Slashdot Mirror

You're correct that the CRIA is a collective of record labels -- Canada's version of the RIAA -- but they're not the ones who get the money first. It's the CPCC that gets it first. They're not a record company or association of record companies.

The CPCC distributes it to three groups: songwriters/music publishers (that is, people who write the words and music), performing artists (the people who sing and play the words and music), and record companies (the people who make and distribute recordings of the words and music).

If you want to think of it as a pyramid, with the CPCC at the top dispensing money (or not), the record labels are on the same level as the artists and performers. This is important to understand, as there's a lot of misinformation going around about the record companies keeping the tariff money from the artists. It's two separate streams.

This page has more info. I hope this helps.

1) The CPCC decides who gets paid and not, and they simply won't pay non-Canadian performers, though they graciously pay non-Canadian songwriters and record companies, for what it's worth. I believe there's an application process for smaller Canadian artists, but don't know how fairly the levy is distributed.

2) It's a bit odd, but you can receive an exemption to the levy only if you have some sort of disability, or are an organization buying on behalf of the disabled.

This may seem to blatantly disregard notions of just taxation, but I don't think they maintain any delusion that this is a fair system. They are not a governmental organization, and are not beholden to democratically reviewable notions like "fair play" or "common decency."

See The CPCC homepage.
Also this CopyLevy FAQ.

Here's one FAQ on this.
The independent non-profit that collects the levy, the CPCC, has some additional information.

This levy:
a) penalizes non-infringers and discourages fair use
b) only compensates a select group who are harmed by illegal copying
c) is managed by a group with no democratic oversight
d) is confusing so as to encourage double-taxation
e) only taxes a select group of infringers, those who copy to certain types of media
f) is easily avoided through poor construction (you can legally self-import all your CD-Rs and avoid the levy)
g) other reasons?

I think this assumed guilt thing is a bit "too much" since it doesn't benefit artists that aren't Canadian (with the exception of those paid through the AMF, which aren't that many in comparison to the rest of the world).

CPCC Royalty Distribution Info

I would think that if we're paying that much on CD's it should go to every organization possible instead of a select few.

My question is why is this such a problem? In many countries (including Canada and *shock gasp* the US) there is a levy applied to blank media. Since this is a levy (not a tax) it goes directly to a group (such as the RIAA) which then is supposed to distribute it to the artists they represent from the CD Manufacturers.

For Our Canadian Friends: Private Copying & The Law
Under Canada's Copyright Act, it is legal for individuals to copy recorded music for their own personal use. In exchange, there is a mechanism to compensate those with rights in that music: royalties for private copying. The royalties attach to the types of blank media that are commonly used for copying. But because technologies come and go and the value of copying can change over time, the legislation does not create a static catalogue of specific types of media on which there should be a royalty or fix royalty amounts for all time. Instead, it sets up a framework that allows for periodic review. The Act establishes legal principles and tight procedural safeguards, but gives responsibility for determining the types of media that should qualify for a private copying royalty and its amount to Canada's Copyright Board. The Copyright Board is an economic regulatory body that specializes in copyright matters. The Board's decisions are referred to as private copying tariffs .

(And for the sake of coming argument)

For Our US Friends: US CODE: Title 17, 1004 Royalty Payments
(b) Digital Audio Recording Media.-- The royalty payment due under section 1003 for each digital audio recording medium imported into and distributed in the United States, or manufactured and distributed in the United States, shall be 3 percent of the transfer price. Only the first person to manufacture and distribute or import and distribute such medium shall be required to pay the royalty with respect to such medium.

Now since that law is in place, it means that (Although CD-R's are not applicable under that code in the US at the moment) with some simple ammendments could settle this issue. You could apply a small levy (say 5 cents per song) on digital media and save everyone the headache that we're all having. I mean 5 cents a song won't kill anyone's bank account and certainly would be giving the money that is apparently being lost back to the people who are loosing it. Also since CD's aren't on the list of media that has the levy applied to it, a simple 20 cents per CD would resolve this issue as well.

