Slashdot Mirror
Canada to Raise Tariffs on Recordable Media
Joel Ironstone writes: "A new Canadian levy will be introduced in 2003 on all recordable media (pdf). The magnitude of these tariffs is staggering: $1.23 for all CD-RW's, $2.27 on all DVD-R's, and get this: $21 for each gigabyte of storage on portable MP3 players. That's an extra 160 dollars for a Nomad." Like in the U.S., this tax is collected and given directly to the record industry, a governmental subsidy for no apparent societal benefit.
You realize there will be a real market in smuggling MP3 players. And will Canada apply this tax to hard disks which could be added later to an MP3 player?
Since the government is going to give money to RIAA
and MPAA then it should be legal to pirate. They
will be able to make all their money by subsidy.
If you read the .pdf, you will notice that it is a PROPOSED leavy -- it hasn't been implemented yet.
That doesn't mean that it won't be, though. Canadians: contact your provincial premiere and let them know that the idea of a tarrif on media may be legit, but the prices proposed are simply unacceptable.
Hell, you elected them -- that's why they're there.
Slashdot (main page alone) is in 624 violations of the World Wide Web Consortium.
"In accordance with the provisions of the same subsection, the Board hereby gives notice that any person who wishes to object to the statement may file written objections with the Board, at the address indicated below, within 60 days of the publication of this notice, that is, no later than May 8, 2002."
Dear Canadian Private Copying Collective,
You suck.
Signed,
The Americans.
... is that this will make all the other recording companies that much bolder. Considering how close Canada and the US are physically, socially, and economically, it's not a huge leap to have the companies push for it to extend here for "consistency." This is a damn steep slope.
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
I find it funny that government interference is so selective in this forum. For instance, when it is CD-R's which are being taxed it is a horrible justice, yet when it is microsoft whose only crime (at least its only crime which is being prosecuted) is the fact that it is too big, the people come out in force on how the government isn't doing enough. When will people realize that an economy with ANY government intervention cannot be just?
It's certainly better to levy more "irrelevant" fees than to activate sssca and similar... now, if both take place then there should be grounds for removing one or the other...
Thanks,
Shawn
Making it much cheaper to just buy Office for OS X instead of trying to put it on an ipod....
Ergh. =] At least I didn't meantion that goat site.
-Sara
Its insane. Worst part is that a tax on cigarrettes would be fought vigorously and there would be national debate. But when it comes to this, the general public is ignorant of the issues.
.. unless a major lobbying force and an education campaign happens.
Government is elected by the people, when laws like this pass and the people dont hold the government accountable, more laws like this will pass. Unfortunately only tech types understand the issues here, so basically everyone's screwed
If Canada wants to compete technologically this is a extremely bad move and it will screw over the economy.
What right does the government have to steal people's money in order to fund corporations? There is absolutely NO justifiable reason to tax people in order to benefit private corporations. This is an absolute disgrace. Whoever is responsible for this should be deported.
The only solution to this is to import everything from the US for a much lower price, and to pirate much more music as revenge. Actually, it wouldn't be piracy, as the music has already been paid for through taxes.
News like this always make me wonder when there's finally going to be a new revolution in "the land of the free" which would make it that once again.
But I'm afraid that after 9/11 it'd be very hard to do something seemingly against your own country... Pity.
I actually do hope the craziness ends someday.
Yesterday was the time to do it right. Are we having a REVOLUTION yet?
http://www.stallman.org/
I heard him do one of his talks about copyright in London a few weeks ago. I was a sceptic on some of this views, but the extremity of some of them now seems to be matched by the extremity of the legislation we are now seeing around the world (DMCA, the EC thing, and now the Canadians).
I would recommend we all take his advice and boycott action that infringes the right to share information.
G
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
Another fine reaon not to be a canuck!
I don't know about you but the majority of my blank cd's now contain either pr0n, warez or data backups. I have a nomad full of mp3s ripped from cd's i have either purchased or bought and returned ;)
Shouldn't the money goto the real industries that are losing out like software makers or pornstars?
lots of people burn those vcd images aswell.. so whytf doesn't the movie industry get a piece..
I have a better idea keep the new tax.. but keep all the money in savings. If the record industry does much shittier and can prove its a result of people making mix cd's of cd's they have purchased.. then give them the $$$$..
hahahhaa
$$$$ makes the world go round!
The obvious solution is to set up your own record company. Then just sit back and wait for your handouts.
-- And when Justice is gone, there is always... Force. --Laurie Anderson, "Oh Superman"
what's with these new, big boxes in between the story and the comments that say? :
127.0.0.0: Internet Explorer was unable to link to the Web page you requested. The page might be temporarily unavailable.
Please try the following:
Click the Refresh button, or try again later.
If you have visited this page previously and you want to view what has been stored on your computer, click File, and then click Work Offline.
For information about offline browsing with Internet Explorer, click the Help menu, and then click Contents and Index.
Internet Explorer
how about handhelds (mini handheld HP/compaq computers or whatever you call them) that has mp3 playback functionality? are they going to add tarifs to that too? :(
or cell phones... but i guess that would be going too far...
my blog
"SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS DISPOSITIONS DE FOND
Levy Redevance
3. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the levy shall be
(a) 60 for each audio cassette of 40 minutes or more in length;
(b) 59 for each CD-R, CD-RW or each unit of any other type
of recordable or rewritable compact disc of 100 megabytes or
more of storage capacity;
(c) $1.23 for each CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio or MiniDisc;
(d) 0.8 for each megabyte of memory in each removable elec-
tronic memory card, each removable flash memory storage
medium of any type, or each removable micro-hard drive;
(e) $2.27 for each DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+RW, DVD-RAM
or each unit of any other type of recordable or rewritable DVD;
(f) 2.1 for each megabyte of memory in each non-removable
electronic memory card or each non-removable flash memory
storage medium of any type incorporated into each MP3 player
or into each similar device with internal electronic or flash
memory that is intended for use primarily to record and play
music;
(g) $21 for each gigabyte of memory in each non-removable
hard drive incorporated into each MP3 player or into each simi-
lar device with an internal hard drive that is intended for use
primarily to record and play music."
Simply sell them without drives or flash memory, then have the user buy them on their own.
Problem solved, for now...
As it stands though, looks like Canada has just made buying an mp3 player a reason for a trip over the border.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Right now, the tariffs for recordable media are as follows (from http://www.pch.gc.ca/culture/cult_ind/cpb-pdd/arc
Audio Cassette Tape > 40 minutes = $0.29
CD-R and CD-RW = $0.21
CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio, and Minidiscs = $0.77
In 2003, this will nearly double, but the most significant impact is the $/GB:
CD-R and CD-RW = $1.23
DVD-R = $2.27
$/GB storage on MP3 player = $21
This is completely unfair for independant artists who release their tracks exclusively in MP3- their fans are effectively paying the recording industry to buy independant music.
How bout this for a marketing ploy - sell the nomad with a 20MB HDD installed (costing a whole $0.42 in tax) and then offer a "Buy 1 nomad, get 1 40GB HDD for free!!" deal.
I cant believe that they will tax every hard drive which is sold...
On another note - anyone know if there is a "copyright tax" on Minidiscs?
This is rediculous. The only reason that these companies get away with this is that there's some kickback somewhere. I gaurentee that if someone were to dig deep enough, they'd find a lot of this "tax" in the pockets of some officials.
In 'free' countries, taxes are supposed to be levied for the benefit of the people. The money collected should be put back into a social program of some kind. Canada is supposed to be a socialist government, but it seems that they're trying to more and more make the same mistakes as the US without taking any of the virtues. I don't know about the rest of the country, but BC is becoming about as democratic as the old USSR. If the Campbell administration doesn't like the way a arbitration turned out (doctors) or that a labor union is striking (the teachers) they just legislate the problem away. The doctors aren't even allowed to sue the government over the issue under the bill that was passed.
The recordable media issue is just more of the same. We're losing our freedoms, not to the big scary governments, but to the corperations; to people we can't vote out of office and can't effect in any way. They obviously have 'representatives' at their beck and call (DMCA) to make whatever laws that they feel benefit their profit margins (SSSCA). Government is supposed to be representing the best interests of the people of the country, but it seems here to be representing the best interests of the corperations.
The Canadian government, like it's Big Brother to the south, has traded consumer piracy for corporate larceny.
--
Mike Nugent
-- Mike wildcard@illuminatus.org
Not sure if anyone has actually noticed, but that document is only a proposal. It has not gone through, the CPCC (Canadian Private Copying Collective) filed it on Febuary 11th, 2002.
3 5&mode=thread -- they were also asking for well over a dollar per CD, they were awards barely over 10% of that)
It also has a 60 day time period for formal objections from the publication of the notice. Due up May 8th, with a pre-hearing conference to be help May 23rd.
