copyrighted songs, which involved a small monthly fee to people using an internet connection. Critics of the plan complained that it amounted to another tax, and the Canadian recording industry said it violated copyright law. Now, as an anonymous reader writes, "The SAC has renewed its bid to legalize peer-to-peer file sharing in return for a levy on Internet service. The SAC is now calling for the plan to be voluntary, with both consumers and creators having the right to opt-out. ACTRA, the leading performer group in Canada, now says it is also supportive of a legalized approach with the prospect of extending the plan to video sharing."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"songwriter" association (1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329345)

why don't they just shut the fuck up?
the system is rotten to the core, they should make it better, not parody it.

Re:"songwriter" association (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27329521)

That is only because

Bite out of apple sales

Apple might still make the coolest computers on the block but it is struggling in the face of global recession as consumers opt for cheaper alternatives. Mac sales fell 16 per cent year-on-year in February, according to research firm NPD Group. Sales of PCs, meanwhile, increased 22 per cent in the same period thanks to a boost in sales of cheap, lightweight notebooks.

    which was from a newspaper which does not have an IT section but an Apple cheerleading squad was rejected from the story where Ballmer correctly called Apple a $500 logo.

In short /. will let that through but not something that says Apple sales are declining.

Letting artists opt-out makes sense (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329407)

It's really the only way to have some kind of paid file sharing and still preserve individual "ownership" of copyright (as opposed to corporate "ownership"). If I were a Canadian musician, I'd be glad to be offered a chance to opt-out of this system (though I would probably not actually opt-out).

Re:Letting artists opt-out makes sense (3, Interesting)

Imagix (695350) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329489)

No, no, no. Opt-in is the way it should work. It's only opt-out because of the hassle it takes to actually opt-out, and it depends on the general ignorance of the people that they won't be properly informed that they're even paying this extra tax and that it's possible to opt-out. With these two issues, they would get a huge "sign-up' to this scheme.

Re:Letting artists opt-out makes sense (2, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329785)

No, no, no. Opt-in is the way it should work. It's only opt-out because of the hassle it takes to actually opt-out, and it depends on the general ignorance of the people that they won't be properly informed that they're even paying this extra tax and that it's possible to opt-out. With these two issues, they would get a huge "sign-up' to this scheme.

Translation:

If you do not wish to get notified about our latest v14gr4 and c1al1s offerings, please send an empty email to unsubscribe@spammer.cx

The result is also the same: you get targeted.

Re:Letting artists opt-out makes sense (2)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329969)

Agreed.

Opt-out is a fallacy. The concept of "opt-out" needs to be abandoned by our society as a whole, its shady. It's like you have to opt-out of being charged for services you don't want or never asked for, due to greed/predatory processes.

Re:Letting artists opt-out makes sense (1)

cellurl (906920) | more than 5 years ago | (#27330473)

If I have something of value I protect it.

DVD's and CD's are a public nuisance, like a swimming pool without a fence around it. Get rid of both.

Embed a serial number in the DVD in random places. Make it hard to pirate. Prosecute individuals who do, not sites.

This is like prohibition. It didn't work. Don't allow new taxes, new limitations, new throttling under any disguise and this is a disguise.

Two things I want to see,
1) a paypal donate site for retired actors/writers. When I pirate, I will donate to that!
2) a site exactly like TPB that allows tipping. Who gets the money, I don't give a hoot, but it will clear my conscience.

CHAO!

Re:Letting artists opt-out makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27332705)

>Embed a serial number in the DVD in random places.

get multiple DVDs, compare them
now what?

Streisand effect (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329515)

I'd bet that any artist that opts out will get downloaded more often than they would have otherwise.

Re:Streisand effect (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27330125)

Dear Hatta,

I find your lack of faith disturbibg...

Signed,

MediaSentry.

Re:Streisand effect (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334231)

Dear MediaSentry:
We find your lack of spell-check immensely satisfying.

