Slashdot Mirror

How much of the black media tax goes to artists in the US?

That is an excellent question. The organization in charge of distributing fees is The Canadian Private Copying Collective. Quoting from their Distribution FAQ (PDF):

Songwriters, music publishers, recording artists and record companies are all eligible to receive private copying payments. While songwriters and music publishers are eligible regardless of nationality, only Canadian recording artists and record companies may receive payments under current law.

So the answer is, if you're a songwriter or music publisher in the US, you may receive payments. If you're a recording artist or a record company in the US, then no.

How much of the black media tax goes to artists in the US?

That is an excellent question. The organization in charge of distributing fees is The Canadian Private Copying Collective. Quoting from their Distribution FAQ (PDF):

Songwriters, music publishers, recording artists and record companies are all eligible to receive private copying payments. While songwriters and music publishers are eligible regardless of nationality, only Canadian recording artists and record companies may receive payments under current law.

So the answer is, if you're a songwriter or music publisher in the US, you may receive payments. If you're a recording artist or a record company in the US, then no.

+1

Reference: http://www.cpcc.ca/en/the-cpcc/private-copying-tariff

That's incorrect, Canada does not have this tax on storage devices or media players.

The copyright lobby has tried and failed a few times to have the copyright levy extended from blank media. As of right now the levy is only on blank cd's. http://www.cpcc.ca/en/the-cpcc/private-copying-tariff

Canada DOES have relevant laws about piracy - they collect approximately 1% per blank cassette, CD, or DVD sold, put that money in a central fund, and use that fund to provide financial backing for artists. That's Canadian law. That's the solution they chose and exercised for the last ~30 years.

Not sure where you got the 1% number (it's much higher than 1%) and it only applies to blank media for music. According to the CPCC, the current levy is $0.29/CDR. That's $14.50 of the cost of a 50-pack. That's almost half the cost of the cheapest 50-pack at Futureshop.ca or 85% of the cost of the cheapest 50-pack at ncix.com.

The key thing about the media levy is that money does seem to be going to the artists. The levy is actually a pretty good compromise. The numbers I found (which admittedly were out of date) were that the authors were getting about 60%, the performers maybe 25% and the recording industry was getting the balance (note of course that the calculations get complicated when you have several authors/performers for one piece of music).

I don't think it's entirely unfair for the distributors to get some share of the levy, as long as they don't get all of it. What's despicable of course, is that they want the whole boodle, and they're not getting it.

If you're curious, you can check out the copyright board's website, they have a lot of information, including financials. Copyright board

Lets just hope the money gets to the struggling artists!

I envy your optimism. It will most likely go the recording industry -- the ones who have to be appeased over the digital equivalent of mixtapes.

The levy already exists. This is merely an extension to it. The money is distributed by the Canadian Private Copying Collective to the various organizations that already handle royalties for everything else in the industry. In the case of songwriters, that means SOCAN.

So, if you're a struggling artist, and you have not handed your copyrights over to a record company, and you're a SOCAN member (membership is free, if I remember correctly), then you are eligible to receive part of this money.

That's not entirely true, depending on what you mean by "independent". So long as you are a member of SOCAN and have music tracked by SoundScan, you're eligible for the levies, regardless of whether you're signed onto a major label. This flow chart (warning: PDF) describes the pay-out structure.

The media have been kind of lacking here, though. I have no idea how this pay-out scheme works in practice :(. Go go go investigative journalism!

The nature of copyright has to evolve with current times and technologies, allowing P2P downloads for personal use while putting a fee on MP3 players and blank media is a compromise that I see as fair.

The media levy is great for people who want to justify getting music without paying for it.

However, people whose works are being distributed have no way of being fairly compensated out of the levy collections. By fairly compensated, I mean that levy proceeds are distributed in a way related to the relative volume of the distribution of material. At present, from their policies*, distribution of funds is based on sales and some airplay data rather than volume of exchange. And based on their own data**, over 10% isn't distributed to "artists" at all.

