5813267
story
Comments: 414 +- News: iPod Fee Proposed For Canada on Monday September 07, @12:15AM
Posted
by
timothy
on Monday September 07, @12:15AM
from the when-organized-interests-meet-diffuse-ones dept.
from the when-organized-interests-meet-diffuse-ones dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmediaall.gif); width:73px; height:59px;
media
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicstorage.gif); width:48px; height:51px;
storage
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmusic.gif); width:60px; height:49px;
music
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topichardware.gif); width:64px; height:55px;
hardware
innocent_white_lamb writes "The Canadian Private Copying Collective is pushing for the implementation of an iPod fee in Canada to compensate them for 'losses' when people copy music to their digital music players. They have collected a fee from every CDR sold in Canada since 1997 and now want to extend that to digital music players. From the article: 'Some have argued that once they buy a CD they shouldn't have to pay again and again to listen to those songs — which they already purchased — on a personal compilation CD or on their MP3 player. But for people like Milman and Basskin, it's about recognizing the value of those works. "There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music," Milman said.'"
Related Stories
: by
One person's error is another person's data.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
There should be (Score:5, Insightful)
a refund on all purchased music in Canada to compensate :-P
Re:There should be (Score:5, Informative)
We actually have such a fee in Spain already. However, the law also happens to state that so-called "private copies" of audiovisual works and the like (i.e. music, movies, books but not software) are legal as long as no profit is made off of them. This applies to file sharing. So we pay the equivalent of the MAFIAA (the SGAE here) a fee for CD/DVD-Rs, hard drives, writable media, flash cards, DVRs, printers, and even cellphones and all sorts off stuff [partidopirata.es] (which is still extremely inane), but at least we can download whatever we want and they can do squat about it (well, they still make those "piracy is a crime" lying TV adverts, but it's not like anyone listens to them). I for one have made it a point not to buy absolutely anything from anyone remotely affiliated with the SGAE ever since they introduced this fee.
Parent
There should be some reality here.... (Score:5, Insightful)
When you stop to think about it, the music RECORDING industry is actually a parasitic one living off the blood, sweat and tears of the musos. It is a separate industry living off the fading body of one of the most ancient and universal professions.
Before I get modded down, think of it this way. Say I own 15 CD's. The artists received maybe $3 out of that - if that. Those CD's keep me pretty much entertained for a year or two. If we didn't have such ubiquitous mass released music recordings, where would I get my music from? Well, probably to a large degree from live musicians. On street corners, in concert halls, coffee shops. For any decent party I'd hire musicians. Same for big events in life. Weddings, funerals etc where a lot of people now just play CD's. The wealthy would be patrons of music again, sponsoring musicians to play in their homes. Just like in the developing world, there would be a lot more musicians making their living out of performing and writing music.
The big recording labels and organisations such as this one TFA refers to are not helping musicians, but stifling music as a profession.
Parent
Re:There should be some reality here.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Before I get modded down
You're going to get modded down for making the same argument that is made on every article about the music industry ever and is always modded up?
Parent
Re:There should be some reality here.... (Score:5, Insightful)
C'mon, we all realize by now that you can get an extra "+1 insightful" for free by saying "Before you mod me down..."
Parent
Aren't you paying for the song on iTunes already? (Score:5, Insightful)
"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music," Milman said.
Yes, and that happenned when you *bought* the song from iTunes. Why would you want some blanket fee for then moving it onto your iPod?
Re:Aren't you paying for the song on iTunes alread (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Aren't you paying for the song on iTunes alread (Score:5, Interesting)
You paid to listen to their music, you can listen to it on whatever device you want.
In an ideal world, yes. You pay for something, you use it. But not these guys. They want you to pay for every format shift. In the case of televised programs, they want to you pay for every time shift. But what if you need to time or format shift it to properly use it? Tough luck, bucko, then you just bought a very nice coaster, good luck returning opened merchandise to the store. They've already pushed the idea that you're only borrowing their music, that putting down money for a disk doesn't grant you the right to use it in any legal way you please.
