If it's on an "if you use it" basis, then go ahead. I won't participate, there's too many viruses on P2P.
Canadian Songwriters Propose All-You-Can-Download Net Tax
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I'd like to point out that it currently isn't illegal to download music, videos, video games, and anything else from a file share site. You can't distribute the things you download for a gain(sell them) but you can't be legally charged with anything. Hosting the file share and generating it is something I'm unclear of as well but the act of downloading it currently isn't a crime.
There is something else that bugges me on this concept:
"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."
So everyone who doesn't pay is seen as guilty by default or what?
What is with everyone who just DOESN'T download illegaly and instead buys music online or even on DVD/CD?
That sounds nearly as bad as the GEZ-Bullshist we in Germany have to deal with.
"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."
So everyone who doesn't pay is seen as guilty by default or what?
What is with everyone who just DOESN'T download illegaly and instead buys music online or even on DVD/CD?
That sounds nearly as bad as the GEZ-Bullshist we in Germany have to deal with.
Hmmm. Next the TV industry would be charging another extra $10, the movie industry another $10, then the video games industry another $10...
Though seriously, this is a pretty neat idea, considering the whole 97% illegal download rate. I feel bad for music artists...
Though seriously, this is a pretty neat idea, considering the whole 97% illegal download rate. I feel bad for music artists...
What worries me most about this proposition is that they would have to only convince two companies (Bell, Rogers) to agree, and thus would remove any way to opt out. Considering the way they milk their monopoly for money already, it wouldn't be a stretch to add this.
Additionally, the article states; "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." Thus it would essentially be a criminal offense not to pay the fee, as not doing so means that they can now charge you for breaking the law, and sue for damages.
Additionally, the article states; "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." Thus it would essentially be a criminal offense not to pay the fee, as not doing so means that they can now charge you for breaking the law, and sue for damages.
I don't think they're looking to give a choice to consumers to either pay or not pay for this right to download as much music as you want.chemicalreaper said:
But I'm not sure which direction they'll go with this, so I'll assume a few things.
IF they force consumers to pay the $10 extra for unlimited downloads, then people who don't download music are being punished.
IF they allow consumers to choose to pay or not, then people who download music get legal immunity, and people who don't download music, can carry on their internet lives as if nothing happened.
The only beneficial things that I can think of: is people who pay the $10/month, are technically immune to copyright laws (hell, I'm not sure what would happen to copyright laws after this) and it would save torrent sites from the governments (provided those torrent sites only provide music)
Would these guys provide the music themselves? If so, they'd basically be selling all their music for $10/month, which is fucking awesome.
Also, this could potentially cause a slippery slope for other media as well (movies, shows, books, etc.)
I'm interested in where this goes, and after reading what you said, I don't have an entirely negative position on this.
Edit:
Also, about 75% of my music is legitimately bought.
Part of the proposal apparently includes an "opt-out" option. The license fee would be added automatically but users would have the option of contacting their ISP and promising not to download music in exchange for the fee being waived. But that would presumably flag the user for possible closer scrutiny, making penalties more likely if illegal downloading did occur.
But another trouble is that such a proposal would contravene negative billing laws in some provinces that forbid the automatic addition of optional fees to service bills which must be withdrawn from by the consumer. So while I still think it's a fair idea at its core, I just can't see it actually being implemented.
But another trouble is that such a proposal would contravene negative billing laws in some provinces that forbid the automatic addition of optional fees to service bills which must be withdrawn from by the consumer. So while I still think it's a fair idea at its core, I just can't see it actually being implemented.
haha good luck on that one. charging something like that would only be voluntary on the part of the conusmer, an isp wouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily charge you an extra ten bucks. and why would they? not to mention what companies like apple would do with their precious itunes store, it'd be useless in canada. this won't happen, and is kind of ridiculous from the get go. don't get me wrong, I'm not particularly opposed to the idea, but I tend to support my favourite bands by going out to see them live. not only is it more fun, but they make money from the show. if this would in fact take money away from the record companies... why would they allow it to happen?
