Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Data Storage Music Hardware Your Rights Online

iPod Fee Proposed For Canada 414

Posted by timothy
from the when-organized-interests-meet-diffuse-ones dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

iPod Fee Proposed For Canada

Comments Filter:
  • There should be (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:17AM (#29337085)

    a refund on all purchased music in Canada to compensate :-P

    • Re:There should be (Score:5, Informative)

      by marcansoft (727665) <hector.marcansoft@com> on Monday September 07, 2009 @04:25AM (#29337919) Homepage

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by wvmarle (1070040)

        Indeed, fair is fair. If you buy a CD-R with a "copyright tax" or whatever on it - a surcharge that goes to the copyright holders (or at least that is the official line, no way to check it really for us simple consumers) - then it should be no problem to copy copyrighted works onto them. After all, the copyright has been paid for already. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

        And I'm sure there are more countries outside of Spain that by now have such regulations, especially within Europe where most gov

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702)
        You don't profit by not having to pay for the music you download? I would think that having the money available in your account for other endeavours, instead of in the accounts of your record labels, would be considered profit.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by TheJodster (212554)

        I hope Obama doesn't hear about this taxing system in Spain! He'll rehire the communist conspiracy theorist Van Jones as the new music czar. We'll all be paying into the government run "See Us Collect and Keep Everyone's Riches" program or S.U.C.K.E.R. program for short.

        Through the newly minted SUCKER program, you will be able to download any and all music for free. Sure, the wealthiest among us... i.e. those who are fortunate enough to be able to pay for blank media or media players will have to pay a p

    • by ceoyoyo (59147)

      There sort of is. The levy we pay on CDRs has been used as an argument for why the copyright act should not be changed to prohibit making copies for private use, where I can go into a library, or to a friend's house, or onto a P2P system and make myself copies of music legally.

      I thought the CRIA's current tack was to try to get rid of the levy as well as the private copying exemptions.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:19AM (#29337093)

    "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?

    • by Totenglocke (1291680) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:21AM (#29337103)
      Or when you paid for the cd. Just because you made an mp3 and listen to it on your iPod doesn't mean you should have to pay for it again. You paid to listen to their music, you can listen to it on whatever device you want.
      • by The Archon V2.0 (782634) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:47AM (#29337255)

        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.)

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Opportunist (166417)

          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

          • by The Archon V2.0 (782634) on Monday September 07, 2009 @04:00AM (#29337831)

            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?

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by mpe (36238)
              Because they've got the lobbyists to make it happen.

              Ironically an industry which was truely in trouble probably could not afford to lobby.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by mpe (36238)
          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.

          If anything buskers are likely to be the targets of such things. Since they may well not "own" the music they perform.

          Many of the 'little people' (or people who claim to represent the 'little people' or the 'starving artists') who insist that Can
      • Blanket Media Tax (Score:5, Informative)

        by DirtyCanuck (1529753) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:52AM (#29337287)

        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]

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Zapotek (1032314)
          So... in your country it's less expensive to store 4.7GB of pirated music than 700MB? Cool... xD
    • by mark-t (151149) <markt@lynx.b c . ca> on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:33AM (#29337169) Journal
      Here's the funny thing though... when they try to incorporate that fee into the sale price, people just bitch about the high cost of music and pirate it "on principle".
    • by nitroamos (261075) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:38AM (#29337201)

      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?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by codeguy007 (179016)

      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 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.

      Ya know, I know a lot of coders, me included, that got paid salary or hourly for the code they wrote, but didn't see any more money from the individual software sales. How's about we charge a fee for every computer sold and then give it to all the coders out there- "There has to be some sort of way to compensate the

  • by NervousNerd (1190935) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:20AM (#29337097) Journal
    There has to be some way for people to compensate me for having to hear the shit reasons these people spew out for being greedy.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Technician (215283)

      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.

  • by thatkid_2002 (1529917) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:20AM (#29337101)
    The artist never receives a penny of that extra fee! Damn those pot smoking hippies!
    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.
    • by Hadlock (143607)

      I will play devil's advocate here for a second (though believe me, i think this bill is dumb too) I always hear about the downsides to this, but is there a form you fill out, similar to a tax return, where you can claim your estimated damages? What sort of documentation do you have to provide at that point? Or are you just audited randomly, like with income taxes? Or do artists really not receive any compensation?

