Slashdot Mirror

Here it is (PDF page 7). Not yet final, but might as well be.

*sigh*...

Bill C-48, titled "An Act to Amend the Copyright Act", which passed on June 18, 2002, says that copying musical works for private use is legal.

The section of the act that covers this topic is here.

The copyright tariffs are set by the Copyright Board of Canada. You can find out about current tariffs on blank recording media(they already exist) here. Information on proposed tariffs for blank recording media for 2003-04 can be found here. Information about a tariffs on rebroadcasting of signals can also be found on the site.

The copyright tariffs are set by the Copyright Board of Canada. You can find out about current tariffs on blank recording media(they already exist) here. Information on proposed tariffs for blank recording media for 2003-04 can be found here. Information about a tariffs on rebroadcasting of signals can also be found on the site.

The bill may or may not have passed (still trying to find some confirmation on the various government websites), but the actual hearing on the "proposed" amounts to be charged for the levies on blank media for the 2003-2004 period is just starting (tomorrow actually).

Whoa... Slashdot is giving folks the wrong impression. Bill C-32 was given royal assent (ie: became a law) in 1997!

The bill can be viewed online.
Use the dorky little right-arrow thing to read it.

What the MP meant was that copyright levies are already in place. This was done with C-32, and has been in effect for five years. What is new is that the Canadian Copyright Board is holding hearings on whether or not to increase the existing levies to the astronomical level which /. readers are acquianted. This is not a bill before parliament - it is a request before an unelected board of civil servants and "community leaders." Those hearings begin tomorrow.

So, in other words: CALM DOWN. NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

file swapping will continue to be the RIAA's excuse because it's easier than the truth.

Quite right. It's easier to blame pirates and terrorists than it is to figure out a way of doing things that's viable in the long term.

In Canada, we recently had a significant increase in the levy on recordable media. This is allowed under part 8 of the Copyright Act. Most people that know about it see it as granting them the moral justification as well as the legal right (also allowed under certain conditions in part 8 of the Copyright Act) to copy as much music as want. I would never go on record admitting to do that myself, but I am aware of many people that see it that way.

I think that exactly the same thing would happen if ISP's had to increase fees in the US, but to a greater extent because a great many more people need/want Internet access. People might even have to stop buying CD's to balance the books...

The ultimate solution to revive the recording industry is NOT copy-protection. Ultimately, the industry must figure out how to serve the consumer's desires (this is the basis of all business and economics practices, something that the RIAA among others must have forgotten). What other industry can produce a product that is 90% crap and 10% okay, and expect the consumer to willingly pay for all 100% of it? If this were the standard business model, our Dell computers would be running P4-2.5 GHz processors with 64K RAM and 50 MB hard drives, and we would pay $3000 for them! The recording industry must acknowledge that if consumers are not willing to pay for its product, there is something wrong with (a) the product or (b) the distribution strategy (the 90%/10% ratio). I would have no problems shelling out $20 for a CD if it had more than one or two good songs on it.

By the way, the recording industry in Canada has managed to lobby a 20% levy on each blank CD-R that is sold (21 cents on a $1 CD). That eliminated the last moral reservations I had with copying music (now that the artists get my money anyway), and I bet one could mount a substantive legal defense if one were ever charged with copyright infringement based on that fee.

Check out the CPCC site. They clearly indicate on their site that they will be distributing royalties in 2003 and that they have $28 million ready for distribution. The Copyright Board of Canada also states how the money should be distributed.

First, IANAL. But I do recall reading that (at least for Canada), copying music is not illegal. That's why they have the extra media charges on blank tapes and CD's. If you copy the music and transfer it to someone else, then you break the law. If you copy the music yourself, for your own use, and put the music on media for wich the tax has been levied (like a blank CD), then it is not illegal. Even if you do not own the original. It sounds to me that with P2P, I am the one initiating the copy, therefore I am not breaking any laws. The person making the music available is the same as loaning it to a friend. So go ahead and share, just put it on a CD. For more info see Copyright Board of Canada

In Canada you can legally borrow an audio CD from someone and make a copy for yourself. Hence the tax on blank media to compensate for that.

For more information: Articlde 80 of the Copyright Act of Canada

Ah, who am I fooling? That'll never happen.

- There's no such thing as a "right to profit".

