Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Media The Internet

Canadian Songwriters Propose Collective Licensing 455

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the all-about-just-gettin-paid dept.
aboivin writes "The Songwriters association of Canada has put forward a proposition for collective licensing of music for personal use. The Right to Equitable Remuneration for Music File Sharing would legalize sharing of a copy of a copyrighted musical work without motive of financial gain, for a monthly fee of $5.00 applied to all Canadian internet connections, which would be distributed to creators and rights holders. From the proposal: 'File sharing is both a revolution in music distribution and a very positive phenomenon. The volunteer efforts of millions of music fans creates a much greater choice of repertoire for consumers while allowing songs — both new and old, well known and obscure — to be heard. All that's needed to fulfill this revolution in distribution is a way for Creators and rights holders to be paid.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Songwriters Propose Collective Licensing

Comments Filter:
  • Great, another tax (Score:5, Insightful)

    by danomac (1032160) * on Monday January 28, 2008 @06:32PM (#22214194)
    My first thought: This is like taxing the postal service to deliver copied works. How is that supposed to work?

    And they *say* they'll distribute the funds, but that hasn't seemed to work in the past. Why is this going to work now? Someone needs to realize this can't work in practice.
    • by holophrastic (221104) on Monday January 28, 2008 @06:39PM (#22214310)
      This is why I love being Canadian. The solution to a big huge problem is usually nothing more than a smaller tiny problem. Canadians have no problems paying taxes -- we're realyl good at it too. A $5 monthly tax not only results in virtually unlimited music downloads, but it also saves on court costs, law enforcement costs, and regulation costs associated with making something illegal even though the majority of the population desires it.

      Now that's democracy. If the majority wants free music sharing, then it gets to happen.

      So in fact, the $5 is a savings when it comes to all Canadian taxes. That's what I mean by a small problem -- $5 for music -- solving a large problem -- many hundreds of dollars for law regulation, enforcement, and court fees; not to mention the resources of those court personnel and the delays towards court cases that actually matter -- not that we have many murders in this country.

      A $60 annual tax is really nothing to complain about. And hey, being a part of the internet service, it gets written off as a business expense!
      • by syousef (465911)
        ...just so long as it stays a $5/month tax. What's to prevent tax creep such that it becomes $30/month. Now that'd still be a good deal for a lot of music lovers BUT what if I want to use my connection for business purposes (I know I use it to do support from home and don't listen to much music).

        The tax should be optional. Downloading without paying the tax should be illegal. Like a fishing license for music. If I don't go fishing I don't pay a tax on fishing. If I don't go hunting music I should not have t
        • by djmurdoch (306849)
          The tax should be optional. Downloading without paying the tax should be illegal. Like a fishing license for music. If I don't go fishing I don't pay a tax on fishing. If I don't go hunting music I should not have to pay.

          That makes it a lot more expensive to administer, because then you need a big bureaucracy to handle the licensing. You would also have a lot of illegal downloading, and we'd be more or less in the current situation.

          The main difficulty with this proposal is determining a fair distribution o
          • by Rei (128717)
            It is so easy to fake traffic if the share is based on traffic

            Well, one obvious advancement over that scheme is weighting it by unique individuals. I.e., it's not how much a person downloads, but what percent of what they download belongs to what artist. Since this is tied into purchased net connections, not handles or anything else that could be Sybiled, you can pull it off pretty effectively.

            You're still subject to artificial weighting, such as "Hey, everyone who likes this song, download it a whole bu
        • by Xelios (822510) on Monday January 28, 2008 @08:23PM (#22215810)
          The CDR levy was initially 5.2 cents per unit, back when CDR's cost over a dollar each. Now, when CDR's cost a few cents each, the levy is over 21 cents per unit. The Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC) tried to raise it to 59 cents per unit just 2 years ago, but the public outcry over it forced them to scrap that plan. Right now the levy makes up well over half the price of a spindle of CDR's.

          I have no doubt the same would happen to this flat monthly tax. This year it's $5. Next year it's $6. In 2009 it'll suddenly jump to $10. And the RIAA would still be complaining.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Jesus_666 (702802)
          Blanket fees are much easier. We have a similar system in Germany, where all blank CDs/DVDs and all CD/DVD burners have a levy attached (currently about 8 ct/hr playtime). The money is collected by the GEMA, an association managing the publication and copyrights of songs. The GEMA then distributes the money amongst its members - which are musicians, not record companies.