This has been a issue in the past and they have never gotten the levies they wanted. (refer to http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/12/20/13372
Tell them there is a diffrence between a music CDR and a data CDR. See if you can keep the RIAA out of your computer backup media. Music CDR's are already covered for music use.
The truth shall set you free!
I think Apple can sell their iPod as a firewire hard-disk, if they change the software.
So the question is: will all devices that CAN be used as a MP3-player be taxed (Pocket-PC devices etc.)?
How about a MP3-player that comes with no memory of it's own.
One intersting thing is that it specifically states that only Owners of copyrighted MUSIC can share a portion of the tarrifs... and specifically excludes "Computer Software Programs"....
Now correct me if I'm wrong.. Doesn't the Software industry claim to lose even more billions of dollars a year in piracy revenue(potential or not) then the music industry does?
Now why would the software industry not lobby for a levy like this?
1. Perhaps they know there would be a large backlash against their industry?
2. They know the whole concept is just free cash for the music producers?(granted its canadian play money but hey ya know...)
3. OR IS IT THE MUSIC INDUSTRY specifially wanted them excluded from the deal so they don't have to share there free cut of the cash cow.
things that make ya go hmmmmmmmm..............eh?
They're just trying to get people to buy more canadian made products? The US put huge terrifs on cars to try and promote more people to buy more US made cars. The situations aren't that different.
:)
And nobody post something about US made cars and Canadian made digital storage sucking as the similarity..
Be sure to point out the fact it only is for blank audio media when buying blank DATA CDR's. The tarrif is only for the blank MUSIC media. (read the PDF.) Print out the PDF and take it to your local retailer who doesn't know the diffrence between a data and audio blank CDR.
The truth shall set you free!
The ammount of possible brain-capacity I have to store MP3s will have me taxed to death!
eek!
Better get that lobotomy now!
isn't that like 0.0005 cents US ? ;)
guess this is just to balance out the tax on tampons and maxi pads from the other day so the females can't claim descrimination.
See your car crash
1 21 117,00.html
http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/bil/story/0,2789,
I used to use CD-R as a data storage medium, until I discovered the levy. Now I make a point of downloading a certain amount of music and burning it, making sure to include 'Gov't of Canada Music Club' on the label. I mean, if I'm paying for it. With an increase I'm going to have to burn even more to get my money's worth.
seriously, I must have a cd-r with almost every Linux and BSD distro released in the last 3 years. as well as tons of backups. I've got hundreds of CD's piled on racks. I have only 1 writable CD containing music.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Canada: $1.23 PLUS cost = ~$1.50 per CDR.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this kind of price disparity on either side of the border is too much of a good thing to pass up - still not a better risk/reward than mailing weed/seeds (which I'm not implying I know anything about) :)
--
Power to the Peaceful
Although don't call it pirating (which is a dumb term anyway), since it's not illegal. In Canada, we're allowed to borrow CDs and make copies of them for personal use. That's what the tax^H^H^Hlevy is supposed to offset; unfortunately, if you buy CD-Rs to burn the latest FreeBSD, you're still supporting Celine Dion's retirement fund.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
Let's take this proposal to the next level:
$21 music copying tax
$21 software copying tax
$21 image copying tax
$21 published text copying tax...
That's at least another $84 dollars per gig. That would effectively kill the future of large drives. Companies would have to make them so cheaply that most of the cost would be tax.
Crystal Meth: Would you ingest somthing made from a poisonous gas and an explosive metal? You do it every day -- Salt!
Well, they'll be bootlegging MP3 players from the U.S. in 2003.
Until then, I'm going to consider any claim any of these idiots make with respect to "piracy" as complete and utter bullshit.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
And I thought I was predicting usury when I wrote this little ditty a while back.
$21/Gig? I would never have believed anyone could seriously propose such a figure. Even if it is Canadian Dollars, it's still outrageous.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Don't expect your computer HDD to be free of the levy. Or computer CDR's or flash memory for your camera, or DATs for your backups... Page 5 of 9: (4) The levy is payable on all media that qualify, without re-gard to end use. No purpose is served by asking that the tariff include a mechanism that would allow those who can prove that they use qualifying media for purposes other than reproducing musical works to be exempted from payment or to receive a refund.
In other news, goverments world wide have added a tax for pen and paper and any copying techniques which will effectively raise prices by 800%. Mr. John Doeyes from GreedyBastardsPublishing was quoted saying: "This is very important for the entire books industry, after years of studying we found that people were actually copying selected sections of books! Furthermore we found that students and proffesionals were taking a lot of notes based on our material, this illegal activity must seize for the good of the nation and democracy. Copying books or exerpts is aiding communism and terrorism by blocking the freedom of fair trade.
Another proposed bill states that any books bought for multiuse purposes (meaning to be read to others) will see a price increase of 250%. Mr Doeyes again explains: We found that a large amount of parents actually read books out loud for their children, thus violating the single use license of the book. When someone reads the book out loud, 3 things happen, 1 person is reading it which is ok, then they relay the contents by voice, and another person listens, this is unacceptable because the industry loses the income it could've gotten from selling audio versions of the books. Not to mention infringing on the voice artists work by making a very poor copy of their effort, this is sheer terrorism at work! But after careful consideration we decided to only raise prices by 250% instead of 300%, this means that parents instead of buying a book license for themself, one audio license and one listeners license, they can get all 3 bundled at a lower cost, thus benefitting all.
When asked if this isn't just excuses and heavy lobbying from the book industry to increase their revenues at consumers expense Mr. Doeyes giggled like a schoolgirl and laughed all the way to the bank.
Or not, strange how different media have different rules ain't it?
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
Since the law concerns only blank media, the company just has to sell the MP3 player with music already on it.
Everyone on Slashdot help stop this from happening. If something like this is instituted in Canada, it could be spread!
(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 for that purpose and on which no sounds have ever been fixed, including
All one needs to do is to sell re-writables with pre-recorded free music from struggling artists?
I'll gladly pay a levy on that if the money actually goes to the struggling artists...
Hmmm...
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.
...so that's about $0.06US
What's a problem in this kind of tax is the real benefit for the country, and through it, for its citizens.
First, there's an ethical aspect to this question: taxing storage products on the sole reason that they may be used for piracy is a way to legitimize said piracy (as said someone in a post: if you already paid for what you may illegally copy, then why not do it?).
Second, there's a "constitutional" aspect: it's a bit shocking to see a government protect private interests, and more, help said private interests to bend laws and consumers rights to make more money.
Third, this kind of tax should imply that maximum copyright duration is respected, thus making a large bunch of songs falling in the public domain. But the same government that create the tax doesn't seems so inclined to enforce this kind of duration.
Finally, I'm starting to wonder when you'll have to pay a tax based on the size of your ears. You know, this guy has so large ears he certainly ears more than the licence allow, he should pay for that!
Supposedly the recording industry's profits increased while Napster was up, and decreased after shutting it down. So obviously, it's the *lack* of pirated mp3's that's causing their financial woes. The solution? Charge a deposit on blank CDRs, etc, then *refund it* once they're filled with free-as-in-beer music.
Click here if you just like to click on shit.
Copyright some music in Canada then to get me a check, I will have to organize a Slashdot Chorus of 99 bits on the (fire)Wall...(duck)
Noone said that it had to be any good to get a fair share now did they?
Not only that, but it's just the Canadian music industry that gets the profits. Nothing against Bryan Adams, but who do you think sells more albums, him or N'Sync? Who do you think gets copied more, him or Britney Spears? So not only does he get a cut if I copy Slackware, he gets some cash every time I copy American/English/Swedish/Zimbabwean/Japanese music. Laughing all the way to the bank.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/020 220/170/14sda.html
this is offtopic but not a troll:
how do they do this? do they spray paint baby chicks? someone posted this link in another story and it's had me worried all night. i have this terrible image of people spray paining baby chicks with pink paint, and it getting in their eyes etc and.. ohohoho i cant sleep now! someone have an idea how they do this? please tell me I'm wrong...
-sxe troll girl
So...
I can't find the answer. I hope Canadian government does. BTW, notebooks are also quite good mp3 players, and they've got HUGE hard drives. As well I can mention mp3 workstations or... mp3 servers with terabyte raid arrays.
I have a pencil and a bit of paper, and I was thinking about writing some music down.
Do I owe someone money ???
Hmmmmmm
>you're still supporting Celine Dion's retirement fund.
yeah but at least it means she might retire sooner which would be a good thing.
The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction, but they eat more steak.
On the bottom of Page 6 of the PDF lists a lower levy on regular CDR's of 59 cents each! Ouch! Audio CDR's have a higher levy of $1.23. This definetly crosses the line from sanity to insanity.. It reaches too far and taxes all your office backups, e-mail archives, digital camera photos, removable microdrives for your PDA, etc. This needs to be fought tooth and nail. Defend your backup media. The RIAA is not entitled to a tax on my photo backups.
The truth shall set you free!