I think probably it would be more useful to worry about the terrible *Canadian* legislation that is working its way through the system, including:

• Canadian Copyright Reform Process
• the proposed new and increased levies from the CPCC
• DRM in Canada

Nowhere in the act does it specify you have to own the music that you copy under the Private Copying section.

It specifies that you have to be the one doing the copying, but not that you have to own the original copy.

Go reread it again. Section 80 is what you want to look at.

If you go read the CPCC's rationale behind the increased tariffs, you will see that thier reasoning takes into account that a larger portion of the music than previosly thought being copied is not owned by the copier, and as such the "discount" that was applied to the previous run of the tariff should be reduced from 37.5% to 5% to reflect this.

Just found this on the Copyright board's site.

It's the CPCC's rationale behind the proposed increases. Anyone forumlating objections to the proposed increases would be wise to read it.

Which it will, unless you help defeat it. Make sure you send email to majeau.claude@cb-cda.gc.ca registering your protest.

You can read the proposal details here.

THE VIRTUAL PETITION IS USELESS.

The Copyright Board will pay attention only to email sent to majeau.claude@cb-cda.gc.ca, or postal mail sent to the Secretary General.

The electronic petition is a waste of your time. If you want to stop this proposal before it gets off the ground, you need to ACT FAST (you have one month) and SEND YOUR MESSAGE DIRECTLY.

Please take the time to read the proposal itself. And do hit up The Tech Report, which has provided a nice overview of the situation.

ACT NOW! If you don't participate, you will be screwed.

Here is the proposal. And here is the /. post about it.

and that device will cost 1500$US + 840$CAN in Canada, if that proposal already posted on Slashdot is accepted! Already more than the cost of a PC...

who will buy it in Canada at 3000$CAN ???

1) Contact the Canadian Copyright Board and express you wishes that the levy not be passed. And contact your MP as well.

2) Contact the CPCC and harrass them. (You know, call the number twice a day if it's local to you, send an e-mail message telling them what you think of their levy once a day.

The wrong word has been capitalized. According to the "Definitions" section, "blank audio recording medium" means: "(a) a recording medium, regardless of its material form, onto which a sound recording may be reproduced, that is of a kind ordinarily used by individual consumers and on which no sounds have ever been fixed" (emphasis added).

Wouldn't a simple solution be to include one small sound file on all otherwise blank audio recording media?

Caveat: That's just part (a) of the definition. Part (b), which includes "any medium prescribed by regulations pursuant to sections 79 and 87 of the Act", may floccinaucinihilipilificate my simple solution above. But according to my interpretation of the Copyright Act, sections 79 and 87, I think the solution may still work.

davidh

A number of points:

1) Don't tell people they have lost all reason. It is unlikely to advance your point.

2) The levies are not arbitrary. See the findings of the last hearing for the mathematical formula used to calculate them.

3) The Copyright Board is not suggesting the new levies. The Canadian Private Copying Colelctive (CPCC) is. They are the group to whom the levies are given, for later distribution to copyright holders.

4) The Copyright Board does not have the power to revoke the levies. They will not rule on the justification for copyright, nor Ms. Dion's need for another million. The Copyright Board does what the legislation behind it tells it to do.

5) I would suggest you make the unreasonable proportion of the cost of media your main thesis: $0.59 will probably represent over half of the cost of a CD-R at retail. $21/GB will add 25% to the cost of an MP3 player.

If you actually plan to reply coherently, then a good place to start research is the document explaining the tariffs currently in place.

The document explains how the previous hearings went. In particular, pay attention to the part that explicitly says that the previous groups arguing against the tariff came woefully unprepared, relying mostly on trying to discredit the opposition's research as opposed to presenting their own.

The document also explains how the amount of 21 cents per CD-R and the other amounts were arrived at; they wasn't pulled out of the air. The CD-R tariff is a multiplication of (among other things) the ratio of the amount of time available on a CD-R to the average length of a prerecorded CD, a coaster (waste) percentage, a calculation of how much is given by the publishers to the copyright holders on a per-CD basis, the percentage of CDs bought by consumers, and the percentage of consumer CDs used to make private music copies.

It seems likely that this current set of hearings will be argued principally over these factors. It remains to be seen whether the CPCC (Canadian Private Copying Collective) can justify a 2.8x increase in the CD-R tariff, since this would most likely come from an increase in the proportion of consumer-bought CD-Rs and the %age of CD-Rs used to private copy.

