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!

iPod Fee Proposed For Canada

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the when-organized-interests-meet-diffuse-ones dept.

Media 414

innocent_white_lamb writes "The Canadian Private Copying Collective is pushing for the implementation of an iPod fee in Canada to compensate them for 'losses' when people copy music to their digital music players. They have collected a fee from every CDR sold in Canada since 1997 and now want to extend that to digital music players. From the article: 'Some have argued that once they buy a CD they shouldn't have to pay again and again to listen to those songs — which they already purchased — on a personal compilation CD or on their MP3 player. But for people like Milman and Basskin, it's about recognizing the value of those works. "There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music," Milman said.'"

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

There should be (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29337085)

a refund on all purchased music in Canada to compensate :-P

Re:There should be (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29337409)

Yup. Just like when you go to the liquor store, buy a flat of beer, get charged, and then drink it, and return the empties to the recycle depot and get your fee back.http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/09/07/055207/iPod-Fee-Proposed-For-Canada?from=rss#

Charge those evil downloading Canadians enough to (-1, Troll)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337087)

PAY for their EVIL. TO PAY for their HELLCARFE! TO PAY for their SIGNS! EVIL MUST PAy *FROTHS*

Aren't you paying for the song on iTunes already? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29337093)

"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music," Milman said.

Yes, and that happenned when you *bought* the song from iTunes. Why would you want some blanket fee for then moving it onto your iPod?

Re:Aren't you paying for the song on iTunes alread (5, Insightful)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337103)

Or when you paid for the cd. Just because you made an mp3 and listen to it on your iPod doesn't mean you should have to pay for it again. You paid to listen to their music, you can listen to it on whatever device you want.

Re:Aren't you paying for the song on iTunes alread (4, Interesting)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337255)

You paid to listen to their music, you can listen to it on whatever device you want.

In an ideal world, yes. You pay for something, you use it. But not these guys. They want you to pay for every format shift. In the case of televised programs, they want to you pay for every time shift. But what if you need to time or format shift it to properly use it? Tough luck, bucko, then you just bought a very nice coaster, good luck returning opened merchandise to the store. They've already pushed the idea that you're only borrowing their music, that putting down money for a disk doesn't grant you the right to use it in any legal way you please.

Their ultimate goal appears to be pay PER USE. Did your daughter put the latest bubblegum pop princess single on repeat ALL this afternoon? Fifty cents a play autocharged to your credit card. Good thing you pay $50 a month for the discount plan, or that would have been a buck fifty a play! We can also sell you the ultra-discount plan that's only $100 a month and ten cents a play! This week only, get TEN FREE PLAYS of any Flava Flav song already in your collection with a three year contract!

Banning or restricting time shifting and format shifting is of no use to the busker on the street, but allows a company to profit by re-selling the same product to the same customer in different wrappers should technology or even a person's work schedule change. Many of the 'little people' (or people who claim to represent the 'little people' or the 'starving artists') who insist that Canada needs copyright reform so they can better feed their families strangely don't explain why their neighbor, whose family won't see paychecks in the fifty years after he dies, should have to enjoy the things he has bought and paid for only on their terms, even if it means he never gets to enjoy them at all.

To my fellow Canadians: The more of this shit we put up with, the more that they'll shovel on us.

http://copyright.econsultation.ca/ [econsultation.ca] - Let them know what you think of the copyright reforms - like this one - being discussed right now.
http://www.pirateparty.ca/sign-up [pirateparty.ca] - Let's see if we can get an actual political party off the ground, one that actually fights for the rights of the people!

(Do I sound like an activist? I was completely politically apathetic, voted twice in my entire life, until they started pulling this garbage. We can't put up with this anymore.)

Re:Aren't you paying for the song on iTunes alread (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29337457)

In an ideal world, yes. You pay for something, you use it. But not these guys. They want you to pay for every format shift.

Indeed, while logically it should be the other way around. You should get a compensation off the original price for doing the work (converting to a different media) that logically is the job of the publisher (to publish the work in a playable format).

In fact we should move towards a model where the music you buy isn't in any playable format to start with. You buy the music in the non-playable distribution format, and then whatever you use to play it converts it to a suitable format.

Re:Aren't you paying for the song on iTunes alread (0, Redundant)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337495)

In an ideal world, yes. You pay for something, you use it. But not these guys. They want you to pay for every format shift.

Indeed, while logically it should be the other way around. You should get a compensation off the original price for doing the work (converting to a different media) that logically is the job of the publisher (to publish the work in a playable format).

In fact we should move towards a model where the music you buy isn't in any playable format to start with.

If it wasn't playable to start with, it would be encrypted, since any nonencrypted format could be made playable simply by writing a player. It would play into their hands - they could sell you something you couldn't use until you bought the digital keys for their digital locks. And they've already gone through pains to establish that digital lockpicking is as vile a sin as robbing the poor sound engineers at gunpoint.

