|
01 Dec 03 - 08:20 AM (#1063597) Subject: SOCAN requests download royalties From: black walnut SOCAN is the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada. From a Globe and Mail article: "This case is terrifically significant," said Richard Owens, executive director of the Centre for Innovation Law and Policy at the University of Toronto. "From an Internet law point of view, it'll have effects around the world." Here is the entire article from this morning's G & M: ________________________________________ Friday, November 28 SOCAN requests download royalties Blanket fee would apply to all Net music DAVID AKIN Globe and Mail Update Canada's songwriters will ask the Supreme Court of Canada next week to force Internet service providers to pay them royalties for the millions of digital music files downloaded each year by Canadians. The case has broad ramifications for the Internet industry in Canada, legal experts say. "This is the big case for the Internet. This will set the position on how we are going to treat Internet service providers, whether they are going to be seen as . . . responsible in some way for content that goes through their services," said Mark Perry, a professor of law and computer science at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ont. If successful, the legal pleadings of the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) could open the door to other rights holders -- groups as diverse as software publishers and Hollywood movie distributors -- who could use SOCAN's precedent to force Internet service providers (ISPs) to collect royalties on their behalf. Although those groups are being prompted to seek new sources of revenue because of what they say are illegal downloads of copyrighted content, SOCAN is asking ISPs to pay a blanket annual royalty on all kinds of music transmitted -- whether legally or illegally downloaded. "This is a huge case for Canada and the Internet and whether we're part of the global Internet community or on the outside looking in," said Jay Thomson, president of the Ottawa-based Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP). "Consumers could very well see an increase in their Internet costs and they could see a slowdown in the transmission speed of their Internet communications." CAIP is one of the parties to the case. Its main opponent, SOCAN, and many other parties to the case declined to comment before the court hears the matter. Legal experts say the Supreme Court has been looking for a case such as this because they will be able to clarify several key issues involving Internet use in Canada by ruling on a narrow technical question involving some technology ISPs use to speed up performance of their networks. For example, legal experts say the justices of the Supreme Court will be aware that what they say will apply to the broader issue of the responsibility ISPs have for any content that passes through their systems. That could affect the liability ISPs have for objectionable content, such as pornography. "We've always taken the position that we are the conduits of other people's content. We simply provide the network over which other people communicate with each other," Mr. Thomson said. The Supreme Court will also be asked to adjudicate on a jurisdictional issue, specifically whether Canadian law ought to apply to organizations that operate Web servers physically located outside the country but that deliver content to Canadians. "This case is terrifically significant," said Richard Owens, executive director of the Centre for Innovation Law and Policy at the University of Toronto. "From an Internet law point of view, it'll have effects around the world." David Akin is national business and technology correspondent for CTV News and a contributing writer to The Globe and Mail. |
|
01 Dec 03 - 09:23 AM (#1063654) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: Jeri It sounds insane to me. It's like a concert - people can pay at the door or order tickets from home, but the organization putting it on has decided to collect tolls on every route leading to the event. What about people who don't download music or those who already pay websites for downloading it? |
|
01 Dec 03 - 10:21 AM (#1063683) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: s&r Perhaps if I sing over the phone the telephone company should pay royalties, or the Post office if I include some music in a letter or parcel |
|
01 Dec 03 - 11:00 AM (#1063712) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: Willie-O Well, why not. Despite the logic of Jeri's point, it's very much in line with the kinds of charges SOCAN already levies on live entertainment venues and radio stations. 'Twill be interesting to see how they calibrate the charges--and it goes without saying that the ISP's are against it. They're living in a fantasy world that their industry, unlike other for-profit services, should be tax-free. It would be much more interesting for SOCAN to revisit the matter of how they distribute the fees they charge...I think it's all based on radio airplay now. If they're charging for downloading, maybe they'll be able to get a statistical sample of whose music is going through the pipes, at least via the legal download services. Not that I have much faith in SOCAN's interest in properly sharing the wealth--last year they came out with a plan that included charging buskers $30/day for a licence to play those Neil Young songs!!!! Talk about ridiculous. W-O |
|
01 Dec 03 - 11:48 AM (#1063745) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: harvey andrews Just to show the other side to this, here's an E mail I got recently from a Canadian who accessed my website; "I downloaded one of your songs (Able Baker) by accident. It seems to be about one of the best things I have done on the internet. I have found quite a few other songs since. I'd love to be able to see you perform live, but being out in Western Canada and not able to travel much myself I guess there's little chance of that. I do want to thank you for making such great music, and hope I can find more in the future." Although all my cd's can be bought from the website by credit card I have had no order from this man who is getting my work for free. I can't live on his kind words much as many of you might think I should. Just as a matter of interest what reply do you think I should make to him? |
