Now we just need robots to write hit records!

SOCAN pays out to the US Performing rights agencies quarterly. As do all PROs in the world. It takes time, but it works. ASCAP and BMI are the largest of the three PROs in the US, followed by SESAC. But what you're describing is for performing rights- ie. Radio play. Live shows, TV movies, ect.... If you are collecting revenue from itunes, that's a mechanical royalty, and that is handled by the CMRRA in Canada, or the Harry Fox Agency in the US. As a US citizen, you don't have to worry about it- you just pick between ASCAP and BMI.

Eventually people will start realizing that infringing is illegal and it prevents many of us (music producers) from making a living. I'm not the biggest fan of the DMCA but it's still a push in the right direction. We've been stuck in this limbo of lost revenue since 1998 (napster era) and we'll be this way forever it seems. If we need to push hard for the world of internet consumers to realize the damage they cause- then we should. Many countries will follow suit on any action. The DMCA sucks for users, but doing nothing is worse for the entertainment industries by far. Sitting around while ISPs play the middle ground simply isn't fair to anyone. Any action is going to be better than what we're doing now.

Well the artist/parasite, is just trying to get paid from the only place that people actually pay for services. It's not about squelching the user, it's just about fairness. If you're going to use your internet connection to get illegitimate content, then you should be paying extra for your service. And were talking on a federal level- even if you switched ISPs you'd still pay. I mean you should just admit to yourself that you really don't want to pay for any music again, and eventually no one will make music right?

You don't have to avoid the music industry like the plague or anything. You'll always have your connection, just know that any minor tariffs or taxes when it comes to media are going towards the culture of your country. It's just an effort to combat the loss of revenue from people that never pay for music. What they do pay for is the internet connectivity. You can live without paying for music- but you really can't live without the internet.

I would argue that whatever the monthly fee of the internet, that people will pay for it. That they HAVE to pay for it. Just like Gas. So it just makes sense to get money from it.

I'm just saying that because of the devalued nature of today music- people can't tour solely with their own product sales. There simply isn't enough money from that these days, which is the whole point of those non-profit organizations.

I know what you mean when you say that you don't like when money goes to an artist you don't like. However it's not about artist VS. artist, it's about the music industry as a whole. And yes, you did say you don't care about the music industry- that's fine and all, but you can't have it both ways.

The fact still remains that CD's, ipods, and internet connections are popular for music piracy, and therefore some revenue should be generated from them to make up for the lost sales. Now, CD's are used for legitimate purposes, of course. But the illegitimate uses of CDs, iPods and Internet- far far outweigh the legitimate ones.

And it's only fair to provide SOME compensation to people trying to make a living out of content creation.

If you bought all digital, I can see that point- but as soon as you wanted a physical copy to buy live or in store (hypothetically you become a fan) were does that artist get the money to pay for the packaging?

You want an artist that has good songs, so you can buy them for a buck off iTunes, but then you also want to have neat album art, music videos, online content and merchandise to buy live? You can't have it both ways. The money comes from the overhead on the packaging. Like I said- if the Coruss company pays mechanicals to me @ 9.1 cents a track, then I'd consider it a digital single and an equal in value to an iTunes sale. But if they don't- it's like giving my work away for free.

If there's no money to make hard copies- I mean what do you do at a live show?
"Hey, guys if you like our music- buy it off iTunes, and if you want our shirts, buy them online too!"

A huge point of going to a live show is to buy the physical stuff. And yeah it's crazy expensive, but that money helps pay for the production costs. But again if you just want the track- and NOTHING else, then you're not really a fan of that artist in the first place.

It's not like these SOCAN cheques are huge or anything. We're talking fractions of a cent multiplied by radio station demographics. It's quite possible that radio stations that do play local music routinely can be spotted more money then huge artists- in that area. And if a starting musician gets a check for $250 a year then it might not seem like much- but the idea with royalties is they get bigger over time.