You buy the music in the non-playable distribution format, and then whatever you use to play it converts it to a suitable format.

Oh, they'd love that, because they'd require you to buy every shift you do. 100 transfers to your iPod for $x, 10 to your PC for $y, burn it to a CD for $z. They'd sell you the razor AND the blades.

Re:Aren't you paying for the song on iTunes alread (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337563)

In fact we should move towards a model where the music you buy isn't in any playable format to start with. You buy the music in the non-playable distribution format, and then whatever you use to play it converts it to a suitable format.

I can't help thinking that here your "non-playable distribution format" is either tiny pits on a silvered disk, charge variations in a semiconductor chip, or magnetic variations on a metal platter. When you use something to play it, it's converted into the only suitable audio input format for humans; namely, vibrations in the airspace near our ears.

Blanket Media Tax (4, Informative)

DirtyCanuck (1529753) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337287)

Unless that CD is blank, then you pay again.*

Canada needs to stop repeating it's ridiculous history regarding this corporate puppetry.

I'm sick of trying to explain to people why DVDs cost less than CDs where I work.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy [wikipedia.org]

Re:Aren't you paying for the song on iTunes alread (3, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337169)

Here's the funny thing though... when they try to incorporate that fee into the sale price, people just bitch about the high cost of music and pirate it "on principle".

just raise the price! (4, Insightful)

nitroamos (261075) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337201)

If they want to raise the price, then so be it, and don't waste my time with arguments about why fees are "justified". I'll decide what I'm willing to buy at the new prices.

But why raise the price of the ipod and not the music?

Re:just raise the price! (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337555)

But why raise the price of the ipod and not the music?

because they want a bailout not compensation for actual work.

Re:Aren't you paying for the song on iTunes alread (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29337543)

Really, their argument is Bullshit. That money won't go to the artist it will go to the publisher.

The value of those works (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337571)

"[...] it's about recognizing the value of those works.

Maybe the value isn't infinite, as the record companies seem to assume.
Besides; value != price.

There has to be.. (5, Funny)

NervousNerd (1190935) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337097)

There has to be some way for people to compensate me for having to hear the shit reasons these people spew out for being greedy.

Re:There has to be.. (2, Interesting)

Technician (215283) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337381)

I'm more along the lines of there must be a way to tell the musicians that I have no reason to buy the CD if I am not permitted to listen to it.

And the best thing is... (5, Insightful)

thatkid_2002 (1529917) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337101)

The artist never receives a penny of that extra fee! Damn those pot smoking hippies!
Sarcasm aside I really do doubt that any artist on a major label gets half the money that they should. This Milman guy is clearly a douche (put simply) for trying to even suggest that the fee is for the greater good.

Re:And the best thing is... (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337197)

I will play devil's advocate here for a second (though believe me, i think this bill is dumb too) I always hear about the downsides to this, but is there a form you fill out, similar to a tax return, where you can claim your estimated damages? What sort of documentation do you have to provide at that point? Or are you just audited randomly, like with income taxes? Or do artists really not receive any compensation?

Re:And the best thing is... (3, Interesting)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337257)

In Canada, if you're running a business, there is a specific field for "accounts receivable that you do not expect to receive." You are not taxed on that income.

Source: my own life, 2007 tax return.

Compensation isn't the point of music. (2, Interesting)

magnusrex1280 (1075361) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337109)

The hours, sweat, blood and tears are what the music is about, not compensation. Is studio time expensive? Yes. Is accumulating money the reason you make music? Not in any dimension we can readily access with our current level of technology.

Re:Compensation isn't the point of music. (5, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337175)

music isn't necessarily born out of a desire to make $ from it but it sure helps. The problem is not the money, it is how that money is obtained. Right now the middlemen get most of their cut from a corrupt and broken system of copyright law. Artists should be able to make $ from music if they want but the current system is geared toward benefiting the big labels [unless the author lives 120+ yrs after writing the song or is a zombie]

Re:Compensation isn't the point of music. (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337557)

Is accumulating money the reason you make music?

Maybe, maybe not, who can tell what an individual's motives are and who cares. I like getting money for my work and sure as hell wouldn't do it for free. I don't think the problem is with the musicians getting paid for making music, the problem is that in the music industry as it currently is for every musician there are fifty non-musicians who also expect to get paid and sooner they get cut out of the process the better.

Bull (4, Insightful)

s-whs (959229) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337115)

> "extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music,"

Bullshit, there are no extreme expenses in making music.

Re:Bull (1)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337229)

Bullshit, there are no extreme expenses in making music.

I'll play devil's advocate here: what about the marketing and distribution costs associated with making and selling an album? It could be argued that the present day distribution should be next to $0.00 by doing it electronically however there is marketing and even using banner ads costs money.

Re:Bull (2, Insightful)

eqisow (877574) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337333)

If by marketing you mean buying airtime on the radio and MTV, then yes, that's expensive.