|
01 Dec 03 - 11:53 AM (#1063749) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: Cluin Send him a link to this thread, Har |
|
01 Dec 03 - 11:57 AM (#1063750) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: George Papavgeris Well Harvey, it depends on this man's job. If, for example, he is a shoemaker, take a pair of shoes from the shopwindow and thank him for his making them and putting them there, because you really didn't have the time to go into the shop. That's about the same, isn't it? |
|
01 Dec 03 - 11:57 AM (#1063751) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: Cluin Damn! Hit the wrong key. Well, I've never been too impressed with what SOCAN could do for most of its members anyway (especially after talking to some of its reps), but I do think it's damned unfair to charge all subscribers of an ISP extra to cover revenue lost due to the music industry not keeping up-to-date with the technology. I know lots of people connected to the Net who aren't interested in downloading MP3s of anybody. |
|
01 Dec 03 - 12:05 PM (#1063755) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: George Papavgeris No, Cluin, I won't let the ISP off so easily. They claim they are not responsible for the content carried, yet it is precisely that content that they advertise when they want to increase their subscriptions! How many times do you see their ads mentioning "faster download times" or "access to music and films from all over the world"...So, guilty as charged, in my book. Having said that, SOCAN's move is also an admission of their inability to monitor rights use effectively anyway. And the MCPS-PRS alliance in the UK are no better. Which leaves us in a world where the artist/author/performer has to be constantly on the alert to protect his/her rights. But then we live in a society where you are only criminal if you are caught, so who am I to moralise... |
|
01 Dec 03 - 12:15 PM (#1063759) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: Cluin Plenty of music files and films and trailers, etc. offered for free on websites across the Net, by their creators who want to share or provide samples of their work. See? Just because they advertise that you can download content faster doesn't mean that content has to be illegal. And if you are going to charge ISPs and make them financially and legally responsible for transmission of content, then it is only tright to allow them to monotor and censor such content.... ALL content. Is that what we want? You want all your web traffic, e-mail, business transactions on the Internet monitored by the ISPs all the time? It's bad enough the net is being fucked up by spam and pop-up ads and too much advertising. Do we really want Big Brother to get his big clumsy hands on it too? |
|
01 Dec 03 - 12:23 PM (#1063763) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: George Papavgeris Er...if Big Brother did have his big clumsy hands on it, we might actually have less spam and pop-up ads. That would be a good thing. Would you accept it if the Water Authority spins off the pipe maintenance as a separate company, and this new cmpany instead claimed no responsibility for the health of the water it carries? Same for ISPs. Closing their eyes on content is not good enough to keep them clean. |
|
01 Dec 03 - 12:33 PM (#1063775) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: Jeri El Greko, the analogy would work if the shoemaker put the shoes out in a basket with a sign that said "take my shoes and try them out." Harvey put the songs on his website so people would download them as samples. Some WILL just get stuff for free, but they likely wouldn't have bought a recording anyway. And who's to say the guy didn't go buy Harvey's CD somewhere besides from Harvey? (He probably would have said so if he had, though.) In the U.S., there are sites which charge a small amount to download a song - the new Napster being one. If all ISPs in the US paid the royalties, would all internet distributors of music then not have to charge people? It seems to make more sense for the distributors to collect royalties from downloaders, then pass them on, than every person having to pay, regardless of whether they get the 'product' or not. What El Greko said: I suppose it's simply a matter of targeting the people in the chain that absolutely HAVE to stay legal to continue to do business. Finding and proscecuting the people distributing and downloading music illegally is just too darned difficult, even if it's the most logical and correct way to do things. I'm all for people getting what should be theirs. This just seems like SOCAN wants as big a chunk of money they can get from whoever they can force to pay it. |
|
01 Dec 03 - 01:19 PM (#1063800) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: GUEST We have some of our songs on the web for download, we never worried about getting royalties from them, what have got instead is more than a few gigs, which to me more than makes up for what we might have lost in royalties. I think of the 22 weddings I played this summer, 6 or so came from folks who listened to us on the web first, thats some $10,000 for the band. Heck we are tryin to find more sites to put our tunes on. |
|
01 Dec 03 - 01:49 PM (#1063823) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: George Papavgeris I agree Jeri & GUEST, once you put something on the internet you are effectively "offering" it for free. Which is why I replaced the full-song MP3s on my website with one-verse "soundbites" as tasters. They can taste for free - the full meal comes with the CD. By the same token, anyone who "offers" something on the Internet without being authorised to do so, is committing a crime - but in our society, they are not "criminals", simply because they cannot be caught. Yeah, I know my shoe analogy was c**p...the best I could think of at the time:-) I can't help feeling we are coming to a watershed time as regards distribution, royalties etc. Our administration systems (SOCAN, PRS etc) are geared for a different, older world, where items of physical substance were sold and copying was harder. Technology once more is stretching society's structures, and I for one can't see where it will end up. In any case, I would not support any attempt to clamp down on the technology - but we do need to find new ways to licence use of creative material. |
