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 Music Industry Wants Royalties on Net Usage

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the greed-kills dept.

Music 572

Dr. Zoidburg writes "Apparently Internet music and movie sharing in Canada has gained enough popularity to turn the heads of the music and movie industry. CTV has a report about a Canadian organization named SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors, and Music Publishers of Canada) that will "ask the Supreme Court of Canada next week to force Internet service providers to pay them royalties for the millions of digital music files downloaded each year by Canadians". Says the president of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, "Consumers could very well see an increase in their Internet costs and they could see a slowdown in the transmission speed of their Internet communications"."

cancel ×

572 comments

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

Boner (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580872)

I'm getting a boner thinking about this story. Perhaps I need a gay nigger to spunk me up the ass?

Re:Boner (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580894)

Yeah, maybe. But think about it for a second - you're talking about a rather odd requirement. You claim to need the erect penis of a black man anally inserted .. and then manipulated so it produces semen.

Think about it .. is that really what you want?

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580875)

pf

Whoooah (5, Funny)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580876)

All of a sudden I *don't* want to be classed as an ISP any more (re: that story [slashdot.org]

Simon.

Re:Whoooah (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580967)

Then again If you pay royalties on net usage to the recording agency then:

EVERY STOLEN SONG/ALBUM/MOVIE BECOMES LEGAL!!!!

bhwah hahah hah

They can't make money from illegally downloaded stuff and then still have it illegal.

Re:Whoooah (5, Insightful)

mirko (198274) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581038)

No.
It's not, this is just preemptive, this is in case of : if you accept the tax, then you reckon you are a thief and you obviously have to accept further investigation in order to complement your "subscription fee"...
In France, they had a similar problem : every blank CDR's price include royalties for the musical industries as they consider these media may only be used in order to copy copyrighted music.
The money only goes to a handful of famous "singers".
Now, if you only need CDR to backup stuff, then you're fucked.
What's next, the MPAA will also ask for royalties ?
Then I will (I just have to find a reason which will prove that people may use anything I invented without my consent).

Actually... (3, Informative)

Atragon (711454) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581056)

In canada, there's already a levy on blank CDRs which goes to the music industry...

SOCAN? (1)

windside (112784) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580877)

Who the hell came up with that acronym? It's not even close to what it's meant to stand for...

Re:SOCAN? (5, Funny)

Takara (711260) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580897)

It's just an acronym. SOCAN is better than SCAMPC (Society of Composers, Authors, and Music Publishers of Canada)

Or how about STFU (SOCAN Takes money From end Users)

Re:SOCAN? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7581022)

SCAM PC? Sounds reasonably accurate to me...

Re:SOCAN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580904)

SOciety of composers etc in CANada

Re:SOCAN? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580931)

SO CAN SOCAN SUCK CANS?

Finally (4, Funny)

strike2867 (658030) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580878)

Finally Canadians get a taste of RIAA's medicine. Theyve had these freedoms for way too long.

Then never complain... (5, Insightful)

John Courtland (585609) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580880)

when your stuff gets downloaded. If you're gonna tax everyone, then you can't complain when they take what they paid for.

Re:Then never complain... (4, Insightful)

MochaMan (30021) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580923)

Indeed. That's the idea. When the copyright levy was introduced for blank CDs, we got the right to legally make copies [neil.eton.ca] of a friend's CD for our private use in exchange. I suspect that is an attempt to pull something similar for music downloads off the internet.

Re:Then never complain... (4, Insightful)

TC (WC) (459050) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580936)

To be fair, under the current legislation, downloading music already *seems* to be perfectly legitimate. Being on the sending end, however, is where you're definately in legal trouble.

Re:Then never complain... (1)

Hobbex (41473) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580937)

If you're gonna tax everyone, then you can't complain when they take what they paid for.

Isn't this exactly the compulsary licensing the that EFF and company have been asking for? I thought people liked that...

Re:Then never complain... (5, Insightful)

instanto (513362) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580993)

However, do you want to pay money to your ISP so that Celine Dion can get money? (Well, she wont, but say for arguments sake that she did)

I dont want to pay extra money to my ISP just because some wad somewhere downloads a metallica album, why should I pay money to my ISP for crappy music?

Compulsory License sounds ok - but it still means you're paying money for a lot of shit you dont want.

I can pay money directly to the composer when I buy their CD - no need for compulsory license or other crap - and best of all - RIAA/The Enemy/trashy musicians wont get a single $ from me .

If you're not listening to their music - why should they get money from you?