Personally, I'd argue that crap like that is very much a part of what's wrong with music today. (and yes, no videos on mtv, whatever, they still do the countdown every day... I think.)

Re:Bull (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337365)

The only real thing the labels have are connections and the internets are destroying that advantage with every minute that passes. The irony is that the music industry is claiming rampant piracy is destroying them while at the same time justifying their existence in the name of getting the band's name out there [marketing] It seems to me that if the internet were that much less efficient at marketing a song there wouldn't be much concern about piracy.

Re:Bull (4, Insightful)

bmatt17 (1494941) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337367)

I wouldn't consider marketing part of "making music". It may be part of selling music, so you can say there is expense in selling music, but not in making music

Re:Bull (2, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337373)

That's a different thing than "making music" which can be almost free of cost. Those are the costs of selling music, an entirely different thing.

Re:Bull (1)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337463)

I realize marketing is part of selling music but who is to say that isn't what the guy meant when he said "making music"? I'm no where close to knowing what all happens in the music industry but I would wager that there are at least 5 people involved in recording a song (within the studio) and their salaries have to be paid and their time is at a premium. Maybe in the larger scheme of things that cost is next to nothing but it probably is in the low to mid 5 figures for just one song. "Making music" could also be extended to the cost of stamping the discs but that could be minuscule. I'm just throwing that out there.

Re:Bull (5, Insightful)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337459)

Bullshit, there are no extreme expenses in making music.

I'll play devil's advocate here: what about the marketing and distribution costs associated with making and selling an album? It could be argued that the present day distribution should be next to $0.00 by doing it electronically however there is marketing and even using banner ads costs money.

Oh, absolutely. And when you can show me the math that explains why the banner ads take up so much of the cost that the artist is lucky to make a penny on the dollar, then I'll agree with you.

Here's my problem with the whole thing - the artist doesn't make any money directly off a CD. He can't, he's signed away his rights to his corporate masters - which is why they want the copyright to go for more than half a century after he kicks the bucket - they'll still be around. He writes the song, he sings the song, and then THEY take the song, THEY sell the song, THEY take the profits, and give him a check for $100,000 and a bill for $200,000 of studio time, half to be paid now. (Oh, they didn't mention that they sometimes shunt expenses off on the artist? Funny how they'd forget to mention that when they tell you that the artist can't afford to feed his kids.)

It's not that the record industry is merely a middleman, it's that they're the company store [wikipedia.org] . They don't pay musicians in scrip, but they make them sign a paper that says they'll only buy from them, even if everyone else is selling at a tenth of the price, so it's no different. They keep artists as slaves, and they want as tight a lock on the consumer. It's why they hate the Internet - they can't force everyone to install a magic program that stops them from downloading or format shifting music, ever. But damn, do they try (cough cough, Sony rootkit, cough). They also don't like it when you - GASP - pay the money directly to the artist. It threatens their existence.

It's all unmitigated, naked greed. If they weren't profiting off CDs, they'd either change their marketing, or raise the prices on CDs, or cut costs, or go under. Nope. They see that the government has this sweet scam called "taxes" and they want in on it. Since raising an army or police force to enforce said tax would be prohibitively expensive, they just want to hijack the existing infrastructure. So they take that money they got from the starving artist, that money you gave them because you thought the artist put out a good CD and wanted to support his work, and they use it to hire lobbyists, and spokesmen, and lawyers, and build a nice big fat expense account for said lobbyists, and spokesmen, and lawyers. So they can make even more money, and hire more lobbyists, and spokesmen, and lawyers, and then invent another way to squeeze more pennies out of you.

Re:Bull (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29337473)

And this is different to a non-digital product how? Real products have to be stored, shipped, etc. on top of the usual marketing, online/store sales and so on. Are expenses for real products therefore ultra mega extreme to the max?

Re:Bull (1)

popmaker (570147) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337511)

Ok, I'm making one argument. In no real context. Make of it what you will and work out the rest of the arguments yourselves.

A lot of music IS really expensive. I already named symphonies as an example. In other cases, studio musicians are needed, that have trained for years and years, and only play in the studio, and need to get by playing that kind of thing. Or are you, on principle, against people making a living off of studio work? There is honest-to-goodness music out there that simply cannot be played without professionals. If anybody here likes jazz, he can hopefully recognize the amount of time needed to make one functional player. And that player is likely to HAVE to devote his or her life to it because that music is hard.

Studio production - good studio production - also takes time and CAN be expensive. Especially when many people are involved. Seriously, just because some people have been able to make music cheap in their bedrooms, don't start thinking that's all there is to music. And that that's ADEQUATE for music as a whole.

Like I said, I'm not making any other arguments. Just that making music is NOT CHEAP.

Canada...ahh those socialists...! (2, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337119)

"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music," Milman said."