      • by Beardo the Bearded (321478) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:47AM (#29337257)

        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.

        • by nmb3000 (741169) <nmb3000@that-google-mail-site.com> on Monday September 07, 2009 @03:22AM (#29337697) Homepage Journal

          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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by wrook (134116)

        It is important to realize that this is *not* damages!!!! The levy is part of the copyright act. Under this deal, copying musical performances *is not an act of copyright infringement*!!!!

        Let me repeat that: Copying musical performances in Canada for personal use is not copyright infringement.

        That is what the levy gives. It's a stupid deal for the artists, but a great one for most of the public. The money collected for the levy is dispersed according to Canadian music sales: i.e., the artist with the mo

  • The hours, sweat, blood and tears are what the music is about, not compensation. Is studio time expensive? Yes. Is accumulating money the reason you make music? Not in any dimension we can readily access with our current level of technology.
    • by wizardforce (1005805) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:34AM (#29337175) Journal

      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]

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by IBBoard (1128019)

      Is studio time expensive? Yes.

      Even that isn't always true. I was looking at the Wikipedia page for a band called Allister recently (checking whether a Fraggle Rock cover is actually them or whether it was like all of the "Reel Big Fish" ska punk covers that are by other bands) and apparently one of their albums cost a whole $700 to record! (source [wikipedia.org]) The main expense seems to be egos, the big labels, or the egos at the big labels!

    • by jeremyp (130771)

      Ha, ha.

      I challenge you to find any main stream pop group that is not in the business to become "rich and famous".

  • Bull (Score:4, Insightful)

    by s-whs (959229) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:24AM (#29337115)
    > "extreme, extreme expense that goes into making music,"

    Bullshit, there are no extreme expenses in making music.
    • by glitch23 (557124)

      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.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by eqisow (877574)

        If by marketing you mean buying airtime on the radio and MTV, then yes, that's expensive.

        Personally, I'd argue that crap like that is very much a part of what's wrong with music today. (and yes, no videos on mtv, whatever, they still do the countdown every day... I think.)

      • The only real thing the labels have are connections and the internets are destroying that advantage with every minute that passes. The irony is that the music industry is claiming rampant piracy is destroying them while at the same time justifying their existence in the name of getting the band's name out there [marketing] It seems to me that if the internet were that much less efficient at marketing a song there wouldn't be much concern about piracy.

      • Re:Bull (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bmatt17 (1494941) on Monday September 07, 2009 @02:04AM (#29337367)
        I wouldn't consider marketing part of "making music". It may be part of selling music, so you can say there is expense in selling music, but not in making music
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dangitman (862676)
        That's a different thing than "making music" which can be almost free of cost. Those are the costs of selling music, an entirely different thing.
      • Re:Bull (Score:5, Insightful)

        by The Archon V2.0 (782634) on Monday September 07, 2009 @02:19AM (#29337459)

        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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Atrox666 (957601)

          You forgot the repeated payola scams. That's where the music companies pay programmers to play their stuff to shut out the competition.
          Sony got busted for that too. Sorry if you're an independent musician but no one gets to hear you.
          No company convicted of payola should get a fine any less than %100 of their profit for the year. Let the shareholders work out the rest with the board of directors.

  • by bogaboga (793279) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:25AM (#29337119)

    "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."

    • by popmaker (570147)
      Like: "You became a musician. You didn't seriously expect to make money did you?" Nobody should ever make music. It's stupid and financially irresponsible.
      • by BikeHelmet (1437881) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:54AM (#29337301) Journal

        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.

  • by a3I300I)y (1253026) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:28AM (#29337139)
    Extreme expense that goes into making music? What extreme expense? I am an artist and I have yet to encounter this. I recorded an album for about $100 and then posted it for download on the internet. These people want to insert themselves into music and sap money away from artists and listeners, they contribute nothing.
    • by popmaker (570147)
      Not all music is that cheap. Some of it requires trained musicians that depend on salary and expensive equipment. I happen to think, personally, that the world would be poorer without symphonies (as an example) and these cost quite a bit of money.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Maxo-Texas (864189)

        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: (Score:2, Funny)

        by ThePengwin (934031)
        And god forbid the day when musicians cant purchase auto-tune to mask their talentless voices these days!
  • Reverse logic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hashwolf (520572) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:29AM (#29337147)

    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)

      by wizardforce (1005805) on Monday September 07, 2009 @02:05AM (#29337379) Journal

      It's too bad the populace doesn't realize that it has the power to destroy all of this nonsense.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702)
        The populace doesn't care.