Why sue when a simple ammendment would suffice, especially when it would make most (if not all) parties happy? Just money grubbing and assanine behaviour at its finest.

The levy does NOT give you the right to do anything of the sort.

Anyone telling you otherwise is lying, probably in an effort to make themselves feel better about their illegal downloads
The levy is simply a money grab to allow a few people to make a good living working at an organization (CPCC) created to collect the levy
...After they are done having a good time, any money left will go to Canadian Recording artists, or rather, their handlers.

What am I allowed to do because of the levy ?
You are allowed to make an unlimited copy of licenced material you ALREADY PAID FOR onto other forms of media for YOUR OWN PERSONAL USE

ie.. If you never paid for a licenced copy of a song, then you don't magicaly get a licence when you download it on Limewire and burn it onto you levied CD disc.

You always have the right to have those (and any other) songs in Canada. For your own use and as long as you don't redistribute them.

All Canadians have already been tried, found guilty and sentenced for copyright infringement. We've been paying a levy on blank CDs and tapes for years, thanks to CRIA. They've also tried to impose their levy scheme on ISP fees and DVDs and more, but thankfully failed. Anyway, CRIA drew first blood, but we have the right to download as much as we want.

Their latest antics just prove they want to have their cake and eat ours too. Screw em.

http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml

(pdf) http://www.cpcc.ca/english/pdf/interimDecision2005 .pdf

I think your questions are mostly answered here. I found that link by going to the CPCC web site and poking around a bit. That page covers the processes for sampling airplay and sales, and distributing the cash. Ultimately they assume that people rip music in the same ratios that they buy it (which has some merit; the most popular tracks on the P2P services tend to match what's on the Billboard Top Ten), but the huge, glaring inequity is that only Canadian artists are currently eligible to get the moola.

If you have any other questions, you'll probably find them elsewhere on that site -- good luck.

But shouldn't the Canadian Government be doing the refunding? They mandated it, they probably took the money from Apple as it was collected, seems like Apple gets screwed twice, along with Canadian citizens.

The government never collecting any funds - that was handled by the now-looking-for-something-else-to-do Canadian Private Copying Collective. Furthermore, the CPCC held all levy proceeds in trust and will be returning them to the manufacturers. Thus, Apple is merely returning money that was never theirs.

No word, however, on whether Apple return the iTunes Store fees for any Celine Dion tracks purchased in an alcohol-and-tranquilizer-induced fit of misguided patriotism.

...kind of makes you wonder if perhaps you got it wrong the first time when you put the levy on blank media, huh Parliment? Death to the CPCC and their outrageous greed.

The allocation of the collected funds among songwriters, performers, and the labels varies from year to year. For 2004, the Copyright Board determined that 66 per cent of the funds would be distributed to songwriters through their collectives (SOCAN, CMRRA, and SODRAC), 18.9 per cent would be distributed to performers through their collectives (NRCC and SOGEDAM), and 15.1 per cent would be distributed to the labels through the NRCC collective. It is important to note that the funds earmarked for songwriters are distributed worldwide, while the performer and label compensation are available only to Canadians.

"NO IT'S NOT. The difference is we Canadians PAY the CRIA for EVERY SINGLE BLANK DISK WE BUY, WHETHER IT IS TO BE USED FOR MUSIC OR NOT."

The money goes to the CPCC, a non-profit agency. Most of the money is redistributed to songwriters and recording artists. Some goes to record labels. None goes directly to the CRIA.

"That's why we have the right to share music."

Not correct. Canadian law currently says that you can download copyrighted music in some cases, and there is a levy paid to the CPCC on recordable media. These are independent facts. You do not have a socialized music industry. Your health care system works somewhat like this (you can get free health care because you pay taxes) but there's no similar corelation in the music industry.

You're not the first Canadian to come to this incorrect conclusion, however.

As a Canadian, do you know who gets money from the media tax?