So I'm thinking: I use CDs for backups, not to rip off music CDs. That's my objection....but wait, on page 5, point number 4 states:
The levy is payable on all media that quailify, without regard to end use. No purpose is served by asking that the tariff include a mechanism that would allow those who can prove that they use qualifying media for purposes other than reproducing musical works to be exempted from payment or to receive a refund.
I'm no lawyer, but isn't that infringing on my constitutional rights? I am being presumed guilty of breaking a law without a fair trial.
Then to just shove the broomstick up the poopchute royally, Note 2 on page 6 states:
CPCC may waive the levy on sales to ...... music and advertising industries.
This is an absolute infringement of my rights and is a blatant caving in to corporate interests without considering the interests of the public. Think about how this will affect small business and individuals who rely on CDs to backup data.
I encourage all other Canadians here on /. to head to their Member of Parliament's office and let him/her know you feel about this levy.
Wow.. I cant actually believe they are going to start taxing customers for recording media.. how long before other countries follow suit? I know that, living in the UK, they tax EVERYTHING you do - I dont see why recordable media will be any different.
:)
I can't believe that they are gonna tax you per GB on portable MP3 players though.. I am genuinely stunned. Though seeing as some of the coolest ones use laptop harddrives, why not sell the MP3 players as 'bare bones' and then make you go buy the laptop drive seperately
What a stupid stupid tax..
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
Observe: an 40GB 2.5" HDD costs about $215 CDN
Ratio: approx. $5/GB (3.5" HDDs are approaching $1/GB, but let's assume they don't use these in MP3 players)
They are levying a $21/GB charge on MP3 players with HDDs - so for a 40GB this is $840
So the tax is about 400% of the cost of the HDD! Even if you assume the base player w/o HDD costs $200, you would still be paying 200% tax on the entire device, making it triple what it would cost without the tax.
Hmm, so when these taxes come true, it will be ok to trade commersial music in ways that today are thought of as illegal? Since you pay the music industry thru taxes on storage you should'nt need to pay for the records...
"Like in the U.S., this tax is collected and given directly to the record industry, a governmental subsidy for no apparent societal benefit."
How is this different from say, they way the US is taxing steel imports and farm product imports or the way Japan taxes automotive and electronic imports? Often, these taxes are used to subsidize the aforementioned industries too (especially, the farm industry).
I think this particular (potential) tax/subsidy strikes a nerve merely because it is something that falls within the collective radars of people who post here, NOT because it's something drastically different from things government has done in the past. The "societal benefit" is that it's protecting jobs of the people who work in that industry in that country.
If is American this is bad.
If it is Canadian then who cares that is like pennies:-D
Just kidding this is not funny!
I've only killed somebody once. Did the parent post make any sense whatsoever? No.
Okay, someone tell me again what the **** was the point of NAFTA?
"Free" as in beer.
"Free" as in speech.
"Free" as in anal rape?
Any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from Gods.
If you want to deal with issues like this, simply stop participating in the activities that create the issues. I am content with my phonograph. Screw digital music. Also, don't bother with major label music. Or buy yourself an instrument and start making music. Or just go to shows when you want music. Fuck them all.
Matt
Perhaps every canadian should start his or her own music label and thereby lay a claim to the tax..!! it could be a new kind of social welfare.. nifty thought at least..
...move to Antartica and live off the ice...
Its sad to see that when the nations of the world unite, its under greedy corporate policing...
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
In Canada, normally it takes more than one attempt before something passes... First thing, you should know, is that there`s always 2 or 3 study before anything goes through here in Canada! And it`s not the first time we`re supposed to have a tax on this... and we never see the light at the end of the tunnel... hopefully :P
Red Dwarf
I hear they make good weed up there. It'll be dandy when I can get my barter goods at Best Buy.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Somehow I doubt that Bryan Adams, or for that matter any artist, will ever see a single red cent of the money collected from these taxes. Its the record labels that get the money, and its the record labels that will keep the money.
Courtney Love, being nothing but an opportunistic sellout, would certainly see her fair share of the proceeds if anyone would.
Read the original essay by Steve Albini that that gold-digging no talent hussy plagarized during the napster fallout.
She's nothing but a corporate stooge pretending to be a revolutionary.
It just doesn't say how they decide who gets the money. Is it based on how much money you are getting from other sources? If so, if a band only releases its music for free on the Internet, do they get no money at all even if they are more widely played? The end users need to be given control over who gets their money (see www.namesys.com/open_products.html)
Hans Reiser
a governmental subsidy for no apparent societal benefit
wrong, the recording industry are people too. They need money to buy their crack, and if they get down from their high then they might become dangerous - at the moment, a drugged up producer with lots of cash to spare is only going to bribe the government for one thing - a means to make more money for more drugs. Now look what happens when they start to sober-up they want more things, like the DMCA, and SSSCA, the government has to comply because they are being offered allot of money, and we all know how people like Bush like their money....
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
50% of the time I'm burning a CD, it's full of my own music. Music I made. So, I'm supposed to pay the music industry for the privilage of backing up my music? And I'm supposed to pay them again if I want to give someone a copy of my music? And when I charge someone 5$ for a CD, I'm supposed to pay the recording industry roughly 40% tax on my profits?
It's fuckin ridiculous, man.
Hey gang, stop buying new CDs. Think about it. You do not have enough minutes remaining in your life to listen to all the exisiting recordings. I could happily live the rest of my life listening to all music made prior to March 12, 2002. We can cut off the oxygen to the RIAA parasites if we vote with our dollars. Just say no.
People are Pirates.
Let's make em show their smart card, and tax em for CD, DVD, Burner, Hard Drive, PC, Radio, Chip, Bullets, Guns, Ammo, Beer, Whiskey, Viagra, Medicine, Floppy Disk, Ram Chip, TTL chips, Cmos Chips, lo power transistor, TUBES, CB radio, tv, car, boat, bike, plane, tools, real estate, having children, drinking water, eating food, practice religion, or have orgasm. After all, You and I don't do any of these things. Right?
HOW-TO_hide_your_orgasm
You guys seem so remarkably calm over this news.
Where are the Torches and Pitchforks?
ever hear of the stamp acts? the intolerable acts? the boston tea party? lets riot! let's band together as geeks pissed off at the fuckery of the world's shitty governments and loot! break into your local computer store! steal shit! burn entire CD-R shipments! make a stand! it worked in the past. it can work for use today.
I have no desire to reach nirvana.
Or do they plan a seperate levy only for themselves?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
very
Somehow I doubt that Bryan Adams, or for that matter any artist, will ever see a single red cent of the money collected from these taxes. Its the record labels that get the money, and its the record labels that will keep the money.
;)
Hehehe... you mean you don't trust the record labels to distribute this new source of income derived from the work of artists back to the actual artists!!! shame on you!
Smuggling computer hardware will go up bigtime!
Give usa kids reason to travel up to canada and party!
Tom even has a manual how swap the harddisk with a bigger one for the nomad.
While the rest of the world gets more storage on portable mp3 players.. canada will have special models (Imagine a mordern nomad.. with todays HD, the price tag will be HUGE....). The tech savvy guys are just swapping out the HD. Shouldnt hurt the average slashdot reader that much :P.
still reading?
This is a raw deal for the consumer, but the music industry is NOT getting this money for free. In return they have given up the right to prosecute individuals for making personal copies of music. So in other words, small scale music piracy is quasi-legal. I don't know about Canada, but the original deal was made before DAT, let alone Napster, was around. I don't know if the RIAA gets any of this money directly. In the US the law says it goes to the American Federation of Musicans, etc. In my opinion this deal should be revoked, not enhanced, since musicians have shown their displeasure with it by prosecuting those who facilitate personal copying (e.g., Musiccity, Napster, etc.).
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. 17 USC 1008.
I don't know if you're aware of this, but you quoted
the license terms for Adobe ebooks quite precisely:
No printing is permitted on this book.
This book cannot be given to someone else.
This book cannot be read aloud.
These are actual terms in the license for the ebook version
of 'Alice in Wonderland'. This is even more strange because
the original text is by now in the public domain.
You can get a free, legal copy at Project Gutenberg.
It has even been suggested that the text of the ebook version was
actually taken from the Gutenberg archives.
Here's an article that a quick search retrieved.
After all, people put Debian on CDs and DVDs
What if we put a levy on knifes so that the police can receive some money back for all the related crimes they have to investigate?
...
While were at it though lets put levies on
1. Cars
2. Spoons
3. Bats
4. Hammers
5. Pillows
6. Books [sharp edges afterall]
7. Breadboxes
8.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
lets stockpile now in the war torn future we can all profiteer off cheap CDRs :p :p
Of course Uni's and schools and other such places must get the tax free so we all buy are CDRs from students. hmm some things never change.
Of course I am only laughing because I am not Canadian
ERR 411[Max number of witty sigs reached]
Is that tarrif per CD or per package?
...before we have a EULA on DVD movies and Audio CD's? A EULA for the media itself anyone?
