Copyright Board of Canada recently approved new fees to play recorded music at large gatherings, inc - Polidicks

Kill Harper. I'm too tired to give a fuck about civility.

What exactly do they mean by "recorded music"? If someone paid for and owned the music that they are playing and have a receipt, would this fee apply?

did you know it's illegal to sing Happy Birthday in a public place because it's copyrighted. No bullshit. [editline]4th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;36186866]what if I play Beethoven or something else that's older than the copyright laws[/QUOTE] the people who recorded it hold the copyright. There was no copyright for Bach otherwise only certain orchestras would play it.

The world needs to abolish copyright. Also, why doesn't Canada have something against retroactive laws? I would think all the English speaking countries (as well as most of Europe) would have come up with something like that by the time Australia gained independence.

It's ONLY about the money. No copyright = no money

No fun allowed literally makes sense in this scenario.

They make it out like the artists get the money, but it's plain bullshit made by companies at its finest. Fuck music companies, fuck this legislation and shove a rice cake up your desperately tight arse.

Well, shit. So much for that.

[QUOTE=lavacano;36188280]The world needs to abolish copyright. Also, why doesn't Canada have something against retroactive laws? I would think all the English speaking countries (as well as most of Europe) would have come up with something like that by the time Australia gained independence.[/QUOTE] Um no, copyright is good. Intellectual property is very important to artists and musicians. The problem is that copyright applies 70 years AFTER the death of the creator. Copyright should apply for 20 years max after the conception of the idea.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36188465]Um no copyright, is good. Intellectual property is very important to artists and musicians. The problem is that copyright applies 70 years AFTER the death of the creator. Copyright should apply for 20 years max after the conception of the idea.[/QUOTE] I think 10 years MAX and most of these Copyright rules need to go it was fine the way it was in the 90's/early 2000's

copyright is fair enough. If I make money off a show and involve a clip from a movie/music without consent, expect my ass to be sued. BUT A FUCKING PERSONAL WEDDING IS NOT DOING HARM TO THE ARTIST.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36188465]Um no, copyright is good. Intellectual property is very important to artists and musicians. The problem is that copyright applies 70 years AFTER the death of the creator. Copyright should apply for 20 years max after the conception of the idea.[/QUOTE] Copyright has been abused for far too long, it needs to [b]go[/b]. After 20 years of that, [b]maybe[/b] we'll bring it back, but never anywhere near what it is right now.

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;36188494]I think 10 years MAX and most of these Copyright rules need to go it was fine the way it was in the 90's/early 2000's[/QUOTE] 10 years seems a bit short. You have to remember that copyright doesn't just apply to music, but books and movies as well.

Who benefits? Not the artist, not the people, but the money grabbing companies.

[QUOTE=lavacano;36188524]Copyright has been abused for far too long, it needs to [B]go[/B]. After 20 years of that, [B]maybe[/B] we'll bring it back, but never anywhere near what it is right now.[/QUOTE] So you want to make it impossible for artists, writers, and filmakers to make money? This will mainly hurt the people who deserve the money most.

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;36188494]I think 10 years MAX and most of these Copyright rules need to go it was fine the way it was in the 90's/early 2000's[/QUOTE] Think it this way. You make a movie, it sells really well. 10 years later you no longer have any ownership of it. Rethink this idea.

Hey Copyright Board of Canada, define what exactly constitutes dancing and the minimum threshold of movment required to be considered dancing.

Who are these "inspectors" meant to be too. Tell them to fuck off.

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;36188494]I think 10 years MAX and most of these Copyright rules need to go it was fine the way it was in the 90's/early 2000's[/QUOTE] copyright should only reside in the individuals who have created property. when an artist dies or decides to give copyright up for some reason, that copyright shouldn't go to a record label, it should simply become open source for the rest of the world to use in whatever way it sees fit. i don't agree with copyright disappearing after a mere 10 years, what if another artist simply copies a song, movie or whatever frame for frame and then the original creator sees nothing simply because of a silly time limit?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36188554]So you want to make it impossible for artists, writers, and filmakers to make money? This will mainly hurt the people who deserve the money most.[/QUOTE] it's not like they're getting a whole lot of money anyway. Record companies are taking most of it. [editline]3rd June 2012[/editline] (substitute "record company" for the equivalent in whatever industry you'd like to reference)

[QUOTE=lavacano;36188614]it's not like they're getting a whole lot of money anyway. Record companies are taking most of it.[/QUOTE] i hate it when people act as if they know everything about the music industry there are alot of artists out there who run themselves independently or through a booking agency, just because a select few artists sell their souls to record companies such as sony it doesn't mean everyone else does, there are alot of good, honest artists that make the most money they could possibly make at this time, but as usual its the top 1% that gives the rest of the little guys a bad name

[img]http://a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/24/7bdfbb6dfa0a405ebbb8df2691e2e3e4/l.jpg[/img] "the boss wants you to pay up, you're doing music business on his turf, you hear me?"

