Songwriters want $10 a month from music fans
p2pnet view P2P:- Eddie Schwartz (right), president of the Songwriters Association of Canada, wants to hike Canadians’ internet bills.
By $10 a month.
In Canada, music lovers can download without fear of legal reprisal.
Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music’s CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association of America) has for years been trying to get our laws changed so the Big 4 can sue their own customers for ‘copyright violations’ , just as they do in the US.
They’ve failed.
Says the Wikipedia >>>
For a brief period in 2004/2005, the sharing of copyrighted music files via peer-to-peer online systems was explicitly legal, due to a decision by the Federal Court, in BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe. Under certain conditions both downloading and uploading were held to be legal. Specifically, paragraphs [24] and [25] of the decision stated that Section 80(1) of the Copyright Act allows downloading of musical works for personal use. This section specifically applied to musical works and therefore the decision made no determination as to the legality of downloading other forms of copyrighted works.
Paragraphs [26] to [28] of the decision also made a ruling on uploading, stating that, “The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution. Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying.”
However, the case was appealed, and on May 19, 2005, this section of the decision was set aside by the Federal Court of Appeal. The appeals court dismissed the case, primarily due to lack of evidence linking the unnamed defendants to the alleged copyright infringement. However, it held that it was inappropriate for the original trial court judge to have ruled on the question of whether making music files available on peer-to-peer file sharing systems constitutes “distribution” (illegal under the Copyright Act) or simply facilitates “private copying” (legal under the Act) at that point in the proceedings.
The appeals court specifically left open the possibility of future lawsuits, wherein the question of the legality of peer-to-peer sharing could be addressed.
But “So far, no further such lawsuits have been filed in Canada, leaving it an open question”, adds the Wikipedia.
Nonetheless, Schwartz is proposing an internet tax of $10 a month for a license that’d “allow holders to download as much music as they wanted without fear of legal reprisal”, says the Montreal Gazette.
And notwithstanding, he’s “already approached several Internet service providers — the private firms that would collect the fees on behalf of copyright collectives — and hopes to begin trial runs of the licences by the end of the year”, says the story, going on >>>
Schwartz would not say which Internet providers he is in talks with.
Buying a licence would allow Canadians to download as much music as they wanted during the month using free peer-to-peer file-sharing services, marking a huge change over buying albums or songs individually from services such as iTunes.
The licence fees could net songwriters as much as $840 million annually if every Internet subscriber took out a licence, the group said.
The group failed in a 2007 bid for a Canadian Copyright Act amendment that would have forced service providers to pay a tax in exchange for music downloading and file-sharing by customers. This time, however, it believes it can bypass Parliament.
“All of the rights that we need are actually already in Canada’s copyright laws,” said Schwartz. “We thought, ‘all we need to do is come up with a private business model that monetizes file-sharing.’ That’s what we set out to do, modify the (original) proposal so that there was a private way to achieve the same results without needing to get legislation.”
Of course, if the Big 4 started treating their customers like reasonable people, instead of accusing them of being criminals and thieves; and if they charged reasonable wholesale prices and opened their doors to competition, there wouldn’t be a problem in the first place.
However, this isn’t about money. It’s about control
Stay tuned.
Montreal Gazette – Canadian songwriters propose $10 fee for music-sharing, March 4, 2011
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
World War III will be a global information war with no division between civilian & military participation ~ Marshall McLuhan
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to p2pnet.net | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/feed
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
March 5th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
In addition, there was no intention to “legalize” uploading, had they had gotten their wish.
The language used was explicit. Only “downloading” would have been decriminalized, keeping the door open for filing legal suits against the uploaders, and those that would “facilitate” the uploading, using the concept of “illegal distribution” as the fulcrum.
March 5th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
…and once the songwriters have their little dig in your pocket book, then comes film and movie fees, newspaper fees for reading news, e-publisher fees for books, your mothers crochet pattern maker, the major labels charging for their recordings, the minor labels owned by the major labels, the recipe makers, the photographers groups, the list is endless and you wind up with an extra on your bill making internet too expensive to have but have given you no protections for the payments.
