Pirate Party of Canada Forum

In the PPoC newsletter just sent out it said,



I don't recall any recent topic except the one I started about the levy idea, so where did "demands for a tariff on residential Internet connections" come from and what is it that we're discussing?

Also, does "make commercial copyright more accessible to artists" mean for remixing?  If not, then where is this discussion?


I looked through all of the new forum posts and neither of those are currently posted as topics of discussion, so I am really confused.


Please enlighten me... I feel as though there is something that I am clearly missing here but cannot find it.

It's part of the platform the Directors are working on. They're looking for approval by the membership now.

Does that mean that information will show up before the IRC meeting on the boards here?  or that it will all be presented during the IRC meeting?

Not up to me, but hopefully more information will be forthcoming.

We've discussed the question of a levy on Internet connections plenty on the old forum.
None of the topics ever resulted in a clear choice by the party.

Basically it would be a levy on all residential Internet access, probably based as a GST surcharge for the connection. A government organization will be formed to administer the monies.

It would go to up to 3 different areas:
1. Direct payment to artists based on popularity / downloads, up to a certain cap (eg a popular artist with sufficient income from their activity wouldn't receive as much as a struggling one).
2. Sponsorship of cultural events, either directly or through the provinces.
3. (To be voted separately) to a fund to help artist enforce commercial copyright.


Currently it's very hard for artists to pursue cases of commercial copyright. Lawyers are expensive. Some artists trying to assert their copyrights against a business end up in very long fights.

This case recently made headlines in QC. The fight has lasted for 14 years .
http://international-animated-films.suite101.com/article.cfm/claude_robinson_wins_cinar_lawsuit

For remixing, standards will be used to determine if it is non-commercial or commercial. Eg is there an expectation of meaningful income from the remix?

I'm highly opposed to a levy on ISPs as it will solve nothing.
I'm also highly opposed to secret talks with the "elite" directors that do not involve input from the public.
Good show of transparency there guys.
My activities within the party will come to an abrupt halt if this becomes part of the platform based on closed-door talks.

J

obviously I'll have to wait until I read what you guys propose before I lay judgement, but I don't know why we can't just share our ideas with our political contemporaries

Apparently there will be a vote on adding a "Levy vrs ISP" system into the platform during the next IRC meeting.
Please post the documentation and internal discussion here so that we can formulate an informed opinion.
Please also explain why this wasn't made public on the new forums?

Thank you in advance for your time.

J

I'm guessing they're still writing it is why it isnt on the forum for review yet. Give them a day or two I guess to write and edit it a bit. I know how fugly my first drafts on things would be :)

I'm going to be very upset if there is an attempt to ram this through without a great deal of discussion and calls from membership for it's inclusion into the platform.

J

Not quite first, seeing as you've already read and replied to Nuitari's explanation (http://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=101.msg520#msg520). I'll certainly be voting against it, but I don't know that there's anything particularly underhanded going on.  There was, after all, a 3-page thread on the subject in the old forum.

Edit: I've compiled the forum thread (http://meetings.pirateparty.ca/isp-levies-and-piracy-taxes.pdf) in PDF for review. Printed, it's 38 pages long.

I'd be inclined to vote against it too... Partly because ISP levy would likely be warped by existing parties into something akin to the Blank Media Levy which only started paying out to artists like last year or something despite being in place for over a decade.

Thanks for all your hard work Mik.
Um...First was for being the first to post in this sub-forum on the new board.

J

Gotcha.

The platform writing was started after the last meeting, as per these minutes.

http://meetings.pirateparty.ca/2010-05-19_minutes.pdf

Mikkel posted in this thread the past discussions about the levy:

http://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=108.msg0#new

You know full well it's been debated to great extents, you were there on the older forums.
None of the debates were conclusive.

As for the cost to ISPs, as pretty much all business have to collect GST and QST it shouldn't be hard for them to use the existing infrastructure to collect the levy.

