Canadian Songwriters Propose All-You-Can-Download Net Tax

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
Canadian Songwriters Propose All-You-Can-Download Net Tax


The Songwriters Association of Canada [http://www.songwriters.ca/] is proposing a fee as high as $10 be added to monthly internet bills that would pay for licenses allowing for unlimited music downloading from file sharing sites.

If you can't beat 'em, charge 'em. That seems to be the mindset of the Songwriters Association of Canada, which has apparently decided that the best way to stop illegal file sharing is to make it legal and try to squeeze some bucks out of it. The group has approached "several" Canadian ISPs with a proposal to charge a flat fee for private licenses allowing for unlimited music downloading and hopes to have trials running by the end of the year. As much as $840 million could be generated annually if every internet subscriber in the country pays for the license.

The idea is similar to a 2007 attempt to amend the Canadian Copyright Act that would have forced ISPs to pay a file sharing tax, but where that effort failed, SAC President Eddie Schwartz believes this one will work because it bypasses the government in favor of dealing directly with ISPs.

"All of the rights that we need are actually already in Canada's copyright laws," said Schwartz. "We thought, 'All we need to do is come up with a private business model that monetizes file-sharing.' That's what we set out to do, modify the [original] proposal so that there was a private way to achieve the same results without needing to get legislation."

The money would go to groups like the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic [http://www.socan.ca/] at the University of Ottawa, said that although the plan is technically feasible, it could "upend" the Canadian music industry because songwriters represented by SOCAN would earn money from the fees but other components of the industry, like record labels, would not.

"We are getting into the complicated way that music works," he added.

Schwartz claimed that 97 percent of online music downloads are done illegally, based on a 2010 report by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry [http://www.ifpi.org/], but that 80 percent of all file sharers would pay a monthly fee if it meant they could indulge their habit legally and without fear of being sued. He also said that widespread adoption of the private licenses would give the Songwriter's Association a stronger legal basis for filing U.S.-style lawsuits against illegal file sharers.

"The surest and swiftest way to dramatically reduce infringement is to give consumers an authorized way to music-file share," he wrote in the proposal. "Once such an authorized system is in place, consumers who refuse to pay a reasonable license fee will clearly be choosing to infringe and can be dealt with accordingly."

What's not clear, however, is why any ISP would go along with it. They're not at any real risk of legal or civil penalties for the misbehavior of their customers and tacking yet more fees onto internet bills, regardless of the reason, is hardly going to be a public relations coup. There are also questions about what music the licenses would permit; would it be limited to certain outlets or artists? And how will the movie and television industries, which are also being punished by illegal downloading, react if the music industry actually manages to pull this off?

I'm not entirely opposed to the idea; ten bucks a month for all I can eat sounds pretty fair to me. But will it actually happen, at least in any kind of meaningful, consumer-friendly fashion? Let's just say that I'm not going to hold my breath.

Source: Vancouver Sun [http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Canadian+songwriters+propose+music+sharing/4387146/story.html]


Permalink
 

GrandmaFunk

New member
Oct 19, 2009
729
0
0
we already get charged a fee for this when we purchase storage devices, they already want us to start paying it on media players too and now on the internet as well?

so basically, they'll want us to be paying a music fee on everything ..except maybe music.

i really don't see this going anywhere as there's plenty of gaping holes in their logic.
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
I'm not sure how they'd manage to work this in. The people who download music illegally are already doing so, and putting extra money on monthly internet fees has already riled up a lot of people.

They're already getting their music free, and this group wants them to pay 10$ extra for the priviledge of unlimited downloads.

What are they going to choose? The formula they've worked with forever, or paying more money to do the same thing, just legally?
 

Torrasque

New member
Aug 6, 2010
3,441
0
0
Well this is just stupid.
Not everyone downloads music, and while everyone who does download music might say "Alright! Now its legal to do something illegal!", everyone that does not download music, will be getting charged $10 for doing... nothing?