[QUOTE=Bobie;36188602]copyright should only reside in the individuals who have created property. when an artist dies or decides to give copyright up for some reason, that copyright shouldn't go to a record label, it should simply become open source for the rest of the world to use in whatever way it sees fit. i don't agree with copyright disappearing after a mere 10 years, what if another artist simply copies a song, movie or whatever frame for frame and then the original creator sees nothing simply because of a silly time limit?[/QUOTE] The problem is that record labels would die, and record labels serve an important function to the artist. An artist gives up some copyright privileges to the record label, and the record label enforces the copyright, pays for studio time, markets the music, and makes all the contracts with distributors and retailers. This is important because without record labels, artists would be severely limited in their ability to distribute music and make money. [QUOTE=lavacano;36188614]it's not like they're getting a whole lot of money anyway. Record companies are taking most of it. [editline]3rd June 2012[/editline] (substitute "record company" for the equivalent in whatever industry you'd like to reference)[/QUOTE] Depends on the contract, not all contracts are equal. Generally, however, a record label takes most music sales and leaves concert sales relatively untouched. Therefore, a CD can be seen as a promotion for concerts and shows, where the artist truly profits. This "promotion" is taken care of by the record label who makes money off of this deal as well. This is a symbiotic relationship at best. Without copyright, however, this system falls apart completely. Wal Mart could sell CDs of whatever artist they wish without making any contracts with the artist(or their respective record label) or paying any royalties. This makes it wholly impossible to make money from music(or any art) because any retailer can reproduce whatever creative work they want for their own profit. [editline]4th June 2012[/editline] By the way, you guys are mad about record labels, but there are only a handful of companies to truly be mad at(Universal, Interscope, etc.). There are many respectable record labels that truly work for the artist's benefit, although they tend to be limited by the quasi-oligarchy in the music industry.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36188554]So you want to make it impossible for artists, writers, and filmakers to make money? This will mainly hurt the people who deserve the money most.[/quote] dont be naive

[QUOTE=CheeserCrice;36186831]I somehow thought of the band 'Boards of Canada' who are incredible. Weird.[/QUOTE] I actually thought it was until I saw your post, was weird considering they have this song [video=youtube;1-FI6D8ZXpc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-FI6D8ZXpc[/video]

[QUOTE=AK'z;36188745]dont be naive[/QUOTE] I would call you the naive one.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36188762]I would call you the naive one.[/QUOTE] you're right. Artists get a fair share and music companies are very friendly with how they make money. Also, my red pen is actually blue.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36188717]The problem is that record labels would die, and record labels serve an important function to the artist. An artist gives up copyright to the record label, and the record label enforces the copyright, pays for studio time, markets the music, and makes all the contracts with distributors and retailers. This is important because without record labels, artists would be severely limited in their ability to distribute music and make money. Depends on the contract, not all contracts are equal. Generally, however, a record label takes most music sales and leaves concert sales relatively untouched. Therefore, a CD can be seen as a promotion for concerts and shows, where the artist truly profits. This "promotion" is taken care of by the record label who makes money off of this deal as well. This is a symbiotic relationship at best. Without copyright, however, this system falls apart completely. Wal Mart could sell CDs of whatever artist they wish without making any contracts with the artist(or their respective record label) or paying any royalties. This makes it wholly impossible to make money from music(or any art) because any retailer can reproduce whatever creative work they want for their own profit. [editline]4th June 2012[/editline] By the way, you guys are mad about record labels, but there are only a handful of companies to truly be mad at(Universal, Interscope, etc.). There are many respectable record labels that truly work for the artist's benefit, although they tend to be limited by the quasi-oligarchy in the music industry.[/QUOTE] studio time is pretty cheap, you just won't get top of the line equipment (which you generally don't need anyway), and from previous knowledge of distributors that too is incredibly cheap as well. record labels are important yes, but not the majors you are thinking of, and if your music needs 'marketing' then the chances are your music is going to be the sexual manifestation of a fantasy dream held by sweaty businessmen ala katy perry or 12 year old girls ala justin bieber. i'm pretty sure alot of big artists that are out there, such as skrillex, chase and status, nero etc have little to no record label ties other than for releases.

[QUOTE=AK'z;36188781]you're right. Artists get a fair share and music companies are very friendly with how they make money. Also, my red pen is actually blue.[/QUOTE] Yea, so make it so artists can't sell music at all. That will really make them rich. oh wait that only works if ur using imaginary money

why are they putting a tax on dancing? who is going to enforce it?