CPCC began making payments early in 2003

It's a "tariff", which means the government gets ahold of the money first and eventually gets around to doleing it out for its proper use.

No. None of the money goes to the government - it goes to the Canadian Private Copying Collective, an independant, non-profit organization.

The government is getting its cream out from this

Proof, please.

Legally, it is not a tax. Tax measures must be introduced at Parliament by ways and means measures. The Tariff has already been challenged on the grounds that it is a tax but was not so introduced. The attack failed in the Federal Court of Appeal: http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fca/2004/2004fca424.h tml

And no, the government doesn't administer the program. Collection and enforcement is directly administered by the private collectives (e.g. http://cpcc.ca/english/collPayment.htm).

This isn't to say the whole thing isn't completely ill-conceived and unjust. But Ottawa isn't getting rich off this.

The Canadian Private Copying Collective is the non-profit agency charged with collecting and distributing private copying royalties. Established in 1999, CPCC is an umbrella organization that represents songwriters, recording artists, music publishers and record companies. These are the groups on whose behalf the royalties are collected. CPCC is not an arm of government. (Emphais mine.)

Now, the law we're getting is far less lopsided than the one the Heritage Committee proposed. Unfortunately, private copying, the CD media levy and how it works with the anticircumvention measures is not being addressed. Curiously enough, despite this big push to get this adopted, they seemingly "forgot" about the CPCC and the levy.

Oh, and did you know that the CPCC squandered nearly $4 million dollars in 2003 of levy money, making their overhead for that year is nearly 15%. Or how about the fact, they've only distributed half of the money they've collected between 2003 and 1999. Hell, they didn't even bother to start paying the money out until 2003.

"That doesn't tell me anything about how much money actual musicians and songwriters have been given."

Did you see the Allocation of funds page? It seems pretty clear:

• 66 % to eligible authors and publishers
• 18.9% to eligible performers
• 15.1% to eligible record companies.

As you can see, the record company gets the smallest slice of the pie. Performers, composers and songwriters get 85%.

"In the US the record companies hold the copyrights, I'm guessing it's no different in Canada."

In the US, the copyright for the words and music are retained by the lyricist and composer (at least one of whom is often the performer). The copyright on the recording is often shared among some combination of the record company, the producer, and the engineer. At either rate, that's irrelevant to the way in which the levy is distributed.

If you have any other questions, I encourage you to poke around that site a little more.

"Does anyone have any real evidence that musicans actually get this money? Everything I've read about the music industry says they get zero."

Yes. Poke around that site if you'd like to learn more. A little knowledge goes a long way.

$28MM (Canadian) has been paid to date, but remember that only Canadian artists and record companies are eligible.

Some of these posts are really ignorant.
Ok first of all it's not the RIAC- it is the CRIA.
The levy is going to the CPCC.
For all the people who are saying this is a bad thing- you are complete morons. We are in a common law system- putting music on a hard drive is not going to be suddenly illegal because the courts found the CPCC levy illegal. The CPCC does not have unlimited powers of taxation-- and I am glad that this has happened.
So for all you trolls- nothing has changed regarding your rights, and it is doubtful that the Liberal government is going to start passing laws limiting your rights-- it is political suicide for them.

Those extra levies on casettes/minidiscs/CD-R and apparently also MP3 players, do they really reach the artists? How do they redistrubute, and on what criteria?

It's interesting that I was just looking into this yesterday. They have a website that they've collected $80 million over that past 5 years and distributed $30 million of it. The distributions are based on radio airplay and CD sales. The funds are paid out by groups like SOCAN (an artist organization that handles royalties, etc.).

So, yes, the money is getting out slowly - unfortunately, it's being distributed to Celine Dion and Bryan Adams for the most part.

CPCC began making payments early in 2003. In January, CPCC carried out the first of a series of payments being made from the over $28 million in private copying royalties available for distribution from 2000 and 2001. 2003 will also see payment from the additional $26 million available from 2002.

"'Audio CD-Rs' that cost stupidly more than the normal data CDs"

Yes, they do, and here's why.

