On Friday, I incorrectly identified the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers (SOCAN) as the Association that wished to impose a $5/mo. fee on Internet usage to compensate music artists. It is actually the Songwriter's Association of Canada (S.A.C.) that is proposing this charge.
We apologize for the error, and any inconvenience this has caused.
Please Click Here to view the revised story.
Showing posts with label illegal music downloading. Show all posts
Showing posts with label illegal music downloading. Show all posts
Monday, February 25, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
SAC Wants to Charge You $5/Mo. For Using the 'Net
That headline might sound misleading, but it's actually not. The Songwriters Association of Canada (better known as "SAC") wants to charge Internet users $5/mo. in order to compensate artists for music that's illegally downloaded. The reason I say the headline is not misleading is because really, what SAC would be doing is charging all Internet users $5/mo., whether they download music online or not.
I can't begin to explain how unfair a proposal this is. The only exception made was to excuse dial-up users because they likely aren't music downloaders. This, in my eyes, is yet another unfair assumption. When I used to have dial up "back in the day", I certainly downloaded tons of songs (from the original Napster service!) Sure, each tune took about a half-hour to complete, but I still managed to acquire them.
The point is that proposing a blanket charge that would see little Billy who downloads 100 songs a month and Grandma Sissy who barely uses her PC much less downloads music pay the same fee just doesn't make sense. It would also completely negate the point behind legal music downloading Websites, like iTunes and Puretracks (although SAC insists that they would remain in tact, and their appeal would lie with the "value-added services and security features that keep them distinct from file-sharing activities").
"The plan we propose would not change or interfere with the way Canadians receive their music," says SAC's Website. "No one would be sued for the online sharing of songs. On the contrary, the sharing of music on peer-to-peer networkd and similar technologies would become perfectly legal."
Huh? First, the industry pushes toward developing legal, pay-per-download or subscription-based Websites that include annoying DRM restrictions; and now SAC says screw it, let's just charge everyone, whether they engage in illegal downloading or not?
What's more, SAC might say $5/mo. is peanuts to pay, but if that fee is approved, then what's to say that the movie and TV studios won't follow suit with their own monthly charge for downloads? Why not add video game makers as well? Pretty soon, we'll all be tacking on an additional $20 to our already hefty Internet bills!
I have to give SAC some credit for trying to come up with a method that would keep everyone's interests in mind. But if you compare the situation to TV, it would be like forcing all customers to pay for the extra sports channels, even if they don't watch them. Music downloading is like an extra package: perhaps access to all P2P Websites should be blocked by ISPs, and when an Internet user wants to "subscribe" to use them, then he can pay an additional $5/mo. To me, this makes more sense than just charging people for something they potentially don't use.
I can't begin to explain how unfair a proposal this is. The only exception made was to excuse dial-up users because they likely aren't music downloaders. This, in my eyes, is yet another unfair assumption. When I used to have dial up "back in the day", I certainly downloaded tons of songs (from the original Napster service!) Sure, each tune took about a half-hour to complete, but I still managed to acquire them.
The point is that proposing a blanket charge that would see little Billy who downloads 100 songs a month and Grandma Sissy who barely uses her PC much less downloads music pay the same fee just doesn't make sense. It would also completely negate the point behind legal music downloading Websites, like iTunes and Puretracks (although SAC insists that they would remain in tact, and their appeal would lie with the "value-added services and security features that keep them distinct from file-sharing activities").
"The plan we propose would not change or interfere with the way Canadians receive their music," says SAC's Website. "No one would be sued for the online sharing of songs. On the contrary, the sharing of music on peer-to-peer networkd and similar technologies would become perfectly legal."
Huh? First, the industry pushes toward developing legal, pay-per-download or subscription-based Websites that include annoying DRM restrictions; and now SAC says screw it, let's just charge everyone, whether they engage in illegal downloading or not?
What's more, SAC might say $5/mo. is peanuts to pay, but if that fee is approved, then what's to say that the movie and TV studios won't follow suit with their own monthly charge for downloads? Why not add video game makers as well? Pretty soon, we'll all be tacking on an additional $20 to our already hefty Internet bills!