          There are a lot of catches, though. For example, the GEMA is not free of scumbaggery. For example, it distinguishes between "serious musi
      • by Goalie_Ca (584234)
        I don't download music illegally. How will my $5 go to my favourite indie artists.
        • by Dr Caleb (121505)
          It won't. Just like the CD levy doesn't go to artists. The $5 a month would go to songwriters. Who get paid to write songs, and would get more royalties if they wrote better songs.

          Guess that didn't occur to them. Next up, a $5 tax on tires for car designers.
      • I'll wait and see who reacts and how. Sometimes simple ideas are revolutionary ideas and that scares the establishment.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ShieldW0lf (601553)
        Digital copies aren't a product. They're an advertisement for a performer. They should be treated as such.

        Still, it's a huge improvement over the existing situation. As long as we're not paying "per-use" or "per-song", we're still creating a situation where the common person on the street is subtly encouraged to expose themselves to as much culture and knowledge as their time, interest and curiosity allows without a financial disincentive and still supporting our artists. That's the most important thing
      • by vux984 (928602) on Monday January 28, 2008 @07:24PM (#22215050)
        So first we pay the songwriters $5/mo
        Then we pay the movie writers $10/mo
        Then we pay the book industry $10/mo
        Then we pay the software industry $10/mo
        Then adobe and microsoft step up and say they are so big and widley pirated they should each get their own special levies...$20/mo
        Then we pay Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft [again] $10/mo for piracy of their console games
        Then the songwriters notice they are only getting $5/mo and demand a raise to $10/mo like everyone else
        Then bloggers find out when people read their blogs they are actually downloading a copy and demand their cut... $10/mo
        Then photographers demand their fee for all the images that get downloaded .. $10/mo
        Then supermodels and celebrities discover that people are trading naked pictures of them without a model release and demand their fee, separate from the photographers... $10/mo
        Then myspace users who are having their 'private pictures' redistributed...

        "A $60 annual tax is really nothing to complain about."

        How about $1200+ ??

        • by PCM2 (4486) on Monday January 28, 2008 @08:14PM (#22215734) Homepage
          First they passed a tax to pay the songwriters. I said nothing, because I don't listen to music.
          Then they passed a tax to pay the movie writers. Again I said nothing, because I don't go to the movies.
          Then they passed a tax to pay the book industry. I said nothing, because I don't read.
          Then they passed a tax to pay the software industry. I said nothing, because I don't own a computer.
          Then they passed a tax to pay me ... but there was nobody left with any money. :-(
      • This is why I love being Canadian.

        Your sentiments are shared, but it's worth pointing out we're also responsible for Anne Murray, Gordon Lightfoot and Celine Dion.

        So in fact, the $5 is a savings when it comes to all Canadian taxes. That's what I mean by a small problem -- $5 for music -- solving a large problem -- many hundreds of dollars for law regulation, enforcement, and court fees; not to mention the resources of those court personnel and the delays towards court cases that actually matter -- not that
        • by Patoski (121455) on Monday January 28, 2008 @09:06PM (#22216222) Homepage Journal
          The suddenoutbreakofcommonsense might work in Canada, but in the U.S., it's a very different story.

          In my eyes it is anything but common sense but is merely the rule of man, substituted for the rule of law.

          Why should the innocent be forced to pay for the illegal acts of others? Many of these people broke no law, yet they are being penalized for others' lawlessness. The guilty and the innocent are both treated equally. By any reasonable definition, this is surely injustice.

          One of the reasons people moved to the New World was to establish a system of laws where every person was responsible for their actions, but not that of his brother or sister (e.g. debtor prisons). How then can you justly explain to your neighbor that he must pay for your illegal acts, without calling it legalized theft?

          Surely $5 sounds like a trivial matter, hardly worth even debating, but what happens to the cries of all the others who claim they are wronged by thievery of all kinds on the Internet? Can you say yes to the music industry but no to movie studios, books, newspapers, TV, and the host of others sure to claim their victim status? Will you pay all of these groups, and ask your neighbor on dial-up to help? This is justice perverted and the police powers of the state made corrupt.

          Is the rule of law not debased when it allows and even requires injustice to be institutionalized?

          I guess we all get the kind government we deserve.

          If this is the case, then I hope we are never worthy of such institutions.
      • by canuck57 (662392)

        This is why I love being Canadian. The solution to a big huge problem is usually nothing more than a smaller tiny problem. Canadians have no problems paying taxes -- we're realyl good at it too. A $5 monthly tax not only results in virtually unlimited music downloads, but it also saves on court costs, law enforcement costs, and regulation costs associated with making something illegal even though the majority of the population desires it.