The info you want is hard to find but here's what I've found so far.

The Canadian Private Copying Collective, CPCC is a non profit umbrella group overseeing distribution of funds.

The CPCC's has handed out $26 million CDN and will hand out a further $28 million CDN.

Depending on the year it has distributed funds as follows
66% to eligible authors and publishers, 18.9% to eligible performers, 15.1% to eligible record companies.
and in other years; authors and publishers 75%, recording artists 13.7% and record companies 11.3%.

So the (13.7%, 18.9%) distributed to artist from CPCC to SOCAN is around ($3.5, $5.2) million CDN depending on the year etc.

Now lets see what SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) has to say.

Slightly off topic.. Look at the list of fees they collect (besides the tariff). Specifically "Strolling Musicians and Buskers; Recorded Music" Damn! No wonder most buskers who sing for their supper don't have a portable stereo accompanying them. SOCAN wants $32.55 per day for the accompanying music!

The moral on the above story is that the $0.21 for CD-Rs and CD-RWs is peanuts, and (in light of the legitimate purpose of backup) is already reduced from $0.77 tariff on CD-R Audio and CD-RW Audio. Specifically in this link, grep 'I buy blank CDs regularly to store data from my computer'

Okay so what does SOCAN have to say about distribution of money from the tariff... well nothing. They have forms to fill out, and they give you the option of paying with Visa and MasterCard.. but I can't find a damn thing about outflow of cash.

The closest thing I can find is in their Summer 2004 newsletter 381 Kb pdf. Which is vague at best

On the charts ... British industry .. 10 percent of the artists were Canadian. Nickleback, Avril Lavign, Nelly Furtado, Lynda Lemay and Lara Fabian ... These successes don't happen spontaneously. They are the result of talent ... and an industry infrastructure that supports the development of Canadian creators.

They "develop the artist" and are into advertisement/payolla to get foreigners to buy CDN music.

So my one last search was in the Canadian Copyright Act. Specifically Subsection Subsection 83. (13) (b).

... require a collective society to file with the Board information relating to payments of moneys received by the society ...

So SOCAN has to tell the Copyright Board how it spent the money. Great, two levels of bureaucracy.

I have no intention of filling a FOI request as I don't really care enough. I'll let someone else try that. This is the furthest I can get in "following the money". :(

While you're at the copyright Act site look at subsection 84, which says only collectives/societies can collect the tariff. So, you personally cannot fill out a form and get your $0.21 back. If you want that you'll have to write Sarmite and make a good case for how the Act should be amended and how it would not be abused.

The only exception to the levy is subsection 86 (1) which exempts societies for people with perceptual disabilities. So you if you have a perceptual disability you could ask, say the CNIB, to purchase blank media for you.

FWIW: Upcomming tariffs for 2005., for private copying shows there will be no increase ($0.21, $0.77) and the distri

The info you want is hard to find but here's what I've found so far.

The Canadian Private Copying Collective, CPCC is a non profit umbrella group overseeing distribution of funds.

The CPCC's has handed out $26 million CDN and will hand out a further $28 million CDN.

Depending on the year it has distributed funds as follows
66% to eligible authors and publishers, 18.9% to eligible performers, 15.1% to eligible record companies.
and in other years; authors and publishers 75%, recording artists 13.7% and record companies 11.3%.

So the (13.7%, 18.9%) distributed to artist from CPCC to SOCAN is around ($3.5, $5.2) million CDN depending on the year etc.

Now lets see what SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) has to say.

Slightly off topic.. Look at the list of fees they collect (besides the tariff). Specifically "Strolling Musicians and Buskers; Recorded Music" Damn! No wonder most buskers who sing for their supper don't have a portable stereo accompanying them. SOCAN wants $32.55 per day for the accompanying music!