Signed,
The Internet Explorer Dev Team

Re:Letting artists opt-out makes sense (4, Insightful)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329581)

Letting individual copyright holders opt-out makes the proposal useless. The entire point was that, for a small monthly tax, people wouldn't have to worry about copyrights so far as non-commercial, personal use was concerned. If it doesn't apply to all copyrighted content, though, the resulting situation wouldn't be much different than what we have now; people would still run the risk of a lawsuit every time they shared something. (You don't expect anyone to actually check the lists, right? Even assuming they're even published in an accessible fashion, if people are paying a monthly "file sharing" tax they're going to expect access to everything.)

Re:Letting artists opt-out makes sense (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#27330159)

Letting individual copyright holders opt-out makes the proposal useless. The entire point was that, for a small monthly tax, people wouldn't have to worry about copyrights so far as non-commercial, personal use was concerned.

It seems to me like a small monthly tax just to not have to worry about copyrights for personal non-commercial use is already useless.

Re:Letting artists opt-out makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27351947)

Oh come on, it's not that hard to write a little "list checking" algorithm linked to your file sharing program, is it?

Re:Letting artists opt-out makes sense (1)

melodyhill (1517179) | more than 5 years ago | (#27357587)

Actually, all rights holders will opt-in although it may take a bit of time. Just like performing rights, where rights holders can theoretically opt-out no one does. Because everyone wants to be paid for their work!

Re:Letting artists opt-out makes sense (2, Insightful)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329589)

Yes... and how will you, the individual copyright holder whose rights this plan respects, get paid assuming you don't opt-out?

I'll bet you won't. I'll bet this doesn't respect your ownership of copyright at all.

Just like the Blank CD levy.. (4, Insightful)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329803)

No artist gets paid.

I wish somebody could get a video of Avril Lavigne's answer to: "Did you get your cheque for your portion of the Blank CD levy?"

Re:Just like the Blank CD levy.. (1)

Demonantis (1340557) | more than 5 years ago | (#27330051)

Just research Canadian Music Creators Coalition and her name pops up.For those that wont google, They are lobbying against blank cd levies.

Re:Just like the Blank CD levy.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27330053)

Didn't she sell out like two years ago? Around the time she bleached her hair ;P

LOL! My captcha said "threesome"! Ok it was tiresome but it still made me chuckle...

Re:Just like the Blank CD levy.. (1)

Ambvai (1106941) | more than 5 years ago | (#27336303)

For somebody who didn't keep up with this, basically, what was the response?

I don't make a habit of following Avril Lavigne... (1)

pathological liar (659969) | more than 5 years ago | (#27336823)

... so what was it? I haven't found anything obvious in Google.

Re:Just like the Blank CD levy.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27339579)

The artists have already been paid. That's what the contract is for. It's the people who paid the artist (and provided all the managing, marketing, touring, expenses etc) that haven't been paid because of thieving assholes like yourself. Hence, the levy (or tax, if it helps you sleep better).

Speaking of Canadian songwriters (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27329409)

I'd love to nail Shania Twain.

Re:Speaking of Canadian songwriters (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329579)

Apparently, so would her (now ex-)husband.

Re:Speaking of Canadian songwriters (1)

drewvr6 (1400341) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329607)

Now that's sharing I can get behind! Pun intended.

Already legal (1)

srussia (884021) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329421)

"The SAC has renewed its bid to legalize peer-to-peer file sharing "

Isn't it already/still legal in Canada?

Re:Already legal (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27329481)

Downloading for personnal use, yes. Uploading, no.

Re:Already legal (2, Informative)

joelmax (1445613) | more than 5 years ago | (#27331747)

Its kind of a grey area here right now. We are free to download for personal use, however uploading is strictly illegal as you are now distributing copyright material. This fosters a leeching society for those that know and understand what is happening and want to stay legal, those who don't care carry on as normal.