-

Also: This sounds like a legalization of downloading music from the net. After all - you've paid for it.

Re:Then never complain... (2, Insightful)

Tyler Eaves (344284) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581037)

Newsflash: Artists have to buy the cds they sell "directly" from the label, with bairly a discount. The artist usually makes very little on the deal, no more than if you bought it at Best Buy or Amazon or whatever.

Re:Then never complain... (4, Insightful)

Hobbex (41473) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581053)

However, do you want to pay money to your ISP so that Celine Dion can get money? (Well, she wont, but say for arguments sake that she did)

I wasn't arguing for or against compulsary licensing, but asked a question since I know a lot of other people have. I thought this was the whole point of compulsary licenses: everybody pays whether they use it or not, and the money is distrubuted according to some metric of who is downloaded the most.

I can pay money directly to the composer when I buy their CD - no need for compulsory license or other crap - and best of all - RIAA/The Enemy/trashy musicians wont get a single $ from me .

The RIAA is not the root of the problem. The laws necessary to support this model _require_ a perpetual war on free communication: if the RIAA were out of the picture then somebody else would be waging it.

Re:Then never complain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7581044)

I have never downloaded music from the Internet. I have no plans to do so in the future. Why the fuck should I pay for something other people are doing?

If a restaurant hired people to stand outside, grab passers-by, accuse them of stealing food, and not let them go until they payed for something they hadn't taken, that restaurant would quickly find itself on the receiving end of police attention. Why should the music industry be treated any differently? I'm damned if I'm going to pay for music I'd rather be damned than listen to.

Re:Then never complain... (2, Interesting)

qewl (671495) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581024)

What if everyone with internet access was required to pay the RIAA $3/month? We could download all the music we wanted, and the RIAA couldn't bitch because they'd be making money. The most downloaded musicians would get paid the most, because they would have sold more CD's. Downloading music isn't something that's going to stop; it'll continue to grow unless some drastic(and censoring) changes are implemented in the internet. It's just too convenient.

Re:Then never complain... (1)

Exiler (589908) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581047)

What about those of us who don't liesten to the crap that they produce?

why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580881)

when will they learn.........

Sounds reasonable (3, Interesting)

Rat's_ass_donor (455429) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580882)

Relatively speaking, of course. If "Screw the big labels, who overcharge for music and cannot assemble a coherent internet strategy - I'll just get it for free" is a reasonable response to the status quo, then a blanket tax on traffic to "reclaim lost media revenue" is also reasonable.

Re:Sounds reasonable (3, Insightful)

andrewmc (88496) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580934)

Which, of course, ignores the small point that the blanket tax applies to everyone, not just those who download music. A bit like paying a per-CD fee to music companies for every Linux install CD you burn. Reasonable indeed.

Re:Sounds reasonable (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580951)

I think that's fair enough, seeing as DeCSS was originally developed for Linux.

Blanket tax? *puts gun to head* (2, Interesting)

Denyer (717613) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580963)

First, why should all internet traffic be taxed for something a portion of customers do? Expect business costs in particular to soar. Yes, I know that similar can be said of CD-Rs... but you don't use CD-Rs for essential communications, to perform transactions, or to maintain a shop front.

As far as taxing at the ISP level goes... why should a file marked "madonna" be assumed to be an MP3 of a particular singer. It could be any number of things.

In Canada. (2, Insightful)

m0rph3us0 (549631) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580883)

We already pay royalties on blank CDs. That is supposed to cover the cost. On the other hand if it means i can't get a 2 billion dollar find for sharing. why not?

Re:In Canada. (1)

WoTG (610710) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580927)

Yeah. I can legally copy a friends CD for personal use thanks to that levy. If they tax internet traffic users, does that mean I can download MP3's from other Canadians, legally?

Seriously though, there are many other things that are wrong with this scheme, and the CD royalty that came before it. Things like the fact that not all Canuck pirating is for Canadian artists, or that CDR's have uses besides music, or that once you've crossed the CDR line there's no reason to not tax hard drives, flash, or, internet traffic (oh wait, they've figured that out, it seems...)

Re:In Canada. (4, Interesting)

TC (WC) (459050) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580957)

Look at the laws. What you're allowed to copy isn't linked in any functional way to what you pay the levy on, in the law. The law also doesn't have anything to say about the source that one copies from.

The Copyright Board has actually found that the source needn't be a legitimately purchased or owned medium for a perfectly legal personal copy to be made. There's no reason downloading music shouldn't be covered by the existing legislation. You run into trouble if you start uploading music, though, as it violates the legal restrictions on usage of a personal copy. It violates, off the top of my head, the prohibitions on transmitting copies across a telecommunications system as well as the prohibition on distributing your personal copies.

