[Remi_Gaudet21]

Just heard on satellite radio channel, "The Verge" (xm 87) that the Tragically Hip is trying to get to government to tax people buying MP3 players so that the money can be sent to artists. They didnt explain which artists, but im thinking maybe the artists have songs included on the MP3 players when they are purchased !?!?!? Any comments or thoughts?

[Tthip]

A letter signed by 350 artists urges the ministers to apply a levy to MP3 players that would later be redistributed to artists in royalties, in the same way that levies are currently applied to blank cassettes and CDs as compensation for music that is copied by Canadians.

[mojo_mattv]

I heard about this, I'm conflicted. How do you decide who gets how much of the levy? Does it go into art grants for independent artists or just back into major labels. I'm sure someone on the base knows how the levy's on cd's and tape's are doled out.

[Tthip]

How the money is distributed is determined by the Copyright Board, which ruled for 2003-2004 that it should be distributed as follows:

To Eligible Authors 66.0%
To Eligible Performers 18.9%
To Eligible Makers 15.1%
Where (roughly speaking) an author is a songwriter, a performer is a musician or singer, and a "maker" is a record production company.

Performers and makers only qualify for payment if they are Canadian. However, authors qualify regardless of their nationality.

Note that the Copyright Board does not indicate which author, performer or maker should be compensated, but simply how the funds should be apportioned amongst the three groups. The CPCC determines the amount to be distributed to each individual based on sales information (50%) and based on radio airplay (50%). This can be a complex calculation since there may be several authors and performers involved in any particular recording.

[VioletlightHeron]

I'd like to see the Makers percentage go down significantly because the way record contracts are structured, artists can end up royally ripped off. Record companies make most of their profit off the mega-selling hit artists and, in my opinion, are hypocrites crying about illegal downloads hurting their profit margin.

[BrenTheodore]

Housemate was telling me he was reading one of Halifax's papers yesterday with Gord speaking in an interview about this. Maybe the article is online, but I haven't tried a search for it.

[direwolf74]

Here's an article I came across, along with a couple of angry responses:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://fyimusic.ca/industry-news/dear-ministers-we-are-not-asking-for-charity-but-only-for-the-recognition">http://fyimusic.ca/industry-news/dear-m ... ecognition</a><!-- m -->

[floridahip]

i recall quite some time ago, gord being asked about bootlegs. and his quote was (and i paraphrase cuz i don't remember exactly)...."music is like water, it goes where it wants." and "the fan will always buy the album, even if they have a bootleg copy" or something like that. kind of a different attitude. At the time i agreed wholeheartedly, and still do. i may have a bootleg copy first, but i will always buy the album. it is how they make a living. but to tax a medium seems excessive. especially cd's. how do they know i am going to put music on it. what if i was using it to store picutes. it would seem that an mp3 players sole use is to transfer and listen to music. in hind sight if you were to decide to tax a product to compensate an artist, shouldn't the mp3 player have come first!!!

[mojo_mattv]

i recall quite some time ago, gord being asked about bootlegs. and his quote was (and i paraphrase cuz i don't remember exactly)...."music is like water, it goes where it wants." and "the fan will always buy the album, even if they have a bootleg copy" or something like that. kind of a different attitude. At the time i agreed wholeheartedly, and still do. i may have a bootleg copy first, but i will always buy the album. it is how they make a living. but to tax a medium seems excessive. especially cd's. how do they know i am going to put music on it. what if i was using it to store picutes. it would seem that an mp3 players sole use is to transfer and listen to music. in hind sight if you were to decide to tax a product to compensate an artist, shouldn't the mp3 player have come first!!!

I don't understand how you can tax something like an iPod which is specifically designed to be used with an online music store. The vast majority (95%) of my music is ripped from cd's I've purchased or from iTunes.

[catechism]

Don't the British tax TV and radio sets, to pay for public broadcasting? That's always seemed pretty reasonable to me, actually, even if you buy your television set and only use it to watch movies. I realize this isn't the same thing and it seems like there'd be a lot of potential for abuse, but I think if they laid out some guidelines and were transparent with how well it was doing, I'd be okay with it. Of course, I'd just write the Hip a check every month if I thought that would work, like rent for my soul or something.

[Remi_Gaudet21]

i recall quite some time ago, gord being asked about bootlegs. and his quote was (and i paraphrase cuz i don't remember exactly)...."music is like water, it goes where it wants." and "the fan will always buy the album, even if they have a bootleg copy" or something like that. kind of a different attitude. At the time i agreed wholeheartedly, and still do. i may have a bootleg copy first, but i will always buy the album. it is how they make a living. but to tax a medium seems excessive. especially cd's. how do they know i am going to put music on it. what if i was using it to store picutes. it would seem that an mp3 players sole use is to transfer and listen to music. in hind sight if you were to decide to tax a product to compensate an artist, shouldn't the mp3 player have come first!!!

I don't understand how you can tax something like an iPod which is specifically designed to be used with an online music store. The vast majority (95%) of my music is ripped from cd's I've purchased or from iTunes.

What he said

[mojo_mattv]

Didn't get a chance to read this yet cause I'm in class but thought this would add something to the conversation.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://blogs.music.msn.ca/2010/11/should-artists-be-compensated-if-their-musics-copied.html">http://blogs.music.msn.ca/2010/11/shoul ... opied.html</a><!-- m -->

[VioletlightHeron]

Don't the British tax TV and radio sets, to pay for public broadcasting? That's always seemed pretty reasonable to me, actually, even if you buy your television set and only use it to watch movies. I realize this isn't the same thing and it seems like there'd be a lot of potential for abuse, but I think if they laid out some guidelines and were transparent with how well it was doing, I'd be okay with it. Of course, I'd just write the Hip a check every month if I thought that would work, like rent for my soul or something.

The Brits do indeed have a TV license fee that goes to support the BBC; I'm not sure how much goes where but I do remember that there are alot of BBC outlets that cover different parts of the UK; BBC Wales, Scotland etc that is similar to NPR here in the US. However, there is an arguement that state funding of a massive source of information for the general public leads to that outlet acting as the mouthpiece of the sitting government or those politicians who want to continualy expand the role of government.

[screw_ball]

This is fascist as fuuuuuuuck