Now, right before the last election was called, a bill was brought to the table (Bill C-61) which would make downloading copyright material illegal, even for personal use, however, when an election gets called, all bills on a table get swept aside and have to be reintroduced after the election is done. We havn't seen it rear its ugly head yet, but it is most likely still floating around, waiting for its chance to get introduced again.

Other taxes? (1)

Hasney (980180) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329431)

Did those other taxes that were proposed go through? I remember reading on Slashdot about a tax in Canada that would be added to blank media and MP3 players which went into the pockets of the music industry up there.

If it did and this goes in place as well, they surely would be making more money off of taxes than from actual music sales!

Re:Other taxes? (4, Informative)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329995)

We've had a media "levy" (don't call it a tax!) for the last twelve years. The irony is that my brother (a full-time professional musician) has to pay this levy on blank media he uses for his own music, and the money goes back to the record companies or music publishers. If any artists get his money, it's the Celine Dions of the country. (Although I seem to recall that she came out firmly against the levy, pointing out that even she's made less from it than she's paid into it by buying CD blanks for her computer).

Re:Other taxes? (4, Informative)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27332103)

As a professional your brother should be claiming CD-R's as a business expense anyway. I'm a sound tech who goes through 2-3 100 CD-R spindles monthly, entirely on content I record legitimately myself, much of it live demo recordings. I write it all off, so they can levy it all they want as far as I'm concerned. I also write off half my "entertainment" expenditures from every outing where I discus music with anyone, so roughly 45% of my restaurant/bar bills. It's quite an easy subject to bring up!

I also question whether the tax is actually collected on all imported media, since I pay 23 cents per CD-R at a local shop [canadacomputers.com] , and the tax is supposed to be 21 cents each, soon to be raised to 29 cents [cdrlabs.com] if it hasn't already. I have trouble believing the manufacturing, distributing, and retailing revenues total a mere 2 cents a disc.

As an artist who knows I'll never see dime of any such levy, it's pretty irritating. How the music industry is supposed to benefit by making internet traffic more expensive is beyond me. This is typical of the music industry's back-end approach to combating music piracy rather than the value-added approach which is generally the most successful.

Worse yet is the "SOCAN tax" for live performances. 3% of the pay for an artist or band is collected by SOCAN [socan.ca] (Tariff 3A) to be redistributed to SOCAN members. If an artist or band plays all original music, they have to submit a setlist and wait to get that money back. If they play no original or SOCAN member compositions (i.e. all American-written songs) the collected money is basically swallowed by SOCAN. So the organization whose mission is to compensate Canadian songwriters for 3rd party performance and broadcast actually taxes Canadian performers unfairly and profits from the performance of non-Canadian compositions.

Fortunately, virtually no small live music venues across the country cooperate until they are compelled by SOCAN, and of the 200+ small venues I've played I've only encountered two such venues, one has since closed. So just avoid the Boar's Head Pub in Stratford Ontario and you're ok...

Re:Other taxes? (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 5 years ago | (#27337921)

Point well taken, and I'm pretty sure my brother writes off his CD-R blanks (as well as his computer, appropriate entertainment expenses, etc.). If he didn't, he'd be, well...even less well off.

However, the blank media charge supposedly is collected on _all_ media. If you're paying $0.02 (or less-even a negative number!) for media before the levy, it's because the store (or maybe the wholesaler) is probably selling it at a loss, as a loss-leader to get you into the store.

Many years ago, "Cook County Saloon" in Edmonton Alberta collected the SOCAN fees. I don't know if they still do or not.

Re:Other taxes? (1)

studog-slashdot (771604) | more than 5 years ago | (#27338827)

I also question whether the tax is actually collected on all imported media, since I pay 23 cents per CD-R at a local shop [canadacomputers.com] , and the tax is supposed to be 21 cents each, soon to be raised to 29 cents [cdrlabs.com] if it hasn't already. I have trouble believing the manufacturing, distributing, and retailing revenues total a mere 2 cents a disc.