March 5th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
+ $10 for music
+ $10 for movies
+ $10 for tv
+ $10 for books
+ $10 for software
+ $10 for news
+ $?? for bs
=====
Profit!!
March 5th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
I think this is a step in the right direction, and I would be willing to pay a reasonable fee. This has to be all inclusive for movies, music and e-books. The arts have to be supported one way or another. Also the fee has to cover uploading or downloading. If you pay this fee you can download or upload with out fear of being fined or sent to jail. The other thing you have to realize is movies cover everything from the Disney’s “Bambi” to “Bambi Does the Football Team” meaning that besides Disney wanting their share, the porn industry will also want their share. This idea is the best solution I’ve seen yet, and hopefully it will envolved in something that will work.
March 5th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
As stated above it won’t work. Not if they have their way, look at the buskers out in BC, SOCAN got to them and now they have to pay almost ten times what they were paying to perform and many of them have quit because they can’t afford to pay the increased fee. So there’s a whole new generation of musicians, acrobats, jugglers, etc, out of work because of greed and nothing more. It’ll be the same way with this stunt and I think that our government should stand up and tell these clowns to pound sand cause they don’t want what’s best for artists, and consumers only what’s best for them.
March 5th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
What about those of us who have absolutely no interest in commercial music? Hypothetically (in my case, if this were to come to the U.S.), why should I pay $10 a month for something I’m not going to download?
March 5th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
If they want $10 a month, they can get in line behind the collection agencies, the tax man, the doctor’s office, etc.
March 5th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
The problem with all these consumer-to-industry “taxes” is that they never end, even long after their original purpose ceases to exist, and the beneficiaries of this public largess can be expected to fight tooth and nail any attempt to derail their gravy train.
The tax on cassette tapes that goes straight to the record industry’s pockets is just one such example.
March 5th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
@RW above, Exactly.
March 5th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
This Eddie Whatever is sure an idiot, and has a parasite mentality. As with all other loser Canadian artists (who can’t hack it in the states) this guy probably thinks the internet is to blame for his lack of sales or recognition. There was some caterwauling dingbat (I forget her name, she looked like a female scarecrow) a few months back making the same nonsense complaints and praising C-32.
Canadian musicians: Please do not scapegoat P2P and the internet for your gross lack of talent. Just like real life, nobody is listening to you via P2P either, because your “product” sounds like felines making love.
First off, NOBODY is listening to gawd-awful Canadian music unless they live in the arctic and can only get CBC radio. American new music is terrible, and our new stuff is just the bottom of the barrel. There must be a whole 6 people on the continent that have even heard of this guy. But he needs to get paid, right? After all, we must protect our “culture” by subsidizing terrible artists on the taxpayers back.
I listen to classical music, most of which I ripped from my own CD collection 10 years ago. I don’t listen to any shitty new music. But this guy thinks I should subsidize his lazy ass just because he sells 3 albums a year? Get bent. Get a job a McDonalds if you need money assshole, like everyone else.
I’ve got enough bureaucrats lifting money from my pocket, I don’t need to pay for any more parasites thank you.
March 6th, 2011 at 12:07 am
Lest you be reminded Originally song writers were also singers, called minstrels. Going from village to village to perform, pass on information and getting alms / donations for their troubles. Just as Buskers and other performers of today.
It’s only when rip-off government, a private corporation mind you, got into the act that taxes were imposed on those who don’t know better. Anytime the filthy rich get involved you know it’s a scam and fraud, as it has always been. This way the small guy or operator suffers, now this includes artists.
Then we have the “usury” system of bankers, business, corporations and certain societies that create fiat money system keeping population in debt at all times, “it’s called the economy stupid”. In short time economy will crash again, as it’s designed to do by those same idiots who created this fraud, and since it’s based on debt and no real money everyone will go hungry accept those who can pay with gold or silver or can live off the land. I wish it would hurry up and get it over with.