Their ultimate goal appears to be pay PER USE. Did your daughter put the latest bubblegum pop princess single on repeat ALL this afternoon? Fifty cents a play autocharged to your credit card. Good thing you pay $50 a month for the discount plan, or that would have been a buck fifty a play! We can also sell you the ultra-discount plan that's only $100 a month and ten cents a play! This week only, get TEN FREE PLAYS of any Flava Flav song already in your collection with a three year contract!
Banning or restricting time shifting and format shifting is of no use to the busker on the street, but allows a company to profit by re-selling the same product to the same customer in different wrappers should technology or even a person's work schedule change. Many of the 'little people' (or people who claim to represent the 'little people' or the 'starving artists') who insist that Canada needs copyright reform so they can better feed their families strangely don't explain why their neighbor, whose family won't see paychecks in the fifty years after he dies, should have to enjoy the things he has bought and paid for only on their terms, even if it means he never gets to enjoy them at all.
To my fellow Canadians: The more of this shit we put up with, the more that they'll shovel on us.
http://copyright.econsultation.ca/ [econsultation.ca] - Let them know what you think of the copyright reforms - like this one - being discussed right now.
http://www.pirateparty.ca/sign-up [pirateparty.ca] - Let's see if we can get an actual political party off the ground, one that actually fights for the rights of the people!
(Do I sound like an activist? I was completely politically apathetic, voted twice in my entire life, until they started pulling this garbage. We can't put up with this anymore.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They want you to pay for every format shift.
And I want to rule the world. So? Nobody cares about that, why should we care about their wishes?
I don't give a flying fuck about what the content industry wants. They obviously don't care about what I want, the quality of what has been released lately is enough proof of that. Gimme a reason to waste a nanosecond pondering what they could possibly want.
The first thing that will happen if such restrictions appear is that people will break out their digital crowbars
Re:Aren't you paying for the song on iTunes alread (Score:5, Insightful)
They want you to pay for every format shift.
And I want to rule the world. So? Nobody cares about that, why should we care about their wishes?
Because they've got the lobbyists to make it happen.
I don't give a flying fuck about what the content industry wants. They obviously don't care about what I want, the quality of what has been released lately is enough proof of that. Gimme a reason to waste a nanosecond pondering what they could possibly want.
Because of things like the blank CD levy, where you pay even if you don't do anything illegal, or even anything related to them. You buy no music whatsoever but back up your business data onto CD-R? If you're Canadian then congratulations, you've paid them money without even being a consumer of their product. So they add iPods to that. How long before flash RAM and hard drives get added to the list? They've already proven they can get a levy on a form of storage, regardless of what you do with said storage. If you want to pay an extra cent a gig, fine, but my terabyte drive array takes issue with that.
The first thing that will happen if such restrictions appear is that people will break out their digital crowbars and break it. Simple as that.
Which is just another sort of crime, and one which they're pushing for ever stiffer punishments for. Think they'll never catch you because everyone's doing it? Tell that to Joel Tenenbaum. Just because everyone does it doesn't make it legal, it just means they have more targets. And if they can think of a legal gimmick that lets them drag one hundred thousand people through the court simultaneously (or extort settlements out of same), you can bet they'll do it. Then the fact that there's a million people doing it is trivial. Suddenly you're not one of a million, you're one of TEN.
Why? Because they don't care what someone wants who doesn't care about what they want.
Disproven by the CD levy. Since it gets every CD-R, it's safe to assume they've made profit off deaf people.
Illegal? Here's a phone, iPhone, no less, call someone who cares. Crack down? Ok, go ahead. Encryption works like a charm and sorry, that isn't encrypted, that's data garbage from my last HD crash, I saved it but so far couldn't get around to figuring out what this is, but you're experts, right, have fun.
