Canadian Songwriters Propose All-You-Can-Download Net Tax
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
This is a good idea, but how is the money getting to the artists? If it's all going to the SAC, then (assuming I was Canadian) I would download all the music I normally buy legally illegally just to stick a giant middle finger at them.
That is ridiculous. Haha, they made up a statistic to make "pirates" pay the state for music "stolen" from record companies? How does that make any sense at all. In order for the industry to benefit from that, they would have to nationlize the industry and subsidize it with said tax money. That made up statistic also makes sure to encompass people who may not be guilty of downloading music illegally. And so we return to kindergarten politics, where the few do something bad and the whole are made to pay for it. You honestly can't blame the bad for such poor policy. You can argue that if they didn't do it, it wouldn't be so. But at this point, the mere threat is what people make these policies for.
I feel sorry for musicians the most, first they are raped by the record company, then raped by piracy, then raped by government. The laws of human action dictate that soon, the people will stop making music. They will reap no benefits from their hard work in the field, so they will have to re-allocate time to things that will make them money, such as data entry or government work. You know how creative those government workers are.
They can't not pay it. That is the point. Everyone pays this, if you want internet, you pay this extra tax. But this isn't going to recoup money for record companies or artists. It would actually serve to put the final nail in the coffin.mjc0961 said:
I feel sorry for musicians the most, first they are raped by the record company, then raped by piracy, then raped by government. The laws of human action dictate that soon, the people will stop making music. They will reap no benefits from their hard work in the field, so they will have to re-allocate time to things that will make them money, such as data entry or government work. You know how creative those government workers are.
Wow, you must spend a lot of money on music if that seems like a good idea to you. You must be Oprah rich.Tankichi said:
So let me get this straight. 10$ a month and I can download as much free music as I want, and it'll be legal?
If so, I could see this as a good thing.
Well, except the part where people who don't do this have to pay money for nothing.
If so, I could see this as a good thing.
Well, except the part where people who don't do this have to pay money for nothing.
Quick questions:
1. What if you don't download music illegally?
2. Is this just for downloading the music of canadian artists? (If it falls under Canadian copyright law, then i may mean that the downloader is a Canadian citizen, and the artist doesn't matter)
This... actually sounds like a good idea. This about it. People download hundreds of songs illegally a month. When you purchase songs legally, it costs a buck or so for each song. So the industry wants to give us unlimited downloads and all we have to pay is 10 dollars? This sounds awesome!
In fact, it may actually encourage more downloading because it will be legal, and you would want to download at least 10 songs a month to make up the difference.
1. What if you don't download music illegally?
2. Is this just for downloading the music of canadian artists? (If it falls under Canadian copyright law, then i may mean that the downloader is a Canadian citizen, and the artist doesn't matter)
This... actually sounds like a good idea. This about it. People download hundreds of songs illegally a month. When you purchase songs legally, it costs a buck or so for each song. So the industry wants to give us unlimited downloads and all we have to pay is 10 dollars? This sounds awesome!
In fact, it may actually encourage more downloading because it will be legal, and you would want to download at least 10 songs a month to make up the difference.
So am I going to have to have to pay an extra $10 to be allowed to download movies? How about an extra $10 for games? Books? Pictures? What if I don't do any of these things? Is my internet bill going to cost an extra $50 a month for other people doing such a thing?
I will definately say that I'm not in agreement with this idea...
I will definately say that I'm not in agreement with this idea...
Since not everyone pirates music (I download music, but everything I listen to is legally free) I'm opposed to this. They're basically getting tons of money for not doing a damn thing.
IF you want to do this, just setup a site with a $10 a month membership that allows you to direct download high quality MP3s or FLAC files, DRM free, as much as you want.
IF you want to do this, just setup a site with a $10 a month membership that allows you to direct download high quality MP3s or FLAC files, DRM free, as much as you want.
If you mean quotas, yes all the big ISP's have them, what they were trying to push was that Bell/Rogers could now charge these fees through their resellers meaning the small ISP (who obviously lease some lines from Bell or whoever) would have been forced to charge it too.squid5580 said:
So, in effect, that would have eliminated "plan B, going with another ISP" if you need a lot of bandwitdh, since every single ISP would charge this, this would also have killed a lot of smaller ISP's, since they usually set themselves apart from the "big boys" with huge/no quotas and/or smaller fees.
A lot of places already do this. Down here in Australia at least, products in a store are marked up to account for the profit lost due to shoplifting. I agree that punishing the people who do the right thing may not be the best way to go, but I honestly cannot come up with a better solution.