The moral on the above story is that the $0.21 for CD-Rs and CD-RWs is peanuts, and (in light of the legitimate purpose of backup) is already reduced from $0.77 tariff on CD-R Audio and CD-RW Audio. Specifically in this link, grep 'I buy blank CDs regularly to store data from my computer'

Okay so what does SOCAN have to say about distribution of money from the tariff... well nothing. They have forms to fill out, and they give you the option of paying with Visa and MasterCard.. but I can't find a damn thing about outflow of cash.

The closest thing I can find is in their Summer 2004 newsletter 381 Kb pdf. Which is vague at best

On the charts ... British industry .. 10 percent of the artists were Canadian. Nickleback, Avril Lavign, Nelly Furtado, Lynda Lemay and Lara Fabian ... These successes don't happen spontaneously. They are the result of talent ... and an industry infrastructure that supports the development of Canadian creators.

They "develop the artist" and are into advertisement/payolla to get foreigners to buy CDN music.

So my one last search was in the Canadian Copyright Act. Specifically Subsection Subsection 83. (13) (b).

... require a collective society to file with the Board information relating to payments of moneys received by the society ...

So SOCAN has to tell the Copyright Board how it spent the money. Great, two levels of bureaucracy.

I have no intention of filling a FOI request as I don't really care enough. I'll let someone else try that. This is the furthest I can get in "following the money". :(

While you're at the copyright Act site look at subsection 84, which says only collectives/societies can collect the tariff. So, you personally cannot fill out a form and get your $0.21 back. If you want that you'll have to write Sarmite and make a good case for how the Act should be amended and how it would not be abused.

The only exception to the levy is subsection 86 (1) which exempts societies for people with perceptual disabilities. So you if you have a perceptual disability you could ask, say the CNIB, to purchase blank media for you.

FWIW: Upcomming tariffs for 2005., for private copying shows there will be no increase ($0.21, $0.77) and the distri

The modification to the Canadian Copyright Act that permitted copying music for personal use was made in 1997, the year before Napster hit the scene. Widespread online access to copyrighted materials wasn't happening at the time, but to say it could not be envisioned is a bit of a stretch. I'm sure that there are lots of people on Slashdot who have tales of shared music on IRC or ftp sites dating to 1997 and earlier.

Section 82 of the Act creates a levy on recordable media (CD-Rs, blank tapes, minidiscs, iPods, etc.) expressly for the purpose of compensating artists for copies made of their work. The Canadian Private Copying Collective pulls in roughly thirty million dollars per year in levies; that amount has been increasing at about ten percent per year for the last couple of years. That money is distributed to artists, songwriters, and labels. If they're already being compensated for copying, is it necessary for a legislative change to take place?

Not exactly. From my understanding, US Law allows for a 3% royalty payment on digital audio medium, which are such things as DATs and CD-R-Audio... not the regular CD-Rs that can be used for data or audio.

In Canada, we pay a much higher fee, $0.21 on each CD-R and $0.77 on each CD-R-Audio. So, on a 10-pack of CDs for $10, we pay an additional 21% for the levy.

Dave

Ideally, I'd like to see Larry Lessig's system, wherein musicians are paid directly a share of general royalties collected based on their popularity (a la ASCAP), implemented somewhere (you could even start funding the royalty pool with the levy on blank CDRs)

That's almost how the levy is supposed to be distributed. Check here for details on how it actually works. Most goes to "authors and publishers"

Canadian copyright law is very similar to the USA's. You can copy your own stuff for personal use.

The difference is an agreement made by the music companies (see http://www.cpcc.ca/), to let you copy other people's stuff for yourself, and in return they collect a levy on cassettes, CDs and MP3 players.

IANAL

CPCC Business Plan:

1. Enact laws to skim money from sales of blank media.
2. Collect money.
3. Profit!

There isn't even a ??? step. It's a great business plan.

And of course with this arrangement, it is not at all easy to opt out of the government/CRIA scheme - all blank media sold in Canada have this levy applied. The only alternative we have is to import blank media from other countries and "forget" to pay the levy at import time. Unfortunately it is not obvious that this is a cheaper solution due to shipping, duty, exchange, and other fees related to buying foreign products.