--is not to be confused with user #672982 - Bame Flait
If I'm not mistaken, there are provisions in NAFTA that prohibit such things. I believe the US government could challenge this as restraint of "free trade" under NAFTA.
Now wouldn't that be interesting...
----- Leghorn "Not responsible for program content"
Make an MP3 player with a plug in hard disk drive - sell it with no installed drive whatsoever - therefore no tax, but conveniently ask your dealers to also stock a nice range of hard drives! :-)
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Other posters have said basically this, but really, isn't it time for another Party of some sort?
This is exactly the thing that caused the Boston Tea Party, unreasonable taxes levied against a public that receives no benefit from said taxes.
If someone wants to argue that paying the MPAA is somehow benefiting the general public, good luck.
"When in the course of human events..."
All the US celebrities who made good on their promises to move north if Bush won the presidency come screaming back...
The tariff is supposed to compensate owners for legal fair use (private copying) of their works. The software industry is not entitled to a compensation because private copying of software is not legal fair use.
Do you believe in death after life?
Anyone that lives in Canada already has heard about this a long time ago and it is PROPOSED people! That doesn't mean that it's going to take effect. I don't think you guys should worry about what happens in our country when you don't even have all of the facts. It's even plain right on the .pdf that it's proposed, right on the first page. I think you should do the research before you believe anything you see on slashdot. Lately I've noticed they go for the sensationalism, and when you dig deeper, the story is nothing but fluff. I'm extremely disapointed in /. lately.. I just want you guys to know that. It's getting so that I don't even like reading this crap anymore. Do you even bother to verify your damn stories anymore?
The Canadian government should remember that most of the country lives within a shopping day-trip of the U.S. Not only will Canadian businesses lose money to those making casual purchases over the line, the Candian government will lose tax revenue via lost VAT (or whatever you call it). People will buy their mp3 players in the U.S., take it out of the box, chuck the box, strap it to them, drive back across the border. Maybe Canadians should discuss this concern with their elected officials.
It kind of makes you wonder about Canadian sanity. To the south we have Bush passing an import tax on foreign steel to protect a dying U.S. industry. To the north, we have Canadians passing a tax that will only affect Candians and will benefit an industry making loads of money already.
If you're a Canadian, you have the right to submit your objection to these proposals, and there's a hearing to be held May 23.
Download the document, print it out, and submit your comments if you so care.
Sodomizing prostitutes after a drunken afternoon full of blackjack is legal however... kind of like the morality of Amsterdam.
I like the place already.
>
This reminds me alot of the latest economic lesson in www.polyconomics.com
i d= 1893
http://polyconomics.com/showarticle.asp?article
tarrif on media may be legit
Oh no it 'aint!
I use CD's solely to make HD backups and blank casstte tapes solely to record myself playing the gutair!
Or are we now suddenly all guilty of piracy and have to prove our inocence?
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
So a small garage band, just a few pals starting out, is gonna get taxed heavy just creating NEW material.
But it's brilliant tactics. Yup, we don't need none of them youngin upstarts commin round. So you get the govt to help you make it damned expensive to get the new acts noticed. Gawd forbid anyone might notice they sound better than the "big names" that are collecting this windfall.
Yes, by keeping the cost of breaking into the recording business so high it discourages new blood from comming in without being "guided" by the wise ones already in place. Makes it a pretty exclusive club.
Sounds to me like the recording industry has been learning business tactics from Bill Gates and Co.
So they tax you when you create. Then they tax
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Border Guard: Welcome to Canada, do you have anything to declare?
Me: No sir.
Border Guard: Are you sure?
Me: Um no.
Border Guard: Time for a cavity search.
Me: An Ipod, 160 gig hard drive, 20 128 meg smartmedia cards, and a sleeve of minidiscs in my shorts. Now who do I make the check out to again?
Don't laugh, it could happen to you!
SD
âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
As if there are hoards of people stealing the music of independent, Canadian bands. How many MP3s get made from Nickleback's Canadian recordings ? I can guarantee you that what is being bootlegged from them is their one song that is getting huge radio airplay in the U.S. right now.
It takes no insight whatsoever to blanket everyone who uses recordable media as pirates.
How dare you suggest that I am a pirate and "deserve" to be fined by DEFAULT. I use my CD blanks primarily to back up my data. I also use my CD blanks to create VCD's from my VHS collection.
Finally, under what is called FAIR USE (choke on it), I have ripped and burned much of my CD collection to CDR. It is not for broadcast. It is not for sale, nor is it for trade. It is for MY use and my use only.
So tell me again about my "lack of regard" for corporations? Tell me again how my legitimate uses of recordable media deserves a defacto fine that assumes I'm guilty of piracy regardless of what I'm doing?
Idiot.
1. I live in a flood-prone area. Since I know it'll it'll flood and the house will sustain some damage, should I just go and get money from the Insurance company (even if there is no flooding)?
2. Someone lives in a high-crime area. Should the government pay for him to live there, since the government knows that it can't enforce the laws 100% of the time and keep the area crime-free ?
5 years ago Bill C-32 passed. Read a bit about it here and remember that we must fight these things at every opportunity, as they will only be extended to perversion. Case in point...
DataSquid.net, a little about me.
Currently you pay more only on CD-Rs designated for music recording, computer designated CD-Rs do not have the extra tariff. So you just have to buy CD-Rs marked as 'for use with computers only'- there is *no* difference between them other than labelling.
It's *entirely* "support the record industry".
If you think the money you pay when you buy
a CD from your favourite singer/band goes to the
artist, you're naive beyond belief. It goes to
paying off the debt incurred when the "artist"
signed that record deal.
An article in the Globe and Mail last week
quoted someone from the industry as saying, "A
record deal is like a loan at 66% interest."
If you're really concerned with the "artists"
who produce the stuff we listen to, play their
music for your friends (and go ahead, burn them a
CD), then *go see their shows* if they are any
good. That's where the artists actually make
their money. Isn't that the way it should be?
Most musicians I know would love to get their
music out to the public, but they are completely
held hostage by the recording industry. The net
is changing that, fortunately, and the recording
industry *will* eventually lose their
stranglehold on what we get to hear, and who gets
to hear what I (or anyone else) wants to produce.
I think its pretty common for retailers in the US to ship to Canada, so won't a tariff like this simply hurt the Canadian retailers that will need to mark-up their prices compared to American retailers? I can't imagine that Apple will change the price on the iPod simply because its being shipped to Canada - usually only the taxes of the country your business is in are applied, or am I totally off base?
If this does in fact only hurt Canada's retailers, I imagine there will be significant commercial opposition to this new tax.
yeah, you know what's coming...
Imagine (the tax on) a beowulf cluster of iPods!
do not read this line twice.
where the fuck are you getting this shit from?
Well - I do download the odd mp3 from kazaa or mp3.com - i must have about 10 mp3s on my hard drive at the moment. but i don't really have anything like the 40GB of space i could fill with downloaded mp3s - however, i do make my own music, and of course i have "source" wav and midi files - and i have a collection of mp3's which are entirely original and mine - So i would have to pay the music industry because i have a hard drive and made some mp3's - and i have some player to play my mp3's with - to show my mates like. Come on guys! its expensive enough being a musician - and the govenment wont help ya - it will try to make you get a job instead of practicing your guitar or whatever - it will make you worry about rent and taxes and the like - because making music is a luxury - but seemingly more and more its the luxury of the corporations - - I can't afford the software to make music, the pc itself is pretty expensive in the first place and now i'd be taxed for potentially having mp3s on my hard disk! Aren't fans more important that records? maybe im wrong - but i'd rather have a new fan every day than sell 1 record every day - wouldn't you - fans stay, they collect, the support, they spread the word, then come to gigs- oh, but in this age of record company manufactured music - (so they keep all the rights i presume - IANAL) why bother going to a gig? none of them can sing anyway, some crap dancing, some cheesey 2 liner lyric, some no brain beat and a trendy video - whys no one buying our music?? it MUST be because they all copied it already!!! naaaaaaaaa, think about it - its because its lame talentless shit with no heart soul or body. You are a record company - you help recording artists to get their records out to the people, distribution, promotion, etc - i know it may sound ideal for you to make your own artists too - but really, it doesn't work like that- you keep proving it!! no more 1 hit wonders and no more cover versions of old pop tunes! why not just sign a proper musician? rant over bastards This sux
That if you've paid a tax on your storage media, that the industry has already been paid for anything you might want to store on that media? $21 per gigabyte works out to a little less than a dollar for a CD worth of music. I could see someone floating the legal argument and winning, insuring that a dollar is all the industry ever sees out of Canada for any given user of any given CD.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Those figures are in Canadian Dollars so it's really only like .60 Cents per Terabyte, Right?