They've threatened people who don't even have computers. Do you really think hiding your data matters? They've hauled people into court on less than an IP address. Flimsy evidence? You bet, but you gotta pay your lawyer by the hour, not by the strength of the opponent's case. If they make it too expensive to fight, then they'll make money on settlements, and the evidence will never see the light of day.
If everything else fails, dear content industry: I can live without music. Can you live without my money? I hope not. Please die.
Again, you could be stone deaf and still required to give the music industry money. They don't even have to produce much music, all they need to do is convince politicians that your entire demographic group is stealing whatever they do produce and they can tax it out of you. Still doesn't affect you?
Parent
Blanket Media Tax (Score:5, Informative)
Unless that CD is blank, then you pay again.*
Canada needs to stop repeating it's ridiculous history regarding this corporate puppetry.
I'm sick of trying to explain to people why DVDs cost less than CDs where I work.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Aren't you paying for the song on iTunes alread (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
just raise the price! (Score:5, Insightful)
If they want to raise the price, then so be it, and don't waste my time with arguments about why fees are "justified". I'll decide what I'm willing to buy at the new prices.
But why raise the price of the ipod and not the music?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The fee or levy is not for the person who orginally bought the CD but for his friends who copy it. In Canada it is legal to borrow a friends CD and copy it for yourself. This levy pays the right. It's really a silly law as the CD owner is not allowed to copy it for a friend. I guess the government figured it was easier to tax blank media than attempt to stop copying. The RIAA is pushing to have the law changed in Canada however.
There has to be.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm more along the lines of there must be a way to tell the musicians that I have no reason to buy the CD if I am not permitted to listen to it.
And the best thing is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sarcasm aside I really do doubt that any artist on a major label gets half the money that they should. This Milman guy is clearly a douche (put simply) for trying to even suggest that the fee is for the greater good.
Re:And the best thing is... (Score:4, Interesting)
In Canada, if you're running a business, there is a specific field for "accounts receivable that you do not expect to receive." You are not taxed on that income.
Source: my own life, 2007 tax return.
Parent
Re:And the best thing is... (Score:4, Funny)
In Canada, if you're running a business, there is a specific field for "accounts receivable that you do not expect to receive." You are not taxed on that income.
Never having filed any taxes more complicated than a 1040 in the US, I don't know if a similar field exists on US tax forms, but I laughed out loud at the thought of certain companies filling that in.
Company name: Microsoft
Accounts receivable you do not expect to receive: $500,000,000,000,000
Reason(s) you do not expect to receive these funds: China, India, Software piracy (based on BSA estimates, +/- 1 US GDP)
and
Company name: Warner Bros. Pictures
Accounts receivable you do not expect to receive: $+INFINITY
Reason(s) you do not expect to receive these funds: THE INTERNET PIRATES ARE TURNING ALL OUR GREAT RELEASES INTO BOX OFFICE BOMBS!!
Seriously however, the Canadian tax on blank CD media has always completely confounded me. I just can't understand how such an asinine and baseless law not only managed to get passed, but has been on the books for more than 12 years!. The US certainly isn't always a shining example of sane laws, but I tend to hope we wouldn't stand for such a tax down here. I mean, if we had wanted to put the MAFIAA's board of directors in Congress, we would have just voted them in directly.
Parent
Bull (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit, there are no extreme expenses in making music.
Re:Bull (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bull (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit, there are no extreme expenses in making music.
I'll play devil's advocate here: what about the marketing and distribution costs associated with making and selling an album? It could be argued that the present day distribution should be next to $0.00 by doing it electronically however there is marketing and even using banner ads costs money.
Oh, absolutely. And when you can show me the math that explains why the banner ads take up so much of the cost that the artist is lucky to make a penny on the dollar, then I'll agree with you.
Here's my problem with the whole thing - the artist doesn't make any money directly off a CD. He can't, he's signed away his rights to his corporate masters - which is why they want the copyright to go for more than half a century after he kicks the bucket - they'll still be around. He writes the song, he sings the song, and then THEY take the song, THEY sell the song, THEY take the profits, and give him a check for $100,000 and a bill for $200,000 of studio time, half to be paid now. (Oh, they didn't mention that they sometimes shunt expenses off on the artist? Funny how they'd forget to mention that when they tell you that the artist can't afford to feed his kids.)