This is one of the most unfair aspects of the system: it takes money out of the pocket of small songwriters and performers to reward bigger ones. The levy pool is distributed based on CD sales and radio airplay numbers. If you don't get played on radio or sell CDs through retail, you don't count.

This is especially bad for bands and singers who are just starting out. If they buy CD-R blanks to record their own music, they pay the levy but the money is distributed to others.

gotta go through the Canadian ripoffs of it... like PureTracks

It's no wonder that people are starting to refer to PureTracks as "PureCrap". It really is as bad as you've described. Unfortunately, we don't have any other choices (except to use P2P clients or get our American buddies to buy music from iTMS for us) until Apple completes its negotiations with the organizations that oversee music licensing in Canada. One of those organizations is the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency (CMRRA) and the other is...

...the Canadian version of the RIAA (whatever the hell they're called)...

...the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA). So, far, the CRIA hasn't been doing all that much about music piracy. Most of their efforts have been half-hearted, at best. For example, see this Globe And Mail article covering the way that the CRIA has been dealing with music piracy (or not dealing with it, as the case may be). Some of their efforts are just plain silly.

Perhaps the folks that we should be more worried about are SOCAN (which was recently mentioned in this Slashdot thread related to the responsibility of ISPs in regards to the transmission of copyrighted music) and the CPCC (the rat-bastards that instituted levies on recordable media in Canada, and are now trying to get levies put on MP3s players here (as described in this Slashdot thread)).

D.

What other industry get's to collect free money from the government on the chance that someone somewhere might do something illegal??

Copying music for your personal use is not illegal in Canada. The Copyright Act allows it, and puts the levy in place to compensate the copyright holders.

There's a long list of groups who use blank media who are exempt from the levy, but it's probably hard for an individual to get on that list.

In the end, the music industry looses their tax grab (...that they were never getting anyways as the canadian government has not paid out ONE CENT of the money theyve collected in the past few years...),

It was actually the CPCC that collected the money, not the government, and they've paid out about $10M so far.

In the end, the music industry looses their tax grab (...that they were never getting anyways as the canadian government has not paid out ONE CENT of the money theyve collected in the past few years...),

It was actually the CPCC that collected the money, not the government, and they've paid out about $10M so far.

to see a deaf person try to get a case into the Canadian court system claiming it's unfair they have to pay these fees because they're incapable of pirating music.

He might not be able toback it up, but I certainly can. Here are current tarrifs and here are the proposed tarrifs. Note that the first set of proposed increases to tarriffs were somewhat shot down in favor of the ones listed above.

For those of you who want to go straight to the original, here is the official proposal. Note that in this proposal, they wanted to charge a full $21/GB for hard-drives in MP3 players. This actually would have raised the price of an iPod or similar such device (20GB hard drive) by a full $410. Given that the current going price for a 20GB iPod is roughly $500 to $600 CDN, this would have come close to doubling the price.

In the updated levy, the charge would be ~$110 for a 20GB MP3 player.

He might not be able toback it up, but I certainly can. Here are current tarrifs and here are the proposed tarrifs. Note that the first set of proposed increases to tarriffs were somewhat shot down in favor of the ones listed above.

For those of you who want to go straight to the original, here is the official proposal. Note that in this proposal, they wanted to charge a full $21/GB for hard-drives in MP3 players. This actually would have raised the price of an iPod or similar such device (20GB hard drive) by a full $410. Given that the current going price for a 20GB iPod is roughly $500 to $600 CDN, this would have come close to doubling the price.

In the updated levy, the charge would be ~$110 for a 20GB MP3 player.

According to the Canadian Private Copying Collective website, you can apply for an exemption from media levies.

HOWEVER ...