And unauthorized redistribution of copyrighted works isn't the only use for blank media. Penalizing people who aren't infringing anyones rights is fundamentally unjust.

At any rate, the blank media levy applies to tapes and CDs. Federal courts told the Copyright Board they didn't have the authority to impose any levy other media.

* http://cpcc.ca/english/pdf/CPCC_Distribution_Eng_0401_2010.pdf
** http://cpcc.ca/english/finHighlights.htm

The nature of copyright has to evolve with current times and technologies, allowing P2P downloads for personal use while putting a fee on MP3 players and blank media is a compromise that I see as fair.

The media levy is great for people who want to justify getting music without paying for it.

However, people whose works are being distributed have no way of being fairly compensated out of the levy collections. By fairly compensated, I mean that levy proceeds are distributed in a way related to the relative volume of the distribution of material. At present, from their policies*, distribution of funds is based on sales and some airplay data rather than volume of exchange. And based on their own data**, over 10% isn't distributed to "artists" at all.

And unauthorized redistribution of copyrighted works isn't the only use for blank media. Penalizing people who aren't infringing anyones rights is fundamentally unjust.

At any rate, the blank media levy applies to tapes and CDs. Federal courts told the Copyright Board they didn't have the authority to impose any levy other media.

* http://cpcc.ca/english/pdf/CPCC_Distribution_Eng_0401_2010.pdf
** http://cpcc.ca/english/finHighlights.htm

Exactly. If I have 500GB of blank media then I paid 500GB worth of levy purchasing it and I will happily fill it up with 500GB of data. Copyright holders can go see whoever collects the levy for their cut. I'm sure as hell not paying twice.

The levy is currently 24cents for audio cassettes and 29cents for CDs.

Kinda expensive if you DONT download/copy media. Gotta get my moneys worth!

After some Google I see it is a different organization. The Canadian Private Copying Collective, check out the nifty website: http://cpcc.ca/english/index.htm

Anyway I am still of the mind they deserve an independent audit, as well as an investigation/assessment of their actions.

The idea with that is the Blank Media Levy- It's run by the CPCC, which is the Canadian Private Copying Collective. http://www.cpcc.ca/english/index.htm They're an extension of SOCAN, and the money generated from the sales goes back to the artists. It works out great for starving musicians, and in general yeah- Blank CDs are mostly used to copy copy written material. The fact is that Blanket licensing is already in use and in affect almost everywhere. Bars, Clubs, Shopping malls, Radio stations- they all pay blanket licenses to use music. The problem with this idea- letting users get a subscription to all the music they want. It has to expire. As an artist, no way would I let someone download my entire library of songs for a monthly fee. It's simply not fair. Also- if indie bands want to use burned CDs for music- they can get a rebate from the CPCC. I did it when I was starting out- used 500 CDs and got all of the rebate back... Something like 30 cents a disc back then. It really is a great system. For more information visit http://www.socan.ca/

The CPCC gets it first. They split it up into licensing groups who each seem to have their own way of compensating people they represent. For example, SOCAN gets a chunk of the private copying royalties from CPCC. They figure out how to distribute to their members by conducting rolling samples of the radio, and receiving performance notices from venues. PDF link from CPCC with a four page summary.

I remember reading somewhere that the artists never actually received any of the money from the CD-R levy.

However, then I googled it (gasp!), and found this:
http://cpcc.ca/english/infoCopyHolders.htm

Looks like they are actually being paid from it...

Who would've thunk it?

The levy that used to exist on mp3 players was plain ridiculous. Prices dropped considerably when they dropped the levy on those.

Hmm, I wonder if the levy is why DVD-Rs are cheaper than CD-Rs...

There has got to be a better way than this, though. I kinda wish every artist would do what Manowar did when Napster first got popular.
They put all of their songs (mp3) up for download on their own website, for 99 cents each, to a bit more, depending on audio quality. They
are still doing that, except they are going through an online music store now, instead of doing it directly on their homepage.