        As long as they have their bowl of Tesco Own Spaghetti Bolognese, X Factor, and a healthy stream of racists or fundamentalists to vent their frustrations at / blame for the decline of society, they're happy.

        Sometimes, I wish I was one of them. Life would be so much more simple if I could just get along with the banality without questioning everything put in front of me, or if I could switch off the little voice in my head which tells me, quite correctly, that society is blind to
  • fail (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wizardforce (1005805) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:30AM (#29337153) Journal

    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.

  • by bughunter (10093) <bughunter@@@earthlink...net> on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:31AM (#29337157) Journal

    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.

    • It is the tragedy of the commons in action. Person A breaks a law but the fine is spread across persons ABCDEF... It's the justice system socialized.

  • Who gets the money (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ShiftyOne (1594705) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:32AM (#29337163)
    Who ends up with the money from this CDR tax? There is no way to know what is going to be copied onto the cd, so there is no way to know who should be paid the cd tax. The article talks about how it helps the starving artist, but do they really end up with the money from this cd tax.
    • exactly. Even if you believed they were right about losses crippling the artists, there is no way this tax can possibly compensate artists proportional to their "damages." Most of the cash probably ends up in the record labels' coffers. Even worse, by using a blanket tax like this they are effectively admitting that they prefer pre-crime over enforcing the law or at the least that they can't enforce the law at all.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by djmurdoch (306849)

        No, in Canada copying music for private use is legal. See the Copyright Act, or the summary on this CPCC page [cpcc.ca]. They distribute the levy according to their estimate of the amount of copying, which they assume is proportional to airplay.

        Is copying really proportional to airplay? There's probably some correlation, but I'd guess it's not a very accurate measure. Is there a more accurate measure? I don't know of one.

    • by Renraku (518261)

      Since the RIAA practices Hollywood accounting, I'd say that the piracy tax money ends up in a general find, which gets added into revenue calculations. The particular companies then take their revenue, subtract their expenses, and then pay the artists their agreed percentage based on that.

      The real kicker? Advertisement, merchandising, future investing costs, etc., are listed as expenses. The individual companies have no incentive to cut back on these things, as the money will leaving them in some fashion

  • As I would be paying for stolen music via a tax, surely I can't be stealing material when I copy it?

    Isn't this silly idea just a blanket permission to copy music?

    • Theoretically yes, but that doesn't hold up in court, at least it hasn't in Spain, we're they have a similar CD and hard drive fee.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      As I would be paying for stolen music via a tax, surely I can't be stealing material when I copy it?

      Isn't this silly idea just a blanket permission to copy music?

      Nope. If they can get it signed into law, the government is free to declare that everyone has to pay $100 a year to be split up and given to the families of murder victims but that doesn't make murder legal. The government can, if they can get the support for it, also declare that use of any peer-to-peer protocol for any reason is punishable by a minimum of 20 years in a supermax prison, unless you stood on your head and sang "Yankee Doodle" while you used it. In places without protections against double je

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:38AM (#29337199)

    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)

    by Mhtsos (586325) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:40AM (#29337207)
    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.
    • Re:Plan for profit (Score:5, Informative)

      by The Archon V2.0 (782634) on Monday September 07, 2009 @02:43AM (#29337553)

      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.

  • by tsm_sf (545316)
    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

    ..., as if it was 1989.

    Seriously, we all know that the average bedroom rocker has a better setup than the top studios back in the 80s. It's over.
  • by dreamer.redeemer (1600257) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:42AM (#29337225) Homepage
    It's strange that it costs the music industry so much to make music--I just made (and recorded!) 45 minutes of music and it cost me virtually nothing. How on earth can these people expect to remain profitable while having such a stupendously idiotic business model? OH wait I get it, just have the government add a "music tax" to products from completely separate sectors and the industry will never die, they wouldn't even have to produce music to make money anymore... it's genius.
  • Because of this tax, have I /already paid for/ any and all music I download?