The gist of it is, uploading is sure as hell illegal under the current legislation, but downloading is fine unless some magic way to argue against it is found.

Re:In Canada. (1)

aweraw (557447) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580985)

I'd be interested to know, since i don't live in Canadia, how does this levy effect the price of blank CDRs in a monetary value?

Re:In Canada. (1)

Nogami_Saeko (466595) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581005)

It basically doubles them at current prices.

The levy is $0.20/CD. The price of blank CDs is in the $0.20 range.

N.

Re:In Canada. (1)

jrockway (229604) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581040)

WHAT!? How can you stand that? Every time you burn a 30M Debian install disk or the latest Knoppix you have to pay 20 cents!? Fuck that! If I wanted shitty music, I'd buy it... but taxing every CDR. Wow. If I were you guys I'd be blowing up some buildings or something (jk). Shit. That's harsh.

Anyway, does this affect CDRWs and DVDs also? My homedir backups would be quite expensive in Canada. Are there 'bootleg' CDRs available?

Sorry, I'm just shocked by those numbers. .01 cents for a CD ($1 for 100) would be fine, but 20 cents a CD. Wow.

Re:In Canada. (1)

deviantonline (542095) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580994)

Yea.

Right now we pay that tax on minidiscs, blank cds and tapes, shouldnt that be enough?

Stupid . . . (4, Insightful)

Gabrill (556503) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580887)

That's great. Raise internet prices for everyone for no apparent reason to the consumer. Reminds me of some of those obfuscated extra charges on my phone bill.

everyone wants a piece of this pie (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580889)

Hey lets tax internet access.
I dont feel like we are making enough money.
So lets try to get the govt to tax other businesses
to make up for what we feel like we are not
getting. right...

I think this whole movie and music thing is way
overblown.

MICHAEL SIMS CONSUMES HIS OWN FECES (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580890)

Its True, It's True!

Or (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580891)

Sue
Our
Canadian
Asses
Northward

Im sorry the coffee hasnt kicking in yet

proxies (2, Interesting)

mOoZik (698544) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580892)

Sounds good. I'll download gigabits of stuff via a Canadian proxy and see some poor bloke get screwed. ;)

Something to think about.. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580898)

As much as the DMCA is unpopular among Slashdotters, and rightfully so, at least it gets one thing right. It establishes that the ISP isn't responsible in any way. As the article states, if the music and movie industries get their way in Canada, they could soon be responsible for the traffic through their network. I know the DMCA gets a lot of things wrong, but protecting the ISPs is one thing it actually gets right. Think about it.

Re:Something to think about.. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580964)

Point taken. You make a good point about the DMCA, however, it protects the ISPs in exchange for giving copyright holders an unfair amount of power over anyone they claim is illegally sharing copyrighed materials. Furthermore, the biggest users of the DMCA, the RIAA and MPAA, have a collusive arrangement so there's virtually no competition and prices are extremely high. What needs to happen is to make the collusion illegal, which will encourage competition and drive prices of CDs and DVDs down. At the same time, permit the actual artists to sue for reasonable damages from those who infringe on their copyrights. The effect of all these measures is that the most common targets of piracy become more affordable, piracy is still illegal but more reasonable methods have to be followed to sue for it, and in the end, the artists don't lose as much as you think because they don't have a share of their royalties going to RIAA lawyers. The DMCA is just gay and needs to be replaced with more reasonable laws.

Re:Something to think about.. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580996)

  • The DMCA is just gay ..
As a raving faggot, I object to your use of the word 'gay' in this context.

So which is it to be then, eh? (5, Insightful)

graveyardjohn (672128) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580903)

Surely payment upfront on the assumption that people will be using their connection for legally questionable activities will help to justify the 'crime'* to people before they even sign up? "If I'm paying for it, I may as well be doing it"

* I say crime, I mean 'copyright infringement' (or whatever - Lets not start this one again!)

Does SCO have an office in Canada (2, Funny)

jkrise (535370) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580907)

Judging by this article, it looks like they do!

what the hell is this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580909)

isn't like 55 bucks a month enough for internet. Geess i guess not, heres an idea... how about offering better prices on cds or offer somthing simalar to itunes or somthing.

Hell i should start my own isp.. teach them all :)

Then again, what about all the people who dont download music or movies.. on the net... charge them as well?