How about saving the artists all their toil by educating them on the fact that their works might be enjoyed free of charge? It's Canada we are talking about, where a health-care bill is guaranteed never to force you into bankruptcy.

I subscribe to the thought that "when you you make your bed, you must sleep in it."

Re:Canada...ahh those socialists...! (1)

popmaker (570147) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337209)

Like: "You became a musician. You didn't seriously expect to make money did you?" Nobody should ever make music. It's stupid and financially irresponsible.

Re:Canada...ahh those socialists...! (4, Insightful)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337301)

The real question is whether these fees actually help musicians, or just pad the pockets of the recording industry.

I'm guessing you know the answer. The real way to help musicians is to socially encourage paying for music. Seems to be working okay for Jonathan Coulton.

Re:Canada...ahh those socialists...! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29337491)

That's because Coulton rocks, and Britney rip-off #311 doesn't. If they can't make, music they have to make people pay somehow.
Unfortunately, people keep buying songs no matter what stunt these guys pull. Ditch any "artist" that signs for any of these record labels, and support real artists by paying them directly.

Re:Canada...ahh those socialists...! (1)

popmaker (570147) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337515)

Good god I hope you're right. Making this kind of a tax is a shitty way to distribute money.

Similarly (0)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337135)

They should recognize the blood and sweats and, well, that's enough, we don't want to know more, do we, anyway, all that stuff put into posting the brilliantly important stories and blindingly insightful comments, not to mention side-busting jokes, to bring about slashdot. Story "editors" and comment posters should be recognized and compensated properly, and slashdot corpo overlord can take a small cut.

Sounds like the leeches are out again (5, Insightful)

a3I300I)y (1253026) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337139)

Extreme expense that goes into making music? What extreme expense? I am an artist and I have yet to encounter this. I recorded an album for about $100 and then posted it for download on the internet. These people want to insert themselves into music and sap money away from artists and listeners, they contribute nothing.

Re:Sounds like the leeches are out again (1)

lothrids (564810) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337173)

Humm.... Sounds a lot like what the RIAA is doing. Sapping money from the artist and consumers and not really contributing in anyway. Imagine that. The RIAA is a virus. It was bound to spread sooner or later.

Re:Sounds like the leeches are out again (1)

popmaker (570147) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337253)

Not all music is that cheap. Some of it requires trained musicians that depend on salary and expensive equipment. I happen to think, personally, that the world would be poorer without symphonies (as an example) and these cost quite a bit of money.

Re:Sounds like the leeches are out again (2, Funny)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337341)

The last I looked, the song download networks are not teaming with symphony recordings. I'm betting they are safe.

---

Many expenses associated with movies and songs are really the entertainment corporation taking money from their left pocket and putting it in their right pocket to deny the artists royalties.

Re:Sounds like the leeches are out again (1)

popmaker (570147) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337423)

Yeah, I know. That was also not my point. My only point was that a lot of music IS expensive. I might want to find better example... but hey! It's an independent concern of mine, that musical craftsmanship seems to get rarer every day. I'm, not a fan of this tax either; if at some theoretic level it's "right" - musicians are getting compensation for their hard work - it's probably much too complex to implement in practice and will only be exploited greedy people that aren't musicians. That's not the point. I mainly wanted to make counter-point against all those comments here that say the same thing: "Hah, making music is easy! And cheap!" It's ignorant and kind of offensive actually.

Re:Sounds like the leeches are out again (2, Funny)

ThePengwin (934031) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337343)

And god forbid the day when musicians cant purchase auto-tune to mask their talentless voices these days!

Re:Sounds like the leeches are out again (1)

Vovk (1350125) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337375)

But symphonies make MOST of their money selling tickets to shows and playing venues. the vast majority of people who go to symphonies don't buy all of the CDs of the orchestra they have just seen play. playing over and over again at different venues and earning your money every step of the way is called an honest living. It requires work and dedication and can be quite rewarding, financially or otherwise. tricking a musician who has already written music into spending his time with you for a short period of time (a few days of recording). Then making millions of dollars by reselling that musician's work millions of times, then giving the musician just over minimum wage is NOT an honest living. It's called shitty parasitic business practice and unfortunately it is the norm in most modern countries.

Re:Sounds like the leeches are out again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29337591)

Not all music is that cheap. Some of it requires trained musicians that depend on salary and expensive equipment. I happen to think, personally, that the world would be poorer without symphonies (as an example) and these cost quite a bit of money.

Symphonies? You're talking about an entirely different audience.

Go into any music store or online and compare the prices of classical and pop music. People who listen to classical music are not your bubblegum chewers who will pay any stupid price for anything as long as their peers deem it "kewl" this week.

People who listen to classical music know the value of what they're buying and pay accordingly -- they're not paying for the prestige of being trendy. Hence, they pay about half what kids can be induced to pay.

Also, they play it for years. How often do you play the rage of the week that you bought last year? The industry is playing kids for saps. And they're winning, hand over fist.