I have to give SAC some credit for trying to come up with a method that would keep everyone's interests in mind. But if you compare the situation to TV, it would be like forcing all customers to pay for the extra sports channels, even if they don't watch them. Music downloading is like an extra package: perhaps access to all P2P Websites should be blocked by ISPs, and when an Internet user wants to "subscribe" to use them, then he can pay an additional $5/mo. To me, this makes more sense than just charging people for something they potentially don't use.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
IFPI Grasping at Straws to Deter Illegal Music Industry
Discussing issues related to illegal music and movie downloading, and the high-definition DVD format war in this industry is like a Hollywood gossip blog writing about Britney Spears. You read the same stuff over and over again, yet can't help but cover it because it's such a hot topic. Here's another one for the roster: the International Federation of the Phonographic Industries (IFPI), which works in tandem with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), hopes to help deter illegal music downloading by urging Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to take action against its guilty customers. Huh?
Yes, the Federation says that ISPs should take a "far bigger role in protecting music on the Internet". By "far bigger role" it means cutting off any Internet user that frequently uploads copyright material using the provider's service. In November, the French government put such an action plan into play.
Although this might be an effective way to deter illegal uploaders (and thus downloaders), at what point will blame stop being placed on anyone and everyone? Should Microsoft or Apple be held liable because they provide the software for the computers to work? Or how about PC manufacturers? Should they be deemed guilty by association if an illegal uploaded is using one of their products to engage in his activity?
Perhaps the efforts should be placed on figuring out why people are sourcing content in this way in such large numbers, and find out how to sway them toward legal content rather than away from illegal versions. Illegal music downloading has become such a widespread problem, in part, because consumers don't see an acceptable alternative in the digital arena. Now that DRM-free tunes through legitimate sites are surfacing, we might see more support move toward legal activity, and away from "free" stuff.
Also, the IFPI blames a lack of interoperability between services and devices for hampering progress in the legel digital download space. Yet other associations and groups try to lobby for levies to be placed on portable audio players to compensate for the ability to record tunes from one device to another. So we should be able to download tunes and use them on a multitude of devices, but if we use them on a multitude of devices, then we're illegally "copying" them.
When will it end? We likely have a long way to go.
On a related note, the IFPI says that digital downloads account for about 15% of the global music market, up 4% from last year. In the U.S., that number spikes to 30% in revenue. In 2007, 20 illegal tracks were downloaded for every legally downloaded one.
Yes, the Federation says that ISPs should take a "far bigger role in protecting music on the Internet". By "far bigger role" it means cutting off any Internet user that frequently uploads copyright material using the provider's service. In November, the French government put such an action plan into play.
Although this might be an effective way to deter illegal uploaders (and thus downloaders), at what point will blame stop being placed on anyone and everyone? Should Microsoft or Apple be held liable because they provide the software for the computers to work? Or how about PC manufacturers? Should they be deemed guilty by association if an illegal uploaded is using one of their products to engage in his activity?
Perhaps the efforts should be placed on figuring out why people are sourcing content in this way in such large numbers, and find out how to sway them toward legal content rather than away from illegal versions. Illegal music downloading has become such a widespread problem, in part, because consumers don't see an acceptable alternative in the digital arena. Now that DRM-free tunes through legitimate sites are surfacing, we might see more support move toward legal activity, and away from "free" stuff.
Also, the IFPI blames a lack of interoperability between services and devices for hampering progress in the legel digital download space. Yet other associations and groups try to lobby for levies to be placed on portable audio players to compensate for the ability to record tunes from one device to another. So we should be able to download tunes and use them on a multitude of devices, but if we use them on a multitude of devices, then we're illegally "copying" them.
When will it end? We likely have a long way to go.
On a related note, the IFPI says that digital downloads account for about 15% of the global music market, up 4% from last year. In the U.S., that number spikes to 30% in revenue. In 2007, 20 illegal tracks were downloaded for every legally downloaded one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
