Canadian Songwriters' Collective Licensing Bid Goes Voluntary 93
Last year, the Songwriters Association of Canada (SAC) proposed a plan to legalize the file sharing of copyrighted songs, which involved a small monthly fee to people using an internet connection. Critics of the plan complained that it amounted to another tax, and the Canadian recording industry said it violated copyright law. Now, as an anonymous reader writes,
"The SAC has renewed its bid to legalize peer-to-peer file sharing in return for a levy on Internet service. The SAC is now calling for the plan to be voluntary, with both consumers and creators having the right to opt-out. ACTRA, the leading performer group in Canada, now says it is also supportive of a legalized approach with the prospect of extending the plan to video sharing."
Re:Letting artists opt-out makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Letting individual copyright holders opt-out makes the proposal useless. The entire point was that, for a small monthly tax, people wouldn't have to worry about copyrights so far as non-commercial, personal use was concerned. If it doesn't apply to all copyrighted content, though, the resulting situation wouldn't be much different than what we have now; people would still run the risk of a lawsuit every time they shared something. (You don't expect anyone to actually check the lists, right? Even assuming they're even published in an accessible fashion, if people are paying a monthly "file sharing" tax they're going to expect access to everything.)
Re:Letting artists opt-out makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes... and how will you, the individual copyright holder whose rights this plan respects, get paid assuming you don't opt-out?
I'll bet you won't. I'll bet this doesn't respect your ownership of copyright at all.
Re:Letting artists opt-out makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
No, no, no. Opt-in is the way it should work. It's only opt-out because of the hassle it takes to actually opt-out, and it depends on the general ignorance of the people that they won't be properly informed that they're even paying this extra tax and that it's possible to opt-out. With these two issues, they would get a huge "sign-up' to this scheme.
Translation:
If you do not wish to get notified about our latest v14gr4 and c1al1s offerings, please send an empty email to unsubscribe@spammer.cx
The result is also the same: you get targeted.
Just like the Blank CD levy.. (Score:5, Insightful)
No artist gets paid.
I wish somebody could get a video of Avril Lavigne's answer to: "Did you get your cheque for your portion of the Blank CD levy?"
Re:Screw Canadian media (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, Canada's stupid protectionist media laws have given us the fantastic sounds of Nickelback, Avril Levigne, and Alanis Morrisette.
Yeah, welcome to the music industry. Or have you not noticed that the US has its fair share of complete, utter garbage, too?
No, I'm sorry, the cancon rules may have their problems and you may disagree with them, but they're hardly responsible for the glut of crap that clogs the airwaves. For that you can blame good ol' fashion pop culture.
Great, Just let me Opt-Out (Score:4, Insightful)
Opt-out or not, a tax is the WORST approach. (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) Most of the money comes from people who are not filesharing. So the many are punished for the deeds of the few. This is a bankrupt philosophy.
(2) You know very well that little if any of the money will go to the artists. So what's the point?
(3) It does absolutely nothing to solve the "problem".
The money comes from the wrong place, it will go to the wrong place, and it solves nothing. So what is this for?
Re:Wha? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who the blaze uses CDs anymore? People download from the internet onto their computers, and then transfer to their mp3 player.