From a consumer standpoint, increasing the cost of a CD-R by 50% and that of an MP3 player by 25% are likely to be seen as unpalatable (at best) and inspiring a consumer revolt complete with smuggling (at worst). Yet given the scope of the hearnings and the established formula, it is unclear as to whether such an objection can be mounted.

"Objections must briefly state the reasons therefor, and must in-dicate the name, address, telephone number, facsimile number and electronic mail address of the objector. The objection must also contain the following declarations:
I intend to participate actively to the process leading to the certification of the private copying tariff. Consequently, this constitutes my formal objection to the proposed statement filed by CPCC.

I have read the information set out in the Board's notice published in the Canada Gazette on March 9, 2002 with CPCCs proposed statement. I understand the duties that I undertake as
an objector and intend to abide by them.

"4. Section 80 does not legalize (a) copies made for the use of someone other than the person making the copy; and (b) copies of anything else than sound recordings of musical works. It does legalize making a personal copy of a recording owned by someone else. " (emphasis added)

Check out the document here.

Section 80 of the Copyright Act in Canada (Copying for Private Use) clearly states that the act of copying a sound recording does not constitute an infringement of the copyright.(Read the whole section yourself for the exact verbiage.)

If I make a copy for myself, there is no violation. If someone copies the CD for me, that is a violation (Section 80 subsection 2.)

Sections 81 and 82 cover right of renumeration and levy on recordable media. So, in essence there is nothing wrong with the proposal (apart from the prices being high.) BUT as far as I can tell (IANAL) the right to make personal copies exists with or without the levy.

I think the problem is that sections 81 and 82 are there to protect the RIAA and the artists and to compensate them, but these same groups push for laws like the DMCA that coutermand the rights given in Section 80. The fight still lies there.

Personally, if they want the DMCA and its ilk, the Levy should be lifted. Or if they want the levy, repeal the DMCA and drop any further violation of our rights granted under the coyright act.

For those that haven't read through it, there's information included on how to file an objection in page 2 of the document. I wish to stress that the deadline for this is May 8th, 2002.

I highly suggest that all Canadian /.'s do this, as after reading through the proposition, I noticed that this will not only effect writable discs and MP3 players, but also all flash cards and portable memory media. This means you'll be paying levies on flashcards for your digicam, videogame console memory cards, and PDA's, all of which contribute in no way to piracy.

From the document:
Objections must briefly state the reasons therefor, and must in-dicate the name, address, telephone number, facsimile number and electronic mail address of the objector. The objection must also contain the following declarations:

I intend to participate actively to the process leading to the certification of the private copying tariff. Consequently, this constitutes my formal objection to the proposed statement filed by CPCC.

I have read the information set out in the Board's notice published in the Canada Gazette on March 9, 2002 with CPCC's proposed statement. I understand the duties that I undertake as an objector and intend to abide by them.

Objections must also state if the objector intends to participate in the pre-hearing conference to be held on Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 10:00 a.m., the object of which is set out below.

Where possible, the Board asks that all comments and objections be sent by electronic mail.

CLAUDE MAJEAU
Secretary General
56 Sparks Street, Suite 800
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0C9
(613) 952-8621 (Telephone)
(613) 952-8630 (Facsimile)
majeau.claude@cb-cda.gc.ca (Electronic mail)

First, this is a levy, not a tariff. This new charge will be applied to all recordable media sold in Canada, not those imported into the country.

Second, the government has been trying to get this off the ground since 1999. (Many of you will remember the first time this story came around). However, I can still buy a 50-pack of 80-min CD-Rs for $35 CAD in Toronto. Public and political opposition to this move prevented it from being enacted back then; it can again this time. The story got a lot of press in Canada at the time and the Globe and Mail ran several high-profile editorials attacking the proposed levies. Remember: this levy is only a proposal, and the Copyright Board of Canada will be holding public hearings into the matter. It's a simple matter to type up a letter to your MP, and as many of them have so little to do that they are bored silly, they are likely to give your letter some attention, especially if it is halfway-intelligent.

This proposal is so basically flawed that it really stands little chance of ever being enacted and will likely fall to the wayside as it did in 1999. It is unlikely that this idea could withstand a court challenge. Moreover, were this levy actually imposed, there would be a big boom in business for American online computer shops. I'm pretty sure that Canada Customs has better things to do than to levy a $5 charge on your $30 CD-R purchase.