It's not. The second link there explicitly says "blank audio recording media". There was an outcry when the levy was introduced on CDs since they were already heavily used for computer data. So there are two distinct-in-name but otherwise completely identical classes of CDs: CD-Audio and CD-R. CD-Audio is marketed for copying music CDs and CD-R is marketed for data. CD-Audio bears the levy, CD-R does not.

Also, blank cassettes bear the levy, but I do not believe that anything else does. Yet.

...Stu

Re:Other taxes? (1)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347947)

Ironically there's probably more audio being burned to CD-R's in data format (MP3's etc) than audio format.

And I'm insensed that I have to pay the audio levy on cassettes for my C64 tape drive!!

Re:Other taxes? (1)

svick (1158077) | more than 5 years ago | (#27358109)

I find it quite amusing that in Czech, "socan" is a derogatory word meaning "socialist".

Re:Other taxes? (1)

melodyhill (1517179) | more than 5 years ago | (#27357853)

Thousands of songwriters and artists receive payment for the private copying levy in Canada. I am one of them. That said, as sales of all kinds of CDs decline, the levy itself will disappear and new technologies will dominate the marketplace. File sharing is the major one going forward.

Re:Other taxes? (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 5 years ago | (#27330601)

Blank media taxes are common elsewhere too. Not to mention that copyright in itself is fundamentally a delegated taxation form only called otherwise to keep control in the various publishing industries and for propaganda purposes.

Not that handling the issue as a taxation form is necessarily a bad solution; the simplest way to solve the whole economic part of the copyright issue would be to just slap a sales-tax of, say, 50% on any revenues made from copying/publishing/performing specific material with the proceeds going directly to the artists and then freeing up copying to whoever wants to copy anything.

Of course, that probably wont happen, as it would hand money to artists and songwriters instead of the media companies. Which makes it the exact opposite of what they want.

Next election... (2, Interesting)

jsrlepage (696948) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329471)

...I'll vote for the party that supports this (Probably NDP/NPD).

Re:Next election... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27329509)

Instead, you could work to bring about an end to political parties. [metagovernment.org] And elections.

Re:Next election... (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334941)

My goodness. Sounds like the Socialist Workers Party [swp.org.uk] . Thinly-disguised single-party authoritarian rule. Joseph Stalin, anyone?

Re:Next election... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27330001)

Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
[Jack Layton storms off]

Screw Canadian media (1, Flamebait)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329477)

Seriously, Canada's stupid protectionist media laws have given us the fantastic sounds of Nickelback, Avril Levigne, and Alanis Morrisette. For even Neil Young there's a dozen no talent hacks being propped up by these laws-the audio equivalent of corn subsidies. And now they're going to give them even more money? Ridiculous! The US has done a lot of stupid things, but can you imagine if we were giving tax money to Billy Ray Cyrus and Li'l Wayne? Free money from the government! All you have to do is make a shitty record!

Re:Screw Canadian media (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27329933)

Actually, shitty music is what makes the most money in the private sector. Maybe the output of those artists wouldn't be so terrible if they weren't being pressured to make cookie-cutter chart-toppers. Though, as I understand it, the artists themselves don't see a loonie of this money, just the litigious motherfuckers who sell the records for them.

Re:Screw Canadian media (2, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 5 years ago | (#27330067)

Seriously, Canada's stupid protectionist media laws have given us the fantastic sounds of Nickelback, Avril Levigne, and Alanis Morrisette.

Yeah, welcome to the music industry. Or have you not noticed that the US has its fair share of complete, utter garbage, too?

No, I'm sorry, the cancon rules may have their problems and you may disagree with them, but they're hardly responsible for the glut of crap that clogs the airwaves. For that you can blame good ol' fashion pop culture.

What a crazy idea, eh? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27329543)

Do people even think aboot things before they do them anymore?

So I can choose... (0)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329545)

(Supposing, for a moment, that I were Canadian and this were to pass...)

So under this plan, I could choose to pay $x/mo; and if I did, I could legally share some content (but how do I know which content?)...