If you could go to a band's site, and stream the music for free, as well as purchase for download, I think that would be great,
and that money would go right to the artists. Minus bandwidth costs, of course.

No, in Canada copying music for private use is legal. See the Copyright Act, or the summary on this CPCC page. They distribute the levy according to their estimate of the amount of copying, which they assume is proportional to airplay.

Is copying really proportional to airplay? There's probably some correlation, but I'd guess it's not a very accurate measure. Is there a more accurate measure? I don't know of one.

No, the CRIA is the RIAA's Canadian subsidiary. They get a small portion of the money, but it goes to the copyright collective first. The way they distribute it is described on this CPCC page.

The Canada I live in has a levy on blank CDs, just like the USA. [neil.eton.ca] However none of the money goes to the RIAA or MPAA - it goes to the CPCC (Canadian Private Copying Collective)

Yes, like the USA, Canada likes to tax things. Unlike the USA, they've taken that tax on blank media and distributed it to something called the CPCC. From their propaganda,

The CPCC distributes the money to its four member collectives which claim royalties for their members. The member collectives are then responsible for distributing the money to rights holders. To date over 97,000 rights holders have received private copying royalties.

In other words, a lot of people! But we're not going to say who.

I've looked at the distribution FAQ -- it's a list of other organizations that they distribute to. No mention of what an artist would actually have to do to get themselves paid.

I don't see where the money in the US goes, but I'm guessing it's not a specific tax on piracy, to be sent to artists. Certainly no indemnity of any kind for copying.

In other words, suppose we had a system like Magnatune -- 50% goes to Magnatune, 50% to the artist. Only now, if I download a song from there and burn a CD (in Canada), I'm also paying a few more cents to a bunch of artists, most of which probably have nothing to do with Magnatune, or the album I actually paid for.

Ah but according to this, in Canada we do indeed pay extra for hard drives.

That article is from 2003, and no longer accurate. The Interim Private Copying Tariff rates for 2008 are here. No hard drives, just cassette tapes and CD-Rs.

The Canadian blank media tax does not apply to hard drives, just to the following:

• Audio cassettes of 40 minutes or more in length (24 cents)
• CD-R, CD-RW, CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio and MiniDisc (21 cents)

They're already getting a chunk of change from blank disc sales

That's what burns me every time I buy a spindle of discs for burning my home movies to DVD and data backups. I used to think it was OK until I read how much the Canadian Private Copying Collective wants to hike the rates. They want the rates to be 29 cents per CD-R, $50 per iPod with less than 10 GB memory and $10 for any SD card with more than 4GB memory, just to pull a few.

I just sent them an e-mail telling them to go fuck themselves (well a bit more polite than that.)

That money is supposed to go to SOCAN which distributes the money among artists but this bloated waste of office space (300 employees) requires over $34 million per year just to operate. They paid out over $180 million last year, probably most to the CBC.

If you treat customers like potential criminals, then that's what they will become. I used to go out of my way to buy the TV shows I watch and music I listen to. But if I'm paying levies on my blank media and to my college or my ISP punishing me for copies I'll never make, or based on the assumption that I'm going to torrent their shit, maybe I'll just do that then.

Well no, I think he got it absolutely correct. The Canadian government assumed everyone, or a large percentage of the population, was going to be doing it anyway and so authorized a charge on all media of a certain class.

I don't know the history, but I think that sounds close enough: they assumed lots of people would be doing it, so they legalized it. The levy was put in place as compensation to the artists.

But the OP wasn't right in saying that we're "all breaking the law anyway". If he'd said lots of people would be breaking the law if the private copying right hadn't been legislated, then he might have been right.

As for artists getting the money - I admit I haven't checked for a while but that doesn't seem to actually be happening, despite collecting the levy money for years.