You can see the Copyright Board's original proposal from Dec. 2000 here.

Actually as far as CDR's are concerned you are free to avoid paying the tax, just buy Data CDRs instead of Music CDRs.

Except in Canada

If your genuinely concerned, then I recommend you contact the department (below) responsible for implementing this tax in Canada, and ask them what THEY are going to do about it.

Here's the original news release from our lovely government.

Mr. Claude Majeau
Secretary General
Copyright Board of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C9
Tel: (613) 952-8621
Fax: (613) 952-8630
E-mail: majeau.claude@cb-cda.gc.ca

3. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the levy shall be
(a) 29 for each audio cassette of 40 minutes or more in length;
(b) 21 for each CD-R or CD-RW;
(c) 77 for each CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio or MiniDisc.

JumpTV (some good comments on an old /. story) is currently awaiting a tarif decision by the Canadian Copyright Board. We probably won't hear any ruling on the matter until early 2002.

If they do get a tarif, it will be interesting to see how long it takes:

• For JumpTV to be hacked
• For a nice infrastructure to redistribute the JumpTV signal
• For the 4 (#?) media juggernauts "ask" JumpTV to stop because they can't control packets' destination.
• For the CRTC finally crumble and start regulating the Internet.

a quibble. SOCAN is not actually the Canadian version of the RIAA. It's a copyright collective that represents artists, and as such is the Canadian version of ASCAP and BMI.

also, the decision by the Copyright Board is currently on appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, and doesn't specify any actual ISP tax. that is, it's just a ruling on who would be liable in the case of copyright infringement on the 'net, rather than something like the CDR tax.

note for the Adobaphobes. the Copyright Board seems to have gone Acrobat-happy. on the flip side, they're running Apache. :)

a quibble. SOCAN is not actually the Canadian version of the RIAA. It's a copyright collective that represents artists, and as such is the Canadian version of ASCAP and BMI.

also, the decision by the Copyright Board is currently on appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, and doesn't specify any actual ISP tax. that is, it's just a ruling on who would be liable in the case of copyright infringement on the 'net, rather than something like the CDR tax.

note for the Adobaphobes. the Copyright Board seems to have gone Acrobat-happy. on the flip side, they're running Apache. :)

a quibble. SOCAN is not actually the Canadian version of the RIAA. It's a copyright collective that represents artists, and as such is the Canadian version of ASCAP and BMI.

also, the decision by the Copyright Board is currently on appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, and doesn't specify any actual ISP tax. that is, it's just a ruling on who would be liable in the case of copyright infringement on the 'net, rather than something like the CDR tax.

note for the Adobaphobes. the Copyright Board seems to have gone Acrobat-happy. on the flip side, they're running Apache. :)

We've had two previous /. discussions that I know of. (Here and Here ). Info about the Canadian Levy can be found Here, or you can look at the Copyright Board site and get lost there.

Here's some background, useful for Canadians and non-Candians alike...

In Canada, March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the Copyright Act came into force. Until then, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright. Part VIII legalizes one such activity: copying of sound recordings of musical works onto recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy.

Specifically, the Copyright Board says their ruling "does not legalize (a) copies made for the use of someone other than the person making the copy; and (b) copies of anything else than sound recordings of musical works. It does legalize making a personal copy of a recording owned by someone else."

You may want to look at the Goverment of Canada Copyright Board backgrounder (see point 2, specifically) and allowance for private-use copying.

This is one reason why (for first-generation, private-use copies) Canada is a better place to use P2P than the United States.

I primarily use CD's for cheap, backup media - and now I'm forced to pay this levy under the assumption that I'm ripping someone off in the music industry. So now I burn audio CD's to my hearts content - guilt free. And this is completely legal in Canada.

From the CPCC's own FAQ:

What is "private copying"?

Making a copy of a sound recording for your personal use is called "private copying" or home taping. This is not an infringement of copyright. However, those copies cannot be sold, rented or distributed. Additionally, these copies cannot be used for a performance in public.

-ct

I primarily use CD's for cheap, backup media - and now I'm forced to pay this levy under the assumption that I'm ripping someone off in the music industry. So now I burn audio CD's to my hearts content - guilt free. And this is completely legal in Canada.

From the CPCC's own FAQ:

What is "private copying"?

Making a copy of a sound recording for your personal use is called "private copying" or home taping. This is not an infringement of copyright. However, those copies cannot be sold, rented or distributed. Additionally, these copies cannot be used for a performance in public.