It's not that the record industry is merely a middleman, it's that they're the company store [wikipedia.org]. They don't pay musicians in scrip, but they make them sign a paper that says they'll only buy from them, even if everyone else is selling at a tenth of the price, so it's no different. They keep artists as slaves, and they want as tight a lock on the consumer. It's why they hate the Internet - they can't force everyone to install a magic program that stops them from downloading or format shifting music, ever. But damn, do they try (cough cough, Sony rootkit, cough). They also don't like it when you - GASP - pay the money directly to the artist. It threatens their existence.
It's all unmitigated, naked greed. If they weren't profiting off CDs, they'd either change their marketing, or raise the prices on CDs, or cut costs, or go under. Nope. They see that the government has this sweet scam called "taxes" and they want in on it. Since raising an army or police force to enforce said tax would be prohibitively expensive, they just want to hijack the existing infrastructure. So they take that money they got from the starving artist, that money you gave them because you thought the artist put out a good CD and wanted to support his work, and they use it to hire lobbyists, and spokesmen, and lawyers, and build a nice big fat expense account for said lobbyists, and spokesmen, and lawyers. So they can make even more money, and hire more lobbyists, and spokesmen, and lawyers, and then invent another way to squeeze more pennies out of you.
Parent
Physicist and engineer compensation (Score:4, Insightful)
Music in the past was about live performance. This required a lot of musicians. The recording companies then discovered they could change it to an industry that depended almost entirely on recordings, thus killing off a lot of the demand for live performance. Did they compensate those out of work musicians? No. So why should they be paid now? How is their case different?
Parent
Canada...ahh those socialists...! (Score:3, Interesting)
"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music," Milman said."
How about saving the artists all their toil by educating them on the fact that their works might be enjoyed free of charge? It's Canada we are talking about, where a health-care bill is guaranteed never to force you into bankruptcy.
I subscribe to the thought that "when you you make your bed, you must sleep in it."
Re:Canada...ahh those socialists...! (Score:5, Insightful)
The real question is whether these fees actually help musicians, or just pad the pockets of the recording industry.
I'm guessing you know the answer. The real way to help musicians is to socially encourage paying for music. Seems to be working okay for Jonathan Coulton.
Parent
Sounds like the leeches are out again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The last I looked, the song download networks are not teaming with symphony recordings. I'm betting they are safe.
---
Many expenses associated with movies and songs are really the entertainment corporation taking money from their left pocket and putting it in their right pocket to deny the artists royalties.
Re:Sounds like the leeches are out again (Score:5, Insightful)
I know you're exaggerating, but writing, recording and mixing a full length album for $100 is only possible if your time is free. And your software as well (Ableton, Native Instruments). And your hardware (computers, midi controllers, instruments, microphones). And you pay no electricity bills.
Forgive me if I'm missing something here -- it's the middle of the night and I'm honestly just *asking* the question: Is a musician a special class requiring this distinct consideration? How does this differ from a photographer ... or a painter ... or a writer...? (...or a programmer?)
Take writing for example. Sure, your time isn't free, but unless you are Stephen King or Malcolm Gladwell (or someone who has been fortunate enough to be "signed" to a publishing label), you can't really expect to count your time as a COST. The countless writes and re-writes, drafts you show to people (maybe having to hire an editor out of your own pocket). It's just something you do in between making ends meet, whatever that might mean for you.
As for equipment ... again, ask any photographer or studio artist about the costs of materials / equipment.
Again, I'm not trying to pick a fight here. (I respect artists of all kinds. I've often wondered what will happen when the next generation or two who have grown up with a different philosophy about information being free become the voting majority and start re-writing the laws.) I just wonder where you were going with this idea of yours...
