Music Publisher Ole Criticizes C-32
4 Comments
Recent Posts
Named to Canadian Lawyer’s Top 25 Most Influential Lawyers 
Be Careful What You Wish For: Why Asking Google Maps to Defy the U.S. on Lake Ontario Would Undermine Canadian Digital Sovereignty 
Big Money, Bigger Design Changes: What the Meta Settlement Means for Canada, Bill C-34, and the Age Verification and Privacy Risks That Remain 
Unleashing the Trolls: Ontario Court Opens the Door to Liability for Influencers Who Weaponize Their Audiences 
Why Ottawa Will Likely Join the U.S. in Opposing the Quebec Online Streaming Law at the Centre of the Trade Battle
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?