-ct

At first I didn't mind the idea of paying a tax on blank media if it went to supporting the artists; lord knows most would probably make more from the few cents of tax than from most record sales. But upon poking around at the Copyright Act a bit more, it seems that the only provision we are really allowed in Canada is to make copies for personal use (from Copying for Private Use ):

Copying for Private Use
Where no infringement of copyright
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
Limitation
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.
1997, c. 24, s. 50.

Subsection 2 paragraph b seems to rather negative about the whole idea of sharing music... Of course, I could be missing an ammendment somewhere, and if so I'd love to have it pointed out!

No no no... Canadians are paying a levy on every CD and basically magnetic media that can hold music. The levy is payed by the manufacturer or the importater. The stores care only if their profit margin is percentage based, which is doubtfull for such a comodity item. The new levy was to come in effect in march if I am not mistaken. Anyways: check it out for yourself

From the CDR Faq: Because of the media tax imposed by the Canadian government (see section (7-13)), you are allowed to copy any music for your own personal use. This means that you can go over to a friend's house and copy any number of discs you like, so long as they are for your own use. You are not allowed to make copies of music and then give them to others.

You can check the law yourself. The recording industry kinda skipped over this one. At least you get something for yet another miserable tax, er, levy. After all, just because a corporation doesn't LIKE something, doesn't make it ILLEGAL. What is illegal after all? The government is supposed to reflect the will of the people and the best interest of society, not the short term gain of the RIAA. (Especially if you're not IN America). That's why copyright is supposed to expire; why you have the right to parody and fair use; etc.

Now, does this apply to file sharing software? It hasn't been argued in court that I'm aware of, but perhaps it should be. After all, it's legal for me to copy cds that a friend has - why not their mp3 equivilants? Keeping mind of course, for personal use implies that there is no financial gain, which kinda hurts napster-like models. This might give some canadian users some power if they get hassled by their ISP for whatever.

I have a feeling youa re misinterpretiung this.

Legal advice is, of course, always a good idea. But I think it's pretty clear... You may interpret it from the horse's mouth, if you like:
Goverment of Canada Copyright Board backgrounder (see point 2, specifically) and allowance for private-use copying.

In fact if this were true I suspect record companies here in the states (I knwo how canadians hate it when refer to the sates as "america") will immediately stop shipping releases to Canada.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Well, it's true and it's been true for a few years now. Sure, manufacturers and citizens here complain about the small taxes now applied to blank CD-Rs, MiniDiscs, etc. But no US record companies have stopped shipping to Canada.

Don't talk to me about smelling the coffee. I'm Canadian, and I know all about levies(taxes).

The government agency that is responsible for this is the Copyright Board of Canada (http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/), and they have a release on that site regarding this.

The government agency that is responsible for this is the Copyright Board of Canada (http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/), and they have a release on that site regarding this.

Missing in this analysis is that it is not illegal to copy music in all countries. For example, Canada amended its Copyrigh Act in 1998 such that it is no longer illegal to copy "musical works" as long as the copying is done for private use. See section 80, as amended, and the explanation of this section. Many /. readers will recall the furor over the copyright levy imposed in Canada, but many missed that the levy was the flip side of legalizing the private copying of musical works. In other words, it is no longer illegal in Canada to copy music for private use, and the levy was put in place in an attempt to compensate artists for private copying that does take place.

Now, the BIG question that remains for Canadians is the following: if I'm in Canada, and I log onto Napster and connect to someone's MP3 files in the USA and download a file, am I subject to Canadian or US copyright laws? Where is the copying taking place?

Missing in this analysis is that it is not illegal to copy music in all countries. For example, Canada amended its Copyrigh Act in 1998 such that it is no longer illegal to copy "musical works" as long as the copying is done for private use. See section 80, as amended, and the explanation of this section. Many /. readers will recall the furor over the copyright levy imposed in Canada, but many missed that the levy was the flip side of legalizing the private copying of musical works. In other words, it is no longer illegal in Canada to copy music for private use, and the levy was put in place in an attempt to compensate artists for private copying that does take place.

Now, the BIG question that remains for Canadians is the following: if I'm in Canada, and I log onto Napster and connect to someone's MP3 files in the USA and download a file, am I subject to Canadian or US copyright laws? Where is the copying taking place?