Of course, I already had -- and still have -- the choice to pay for my music as I acquire it, yet I was choosing to share it illegally instead. Why would this be different? Why wouldn't I opt out and take my chances just like I always did?

Maybe I'm sharing $xxx worth of music every month, and while I'm not willing to pay that, I think $x/mo is a pretty good price for protection.

In other words, only heavy utilizers are going to opt-in (or rather, not opt-out). Which means any participating music supplier is offering a de-facto steep discount to these customers. Which means only songs that aren't able to fetch full price are going to be offered. Which means as a music consumer I have that much less incentive to stay in the program, because suddenly my $x/mo isn't buying me what I really want.

Forget it. The whole idea is stupid. You either have to compel everyone (even those who don't want to buy the music) to participate, which is immoral, or the system won't bring in enough money to work.

Re:So I can choose... (2, Interesting)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329683)

You make one mistake, in my estimation:

"...only heavy utilizers are going to opt-in (or rather, not opt-out)."

This is where they'll make their money: If they implement the fee, 90% of users won't notice it or bother to opt-out. It's going to be a voluntary overpayment, with the money going to the middlemen as usual. (Will the artists get a cent of this? No, of course not! Why would THEY be the ones to profit from their music?)

Yeah, it's stupid. Stupid, immoral, and corrupt--like the music industry everywhere.

Re:So I can choose... (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329749)

You're doing it wrong : you are applying a moral and rational reasoning to business.

Negative Option Billing (3, Interesting)

Fractal Dice (696349) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329701)

Wouldn't this scheme be illegal as Negative option billing [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Negative Option Billing (1)

Aeolien (939711) | more than 5 years ago | (#27330695)

Correct. Negative option billing is illegal in Canada.

Re:Negative Option Billing (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#27331325)

Wouldn't this scheme be illegal as Negative option billing?

Don't worry they'll get you to opt-in to a free six month trial when you renew or change your internet plan. The charges will start on the 7th month. It how they been nailing people with useless fluff on their cell phones for years now.

Sure its not as slimy as outright negative option billing. Its more like those software installers that install yahoo or google browser toolbars if you aren't careful to un-check the box EVERY time you install an update.

I routinely build PCs for people. I never install browser toolbars. When I see one of those toolbars on these peoples computers down the road and ask about it. A very small percentage of the time, they say they installed it deliberately. The VAST majority of the time they have no idea how or why it got there.

Sounds like a great idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27329713)

So, for a small fee, I can legally share music?

Let's see, for another small fee, I can get a VPS with several TB of bandwidth. How much could I charge people to access a veritable legal dumping ground of music? Mmmmm... smells like profit!

Finally! (1)

cfriedt (1189527) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329815)

I would gladly opt-in for such a plan. Although, I would prefer that it also carried the right to share media created by artists in other countries. Of course, I would only share media with others who have also opted in for such a plan. There is far too much complexity associated with governments and other organizations spying on their citizens, repeatedly coming up with ineffective DRM techniques, etc. For a small monthly fee, I have no problems whatsoever paying for the right to have un-complicated rights to enjoy my favourite media and share it with friends.

Like: Instead of stopping ATM fraud, let us... (1)

AbbeyRoad (198852) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329867)

Taxing everyone that owns an Internet connection
is like:

Instead of spending money policing ATM fraud,
let us rather LEGALIZE ATM fraud.

Then tax everyone that has a bank account
so as to offset the economic costs of the
fraud.

Re:Like: Instead of stopping ATM fraud, let us... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27335423)

have you paid the $1.50 to take money out of an ATM?

A bid for dominance by big content providers. (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 5 years ago | (#27329971)

If I liked the product provided by big media, this kind of tribute might be okay. But it sucks.

This is the age of computer databases. People can 'opt in' to fee-based content provision just as easily as they can opt out.

This is another attempt by big media to turn the internet into another cable network dominated by them.