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
If this is actually going to happen I really am going to write my MP
Instead of giving these taxes to the content pimps, the Canadian government should directly support Canadian artists, who do not get a fair shake in the current pimp regime. With the money distributed to all three Canadian recording artists - Joni Mitchell, Neal Young and Leonard Cohen - the quality of world-wide artistic output will be raised a notch (by the first two) and become less depressive (on the part of the last). As a bonus, Mitchell and Young will spend their bonus largely in their state of residence - California - lessening the US demand for trade retaliation.
___
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Did the poster actually read the article? Again...the editors need to verify. There will not be a new $1.23 on ALL CD-RW media...actually this tax will only apply to CD-R audio and CD-RW Audio which are specifically designed for non-PC burning stations, i.e., a Philips CD player with dual decks, one for playing one for recording. This tax is large but one must recall the fact that there is already a $.77 tax on these media...so the end of the day total would be $.46 hike in the cost of this type. Regular CD-R and CD-RW taxes as of right now are $.21, the new PROPOSED tax is $.59 or a tax hike of $.38. Not that I am defending what is PROPOSED, or defending the RIAA, because I am not, but please don't freak out the entire Slashdot community with skewed information in order to get an article posted...
Just my PROPSED $.02.
Sorry to piss on the parade, but this has nothing to do with remitting money to the RIAA or MPAA. You might first remember what the last A in both those acronyms stands for. It ain't Canada.
Second, these are proposed levies. If I recall correctly, the proposed levy on tapes was going to be $1.50 on each tape. It was implemented at $0.29. All these figures are $C, not $US. The first proposed levy on Audio CD-Rs was going to be per megabyte and add up to $2.50 per disk or something similar.
Third, this initiative is from Heritage Canada, the ministry charged with promoting and protecting Canadian culture. The levies are supposed to compensate CANADIAN artists for "lost sales" due to copying. I do not know if the situation has changed, but at the time the first stage of the levy came into effect, no US artists or companies would be paid a dime from the fund. However, other artists from Europe and elsewhere would share in the fund. This was because the US had failed to sign a trade treaty that allowed for international copyright compensation, among other things.
Lastly, the minister in charge here is Sheila Copps. Her ambitions to take over the leadership of the party (and thus become Prime Minister) are well known. She hinted last week that she would be running when the time came. As the present PM is almost clinically dead, the contest to replace him is already starting. The one thing that no Canadian politician can never be accused of is being to vigilant in protecting and promoting our culture. This is a no-brainer for Ms. Copps. Even if some of the money were going to US artists, it would make no difference politically. The only way she can lose on this is to let the opportunity to vigorously defend Canadian culture slip by.
So the levy will come to pass, it will be a fraction of the proposition stated here, and no US artist or cartel (how does the RIAA get away with it?) will see any money from it. Oh, and the good part is that Ms. Copps hasn't got a chance of succeeding the Rt. Hon. Mr. Cretin no matter what she does or doesn't do. Thank God.
"The software industry is not entitled to a compensation because private copying of software is not legal fair use."
It is if you're making one backup copy.
I think part of the point is that they are trying AGAIN to push something like this through. What about next time? And the next. The idiocy will never stop until the 'back channel' of money from corporations stops.
Everything costs way more in Europe than it does in North America, so this serves you all right for having such a free and open marketplace. Finally you'll start to approach European prices for things. Then again, since we are rich in Europe and you are all tightwads, you probably won't like it.
"Second, there's a "constitutional" aspect: it's a bit shocking to see a government protect private interests, and more, help said private interests to bend laws and consumers rights to make more money."
Isn't the US sugar industry like this?
a governmental subsidy for no apparent societal benefit.
This is UNTRUE . The copy-right people decided that they would collect the levy and extend citizens rights. You are now LEGALLY ENTITLED to copy other people's audio CDs.
See here for details
What does that mean? Tell your friends to come over with their blank media and COPY ANY DISC of yours they like, set up CD-copy pools at LAN parties, call your Local University radio station and ask them to sponsor a "Copy any CD in our Library" radio-show (invite people to come down and burn away), arrange a CD-burn session at the local library.
Whats my point? Well, all CDs in Canada (at least your own burned copies) now cost a total of $2.00 - TELL PEOPLE TO STOP BUYING MUSIC IN STORES.
Dear Canadian /. readers:
As an American, I propose we organize an international trade federation: Your beer for our cheap CD blanks.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
$1.23 per CD? That $15 100 CD pack from CompUSA looks like a winner. Someone could drive ten of them home, sell each CD for a buck and pay for their trip. If this goes over, CDs will become another part of the Canadian cash economy. Retail outlets will have them for people who screwed up and need some RIGHT NOW. Because they never sell legitimatly, they will cost $3.00 and be individually wrapped. Kinda like floppies used to be at University book stores.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Just my $0.02
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
We should get together and try to write a common letter to send to our MPs (Members of Parliament). I'm going to have a crack at one myself this morning and I to post it here once it's done. If anyone else has one already written out, please post theirs!
Does the legislation mention the recording industries by name, or does it just say generally what kind of groups the money should go to? I might be time for me to incorperate myself and become a recording industry fatcat.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
what kind of education does this guy (and his finance minister) have?
One that his parents paid for and that he wants to ensure that his kids are able to get (why? Because he _can_ pay for it...)
I'm fortunate considering I'm in University at the moment courtesy my parents' generous checkbook. But the thing is that if it weren't for that, i'd be forced to pay up the yin-yang, especially now that Campbell's lifted the tuition freeze, and that banks are starting to lobby to get rid of Student Loans.
Some other upper/middle class students are complaining that the freeze was hurting their education and making it more difficult for them to get into their departments. My reaction: GOOD ON THEM. If lower tuition fees means that you need a 3.6GPA to get into your faculty, GOOD. Maybe finally we'll be issuing degrees based on actual academic capability rather than who can afford to get one. But again, that would make too much sense given the money-driven people who seem to think that the government is a corporation who are running our country/province.
Come the next federal, I'm voting for Svend again. Come the next provincial, I'm voting for the Rhinos again. Seems like I don't have much other options.
Karma: Non-Heinous
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.
/.'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.
I highly suggest that all Canadian
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)
These laws assume consumers are guilty of pirating
copyrighted material without trial. We are no
longer a country where you are innocent until
proven guilty.
Kill me now.
This is just another reminder that politicians can be bought.
Canadians on average are taxed about 10-12% more than their US counterparts. (This was in 1993, may be more now). I hope the Canadians raise a huge stink about this. Especially since we all know that the money will go straight to the suits, and the artists get screwed......again.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Could it be because Canada does not own a CD maker or an MP3 maker? More power to them if they want to grow their own, but I'm affraid this is more a move to fund music publishers, hopefully Canadian.
They do have a music industry and it is worth protecting. Much Music / Musiq Plus acutally play music and it's sooo much better than MTV. This is more likely to hurt than to help, just like killing Napster shot down music sales.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Give people a way to conveniently and securely make small payments, say 5 cents per song, and most will actually pay for content they copy. Make sure that this money actually makes it to the artists, including independents.
See this dumb example of lack of humor, and misplaced stereotypes.
Since the so called "pirates" are human probably, why not charge a tax for the food they eat, the clothes they wear, the electrical power they use ? Those could all be virtually aiding their potential infringing activities (not proven). Then give all this money to RIAA/MPAA/BSA to solve their obvious financial problems. How about if a deaf/blind person wanting to backup their system to CDR ? What would they pay the tax ? Why not just take a percentage of one's earnings and give iy to MPAA/RIAA/BSA directly so that they do not have to suffer ? Why not make one a slave directly and have these corporations dictate what they can do with their time and money ?
its 100% true. Really. Its all well known. Ever been to Windsor or Sarnia?
Now that this tax has extended itself from 'audio only' cd's (yes, there is such a thing and those that say otherwise are talking out of their asses) to encompass every form of recordable media.
Now, I use roughly 50 blank CD's a week as a backup medium for our servers. What department of the government do I send the bill to for the extra costs associated with doing my backups? AND, more importantly, you KNOW for a fact they will be charging GST on the entire cost of the CD at the retail level.. which means you'll be paying the goods and services tax ON the media tax.. WHICH IS ILLEGAL!
I got a digital camera, I do photo backup on CD-R I use smart media for my camera, Why the hell should I pay the TAX. This make no sence
It really pisses me off how the RIAA gets off saying that the only market for CD-R's is to pirate music. I personally use them to back up my HD, burn new Linux ISO images, etc. I have 5 or 6 CD's that I burned from GNUtella'ed mp3's, and these are all from CD's (that got damaged), or tapes that I actually went to a record store and purchased. I have burned roughly 200 CD's, and none of them came from "pirated" (Fair Use) music. Therefore I don't owe the RIAA $.01.
