CTV News | Group proposes $5 monthly unlimited song downloads

Top Stories -   

Group proposes $5 monthly unlimited song downloads

Viewer

CTV News Video

CTV News: David Akin looks at who will play along
Canada AM: Eddie Schwartz, Songwriters Assoc.

Font-size:      Share  Print  Comments(108)

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Thu. Feb. 21 2008 5:31 PM ET

Under a proposal designed to help musicians cash in on the millions of song downloads every year, one group is proposing that all Canadian broadband users pay a $5 monthly fee for unlimited music downloads.

Eddie Schwartz, of the Songwriters Association of Canada, revealed the plan on CTV's Canada AM on Thursday. He says the fee is small, but multiplied many times over it would create a substantial pool of cash to compensate musicians when their songs are downloaded.

He pointed out that the $5 fee amounts to just 16 cents per day.

"You keep the cost very low per household, but it actually creates a pretty sizeable pool of money," Schwartz said. "We believe between $500 million and $900 million per year, which is a reasonable amount of money, given how many songs are being downloaded and how many people need to be compensated."

However, many Internet users are opposed to the proposal because the fee would be applied to all broadband users, even those who never download music illegally and those who don't download music at all.

Under the plan, those who subscribe to dial-up Internet access, and are therefore less likely to be downloading music, could be exempt from the fee, Schwartz said.

A poll on CanadaAM.ctv.ca generated dozens of responses, the majority of which were opposed to the proposal.

  • Paul Blayney wrote: "Why should I pay for something I do not use? It is absolutely ludicrous to think that people should be charged like that. (Schwartz) stated they could tell how many downloads are completed -- charge those people who take advantage, not those of us who continue to purchase the CD's we want to listen to.
  • Brian wrote: "If my carrier imposed a mandatory $5 per month I would cancel that service and go elsewhere. I like the pay-as-you-go through iTunes. You select what you like and pay for it."
  • Jackie wrote: "I've never downloaded a song, let alone know HOW to download a song. It's absolutely ridiculous to think I should be paying for someone else's illegal actions."
  • Not all agreed, however. Karen wrote: "I would pay $5 a month for unlimited music downloads, I don't believe in illegal downloads and with two teenagers with iPods with about 100 to 300 songs each I certainly cannot afford $1 per song from iTunes. A flat rate sound good to me."

Schwartz maintained musicians deserve compensation for the 100 million songs that are available for free on the Internet -- translating to 40 billion illegal file shares per year in North America.

"Less than 2 per cent of activity on the Internet is authorized activity. So that 40 billion downloads is 98 per cent of what goes on," he said.

"For all of that activity, creative people are being paid zero, so we're trying to address that 98 per cent."

The Songwriters Association would ask Internet Service Providers to charge the additional $5 fee to broadband users. The money would then go to a collective which would redistribute it musicians based on the number of downloads.

The proposal would require federal approval.

Comments are now closed for this story

JK
said

I would seriously consider this if the music files were free of DRM.


Volodya
said

What Mr.Schwartz says is that every Internet user in Canada is a thief.
Downloading child porn is also illegal (all of it, not just 98%). Will Mr.Schwartz support a "flat jail term", say a couple of weeks a year for everybody, just because somebody does download child porn? This will include him being in jail as well.


Getreel
said

Actors should get $5 a month...Producers should get $5 a month...software authors should get $5 a month...Where does it end????


Susan
said

I think this idea is absolutely ridiculous. Why should everyone have to pay because some illigally download music? Are stores going to start charging a cover charge to enter their store because some people steal from them? Or how about every restaurant add $1.00 to every bill in order to cover dine and dashes?

Furthermore, are they then going to provide a database with every song available so that you can download what you want and not have to worry about quality or viruses? How are they going to track who's work is being downloaded more often, in order to pay out royalties or to divide the $5/month. Who does the money go to?

I can not foresee this idea working, and I can not foresee forcing people to pay. If you want compensation, offer a subscription service for $5/month and allow unlimited downloads, but don't try and tack it on to everyone's bill.


BK
said

No,no,no...absolutely not. I am tired of people suggesting new fees for this and that. My broadband service is expensive enough and I will not pay for someone else's music. If the musicians cannot come up with a workable user-pay scheme then they will just have to suffer the loses...


DW
said

If this is a possibility then why are we paying $15 to $20 for CD's who is making all the money? I know it is not the musicians.


Vince M.
said

Why would I pay one cent for unlimited access to Canadian artists - none of which I have ever downloaded and the huge majority of which I would not listen to in a million years.

This is like the government takng our money and giving us unlimited access to TV shows nobody wants to watch... oh wait ... "Little Mosque On The Prarie"...






Crobar
said

Personally, I'd support something like this. Looking at the amount of wasted court time on prosecuting illegal downloaders in the US, and the number of wrongly accused people who've had to endure long court battles to clear their name, I'd say $5 a month is a small price to pay to avoid such actions.