Argh (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580911)

Friggin America, always trying to take away my rights! I'm moving to Canada!

Oh wait...

Re:Argh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580924)

Move to the UK. No-one gives a shit if you download music from Kazaa, Overnet et al. It's not something they are interested in policing .. after all, overzealous traffic policing brings in a lot more revenue.

Re:Argh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580942)

Road traffic, that is.

Re:Argh (1)

TC (WC) (459050) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580966)

To be fair, this doesn't bring in money for the government... It brings in money for the collecting group, which then hordes it and doesn't actually distribute any of it.

Tax the food companies (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580912)

After all, the food companies keep illegal downloaders alive, so ultimately they are responsible!

Re:Tax the food companies (1)

Mhtsos (586325) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580984)

I'm sure someone, someware is thinking "It's all the US goverment's fault for creating ARPAnet in the first place. Let's sue them!" and another goes "What? Companies still make cables and modems! Set the lawyers on them!"

So, as an artist... (5, Insightful)

BeneathTheVeil (305107) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580914)

...who would never sign with a 'major' label (or even a really large indie one)... when is my cheque coming? ...and how much do I get?

I make a good portion of my music freely downloabable from my site... and if they're going to tax people for downloading my music, then I should see that money, shouldn't I?

Re:So, as an artist... (1)

TC (WC) (459050) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580980)

The great part of the existing CD levy is that it only goes to Canadian artists, IIRC.

Of course, since (at least last time I checked, which was quite a while ago) they've never actually gotten around to distributing any money to any artists, the independent artists are getting an equal cut. If it worked properly, I'm pretty sure I've read about provisions that allow any Canadian artist to apply to get their portion of the money.

This post is, like most on Slashdot, mainly coming out of my ass. I haven't actually read up on the money distribution part of this in a couple of years.

Blame Canada (1, Interesting)

Hodr (219920) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580916)

Im not trying to make a bid for Ethnocentrist of the decade, but do the Canadian musicians and movie industry people really believe their properties make up that large of a percentage of what is being downloaded?

I mean, correct me if I am out of line here, but doesn't the US version of MTV, which isn't shown on any "legal" cable or satellite provider in Canada get multiple times the number of viewers of the various Canadian music television programs (I.E. Much Music)

Re:Blame Canada (1)

rizawbone (577492) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580928)

we have mtv canada.

Re:Blame Canada (1)

Hodr (219920) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580941)

Thats Why I clearly specified the US version of MTV, ala DirectTV.....

Re:Blame Canada (1)

rizawbone (577492) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580961)

yes, and mtv canada is avilable on every major canadian digital cable/sattelite network, and has all the same shows (minus trl), negating the need to watch american mtv.

Re:Blame Canada (1)

Hodr (219920) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581043)

It appears that despite clarification my jabs at Canadian culture were completely misunderstood.

So I will spell them out.

I was saying that by watching MTV (even MTV Canada, or the French MTV) that you are still watching American based programming.

I was also making a passing remark about the number of people who own illegal sattelite dishes that only receive American programming.

Please don't reply telling me how awesome MTV Canada is, or Much Music, I don't honestly care for music telivision of any sort.

Re:Blame Canada (1)

TC (WC) (459050) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580995)

I mean, correct me if I am out of line here, but doesn't the US version of MTV, which isn't shown on any "legal" cable or satellite provider in Canada get multiple times the number of viewers of the various Canadian music television programs (I.E. Much Music)


Eh, I doubt it... I know all sorts of annoying people that watch muchmusic... I don't think I've seen even a speck of MTV anywhere around here since they stopped including the french version in Vancouver cable subscriptions a half dozen years ago. I, being a normal egotistical person, conclude that my experiences obviously scale up to the rest of the country.

Re:Blame Canada (1)

Hodr (219920) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581023)

Ok, let me put it another way. Last time I visited Toronto I heard a hell of alot more Eminem and Tupac than Len ;)

Re:Blame Canada (1)

GandXYZ (727850) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581010)

From their page [socan.ca] :
SOCAN is the Canadian copyright collective for the public performance of musical works. We administer the performing rights of our members (composers, lyricists, songwriters and their publishers) and those of affiliated international societies by licensing the use of their music in Canada.

Which basically means that if you pay them other organisations like, for instance, RIAA takes their share.

Re:Blame Canada (1)

Hodr (219920) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581052)

I would Mod your reply up if I had any points because I believe you just outlined exactly where this idea came from...

Re:Blame Canada (1)

twilight30 (84644) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581049)

Your latter point: Is wrong.