According to the CPCC, they've paid out just over half of what they've collected so far, i.e. about $103 million. You can see their financial statement here. Their overhead is around 10%, so they've got about $75 million on hand that will eventually be distributed.

It is a tax because it is collected regardless of whether the services are rendered or not. Everybody pays it, even those who do not download content off p2p sites. Those who use their blank media for other purposes pay this tax just for the privilege of backing up their data.

In the end, it doesn't matter what you call it. If you are forced to pay it, levy, tax, extortion ... it's all the same.

...you use your ipod for nothing but your own performances, and/or public domain playback? Why is it you should pay this levy then?

In Canada it is a Levy, and if you had quoted further, you would have seen that the wording is indeed important. "A distinction is sometimes made between "tax" and "levy" based on the recipient of the accumulated funds; taxes are received by a government, while levies are received by a private body, such as a copyright collective.)"

In this case, the distinction is made because the government is not getting any funds from this, therefore it is not a tax. Although, it is confusing, since it is legally called a Tariff, and referred to by the CPCC as both a tariff and a levy...

When you've already legally purchased a CD there's no issue about artists not getting monetary compensation since you've already purchased that CD.

This is the issue the private copying levy is attempting to address. Not illegally downloaded music. The private copying levy is strictly in place to cover you privately copying your legally purchased music from one medium to another (e.g. CD to CD, CD to iPod, iPod to your phone's SD card, etc.)

I know, that on the surface, it seems that this is in place to make money off of illegal copies. If it were, I wouldn't be so outraged. What they are doing is charging you a fee to do something legally. If you don't believe me, look on the CPCC's website for any mention of illegal copying. If you are interested in what the CPCC considers private copying, look here.

Unfortunately, I did not find this particular FAQ until I finished writing the above. It is a little old, but not too out of date. A few choice FAQs:

5) Isn't this just another tax by the federal government? The private copying royalty is not a tax. Unlike a tax, which is collected by the government, the private copying royalty is collected by the CPCC to provide remuneration to rights holders for private copying. The private copying royalty helps to ensure rights holders receive some payment for the copying of their work and to assist them in the creation of music.

11) Isn't the point of the levy to compensate rights holders for losses due to peer-to-peer file trading on the Internet? No. The private copying legislation that passed in 1997 did two things. First, it made it legal for individuals to make copies of recorded performances of musical works if the copies were made for the private use of the copier on a medium ordinarily used to copy music. Second, the law provided for a fair and equitable levy to provide remuneration to copyright holders for the making of those private copies. The legislation recognizes that privately made copies have their own inherent value and for that reason it ensured that rights holders received compensation for the copy itself through the levy. It was never the purpose of the private copying levy to compensate copyright holders for lost revenue due to peer-to-peer file trading.

In Canada it is a Levy, and if you had quoted further, you would have seen that the wording is indeed important. "A distinction is sometimes made between "tax" and "levy" based on the recipient of the accumulated funds; taxes are received by a government, while levies are received by a private body, such as a copyright collective.)"

In this case, the distinction is made because the government is not getting any funds from this, therefore it is not a tax. Although, it is confusing, since it is legally called a Tariff, and referred to by the CPCC as both a tariff and a levy...

When you've already legally purchased a CD there's no issue about artists not getting monetary compensation since you've already purchased that CD.

This is the issue the private copying levy is attempting to address. Not illegally downloaded music. The private copying levy is strictly in place to cover you privately copying your legally purchased music from one medium to another (e.g. CD to CD, CD to iPod, iPod to your phone's SD card, etc.)

I know, that on the surface, it seems that this is in place to make money off of illegal copies. If it were, I wouldn't be so outraged. What they are doing is charging you a fee to do something legally. If you don't believe me, look on the CPCC's website for any mention of illegal copying. If you are interested in what the CPCC considers private copying, look here.