There are several very critical hurdles you need to overcome, including:

1. You need to be a registered business entity and have a business license, utility bill as proof, etc.. (so much for saving your home videos and pictures)
2. You need to pay a $60 per year application fee to even apply if you're a corporate entity, or $15 if you're not, and there is no guarantee that they will accept you. ($60 per year in levies is what I'd pay for buying them in the stores as an individual anyway)
3. You are obligated to provide records and account for the use of every piece of media for a span of two years and cannot resell it. (yes, even coasters have to be accounted for apparently but you basically let them walk in at any time to be able to audit you)
4. You can only buy royalty-free media from a handful of retailers. (so much for consumer choice)

In other words, the system is set up such that you are innocent until proven guilty and that only large consumers of media might see financial benefit because the imposed transaction costs appear cleverly designed to be at the sweet spot of the amount of media consumed by the average individual.

This is thuggery and a make-work project for government bureaucrats, plain and simple. Nobody remembers all the people whose copyrighted images are supposedly scanned and saved on writeable media. Nobody remembers the movie companies whose movies are supposedly pirated on CDs. Nobody remembers all the software developers whose software is widely copied. But when it comes to the poor musicians who need a welfare handout, no problem - except they're not getting the money either. As I said, thuggery.

They finally started payments in January 2003. Of course, they keep an "administrative" fee for themselves. More info on their site

I definately don't agree with this. While yeah, they may inflate the price artifically a little bit, it's still expensive to produce a high-quality album.

Consider that studio time in a professional studio is expensive, and it takes a while to record an album. Plus you have to pay a sound engineer, plus time for mastering. Then you have to produce CD's, including artwork, and pay for all the copies you initially print. Although it's possible to do a lot of this very cheaply with modest computer hardware nowadays, it's not the same quality. Studio's are not cheap to build. And I think pitch correctors are expensive, too, and come on, half the people on the radio now couldn't be there without one ;)

There's also a lot of other expenses. A music video can easily cost $500k to produce. There may also be other advertising. You also have to pay the band, manager, promoters, etc (and record company exec's..).

and they get to deduct all the costs from the artists' shares.

Well, this is the paying-back part of the 'loan' ('advance', in industryspeak). They put up the money and help you make the album, then your album sales pay back that investment, and eventually you start actually making money off it. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with this system, in theory. Do you think as a band, if you failed, and had gotten the loan from a bank, they're going to say "oh, well, your music didn't catch on, don't worry about paying back that $1 million we lent you"?

The problem I have with the US media tax is that the money goes to the RIAA members, not the artists, not smaller music labels.

In Canada, the tax goes to a non-profit organization called the Canadian Private Copying Collective. They distribute royalties based on radio airplay and retail sales data, which is pretty fair, since it should at least somewhat closely reflect what's being copied.

SOCAN is the non-profit agency that distributes royalties based on public performance (radio, tv, bars, clubs, malls, etc), similar to ASCAP I guess.

I'm not as familliar with the situation in the US, but it seems like it's controlled by the wrong people (who have a direct interest in paying themselves more and screwing over the consumer) as opposed to an independent agency. Of course, the RIAA, who has the most say over the situation (holding the contracts of many, many artists, and the chequebook in the face of the politician's campaigns) will have no desire to change it.

Actually you are quite incorrect:

2003 Levy Guide

or the CPCC:

Canadian Private Copyright Collective

The media levy is applied to ANY and ALL media that can or could be used for copying music. So if you're buying a data cd for use with your backup software (or whatnot) the levy IS STILL APPLIED. The levy is applied to Flash RAM and hard disks for god sake in portable devices, not just cd's and tapes.

The levy does allow us to copy discs for our own use. I submit that if the labels start to implement anti-copying technology on Cds and whatnot that the levy be lifted (since this is EXACTLY what the levy is there to remedy) and if this is not done, I suggest a citizen's rebellion becuase it's now "double-dipping" and an unfair subisdy when we can't do what the "levy" is there to remedy anyhow. Be it a further stoppage of buying music (which I don't do anyhow now due to the current draconian mesaures and price-fixing - which have even been proven in court) or force our MP's to remove the levy (like Sheilagh "Dumbass" Copps - the Heritage Minister - would remove the levy or be smart enough to force the labels to not include copy protection, I'm sad that I am a Liberal). I suggest removing the Levy because it seems the labels are going to do what they want anyhow.