Then you will see those who have been stealing from rightful owners family lands will be stung up in short order. Land they have stolen redistributed to people who need it and can take care of it sustainably. All that lengthy drivel of legislation, acts and other control mechanisms will die with them.
As we see today in Tunisia, Egypt and almost every place on Earth, communities are well prepared to take care of themselves in a peaceful manner without bureaucrats or any other power hungry idiot. It’s spreading and soon enough it will be here as well, a worker’s revolt. Start building and Ark since those power hungry idiots will stop at nothing to keep their tyranny active, including the destruction of Earth. When this happens you can expect nukes being used on all parts of Earth, subsequently creating volcanoes to blow and giant title waves shortly thereafter.
This is what greed, business and economy is all about. Doesn’t mater if it’s RIAA, CRIA, Mass Media, MAFIAA, Movie Industry, Big Oil, Big Sugar or any other thing they own and run. It all ends up in the hands of those investors you don’t see, investors in Bank of Canada, Bank of England, IMF, World Bank, Vatican, Central Bank of every country and specifically ones who are at the top of THE biggest rip-off scheme this planet has ever seen.
It’s all here on this website if you have the balls to look close enough and basic skills to put the pieces together.
March 6th, 2011 at 10:30 am
A government sponsored protection racket? Is that what Eddie Schwartz is seriously proposing? Good luck with that, lol. :-p
Instead of forcing a $10 fee on all internet users via ISP’s, including users who don’t download at all (which obviously isn’t fair), why not instead create a web page where people have the OPTION of signing up for “protection”? All the different copyright based industries can do this, with the average joe getting to choose which ones they’re willing to pay for based on their own internet usage. This is really the only options that is fair to everyone. Those that don’t pay will be fair game for law enforcement should they be caught, while those that pay will be protected. Best of all, the various industries get to FAIRLY monetize something that they weren’t previously. Start at a price most folks would be willing to hand their credit card details over for, then once everyone has become accustomed to how great it is to download without worries, jack the price up on them. Everybody wins and nobody wins all at the same time, exactly the way the universe likes to see things run.
PS: Don’t wait too long to jump on this idea. As I’m sure you’re aware, your time is limited. You do not have forever to come up with a solution to the so called “piracy” problem. Unless, of course, you’re lying about your particular industry being in its death throes. Personally I feel that if you keep trying to greedily force all the people of the world to jump onto your bandwagon, as you’ve repeatedly attempted up until now, you will fail miserably just as you always have. Remember, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. If and when you fall, it will have been greed, not piracy, that bought about your demise, something I have no doubt the history books of the distant future will say on the matter. Have fun thinking on that while you ponder how to get ISP’s and the government to back another of your silly scatterbrained ideas.
March 6th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
The two most compelling arguments against …..
1. ” …and once the songwriters have their little dig in your pocket book, then comes film and movie fees, newspaper fees for reading news, e-publisher fees for books, your mothers crochet pattern maker, the major labels charging for their recordings, the minor labels owned by the major labels, the recipe makers, the photographers groups, the list is endless and you wind up with an extra on your bill making internet too expensive to have but have given you no protections for the payments. ”
2. “What about those of us who have absolutely no interest in commercial music? Hypothetically (in my case, if this were to come to the U.S.), why should I pay $10 a month for something I’m not going to download? ”
I have yet to see a good reason FOR an internet tax/levy/whatever they’re calling it this week.
March 6th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
I already pay a monthly subscription to usenet for 30usd/mo. It contains approximately 65% of all content ever created. When the file sharing community has a better distribution model than the MAFIAA, at an inexpensive subscription rate, well, then, I gotta assume there is something seriously wrong with their business model, and no amount of tax/levy/subscription will ever compete with 30usd/mo for ‘all you can consume’.