Re:Sounds like the leeches are out again (1)

VoltageX (845249) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337313)

Where can I download your album? Do you have a donation box?

Reverse logic (5, Interesting)

hashwolf (520572) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337147)

There has to be some sort of way to safeguard the buyer from undue taxation by private companies given the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense (in terms of time) that goes into making a decent salary.

Isn't that so Mr. Milman?

Re:Reverse logic (3, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337379)

It's too bad the populace doesn't realize that it has the power to destroy all of this nonsense.

fail (2, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337153)

nothing encourages people to respect copyright law like charging them regardless of any actual infringement... No different than the auto industry, failing to adapt and then when it finally bites them go looking for a way to prop up their doomed business practices.

Presumption of Guilt (3, Insightful)

bughunter (10093) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337157)

I have no illusions that the implied presumption of guilt hasn't been brought up previously, especially wrt Canadian CD-R fees. But the arrogance of it never ceases to amaze me. Same goes for the acceptance of it.

If this kind of logic were applied to a car, then there'd be a "excessive speed fee" applied to every new or used automobile, and perhaps even a "getaway car penalty" for particular models.

Astounding.

Re:Presumption of Guilt (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337249)

It is the tragedy of the commons in action. Person A breaks a law but the fine is spread across persons ABCDEF... It's the justice system socialized.

Re:Presumption of Guilt (1)

boxxertrumps (1124859) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337437)

"+1: Car Analogy"

Who gets the money (3, Insightful)

ShiftyOne (1594705) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337163)

Who ends up with the money from this CDR tax? There is no way to know what is going to be copied onto the cd, so there is no way to know who should be paid the cd tax. The article talks about how it helps the starving artist, but do they really end up with the money from this cd tax.

Re:Who gets the money (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337227)

exactly. Even if you believed they were right about losses crippling the artists, there is no way this tax can possibly compensate artists proportional to their "damages." Most of the cash probably ends up in the record labels' coffers. Even worse, by using a blanket tax like this they are effectively admitting that they prefer pre-crime over enforcing the law or at the least that they can't enforce the law at all.

Re:Who gets the money (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337393)

Since the RIAA practices Hollywood accounting, I'd say that the piracy tax money ends up in a general find, which gets added into revenue calculations. The particular companies then take their revenue, subtract their expenses, and then pay the artists their agreed percentage based on that.

The real kicker? Advertisement, merchandising, future investing costs, etc., are listed as expenses. The individual companies have no incentive to cut back on these things, as the money will leaving them in some fashion, either to the artists, or to the advertising.

Re:Who gets the money (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337593)

The real kicker? Advertisement, merchandising, future investing costs, etc., are listed as expenses. The individual companies have no incentive to cut back on these things, as the money will leaving them in some fashion, either to the artists, or to the advertising.

"No incentive" is putting it mildly. What happens in reality is that they go out and create / buy advertising, merchandising and distribution companies as wholly owned subsidiaries, sign exclusive deals with them, and then ramp up costs exponentially.

Let's just assume that everybody is a pirate (1)

Nomen Publicus (1150725) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337185)

As I would be paying for stolen music via a tax, surely I can't be stealing material when I copy it?

Isn't this silly idea just a blanket permission to copy music?

Re:Let's just assume that everybody is a pirate (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337237)

Theoretically yes, but that doesn't hold up in court, at least it hasn't in Spain, we're they have a similar CD and hard drive fee.

This is why pro-copyright people are scumbags... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29337199)

They want to extract money from users who aren't even their customers. Copyright parasite: "I created content, so you will give me money whether you consume it or not. I have the right to your money."

I sure am glad these leaches cannot tax my data storage devices where I live. Of course I make sure to educate people about how if you buy CDs that are marked for audio, the parasites get a bit of the proceeds.

If it came to it, I would pay more for blank media just to avoid funding the parasites.

Plan for profit (3, Interesting)

Mhtsos (586325) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337207)

1) Make a site where everyone in Canada can karaoke into and sing whatever they want, or upload their garage band songs. however badly (bring on the Thrash yodling).
2) Have the EULA of the site say the uploader releases his revenue via the iPod Fee to the site.
3) Make said songs available for ipod download.
4) Go to the Canadian Private Copying Collectivem and demand the percentage of the fee your users represent.. if there are 10.000 artists and you have 10.000 users, you should get half.
5) Profit.

Re:Plan for profit (4, Informative)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337553)

1) Make a site where everyone in Canada can karaoke into and sing whatever they want, or upload their garage band songs. however badly (bring on the Thrash yodling). 2) Have the EULA of the site say the uploader releases his revenue via the iPod Fee to the site. 3) Make said songs available for ipod download. 4) Go to the Canadian Private Copying Collectivem and demand the percentage of the fee your users represent.. if there are 10.000 artists and you have 10.000 users, you should get half. 5) Profit.