Re:A bid for dominance by big content providers. (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#27330811)

This is the age of computer databases. People can 'opt in' to fee-based content provision just as easily as they can opt out.

It's not about the ease of opting in or out. It is the choice of default condition. By defaulting to opted in, they will be charging everyone with an internet account, regardless of whether they know about the charge or not. Businesses, schools, proverbial grandmothers who email their grandkids, all of them will be charged a fee for downloading music, whether or not they actually do. It may take months or years for some people to notice, let alone question, the extra line item on their ISP bill.

Re:A bid for dominance by big content providers. (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 5 years ago | (#27343417)

I totally agree with you. I do not like this attempt by big content to dominate the ISP infrastructure.

Current levy? (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 5 years ago | (#27330061)

Um I'm just dandy with the currently levy. I pay a tax to some has been Canadian music star when I back up my files or try out distros . Since they take my money, I take their music for free.

Two points (1)

Lieutenant_Dan (583843) | more than 5 years ago | (#27330109)

First, downloading music is legal in Canada. Consumers pay a levy on CDR media to offset the "losses" from downloading; heck they tried to impose this on MP3 players as well. I think the lobbying groups would probably sacrifice that levy, to get a bigger piece of a larger pie.

Second, it should be opt-IN. As another poster noted, this would be reverse billing, and not legal in Canada.

Personally; I'm fine with the way it is. I download all the music I want and I stopped buying blank CDs years ago.

Great, Just let me Opt-Out (3, Insightful)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 5 years ago | (#27330133)

I do not unlawfully download copyrighted content so why must I pay the tax. I already have to pay a tax on my CD's that I use for backups of my own personal stuff.

Re:Great, Just let me Opt-Out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27332133)

You honestly don't mind the hassle, as well as the principle, of being forced to "opt-out" of a contract you never agreed to in the first place? Because I sure would.

Re:Great, Just let me Opt-Out (1)

initialE (758110) | more than 5 years ago | (#27338229)

But now you can, and legally too. And you should be encouraged to take it up even.

Re:Great, Just let me Opt-Out (1)

melodyhill (1517179) | more than 5 years ago | (#27357685)

You don't have to pay! You can opt-out!

Foreign artists and other media (3, Interesting)

Meneth (872868) | more than 5 years ago | (#27330275)

What about artists that are not members of the SAC? What about movies, games, software and other works?

Obviously, they cannot be covered by this agreement. Thus, most file-sharing will remain illegal in Canada.

Re:Foreign artists and other media (1)

msouth (10321) | more than 5 years ago | (#27333393)

C'mon, you're just grandstanding. We all know that practically every game, movie, song, etc that anyone wants is produced in Canada.

Re:Foreign artists and other media (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27335457)

Copyright Law are specific to country.

Actually, Canadian can use a fair use agreement and enforce it with a levy for personnal use of any reproduction of anything over the web.

If the democracy process is successful, no other Country or Corporation can do nothing in a democracy world.

So get over it. It's like Amsterdam having legalized weed, in Canada copy for personal use is legal. And personal use implied sharing with your friends and family.

When a Canadian buy something, he own it. ;)

Re:Foreign artists and other media (1)

melodyhill (1517179) | more than 5 years ago | (#27358013)

You do not have to be a member of the SAC to be paid! This money will be divided among anyone who has songs file shared and opts-in

Canadians are already taxed for filesharing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27330291)

Here in Canada there is already a levy included in the price of blank media and, ostensibly, distributed to "artists". The record companies have managed to argue that since you _may_ violate their copyright, you should pay in advance on the off-chance.

On the flipside, I've taken that to be a de facto license to copy whatever the hell I like, since I've already paid for the right, and do so with conscience unencumbered...

Opt-out or not, a tax is the WORST approach. (4, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27330491)

Here are the problems with a tax on internet to support copyright (which is what this amounts to):

(1) Most of the money comes from people who are not filesharing. So the many are punished for the deeds of the few. This is a bankrupt philosophy.