        Read the fine print, legal to download. First, you have to find a si

  • by Arthur B. (806360)
    Either file sharing is intrinsically legitimate or it's not. If it is, then there is no reason to impose this $5 tax, it it is not, then introducing any form of compensation won't make it right either.
    • by EEBaum (520514)
      Why wouldn't it? If, hypothetically, the lack of people being paid for what is shared is what makes it illegitimate, it seems reasonable to me that people being paid for what is shared would indeed legitimize it.
      • by cHiphead (17854)
        Its Business Welfare at that point. What if you don't want to download 'Canadian' copyrighted music? How does this legalize downloading American copyrighted music? I'm fairly certain that treaties between the US and Canada require upholding copyright.

        It should not be on the citizens to support a business model that simply doesn't work. Sorry labels and other bullshit middlemen, if you have not adapted by now, you will die.

        Cheers.
  • Who Gets Left Out? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Arccot (1115809) on Monday January 28, 2008 @06:38PM (#22214288)
    Problem #1: There is always someone judging which band/group/artists get into the system, and who gets left out.

    Problem #2: Whoever collects the money has an automatic monopoly. No competition means the monopoly can take a bigger cut of the profits.

    Problem #3: This creates a problem for new or up-and-coming groups. They often get their exposure by offering their music, or samples of it, for free. Fewer people will hear them when the cost is the same as more established groups.
    • Problem #4: The cost of getting government involved is always greater than the amount of capitol paid out by the system.

      In my government (the USA) it costs $40,000 to create a $16,000/Yr job (I am quoting 1992 statistics.) The bureaucrats get the lion's share of the money.

  • by Bartab (233395) on Monday January 28, 2008 @06:39PM (#22214312)
    Rent Seeking! Everybody else does it!
    • Is it really rent-seeking?

      Or is it that these guys have come to the conclusion that you can't stop piracy short of incredibly draconian trusted computing, and figured out that a statutory license is a better idea?

      I'd make the analogy with the royalty system for radio airplay. When radio first came out, copyright holders didn't want to allow their songs to be played on the radio for free. Eventually in most jurisdictions the current system of X number of cents per airplay had to be imposed on copyright holde
  • Who decides which creator gets which piece of this pie? The Canadian RIAA, or the Canadian ministry of culture? Either way, is there any reason to assume their money allocation will be anything similar to what music consumers actually want?
    • by Rogerborg (306625)
      I'm sure it'll be perfectly equitable. 50% to Celine Dion, 50% to Bryan Adams.
      • I have a hunch that Rush has outsold both of them.

        And their music is a helluva more interesting than the pop-showtune crap that Dion vomits and the pop-rock crapola that Adams is known for.
  • by gnutoo (1154137) on Monday January 28, 2008 @06:41PM (#22214342) Journal

    The general idea is great, but implementation details matter. I doubt the average Canadian house spends $60/year on music, so the $5/month is excessive. The other thing that caught my eye was this:

    Virtually all sharing on the internet and wireless devices would be tracked. Companies who currently do this type of tracking have prepared themselves and are waiting in the wings. Creators and rights holders will be paid with a level of speed and accuracy never before possible.

    Who are these mysterious people waiting in the wings that have been spying on everyone? Media Sentry? The same clowns who would tell you that 98% of all online music is "theft"? Most artists should say, loud and clear, "no thanks" unless they can trust the monitoring company to honestly report listening. The industry has that has so long given artists the shaft should be discarded. Everyone else should say, "no thanks" to having all of their internet traffic monitored.

    The obvious choice between earning a living by song and dance and personal entertainment or liberty is liberty. Today they want to listen, tomorrow they will censor. The trade off is not worth while.

    • Virtually all sharing on the internet and wireless devices would be tracked. Companies who currently do this type of tracking have prepared themselves and are waiting in the wings. Creators and rights holders will be paid with a level of speed and accuracy never before possible. Who are these mysterious people waiting in the wings that have been spying on everyone?

      And how are they going to track sharing via wireless devices, not on the internet? On Saturday I bought a four gigabyte memory card for my pho

  • ... File Sharing would legalize sharing of a copy of a copyrighted musical work without motive of financial gain, for a monthly fee of $5.00 applied to all Canadian internet connections, ...

    Have enough social fees on my utility bills already.

    It is so totally stupid that this is even been contemplated. The best part, it likely will not get past the government, they don't like competition.

