Music Publisher Ole Criticizes C-32
November 30, 2010
Share this post
4 Comments

Law Bytes
Episode 244: Kris Klein on the Long Road to a Right to be Forgotten Under Canadian Privacy Law
byMichael Geist

September 22, 2025
Michael Geist
September 15, 2025
Michael Geist
July 28, 2025
Michael Geist
July 21, 2025
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 244: Kris Klein on the Long Road to a Right to be Forgotten Under Canadian Privacy Law
Government Doubles Down in Defending Bill C-2’s Information Demand Powers That Open the Door to Warrantless Access of Personal Information
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 243: What Are Canada’s Digital Policy Plans as Parliament Returns from the Summer Break?
Grocery Shopping While Jewish
Privacy Lost: How the Government Deleted Bill C-11’s Key Privacy Principle Just Two Months After Passing it Into Law
My view on levies hasn’t changed, but it’s nice to see people speaking out against the digital locks.
Nothing here of value…
“‘The vast majority of music consumed on the Internet – over 90 percent – is pirated,’ observes McCarty”
Unsupportable, hyperbolic crap. I stopped reading.
…
“The vast majority of music consumed on the Internet – over 90 percent – is pirated,’ observes McCarty”
The vast majority of music consumed through expensive Hi-Fi chains – over 90 percent – is legally bought, observes Napalm.
Nap.
@Chris A: Agreed. Digital locks don’t protect the artists. They protect the publishers.
And levies… I am reminded of a “Dire Straits” song… “money for nothing and your chicks for free”. At the very least they represent a lazy way to do business. A levy provides a means to compensate for losses due to piracy, sure. However, the distribution formula of the levy assumes that, as an artist sells more product, they will have more piracy against them. Has this, in fact, been verified? The music industry claims that the songs have value. So, what is the value to them? How much are they willing to invest in protecting that value? A levy seriously reduces the investment to something approaching 0. They are going to get paid for someone buying something that could be used to infringe. Why not, then, just pay an extra, say, $1000 on a car to pay, in advance, for speeding tickets?