|
01 Dec 03 - 02:22 PM (#1063838) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: Cluin Your Water Authority analogy is crap too, El Greko. ;) Water is a basic necessity of life, not a priviledged commodity like the Internet and its data and content. Besides we don't need an analogy here. The issue is pretty simple. The ISP provides a connection to the Internet. That's all. What you do with it is YOUR responsibility. That keeps the Net free and easy as far as speech & content--just the way we like it. And yes, I agree that means that a lot of bad stuff comes with that freedom (kiddie porn, hate literature, snuff films, other stuff I don't even want to think about or know about), but that's the price you pay for freedom. If that stuff is illegal or immoral or whatever society decides is wrong and dangerous, you punish the user at his/her end and the provider of the content at the other end. You don't take the attitude that because this stuff is out there, then you must assume everybody is using it and so you can punish everybody equally. That's essentially what SOCAN wants to do. Jeri is right about their motives; they are looking to find the lost revenue somewhere and the ISPs are an easy target. I'm not slamming SOCAN. They are a good non-profit organization and try to do their best for artists. I just think this move is unfair. It would force the ISPs to raise their rates, thus punishing ALL users of the Internet for the actions of a few... telling Mr & Mrs. Fixed Income who have finally gotten on the Net to be able to get e-mailed pictures of their new grandchild that their rates are now quadrupling because Kyle next door wants to trade an MP3 of Junkdog Poop Daddy's new song Muthafucka Bitch Ho Nizzle with his schoolfriends. Besides, you can bet your ass none of that money SOCAN would gets from the action would get to any of the smaller artists and groups... certainly not folkies and indie artists. It would all go to making Shania Twain and David Foster richer. How would they be able to monitor which artists' music was being downloaded and figure out how to distribute the monies equitably? They can't even do that now with all the radio and TV stations out there. |
|
01 Dec 03 - 02:39 PM (#1063851) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: Clinton Hammond "an MP3 of Junkdog Poop Daddy's new song Muthafucka Bitch Ho Nizzle" Hey... can I get in on that swap too??? |
|
01 Dec 03 - 02:53 PM (#1063858) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: Cluin Fo shizzle. |
|
01 Dec 03 - 03:47 PM (#1063891) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: harvey andrews Actually the shoe analogy is one I've used myself. A shoemaker comes to a town. He opens a shop and handcrafts a pair of shoes. Someone buys them, takes them home, puts them in a machine that reproduces them and then gives them away to the townspeople. Meanwhile the shoemaker sits in his shop waiting for customers.As the shoes have all been given away for free nobody comes to his shop. Soon he closes down. When the shoes wear out there is no one with the skills to replace them. I've heard all the arguements rehearsed in the name of freedom that are posted above and they sound as hollow as ever. All I ask is that the people who post them apply the same laissez faire, if you can steal it steal it, attitude to their own work. I don't mind people geting my work for free if they come and work for me for free when I need them! If we're going back to an age of barter then maybe every free download should carry a point that totals up to enough so I can get a plumber for an hour for free when I need him! |
|
01 Dec 03 - 04:11 PM (#1063907) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: Cluin You got my vote on that one, Harvey. We should have the technology to pull that off now, shouldn't we? |
|
01 Dec 03 - 04:28 PM (#1063917) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: The Fooles Troupe APRA in Australia. I have been told that they wanted a license from the organiser of The Toowoomba Accordion Festival, don't know how much. Not sure that they wanted a detailed playlist. The majority of the music played there, and yes there were two concerts over the weekend as well, was played by many amateur individuals playing in small simultaneous walk-up groups, playing mostly music that was "trad" and also other "less trad" music that was definitely out of copyright. Robin |
|
01 Dec 03 - 05:59 PM (#1063987) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: M.Ted The business model that you layed out, Harvey, is just about the one that a lot of the the manufacturing folks used over the years in a wide variety of areas, to drive hand craftsmen out of business, as well as competitors with fewer technological and financial resources--the only step you left out is the last one, which is, when the handcrafters and other competitors are driven out of business by the flood of free or cheap merchandise, the manufacturers raise their prices-- Be that as it may, Harvey, may I remind you that, defend as you may SOCAN and ASCAP, RIAA and their ilk, they do not "protect" you unless your publishing/recording company is a member, which I'll bet it isn't-- Now, what I think would be an interesting exercise, would be to figure out if all of this legal business is doing anything other than costing publishers and recording companies millions of dollars a year in legal fees and salaries for SOCAN, ASCAP, RIAA directors-- Incidentally, Harvey, I found an MP3 file of one of your tunes while I was cruising with Limewire and I sent a message to the person who was sharing your file to the effect that you didn't appreciate it--no reply, though-- |