Also in reality 5000 - 250000 dollars really isn't a lot of money at all. For an indie sure, but labels can and do easily spend more then 250k on records. Promotion work and tour costs are a huge factor.

Now a days labels do whats called a 360 deal- which means they get a chunk of live profits and merchandise sales as well. So that live money really isn't a lot either. A two month tour in Europe could easily cost 50,000, and most artists work at a loss.
But these 360 deals only exist because live is the only revenue stream that hasn't been affected by piracy and subsequently, people that choose NOT to pay for music.

What most people don't get is that these levies, the entire point is that it's a cultural thing. check out http://www.factor.ca/ to see all the bands currently getting money from the government. Most acts you've probably heard of, and they wouldn't be able to go on tour without such things as these levies.

Well if they were just offering a streaming service then all you'd have to worry about is Performance royalties. But in this case they're offering to give you the file. If this Choruss company is going to give me my Mechanical royalties (9.1 cents) on every song distributed then I'm happy, but if it's a blanket just to save them money as music resalers- then it's pointless. I can already get everything off itunes and the royalties are paid out properly.

Oh well, I completely agree with you then. In that respect it isn't fair. But there are many different ways an artist can collect money from a fan or a potential fan. I think Canada is one of the better places for cultural support- ironically the place with the worst piracy rates- but hey I guess you can't have it both ways. I just think they should bring back the iPod levy. They used to have it- something like $40 ontop of every ipod- but now they don't have it due to the increase of legitimate online sales through itunes. It's fair too, I guess. But anyways back to the main point- the article is talking about giving Colleges a blanket license for music, and being able to prevent the students from being liable. That just makes no sense to me. What could they possibly gain out of that?

Well to be honest, if you don't get played on the radio- then you're not at the level to care about how important royalties are to an artist. That's fine. Indie artists and Niche artists have their following too, but generally to make a living off music you need it on the radio/charts. A correction on the SOCAN payouts- If you do get played, and counted by Neilson, your money sits with SOCAN until you sign up- if you haven't already. Your money doesn't go to another artist like you mentioned. They'll get payed for their own material.

The problem with the monthly subscription is that barely any of that would go to the artist directly- essentially you'd be downloading my music for a fraction of the retail cost. It makes no sense for me other then for promotion to give massive discounts on music. Hell music in general is already discounted so much as it is. I think a monthly subscription is only fair if when the subscription ends you lose access to my music. It's a long discussion whether musicians should give away money to promote themselves, but those kinds of people can't quit their day jobs very easy.

The idea with that is the Blank Media Levy- It's run by the CPCC, which is the Canadian Private Copying Collective. http://www.cpcc.ca/english/index.htm They're an extension of SOCAN, and the money generated from the sales goes back to the artists. It works out great for starving musicians, and in general yeah- Blank CDs are mostly used to copy copy written material. The fact is that Blanket licensing is already in use and in affect almost everywhere. Bars, Clubs, Shopping malls, Radio stations- they all pay blanket licenses to use music. The problem with this idea- letting users get a subscription to all the music they want. It has to expire. As an artist, no way would I let someone download my entire library of songs for a monthly fee. It's simply not fair. Also- if indie bands want to use burned CDs for music- they can get a rebate from the CPCC. I did it when I was starting out- used 500 CDs and got all of the rebate back... Something like 30 cents a disc back then. It really is a great system. For more information visit http://www.socan.ca/

I would think it's a good move considering, this is an event that is going to go down in history- Imagine how all the librarians feel around the world when books and newspapers come in the thousands next month- They can't just double their capacity.

Well these days streaming media is more 'girthy' then it used to be. Especially when you have multiple tabs open each containing a 'part' of a tv show or some erotic presentation. I mean these cards are geared for gamer world- intensive graphics and real time rendering, but the bare OS needs some power as well. Vista is a fatty if you leave the whizz bang graphical stuff enabled. I make XP look like 98, nice and gray and sexy. It really inspires work flow...