There are many ways of implementing a levy, it could simply be a different GST rate for Residential Internet. Most accounting and billing software easily can handle that and it wouldn't be very hard to implement. It wouldn't even cost the ISP much.


Existing parties could also warp non-commercial file sharing once we get voted out...
The point is that once we're in power we get to implement our agenda, the way we like it.

It has been debated, but the idea of adding it as an official platform element has not. Is this a vote in principle, or are there specific points to this proposal?

Why would you seek to add something to the platform that is inconclusive?
There is no call from membership for this to be implemented and I don't see it as something the majority would rally and unite behind.

It's my feeling that everyone agrees with the substance of the existing platform and to add ISP Levy to it will cause some division.
I know it certainly will for me as I have no desire to smite my employer or jack up our customers bills to promote "artist welfare".

J

Looking through these minutes and I see nothing about ISP Levy.

""Nuitari moved that the interim directors write the core platform, including
most of the details.""

If you mean this - well...my thoughts on this were that Directors would be working on more documentation for the EXISTING core platform points.
The second link posted leads to an error.

J

That's because I've merged the duplicate threads on the subject. The post in question can now be found earlier in this thread (http://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=101.msg547#msg547).

I think it would be part of the ideas we advance on copyright.
The plan itself is the 5th post in this thread. If it is rejected, then there should be a vote on the idea in principle.

One of the big problems is that publishers and the government are pushing this negative frame of pirates being freeloaders, which we aren't. We can't easily redirect this frame without looking like a bunch of 5 year olds (no it's you the freeloader), and the public at large still (sadly) equates CD sales as artist revenue.

The next option is to counter the frame, that is to present something strongly enough that it says that they are the ones that don't know what they are talking about. It's much harder and we need something convincing to do that. The levy goes into that direction as it says that we understand that artists might lose revenue (or perceived to lose), and we're ready to help artists that need the help.

Also, the levy is something that the WGC (Writer Guild of Canada) and the SAC (Songwriter Association of Canada) have asked. This could also help us gain a tremendous foothold with artistic organizations in Canada and make the frame seem even more Made in the USA.

We would of course take it out of the control of the CRIA and put it under the control of the government. And we'll make sure artists are paid in a timely manner. The government is already excellent at collecting money so that won't be a problem.

The thing I dont like about levies is they presuppose that everyone is guilty of something. I have a stack of probably 50 DVD R/RWs on my desk and all of them have Linux ISOs on them. How much money have I been ripped off of because they presumed I was doing something with them that I was not?

It may be hard but redirecting the frame is possible but you do not try to reflect but deflect. All you need to do is get the public asking questions. 'Why isnt the levy money distribution public knowledge?' 'How exactly do these companies come up with their numbers for 'piracy'?' 'How come studies and surveys that suggest Pirates BUY MORE than your average consumer are being ignored or discredited?' You can always question the funding of any survey/study which a majority of it comes from the government or content provider industries. There needs to be more transparency in these surveys/studies...the problem is they fund things that will only agree with them so those researching are pushed in the direction with funding as the carrot and the stick.

After peeking at that PDF that Mikkel (Thanks for doing the btw Mikkel) posted, I recalled it instantly.  The entire idea was, at least in that thread, mine.  I have to say, that it being my idea that I thought I'd be involved in creating the document in some fashion...  which, I'm not.

Aside from that, I always maintained that it was the best idea that I could come up with and it wasn't one that I was particularly fond of either.  As a matter of fact, the vast majority of posts were against it with only a few being in favor, and the others undecided about it.  I cannot believe that we would actually attempt to vote on something like this without the biggest proponent (me) even have been part of the discussion of the creation of the document and being so heavily disliked/hated with the majority of the PPoC membership that we would try to make it part of our platform.

Having absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I wasn't involved in the creation of the document, I would be voting against it for the simple reason that the majority of people were against it. 

A vast majority of posts coming from 6 people, including a couple that are very vocal and repetitive hardly makes it a majority of the party.


If people stopped doing that, we wouldn't have the government we have.

There may have been only 6 that were vocal against, but how many were vocal for?