(2) You know very well that little if any of the money will go to the artists. So what's the point?

(3) It does absolutely nothing to solve the "problem".

The money comes from the wrong place, it will go to the wrong place, and it solves nothing. So what is this for?

Re:Opt-out or not, a tax is the WORST approach. (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 5 years ago | (#27330581)

It's an opt out plan, anyone who isn't filesharing can just opt-out. The studios will certainly opt out so that just leaves the individual artists.

Your points fail.

Re:Opt-out or not, a tax is the WORST approach. (1)

AlterRNow (1215236) | more than 5 years ago | (#27330921)

You seem to presume that they will even be told this is happening.

Customer: Why has my bill gone up?
ISP: We've had to increase our charges due to an increase in service costs.

"Service" being giving the music industry as much money as possible, stolen from the general populace.

By the way, I own everyone's soul, to be collected at midnight, unless they opt out.

Re:Opt-out or not, a tax is the WORST approach. (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334093)

'ISP: We've had to increase our charges due to an increase in service costs.'

Doubtful, I don't know of any service provider who isn't more than happy to tell their customers the increase rates are government mandated. It isn't as if the ISP's are getting this money and want it to continue, they just bear the burden and expense of collecting it.

Re:Opt-out or not, a tax is the WORST approach. (1)

DeskLazer (699263) | more than 5 years ago | (#27331133)

are you sure? wouldn't the people who offer to opt-in just be targets? sure, they may be ok with legalizing songs shared by the SAC, but now they are basically saying "hi, I'm a target, and I probably also illegally torrent movies and software."

call me skeptical, but this is just opening the door for more levies, and hopefully this gets struck down.

p.s. who's to say that they don't opt out and still fileshare? will they get penalized, or just be forced into the plan? what if the plan changes in the future and now the music/film industry have a mccarthy list of who to go after first?

*adjusts tin-foil hat*

Re:Opt-out or not, a tax is the WORST approach. (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334069)

'are you sure? wouldn't the people who offer to opt-in just be targets? sure, they may be ok with legalizing songs shared by the SAC, but now they are basically saying "hi, I'm a target, and I probably also illegally torrent movies and software."'

No because you are opt'd in by default.

Re:Opt-out or not, a tax is the WORST approach. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27339633)

1) Those people can opt out. Oh, and this is also how taxes/welfare and insurance works.

2) Why would it need to? They've already been paid. The people who did all the work, including paying the artists, haven't been paid. That's the point.

3)a) Right. They should just go back to suing individuals so you can keep bitching about how evil they are for prosecuting criminals.

b) The "problem" is piracy, and when pirates go out of their way to proclaim they'll never stop doing it, what exactly do you expect the entertainment industry to do, stop producing content?

Wha? (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 5 years ago | (#27330561)

I was under the impression that Canadians already pay a tax for their file sharing when they buy blank cd's? If they are already paying the tax on blank media why should they pay another tax at all?

This does sound better but they need to drop the media tax first and change this to opt-in. They also shouldn't limit it to music or videos but all digital media.

Re:Wha? (2, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#27330919)

I was under the impression that Canadians already pay a tax for their file sharing when they buy blank cd's? If they are already paying the tax on blank media why should they pay another tax at all?

Who the blaze uses CDs anymore? People download from the internet onto their computers, and then transfer to their mp3 player.

Re:Wha? (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 5 years ago | (#27334205)

Whats your point?

Re:Wha? (1)

esocid (946821) | more than 5 years ago | (#27335129)

Ever been to a venue and seen a small band passing out CDs of their music? These small-timers buy CDs with their own money, pass them out freely and hope to get fans to throw a few bucks their way. They're getting shafted by following the ridiculous rules that the govt has made.

I, for one, welcome our new songwriters overlords. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27330689)

On a more serious note, if that grant me protection from prosecution by RIAA/CRIA counts me in.
If not it's totally useless.

