Music Publisher Ole Criticizes C-32
4 Comments
Recent Posts
A Standard That Doesn’t Exist: Parliamentary Secretary for Justice Offers Misleading Defence of Bill C-22’s Lower Threshold for Subscriber Information 
More Surveillance Demands to Come?: Government Admits Bill C-22’s Lawful Access Provisions Could Be Expanded 
Win, Lose or Draw?: The Federal Court of Appeal Overrules a Key Copyright Case on Procedural Grounds 
The Lawful Access Debate Begins: Canadians Should Pay Attention to What the Government Isn’t Saying 
The Global Battle for Data Control: How the 2026 U.S. Report on Trade Barriers Targets Data Sovereignty Worldwide
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?