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
Lots of stupid laws are proposed in Canada on a regular basis -- it gives the backbenchers something to do. Although this is slightly different (a proposed levy), the fact that it is available for comment (and comments via e-mail are recommended and supported!) is proof of democracy in action. I very much doubt this would pass based on it's current form. I don't mind paying some extra $ to compensate artists, but #1) please ensure that the artists GET the money, and #2) the levy must be a reasonable percentage of the value of the media -- not what could be put ON the media, but what the media is worth given legitimate purposes.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
not about Windsor or Sarnia (though I've
heard stories)
I shop on Sundays, and I'm not exactly a
religious person either... no one is hauling
my ass off to jail..
This only applies to CD-RW,CD-R "Audio" CDs. They are exacly the same but are labelled "Audio". They are already sold in Canada and they are much more expensive. I always wonder who buys them.
I think if you look at some of the past battles regarding content, etc. you'll find that the RIAA and the MPAA are *very* involved in Canadian lobbying. They do participate, sometimes as member companies.
Just as the tax on gasoline is directed to road maintenance, the tax on recordable media will flow to Canadian artists. Don't believe a word of what the Heritage ministry says: whatever the size of the levys are, the money will be dropped into general revenue and handed out to fountain builders, and golf course owners.
It is apparent that there is no longer any federal elected government in Canada. Just a bunch of petty arguing tribes until they hold the leadership race.
It is so shameful.
We can rub ourselves with ochre and put feathers in our caps.
Then we'll find the port shipping the newly tariffed goods and gaily dump said goods into the harbor -- cackling freely as the native savages are assigned the blame.
Dirt doesn't need luck.
So the levy is imopsed pased on the assumption that a crime will be commited by the purchaser of blank media (copying copyrighted material).
Where do I stand if I actually commit the crime I've been found guilty of by having the levy applied on my purchases? Can I tally the total of levies paid on media never ever used for storing acopyrighted audio and video content and apply it against the retail value of pirated CD's?
Sorry, but I cannot see this actually becoming law. If it does, it'll certainly eliminate any of the reason that keep me from going beyond acceptable use on music and video content (copying my purchased CD's for enjoyment on my cars cassette deck and my computers mp3 jukebox).
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.
They tried to do this a few years ago, with only a 25 cent tax on CD-R's, and they were forced to scrap it.
The author from Sluggy Freelance got a Cease and Desist letter anyway and changed to comic: it now displays the text of the DJ announcing the song on the radio.
So just writing down a song is illegal, yes....
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
...We will be paying them money for media we can't rip our music to, anyway.
It's true! Even the province of Alberta is going to tax visiting pro hockey players to help subsidise their two financially-strapped hockey teams.
This is typical of the Canadian government though. Approach a perceived problem from the wrong angle, which ends up creating a black market in the end anyway. Instead of making driver training mandatory, we increase fines; Recently an employee of the motor vehicles office in Vancouver was caught 'selling' licences people! Instead of banning cigaretts we tax the crap out of them, and we all know about the massing black tobacco market.
It's a never ending cycle that always seems to net the government more money but never solves the real problems!
This story is too old for anyone to do a damn thing about it.
It took me all of 10 minutes to read the PDF, fire off an email to Claude and ask to be an objector. We really need a few hundred or thousand Canadians to become objectors. Read the first couple of pages about what you can object about, otherwise they'll throw out your objection. Perhaps just object on the grounds that you feel the proposed levies are too high. Ask your non-issue-aware friends to send a copy to Claude as well...
A 40 gig neo MP3 player goes for $479 US. According to an online currency converter, that's $759 Cdn. The tax would be $40 * 21 = 840.
Of course you could also buy the player with no hard drive at all and then buy a 40 gig hard drive separately. Presumably then, the tax would be nothing. Odd law.
How does this sound?
A manufacture sells a "device" touted as a protable storage device of mass quantity (20, 40, 60GB...whatever), then - after the fact - offers a firmware upgrade to the unit that allows playback of certain audio types.
Might this get around the problem?
(if you could get manufactures to come onside)
The involvement which enforces copyrights and patents?
Infuriate left and right
Hi,
Are there any other Canadians here (particularly those
who live in Ottawa), who want to help me draft a formal
response to this and go to the hearing to present our
objections? Come on guys, I know it has nothing to do
with hockey, but we have to start getting more pro-active
in Canada or else this country is going to go in the shitter.
...Because they are waiting for the public outcry as the ludicris prices they propose.
Then around November 2002 they can drop the rates, but get the new levied items on the books anyway (probably starting the prices next to nothing) and inch the levy fee up year after year until it's where they (the music industry) wants it...
Please object/comment to both the copyright board and your member of parliament, and make sure that your objection to the board meets the terms they specify.
The PDF specifically mentions that if objections sent to the copyright board do not meet certain terms they will be treated as comments and not objections (e.g. ignored). For example, in the section on limitations on the power of the board, they they say that it is useless to ask the board to reject the tariff as a whole, or ask for insertion of a clause that would remove the tarrif if use for non-music purposes can be proven.
So if you comment to the board (and please do), make sure your comment is relevant and meets the terms. (e.g. ask that the tariff not be raised form the present level, and any new tarrifs be at a minimal or nominal level). Make sure to stress that the tariff will adversely affect you and or your business due to your use of CD-Rs for non-music purposes, etc.
At the same time, please send a letter of protest and concern to your Federal Member of Parliament. (keep in mind you do not need a stamp to send a letter to a member of parliament, just make sure the fact that they are a member of parliament is labeled as such on the address). This letter is not subject to the limitations mentioned above for comments to the board. It is probably relevant to say that even the present tariff adversely affects you as you use CD-Rs for non-music purposes, etc. Please try to stay courteous/polite, so as not to be ignored.
Canadians, please take the time to let our clueless government know that legislation of this sort if damaging to individuals and buisnesses! If you don't, you can take at least partial blame when this law passes.
The real problem with these taxes is that even if someone uses them to buy a clue about the issues they are trying to solve, once a tax is in place no one wants to get rid of it any time soon. Take as an example the "temporary" telephone tax from the Spanish-American War we Americans pay each month. These are the reasons we have to work now to stop these foolish laws and regulations before they hit the books.
Today is a gift. Save the receipt.
"A new Canadian levy will be introduced in 2003 on all recordable media (pdf). The magnitude of these tariffs is staggering: $1.23 for all CD-RW's, $2.27 on all DVD-R's, and get this: $21 for each gigabyte of storage on portable MP3 players. That's an extra 160 dollars for a Nomad."
What's the big deal? Isn't $160 Canadian like 50 cents U.S.? Take off, eh!
if you look at it from the standpoint of asking our government to protect us from corporations who are trying to take unfair advantage of us.
Here at our firm we submit recorded CD's to our clients of almost every engineering project we do.
CAD files have gotten so large there is no other reasonable way to transmit them. Why does the RIAA get to levy a tax against our engineering firm? What service are they providing us that we must compensate them for? I would like my government to protect us from the RIAA.
Similarly, Microsoft has abused its monopoly position to maintain a stranglehold on the software market. This has a lot of ramifications for us, including what software we use and how much we have to pay for it. I would like my government to protect us from Microsoft as well.
The two views are completely consistent IMHO.
So, at what point can the RIAA (and I suppose the MPAA) say "so long" to all of those whining artists/actors, etc. who for some reason believe they're entitled to royalties and fair compensation for their work. Once you've gotten rid of the artists, then you can ditch the middlemen (producers, directors, etc), and all of that unneeded staff. Without all of that overhead, the large production companies can simply rake in the profits by collecting the tarrifs from the Governments.
Gee, what a business model. Where can I sign up.
//The sad thing about all of this is that most of
.sig, I'd put it at the ennnnnd
//the independent labels with bands worth pirating
//wouldn't see a dime from this outrageously high
//tax, and I severely doubt that, say, Qbert, DJ
//Seishi, or Courtney Love will get their fair
//share. Do artists ever get a cut from the RIAA?
Here's the interesting bit. The money is doled out to the copyright holders right? So...any holder of a music copyright is eligible to collect some of this. Suppose each 'song' you distribute gives you one 'credit' towards the pool of money. If I distribute one million copies of my song, I should be entitled to a tidy sum of money. (Note: It shouldn't matter if I sell this or not, just that I distribute it) Everyone write some songs, then distribute to your friends. We can -all- make a claim at some cash! Don't forget to copyright those tunes you hum in the shower! Download from my site and I'll give you half the proceeds!
// If i had a hammer, I'd a hammer in the mornings
// If I had a
(C) ME! 2002
Also included in the list are 40+ minute cassette tapes, MiniDiscs, Removable Electronic Memory cards, Recordable Digital Versatile Discs, and non-removable memory cards and hard drives in MP3 players.
So, this levy DOES include all CD-R material.
shane.
mah na mah na.
This tarrif is only proposed on media that has never had sound affixed to. For the re-recordable media (such as CD-RW, flash memory, etc.) the solution would be simple: affix sound. Any sound. A simple "beep" will do.
If the thing already has sound on it when it crosses the border into Canada, no tarrif can be levied. The user may then choose to keep or erase the "beep" that came with it.
