New Levy to compensate artists for lost revenue?! (1 Viewer)

[andrew markworthy]

The simple fact is that copying (books, records, anything) is depriving artists of income. However, there are several things to bear in mind:

(a) people would not be tempted to copy as much if articles were cheaper. I remember a few years ago the Brit music industry slapped the following slogan on albums - 'home taping is killing music', which provoked the rational response - 'so the £3.99 single has nothing to do with it, then?'.

(b) if the really successful artists could stop shoving their wealth in our faces, the argument that 'they're rich enough already' would lose some of its force. And who pushes all this wealth in our faces? The record companies, who in the same breath compain about their poverty!

(c) taxing the means of recording is petty and spiteful, and is taxing people who have never engaged in copyright theft in their lives. It's like imposing a fine on every single driver as part of the annual car tax because they could *potentially* commit a motoring offence.

Generally I've thought Canada was a sensible place, but sorry guys, this is *dumb*.

 

[John Watson]

Very good points Buzz, about the record companies / entertainment conglomerates being the major culprits in stealing from artists.

And the business model whereby vast sums of money are thrown at a few artists, and all the company support goes to them, in the hope of a mega-payoff, is the MO of these conglomerates.

As for the question of "fair use" in Canada, it would be nice to hear an authoritative response on that situation in Canada? Does the existence of this tax on tape, CD-R etc, legitimize copying?

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

I would disagree with Buzz in his wording on artists not making money off CD sales - they most certainly do, however small in comparison to the selling price. However, they may not be making >profits< enough to sustain their efforts. Sales have to cover the cost of production, so low sales = no more production. Sales also determine an artist's clout with the record label. Again, low sales = no clout = no budget. Since the label bankroles both the album production and touring expenses, low numbers mean less support all the way around. Sales are important!

Where I take exception to these tax measures is first that they do not fairly distribute the income derived from them. There are many reasons for not belonging to the various organisations that make up the distribution pool, many of whom do little but suck money from the artist through dues and fees themselves. Second, they are blanket taxes, which are indiscriminate across the mediums being used, and not targeting the real problem, which is illegal copying. This legislation is akin to throwing everyone in jail for a few weeks on the assumption that a percentage of the populace is criminal. You are punished whether you are part of the problem or not.

Also, while I don't like the majors much, they do manage to bring thousands upon thousands of artists to market who would otherwise give up their art and find normal jobs. They may be in lopsided agreements (like anyone who takes out a loan at a bank or has an insurance policy), but at least they are given a chance to prove themselves.

 

[Blu]

I see something happening like the IRS.
At the end of every year you must take your hard drive to a center where they find how much room is not taken up by the operating system, games, misc. programs. All the free space left over will be taxed.
Under penalty of death if any MP3s are found you will be immeditely executed. The questions will be asked later on once the horrible MP3'er is long gone.
Perhaps the MP3'er has made their own music and stored it on the hard drive, which would represnt a unfortunate government snafu. Yep it is going to be a mess in Canada!
Isn't Canada already very heavily taxed as it is?

 

[Cam S]

This is technically true in a few cases, but the larger truth is that the people losing the most money are those in charge of the recording companies. And if you think the top musicians are insanely wealthy, they barely scratch the surface of what recording company heads are worth.

Exactly! I couldn't have said it better myself. I have roughly 15,000 Mp3's. Most of the cd's that those MP3's are off of, I would have NEVER considered buying. I can't justify myself on spending 15-20 bucks on a cd, when I only like ONE song, it just doesn't make sense. I still buy cd's though, as some are just too good and the cost seems justified to me.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

And if you think the top musicians are insanely wealthy, they barely scratch the surface of what recording company heads are worth.

And this justifies stealing from them? It may surprise you to know that managers at any of the major corporations make insane amounts of money - the same corporations that employ a huge number of people around the globe. Does that mean everyone should be stealing the products and services of those companies - resulting in downsizing, and firing of employees - just because the managers make insane salaries? I think not.

