Canadian Music Group Proposes ‘Copyright Tax’ on Internet Use

[vanished]

4 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Everyone wants to sell us 100000 Gigazillionbyte connections,[...]

Really?  Where are you that this is true?  Most places people can barely get acceptable speed even if they pay a ton

[Rodinski]

Tax more, give less services.  Typical Canadian socialist policies.  Makes zero sense why anyone supports this crap.

[Guest]

This is so rediculous. What about people who backup to the cloud, or pay for capped data? Why can't they just monitor what we use our internet for like every other country  

[Nicnac]

...whether they are actually retarded?!

[dalekphalm]

4 hours ago, Rodinski said:

Tax more, give less services.  Typical Canadian socialist policies.  Makes zero sense why anyone supports this crap.

This comment is confusing and makes no sense.

 

This isn't a Canadian "socialist" policy. This isn't a policy period. If anything - this is part of Capitalism. This is a conglomerate of Music Companies proposing said tax.

 

The likelihood of this even being tabled as a Bill - let alone passing - is essentially zero.

3 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

This is so rediculous. What about people who backup to the cloud, or pay for capped data? Why can't they just monitor what we use our internet for like every other country  

Uhm... that's even worse?

 

Or - how about Canadian musicians negotiate better rates of compensation. Keep in mind, the specific compensation the group is talking about are from services that the musicians voluntarily signed up for, like Spotify.

 

The problem is that they want higher compensation per song/"listen", but that's actually what lead to high piracy in the first place.

 

You want lower piracy, so that you get paid at least something? Fine. But you gotta accept that consumers refuse to pay what you're asking, which is why things like Spotify exist to begin with.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

Uhm... that's even worse?

Worse but they do it anyway and it's free. Paying per 15GB is ridiculous, it's less than I use in a week just watching YouTube and browsing the web - not to mention automatic iCloud backups. 

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

Worse but they do it anyway and it's free. Paying per 15GB is ridiculous, it's less than I use in a week just watching YouTube and browsing the web - not to mention automatic iCloud backups. 

It's not clear exactly what their proposal is, since they don't provide full details, but the way I interpreted it is that they would simply add on a fixed tax for any data usage above 15GB - not "every" 15GB of data.

 

But I digress - it's irrelevant. I'll eat my own shoe if this becomes law. At best you'll get some crackpot fringe back seater MP that might table a private members Bill to try and make this law - and then it'll spectacularly fail.

 

At best.

 

Most likely, this never reaches the inside of the legislative chamber at all.

[ARikozuM]

4 hours ago, Rodinski said:

Typical Canadian socialist policies.  

This wouldn't be a socialist program. It would be a capitalist program since it funds something not for the people. Paying taxes to build roadways is a socialist program since it is for the people's benefit. This tax benefits large corporations and labels. 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

This wouldn't be a socialist program. It would be a capitalist program since it funds something not for the people. Paying taxes to build roadways is a socialist program since it is for the people's benefit. This tax benefits large corporations and labels. 

You don't really understand what capitalism is. Taxes kinda go against the concept of "enjoying the fruit of your labor."

[dalekphalm]

16 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

You don't really understand what capitalism is. Taxes kinda go against the concept of "enjoying the fruit of your labor."

Here's the thing.

 

Corporations are generally filthy hypocrites. They love Capitalism, because they love money, and capitalism generally helps them make as much money as is possible.

Except when market conditions (due to people not valuing something at the same level as the company does) force the price lower than is desired. Then, companies love corporate welfare, despite that being anti-capitalistic in principle.

Thus, corporate welfare becomes a part of capitalism, even when it logically shouldn't.

And, even if we disregard that, and say you're right: it's not capitalism.

It's still not socialist, since as @ARikozuM points out, the money goes to corporations, and does nothing for the people.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

Corporations are generally filthy hypocrites.

So are socialists and communists.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

So are socialists and communists.

There are hypocrites in every socio-economic spectrum, including yes socialists and communists, and capitalists too. What's your point?

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

There are hypocrites in every socio-economic spectrum, including yes socialists and communists, and capitalists too. What's your point?

That this move is inherently not capitalist.

 

Also, socialism and communism are composed exclusively of hypocrites.

[ARikozuM]

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

So are socialists and communists.

Logical fallacy? 

 

If you're a business and you fail for over-valuing your goods, you deserve to fail. #Capitalism

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

If you're a business and you fail for over-valuing your goods, you deserve to fail.

Yes. And that's what's happening to those proposing this tax.

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Also, socialism and communism are composed exclusively of hypocrites.

That's a false premise at best.

[ARikozuM]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Yes. And that's what's happening to those proposing this tax.

Then why are we letting them get in on a socialist program? This is a business, it has to prove itself. Let the owners put their own money to save the business, don't let taxpayers, those without any investment in the company's profits, pay for its success. 

 

If Canada will start taxing citizens for the music industry's safety net, those companies better be giving citizens stake in the company. Otherwise, this reeks of ineffective market fluidity. 

[Trik'Stari]

6 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Logical fallacy? 

 

If you're a business and you fail for over-valuing your goods, you deserve to fail. #Capitalism

It's SUPPOSED to be the socio-economic equivalent to Natural Selection.