Not that I would ever use it, but where is the MAFIAA’s equivalent of usenet? Don’t hold your breath, because ‘that’ will never, EVER exist.
March 7th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
How about I don’t give you $10, and I just download and share whatever the hell I want anyway?
That’s what would happen.
March 7th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
My prediction is that the first ISP that signs up to this scheme and increases ALL of their customers monthly fees by $10 will also be the first ISP to lose 25-50% of their customers within 2 months.
March 7th, 2011 at 10:54 pm
@ Enrico:
Nah. 75%. Within four weeks.
Cheers!
March 7th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
Unless they collude ( not an unthinkable thing nowadays ).
If the ISP’s ALL band together ( big cash incentives ) like the MafiAA does, where will anyone go ?
March 8th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
@Dreddsnik:
Where will anyone go? On to the next version of the ‘Net, ad-hoc networks. You’ll see massive innovation in WiMAX hardware and AP’s that attach via Ethernet and this equipment will, though not as quick in terms of data transfer, remove the grip the ISP’s have over our access to information.
ISP’s are already investing in this, in use of the soon-to-be-freed frequency spectrum from TV-bands. Guaranteed people will start up their own networks and put the ISP’s aside if the ISP’s amalgamate. Hardware vendors won’t sell to just ISPs.
Sure the ISP’s will try to make it illegal as this would be competition, but like legality ever stopped people from having satellite dishes that access content the end user isn’t registered to access.
March 16th, 2011 at 9:36 am
Thanks for drawing attention to the S.A.C.’s business to business model to monetize music file-sharing. Please allow us to clarify a few points.
1. Our current proposal does not support or advocate a levy or tax of any kind, or of any amount, including the $10.00 amount mentioned.
2. As is clearly stated in our paper on the proposal, available at our website http://www.songwriters.ca/proposalsummary.aspx and http://www.songwriters.ca/proposaldetailed.aspx, musicians, songwriters, performers and all rights-holders including record labels would be compensated from the revenues the proposed business model might generate.
3. Canadians households who do not wish to music file-share would pay nothing. There would be no charges of any kind.
4. Canadians households who would like unlimited music file-sharing would be licensed to do so legally. All Canadians would have the choice to opt in or out.
5. Since independent musicians are now by some counts over 30% of the market place much of the revenue derived would go to encourage new talent and allow struggling music creators to make a living.
The S.A.C. is a small not for profit organization. We will continue to advocate what we believe are reasonable solutions that are fair to consumers, music creators and rights-holders.
Thank you
Eddie Schwartz – President
Don Quarles – Executive Director
Songwriters Association of Canada
March 18th, 2011 at 11:04 am
” Private individuals and households who wish to music file-share would be licensed to do so in conjunction with an agreement to pay a reasonable monthly license fee. ”
Ok, so you call it a ‘license fee’ instead of a levy.
As mentioned ad-nauseum .. no matter what you call it it’s still the same damn thing, and the money generated from this
‘license’ fee will go the same route as the money from the blank media levy. Not a dime from that gets to anyone but a
middleman .. like you.
Let’s make a deal ….
If you can manage to get money ALREADY BEING COLLECTED through the CD levy to the artists mentioned in number 5, and TRANSPARENTLY so, then
just maybe I could bring myself to think about supporting this. But I already know that you can’t/won’t. No one with a working brain cell is going to
support throwing more money for nothing at an industry that already has several moneyboxes in place and won’t allow ANYONE to see just where it all
goes.
But that’s a real nice fluffy puff post from you, thanks for that anyway. Glad to see the little guys are thought of at all,
even though it’s clear you still think we’re mindless baboons.
March 18th, 2011 at 11:06 am
Dear Mr. Schwartz,
Were you aware that we entered the digital age about 10 years ago? If so, how do you see this new free digital distribution system fitting into your existing business model?
I guess suing NetFlix and RedBox is all the answer I need. (Not you personally, mind you, but your industry in general.)
Thank you for your time,
Persistent Vicarious Copywrong Infringer.