Chas
said

My business plan if this goes ahead:
1. Join the songwriters association
2. Write and record a song and upload it.
3. Generate an automated download program and download my song millions of times.
4. Receive royalties


Mark G.
said

This idea is preposterous. We don`t have to pay for songs we hear on the radio and much of the commercial music today is garbage anyway.There is no way I want to support these so called artists.If they want to make money, they should hit the road and play live music again.I think it`s all the people who make money off of the artists who are the ones who are losing and complaining about it. There is a lot of good amateur talent on websites like youtube now. The professional artists have monopolized and milked the system for too long anyway. Lets make room for our talented amateurs.


RM
said

This proves how naive this Songwriters Association are on the profile of Internet users. There are hundreds thousand of Deaf Canadian people who would not need to use music downloading. Charging them for a fee will be just downright pathetic.
In Australia, a Deaf man successfully sued his cellphone carrier since he did not use the phone mode, just the SMS and text, yet the carrier charged him for phone services. His fees were refunded to him along with refunds made to thousands of other Deaf Australians. Just be warned!
Ironically, the Internet does not have enough captioning for videos and films posted on the web. Music videos as well!!!
Imposing the fees is just a slap to the Deaf community of Canada. And if they think--oh Deaf people will be exempt--think again..We have a right to protect our identity and personal information. Think again!


Michael Taylor
said

We already pay a levy on CD's to compensate the music industry. Many of us do not use our blanks for music but are taxed anyway.

To add even more than this by a broadband levy creates only one question:

Why can't the Canadian music industry stand on it's own?

Perhaps it's time we cut the apron strings and let it die if there's no support.

If a CFL player has to have a second job to pay his rent, there's no reason an artist can't be expected to do the same.


Vince M.
said

I'm already paying a fee to musicians for the blank CDs I use for everything except music downloading.

Now they want me to pay for Internet access which I use for everything except music downloading?





Al
said

Five dollars for unlimited downloads is definitely not unreasonable. For those who pay for music its a deal. For those who claim they don't download music then maybe they should give it a try. If they don't want to try it then don't subscribe to it. I'm sure there are ways to monitor if people do or don't download music on individual ISP's.


lynnh
said

Wouldn't this be against our rights? It is assuming that everyone is guilty. Those that are innocent would be unfairly penalized. It is like charging everyone a monthly fine for speeding because some people do it. I suspect that it could be successfully taken to court.


Roscoe Yates
said

First off I will NOT pay a fee for something I do not get (other that Federal Taxes) and secondly, I am a musician and I am still waiting to see my part of the fee charged on CD's that is supposed to be given to musicians. This sounds like another scam.


Ralph.
said

I will ABSOLUTELY NOT pay $60. per year for something I do not use. I've never downloaded a song, don't even know how to. Find another method to charge those who do download. If ISPs can monitor what gets downloaded by these "thieves", tag it onto their monthly bill.


MP3
said

This will fail. Not fair for people that don't download songs and also not fair for people who do download songs and pays. Its $0.16 extra on top of the song your downloading on itunes.

I hope ISP fight this.


J-F (Ottawa)
said

I think it's a great idea both for consumers and the artists.

Who can argue with $5 a year?


Bev
said

I should hope that it would require federal approval!! I have never downloaded music and refuse to pay for someone else's illegal activity. I will switch ISP if mine decides to charge me.

Charge the ones that are downloading and leave the rest of us alone.


Here In The Concious World
said

The music industries same old lies are getting incredibly ridiculous as they continue to spread them ad infinitum. A download does not neccesarily equal lost revenue. If people had to pay for the free downloads they take they wouldn't buy most of them anyway. CDs have been an obvious over priced rip off for years so it's no wonder downloading is so popular. I have only ever downloaded music that isn't available for sale, such as in the "rare, unreleased and out of print" categories. I also try to buy used CDs whenever possible. Just my way of protesting an overpriced product. I will admit that CD prices have come down a little in recent years, if only on new releases. What does that tell you about how we've been gouged by the record companies for years?


Alan Lukachko
said

If you don't download songs from the internet, why do you have to pay?

This is just another 'tax' to enrich big business. That money wouldn't get to the writers and performers.

If I'm going to download and pay for music from the internet, I want to do it from the performer or songwriters website. Cut out the middle man and give it directly to the person who deserves it.


L-P Comire
said

If this fee goes through, I'll cancel my broadband and switch to dial up.

Broadband is already extremely expensive, let's not add a fee for "what if's".


marty d
said

it should be an option to have when signing up for broadband internet service, it should be asked if you download alot and if so, the 5$ fee, would apply, cause honestly, if my carrier were to charge me that, i would cancel the service, i dont even do any downloading, why should i pay for someones downloading and plus in canada it is legal to download music according to the supreme court of canada, its the same concept as going to the librairy and photocopying a page from a book, are any royalties going to the author, of course not, its just another way for the recording industry to try and make more millions than they currently do, its ludicrous, i'm completly against it


RK
said

I think this is a great idea as long as there is a good quality download portal to use. I don’t download ‘illegal’ songs; as the quality available is generally poor and the record labels flood the file sharing sites with bogus tracks. If we get something for the $5 a month then yes, if this is just a tax grab with no guarantee to high quality downloads (i.e. status quo) then no.