Unfortunately, I did not find this particular FAQ until I finished writing the above. It is a little old, but not too out of date. A few choice FAQs:

5) Isn't this just another tax by the federal government? The private copying royalty is not a tax. Unlike a tax, which is collected by the government, the private copying royalty is collected by the CPCC to provide remuneration to rights holders for private copying. The private copying royalty helps to ensure rights holders receive some payment for the copying of their work and to assist them in the creation of music.

11) Isn't the point of the levy to compensate rights holders for losses due to peer-to-peer file trading on the Internet? No. The private copying legislation that passed in 1997 did two things. First, it made it legal for individuals to make copies of recorded performances of musical works if the copies were made for the private use of the copier on a medium ordinarily used to copy music. Second, the law provided for a fair and equitable levy to provide remuneration to copyright holders for the making of those private copies. The legislation recognizes that privately made copies have their own inherent value and for that reason it ensured that rights holders received compensation for the copy itself through the levy. It was never the purpose of the private copying levy to compensate copyright holders for lost revenue due to peer-to-peer file trading.

In Canada it is a Levy, and if you had quoted further, you would have seen that the wording is indeed important. "A distinction is sometimes made between "tax" and "levy" based on the recipient of the accumulated funds; taxes are received by a government, while levies are received by a private body, such as a copyright collective.)"

In this case, the distinction is made because the government is not getting any funds from this, therefore it is not a tax. Although, it is confusing, since it is legally called a Tariff, and referred to by the CPCC as both a tariff and a levy...

When you've already legally purchased a CD there's no issue about artists not getting monetary compensation since you've already purchased that CD.

This is the issue the private copying levy is attempting to address. Not illegally downloaded music. The private copying levy is strictly in place to cover you privately copying your legally purchased music from one medium to another (e.g. CD to CD, CD to iPod, iPod to your phone's SD card, etc.)

I know, that on the surface, it seems that this is in place to make money off of illegal copies. If it were, I wouldn't be so outraged. What they are doing is charging you a fee to do something legally. If you don't believe me, look on the CPCC's website for any mention of illegal copying. If you are interested in what the CPCC considers private copying, look here.

Unfortunately, I did not find this particular FAQ until I finished writing the above. It is a little old, but not too out of date. A few choice FAQs:

5) Isn't this just another tax by the federal government? The private copying royalty is not a tax. Unlike a tax, which is collected by the government, the private copying royalty is collected by the CPCC to provide remuneration to rights holders for private copying. The private copying royalty helps to ensure rights holders receive some payment for the copying of their work and to assist them in the creation of music.

11) Isn't the point of the levy to compensate rights holders for losses due to peer-to-peer file trading on the Internet? No. The private copying legislation that passed in 1997 did two things. First, it made it legal for individuals to make copies of recorded performances of musical works if the copies were made for the private use of the copier on a medium ordinarily used to copy music. Second, the law provided for a fair and equitable levy to provide remuneration to copyright holders for the making of those private copies. The legislation recognizes that privately made copies have their own inherent value and for that reason it ensured that rights holders received compensation for the copy itself through the levy. It was never the purpose of the private copying levy to compensate copyright holders for lost revenue due to peer-to-peer file trading.

In Canada it is a Levy, and if you had quoted further, you would have seen that the wording is indeed important. "A distinction is sometimes made between "tax" and "levy" based on the recipient of the accumulated funds; taxes are received by a government, while levies are received by a private body, such as a copyright collective.)"

In this case, the distinction is made because the government is not getting any funds from this, therefore it is not a tax. Although, it is confusing, since it is legally called a Tariff, and referred to by the CPCC as both a tariff and a levy...

When you've already legally purchased a CD there's no issue about artists not getting monetary compensation since you've already purchased that CD.

This is the issue the private copying levy is attempting to address. Not illegally downloaded music. The private copying levy is strictly in place to cover you privately copying your legally purchased music from one medium to another (e.g. CD to CD, CD to iPod, iPod to your phone's SD card, etc.)

