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 peer-to-peer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label peer-to-peer. 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