Won't work. They'll only give the money to who they want to. My proof? Look at the blank media levy. You burn a CD full of Swedish metal, do they send a few cents to the Swedes? Nope. They keep a cut, and send the rest to Avril Lavigne. Burn a CD full of pictures of your baby, do they refund the levy? Hell no! They keep a cut, send the rest to Celine Dion. They've said as much when artists who didn't get a piece of the levy - hell, garage artists who had to PAY THE LEVY TO GET THE BLANK DISKS TO DISTRIBUTE THEIR MUSIC - came calling for a slice of the pie. The money goes where they say, how they say, and anyone not on their list of worthy recipients can go fuck themselves - because once the Collective is done fucking them, they're not even gonna give a reach-around.

Re:Plan for profit (0, Flamebait)

LaskoVortex (1153471) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337559)

3) Make said songs available for ipod download.

Nice plan until Apple decides which songs can be downloaded onto their hardware. Try again.

Sweat, blood and tears, huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29337213)

Did anyone else bust out laughing from just reading that summary? I did.

Hmmm (1)

tsm_sf (545316) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337217)

There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music," Milman said

..., as if it was 1989.

Seriously, we all know that the average bedroom rocker has a better setup than the top studios back in the 80s. It's over.

Double Extreme Expense?!? (3, Insightful)

dreamer.redeemer (1600257) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337225)

It's strange that it costs the music industry so much to make music--I just made (and recorded!) 45 minutes of music and it cost me virtually nothing. How on earth can these people expect to remain profitable while having such a stupendously idiotic business model? OH wait I get it, just have the government add a "music tax" to products from completely separate sectors and the industry will never die, they wouldn't even have to produce music to make money anymore... it's genius.

Apologies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29337231)

I was going to write something but now I just greet all of this DRM / Copyright / ClusterDMCA crap with one phrase:

Fuck you.

Legal Music Piracy (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337235)

Because of this tax, have I /already paid for/ any and all music I download?

If yes, then I don't mind it so much.

Actually, I do mind it - fuck them for preemtively thinking me guilty. But if they /are/ charging me for something I am not guilty of, then I will feel zero guilt for getting my money's worth.

Re:Legal Music Piracy (3, Informative)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337279)

If you're Canadian, yes, and it's not against any laws to download music for personal use.

Pure corruption (5, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337243)

There is no natural right to make a profit. You have the right to try. But if you fail, even if you've previously been successful, that's not society's problem: it's yours.

Most of us live near the USA (2, Interesting)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337265)

Look for iPod sales in Buffalo and Seattle and Vermont to increase.

Bring it on (2, Interesting)

Trogre (513942) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337269)

trademark and all.

It won't affect me any my non-iPod Ogg Vorbis player.

Seriously, do Apple give out free tee-shirts every time someone uses their trademarks to describe everyday items?

Wait, go to go, there's a call coming in on my iPhone. The one with "Nokia" on the front.

Re:Bring it on (1, Informative)

dangitman (862676) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337413)

It won't affect me any my non-iPod Ogg Vorbis player.

If you're in Canada, yes it will. "iPod tax" is just a shorthand, the tax doesn't only apply to Appple-branded players.

Not going far enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29337273)

I'm sorry, the Collective just isn't doing their job. What are they thinking charging a fee for just iPods and CDs? What about all those humans with their ears, brains and mouths? What they really need to push for is charging everyone living homosapien a fee! What if they remember the song and hear again inside their brain without paying for it? Or worse, what's to stop pesky humans from singing a song they heard from memory to a group of cronies who haven't paid it? Think of the poor artists, they're not getting compensated for those lost sales!

Guilty until proven innocent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29337277)

Except, there is not proving innocence.

This practice takes away ANY moral higher ground claims against "piracy". You've already paid for the product, so it certainly must be yours. Oppose such wicked system. Resist thoughtcrime!

Physical good or license? (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337293)

They want to have their cake and eat it too. It's not a physical CD, that's why I can't import it and send it around - I don't 'own' the music. But apparently I don't have a license either... a license is independent of the media, so by purchasing a license for something on LP, I retain the license for a newer recording (8-track? tape? CD? you can make the argument that remasters are different).

So I've given up the idea (a while ago, actually) that these people are just fucking douchebags and nobody should care what they think. I sure as hell don't. They'd be a lot more successful - in the long run, at least - if they weren't so batshit. Nobody cares what they think any more; sure the politicians do but nobody else does. They have no moral legitimacy and everyone knows it.

Why not a JPEG tax? (1)

solios (53048) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337295)

After all, that photographer or 'shopper deserves to be compensated for the time they spent getting that shot or creating that image... and every time you - yes YOU, you ungrateful bastard! - load that web page, you're starving their families!