Back to a Control Economy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27331081)

Let's go back to a control economy. Things were less interesting that way. Which is how the music industry does: produce un-interesting content.

Ignore it (1)

emohawk (757731) | more than 5 years ago | (#27331093)

Can't everyone just ignore filesharing. Don't they have better things to do like protect the children or something. If making music, tv, movies, books, photso or any other content no longer become profitable then people will just stop creating it. The world will go on, we'll find other way to amuse ourselves and filesharing will cease on it own. If there still money to be made then perhaps less or better content will be produced or new business models will emerge. Why pay $5 a month when I can get everything I want for free right now?

Re:Ignore it (1)

The name is Dave. Ja (845139) | more than 5 years ago | (#27331559)

If making music, tv, movies, books, photso or any other content no longer become profitable then people will just stop creating it.

You may be surprised, but many people will continue to create regardless of profit motive. Something to do with "the nature of the true artist" or something. I, for one, am looking forward to this turn of events, as maybe some of the gold-diggers will take their shovels elsewhere.

Bronze: Over 100 Chart Toppers $9.99/month (1)

The name is Dave. Ja (845139) | more than 5 years ago | (#27331283)

From one of TFAs:
---
Why the monetization of music file sharing is good for me if I am an Internet Service Provider:
Monetization will dramatically lower ISP bandwidth costs. Once file sharing is an authorized activity, ISPs can establish their own proprietary servers to service the bulk of file sharing activities. Since users would access the most shared songs on this "internal" system, it would lead to a dramatic reduction in the need for bandwidth to the world wide web, and a considerable cost saving to providers.
---

Yes, I can just see Rogers doing this in a responsible and fair manner. ~

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like "sharing" is being dragged back into the 90's in this scenario - all the advancements of p2p out the window as we all connect to the approved legal internal download server to get our "most shared" music.

Re:Bronze: Over 100 Chart Toppers $9.99/month (1)

szorg (1502781) | more than 5 years ago | (#27332823)

Is Rogers like Canada's evil overlord? I was in Toronto recently and they were EVERYWHERE. It'd be great if it was across all music, as in you're good to go for whatever you want. Opt-in makes more sense though. Higher fee, but more targeted. I'd pay monthly for unlimited DRM-Free music.

Re:Bronze: Over 100 Chart Toppers $9.99/month (1)

HybridJeff (717521) | more than 5 years ago | (#27335651)

They're kind of like fox but without fox news. Publishing/broadcasting/isp/cell phoness etc. One giant media conglomerate.

Do not opt out, (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 5 years ago | (#27331387)

Download copyrighted stuff,

...and still get sued for copyright infringement by some artist that DID opt out of the scheme.

I bet it won't be like that levy Canada and many other countries charge on blank media - the levy that allows you to put any copyrighted materials you like on said media without the risk of being sued for copyright infringement, right? Oh, wait... someone knocking at the door... brb.

What if it becomes mandatory? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27331607)

I worry that consumers won't be given the option to opt-out or in to this scheme, and it becomes mandatory. Then software companies, movie studios, book publishers will want their pound of flesh too and each demands a levy to be added to my monthly internet bill. Before you know it I'm paying $80/month for the same shitty, capped, 5Mbps DSL line.

Re:What if it becomes mandatory? (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 5 years ago | (#27335565)

So it'll be just like living in New Zealand then?

Where do I sign up? (1)

rumith (983060) | more than 5 years ago | (#27331761)

Paying a flat tax on digital music and video would be much more convenient than what we have where I live, as long as it's not ridiculously high. And opt-out is definitely fine with me: they're actually liberating me from the paperwork necessary to opt-in! Again, this may only seem attractive to me and my compatriots, whose lives are often made miserable by monstrous bureaucracy and unavailability of legal online services most of the Western countries are used to.

Mandatory napster? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27334013)

How is this any different from signing everyone up for napster and then asking them to cancel the subscription if they don't see value?

In both cases, you get access to some, but not all, music and you pay unless you are savy enough to cancel.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?