RIANZ comments on Kim Dotcom and my solution

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › RIANZ comments on Kim Dotcom and my solution

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

17111 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#748839 22-Jan-2013 14:46

jonherries:
gzt: The question on the figure is not about rounding up or down.

Does that figure represent the total value of recorded music sales in NZ or something substantially different?

In any case, it is clearly not the total value of music purchased in NZ because the figure does not include iTunes and Amazon sales to users in NZ but that is a different question again and not related to the first directly.

According to RIANZ it is the value of "the market" whatever that means. I assume it is all the royalties they collect on behalf of local and international artists?

Exactly. Yes, whatever that means. You are forced to make assumptions because they provide no details. RIAANZ is a media company association. You are getting confused with organisations like APRA who represent the interests of artists. Click 'single page' and search this thread for APRA for earlier comments on that important difference.

jonherries

1395 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#748842 22-Jan-2013 14:49

DaveDog:
jonherries:
DaveDog:
I believe the model should be made a blanket tax for all ISPs, which would be a condition of signup with no opt-out. To address the major concern about "paying twice". Once you are being taxed, it is your choice to DL from whichever source you prefer. This may still be itunes and you may choose to pay twice or you could go somewhere else. It would present a consolidated model of billing for all involved, and be quite efficient from an economic perspective.

I would be opposed to this in that I am paying a fee (not a tax) for a service that I don't want or use...

Rather - they need to target those that are (unlawfully or not) distributing music (or anything else) without paying their dues (note - that is their dues... not mine)...

The reason I went with blanket tax, is for efficiency purposes. I just think it would be hard and costly to manage otherwise which would add to the cost of the fee.

Just like the GST exemption for frutis and vegetables (google: pastie tax uk for another example).

Yes I accept it would drive people to choose alternatives to itunes, but there are alternatives now...

And we all know that bittorrent is a bandwidth efficient distribution mechanism ;)

Jon

Well - That's nonsense... It would also be more efficient to target dangerous drivers by simply ticketing everyone to keep them honest - shouldn't happen that way...

If someone is breaking the rules - you target them, not the law abiding users...

What I am saying is that it may be more efficient to have different rules than to police the current ones.

As you said it is foolish to ticket everyone for being a dangerous driving, but what if we changed the rules to make dangerous driving ok. Then we are changing the rules to save on enforcement...

I am not suggesting we do this, just making the point that sometimes it is more efficient to change the rules, and playing the game that Ray started...

Jon

jonherries

1395 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#748852 22-Jan-2013 15:00

gzt:
jonherries:
gzt: The question on the figure is not about rounding up or down.

Does that figure represent the total value of recorded music sales in NZ or something substantially different?

In any case, it is clearly not the total value of music purchased in NZ because the figure does not include iTunes and Amazon sales to users in NZ but that is a different question again and not related to the first directly.

According to RIANZ it is the value of "the market" whatever that means. I assume it is all the royalties they collect on behalf of local and international artists?

Exactly. Yes, whatever that means. You are forced to make assumptions because they provide no details. RIAANZ is a media company association. You are getting confused with organisations like APRA who represent the interests of artists. Click 'single page' and search this thread for APRA for earlier comments on that important difference.

I don't understand. Do you think they are lying about the size of the market? If so why?

My assumptions are:

RIANZ exists for commercialisation of recorded music production.
They would have a reasonable idea (better than me anyway) of how much music is sold.
Their membership is representative of their market (the big music companies are key members).

Looking at their website this all appears to be true, therefore I think the number is reasonably robust.

Do they distribute money to artists, no, that is APRAs job, but their members probably know a lot about it as they actually sell the music, and are multi-nationals so can probably fill in the blanks for inter-country transfers.

That isn't to say that the artists don't deserve more...

Jon

quakeguy

111 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

#748881 22-Jan-2013 15:12

freitasm:
jonherries: I believe the model should be made a blanket tax for all ISPs, which would be a condition of signup with no opt-out. To address the major concern about "paying twice". Once you are being taxed, it is your choice to DL from whichever source you prefer. This may still be itunes and you may choose to pay twice or you could go somewhere else. It would present a consolidated model of billing for all involved, and be quite efficient from an economic perspective.

It's not a tax, because it's not going to a state fund to be used for the benefit of all citizens. It's a fee and it goes to private pockets.

I do not want to pay a fee for something I do not use.

I do not consume 'standard' media content (e.g. the crap that Island Records sell) so would fight a tax on my Internet. I've decided that buying games is far better use of my cash (entertainment/money ratio) - heck, I've had more than 200 hours from Starcraft II ($60USD) and more than 100 hours from Natural Selection 2 ($29.95USD).
Gaming is just better value than music/movies, and I can just YouTube mixes of music when I need that.