SO, they want to charge me up to $120 a year for something that is already legal (or at the minimum a grey area) for me to do? Yeah, thanks, but no thanks. That's not to say that I wouldn't agree to a fee, but not a monthly fee that high. I'd say $3-$5 at the most. If I bought all the music that I download in the run of the year, It would only cost me around $50-$60 a year, and that's because the majority would be imports.
Yes, a lot of people MAY be infringing music copyrights but to assume that EVERYONE is doing so is a ridiculous stretch. That the tax is on one of the few territories that do legitimately buy your good is just insane.chemicalreaper said:
In the first you are not getting legitimate music; given that a vast amount of piracy is done using torrents they are legitimising Canadians aiding piracy throughout the rest of the world.
Second forcing the fee is exactly what's being proposed, they talk in terms of 'opting out' not choosing to partake. Their agreement, and monthly payments, will be with the ISP's not the people using the internet.
It's cute that you learned some basic business terms but you are dead wrong. A 10% profit is profit. The bigger your business the bigger your returns and itunes is big; $4.1 billion of profit, note profit not turnover, was reported last year. That is apples lead business when all their other industry only tacked on a further 6 billion. A loss leader actually involves making a LOSS ie: the more is bought the less money you have, that's why loss leaders are 'limited offers' or 'only while stocks last' etc if apple was running music at a loss those 4 billions would be loss and their whole business would have took a mere 2 billion not 10, well that's not much of a leader.
I don't download music illegally, no need. Hell I haven't bought a song from a major label in almost 8 years.
People make music all the time, even without profit as a motivator, even without a label telling them too and even, ocassionally for teh most dedicated, without a known audience. You know what? Some of them are REALLY good and a lot of them put that music up on the internet for free or very low cost.
I can listen to whatever type of music I want when I want without touching a major labels bottom line.
Add to that services like spotify, last FM and youtube discovery mode it's a wonder anyone buys music from them, oh hey... they don't. Yes they collect money from those services but at least innocent bystanders aren't being made to pay.
The whole idea is an accusation; the industry is calling every single internet user a thief or at least enough to justify fining them as standard.
Well, I would pay 40$ per month if I can get all the entertainment I want unlimited and on demand for music, TV, games and movies. I already pay about as much for my TV right now.Raiyan 1.0 said:
The problem is, you could have easily left "illegal downloads" off that list and been about as accurate. Since pirates still tend to buy more music than non-pirates and the folks who don't are unlikely to have bought in the first place, piracy has about as much impact as burning your buddy a CD. Or taping off the radio.chemicalreaper said:
Remember when those were "killing" the industry? I do. What happened? Nothing.
The record labels have screwed themselves, between price fixing, failure to adapt to a new market, and alienating their paying customers, but like any misstep, they need someone to blame. A bogeyman, a scapegoat. PIRACY IS KILLING THE INDUSTRY!
An industry that's been bloated and out of control since the 70s, and really should be unsurprising that its actions caught up to it like a smoker with cancer. It was having serious problems even before Napster made file sharing a household name, and surprise, it hasn't solved any of its problems by suing people, bullying people, and threatening people.
Bullshit. Apple makes *massive* profits from itunes. Not just money, mind, actual profits - over 570 *million* dollars in 2007. (http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2008/03/apple-apparentl/).chemicalreaper said:
And music industry profits as a total are up, and continuing to go up. In the UK, the music industry's own data indicates a 4.7% increase in profits in 2009 compared to 2007.
The music industry's data as far as losses to piracy go is grossly false. They claim that 97% of all online music downloading is done illegally - but for that to be true, then the total number of songs illegally downloaded in 2010 would have to exceed 2 hundred billion *just to balance itunes*. And even should that be true, the industry's mad belief that this equates to 200,000,000,000 lost sales is...beyond belief.