|
01 Dec 03 - 06:03 PM (#1063991) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: Jeri Harvey, you said "I've heard all the arguements rehearsed in the name of freedom that are posted above..." There aren't any that I can see above. If you thought that's what I was saying, you've misunderstood. I think people who download the music should pay - not everybody. This would be like everyone who walked down the street where the shoemaker's shop was located having to give him money because they could have bought shoes. Whether they actually did or not would be irrelevant. As to advertising faster download times, the ISP isn't advertising the product to be downloaded. The ISP provides access ONLY to what should be legal downloading, and it's not within their span of control to ensure it is legal. They can't control what you choose to download and they can't conrol what other people provide. Why the ISP and not the phone companies that provide access to ISPs? (Some of us are still living in the dark ages of dial-up). Why not computer and modem manufacturers, because without computers and modems, we wouldn't be able to download music? What authority do ISPs have to control the downloading SOCAN seems to be saying they're responsible for? My guess is still that the ISPs are the most vulnerable target with the most money. |
|
01 Dec 03 - 07:01 PM (#1064029) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: harvey andrews I'm not defending SOCANS approach per se, I'm just drawing attention to the problem they are grappling with. As to everybody paying, it's basically the same as taxation. Some of my taxes pay for things I'm totally against like the Iraq venture, but I have no say in that. I do think however that El Greco made a very good point about how these internet suppliers use our work to sell their product and they benefit financially by the service they provide. This should bring with it a responsibility. Socans case will bring this discussion to a point.Freedom without responsibility is license and this idea that the net should be free of all controls is what the debate is about. I think the attitudes in Europe towards these issues is different to the attitudes in America, as I expect to see clearly defined in "Bowling for Columbine" which is on UK TV this coming weekend. |
|
01 Dec 03 - 07:38 PM (#1064063) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: Jeri My part of the debate doesn't involve me thinking the net should be free from all controls. I think the controls should be applied more sensibly than SOCAN's proposing though. If you think collecting royalties from Canadian ISPs instead of collecting them from distibutors makes more sense, consider that it only affects Canadians. What happens when non-Canadians download music from Canadian sites? I'm in the U.S. and wouldn't pay the higher ISP rates. Does this mean that Canadian artists' music earns no royalties from people outside Canada? |
|
01 Dec 03 - 08:42 PM (#1064106) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: GUEST,Obie Cluin makes a very valid point that should not be disregarded. Most on this forum are not to benefit from SOCAN collections. Even if the royalty is collected from your music it is paid out on a formula based on air play. Many Mudcatters are no doubt, fine singers and songwriters, but how much air play do they get. Radio is crap because all it will play is crap and the royalties from our fine performers will end up in the pocket of those who produce this crap. The courts of the land don't give a shit about the little guy. This is all about more money for those who already have more than enough. |
|
03 Dec 03 - 11:46 PM (#1065235) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: Q (Frank Staplin) The newspapers and TV news in Canada for the last two days suggest that if the Canadian Supreme Court decides that royalties are to be collected by internet service providers, the cost will be borne by ALL internet users, not just those downloading music. A monetary burden to everybody, estimated as a 10 per cent increase in costs to the consumer. A favorable decision, moreover, would open the way for additional means of taxation. In a CBC news broadcast tonight, it was suggested that the case could be a model for similar court action in the United States. Some Congressmen are looking at increasing tax revenues from internet services- always looking for additional sources of revenue. To reduce the expense, many internet users, who like myself don't download the mp3 stuff, might be faced with limiting their access, or, if not addicted to the internet, looking to services that perhaps would only offer Email and specific business services. I am raising a bogeyman here, but the future is murky. |
|
04 Dec 03 - 06:26 AM (#1065358) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: Nigel Parsons Presumably if the case is successful all the ISPs will relocate, ostensibly, to "tax havens". The "World-Wide"Web can be accessed from almost anywhere and based almost anywhere. Which Judiciary is going to be responsible for chasing away the tax revenue & jobs which these ISPs already provide? One of Britains major insurance firms has just announced the relocation of their tele-service (good word that, "Tele= at a distance) to India because of a cheaper workforce. They're not the first and won't be the last. Nigel (who's just started training in tele-service for an ISP!) |
|
04 Dec 03 - 02:07 PM (#1065590) Subject: RE: SOCAN requests download royalties From: Q (Frank Staplin) Not true, Nigel. The service providers here are the telephone company and the cable companies who provide our TV access as well. They can't relocate their physical facilities, and their operations are regulated by the tax collector (through the government boards and commissions). Moreover, it's no problem to block specific websites and/or content. This is done on services provided to schools and libraries here, and some businesses are looking for the same censorship to prevent employees surfing while at work. |