Music Publisher Ole Criticizes C-32
4 Comments
Recent Posts
Is Compromise on Encryption Possible? Why Bill C-22’s “Minor Opening” Leaves the Central Question Unanswered 
The Wrong Target: Why the CBC Should Be Asking About the Yom Kippur Protesters, Not the Journalist Who Reported on Them 
Buried in Bill C-39: The Enabling Digital Trade Act Brings Canada Its First Federal Electronic Trade Documents Law 
A Definition That Meets the Moment: Federal Government Recognizes Antisemitism Includes Anti-Zionism 
Nobody Can Say They Weren’t Warned: Canada’s Threat Assessments Predicted the Belleville Yom Kippur Attack
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?