    • by cliffski (65094)
      agreed. this is a completely mental idea. My two beefs with it are:

      a) How the fuck do you decide who gets paid what? how does the small indie band that might have been making $100 a month from their music get that $100? Who is going to argue their case and ensure they get their fair allocation? Who will be listened to in terms of changes to the allocation? will it rise with inflation? or with the amount of music listened to or downloaded?

      b)Personally, I don;t download music from the web. I buy the occasiona
  • by russotto (537200) on Monday January 28, 2008 @06:43PM (#22214392) Journal
    I'd like $5/month from every internet connection in Canada too. Also I'd like a Ferrari and a Lear Jet.

    It's hard to see this as anything but a blatant money-grab. Lots of us use Internet connections for reasons completely unrelated to music; why should we be forced to pay for that? What next, another $5 for the Canadian version of the MPAA, plus $2 for TV shows? Then $5 for the BSA? Another $5 for copyrighted books, and another $5 for comic books?
  • by strike6 (823490)
    So, everyone pays even though only a small percentage do it? Then the Porn industry will want their $5 next, and then the Movie industry, etc.... This could get expensive REAL, I mean REAL, fast......Just sayin'......
  • by bcrowell (177657) on Monday January 28, 2008 @06:45PM (#22214442) Homepage

    Say Grandma has an internet connection, and uses it only for sending email. She lives on a fixed income. Why should she pay $5 a month to subsidize other people so they can get free music by violating copyright? For someone on a fixed income, another $5/mo bill is a significant hit. Maybe that's $5 she could have spent having lunch with her bridge club at IHOP.

    Basically the problem is that copyright is unenforceable, and a majority of the population feels no moral compunctions about violating it. (I happen to disagree with the majority, but that battle is lost, and it's time to move on.) How exactly does it follow from these circumstances that every single member of the population should be forced to pay a subsidy?

    Realistically, the music industry is going to have to shrink. Boo hoo. There's no law of nature that dictates that x% of GDP should be spent on recorded music. A hundred years ago, nobody had recorded music, and the only way you got to hear any was either (a) by making music yourself, or (b) going out to hear a band. Then there was a long period where the default way to get music was to listen to commercially produced recordings, you didn't get much choice because the distribution channels (radio and LPs) couldn't cater to the long tails, and the record companies made out like robber barons. Now we're entering a new period, where the record companies have no legitimate function, and the distribution channels can cater to the long tails. It's just a change that's dictated by technology. The good news is that even if the industry shrinks, cutting out the middleman could actually increase remuneration to artists. We don't need a tax to make that happen.

    • by djmurdoch (306849)
      Say Grandma has an internet connection, and uses it only for sending email. She lives on a fixed income. Why should she pay $5 a month to subsidize other people so they can get free music by violating copyright? For someone on a fixed income, another $5/mo bill is a significant hit. Maybe that's $5 she could have spent having lunch with her bridge club at IHOP.

      She's paying the tax so other people won't be violating copyright. If she doesn't like it, she could save some money by downgrading to dialup. (Ass
      • Having your internet connection choice dependent on your musical habits is absurd since the primary reason for the existence and purchase of broadband services is not music sharing.
    • by Azarael (896715)
      The Grandma of today will be very different from the ones decades from now (which is the time scale that this solution will work on). I'm not saying that what you mention isn't a problem now, but in the future peoples priorities will probably be different, so that $5 will end up coming from somewhere else like cable, or magazine subscriptions.
  • A really like this idea, and I would really like it to work, right up to the point at which they have to decide how to split the money. Who decides how much everyone gets? I can't think of any fair way to do this.

    However, if they are seriously suggesting this, that means they might be up for some other system. How about a system which lets you download as much as you like and registers what you download? Still charge every $5 for it, and if you make it easy enough to use, people would use it instead of pira
  • Why only music? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tjansen (2845) on Monday January 28, 2008 @06:49PM (#22214490) Homepage
    Why only music? Let's add movies for another $5, because they copy them as well on the internet. $10 more for TV shows (hey, pay-per-view is expensive). I heard they pirate Operating Systems, so let's add another $15 for free Windows and MacOS sharing. And they even pirate expensive CAD applications, let's add $25 for them... Soon no one will be able to afford the internet anymore, only because every creator of intellectual property wants to be subsidized instead of competing in the market.
    • How do you determine who gets what amount of money?

      I mean let's say we decided to do this with software. We get all the software makers to agree that you can freely distribute their software. They won't be paid in sales, rather they'll be paid by a fee that all users are charged. This would sound good to many OSS people since it would make OSS a real viable way of doing business.