If you have a collection of thousands of songs that you use without paying, you are ripping off the artists and songwriters who created them. The fact that the CD sales may not pay these people much makes it even worse, since you are depriving them of what little income they could make.

It also gives these copyright advocates all the necessary ammunition they need to tax, copy protect, and otherwise try to stop the practice you so brazenly endorse. While I think this tax sucks, and won't do what they are claiming it will in terms of compensating the 15,000 artists you have stolen from, it will make it more expensive for you to continue collecting MP3s, which is more to the point.

 

[Cam S]

Jeff, have you ever downloaded an MP3?

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Jeff, have you ever downloaded an MP3?

No I haven't, actually. The only MP3s I have ever accessed were online demos. I haven't ever downloaded an MP3 to disc.

 

[Eric Kahn]

I downloaded a whole 45 MP3 files off of napster before it went away, 2/3Rd's of them I already had on cd (no MP3 conversion software then)
I did make the decision to buy some cd's from these downloads and the decision not to buy others
I have a friend who is a blues artist, you should hear his comments about the US tax on recording media (audio tapes, CD-R did not exist when it was written) he is really upset that he has to pay almost $100 dollars extra for a 2 inch tape used in studio recording to record his original songs and that he will never see a dime of the so called "levee" because he is not in the top 2% or what ever it is here
RIAA does not give one (cuss word of choice) about small artists, just the big ones that make it money
the tax will never work because business users of computer hardware still are the bulk of the market and they will not stand for it and their money pays for the politicians

 

[Cam S]

At least Bill Gates doesn't go on Tech TV and cry about the "poor, poor programmers" if someone rips off Microsoft product.

Piracy of software has been going on for alot longer and has cost companies alot more than what Mp3's are costing the music industry.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Uh huh, riiiight.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that happens to be the truth.

 

[Edwin-S]

Deleted due to lack of relevance to main topic.

 

[Tony-B]

I want to know exactly how much of the actual money from a CD purchase the artist gets. I would think that most goes to the record company. That is the major reason I don't buy many CDs. I would rather pay the artists DIRECTLY.

 

[Cam S]

I hear ya Tony!

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

I would rather pay the artists DIRECTLY.

Some allow you to do just that. I hope you take advantage of that oportunity.
To get back on topic, this tax must die. I would urge every Canadian to contact their MP and complain about it. It is bad law, and does not serve its purpose.

 

[Cam S]

To get back on topic, this tax must die.

I'll agree with ya on that one Jeff

 

[Tony-B]

To get back on topic, this tax must die.

Dang right. Next the music industry will say, "Oh, floppy disks could hold music, better charge a big tax on them too." :rolleyes

 

[Cam S]

Tony, I'm actually surprised that the Floppy disks arn't being taxed, since like you said, they too can hold an MP3 file. Maybe it's because they arn't as readily used and so wouldn't generate enough tax dollars, haha.

 

[David Susilo]

I don't know whether the following have been covered.

Please get the facts straight.

1. LEVY is not TAX. There is a LEGAL way around it. You just need to buy the blank medias straight from other countries and your WILL NOT be levied. The levy will only be applied if you're selling it within Canada.

2. The levy collection mechanism is based only on honesty. The government does NOT have a system in place (or even in concept) in order to implement this.

3. There is also NO MECHANISM to distribute the levy to musicians. We already have a tiny levy on our medias right now (I bet 99% of you don't even realize this) and guess what? not a single penny from the current levy ever seen the light of day in being distributed to the musicians. When asked, they sheepishly admitted that they don't have a system in place to distribute the money yet... although they've been grabbing the levy $$ since more than a couple of years ago.

4. Most "rich" musicians are NOT Canadian. Even when they are, most of them are NOT under SOCAN. Most of them are under BMI, ASCAP and that makes them American artists (regardless of birth country). Shania Twain, Celine Dion, for example, will NOT see a single penny of this levy money (provided that the government somehow figure out how to distribute the money. While they are trying to figure that out, the money is sitting there, collecting interest. Where will the interests go? back to the government.

 

[Cam S]

David, I'm unaware of any levy that is in place right now, what exactly is it?