If all the money actually goes to the musicians then this might just be a better idea than suing 13 year old kids. Canada says P2P downloads are legal By Online Staff December 15, 2003 The Copyright Board of Canada has decided that dowloading copyrighted music from peer-to-peer networks is legal but uploading files is not, a media release says. The Board also decided to impose a tariff on MP3 players like the iPod. Levies are already collected on blank audio recording media. The existing levies of 29 cents on audio tapes of 40 minutes or longer, 21 cents on CD-Rs and CD-RWs and 77 cents on CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio and MiniDiscs are in effect and will stay as such till the end of 2004. Digital audio recorders (such as MP3 players) will attract a levy of $C2 for each recorder with a memory capacity of up to 1 Gigabyte (Gb), $15 for each recorder with memory capacity of more than 1 Gb and up to 10 Gbs, and $25 for each recorder with memory capacity of more than 10 GBs. The tariffs collected will be used to pay musicians and songwriters to make up for revenue lost from copying. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336877779.html
They have been doing this in Canada with audio cassettes for years. I agree that since these media are used for storing and copying copyrighted material, this tax is a good way to make sure that the artists get paid while the consumer retains the ability to acquire and use entertainment in the way that is most convenient for them. I can't wait until the RIAA gets hit by the ripples they are creating in the pool of consumers.
I was with them until this part: 1. Sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare. 2. Socialized music? 3. A de facto government endorsement of piracy while keeping it technically illegal (to upload). Likely to create a ridiculous imbalance in the market where some consumers pay much more for music than others. 4. Likely to create an imbalance and corruption in the distribution of the tariffs to the musicians and songwriters.
Not really. The tarriff is standard as is the payout to the major labels. Not socialized. Its not like music is a government industry, just that government recognizes that the only reason to buy cassettes is to copy music so they collect a small fee for the music that is copied onto it. Same concept for CD-Rs and MP3 players. Again, not really. The people who like their music on CD from the manufacturer buy it that way. The people who want their music in digital format buy it that way. The people who like digital format AND either burn it to CD or use an MP3 player pay a tariff for the right to use that entertainment option. This is something that they worked out years and years ago with the music industry and it has been working well for them for a long time.
But I got a CD burner and have bought CD's without ever intending to burn music. I wanted it for backups for data, etc. Now I would feel no remorse whatsoever for burning music, even illegally. The RIAA blows and their stupid way of approaching their (former) customers has made me not buy a CD in years, and that will not change anytime soon.
You are by far in the minority. The vast majority of people buying CD-Rs these days are burning music to them.
I don't disagree with you there, but it makes me no less mad that I'm forced to pay tribute to the Emperor Suckimuzak.
That's a shame that copyright abiding folks who have no intention of using their CDs or MP3 players for anything other than listening to the music they have purchased themselves are forced to pay tariffs. I recently bought a pack of 100 CDs for around $10.00. Using the Canadian method, I would have to pay an additional $21.00 or $77.00 depending on the media (and the Canadian exchnage rate). That's outrageous for someone who simply makes their own compilations from their own music or creates photo CDs or backups or any other non-copyright infringing use.
This kinda sounds like "You can buy a pipe from your local headshop, but posessing one can be construed as drug paraphernalia, even without resin."
(Good) News from the US... _______________ Court Rejects Music Industry Subpoenas By Ted Bridis Associated Press Writer Friday, December 19, 2003; 10:44 AM A federal appeals court on Friday rejected efforts by the recording industry to compel the nation's Internet providers to identify subscribers accused of illegally distributing music online. In a substantial setback for the industry's controversial anti-piracy campaign, the three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned a ruling by the trial judge to enforce a copyright subpoena. U.S. District Judge John D. Bates had approved use of the subpoenas, forcing Verizon Communications Inc. to turn over names and addresses for at least four Internet subscribers. Since then, Verizon has identified dozens of its other subscribers to music industry lawyers. The appeals court said one of the arguments by the Recording Industry Association of America "borders upon the silly," rejecting the trade group's claims that Verizon was responsible for downloaded music because such data files traverse its network. Verizon had challenged the constitutionality of the subpoenas under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The law, passed years before downloading music over peer-to-peer Internet services became popular, compels Internet providers to turn over the names of suspected pirates upon subpoena from any U.S. District Court clerk's office. A judge's signature is not required. Critics contend judges ought to be more directly involved. Verizon had argued at its trial that Internet providers should only be compelled to respond to such subpoenas when pirated music is stored on computers that providers directly control, such as a Web site, rather than on a subscriber's personal computer. In his ruling, the trial judge wrote that Verizon's interpretation "makes little sense from a policy standpoint," and warned that it "would create a huge loophole in Congress' effort to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet."