I know, that on the surface, it seems that this is in place to make money off of illegal copies. If it were, I wouldn't be so outraged. What they are doing is charging you a fee to do something legally. If you don't believe me, look on the CPCC's website for any mention of illegal copying. If you are interested in what the CPCC considers private copying, look here.

Unfortunately, I did not find this particular FAQ until I finished writing the above. It is a little old, but not too out of date. A few choice FAQs:

5) Isn't this just another tax by the federal government? The private copying royalty is not a tax. Unlike a tax, which is collected by the government, the private copying royalty is collected by the CPCC to provide remuneration to rights holders for private copying. The private copying royalty helps to ensure rights holders receive some payment for the copying of their work and to assist them in the creation of music.

11) Isn't the point of the levy to compensate rights holders for losses due to peer-to-peer file trading on the Internet? No. The private copying legislation that passed in 1997 did two things. First, it made it legal for individuals to make copies of recorded performances of musical works if the copies were made for the private use of the copier on a medium ordinarily used to copy music. Second, the law provided for a fair and equitable levy to provide remuneration to copyright holders for the making of those private copies. The legislation recognizes that privately made copies have their own inherent value and for that reason it ensured that rights holders received compensation for the copy itself through the levy. It was never the purpose of the private copying levy to compensate copyright holders for lost revenue due to peer-to-peer file trading.

CRIA doesn't get the loot, CPCC does. They report on how it is distributed. About 15 percent of it is distributed to record companies, but most goes to authors and publishers. You can see the mechanics of it here.

CRIA doesn't get the loot, CPCC does. They report on how it is distributed. About 15 percent of it is distributed to record companies, but most goes to authors and publishers. You can see the mechanics of it here.

You could just apply for Zero Rating exemption as provided by the same laws that implement the levy.

Being in the music industry automatically qualifies you to purchase your media levy-exempt.

Well, all you have to do is join the American Federation of Musicians, then apply to the Canadian Private Copying Collective for a zero-rating on the levy.

That should save you $105 on your purchase of 500 blanks (yes, $0.21 on ea.!!), and after the $60 application fee for the zero-rating and the $112.00 annual AFM dues plus the $115 initiation fee, you'll have saved -$182 ...oh.

I was archiving field recordings on blank media, and paying a levy. At some point, I just broke down and started downloading mp3's so that I didn't feel so ripped off.

The Copyright Act identifies the general types of copyright holder on whose behalf private copying royalties are collected and are eligible for payment. Songwriters, music publishers, recording artists and record companies - those with rights in the music copied - are all eligible. While songwriters and music publishers are eligible regardless of nationality, only Canadian recording artists and record companies may receive payments under current law. http://cpcc.ca/english/generalInfo.htm

Actually the artists DO get compensated. Unlike the lawsuit winnings flowing into RIAA coffers, there are defined amounts for what the artists, publishers and writers get that has been set by legislation. In fact the record companies get only about 15% of the levy.

See: http://cpcc.ca/english/infoCopyHolders.htm for the breakdown.

"How do I contact the organizations making these proposals?"

Sheesh. I found the CPCC's site with about two seconds of googling:

http://cpcc.ca/english/contactUs.htm

"How will they distribute the money? Proportional to the CD sales? To online sales? Will they just cut a check to every artists in canada? How will recompence non-canadian artists? Or is this just a scam fee going to the RIAA? (Just like the millions that the RIAA is making from their lawsuit business - that sure as hell ain't going to Justin Timberlake or Joni Mitchell)?"

The CPCC has a web site here. Hit the link on the left labelled "Royalty distribution." It's a bit dry, but you should be able to get an answer to all of your questions.

Keep in mind that the CPCC != the CRIA (Canada's equivalent of the RIAA). The CPCC represents primarily artists.

Sorr I didn't dig deep enough.

Here's the Poll

You chould slide your purchases from companies on this list down to zero:

http://cpcc.ca/english/sourcing.htm

Not that anyone cares, but here's the poll in question.