MTV US is on satellite, usually DirecTV systems configured / pirated with zipcodes for the US. This is not surprising considering that 85% of the Canadian population lives within 200 miles of the US border. A lot of people have satellite dishes in Canada. (My father has one, for instance)

However, MuchMusic is on cable as a basic channel. Meaning if you get cable, you get MuchMusic. Canada is one of the most-cabled countries on Earth, if not *the* most, at something like 96, 97%. Which means that just about everyone gets Much.

As to your first point, how does downloading music relate to watching music videos on TV? I can't see the link.

Horrible idea, but... (4, Insightful)

Micah (278) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580926)

If our Internet bill helped to fund the music industry, I would suddenly have an attitude that I can copy and download music freely without restriction.

Currently I believe that it is important to respect the owner's copyright and that music should be payed for, if the artists ask for payment.

Re:Horrible idea, but... (1)

TC (WC) (459050) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581009)

If our Internet bill helped to fund the music industry, I would suddenly have an attitude that I can copy and download music freely without restriction.


Why wouldn't you be able to? That's pretty much the music industry's point...

We already have legislation that lets us copy pretty much any musical work we want for our personal use. They're looking for compensation, because of this. If this were to go through, Canadians would probably get a clairified law, too, that direcly addresses copying music in the context of the internet.

Harder to sue end-users ? (1)

Aigantighe (175533) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580929)

If this proposal was to be enacted, I'd be curious to see whether it hampers efforts by SOCAN to then sue or harass file swappers. By forcing royalties from the ISPs, they're effectively saying 'Yes, we know our content gets swapped on this channel, and we're taking our share', and lending it an air of legitimacy. Presumably, that's not the intent, though, and they want to extract royalties and continue to persecute the end user by other means.

Regardless, that could be an interesting development.

Succint reply (1)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580932)

Fuck You.

Re:Succint reply (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580972)

I think you should apologise for your rudeness. This is Slashdot, not the navy.

we already pay through the nose for cd-r's (4, Informative)

Barbarian (9467) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580935)

We already pay $0.25 per cd-r, "they" want to increase it to around $0.59. As an example, that would increase the take by the music industry of a 30 pack of cd-r's to $17.70, from $7.50, an increase of $10.20. I for one find it offensive that the recording industry is charging me for the right to back up my own, non-musical data, and I doubt that any of the levies collected are rightfully distributed to pornstars that most /. readers have stored in the way of movies on cd-r's. Large per GB levies have also been proposed for portable players, and if I recall correctly, if implemented, the levy on an iPod would be around $200.

There has been a lot of opposition to the proposed $0.59 levy lately, spearheaded by large retailers, so the music industry has turned elsewhere, and that is to ISP's.

note on exchange rate (1)

Barbarian (9467) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580946)

1 canadian dollar = 0.76 US dollars, so no smart comments on how were are only paying pennies in US dollars, please.

Re:we already pay through the nose for cd-r's (1)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580953)

It's one thing to pay a premium for CD-Rs....

....but how does the iPod and other hard disk based media players fit into that scheme of things? Unless they too get slugged with a premium....

ipod and other hard disk media players (1)

Barbarian (9467) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581004)

The Canada Copyright board has held back for quite a while on releasing a decision. Presently we are still being charged the 2002 level levies, which are only on CD-R's and cassettes. The proposed 2003-2004 levies [cb-cda.gc.ca] , which have been held up thanks to legal wrangling from retailers, are as follows:

3. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the levy shall be
(a) 60 for each audio cassette of 40 minutes or more in length;
(b) 59 for each CD-R, CD-RW or each unit of any other type
of recordable or rewritable compact disc of 100 megabytes or
more of storage capacity;
(c) $1.23 for each CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio or MiniDisc;
(d) 0.8 for each megabyte of memory in each removable electronic
memory card, each removable flash memory storage
medium of any type, or each removable micro-hard drive;
(e) $2.27 for each DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+RW, DVD-RAM
or each unit of any other type of recordable or rewritable DVD;
(f) 2.1 for each megabyte of memory in each non-removable
electronic memory card or each non-removable flash memory
storage medium of any type incorporated into each MP3 player
or into each similar device with internal electronic or flash
memory that is intended for use primarily to record and play
music;
(g) $21 for each gigabyte of memory in each non-removable
hard drive incorporated into each MP3 player or into each similar
device with an internal hard drive that is intended for use
primarily to record and play music.


Re:we already pay through the nose for cd-r's (1)

BrainInAJar (584756) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580977)

I have a couple friends who are sound engineers...

