Canadian music biz rejects $5 a month music tax

WTF! why reject that, if it was succesful then many other countries would follow suit making that $billion a $kajillion.

record companies need to get it into their heads that we are progressing, we don't need them anymore as more and more artists distribute on the net and make themselves a hell of a lot more money than the record company would dish out to them.


This is pathetic. Most the the labels that are represented by industry association sock puppets such as Graham Henderson are just as guilty as if not more so than the people they are suing.

RIAA collects fines, but feels the artists who created the work in the first place aren't entitled to any of it.
http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2003/09/20/riaa-collects-fines-doesnt-pay-artists

MPAA illegally copies adirectors movie.
http://www.break.com/index/mpaa-illegally-copies-filmmakers-movie.html

EMI selling music that they no longer have a licence for.
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/30/fripp-lays-music-industry-rip

Why should i pay anything for something i don't use?????? I buy my music thank you very much, so why should i pay because others pirate? Go after them, catch them, make THEM pay for it. 


I know if I were taxed that I would then want to get my "money's worth" and would be uploading all I could. It's probably the real reason why the music industry doesn't want it... it effectively condones it.

"Perfectly acceptable solution to a problem rejected... "

You must be joking... You really think that a tax for something as unnecessary as music is OK? What about for people who don't buy much music? Since when is it OK to give handouts to unnecessary industries, paid for by taxpayers? It's one thing subsidizing farmers, we'd be lacking food if we didn't, but the MUSIC industry? That's bonkers.

The other thing to keep in mind, is that there are a few groups in Canada battling, both representing artists...

I have to apologize as i don't have a lot of info on specifics.. But one group represents mostly Canadian Artists, and smaller independents, the other represents mostly U.S interests. 

The former, is against suing fans, and would seem (IMHO) to be supportive of this, as they would get some decent funding without having to leverage massive amounts of cash to combat the traditionally huge record companies. (much better for independent artists, and small players in the Canadian music scene. The other group, was trying to ramrod new copyright legislation with lobbyists, but the present minority conservative gov't finally woke up, and dropped the nasty piece of legislation. As well, would also be against this for all the same reasons the RIAA tortures small kittens :)


Why should all Canadian internet users be Taxed to pay a Recording Industry?

Surely the correct logic would be to Tax all Canadians who have ears? After all, that's what are used to listen to music, not internet connections.

The industry's problems is mainly the fact that the industry itself is becoming irrelevant.
Add to that that now, minor music makers have zero incentive to sign up to a label because they can make themselves available on the Internet for next to nothing, and you have planned obsolescence for "the industry".
And with all the hoopla, mud slinging and lawsuits, nobody will be sorry to see them die.
Not a joyful perspective for "the industry", but hey, it has sucked up enough powder as it is. It is time for the purge.

If I want to pay musicians for their work I do so.

A tax merely removes any incentive of artists to produce decent music - this is a typically Canadian collectivist solution. 

How is the allocation of the $5/mo tax to be made? On merit? On quality of music? On popularity? Or, more likely, based on membership in good standing in a musician's guild.

Brian Adams would make a killing off this scheme - I think that's all that needs to be said.

A net access levy is furthest from a perfectly acceptable solution.

CRIA likely rejected it precisely because they knew it would never pass muster with regulators or consumers, much less the majority who are innocent bystanders.

A levy on Internet access is worse than the current levy on media, since the Internet has even greater non-infringing uses. 

What's next, a levy per GB of monthly transfer? Per KB of peak bandwidth? It's madness.

I neither download nor upload music. I buy or am given CDs. I would deeply resent having to pay $5/mo for something I dont do, just I already deeply resent having to pay the media tax even though I use the media for either self created content or backups.

We already pay tax on every DVD, CD now. I say screw them. Show us some real stats instead of the made up ones they try and push. If they want that, I think our Gov. should stop giving them anything.

...because I have no desire to download MP3 music from the internet.

MP3 might be ok for listening on the move or in a noisey environment but if you really listen to them on audiophile equipment in a good environment they just sound weird and mangled.

If such proposal was acceptaed, would it mean piracy for personal use would be legalised? I have no idea why the CRIA rejected it, it's $1bn they're missing out on each year. I would gladly pay $5 a month to know I could do as I pleased, for personal use at least. 

I can understand some people may not feel like they should pay the tax because they don't download music or buy it, but it would probably suit the majority of users. Exemptions for the tax could apply to pensioners or those without broadband. 

Oh well. 

Canadian pirates: +$1bn. 
CRIA: -$1bn.

Personally, I've downloaded maybe 3 songs in my lifetime, that's $3 I've spent. I don't care all that much about downloading any more, 'free', pirated, or paid for. Why should I pay $60 per year so the music industry can get paid while someone else downloads 'free' music.

I'm a U.S. citizen, and I remember a few years ago when the post office wanted to tax email to give themselves a revenue stream, even though they have nothing to do with it. Jeesh!

Perfectly acceptable solution to a problem rejected...

Why? Because the music industry STILL wishes to cling to the outmoded model of full control over the way, and more importantly the price at which, we consume media.

Fortunately this latest bout of throwing toys out of a pram seems only to allow the Music Industry to spectacularily shoot itself in the foot. Now instead of earning an easy billion while internet piracy grows the industry will earn nothing, while internet piracy continues regardless.

With managers so lost as to the digital era is it really such a shock that profits are down and the industry is slowly convincing the world of it's own ineptness.