tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post69088124382023030..comments2024-03-23T13:09:54.464-04:00Comments on EXCESS COPYRIGHT: The Big Fat Canadian Wedding “Tax” – SOCAN + Re:Sound + AVLA - Pay Three Pipers and Double for DancingHoward Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-16606580460914563392013-01-28T16:06:47.894-05:002013-01-28T16:06:47.894-05:00why 3 of them do we have to pay all 3 ? I think al...why 3 of them do we have to pay all 3 ? I think all venues and should should band arm in arm and refuse and collectively get sued because as single entities we can just be abused . Im a visual artist and no one pays to look at my art in fact your not the original until you have been copied. This is yet another festering self serving bureaucracy that rubs shoulders with the courts and celine dion. One is a drag three is beyond creepy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-72329594895917211142013-01-28T12:56:37.171-05:002013-01-28T12:56:37.171-05:00the fees charged at night clubs is a fraction of t...the fees charged at night clubs is a fraction of the per event fees this system sucks and i hate the watchers and takers. We have events with 10 to 20 people regularly but capacity is 250 and the designated dancing area is only for 65 yet if 10 people show up socan is more than the entrance fee per person . Its simply creepy regressive extortion. Small venues for emerging talent are going to suffer or cheat neither of which is good for the musicians. NOCAS DOGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-55427681024956791732013-01-02T18:45:00.577-05:002013-01-02T18:45:00.577-05:00As an art gallery owner we received a letter from ...As an art gallery owner we received a letter from RE:Sound stating that we had to pay this tariff, even though we just rent the space out to people to hold their events there. We have no clue if the music they might be playing will be covered under re:sound, or if the DJ's are licensed or if they will be dancing. Why would we be responsible to collect on behalf of people who just rent the space from us?Shannon Hooverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14312858855773312427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-68770489420436606042012-12-28T12:48:37.904-05:002012-12-28T12:48:37.904-05:00wow...
and how do I word THIS one to prospective w...wow...<br />and how do I word THIS one to prospective wedding clients?!<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-66350369784055900932012-12-13T14:11:09.891-05:002012-12-13T14:11:09.891-05:00These tariffs are crap. There a great way for a bu...These tariffs are crap. There a great way for a bunch of lawyers and MBA's to line their pockets in the name of standing up for "artists".<br />Why should session players and sound engineers be allowed to claim residuals for works they produced? Didn't they get paid for doing their job in the first place? If a plumber puts a toilet in my business, should he get paid 5 cents a flush from now till eternity?<br />How many times should a business be expected to pay for music they purchased in good faith? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-41317419916899583502012-11-27T20:46:45.491-05:002012-11-27T20:46:45.491-05:00What about restaurants, construction sites, church...What about restaurants, construction sites, churches, municipalities, and any other venues, businesses and organizations? Which tariff applies to them to uphold the copyright law? Or is it a selective taxation?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-32121854812492719782012-06-05T16:56:32.662-04:002012-06-05T16:56:32.662-04:00Furthermore it would appear that charging a fee fo...Furthermore it would appear that charging a fee for dancing violates the Canadian Charter of Rights <br />section<br />Part I<br />Fundamental Freedoms<br /> <br />2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:<br /> (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression<br /><br />And dancing by commonly recognized definition is a form of expression, see:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance<br /><br />Dance is a type of art that generally refers to movement of the body, usually rhythmic and to music,[1] performed in many different cultures and used as a form of expression, social interaction and exercise or presented in a spiritual or performance setting.<br /><br />As the Charter expressly defines the freedom of expression, which includes dancing to music, as a fundamental freedom, people should not be charged or subject to a tariff or tax on a guaranteed fundamental freedom regardless of the location or type of event.