Here's the one for the canadian court decision.

And here's the iPod tax.

Not that anyone cares, but here's the poll in question.

Here's the one for the canadian court decision.

And here's the iPod tax.

You mean, "levy-paid-to-RIAA-on-all-blank-media-regardless-o f-use" Canada? Are we talking about the same country?

You mean, "levy-paid-to-RIAA-on-all-blank-media-regardless-o f-use" Canada? Are we talking about the same country?

Did you actually read through the link you provided? It applies to music and music only. http://cpcc.ca/english/privCopKey.htm anything outside of that, including movies, software, etc. is considered infringement. Careful what you advocate to people, you could land people in court.

Except we in Canada have the right to download copyrighted media. By paying the blank media tax on all recordable media, we are granted license to fill said media with movies and music that we didn't buy: that's where that extra tax has been going, the Canadian Private Copying Collective.

http://www.cpcc.ca/english/index.htm

I find it funny that the tariff is 21 cents on a CD-R but an identical CD-R labeled "Audio" has a tariff of 77 cents. Although I know my local computer store sells 50 CD-R discs for $12 (24 cents each), leading me to believe that there must be some loopholes.

Except we in Canada have the right to download copyrighted media. By paying the blank media tax on all recordable media, we are granted license to fill said media with movies and music that we didn't buy: that's where that extra tax has been going, the Canadian Private Copying Collective.

http://www.cpcc.ca/english/index.htm

Click the link, see how happy that canuck is for paying tax on something he might not even use for piracy? Paying a tax on backup media is fun!

silly questions but... ...do the artists get an automatic percentage of this tax collected by the music industry in canada?

Not a silly question at all. I was one of the official objectors on this court case in federal court a few years back. Their inability to fairly distribute brought the whole regime into question, and for that reason (among others) I argued that it should be scrapped.

Right now it's collected and distributed by an agency called the Canadian Private Copying Collective. They base their distribution to each artist baseed on statistics from major commercial radio stations. Of course, this is problematic and anti-competitive because major radio stations have their play list dictated to them by major media conglomerates and monopolies such as ClearChannel, rather than responding to actual consumer demand.

Note, incidentally, that ClearChannel is essentially liquidating its assets, so this argument may no longer fly (at least as definitively), as a means of persuading the CPCC, or anyone else, that this mechanism of estimating fair distribution is anti-competitive. But I digress.

To date, it is my understanding that the CPCC has several hundred million dollars stored from this tax (*cough* "tarriff", per the Federal Court; a tax requires Parliamentary assent, which this did not receive ... even though it is a tax), and they have distributed very little of it. It's a genuinely difficult problem. In my opinion, it's impossible to estimate consumer demand, and I argued that the levy is inappropriate, especially in a case such as this where free market forces exist precisely to determine value. (That's oversimplifying, but that's the gist)

There is an exception to having to pay this levy.

In order to avoid paying this levy, you have to be an eligible organization (e.g. businesses who legitimately don't use it for ripping CDs, churches, NGOs, etc.). You then have to pay a $60/year ($15/year for non-commercial) registration fee with the CPCC, and you can only buy levy-free CDs from CPCC-certified manufacturers and distributors (NOT retailers).

So essentially, either you pay the levy to the CPCC, or you pay the CPCC other money so that you don't pay them the levy. Either way, you're paying more, and they're getting your money, all because they preemptively convict you of stealing music.

(Organizations for the perceptually disabled can get a rebate on their levy from the CPCC.)

Source: www.cpcc.ca

- RG>

It is not always being charged,, but it is supposed to be. You can find more links about this case here.

As a Canadian, I can tell you that there are no such levies on CDs or DVDs, because they are argued as being used for computer data.

This is wrong. There are levies on blank CDs, because they are commonly used to record music, whether they are "CD-audio" or not.

See the current rates here.

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.