Brad B
said

Perhaps we should pay a $1 entrance fee every time we walk into Canadian Tire, to offset the cost of shoplifters; and restaurants could charge an additional $2/meal due to the dine-and-dashers. This makes as much sense as the proposed tax on media storage devices. What a crock. I understand the plight, but this is not the answer.


Tom (Ottawa)
said

So if I am already buying legal music via iTunes Music Store (Canada), I am going to pay and extra $5.- a month on my broadband connection just because I want to enjoy my internet experience and telephone service.

How does adding $5.- to all broadband users make sense, what about business and those who have a home network.

All this is saying is that broadband users have nothing better to do other than steal music, forget about online gaming which is one of the biggest markets compared to music or movies, home networks, etc...

This is nonsensical argument. Hope nothing comes of it.


Another Nanny State suggestion?
said

I agree with Karen who wrote: "I would pay $5 a month for unlimited music downloads, I don't believe in illegal downloads and with two teenagers with iPods with about 100 to 300 songs each I certainly cannot afford $1 per song from iTunes. A flat rate sound good to me."
In her case, and for people in similar circumstances, it sounds like a good deal.

I really agree with Jackie who wrote: "I've never downloaded a song, let alone know HOW to download a song. It's absolutely ridiculous to think I should be paying for someone else's illegal actions."

I'm in Jackie's category: I just don't use the Internet for downloading songs and/or movies; I'm not into gaming - I basically use the Internet as a source of information.
Why should I be forced to contribute to starving musicians whose products I don't use?


angry user
said

This is insane. So they want to charge people for something, even though they may never use it.

And what level of song quality do I get for paying this price? Are they going to give a website to download songs with good bitrates for this $5 a month? I think not.

This is another example of the pure greed in the recording industry, and why they deserve to get screwed over.


Robert Newton
said

I never download any music, I do not own an i-pod or any other similar recording device. Let those who want the downloads pay for them. Perhaps they could pay i-tunes $100 a year for unlimited use. I certainly don't want to pay for someone else's bill.


Brenda
said

This battle has gone on long enough. I think it is the only solution. I say go for the isp $5.00 a month payment...if we love our Canadian music and musicians, no matter whether we download or not, this WILL support the artists!


Joe Average
said

What is the real motive here? Is Mr. Schwartz looking to compensate musicians/composers for alleged illegal downloads or his he looking to compensate musicians/composers for lost revenue froom lower CD sales because the music companies have not kept up with the times and offered consumers the product in a format they want?

I would also like to see the proof behind the illegal download allegations. If the numbers are coming from organizations like the RIAA, I would be deeply suspect about their validity.


Sierra
said

Thats totally unacceptable. I only use I-Tunes or other similar sites and already pay for my music. I shouldn't have to pay for it twice!!

It's also completely unfair to other users such as gamers or even businesses who do not download music at all.

Respectfully Mr Schwartz needs to get a clue. You can't charge people for services they might use!


Copyright Criminal
said

This is a good idea with many fundamental flaws.

Let's say if you could only charge those who download and not those who don't. And there are no loopholes or strings attached. I think $3 a month is a more reasonable surcharge. This, I would pay if it went straight to the artist and not the record company.

Record companies need to realize that once a piece of music/video/art is free, transferrable, and reproduceable with no loss in quality nobody will ever PAY for it ever again! It's time to revamp your business model and change how you make your money.

Also, we need to take a closer look at our laws and make sure they are in touch with reality. Younger generations download music, pirate movies, and smoke pot. Does this really constitute criminal activity? If so, we are raising a generation where laws mean nothing and everybody is a criminal.


What does this tell a young person? Some laws should be followed and some shouldn't depending on how I feel? I didn't hurt anybody so it must be ok?

Days of paying for music is over. Let's not punish everyone for an archaic business model.


N
said

I don't pay what I don't use. Bottom line. What an awful idea. You want to download music, then pay. That's like charging people car insurance when they don't own a car. 'Nuff said.


mike
said

sign me up... I think it is a GREAT idea.
I have 4 children and on average i would think
each of them uses at least $75.00 a year in I-Tune cards.
musicians have been getting the stolen from
for far to long.
small price to pay for such a great thing...music is one of the greatest joys of life.


DRD in Manitoba
said

It is a great idea. I own a retail store - so the government should also charge each person coming into my store a $1 tax every time they enter to help me defray shop lifting expenses. Credit card company’s could also get the government to charge a flat fee to card users to help those company’s pay for costs incurred by stolen credit cards. The government could also charge a tax on issuing Driver’s licences and passports to help people with costs incurred through identity fraud. Hey, we could even pay a tax when we purchase a vehicle to help insurance companies recoup their losses when vehicles are stolen and they have to pay out loss claims. SOCAN already charges every business in Canada a $100 yearly fee to play the RADIO in their places of business if it is heard by the public. Now they want to charge every person using the internet in Canada? Give me a break. Your solution is the courts not my pocket book!