(Standard IANAL disclaimer applies)
-Eldurbarn
http://www.dww.com/articles/billc32article.htm
This page describes the current state of Canadian cd levies. We pay x dollars extra per blank cd, and copying for private use, including copying a cd someone else bought is no longer considered infringment. Pretty sweet deal... Unless of course your main use for cd's is software related.
Every time there's a DCMA or other absurd US-law story on Slashdot, the Canadian crowd pulls their face out of their back bacon sandwich to cry, "I'm glad I live in Candada, eh! You Yanks are a bunch of hosers to not live in a socialist paradise like Canada!"
Where are the Canucks now? (probably sneaking across the border to buy CD-Rs)
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
There's always a way around the draconian measures these idiots come up with. I'm already a criminal, (speeding, jaywalking, ripping tags off mattresses, driving after having a beer with dinner, taping NFL broadcasts without express written permission, etc.) what's one more illegal act?
I've drafted a letter to my MP, and for anyone else who wants to do the same, here's a page that allows you to get the contact information for your MP:
Find the Constituency with a Postal Code
- YS
"Arrr! The laws of science be a harsh mistress." -- Bender
1. Order the stuff from the US (ebay?). On the customs forms, describe the item as "beautiful mirror finish coasters" the quebec customs guys don't even read english, so it will be especially easy for me. =) 2. Sell the media with a lable that says "strictly for data use". This way you can say that since there not designed to hold music, they cannot be taxed. 3. For the MP3 players, don't include any memory/storage but make them compatable with media that already exists for a non-taxable purpose... Doncha just love how our government spends all our money making half assed laws that can be walked around by a 12 year old ??
NAFTA makes it illegal to impose tariffs on goods imported from member countries. For example, the new US 30% steel tariff doesn't apply to Mexico and Canada. Unfortunately, most CD-R's are produced in Asia. But where are those MP3 players made?
Even after giving them a subsidy, the recording industry continues to whine about piracy and harrasses those who actually tries to use the recordable media for which they already paid a subsidy!!! Whatever amount of money the recording industry gets, it will never be enough because they will continuously evalute the cost/benefit ratio of more whining, more lobbying, in pursuit of more subsidies.
Of all the things the government could subsidize, I would rank the recording/entertainment industry as dead last in terms of social or economic benefits. I'd rather not subsidize these people, but if we must subsidize something, then I would rather spend it on military hardware. At least it creates high-paying jobs, which is more than I can say for the recording/entertainment industry. "Who do you want to bomb today?"
The sure-fire way to end the whining, lying, congressional lobbying, media spin, and court action is to bag the subsidies altogether and let the recording industry face the wrath of unhappy customers. If ever there was an industry that needed to learn the hard way about the consequences of failing to satisfy its customers, this is the one.
This is essentially a wishlist from the organization that represents the copyright owners. Think of it as an initial bargaining position. They will back off if there is massive pushback from consumers and manufacturers. The manufacturers should be particularly upset. Think of how pissed off you would be if you made an MP3 player that was taxed but a similar product was not taxed because it advertised itself as a "personal organizer WITH MP3 CAPABILITY." Think about if you are a microdrive manufacturer and your product has to compete with slightly bigger drives that are not considered "microdrives." I don't see how this thing could go through without major changes. Surely the manufacturers will scream bloody murder.
Let's be frank, any person with the most basic instint of what common sense is can tell that these stupid canadian levys are nothing more than the result of a corrupt government formed by polititians who are being paid by the record industry. And no, I'm not being sarchastic.
It's a shame as I always thought of Canada as a "decent" country. No more.
The ironic thing is that once the smuggling market for mp3 players and recordable media begins, the recording industry will be the first to call these actions "illegal". Shame shame shame. I'm canceling my summer Canadian vacations RIGHT NOW.
The tax is intended to apply only to blank recording media, and not to eg pre-recorded CDs. So on page 6 the proposal indicates that this applies to media on which 'no sound has ever been fixed'. So for eraseable media, if the manufacturer records eg a 1 second "test-tone" on it then it will not be liable to the tax. Obviously this isn't a solution for CD-R or DVD-R, but it does seem like a pretty big hole. Might even make CD-RWs cheaper than CD-Rs in Canada!
If they pass this, they no longer have any justification for passing the DMCA or SSSCA in Canada, since they would be compensated (media fees) for crimes that will no longer be committed.
If the Canadian government passes this, a DMCA AND an SSSCA-like law, then we know the Liberals have totally sold out to the recording industry, and have taken the Canadian electorate completely for granted (no credible government in waiting).
This space left intentionally blank.
Objections to the levy have been invited, as long as they follow a specific format:
You can send these objections via email to majeau.claude@cb-cda.gc.ca
If you're not the letter-writing type, you can take the time to appear at one of the Consultation Meetings on Digital Copyright that are being scheduled by Industry Canada. Meetings are still scheduled for Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa, and one was held in Halifax on March 8th. Although this proposed levy isn't on the agenda, other items such as the DCMA and the internet based retransmission are, and there's also a spot on the agenda for "Other Items."
Better yet, keep your eyes and ears open for the results of the pre-hearing meeting on May 23rd, at which point a timetable and agenda for a formal hearing will be scheduled.
I'm attending the Toronto Consultation Meeting, and I urge others in the scheduled areas to visit the website and sign up to attend as well.
cheers,
mike
(I would appreciate it, not for the karma but for the passing of information, if this were modded up)
SSCA or tax on blank media? I know what I'd choose if I had to. Don't get me wrong neither sit well with me but given the choice.....
When someone yells "Stop" or goes limp, or taps out, the fight is over.
Based on that what is to stop Creative from shipping a diskless model that requires the end user to install their own hard disk thus placing the burden of paying the tax on the consumer. For those of us south of the border it would be analogous to purchasing from a vendor outside your own state and having it shipped in to avoid sales tax. Just like a state government with regards to the sales tax I am sure the Canadian government would require its citizens to report the tax and pay it, but come on, who really does?
(Yes, I understand that most consumers would be incapable of doing it themselves, but most people know a geek and how many of us would help out to keep the RIAA and friends from collecting on this tax?) The side benefit is that the consumer can use any size laptop drive they desire.
Will teh new black market be for untaxed blank media?
"All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
Let the customer provide their own HD... Just make 'em easy to open and install as standard 2.5" drive of your choice... (Then bundle the 2 separate products...)
(stupid touchpad...hit submit too soon, I'm afraid)
For those of you who have read the article, you actually have the right to formally object to this until May 18 or so...
(2) You can also file a formal objection. This form of participa-
tion requires that you abide by certain rules. You will enjoy a
certain number of rights, and will undertake a certain number of
duties. You will be required to file a written statement of case
opposing the proposed tariff and to provide any evidence in sup-
port thereof. You will be entitled to receive a copy of every
document filed with the Board in these proceedings and will be
expected to provide copies of the documents that you file with the
Board to all other participants. You will be allowed to ask ques-
tions and obtain information from other participants and be ex-
pected to answer questions and provide information to them. You
will be allowed, but not required, to appear before the Board
at a public hearing to present evidence and ask questions from
witnesses.
(2) Vous pouvez aussi déposer une opposition formelle. Cette
façon de participer au processus comporte plusieurs exigences.
Vous acquerrez certains droits mais vous devrez aussi assumer
certaines obligations. Vous devrez déposer un énoncé de cause
qui fait opposition au projet de tarif et fournir toute preuve au
soutien de cette opposition. Vous aurez droit de recevoir copie de
chaque document que la Commission recevra, et vous devrez
fournir à tous les autres participants copie des documents que
vous déposerez vous-même. Vous pourrez aussi poser des ques-
tions et obtenir des renseignements des autres participants, et
vous devrez répondre aux questions et demandes de renseigne-
ments qui vous seront adressées. Vous pourrez comparaître de-
vant la Commission, dans le cadre d(TM)une audience publique, pour
présenter de la preuve et poser des questions aux témoins.
If not, I say "BLAME CANADA!"
I use ... blank casstte tapes solely to record myself playing the guitar
If you publish those recordings, you become an independent label, and you may be able to collect some of those royalties back.
Will I retire or break 10K?
As i was watching The Life of Brian last night, some of the points seem relevant here:
"What have the Romans ever given us"
Insert high pitched voice here.
"Well, acquaducts, and roads, and a sewage system, and medicine, and clean water..."
"Well besides that what have they given us."
Point==You can have you non-governmental space with a lack of infrastructure (witness the broadband situation in England.), and I will gladly pay my way high rate of taxes for good roads, and school systems.... Most of the people *itching about government intervention are actually passing laws subsidizing things like the airline industry. Why not rail? Well, we would be interfering with the publics' desire for air travel!
So is it also wholly unjust to check *every* passenger who gets on an airplane?