The only way to really know is by having a vote at the meeting.

I don't think that we should be doing it this way.  What we should be voting on is:

All those in favor of having open discussions about a levy becoming part of the PPoC platform.


We shouldn't be rushing something like this.  Changing the core platform which embodies the entire party is a HUGE thing.  I am strongly opposed to it as are many and even though I was playing devil's advocate in the last forum about it, I did not support it in its form.  I was even the one coming up with the modifications to respond to peoples issues with it and I still didn't like it.

Not only that, but now there are talks in both the US and Canada about subsidizing old media by placing taxes on internet connections.  Clearly, everyone is going to want a piece of this pie and it is a bad road to start to go down.

Let's not make this terrible mistake by making something that isn't at our roots and inline with other PPs of the world part of our platform.  Drop the question, nix the idea, and let's not waste time on a clearly bad idea.

I agree with Craig. This isn't the way to go. If it goes to a vote, it will be defeated. If you want to give it a chance of passing, it needs discussion and compromise before we even think about adopting it.

Then let's bring this discussion at a close, it has been going on and off for a year now...

Nuitari,

   I cannot say that I agree with the stopping of a discussion based upon that reasoning.  The point of the discussion was to hammer out (or at least try to) something that we could all put some measure of support behind.  We had never intended that the last discussion thread was to be voted upon in any manner and most certainly not in fashion that the PPoC should adopt it.

   I think that the vote would be jumping the gun.  I also think that a discussion shouldn't end simply because someone wants it to.

   The point of this forum is to have open discussions about what we, as members, see fit to discuss or what we believe should be discussed.  Since it isn't trolling, ranting, or otherwise a negative thread, I see no reason to stop that discussion if it is brought up again.  I also see no reason to force it into some premature vote.

   If there is a reason or reasons that I am not aware of that the topic should no longer be discussed, with or without forcing a vote, please, I would love to know them.  If I have missed something, then please let me know.  I am most willing to discuss them.

Craig

Honestly, I am a firm believer in compromise on just about anything, but I can't think of any circumstances under which I'd support any kind surcharge on the internet to compensate for its supposed damaging effect on musicians. I thought part of our platform was that file sharing did not have a significant negative effect on creatives.

This is called "Favor-Trading" or "Buying Votes".
Should be illegal - it's what lobbyists do.

J

Yes we know that.
The problem is that getting the message out isn't as easy as Concerned Citizen make it sound.

And one way or the other, the artists are good at making noise over issues. It could mean the difference between being supported by it or being drowned by it.

And instead of saying "to compensate" we could say "to encourage the development of Canadian Arts & Culture in a sustainable manner"

And about 100% of political parties out there...


0$ exactly. DVDs aren't subject to the levy.


Sadly that way of changing the frame is going to take eons. I'd be more hopeful if people were asking "Where is my tax money going" and that the government gives a good answer. Yet still very few ask and even less listen.

It would be much easier in this case to go with something that simply contradicts their frame.
They've head a very big head start in establishing their frame.

Give or take 0%.

Right, I thought there was a levy on it, seems there was a proposal in 2003-2004 to make it $2.27 each. Along with just about doubling every other levy in existence. It just goes to show if you give them an inch they'll try to take a mile.

Source: http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml#what_amount

Original Levy in 1999-2000 was $0.233 for most audio cassettes the proposal for the ones over 90 minutes was to jack it up to $1.00! Likewise CD-R/RW was $5.2 and was proposed for $0.50, and resulted in a change to $0.21 (a change of approximately 4 times the original).

These changes are not in line with general inflation rates, thus they should have to be justified otherwise they are just gouging the consumer.

Nah, I think you got it in one.

If I didn't know better, I would say this is being promoted by someone determined to kill off the Party.

There is *no way* this should be voted on at the next meeting. The very *best* you could hope for is that it would be (as it should be) soundly defeated. The worst case scenario is that it is adopted and you can basically kiss goodbye to the party.