Realistically though, I'm not the key demographic.

“I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... Such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything.” - Nikola Tesla

Disclaimer: Views expressed in my posts do not necessarily reflect those views of my employer.

jonherries

1395 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#748887 22-Jan-2013 15:16

quakeguy:
freitasm:
jonherries: I believe the model should be made a blanket tax for all ISPs, which would be a condition of signup with no opt-out. To address the major concern about "paying twice". Once you are being taxed, it is your choice to DL from whichever source you prefer. This may still be itunes and you may choose to pay twice or you could go somewhere else. It would present a consolidated model of billing for all involved, and be quite efficient from an economic perspective.

It's not a tax, because it's not going to a state fund to be used for the benefit of all citizens. It's a fee and it goes to private pockets.

I do not want to pay a fee for something I do not use.

I do not consume 'standard' media content (e.g. the crap that Island Records sell) so would fight a tax on my Internet. I've decided that buying games is far better use of my cash (entertainment/money ratio) - heck, I've had more than 200 hours from Starcraft II ($60USD) and more than 100 hours from Natural Selection 2 ($29.95USD).
Gaming is just better value than music/movies, and I can just YouTube mixes of music when I need that.

Realistically though, I'm not the key demographic.

I am sure you are currently taxed for things you don't use (hence Freitasm's comment about the greater good)?

Maybe it could be a donation (like a school one). You could claim back a third from the IRD and go around telling people you are a patron of the arts (you are already of course just not that art).

Jon

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79263 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#748912 22-Jan-2013 15:37

jonherries: I am sure you are currently taxed for things you don't use (hence Freitasm's comment about the greater good)?

No, no. You only pay a "tax" when you use the service or a product. You buy petrol there's a tax or levy in there. You buy cigars there's a tax or levy on that. You buy wine there's a tax or levy on that. Those taxes are used for something directly related to the product or service being bought.

Now if you DON'T BUY petrol, cigar or alcohol then you don't pay the tax.

You don't go to a supermarket to buy milk for your children and get slapped with a 0.10% on top of the total with a line such as "This fee is to help us fight alcoholism".

You pay an income tax and that's used to fund government services we use. Education, health, security, resource management and so on.

A tax or a fee on "piracy" is not something we need. Not every Internet user is downloading music from these alternative sources so don't make the innocent pay for the pirates.

quakeguy

111 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

#748919 22-Jan-2013 15:43

jonherries:
quakeguy:
freitasm:
jonherries: I believe the model should be made a blanket tax for all ISPs, which would be a condition of signup with no opt-out. To address the major concern about "paying twice". Once you are being taxed, it is your choice to DL from whichever source you prefer. This may still be itunes and you may choose to pay twice or you could go somewhere else. It would present a consolidated model of billing for all involved, and be quite efficient from an economic perspective.

It's not a tax, because it's not going to a state fund to be used for the benefit of all citizens. It's a fee and it goes to private pockets.

I do not want to pay a fee for something I do not use.

I do not consume 'standard' media content (e.g. the crap that Island Records sell) so would fight a tax on my Internet. I've decided that buying games is far better use of my cash (entertainment/money ratio) - heck, I've had more than 200 hours from Starcraft II ($60USD) and more than 100 hours from Natural Selection 2 ($29.95USD).
Gaming is just better value than music/movies, and I can just YouTube mixes of music when I need that.

Realistically though, I'm not the key demographic.

I am sure you are currently taxed for things you don't use (hence Freitasm's comment about the greater good)?

Maybe it could be a donation (like a school one). You could claim back a third from the IRD and go around telling people you are a patron of the arts (you are already of course just not that art).

Jon

Well, if I was paying for art as in art students, I'd love this idea, but the idea of giving Island Records money offends.

Disclaimer: Views expressed in my posts do not necessarily reflect those views of my employer.

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

gzt

17111 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#748999 22-Jan-2013 17:27

jonherries: My assumptions are:

RIANZ exists for commercialisation of recorded music production.
They would have a reasonable idea (better than me anyway) of how much music is sold.
Their membership is representative of their market (the big music companies are key members).

Looking at their website this all appears to be true, therefore I think the number is reasonably robust.

These assumptions are not entirely unreasonable. The number may be robust. But the conclusion that the number therefore represents exactly what you want it to represent is nothing but wishful thinking. As for the suggestion the number includes sales through iTunes and Amazon, that is going even further down the same road. Along the way you could consider that many physical outlets import directly let alone individuals. There is just no way the total value of recorded music revenue in NZ is only NZD$65m.

jonherries

1395 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#749004 22-Jan-2013 17:37

freitasm:
jonherries: I am sure you are currently taxed for things you don't use (hence Freitasm's comment about the greater good)?