Besides that, I already download as much music as I want.
If they're gonna charge me $10 a month and "allow" me to download as much as I want, then I'll download the shit out of music.

I wonder what legitimate businesses that sell music (like iTunes for example) will say about this... seeing as it completely undercuts their business *cough*
 

SenseOfTumour

New member
Jul 11, 2008
4,514
0
0
Kinda amusing that America fought so hard to stop everyone getting tax funded healthcare, and just north a bit, Canada is pushing for tax funded entertainment. Britain already has the licence fee, where you pay about £150 a year to watch TV, yet you can still be nailed for downloading BBC programmes.

Push it all the way as far as I care, make all entertainment tax funded, and just leave me a couple of hundred bucks left over each month for food n bills.
 

Rayne870

New member
Nov 28, 2010
1,250
0
0
if this goes through I am declaring war on every songwriter that benefits from it. I haven't downloaded music in a long time, and when I did it wasn't Canadian. Seriously Nickleback has to be behind this, it's very much in line with their pompous douchebaggery.
 

Sougo

New member
Mar 20, 2010
634
0
0
So what they're saying is although I don't like Justin Beiber's music and don't want to download it, I'll be getting charged monthly so that SOMEONE who perhaps does can download it without any extra charge.

Infact I don't listen to any Canadian artists and I haven't bought any new songs in more than 8 months. This proposal sucks.
 

Zorg Machine

New member
Jul 28, 2008
1,304
0
0
This is what everyone should have done from the beginning. If they had told the internet providers that they would release everything for free download but they wanted a cut of the cash, we wouldn't have to put up with this piracy bullshit.
 

dragontiers

The Temporally Displaced
Feb 26, 2009
497
0
0
This is something I would support and subscribe to if I was Canadian, provided it was an opt in service and not required, and the money actually went to the artists and didn't just get eaten up by the Society. I feel this is definitely a step in the right direction.
 

TheGreatFedora

New member
Mar 25, 2010
15
0
0
As someone who lives in Canada, I'm alright with this really, so long as it's optional.

The problem is that as an avid listener, I don't WANT money going to record companies. Most of the music I listen to is independent, and many bands that I like offer their music for free, in which case I always donate if I really like the album. The bands and not-for-profit organizations like SOCAN should be getting the money; otherwise, this is nothing more than yet another source of income for big record companies to push out more and more homogenized crap.
 

Formica Archonis

Anonymous Source
Nov 13, 2009
2,312
0
0
So, I can pay $10/month which will go mostly to feed a bureaucratic engine, and a few cents will go to major Canadian songwriters.

Let's check what music I partook in, legally or not, in the past month.

Falconer and Machinae Supremacy, both Swedish bands.
Classical music, including some of the remixes from the Catherine soundtrack. (So, either out of copyright or Japanese.)
Various Touhou songs and remixes, and assorted anime theme songs. (Japanese.)
One or two random songs by American artists that might have been written by Canadians. Maybe. Small chance.

So I can steal as much music as I want and someone who I didn't steal from can profit? So, if I rob the Royal Bank, would CIBC and Scotiabank get a cut of the stolen money after I'm caught?
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
I'm against this. For one, I don't download that much music, in fact next to none. And what about people who get their music through something like iTunes which I believe you have to pay for? Why should they pay extra for something they already paid for???
 

fix-the-spade

New member
Feb 25, 2008
8,639
0
0
That's... a good idea actually.

In principal at least it sounds good, there seems to be more internet users who do download illegally than don't, plus I'd get to use BitTorrent for something else than game mods and Adobe's mahoossive CS updates.

Trouble is, how do you make sure that extra 10CAD goes where it's meant to and doesn't just get scraped by either the ISP or the government?
 

Richard Hannay

New member
Nov 30, 2009
242
0
0
This article should have been called, "Canadian Songwriters admit defeat, betray law-abiding internet users out of spite."
 

nyttyn

New member
Sep 9, 2008
134
0
0
Numbers are completely off, and his facts are full of shit.

That aside, 10$ a month for unlimited music sounds like a really, really good deal.