They go through a 100 spindle of CD's a week, easily. The increased CD tax would seriously hurt their business... This is dumb, I thought canada was smarter than this

Re:we already pay through the nose for cd-r's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7581014)

Due to the nature of their job, they can be exempt from CD levies.

Re:we already pay through the nose for cd-r's (1)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581011)

Is this for those marked as "music CD-Rs"?

There's a levy in the UK on these, but not on normal blanks.

Re:we already pay through the nose for cd-r's (1)

Barbarian (9467) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581029)

It's more for "music CD-R"'s.

Proposed tariffs [cb-cda.gc.ca] (currently held up):

3. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the levy shall be
(a) 60c for each audio cassette of 40 minutes or more in length;
(b) 59c for each CD-R, CD-RW or each unit of any other type
of recordable or rewritable compact disc of 100 megabytes or
more of storage capacity;
(c) $1.23 for each CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio or MiniDisc;
(d) 0.8c for each megabyte of memory in each removable electronic
memory card, each removable flash memory storage
medium of any type, or each removable micro-hard drive;
(e) $2.27 for each DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+RW, DVD-RAM
or each unit of any other type of recordable or rewritable DVD;
(f) 2.1c for each megabyte of memory in each non-removable
electronic memory card or each non-removable flash memory
storage medium of any type incorporated into each MP3 player
or into each similar device with internal electronic or flash
memory that is intended for use primarily to record and play
music;
(g) $21 for each gigabyte of memory in each non-removable
hard drive incorporated into each MP3 player or into each similar
device with an internal hard drive that is intended for use
primarily to record and play music.


Present tarrifs [cb-cda.gc.ca] (held over from 2001):

3. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the levy shall be
(a) 29 for each audio cassette of 40 minutes or more in length;
(b) 21 for each CD-R or CD-RW;
(c) 77 for each CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio or MiniDisc.


Re:we already pay through the nose for cd-r's (1)

Teddy Beartuzzi (727169) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581055)

Hopefully, the large retailers will just pass their lawyers on to the ISP's. I buy all my cd blanks in the US just to get around these damn levies. Always declare it at the border, never had to pay any duty yet.

Bzzzzt! (0, Offtopic)

heironymouscoward (683461) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580939)

"WRONG ANSWER!"

"SOCAN" is not a representative of the Entertainment Industry, all such organizations must have acronyms ending in "A" or "AA".

"SOCAN" is most likely a Canadian organization, possibly standing for "So Canada, SO CANADA,..."

"Next question: what does SHALSHODT stand for?"

Re:Bzzzzt! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580962)

your a fuckin idiot...

Riiiiight (2, Insightful)

JazFresh (146585) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580947)

Although those groups are prompted to seek new sources of revenue because of what they say are illegal downloads of copyrighted content,
SOCAN is asking ISPs to pay a blanket annual royalty regardless of whether the ISP is transmitting legal or illegally downloaded music.
This might have a chance if it was possible for ISPs to detect illegal traffic. But it's not. With the latest P2P protocols you can't use the port number to detect that type of traffic, and if the transmission in encrypted, you can't sniff the data to see why type of traffic it is.

It seems the SOCAN technical advisor only seems to know about downloading illegal content from web pages. Let's hope the courts have access to someone slightly more savvy.

I'm totally against piracy of any sort, so it makes me mad when they'd tax me (because you know the ISPs would just pass the costs onto the users) for something I didn't do! This is just the same as those damned proposed taxes on CDRs and HDDs, because they "might" be used for piracy.

Verdict: not a chance in hell, if common sense prevails. If ISPs inform their users that costs will go up because SOCAN considers them all criminals, there'll be enough of an outcry to squash it.

MOSFET (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580955)

Liquid.

I'm Canadian & online through my university's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580958)

Just come and get me, buttwipes.

As a Canadian resident ... (5, Interesting)

Tripster (23407) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580965)

... I feel like freakin' moving!

This is the first I'd heard SOCAN had gotten this far and quite frankly I'm pissed. I don't even have a P2P app installed in my computer, my MP3 collection consists solely of my own CD collection and is in that format for ease of access.

What's next? Royalties on showerheads, shower curtains and bathtubs in case we happen to mumble out a tune while showering?

The problem with our Supreme Court is they'll likely side with SOCAN and we'll end up paying. This is the same court who sided with our domestic DTH satellite providers and outright made it illegal to subscribe to US services in our country, yup for years we did our darndest to broadcast signals behind the iron curtain but when it comes to protecting a few broadcasting monopolies it's ok to ban foreign signals.