Sam
said

The music industry has gone too far. We already pay extra fees for blank CD's because the music industry thinks we buy them for burning music. I can't remember tha last time I used a blank CD for music! Now they want me to pay for music downloads I don't use?? And who gets the money, Bryan Adams or Anne Murray???


Dan Mann
said

Thats absolute garbage, I will never pay any kind of fee for something I will never use. It's not like the musicians are hurting for cash anyway. Please think a little bit harder before you try to charge people for services THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR!


Eddy
said

They charge fees on blank CD and DVD dics and now they charge on internet. What next? For entering shopping malls because they play music there? Is download legal after paying the fee? If not, it is like guilty without trial.



Geoffrey Grew
said

Just another tax as far as I am concerned. Charge for downloading if you must but use a fee for use system.
We seem to have a different approach to music than any other media. When I buy a book I am free to dispose of as I see fit or lend it to one hundred people. same for a magazine or newspaper. The writers seem satisfied with their royalties why not the music writers.
Thank you for a chance to respond


Jeff Robillard
said

The fee is unfair to those that do not perform music downloads. The music industry is being very gratuitous in its aim to make everyone pay, and those that buy music legitimately at CD stores will pay twice! It amounts to a tax for the benefit of the music industry that also sets a dangerous precedent.


Brian
said

This is all well and good, I am a Broadband user and even though I rarely if ever download music, I don't mind assisting this way, BUT if this adopted, it better not cost anyone a dime to download music!!
How are they proposing to force the Music sites that charge currently, to stop charging and make their sites free for all Canadians? Then there is all the American pay-per-file sites, how will they force them to not charge Canadians? I doubt that they can do it, therefore this proposal should be contingent on getting 98% of all pay sites to agree that Canadians will not be charged, ever. I know we will never get 100% agreement.


DON
said

WHY WOULD A DEAF PERSON WANT TO PAY 5 DOLLARS, FOR SOME THING HE CAN'T HEAR.


GerryEDM
said

If they can track who loads illegal music, from the IP address. then block the IP in every way. That person then can call up, complain about the problem and be told to pay up $$$$. What's next, a charge for every breath we take ?


Steve K
said

First of all this is plainly wrong. Years of overcharging for music and overpaying musicians (I dont care what people think, making millions, sometimes tens of millions for playing music while others who do more good on this planet make less is wrong) caused this problem. They have made thier billions off a controlled industry for long enough, its time for it all to end.

There is obviously logical problems with this. If they can collect the money and distribute it knowing what people are downloading (which is a technological marvel and they cannot do it) then it means they could also just charge the ones downloading the music.

Make it an option, a website that offers unlimited downloads for $5. Make it accessible and who wouldnt pay for that over hours of crawling the net for music. The ones that dont pay would make up a small percentage.

This is a total lie no doubt. I bet most of the money will go to the top, the musicians are made to believe they will get something and they wont get very much. Of the $5, $4 alone would probably be the "administration" fee.

hahaahahah what a joke.




SHAME ON CTV
said

So CTV sold out to the man. File sharing IS NOT ILLEGAL IN CANADA. Why do you call them illegal downloads when the supreme court says they aren't?


BTW, why should everyone pay this?

Not everyone downloads music.

By charging everyone, you assume everyone is a thief! Even those who pay for their downloads.


Graham Day-Myron
said

Just another blow-hard self interested buffoon spouting nonsensical statistics in order to garner his piece of the pie. Go away Mr. Schwartz, very few of us have the stomach to pay your suggested ridiculous tax.
"100 million songs available for free on the internet", uh yeah, sure there is and I bet that way less than 50,000 of them ever get downloaded.
As for this suggestion being tabled to help poor Canadian songwriters, baloney. It's an attempted big cash grab to help folks like Mr.Schwartz improve their income as I can't honestly see more than more than .00001% of those downloads being Canadian.
Mr.Schwartz must be dreaming in Technicolor if he thinks that Canadian songwriters could ever generate nearly a billion dollars in revenue each year.
May I ask what percentage he envisions for himself?
This is preposterous greed defined to a tee, and I for one will fight this tooth and nail.




Liz MacRae
said

If this was April 1, I'd think someone was playing an April Fools joke but sadly it is not, and it was only a matter of time before applying of extra fees reached the internet. Like anything else this will be subjected to GST and in provinces which have blended HST and GST, the cost certainly rises. I think of this like the banking fees which are ever increasing. Its my money and yet I am charged for everything that the banks can do including using interact to pay for something. Yet when interact started - the praises of its use and not having to carry cash - well the benfits everyone bought into. Today even the number of transactions are limited without resulting in extra fees. Leave the internet alone. For those who wish to download - the many legal sites are available. For those of us who email, or research information or my parents who are in their 80's and email and read the obits in the paper home, why should we pay for something which we don't use. And mark my words, 5.00 plus taxes wouldn't be around long before its raised and raised. I fear this is only the start of what's to come. I will certanly voice my concerns to the CRTC that this is unacceptable to the average internet consumer. And lastly how would you restrict the users to Canadians? If we are the only ones paying, how do you stop an international user?