The major difference between "audio" and "data" blank cd's are the recording surface and (supposedly) greater compatibility with audio devices (which I have *bever* came across a problem with a "data" cd in any audio device yet). They expect to be able to charge you more because of simple marketing and end user ignorance.

So, you think that Canada has a progressive approach regarding copyright issues, eh? Then why does it tax blank recording media to supposedly pay recording artists? The lobby group that receives all this money hasn't distributed any of it! The current 21-cent or 77-cent tax per CD-R amounts to about the value of the disc itself. Despite the fact that demand and capacity go up and prices fall as technology improves, they want to increase the levies.

Canadians now "pay" recording artists when buying writable CD and DVD media even if they are used to backup your computer data or store a copy of your favorite Linux distro. They may soon have to pay this tax for flash memory for their digital cameras.

The point is, the Canadian industry is not taking any more of a conciliatory approach to the problem of filesharing as you suggest.

These haven't been legislated. They're just recording industry recommendations from a lobby group called the Canadian Private Copying Collective. Incidentally, some large tech importers and manufacturers, as well as consumers are heavily lobbying against these tariffs, through the CCFDA. I don't think they will see the light of day.

An interim decision on tariffs for recording media can be found at here. It certainly doesn't look like the outrageous tariffs recommended are being taken seriously.

According to the CPCC's website, they have started distributing the money. Are you out of date or do you think they are lying?

For the record, as an Canadian independant musician and copyright holder, I am none too thrilled with this "tax the blank media" approach. I pay extra for every blank CD I buy for both legal music copies and data backup and I think that it will be a cold day in Hell before my little bar band will see dime one of this blank media tax from SOCAN.

We Canadians have been paying a levee on any recordable media since the year 2000. Only recently, there was a small disbursment from the Canadian Private Copying Collective, with more due soon. As well, the CPCC wants to significanly raise the levee to the point that it's almost not worth recordong your own CDs.

Interestingly, HP Canada is really opposed to the increase - see this page to learn more. They've formed a group of businesses that have a stake in selling digital media or digital recording devices called the Canadian Coalition for Fair Digital Access - lots of good info on thier site. Pay attention to the links page - it has the latest news on what's up with the CPCC.

A levee like this will produce simmilar results in Germany - the PC makers will end up at war with the media companies. It's already starting in Canada, as you can see...

Soko

Don't kid yourself. Just because you've paid the "Celine Dion tax" on your media does not mean that you can copy music at will.

Go to Sycop's web page on this to get a better understanding on what's involved.

Frankly, I'm pissed that I have to pay a levy for something that I only use for data.

The reader is expected to retail for under $100 and the cards for under $15 each

The CPCC tariff will be $23.82 CDN ($15.50 US)

I'm surprised nobody has made the connection with this story

Wired article

People who want to enforce it (with exact amounts listed)

People who want to stop it

So, can I borrow your cd's? I want to burn a couple 100 since I just bought a big whack of blanks and have already paid for the right to do so!

the Canadian Copyright Board is not a bunch of dimwits or lackeys

I know the copyright board didn't pass the law, but the CCB are the ones who allowed the current ridiculous scheme to be put in place. I don't care if they reduced the amount requested by the record companies - the fact that I have to pay a flat-rate levy on CD-Rs and the money just disappears into a black hole is a farce.

If the CCB wants to show that they aren't a bunch of lackeys, they will turn down the current proposed increases, and repeal the previous levy too. From what I understand, this is within their power.

I wrote my (Canadian Alliance) MP about this issue, and he replied that they will be opposing the increases. Hopefully they have enough clout to do something about it.

More information on what is wrong with this whole levy system can be found here. If you want to check out the propoganda put out by the record industry group, you can check out their website too, where they freely admit that they have taken in $28M of our money, but have not give a cent out to any of the artists that are supposed to benefit from this screwed-up system. Nice, isn't it?