Shit we don't get to vote for a new government until next spring but the media have all pretty much named the new PM who is just the guy taking over from the retiring PM, lucky for us in the rest of the country it only takes Ontario and Quebec to vote in the same idiots time after time, the new guy is very pro big business, heck in his private career he made an effort to get around Canadian tax laws by using ships registerd at foreign ports, just the guy to put in charge!

Increase the cost of electricity! (5, Insightful)

Cooper_007 (688308) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580968)

No power - No host - No illegal sharing.

It's common knowledge that electricity is only used by illegal filesharers, so increasing its cost to recoup diminishing profits^W^Wdamages makes a lot of sense.
Naturally, this also includes batteries. Solar panels are allowed (for now) but there's going to be a tax on sunlight soon which should be able to close that gap.

Remember folks: You are consumers. SO START CONSUMING ALREADY! Your unwillingness to consume our drivel^Wproduct is costing us MONEY. If this trend keeps up, we'll be forced to sue you.

Cooper
--
I don't need a pass to pass this pass!
- Groo The Wanderer -

Webradio (0)

future assassin (639396) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580973)

So will this mean that if I have to pay a levy on IPS servies, Im now gonna be allowed to run my shoutcast station with out having to pay any other royalties since I already paid for the right to redistribute/download music online.? Im mean if I'm giving SOCAN my money Id better be getting something for it. So what does email have to do with music piracy?

http://www.futureassassin.com [futureassassin.com]

Tax and then sue you (2, Interesting)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580978)

So even if people end up having to pay a tax on the internet... what difference will that make to the copyright law already on the copyrighted digital files out there? By the sound of it, it won't change a damn thing! The labels could just as well tax you and then sue you for copyright infringment! What are they promising here? That if you pay a tax, they won't sue? Do we trust them that much? Come on!

Personally, I would quite happily pay a premium if they repeal all copyright law as well... but we know this probably isn't going to happen.

At the moment, this seems like another excuse for the labels to grab money from somewhere.

Judge understands Caching... *ahem* NOT! (1, Flamebait)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580982)


The judge in this article says that caching of popular web-pages by ISPs changes their role as mere conduits for information to providers.

Next my modem will be impounded by **AA because it buffers the data coming into it.

There are so many things wrong with what SOCAM are proposing it makes my skin crawl. This is the same principle as the Recording Industry getting a tax on blank CDs because of course they are all being used to pirate the music of those artists owned by them. The principle is that everyone is judged guilty and punishment (fines in the form of tax) are automated and mandatory.

Extending this principle beyond the music industry, you would then logically get the movie tax, a tax on news to reimburse newspaper distributors and those who turn off FOX half-way through, a literature tax to reimburse Random House and McGraw-Hill etc etc.

In fact, what the proposed laws are doing are creating the following viable business model
1. Fail to sell stuff.
2. Introduce laws to make other industries compensate you.
3.???
4. Profit!

Actually, I think number 3 is probably incarcerate any civil liberties campaigners and fine a few people loudly and publicy to financial ruin to scare any transgressors.

Go back to sleep, Canada - your Government is in control.

Plan! (0, Offtopic)

arose (644256) | more than 10 years ago | (#7580991)

1. Claim [insert big group of people] owes you money.
2. ???
3. Infinite profit.

* ??? beeing taxation by private companies, that may or may not produce something.

Just like in the movies (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7580999)

The movie/music industry corrupt out young with popularised violence.
Corrupt our young by popularising youth sexuality.
Corrupt our government with taxes on their so called *illegal* copied/downloaded files.
Corrupt our laws with legal exemptions in computer tresspassing(ie riaa wants to break into your computer if they *think* you have their music).
Have laws written that exempt them from litigation and otherwise.

For sure its obvious that those with the technical interllect of 2 year olds are making IT/IP laws.

*My question is, how far down the slippery slope are we?*
Although i used to believe that systems fail because they cannot adjust to a changing world, but now IMHO I have also become to believe that regardless of a system, people will fail to pay attention to detail and thus derail any system after some time and I do feel that is what is happening in many first world legal systems.
Since the only difference between us and those who are starving is our accumulated technology, why is that those with knowledge in technology pay no attention to politics. To have a right to wealth, one must also have a responsibility but I see no responsibility anywhere /end 2cents + RIAA tax
ABCD

Canadian Music Industry (1)

MuckSavage (658302) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581007)

This legislation sucks ass, as does the blank media levy. However, it's nice to know that a money hungry, technically handicapped, morally devoid association like the RIAA isn't unique to America.