Liz MacRae
said

If this was April 1, I'd think someone was playing an April Fools joke but sadly it is not, and it was only a matter of time before applying of extra fees reached the internet. Like anything else this will be subjected to GST and in provinces which have blended HST and GST, the cost certainly rises. I think of this like the banking fees which are ever increasing. Its my money and yet I am charged for everything that the banks can do including using interact to pay for something. Yet when interact started - the praises of its use and not having to carry cash - well the benfits everyone bought into. Today even the number of transactions are limited without resulting in extra fees. Leave the internet alone. For those who wish to download - the many legal sites are available. For those of us who email, or research information or my parents who are in their 80's and email and read the obits in the paper home, why should we pay for something which we don't use. And mark my words, 5.00 plus taxes wouldn't be around long before its raised and raised. I fear this is only the start of what's to come. I will certanly voice my concerns to the CRTC that this is unacceptable to the average internet consumer. And lastly how would you restrict the users to Canadians? If we are the only ones paying, how do you stop an international user?


BJK
said

The federal and provincial governments will support this, because the fee will be subject to GST and PST. Another money grab.


Brad
said

I think a better idea would be to put musicians on a salary, like the majority of us. Then they wouldn't have to complain they're not making the millions they deserve. If they are popular enough they can renegotiate their contract salary like the rest of when we increase our value to whatever company we work for. It never made sense to me cancer researchers make an insignificant fraction of what some musicians make while doing something far more valuable. I honestly don’t pity the music industry at all. This music downloading is leveling the playing field, like a new over throw of an elitist class.


Krista
said

This is such a joke! From the sounds of it there are quite a few Canadaians who would be forced to pay for something they would never use, just another tax! I also think it is absurd that Mr Schwartz thinks its okay to force us to pay $5 a month ONTOP of the iTunes fees. If the muscians weren't so filthy rich some of us would feel better actually paying for music. And with CDs costing way more than they should why would we pay for those when we can access music for free on the internet. I work hard foy my meager paycheque and I really don't want to spend an extra $5 a month to support the rich.
I agree that if they can tell who downloads music you should get them to pay and leave the people alone who have never done anything wrong in the first place.


C. Lavergne
said

I think that is great!
I would not mind at all.

If we all illegally download music, artists will eventually quit writing. I work full time, if someone would grab my salary,I'd be pissed off! 5$ a month is fair for all. The artists get cash, we get whatever we want.


Steve
said

Does the $5 include a software program that will facilitate the downloading of music so that people who don't know how to download music from the internet can? How much are the administrative costs? How much will the songwriters actually get?

What about copyright issues with American Music?

There seem to be a lot of questions and not very many answers.

On the other hand, if this were a globally accepted phenomon with a very efficient and closely monitored administative process then it would provide some compensation for illegal downloading.

Illegal downloading will never stop. It is as simple as you lending your friend a cd or dvd, so lets just accept it as a fact and try to find a solution to the problem.


R.M.H
said

NO NO NO. I will NOT pay an extra $5.00 per month for music that I DO NOT want or download. Most of the music today is either Cr**music or Punk s**t. NO way do I want that. I would most certainly vote AGAINST THAT STUPID IDEA


C. Lavergne
said

The fee is unfair to those that do not perform music downloads. (That is true) That is the only thing they should change. Not every person in Canada downloads.


Greg
said

This is just another cash grab. Only in Canada is it acceptable to suggest that everyone in the country is breaking the law when only some actual do so! But lets punish everyone.

The artists are already receiving payments from all radio/TV stations in the country for playing songs. They also receive money from CPCC - at the rate of $0.24 for audio tapes and $0.21 for CD's. This means every blank tape and CD sold in Canada has a tax embedded in it. (This fee is higher than the actual retail cost of the blanks). CPCC is attempting to increase this fee to $.029 for each CD. CPCC is also attempting to have a levy charged against all recorders in Canada (to be included in the price you pay at purchase time).

If one wants to not pay these fees they must register with CPCC for $60/yr fee and then be allowed to purchase blanks within these fees. However, the individual or company must provide an accounting of their purchases each year.

I operate a small business and I frequently provide quotes for business, which takes many hours of my time, and I fail to get the business. IS someone going to compensate me for all my missed income??

The music industry needs to become more responsible and stop crying the blues. Our present system rewards poor quality performers and instills a level of content against all Canadians.




TSI Marc
said

What about the ISPs who pay for all the bits of music going back and forth over those internet connections?


R/H
said

Time to switch to 'dial-up' if this STUPID thing goes through. Let's be Canadian for ONCE and stand firm, WE DO NOT WANT THIS EXTRA FEE. To hell with the Songwriters Guild. They should try producing some GOOD music for a change instead of the c**p that they churn out now.


gene
said

as I understand it, file sharing in Canada is not illegal.

I'd happily pay 5 dollars a month if I could download any music.