News flash : the creators are (in non-internet cases, anyway) paid to Create. Once the work Exists, where it goes after that is ultimately up to the fans of that work - not the cartels that have taken control of music, television and film. You think the actors and musicians will see a penny of any money the cartels extort in the form of media taxes, lawsuits, etceteras?

Yeah, musicians and authors do make royalties on their works - and one day, somebody will figure out a meaningful, useful way to extend that concept to the internet so that the content creators get paid. Until then, BS like the .ca "media tax" is as much a solution as the present (see timestamp) state of the proposed US "health care reform" legislation.

We've had The Web for, like, more than fifteen years - economies have risen and fallen, wars fought and won (or lost).. innumerable cultural and technological milestones and yet nobody has figured out a way to make money over the internet? What gives?

Okay yeah we've had the wheel for over five thousand years and we still can't build a shopping cart that rolls straight, but that's neither here nor there...

Meanwhile, 10 years in the future... (5, Insightful)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337305)

"Grandpa, is it true that back in the old days music didn't have gps location built in? You didn't have to pay the record studio executives a fee when you listened to music in a different room of your house?"

"Hell, back in the day, we didn't even have the skin cell DNA identification built into the iPods!"

"OMG!!! You could listen to OTHER PEOPLES IPODS?? EWW!!! That is just wrong."

An even stupider "rationale" (3, Insightful)

ThePromenader (878501) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337307)

I wonder how much those bumpkin lawyers are being paid to spout such nonsense. One of the biggest faults in their "rationale" is their definition of "losses" - losses are not a hypothetical "money we 'could have' made' (if we had full control of the market and consumer habits)". Consumers will form their habits around the tools available to them (today, internet; in the past, radio, cassette, etc.) and the market just has to adapt to the same. If the record industry refuses to change their habits (most likely because of their 1990's record profits from CD sales - they want that 'working formula' to remain the same), TFB for them.

If I buy a CD, I am buying the rights to listen to that particular recording and paying a share of all the work that went into it. I am perfectly free to transfer that recording to any format or device as long as it's for my personal pleasure - at no extra charge. If the recording that is on my iPod is exactly the same as the one in my iTunes library, why should I pay for it again? What's more, the only additional 'work' in having multiple copies is mine - there is no improvement or service by the record industry at all - so again, what justification is there for asking for additional payment?

IMHO, the flailing 'fat man' record industry thinks government 'obligatory tax' involvement, and the possibility of the record industry benefiting directly from the millions collected from everyone, is the fastest way back to the front of the marathon.

Insert any chain of expletives here.

There has to be... (2, Insightful)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337319)

"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music," Milman said.'"

And I think programmers and their heirs should be paid too.

And we certainly need to recognize all those DEAD artists like John Lennon so we can encourage them to make more songs.

Hell- I say go for it-- let them charge $10 a song and lock everything up digitally with DRM.

I won't listen to it anyway and the huge hordes of artists out there willing to work for less will take up the slack.

Doubt it? Look at "primer"... look at Magnatune... look at "Star Wreck".

There is a huge glut of entertainment. Already- I can't keep up with it. I have a 500 hour backlog that increases by a couple more hours every day. Every time I go to the beach, play a board game, or watch You-tube, read and post on slashdot, more entertainment builds up.

Just relistening to the popular 1970's music would take me 10 hours.

Come again? (1)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337345)

"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the RIAA for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into promoting shitty music,"

Fixed that for you.

Extreme, extreme expense? (3, Informative)

Bobartig (61456) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337349)

"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music,"

Really? I went to a college with a conservatory, where 500 students made music all the fucking time. All they needed was an instrument, and themselves. They performed, recorded, mixed, etc. etc all the time.

My sister somehow manages to make music, play shows, record with bands, and she doesn't have jack in terms of cash.

I know a math PhD who makes/made music in his spare time in a group called "Klein Four". You can buy their music on iTunes Music Store. Sure, it takes time, effort, and talent to make music, but you can get it from your brain into your customer's paying hands (ears?) on a shoestring budget these days.

Where's the indie's cut? (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337361)

A lot of smaller bands burn their own CDs to sell at concerts. So they're paying the record companies for the privilege of copying their own music, which the record companies had no part in creating.

And where is their cut if someone copies a CD bought at one of these smaller concerts? Such bullshit.

Doesn't this justify pirating? (2, Insightful)

Ender77 (551980) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337369)

If they already found everyone who buys a ipod of pirating, then there is no reason not to pirate every song now. Do not spend another single penny on buying another song and instead just pirate the shit. If you want to help the artist, then send them a money order with a letter telling them that they want to support the artist but will not send a dime to the music industry.

Most disgusting thing imaginable (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29337377)

This is one of the most disgusting things I can ever imagine, a complete travesty of both capitalism and democracy at the same time. "Give us money or we'll make sure you don't get elected" is the message here, as they have done nothing to earn it in any way. They figure that since they're big and there's a tenuous link between piracy hurting them and digital music players they can bully the government into outright stealing peoples money and then giving it to them in turn.