 

The problem is that the people at the bottom take on the weight of failure and the people at the top lose nothing.

 

SURPRISE, those tasked with organizing structures within society always overvalue and over-benefit themselves. Regardless of whether or not we're taking about government or business.

[Drak3]

7 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

That's a false premise at best.

Their message is that businesses are greedy, then turn around and steal from those that work hard and earn their keep to give to thise that don't work hard (or at all) and have earned nothing.

 

Nothing but a bunch if greedy thieves claiming that their victims are greedy thieves.

[ARikozuM]

8 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

It's SUPPOSED to be the socio-economic equivalent to Natural Selection.

 

The problem is that the people at the bottom take on the weight of failure and the people at the top lose nothing.

 

SURPRISE, those tasked with organizing structures within society always overvalue and over-benefit themselves. Regardless of whether or not we're taking about government or business.

I'll be amazed when McDonald's loses trillions and a politician starts rallying for their safety net. 

 

Where's the safety net for the mom-pop restaurant that actually served good food and set good wages for their staff? 

 

Bradenton/Manatee County is trying to set up a fund to help small businesses that get affected by issues like the recent dinoflagellate (red tide) bloom and tourism season.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Their message is that businesses are greedy, then turn around and steal from those that work hard and earn their keep to give to thise that don't work hard (or at all) and have earned nothing.

 

Nothing but a bunch if greedy thieves claiming that their victims are greedy thieves.

Again, that's a misunderstanding of what taxes (or socialism) are.

Taxes are required for a modern society to function. If one does not wish to pay taxes, one has the option of moving to international territory or unclaimed territory.

Or live off-grid, totally self sufficiently. Hunt and grow your own food. Dig a well for your water. Chop trees for your heat, etc.

But almost no one is prepared to give up the luxuries that a tax funded society affords them. Therefore, taxes are not evil, and are not greedy.

[Drak3]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

that's a misunderstanding of what taxes (or socialism) are

That is not a misunderstanding of socialism is. And being quite frank, taxes can easily be theft. They can also be the cost of government services we benefit from.

 

But the proposed tax is outright theft.

[ARikozuM]

6 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Their message is that businesses are greedy, then turn around and steal from those that work hard and earn their keep to give to thise that don't work hard (or at all) and have earned nothing.

 

Nothing but a bunch if greedy thieves claiming that their victims are greedy thieves.

If you make more, you pay more. There isn't anything wrong with that.

 

If the stock market is running up 6% a month, who makes more: the guy with $1000 or the guy with $10? What about the guy with a billion? The guy with the grand is making more and should pay more. Many of these wealthy individuals hold no responsibility for letting their businesses fail. The loss in employment can and should be covered by their contributions back into our system. 

 

This tax, on the other hand, is taking from the people to give back for something they do not benefit from. If listening to music isn't a life necessity, Canadians shouldn't pay for it. Healthcare is a necessity, thus Canadians will gladly pay for it. Roads are a necessity, thus they will pay for it. Justin Bieber is not a necessity, thus they should not pay for it. If you wanted to frame this tax as a safety net for independent artists, not producers or labels, I'd be for it so long as there's a way to directly affect where my money goes to and to whom. A failed strategy for selling albums should not be protected.

 

Off topic: 

Spoiler

 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

The guy with the grand is making more and should pay more

Why should the person earning more or the person risking more pay more? They're the one earning that money. Unless they're making more use of services provided to them, there is no justifiable reason to take more from him, unless you lack moral.

 

3 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Many of these wealthy individuals hold no responsibility for letting their businesses fail

Many of those individuals also climbed up to where they are and are now enjoying the fruit of their labor. At this point, they've been successful long enough that they've earned what they have.

 

6 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

The loss in employment can and should be covered by their contributions back into our system.

No, it shouldn't. That is not what out system is built for. That is not what our system was built to stand for. Our system is not a system of thieves for thieves by theives.

[Trik'Stari]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

Again, that's a misunderstanding of what taxes (or socialism) are.

Taxes are required for a modern society to function. If one does not wish to pay taxes, one has the option of moving to international territory or unclaimed territory.

Or live off-grid, totally self sufficiently. Hunt and grow your own food. Dig a well for your water. Chop trees for your heat, etc.

But almost no one is prepared to give up the luxuries that a tax funded society affords them. Therefore, taxes are not evil, and are not greedy.

That is not what taxes are supposed to be.

 

Quite often however, that is what they become. To quote Frank Herbert, "It takes a pretty dull policeman not to realize that the best position a criminal can have, is one of authority".

 

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Why should the person earning more or the person risking more pay more? They're the one earning that money. Unless they're making more use of services provided to them, there is no justifiable reason to take more from him, unless you lack moral.

 

Many of those individuals also climbed up to where they are and are now enjoying the fruit of their labor. At this point, they've been successful long enough that they've earned what they have.

 

No, it shouldn't. That is not what out system is built for. That is not what our system was built to stand for. Our system is not a system of thieves for thieves by theives.

You are oversimplifying things to an extent.

 

The people at the top should absolutely lose more when their business fails, to cover the people they employed. Would remind them not to fuck up and not to make stupid, short sighted business decisions, because they would actually have something to worry about.