Maybe the Canadian Government can work out a deal with Steve Jobs so I can pay 5 dollars a month so I can download as many DRM-free songs as I want each month. I'm sure Apple would go for it...

Now if this is 5 dollars to download Stompin' Tom, and the Tea Party...no thanks...



R/H
said

J-F (Ottawa)
That's $5.00 per month NOT per year. Read it again and you will see that this is a STUPID, CRIMINAL idea.


Rob
said

Mister Swartz clearly needs to go back to his figures and state them more clearly. Between 500 and 900 million a year is what might be gathered by his proposal.

That was his claim this morning, money gathered on the backs of pepole like myself that go to the music store and pay the CD once, and according to him get to pay for it again when I pay my internet bill because others choose to perform illegal activities. I think NOT!!

The whole industry needs to re-evaluate its priorities as well as the choice of representation.


Vince M.
said

Remember people, this is for Canadian artists.

Apart from the obvious question "Is it even possible to download $60 a year's worth of quality Canadian music?", do you really want to buy Celine Dion another ivory back scratcher?



W Ng
said

I hope this idea will die as it deserves to be. I personally have no interest in downloading music nor have ever downloaded one. If this idea becomes reality, I can think of many other schemes to pickpocket consumers.


Allan
said

Once you've given someone the right to reach into your pockets, your legs will never be cold again.
Rape me! I'm Canadian.


Steve Holt
said

Realistically, this would make me more likely to obtain my music for free. Currently I buy CDs because I like the fact that if I lose my MP3s I still have a physical backup. But at $5 per month I would feel like I would need to steal music to cover that cost. And believe me, I'd get more than 5 dollar's worth.


Rene
said

It's time that the music industry, (artists, producers, record companies, complicit government bureaucracy, etc) realize that punitive charges will never stop the illegal downloading of audio/music/movie files.

Why not instead of attacking this as a problem, see it as an opportunity to educate John Q Public on the values that our society wants to portray. Why not teach respect of self, along with that of others.

If everybody respected themselves and valued their own efforts, there wouldn't be an underground downloading industry. Instead people would value the creative efforts of our artists and be willing to pay for their efforts.

Maybe the "industry" itself doesn't value its own artists, which propagates the idea that the average person also doesn't have to value them.

Just a thought ...


Derek
said

That is fine if I downloaded music. Since I don't it is just anouther $60 a year out of my pocket for nothing.


FreakAlert
said

I think I will become a musician and get in on this. Actually, all broadband users should become musicians.

I agree with you, Eddie Schwartz' let's spread the wealth fairly.


cclf
said

So, if i buy a c.d. and lend it to my friend, who didn't make the actual purchase but who then lends it to another, who then in turn lends it on..... does that mean he/she's a thief???


Marcus F.
said

We should also charge internet users $10/month to download movies, $5/month for software downloads, $15/month to save the pornography industry which has been devastated by the internet.

This is as ridiculous as having a monthly charge on automobiles to compensate the horse and buggy industry for lost business. It's not the job of the government to subsidize obsolete industries. The music industry must adapt or die, I for one refuse to accept a new tax to pay for corporate welfare for record company executives.


chris in Ottawa
said

I would pay $5/month as that sounds much cheaper than $1 per song from iTunes, for example

But it it should be done on a voluntary basis.

What I mean is, if someone downloads music for free off the internet and is not paying that fee, then they can be charged or taken to court, whatever.

And those paying the fee would be exempt.

I'm guessing a heck of a lot more people download music illegally than pay for it, so if most of these people paid that $5 fee, then that would still be a lot of money.


Ed
said

The trouble is, there is no accurate way to determine whose music is being downloaded. So how would the revenue be shared among the recording artists and record labels?

Would it be shared proportionately with the amount of radio play each track achieves? Or according to the volume of sales through record stores? That would not be fair. Some artists' music is neither played on the radio, nor sold in record stores, so they would receive nothing. This is already what happens to them with the blank media levy. These artists receive nothing, even though their music is known to be illegally downloaded. Yet their music sells quite well through other channels, such as iTunes. So if the royalties were to be divided according to iTunes sales, the plan might be fairer to all music industry participants.

But it's still not fair to the general public, as many people never download songs illegally, and would never listen to the kind of music promoted by the Canadian music industry. I for one still prefer to purchase CDs.

Unfortunately, the people for whom the present situation is most unfair are the recording artists, songwriters, publishers, and record labels. They suffer enormously from rampant Internet theft, yet they cannot simply phone the police and prosecute the thieves, as any other business could. Schwartz and his team deserve to be commended for a good effort. Perhaps if they can refine the idea somehow, it might fly.



Evan
said

This could be a good idea, however, it has many flaws that push it down further than the obvious: NOT EVERYONE DOWNLOADS MUSIC.

Other reasons could be noted that there are hundreds, possibly thousands of artists in the world today. I would imagine most of their music is available either legally or illegally on the World Wide Web. This is like paying to enter a library. I can go to the library every day to read the same book over and over again if I wanted.