Parent
Reverse logic (Score:5, Interesting)
There has to be some sort of way to safeguard the buyer from undue taxation by private companies given the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense (in terms of time) that goes into making a decent salary.
Isn't that so Mr. Milman?
Re:Reverse logic (Score:4, Insightful)
It's too bad the populace doesn't realize that it has the power to destroy all of this nonsense.
Parent
fail (Score:3, Insightful)
nothing encourages people to respect copyright law like charging them regardless of any actual infringement... No different than the auto industry, failing to adapt and then when it finally bites them go looking for a way to prop up their doomed business practices.
Presumption of Guilt (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no illusions that the implied presumption of guilt hasn't been brought up previously, especially wrt Canadian CD-R fees. But the arrogance of it never ceases to amaze me. Same goes for the acceptance of it.
If this kind of logic were applied to a car, then there'd be a "excessive speed fee" applied to every new or used automobile, and perhaps even a "getaway car penalty" for particular models.
Astounding.
Who gets the money (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why pro-copyright people are scumbags... (Score:3, Insightful)
They want to extract money from users who aren't even their customers. Copyright parasite: "I created content, so you will give me money whether you consume it or not. I have the right to your money."
I sure am glad these leaches cannot tax my data storage devices where I live. Of course I make sure to educate people about how if you buy CDs that are marked for audio, the parasites get a bit of the proceeds.
If it came to it, I would pay more for blank media just to avoid funding the parasites.
Plan for profit (Score:4, Interesting)
2) Have the EULA of the site say the uploader releases his revenue via the iPod Fee to the site.
3) Make said songs available for ipod download.
4) Go to the Canadian Private Copying Collectivem and demand the percentage of the fee your users represent.. if there are 10.000 artists and you have 10.000 users, you should get half.
5) Profit.
Re:Plan for profit (Score:5, Informative)
1) Make a site where everyone in Canada can karaoke into and sing whatever they want, or upload their garage band songs. however badly (bring on the Thrash yodling). 2) Have the EULA of the site say the uploader releases his revenue via the iPod Fee to the site. 3) Make said songs available for ipod download. 4) Go to the Canadian Private Copying Collectivem and demand the percentage of the fee your users represent.. if there are 10.000 artists and you have 10.000 users, you should get half. 5) Profit.
Won't work. They'll only give the money to who they want to. My proof? Look at the blank media levy. You burn a CD full of Swedish metal, do they send a few cents to the Swedes? Nope. They keep a cut, and send the rest to Avril Lavigne. Burn a CD full of pictures of your baby, do they refund the levy? Hell no! They keep a cut, send the rest to Celine Dion. They've said as much when artists who didn't get a piece of the levy - hell, garage artists who had to PAY THE LEVY TO GET THE BLANK DISKS TO DISTRIBUTE THEIR MUSIC - came calling for a slice of the pie. The money goes where they say, how they say, and anyone not on their list of worthy recipients can go fuck themselves - because once the Collective is done fucking them, they're not even gonna give a reach-around.
Parent
Double Extreme Expense?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Pure corruption (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no natural right to make a profit. You have the right to try. But if you fail, even if you've previously been successful, that's not society's problem: it's yours.
Most of us live near the USA (Score:3, Interesting)
Bring it on (Score:3, Interesting)
trademark and all.
It won't affect me any my non-iPod Ogg Vorbis player.
Seriously, do Apple give out free tee-shirts every time someone uses their trademarks to describe everyday items?
Wait, go to go, there's a call coming in on my iPhone. The one with "Nokia" on the front.
Meanwhile, 10 years in the future... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Grandpa, is it true that back in the old days music didn't have gps location built in? You didn't have to pay the record studio executives a fee when you listened to music in a different room of your house?"
"Hell, back in the day, we didn't even have the skin cell DNA identification built into the iPods!"
"OMG!!! You could listen to OTHER PEOPLES IPODS?? EWW!!! That is just wrong."