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-81383045376245426292012-06-05T13:08:04.699-04:002012-06-05T13:08:04.699-04:00maybe I'm wrong here but I don't believe i...maybe I'm wrong here but I don't believe it's in the charter of the Copyright Board to determine or consent to allow charges to be applied to what people do when listening or playing music. Sure, they may be able to make decisions on when a tariff for playing music should be allowed but not what people do when that music is playing. Dancing to music in no way infringes on copyright.<br /><br />this should be challenged as it is not a part of the scope of the Copyright Board's charter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-8561195090857785072012-06-05T03:41:52.423-04:002012-06-05T03:41:52.423-04:00Why is there so little we can do about such bills?...Why is there so little we can do about such bills? I mean, this government has already hurt the arts enough and now community groups, charities, community social dance organizers, and arts groups - I run a charity walk that, for example, runs at cost and has an operating budget of $200 in total (kept minimal due to CRA regulations) - have another fee to pay to provide a valuable community service when they're not out to make a profit on anything. It just means there won't be any prerecorded music at all at my event now, and any dancing will be done only to live music (good luck getting a Salsa band if a salsa troupe wants to donate a performance for free at our event, for example!). One more arts/cultural amenity killed by regressive thinking.<br /><br />I'm all for making sure people get paid for what they do as much as possible - particularly small independent and up and coming musicians who will see very little of this money. As a result, I pay for any music I own by buying it through legitimate means such as iTunes, as I truly support and believe in this progressive medium of due compensation to musicians. This, however, seems like a pure and simple money grab, especially the dance tax and the retroactive application that (please pardon my use of rhetoric) offends me to the core by targeting both the struggling arts, community ventures,and the personal spaces of regular every day people.v.wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02831592325924752545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-16711152137480855262012-06-04T17:31:00.687-04:002012-06-04T17:31:00.687-04:00Dear Anon at 10:30:
Interesting that you say it&#...Dear Anon at 10:30:<br /><br />Interesting that you say it's not a tax and you then go right on to say it's "the same as ...the gov't nails you on GST for everything."<br /><br />HKHoward Knopfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-78379410784431428552012-06-04T11:30:09.188-04:002012-06-04T11:30:09.188-04:00Meanwhile, Bill C-11 means that these same happy c...Meanwhile, Bill C-11 means that these same happy couple will not own, but only be able to license, their wedding photos.<br /><br />From the legislative summary at <br />http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?Language=E&ls=c11&Parl=41&Ses=1&source=library_prb<br /><br />"Clause 7 of the bill repeals subsection 13(2) of the Act (ownership of copyright for commissioned photographs). The bill seeks to make the photographer or painter the owner of copyright in photographs or portraits that have been commissioned, thereby bringing the ownership of copyright in photographs in line with other works. Presently, the person who commissions a photograph or portrait, rather than the photographer, is deemed to be the first owner of the copyright. Photographers, therefore, have had to rely on contractual arrangements to obtain rights to reproduce their photographs. The bill gives the person who commissioned the photograph or portrait limited rights to use it for personal or non-commercial use without the photographer or artist’s permission, subject to any contract that specifies otherwise."Chris Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-33160228362122074232012-06-04T10:30:11.683-04:002012-06-04T10:30:11.683-04:00This is a tariff (not a tax)that charges you on wh...This is a tariff (not a tax)that charges you on whether the music is the focus or just background. Re:Sound is just terrible at the PR on this. They should be saying "This is the tariff, it's half of this if music is only in the background" instead of the whole "Double if you're dancing" pitch. Just another expense, the same as the LLBO charges you for a liquor license and the gov't nails you on GST for everything.<br />Also worth noting: this is a tariff on the venue, not on the people getting married. If the hall passes it on to the people renting the hall, that's their perogative but it's actually an operating expense aimed at them, not the people having the event.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-55487469984297097762012-06-02T22:34:49.571-04:002012-06-02T22:34:49.571-04:00Great, another means of tranferring wealth from us...Great, another means of tranferring wealth from us average folk and into the pockets of the rich.<br /><br />Great Plan.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com