J. Voorberg
said

JV

How stupid is this idea! Maybe if the price of CD's were a little more reasonable the music industry would be in better shape. Or.....maybe if some of the music was listenable the industry might be in better shape. Just another stupid scheme to get more fingers in my wallet.



steve
said

Do you get an exemption if you are deaf?


robert
said

Good idea!
I was just robbed $800 by someone. I demand all Canadian pay me back $1. :-)


Jim in Victoria
said

Guilty without a trial. That's the proposal in a nutshell.

Instead of trying to rescue a dead business model it would be a breath of fresh air to see the music industry actually investigate the use of technology so that those of us who just want to listen to music can pay a reasonable fee to the artist based on the music we actually play on our various devices. The days of the CD are over - time to embrace downloading instead of condemning it.


jean
said

No, I would not be willing to pay for something I do not use. I have high speed internet but have never downloaded music. I feel that each person should have the option of choosing if they want to pay for the convenience.


james
said

I would gladly pay a buck for a song off the internet, if I actually was able to use it when I want, where I want. Remember paying $25 bucks for a CD (or cassette) that only had one good song on it? Music downloads illegal or not has made artists stop ripping off consumers.


Chris
said

5 bucks a month still works out to more than what I pay for CD's in a year!!!

Music artists and record labels have to start producing singles and not albums!

People don't want to listen to $20 dollars worth of one hit plus a dozen crap tunes. Make singles, charge 50 cents for each, not a dollar, and still cash in a profit.

Here's an idea:

Produce vending machines in malls so that you insert 50 cents, plug in your memory stick, and download your song. Set up security measures such as anti-virus and anti-malware on these vendors and you are set!!! Its that simple!!!!


penny
said

This is nothing short of negative billing.
As a senior I do not and never would download music ,PLUS I have no idea how to ,this is an outrageous idea. why should I pay for the sins of someone else.????


Annette
said

that is so full of c**p. Like the person who said about jail terms for crimes committed over the internet, punishing everybody because of some is nuts. I pay through iTunes for my music, and I have many more bought and paid for cds to account for the rest of what is on my iPod. How dare he come along and tell me I need to pay for what others are stealing? He goes on national tv and calls me a thief, nevermind that he doesn't know me or the rest of us at all. Also, I would consider dial up access and stop buying music altogether online. I may even consider becoming the thief he says I am and start borrowing music from my friends to put onto my computer, instead of buying it. And I would certainly consider opening my library of cds and tapes to all my friends, which I don't do now.


Eric
said

The odds of this actually getting anywhere past CANADA AM are somewhere between remote and none, especially with the Conservatives.

The fees that exist on blank media and flash players is exactly what this is for and doesn't need any mucking around.


Frankie
said

Absolutely not. I do not download music. WHY should I pay $5.00/month, $60/year to my carrier for something I DO NOT USE OR WANT? I would refuse to pay it, and they can take me to court.


Wes
said

I am careful as a teacher not to punish the whole class for the actions of a few. Even if you don't know who the perpetrators are, taking it our on all is just not right. Same with music downlods. Because some people(percentage is debateable) use the intermnet to steal music, punishing all of us is just wrong. It's just wrong.


Andrew
said

Thus the music industry perpetuates myths and lies.

It is not illegal in Canada to download music. Period. The supreme court of Canada ruled on this years ago. We pay a recordable-media levy on blank media, and that is supposed to be collected and distributed to canadian rights holders. To date, the Canadian music industry leaders have collected 100's of millions through this levy, and have distributed absolutely none to their members.

The current collection system as it is works just fine for collecting money for rightsholders. It's the music industry that's corrupt and broken.

Want to know more? Go read Michael Geist's writings. http://michaelgeist.ca/


Dan Marr
said

I'm not going to go on a rant here, but I will not be keeping my high speed internet if this goes through. If my ISP wants to keep my money they will need to fight this one.


Seb
said

5$ a month to download all the music we want when we want? How can that be bad regardless of your own activities with downloading? Thats a straight up good deal, unlimited music for the cost of 4-5 regular music cds?


MS
said

The ISP's could immediately create an _optional_ fee of $5 a month and pass that money on. By charging the fee on behalf of artists with the caveat that anyone could opt out by simply contacting the ISP; I believe many if not most downloaders would tacitly agree to that increase.

Most internet users have much more than $5 in credit from artists.. and would be willing to return it. This would allow the ridiculous media fees to be lifted too.


JE
said

Who says the downloads are illegal? Not our lawmakers or courts.
And $5 is way too much!
So is $0.99 per iTunes song - it's just a money grab.


Brett G
said

ISP's have no way to track music transfers. A 5mb file could be a song or a photo or a big word document.

What they can track is the protocol being used to transfer files, such as bit-torrents or other file sharing clients. However, these sites are used for perfectly legal services such as movie rentals, game downloads, and open source software.

The best way to deal with this situation is quite simple. Sit everyone in the music industry down, tie them to the chair, and then smack the crap out of them for however long it takes to make them realize... Music is human condition, we all have a right to hear, sing and play it. STOP STEALING MUSIC FROM HUMANITY. Stop holding us hostage over a song.