Could be good news (4, Interesting)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581016)

There is a way that the Canadian people could actually end up having a sorted system if this does become law. Unfortunately it requires a high degree of faecal unity on the part of many people.

While this is going on, you could lobby your MPs {assuming that is what they are called in Canada} to ensure that if any royalty fees are charged on downloaded music, they should be payable directly to the performer {assuming the performer is the copyright holder} and not exceed the amount that would have been paid had the songs downloaded been obtained on the least expensive pre-recorded medium available {whether this be cassette, CD, LP, MiniDisc or To Be Invented}. If Avril Lavigne {faute de mieux} gets x cents when I buy one of her albums, I don't see why it makes any difference to Avril Lavigne if I just make a copy of the album and pay her the same x cents directly. I mean ..... obviously it makes a difference to the record company - just like it makes a difference to McDonalds when you eat at Burger King.

And, of course, in the case of unauthorised downloading, you would only ever be held liable for those x cents per track - not the thousands of dollars the RIAA conjures up out of thin air. Call me quaint and old-fashioned, but if you steal a dollar you should pay back a dollar; or at the worst no more than what would buy when you come to pay it back,whatever a dollar would have bought when you stole it.

It would be interesting to see exactly what objections anyone could raise to this proposal. I've even come up with a name for it: non-discriminatory licencing. Basically, if an artist allows a record company to package up and distribute their work for a fee, they have to allow anyone to do the equivalent job for the same fee; anybody's money is as good as anybody else's.

Re:Could be good news (2, Informative)

Nogami_Saeko (466595) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581032)

ABSOLUTELY.

I would have NO PROBLEM AT ALL if royalties for music went DIRECTLY to the artist involved, and not through the record label, managers, agents, etc.

Whatcha wanna bet that SOCAN would drop the idea in a split-second if they were unable to fill their own pockets with cash.

Quite a wonderful scam they have going here:

-Private Organization, doesn't have to release their books, profit information, membership list, etc.
-Never has given out ANY of the MILLIONS of dollars they've collected in the "name of the artists".
-No public accountability.
-Their income is enforced by the Canadian Government by way of levies - guaranteed cash flow!

If only every business could be so lucky.

It's time for the Government to dissolve the levies on this sad, sad excuse for ripping off Canadian consumers.

here's my SCO-style advice to them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7581020)

Why ask for a new law to get a few cents per download when with the current penalties for copyright infringement they can get thousands of dollars per download?

And in other news, (1)

darkitecture (627408) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581021)

This just in; The Society for Drug Traffickers and Fat Cartel Bosses are asking for royalties from car and plane manufacturers because so many drugs are being sent back and forth over the border using Buicks, Fords and Cessnas without them getting much of a cut.

And in other news, hell just froze over.

Staggering possibilities! (3, Insightful)

bo0ork (698470) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581030)

Well now, if the ISP's can be made to pay for theft that occurs on their infrastructure, why, then the government is obviously required to do the same for every thief that uses a car to drive on a street during the getaway. I mean - hadn't the street been there, he wouldn't have gotten away. So therefore the street owner is partly responsible for the success of the theft.

Doesn't this just apply to... (1)

devnulljapan (316200) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581034)

Rush [rush.com] , Bryan Adams [bryanadams.com] , Frank Marino [mahoganyrush.com] , and noises these guys [polarbearsalive.org] make, and Celine Fucking Dion [celinedion.com] , so that leaves those of us with some taste in music in the clear?

Call it what it is, then (1)

GammaTau (636807) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581046)

If they wish to impose such a fee for Internet, just call it Information Tax and at least be honest with it. It is a tax because it's a legal obligation set by the government that requires people to pay a fixed amount of money. It's Information Tax because it is imposed on all people doing generic information exchange. It's obvious that if you don't pay the Information Tax, you are not allowed to access any information on the net.

Once again, from an atrist point of view (1)

trystanu (691619) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581048)

Anyone know how the money gets distributed around artists?

Are they just going to distribute the tax around members of this so-called SOCAN, or are they going to somehow monitor the traffic and assign it radio-style?

It would be kind of interesting if it was radio-style (royalty-per-leech).

If I was living in a country where I was paying a copyright infringement tax on my CDs and on my ISP bill, I think I'd feel pretty different about engaging in copyright infringement.

SOCAN... (1)

devnulljapan (316200) | more than 10 years ago | (#7581051)

SOCAN KSSmyASS
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>