No, no. You only pay a "tax" when you use the service or a product. You buy petrol there's a tax or levy in there. You buy cigars there's a tax or levy on that. You buy wine there's a tax or levy on that. Those taxes are used for something directly related to the product or service being bought.

Now if you DON'T BUY petrol, cigar or alcohol then you don't pay the tax.

You don't go to a supermarket to buy milk for your children and get slapped with a 0.10% on top of the total with a line such as "This fee is to help us fight alcoholism".

You pay an income tax and that's used to fund government services we use. Education, health, security, resource management and so on.

A tax or a fee on "piracy" is not something we need. Not every Internet user is downloading music from these alternative sources so don't make the innocent pay for the pirates.

I am currently paying tax on my beer for those that abuse it?
I am not paying a tax on my internet for those that abuse it?

Jon

gzt

17111 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#749013 22-Jan-2013 17:42

The excise tax on alcohol was created to raise revenue. Nothing to do with abuse or health reasons.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79263 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#749014 22-Jan-2013 17:47

jonherries:
freitasm:
jonherries: I am sure you are currently taxed for things you don't use (hence Freitasm's comment about the greater good)?

No, no. You only pay a "tax" when you use the service or a product. You buy petrol there's a tax or levy in there. You buy cigars there's a tax or levy on that. You buy wine there's a tax or levy on that. Those taxes are used for something directly related to the product or service being bought.

Now if you DON'T BUY petrol, cigar or alcohol then you don't pay the tax.

You don't go to a supermarket to buy milk for your children and get slapped with a 0.10% on top of the total with a line such as "This fee is to help us fight alcoholism".

You pay an income tax and that's used to fund government services we use. Education, health, security, resource management and so on.

A tax or a fee on "piracy" is not something we need. Not every Internet user is downloading music from these alternative sources so don't make the innocent pay for the pirates.

I am currently paying tax on my beer for those that abuse it?
I am not paying a tax on my internet for those that abuse it?

Jon

I have no idea. Those were examples. Imagine if you did then. Would you be happy?

raytaylor

4014 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#749023 22-Jan-2013 18:04

I think everyone is a little wound up on the concept of a tax.

In canada the government decided that after the music industry lobbied, they would put a tax on blank cd's. This would then be distributed to the media organisations.

Yes freitasm is right - a levy is probably a better way to explain it.

What we are discussing here is a way to convince a private business (not a government) to find a new source of income by working with ISP's or find a much more acceptable solution rather than working against potential consumers.

Ray Taylor

There is no place like localhost

Spreadsheet for Comparing Electricity Plans Here

gzt

17111 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#749058 22-Jan-2013 19:05

A subscription which you originally proposed is a completely different concept. Far more flexible than a levy. The Canada levy was intended as compensation for piracy in addition to what they are already getting in legitimate sales. I'm sure the industry here would be happy with the extra cash as well if they could get it. RIAANZ is dominated by multinational labels (Universal, Sony, Warners) who do all their lobbying in the USA for exactly what they want worldwide.

old3eyes

9119 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#749122 22-Jan-2013 20:33

raytaylor: I think everyone is a little wound up on the concept of a tax.

In canada the government decided that after the music industry lobbied, they would put a tax on blank cd's. This would then be distributed to the media organisations.

.

You may be interested to read this then

http://excesscopyright.blogspot.co.nz/2009/09/proceeds-of-canadas-blank-media-levy.html

Regards,

Old3eyes

Ford

330 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#749125 22-Jan-2013 20:38

I have Telstra Cable

I can look on the Telstra website at my usage graph and I uploaded some data to an online backup as a test one day. I only had one device connected directly to the modem and the usage data on the graph was out by a few hours.
I see that the letter above gives only one time. So could you challenge that by providing a graph of activity that was up/downloaded on the graph that you can view from your ISP.
Example if I recieved a letter saying that I downloaded something at such and such a time and date, I could provide my graph from my ISP's website as evidence that it wasn't me. The activity I uploaded/downloaded in real time as the test I did earlier was between 10-11pm at night and the graphs activity on the Telstra's graph on the website showed the activity between the hours of approx 1-2am the next day.

If the time of the infringement is provided by the Detection service people is the date and time likely to match the exact time of the ISP and also the end users graph. As someone did mention all clocks etc would have to be synchronised.

Also If there was a dispute with the end users graph as displayed from the ISP's website and the ISP then the user could actually dispute internet usage charges from the ISP? So then one could potentially open a whole can of worms.

Ford

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7