Downloading tariff supreme court ruling

Walter Dnes waltdnes-SLHPyeZ9y/tg9hUCZPvPmw at public.gmane.org
Thu Jul 12 18:57:14 UTC 2012


On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 04:47:39PM +0000, Peter wrote
> Is this ruling good or bad? I understand that it curbs some extra
> tariffs charged previously for downloading material?
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/12/supreme-court-rules-no-tariffs-for-downloading-music/

  The headline is a bit misleading.  More info at
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/07/12/pol-supreme-court-copyright-rulings.html
I see it as a triumph for common sense.  When phone a store and buy a
CD, or a videogame with music on it, the artists/sonwriters/etc are
compensated for each copy by the music companies and videogame
publishers respectively.  Everybody agrees that should be the case.

  But, nobody seriously argues that the store should pay an additional
tariff for the act of delivering the music to you via mail or courier.
But the Canadian Copyright Board ruled that online stores that deliver
the music (or video games containing music) should pay *A SECOND ROYALTY*
(i.e. streaming) for the act of delivery.  That is double-dipping.  This
is not like an "internet readio" streaming service where the only
royalty is for the streaming.

  To summarize... downloading via the internet as part of a transaction
is *NOT* subject to a second royalty for "internet streaming".  What we
need is a shakeup of the Copyright Board.  They seem to have been doing
a lot of money-grabs recently, that have to be fought all the way to the
Supreme Court.  Since they're government-funded, they don't care about
the costs of litigation.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes-SLHPyeZ9y/tg9hUCZPvPmw at public.gmane.org>
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists





More information about the Legacy mailing list