or the isp's could just reduce their exorbitant profit margins and give something to the artists...who are a huge reason why people buy internet connections to begin with

Yeah they could, if they were Mother Teresa but they wouldn't since they aren't.

I don't think entertainment is a "huge reason" people buy the internet. People pay for the internet because they need it for work and email and reaching loved ones over long distance. Entertainment for most people is just not a priority when compared against the things they actually need the internet for.

That is NOT a "huge reason why people buy internet connections". Face it, you are just asking for a handout.

reality check there friends...if free music and movies is not a big part of why the internet is used, why are you here fighting to preserve the status quo of "free" ?? do you have that much time on your hands?

I am involved despite not caring a whit about "free music and movies" because the laws the lobbyists are pushing for are damaging to more than "free music and movies" and to more than just the internet as well.

crade, please provide examples

Thanks for your interest, and sorry for the delay!

Well, the proposed legislation I think is most dangerous is with regards to anti-circumvention. Some lobbyists propose, and the last attempt at a bill included, legislation to make circumventing digital locks illegal under any circumstances. This includes when there is no copyright infringement involved at all.

There are many problems with this in my opinion. First is that this gives 100% power and control to the corporation making the digital lock. They would have veto power over fair dealing legislation simply by putting a digital lock. Usually these corporations are not interested in spending extra effort to ensure that fair dealing is not locked out even if they don't mind allowing the fair dealing. Also, many of the digital locks will come from other countries with different fair dealing legislation so it is highly unlikely in my opinion that the digital locks would ever be made in such a way that we could have our fair dealing as intended if we had this sort of anti-circumvention legislation.

These digital locks are not only used to prevent copyright infringment. They are used for various things like creating format monopolies like iTunes and preventing competition by tying media to particular brands of hardware. DVD Region codes are under fire currently in some countries because they are believed to be counter to trade agreements, and DVD players that play all regions are circumventing digital locks. Since I do not run Microsofts products at home (another boycott), I must circumvent digital locks to use much of the commercial software I have legally purchased as they were only designed to run on Microsoft's operating system and the digital locks don't unlock properly on others.

This would give legislative clout to whatever the corporations wanted to use digital locks for. There are other current examples of how digital locks are used for purposes unrelated to copyright, but the potential for abuse there is practically limitless. The damage, I believe will be mostly to transparancy and to competition.

I am opposed to another levy because these levies take my money and give it to the corporations I am trying to boycott due to their bad business practices (who in turn eventually and supposedly give it to the artists that they like best in direct contrast to the ones I would like to support). I purchase and use music, movies and software, but generally not from anyone who gets money from the current levies, and I believe this would harm my ability to support deserving (again, in my opinion) companies / artists and boycott undeserving ones. Also, these levies are dishonest, those who would bring them in claim it is to help combat piracy, yet those in place are unrelated to piracy and instead are making people pay to allow them private use of their purchased media (such as personal backups, etc and not including distribution) these private use rights in my opinion should already be built into the price of the media licenses.

In particular, I am opposed to a levy on ISPs because this would extend to everyone who uses the internet propping up these companies (and not by choice). According to statscan, In 2007, 72% of households in Canada had internet access (consistantly growing since at least 2003)
http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/famil09c-eng.htm?sdi=computer%20household
and the majority (at least in 2003) did not use it for music and movies. The highest usage at that time was Email followed by banking and online shopping. I'm sure the numbers have changed since then, but I still doubt if the majority of the usage is for downloading movies and music.

Sorry, forgot to include the second statscan link for reference
http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/comm09a-eng.htm?sdi=internet%20household

I would like to learn.
Please educate me.

It appears to me that applying copyright to performances seriously impacts us.

Copyright was intended to apply only to the printed music. For it to be applied only in that way would enormously enrich music and our social culture.

By the way I just learned that my son's band just did Tutti Fruiti along ones they "own" at the favorite beach hang-out in Delaware. Did they break the law?