Art is subjective, and trying to put a single price on all art is ridiculous. Besides, we all know that this is just another way to con artists into joining their dying unions and coalitions. "Join our union and you might see some money from blank cd sales or government grants or ISP tax's" or, you might see nothing.
Get real.


Mike
said

It is amazing that NOBODY IN CANADA downloads music for free, we are ALL good, honest people and we ALL pay for our music.
ONLY 2% of activity is authorized. 40 BILLION
DOWNLOADS.
Unfortunatly it would only hurt the honest people because the people who steal it now will find a way to keep on doing it.
If it had an effect on YOUR PAYCHECK you sure would be crying the BLUES... No I am not a musician.


Marty
said

Great Idea, the reason most people download music (yes I do it) is because we are getting screwed by the music/recording industry. They sell you products on media that only lasts for a few years then you have to buy again. Why not license the music? So when CD’s are replaced they will give me a new copy of blue-ray cd music or even replace my original cd media of a nominal fee.
The game is over I say we all start downloading and downloading until they realize who is in control.



Steve B.
said

I kind of like the idea actually. I pay my tax dollars into EI and Welfare and never use it. So why not have all broadband users pay the fee, even if they don't use it? It's there if they want it.


Don
said

By using their standards we should be able charge the writers association for the noise pollution caused by those cars that go down the road with the loud Thump Thump Thump. Sure they are not the ones doing it, but it their music so they should be held acountable the same way they want all of us to be held accountable.


Do Re sign ME up.
said

This is good. I pay more for my call display per month. Yes, yes, yes, this is a good thing.

Hey, why not make a portion of it help new emerging musicians, as well as give a good shot in the arm for high-school music programs?


Steve
said

The thinking appears to be to assume all internet users are stealing music online, so tax everyone $5 a month and then let everyone steal what they want. How can Schwartz suggest that if we pay a $5 tax, we're free to steal music from other artists? I find this suggestion very unusual.


Anon
said

It can all be summed up to greed. Artists are sad that they aren't making millions of dollars for their day jobs. I'm sure that most popular artists make enough that the losses from downloading are negligible.

And what of the lesser known artists? That too, is greed. Their idolization of the corrupt and biased mass media as the definition of success for an artist has clouded their vision from focusing on their music. I'm sure if you spent more time on your music than complaining about money then you'd be able to produce something that people will actually WANT to buy.

tldr; People care more about money than they do about making quality music, and then wonder why people don't pay for it.


Bart Metcalf
said

B
I once heard on a news spot that artist get .07 cents per song of the $1 per song. Who really is profiting in this call for proper remuneration?

How much money would go to the artist of this proposed $5 fee? I think that this is often a grab on the part of the industry mascaraded as an altruistic motive.

As a person who never downloads music on the internet and one who only loads purchased cds onto my computer I would never accept such an unfair fee. (The only other music on my computer are the sample pieces factory loaded.)

Let's be just about this!!!


Marc
said

So many with the opinion that downloading is illegal in Canada.

It is ??????????

Where is this law that I may or may not be breaking ?


Moris
said

If this happens, then Hollywood would do the same, and software makers would follow suit along with video game makers. I do agree with the proposal and I'll pay if it comes along. But for those who never download anything, it's completely wrong. I think ISPs should look at people's usage and those who have high download usage should pay that way my old father doesn't have to pay extra for no reason.


ed jones
said

To all those people that are upset at the suggestion....gimme a break....theoretically there's no difference between this and the fact that I currently pay for all kinds of French and Italian and sports channels (let alone the shopping channel) on my cable. What's the difference?


Sam
said

Is this for real ?? This is Canada, Mr. Schwartz and I as a Canadian taxpayer resent such a suggestion. Not only because I don't download music but also because this is an invasion of my privacy.


Menno Fieguth
said

I am totally opposed to a $5.00 monthly fee.

I do not use downloads, and this would most likely subsidize mediocrity and not help quaility, while taxing the honest and the non-users.


Ian.
said

I consider this a last-gasp attempt for traditional record labels to eke out some kind of existence in the future. Speaking as someone who actually buys music, just not from major labels, I can safely say that I am happy to see them sink.

Major labels took advantage of artists, they took advantage of the purchasing public, they treated ANY new technologies as a threat to their existence. Boo hoo.


Real Itty
said

Please Please, enough with this B.S about music downloads being illegal in this country, it's not! UPLOADING is,this is not the U.S, wake up, we pay a levy on cd's, I do not, download music, myself, but i least i know the damn law, geezus people, stop being sheep, if they are going to change the law, fine then, remove the levy, i've been supporting the music for years now, without ever having downloaded a single tune.


Share with your social Network:

 

Advertisement

Contest

User Tools

About the tools

Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.

Share it with your network of friends

Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.

Share this article with Facebook

Share this article with Digg

Share this article with Newsvine

Share this article with delicious

Share this article.
Send Email

Share this article with Twitter

Share this article with StumbleUpon

Share this article with Reddit

Share this article with Yahoo! Buzz