    If yes, then I don't mind it so much.

    Actually, I do mind it - fuck them for preemtively thinking me guilty. But if they /are/ charging me for something I am not guilty of, then I will feel zero guilt for getting my money's worth.

    • by Beardo the Bearded (321478) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:50AM (#29337279)

      If you're Canadian, yes, and it's not against any laws to download music for personal use.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by codeguy007 (179016)

        Well that's actually debatable. The law says that if I borrow a friends CD and I have the right to copy it. I says that my friend cannot copy it for me. So if a friend copies it to their Hard Drive and then lets me copy it from there is it legal? Well the law doesn't cover that as it predates internet file sharing.

  • Pure corruption (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuoteMstr (55051) <dan.colascione@gmail.com> on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:46AM (#29337243)

    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.

  • by Ralph Spoilsport (673134) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:49AM (#29337265) Journal
    Look for iPod sales in Buffalo and Seattle and Vermont to increase.
  • Bring it on (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Trogre (513942) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:49AM (#29337269) Homepage

    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.

  • They want to have their cake and eat it too. It's not a physical CD, that's why I can't import it and send it around - I don't 'own' the music. But apparently I don't have a license either... a license is independent of the media, so by purchasing a license for something on LP, I retain the license for a newer recording (8-track? tape? CD? you can make the argument that remasters are different).

    So I've given up the idea (a while ago, actually) that these people are just fucking douchebags and nobody should

  • After all, that photographer or 'shopper deserves to be compensated for the time they spent getting that shot or creating that image... and every time you - yes YOU, you ungrateful bastard! - load that web page, you're starving their families!

    News flash : the creators are (in non-internet cases, anyway) paid to Create. Once the work Exists, where it goes after that is ultimately up to the fans of that work - not the cartels that have taken control of music, television and film. You think the actors and mu

  • by zmollusc (763634) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:55AM (#29337305)

    "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."

  • by ThePromenader (878501) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:55AM (#29337307) Homepage Journal

    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)

    by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Monday September 07, 2009 @01:58AM (#29337319)

    "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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      And we certainly need to recognize all those DEAD artists like John Lennon so we can encourage them to make more songs.

      Actually, when you think about it, any songwriting money that would go to John Lennon presumably goes to Yoko Ono via Lennon's estate. So, by buying Beatles music we're encouraging - or at least enabling - her to make more songs.

      Man, the more I think about copyright, the worse it gets....

  • "There has to be some sort of way to compensate the RIAA for the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense that goes into promoting shitty music,"

    Fixed that for you.

  • by Bobartig (61456) on Monday September 07, 2009 @02:02AM (#29337349) Homepage

    "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.

  • by Ender77 (551980) on Monday September 07, 2009 @02:05AM (#29337369)
    If they already found everyone who buys a ipod of pirating, then there is no reason not to pirate every song now. Do not spend another single penny on buying another song and instead just pirate the shit. If you want to help the artist, then send them a money order with a letter telling them that they want to support the artist but will not send a dime to the music industry.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    This is one of the most disgusting things I can ever imagine, a complete travesty of both capitalism and democracy at the same time. "Give us money or we'll make sure you don't get elected" is the message here, as they have done nothing to earn it in any way. They figure that since they're big and there's a tenuous link between piracy hurting them and digital music players they can bully the government into outright stealing peoples money and then giving it to them in turn.

    That they have already done it wit

  • by ratboy666 (104074) <fred_weigel&hotmail,com> on Monday September 07, 2009 @02:09AM (#29337405) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Extending it to iPods only makes sense if it makes sense to pay them for blank media in exchange for the right to copy music for personal use in the first place. If it doesn't, and many would argue it doesn't, it would make more sense to get rid of the blank media levy instead.
  • by SleepyHappyDoc (813919) on Monday September 07, 2009 @02:10AM (#29337411)

    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?

  • by Lord Bitman (95493) on Monday September 07, 2009 @06:44AM (#29338535) Homepage

    Can I please have money from everyone purchasing a crowbar, as they may some day use it to break into my house?

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?

Working...