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

Law Bytes
Episode 277: Kate Robertson on the Risks That Lie Behind Canada's Unexpected Signing of the UN Cybercrime Convention
byMichael Geist

June 22, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Michael Geist on Substack
Recent Posts
From CCH to ChatGPT: How Canadian Copyright Law Played the Key Role in Deciding a Leading AI Training Data Case in India
Starting Over: Court Filing Confirms the CRTC’s Streamer Contribution Decisions Are Dead With a Full Online Streaming Act Reset to Come
The Name on the Window Was Enough: The Attacks on Kiva’s and the Normalization of Antisemitic Violence in Canada
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 277: Kate Robertson on the Risks That Lie Behind Canada’s Unexpected Signing of the UN Cybercrime Convention
A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: The Trouble With Canada’s Quiet Decision to Sign the UN Cybercrime Convention

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?