That they have already done it with something else, and that similar things are happening elsewhere in the world is frightening. In a sane world the people responsible for this would be serving life sentences for high crimes.

The Music Industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29337385)

wants to change the world, else their little brains blow up from the thought that the world has changed from the 20th century.

How about something a little more rational? The world is changing, so change with it. Make money off of live events and keep selling CDs, but stop alienate customers with this BS. Continuing on this path is only going to put the music industry deeper in its grave.

Above all, if you can't afford to operate, the market demands that you exit. In layman's terms, that means you suck and no one likes you.

blood, sweat and tears (1)

el_tedward (1612093) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337397)

Right, because you don't hear everyone else in the world bitching about how X group puts their blood sweat and tears into X thing. The only music that will die if people stop paying for it is the music made by people who are only doing it for the money. Though, I guess you could argue that some people might be working enough hours that they never have enough time to go down to a studio and record an album.

What if I buy Big knife (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29337401)

It is like, if you buy big knife, you must under-go charges of murder :( even if you have bought it for cooking

Sure - especially ipod with video (3, Insightful)

ratboy666 (104074) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337405)

Right now, it's legal in Canada to copy music under the personal copy provision. In exchange, we pay a levy (not a tax) on blank media.

Extending this to ipods (and, in general other personal media players) makes sense. Especially if those devices play media other than just music. Perhaps the levy will then have to be extended to cover tv programming and movies. After all, the ipod touch I use can certainly play stuff other than music (spoken books, movies and tv shows come to mind).

In answer to "do the artists get the money"? my reply is "I don't really care -- that, in particular, is not my problem". I just don't want to be bothered with being branded a "pirate", kthnxbye.

This is as bad as the Quebec referenda (3, Interesting)

SleepyHappyDoc (813919) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337411)

This has been raised before, many times. The same thing happened with the Quebec referenda...they said No, the other side waited a bit, then said "How about now?". Is this what we've been reduced to in Canada, asking the same questions every couple of years?

Some body please, think of the rich people (1)

tru3ntropy (1632547) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337415)

Bit dramatic isn't it, would have though that all the free stuff they get for being walking billboards and the like would be more than enough compensation; as for the extreme expenses, http://www.tuaw.com/2009/07/02/the-88-song-recorded-on-iphone-and-released-in-itunes-store/ [tuaw.com] ; looks like they should do some cutting back then.

counterproductive (1)

fireball84513 (1632561) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337417)

they're discussing how to compensate for losses by charging more to the customers who actually BUY the music, meanwhile even more average joes are sitting in a CD store contemplating why they put up with this crap when all their friends get their music for free

Poor little poppets (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337421)

There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears

I suppose they could always give it up and choose an easy job like coal mining or something.

You have got to be kidding... (1)

Sparcrypt (1355601) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337441)

These people seriously need to get lost - they spent years overcharging for music because their distribution method was the only practical one. Guess what guys? There are new, better ways to get music now, both free and legal. And you think we should PAY YOU because..... you want us to? Too fucking bad.

Compensation (1)

pugugly (152978) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337447)

"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music"

Such as, for instance - paying for the song, and then being allowed to *DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT WITH IT*

These people have entitlement issues.

Pug

I wonder... (1)

TeethWhitener (1625259) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337483)

Do software companies also get a cut of the CPCC money? After all, there has to be some sort of way to compensate the developers for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into writing code. Now if I back up a program on a disc, who gets compensated for that? I have a hard time feeling sorry for Canadian musicians after they gave the world Celine Dion and Bryan Adams.

Backups, too? (1)

Waccoon (1186667) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337539)

Wait, all CDRs? Is this for real?

People have to pay a tax to back up all their e-mail and spreadsheets?

If I'm going down... (1)

PipeToDevNull (1362431) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337561)

Personally, I find this sort of thing to be a perfect example of the 'I'll drag you to hell with me' syndrome. The music industry as we know it sees its demise, and it wants to get as much money as it can out of everyone as it slips down the series of tubes and, if this added cost makes the instruments of their demise that much harder to procure, well, so much the better.

That said, I can't help but wonder how much this fee would be. I mean, really, how often does one have to buy a music player? I have an iPod photo from 5 years ago that still runs like a champ, to say nothing of the -minidisc- (remember those things?) player/writer I've had for probably 10 years now and with the only problem being finding new, blank ones when I accidentally leave one in the pocket of a pair of pants destined for the washer machine. It'd have to be somewhat substantial, given that people don't need a new one as often as they do/did CD-Rs, assuming the industry wants to make the same amount they were before, let alone what it'd have to be if they wanted to make more. (Yes, yes, I know. Don't be silly, of course they want to make more.)

But there's a bright side (1)

oji-sama (1151023) | more than 5 years ago | (#29337567)

At least the expense is not extreme, extreme, extreme ^.^
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?