Who seriously thinks that one of the *platform* rallying cries for a *brand new political party* should be a very poorly considered *NEW TAX* on the very thing we are attempting to liberate?

This is not like shooting ourselves in the foot. It is like shooting ourselves directly in the heart.

The levy on CDs is a cynical and stupid political thing. I use more than the average number of CDs and DVDs. I have perhaps one time backed up my own music on to a single CD as a test. I am all for voting that out of existence and I think most would agree. However, even *that* I would not think about putting into a party platform yet.

So little research has been done on the enormous task of dealing with all of this stuff, it is *extremely* premature to consider things as specific as a tax on ISPs.

Even voting on something this dumb would, in my opinion, do the party a bit of an injury. In the unlikely event some wacky artifact of process ended up with this thing getting into the platform, we would have a *HUGE* problem. We have plenty of *real* work to deal with. We would have to stop and fix that (or just have the Party implode) when we have work to do.

I have decades of experience with all things 'network'. This is *such* a non-starter, I can't believe it is even up for discussion.

I work on the Internet all day long and have for many years. I don't download  music. Neither, to my knowledge, do any of my clients. We send EMail, manage cloud services, participate in social networks, maintain and use websites, etc. Beyond being a dumb idea, placing a tax on my Internet connection and the connections of my customers is unfair. We *intend* the money we pay to ISPs to be used on delivering network infrastructure. What use anyone is making of that infrastructure is nobody's business but their own. Where would you draw the line? Paper? [That has been tried, by the way -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765]  Should we tax speech in case people utter something copyrighted, like sing 'Happy Birthday' without a license?

Kill this fast and with extreme prejudice before someone starts the rumor that (someone) wants to *TAX THE INTERNET*. Even if this were a good idea by some tortured logic, it would be a *monstrous* public relations gaffe.

There are debatable ideas that might not be entirely popular. However, this is one idea that is not even reasonably debatable.

+ Karma for u BT.
Even though your post was still TL - I DID READ.
:)

Thank you for your support in defeating this
I dislike fighting with Frenchie - but I'm not really willing to give much on the ISP Levy idea.
It's ALL BAD.

Jay

If you guys are so much better at writing strategy, then please, start writing a better way to counter what i've outlined above.

PPUK sucked so much at it that anti file sharer opinion went up in the UK after the last election and the battle around the Digital Economy Act.

Just remember... Dion was doing good in the polls until he mentioned two words... CARBON TAX.

I agree with bt, we should scrap this idea ASAP. Canadians hate more taxes. The best way to lose an election is to talk tax.

Instead I would focus on cutting out of control spending and reducing government waste. The windfalls from such actions would then be reinvested into creative arts and music education across the country.

In effect this would be achieving multiple goals at once, making government accountable for spending and waste and providing arts and music education to the next generation of creative minds.

I'm willing to accept that we need to temper our platform in order to make it more palatable to the general public, which may be less revolutionary than we are. However, I would prefer to slightly lengthen and broaden our proposed copyright law (say 25 years and only advocate broadening fair use rather than legalizing all non-commercial use) rather than introduce measures like this to try to excuse our beliefs. "What about the artists?" "Oh... uhh... new tax!"

This new tax, as CCitizen says, is what would cost us an election.

Edit: If there are no objections, I'd like to move on the 19th that votes on these platform points be deferred until after the Directors election. If it goes to a vote in its present form, it will be defeated by a large majority. If you want to have any hope of having the idea adopted, I suggest waiting until it is more refined.

Yeah, don't ever tell people you want to vote for you that you are planning on taking some of their money.

I move that we drop the adding of a levy/tax from the agenda altogether and that it never be raised in its current or like form until such time where the majority of the PPoC membership calls to add it to our modus operandi.

I think we should make repealing the existing blank media levy part of the platform either now or at some point in the future. People hate their money being pissed away for no good purpose. It's basically a 'tax' on blank media to support a failed business model.

Now that I would support.

Seeing that no one else supports the levy on the forum, this has been officially withdrawn for now.

What do we do about the other point, facilitating access to commercial copyright ?