      Ok, but how do we determine who gets what amount? We can't base it off of # of copies distributed. For one we don't know what that
  • Big distributors get their cut, fine. But now there is less money to spend on artists directly at concerts and CD sales. It is probably not so great for artist friendly distributors like http://magnatune.com/ [magnatune.com] either - although they would have a better chance of fighting for their (and their artists) share.
  • Richard Stallman proposed a scheme like this in 1992.
    The controversy at the time was Digital Audio Tape (DAT),
    but the issues are the same. See The Right Way to Tax DAT, at
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/dat.html [gnu.org]
  • I love clear concise Canadian thinking.

    Pay a small flat rate, download all the music you want. I like it.

    Of course, I think it should be optional, and if you're caught downloading music without paying the fee, you deserve to get raked over the coals (now that an alternative exists).

    In the alternative, I'd be just as happy if they started a repository of music, with a $5 monthly access fee, and had all the music in losses mp3 and ogg. I'd win, because I'd finally have a legal method to sample music, and they
  • I have no problem with paying this disguised tax, as long as they set up free access to all their work. And for 60$ a year, it'd better be high quality and DRM-free.

    If they don't agree to my demands, I won't agree to theirs. They can go hump a camel for all I care.
  • oh wait, we did that... and they still complain.
  • By rights holders, they mean the ones who hold the copyright to the music. For most artists signed to the major labels, that means the labels and not the artists. The record labels publicly lament that the artists aren't getting the money owed to them, when in fact the labels themselves do as much as they can to keep the artists from getting paid.

    For example, the US copyright board is considering setting a new standard royalty rate for recordings. I think this is the money owed to the composers for eac

  • by pseudorand (603231) on Monday January 28, 2008 @06:59PM (#22214676)
    So how is it they're going to figure out how much money to distribute to each copyright holder? I guess you could try some massive AI that sniffs all internet traffic, identifies copyrighted content, and tracks who's stuff is shared the most, but that would probably cost about $4.99/internet connection. Maybe they're just going to give all copyright holders the same amount. In that case, I think my parents have a wonderful recording of me singing when I was 5, which I should clearly be the copyright holder on. I can have it posted on my website (hosted in the US but accessible in Canada) in a minute or two. How do I tell the Canadian government where to send my check?
  • Reasonable, if... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by eskwayrd (575069)
    I would have no problem with this proposal, provided the following responsibilities were imposed:

    1) Transparent accounting of disbursements; every month, the collection agency would have to show how much money was collected, and how the money was disbursed.

    2) The collection agency must not favour one industry over another; copyright is copyright. It makes no difference whether the copyrighted item is a bunch of bytes representing a work of music, movie, animation, literature, source code, etc. The disbursem
  • SOCAN Sucks. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jericho4.0 (565125) on Monday January 28, 2008 @07:08PM (#22214784)
    I'm Canadian, a musician, a member of SOCAN, and a computer geek. SOCAN sends me a check every 3 months.

    Why the fuck should I have my internet bill go up $5 a month!? I'm not downloading that much, my parents aren't either. Very few people are, why should the rest of us pay? Anyway, 90% of the music I download is not covered by SOCAN in the first place, how do those artists get their money?

    This is a stupid idea. Music is now, for all intents and purposes, free. I'm cool with that, and I've made a living of music for years. WHAT THE FUCK DID SOCAN EVER DO FOR ME BUT PAY FOR LOBBYISTS?

    • Anyway, 90% of the music I download is not covered by SOCAN in the first place, how do those artists get their money?

      This is quite possibly the most important question about the whole scheme, because the answer is that most of the artists won't, and that ruins the entire justification for it in the first place, before you even consider the other problems with the setup.

      I've seen how this plays out with other collection rackets like ASCAP, and it's very clear that especially as you move down the long tail, a
  • by pizpot (622748)
    Well, then we better have a referendum, so we can vote this down. And the song writers pay for the referendum btw. I find mp3s sound terrible in our good systems and dont use them, thank you very much.
  • Community networks (Score:3, Interesting)