An even stupider "rationale" (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder how much those bumpkin lawyers are being paid to spout such nonsense. One of the biggest faults in their "rationale" is their definition of "losses" - losses are not a hypothetical "money we 'could have' made' (if we had full control of the market and consumer habits)". Consumers will form their habits around the tools available to them (today, internet; in the past, radio, cassette, etc.) and the market just has to adapt to the same. If the record industry refuses to change their habits (most likely because of their 1990's record profits from CD sales - they want that 'working formula' to remain the same), TFB for them.
If I buy a CD, I am buying the rights to listen to that particular recording and paying a share of all the work that went into it. I am perfectly free to transfer that recording to any format or device as long as it's for my personal pleasure - at no extra charge. If the recording that is on my iPod is exactly the same as the one in my iTunes library, why should I pay for it again? What's more, the only additional 'work' in having multiple copies is mine - there is no improvement or service by the record industry at all - so again, what justification is there for asking for additional payment?
IMHO, the flailing 'fat man' record industry thinks government 'obligatory tax' involvement, and the possibility of the record industry benefiting directly from the millions collected from everyone, is the fastest way back to the front of the marathon.
Insert any chain of expletives here.
There has to be... (Score:3, Insightful)
"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music," Milman said.'"
And I think programmers and their heirs should be paid too.
And we certainly need to recognize all those DEAD artists like John Lennon so we can encourage them to make more songs.
Hell- I say go for it-- let them charge $10 a song and lock everything up digitally with DRM.
I won't listen to it anyway and the huge hordes of artists out there willing to work for less will take up the slack.
Doubt it? Look at "primer"... look at Magnatune... look at "Star Wreck".
There is a huge glut of entertainment. Already- I can't keep up with it. I have a 500 hour backlog that increases by a couple more hours every day. Every time I go to the beach, play a board game, or watch You-tube, read and post on slashdot, more entertainment builds up.
Just relistening to the popular 1970's music would take me 10 hours.
Extreme, extreme expense? (Score:4, Informative)
"There has to be some sort of way to compensate the artist for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music,"
Really? I went to a college with a conservatory, where 500 students made music all the fucking time. All they needed was an instrument, and themselves. They performed, recorded, mixed, etc. etc all the time.
My sister somehow manages to make music, play shows, record with bands, and she doesn't have jack in terms of cash.
I know a math PhD who makes/made music in his spare time in a group called "Klein Four". You can buy their music on iTunes Music Store. Sure, it takes time, effort, and talent to make music, but you can get it from your brain into your customer's paying hands (ears?) on a shoestring budget these days.
Doesn't this justify pirating? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure - especially ipod with video (Score:4, Insightful)
Right now, it's legal in Canada to copy music under the personal copy provision. In exchange, we pay a levy (not a tax) on blank media.
Extending this to ipods (and, in general other personal media players) makes sense. Especially if those devices play media other than just music. Perhaps the levy will then have to be extended to cover tv programming and movies. After all, the ipod touch I use can certainly play stuff other than music (spoken books, movies and tv shows come to mind).
In answer to "do the artists get the money"? my reply is "I don't really care -- that, in particular, is not my problem". I just don't want to be bothered with being branded a "pirate", kthnxbye.
This is as bad as the Quebec referenda (Score:4, Interesting)
This has been raised before, many times. The same thing happened with the Quebec referenda...they said No, the other side waited a bit, then said "How about now?". Is this what we've been reduced to in Canada, asking the same questions every couple of years?
Re:Compensation isn't the point of music. (Score:5, Insightful)
music isn't necessarily born out of a desire to make $ from it but it sure helps. The problem is not the money, it is how that money is obtained. Right now the middlemen get most of their cut from a corrupt and broken system of copyright law. Artists should be able to make $ from music if they want but the current system is geared toward benefiting the big labels [unless the author lives 120+ yrs after writing the song or is a zombie]
Parent
Re:Legal Music Piracy (Score:4, Informative)
If you're Canadian, yes, and it's not against any laws to download music for personal use.
Parent