    by webmaster404 (1148909) on Monday January 28, 2008 @07:14PM (#22214874)
    I don't really see how this tax is going to work when I can usually get someone else's internet connection for free and generally that's not a big deal however with this tax how will it work? Also, could this harm city-wide wifi? I'm all for this if it comes to the US (the price is a bit steep but if it keeps the RIAA from attacking citizens its a good thing) but how will it work when there are multiple connections per person and one person can use other people's connection.
  • I don't download or share music (or movies) and my cellphone is so old it only makes phone calls -- no: ringtones, camera, mp3 player, texting, video, etc -- and I *like* it that way! So I'd be paying $120 a year for something I do not or cannot do. Just great, freaking socialists can kiss my ass.
  • reality (Score:4, Insightful)

    by circletimessquare (444983) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [erauqssemitelcric]> on Monday January 28, 2008 @07:30PM (#22215114) Homepage Journal
    hey music industry: you're done, you're history, you're bankrupt. buh bye

    hey artists: you'll get paid for concerts and advertising, nothing else. get used to it

    that's the reality we are becoming

    don't like it? who cares. that's what is happening anyway. go ahead and make a bunch of laws counteracting this trend. i hereby pass a law saying the sun will move in the opposite direction. same impact on reality

    end of story
  • Somewhat old news (Score:5, Informative)

    by Hemogoblin (982564) on Monday January 28, 2008 @07:36PM (#22215218)
    This was reported on December 3rd by Dr. Michael Geist on his blog here [michaelgeist.ca]. If you're interested in copyright issues in Canada check out his site; he's very informed and an interesting source of information.

    While the SAC could have taken a stronger stand against DRM, this proposal should (though likely won't) cause the government to rethink its decision to import the DMCA into Canada. Even if you disagree with portions of this proposal, it is great to see Canadian songwriters, musicians, and music labels now singing the same song, promoting ways to make money from P2P rather than engage in failed attempt to stop it.
    - Michael Geist
  • by knorthern knight (513660) on Monday January 28, 2008 @07:40PM (#22215266)
    I'm 56, and I average under 5 gigabytes a month on my ADSL account. I subscribe to a legal internet radio service, which compensates artists, and actually plays real music. I do not buy or listen to, let alone download/upload the latest potty-mouthed rapper or Britney-clone-bimbo recorded with today's dynamically-over-compressed crapppy studio effects. Unauthorized downloading of today's crap is a crime against musical taste, and should be outlawed for that reason alone.

        Secondly, this sets a very ugly precedent, if allowed to pass. Musical rights are like construction unions, there's a gazillion of them. The Songwriters and Recording artists are only two of them. There are also performance rights and reproduction rights and who knows what else. By the time they all get their pound of flesh, my $29.95 ADSL account will have a $15/month tax on it.

        But wait, it gets better, or should I say, worse. I'm sure the movie industry will want its $15/month, as will the TV industry. and e-book publishers, and software publishers. So now we're looking at a $75/month tax on my $29.95/month ADSL account.

        This money-grab must be stopped now.
  • by dlevitan (132062) on Monday January 28, 2008 @07:43PM (#22215328)
    Alright, so who do you charge $5? Are you going to charge $5 on my cell phone because I can connect to the internet? What about businesses? Do you charge per employee or per connection? I could be downloading stuff from my business connection. How about college campuses? Do you charge for each connection or for each user? Do you make the college collect the money or does the government do it?. What about libraries? Do they pay? Or how about public wi-fi - the free and the paid variety? And how do you charge for prepaid cell phoness?

    What if I have two internet connections for my house - one for business and one for work. And two cell phones. Oh, and a wifi connection for when I'm at the airport. That $25/month from what I can see.

    This'll never happen just because of the rules involved.
  • Socialized music (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jone_stone (124040) on Monday January 28, 2008 @09:41PM (#22216558) Homepage
    I may be misinterpreting things here, but wouldn't this effectively socialize the Canadian recording industry? If filesharing is legal and people pay a tax to support the recording companies / artists, then that's effectively socialized music.

    Now it's not unheard of for Canada to socialize media -- see the National Film Board, for instance -- but this seems rather extreme.
  • by LordZardoz (155141) on Monday January 28, 2008 @10:19PM (#22216866)
    Being a Canadian, this probably affects me more than the majority of readers here.

    I might go for this, but the implementation would be tricky. What I have in mind is the following.

    1) Do not tack this directly onto the internet bill without consent of the user.
    2) Should be $3.00 or lower, scaled to the quantity of songs downloaded
    3) Should take the form of a hook (like an encryption key) that identifies the user of a file sharing app has having a legitimate license.
    4) The key should be able to confirm that the license is legit and up to date, and nothing else (no way to trace a key to a particular user).

    END COMMUNICATION

If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law. -- Roy Santoro

Working...