(my answer would be yes)
- Sig
The PDF specifically mentions that if objections sent to the copyright board do not meet certain terms they will be treated as comments and not objections (e.g. ignored). For example, in the section on limitations on the power of the board, they they say that it is useless to ask the board to reject the tariff as a whole, or ask for insertion of a clause that would remove the tarrif if use for non-music purposes can be proven.
So if you comment to the board (and please do), make sure your comment is relevant and meets the terms. (e.g. ask that the tariff not be raised form the present level, and any new tarrifs be at a minimal or nominal level). Make sure to stress that the tariff will adversely affect you and or your business due to your use of CD-Rs for non-music purposes, etc.
At the same time, please send a letter of protest and concern to your Federal Member of Parliament. (keep in mind you do not need a stamp to send a letter to a member of parliament, just make sure the fact that they are a member of parliament is labeled as such on the address). This letter is not subject to the limitations mentioned above for comments to the board. It is completely relevant to say that even the present tariff adversely affects you as you use CD-Rs for non-music purposes, etc. Please try to stay courteous/polite, so as not to be ignored.
Canadians, please take the time to let our clueless government know that legislation of this sort if damaging to individuals and buisnesses! If you don't, you can take at least partial blame when this law passes.
If it doesn't fall under the category now, how long will it be until my computer is a "piracy device"?
Paraphrasing the pdf here - Canadian citizens have the right to register themselves as formal objectors to this proposal. Objectors are then entitled (but not required) to attend and participate in hearings, recieve all releveant documentation, etc. The deadline is May 8th, 2002.
An important point in the document: The board is required by law to set and certify a levy, so your objection cannot be to the levy itself. This is actually encouraging to me - it is much more likely that a private objection could turn a board's decision than get a law thrown out.
I would highly recommend that you Canadians out there who are upset by this do something about it instead of just complaining on slashdot, where everyone agrees anyways. Read the document (it's actually interesting), and then register your objection. If the board hears a large number of well thought out arguments, it may actually make a difference!
For land's sake, please respond to the request for comments! Doesn't matter if you're a Canuck or not: while they won't actually use a foreign comment, it will surely make an impression on them.
Comments should be emailed to majeau.claude@cb-cda.gc.ca
Please be polite but strong. Make it clear to them that this levy harms you, and is going to harm artists.
The most important bit of the proposal follows. Note that it doesn't matter that most of these media are used for data archival: everyone still gets punished because someone might copy a Canadian artist.
"3. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the levy shall be
(a) 60 for each audio cassette of 40 minutes or more in length;
(b) 59 for each CD-R, CD-RW or each unit of any other type of recordable or rewritable compact disc of 100 megabytes or more of storage capacity;
(c) $1.23 for each CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio or MiniDisc;
(d) 0.8 for each megabyte of memory in each removable electronic memory card, each removable flash memory storage medium of any type, or each removable micro-hard drive;
(e) $2.27 for each DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+RW, DVD-RAM or each unit of any other type of recordable or rewritable DVD;
(f) 2.1 for each megabyte of memory in each non-removable electronic memory card or each non-removable flash memory storage medium of any type incorporated into each MP3 player or into each similar device with internal electronic or flash memory that is intended for use primarily to record and play music;
(g) $21 for each gigabyte of memory in each non-removable hard drive incorporated into each MP3 player or into each similar device with an internal hard drive that is intended for use primarily to record and play music. "
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
My MP3's are on my harddrive, and they're probably going to stay there aside from me backing them up.
I mainly use CD-R's to either burn Linux/FreeBSD distributions, or to back up my data (admittedly sometimes MP3's). Still, 90% of my CD-R usage involves no burning of audio or video content whatsoever.
I don't feel I should have to pay these outrageous fees simply to burn legitimate and legal non-audio or video content.
This space left intentionally blank.
What's that you say? A tarrif on devices designed to play music in MP3 format?
Us Canucks have a lot of things we can do, we can burn music and share and trade it, we can also get free DirecTV, mostly because of good laws like this one that go beyond the "Though shalt not copy laws" of the US. Everyone is going to copy their music, so the Canadian Feds came up with a way to legalize and control it and still give money to the artists.
I was contemplating creating some cheesy tracks on the computer and then burning them to a disk, and selling them to acquantances for ridiculously high prices. You'd take a hit on sales taxes, yes, but could you potentially argue for a large piece of the levy to pay off potential piracy?
(ie: I sell a copy of my cd to my wife/dad/uncle/friend for 5000 dollars. rinse. repeat)
karma whore, that was modded up to 4, why did you post it again and get modded up, should be -1 redundant
So, does this mean that you can pirate data (movies, music, and software) in Canada now? After all, you've "paid" with the tariff, right?!
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
If we can get enough people writing, maybe we can kill this proposal.
Here as a copy of my letter. This should give you an idea of what to write but please do not cut and paste -- be original. Also, include your full name and mailing address in your sign-off.
if you do, then you're dead wrong. we've been paying a LOWER levy since 2000! this whole debate is about INCREASING the levy from the previous rates (which have already been increased once for 2001/2002):
Audio Cassettes (40 minutes or more in length): 29
CD-R or CD-RW: 21
CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio or MiniDisc: 77
so go complain, but make sure you know what the actual issues are before you do.
check out my comic: Essential Tremors
In the interests of providing a little more context, here's the slashdot history of the recordable media levy:
I remember that even before the first levy was introduced, many retailers did some serious gouging with the price of their blank CDs. I'd expect the same behaviour with this increase.
As other people have pointed out, this is Canada, so the RIAA is not involved. Instead the levy is collected by an oganization called CPCC (Canadian Private Copying Collective) which is just a collections umbrella for SOCAN (who apparently feel that they know "what's right for music") and some similar organizations.
These prices are in Canadian dollars, so when someone says a Nomad would cost $160 more, in US dollars, that's somethign like $8.50 US.
So while I'm PO'd at the principle of the thing, in dollars, it's about 2 hours of labor at McDonalds.
Sigh, here we sit six months after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Osama, how much money will it take to put Parliment Hill in Ottawa on the next priority target list? I have a blank cheque in hand, and I'll fill in as many zeros as you need. I'll even guide the planes in.
.mp3s or software here. Just business records and other content that we are the legitimate owners of.
/.'ers do the same. This nonsense has gotten out of hand, and will only get worse unless we speak out.
In all seriousness, this kind of insane behavior only happens when scum-sucking, bottom-feeding lawyers [aka: elected politicians] have one too many power lunches with "industry" (and certainly not my industry, that is for certain) representatives.
I go through a freaking spindle a week for data archiving purposes alone. Why? It's cheap and machine readable on pretty much any machine with a CD-ROM. It's strictly for business use. No pirated
Why in all that's unholy should a damned dime go to the RIAA/MPAA/LMNOP? In this kind of business scenario:
Levy == subsidy.
That's right. As a business, this levy amounts to our subsidizing another industry at our own expense. Now, why should we do that? I don't have the various recording industries subsidizing our business in any fashion.
I'll be contacted my Minister of Parliment immediately. I suggest any Canadian
Fuming....
I'm not Canadian, so I can't do it, but if you are, read the PDF file carefully, and put together a formal objection. Every Canadian citizen is entitled to object. It looks like it's pretty expensive for them if you produce a proper formal objection, so go for it! If enough Canadian citizens object, you really could make a difference here.
There is an existing "levy" on all those materials. This proposal is for what the levy will be in the years 2003 and 2004. Here's the increases from 01/02 to the proposed 03/04 levels:
29 to 60 cents on tape cassettes
21 to 59 cents on CD-R/W, etc
77 to 123 cents on CD-R audio, etc
The DVD levy and the charge on flash memory and storage space in portable players is all brand new (but you could see it coming).
The increases are all substantial!!
I am getting tired of this. I do not buy music (except the 12 or so CDs I bought over 10 years), I do not use MP3s and my CD use is strictly for software, mostly Linux stuff these days. I am serously considering suing the individual board members for theft if thi spasses. Since I am being forced by them to give up money to someone other private person for no service or product they produce, product that is entirely without merit and can be categorised as mindless enterntaiment fluff, solely based on the fact that they are friends of the board members, it is no different then Mafia making me pay a fee to a freind thug of theirs for "protection". This constitutes racketeering and a personal theft. I plan to file a small claims court case for every CD I buy against the board members personally. See if that gets their attention.
Really should post.
I did - in the 80s I went to various literary conventions, back when I lived in Canada - and I pointed out how a tax that does not go to the artists themselves, including a pool for new artists, is inherently unfair.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
So this is *not final*! You *can* do something about it. All you independent musicians and CD-R-backup-ing computer scientists: file written comments objecting!
(If only I were Canadian.)
[
From the PDF:
Limitations on the Powers of the Board
Anyone contemplating objecting to CPCC's proposed statement must realize that the Copyright Act sets out a number of limits on what the Board may or may not do. No purpose is served by objecting to the proposed statement based on grounds about which the Board can do nothing. In the following paragraphs, we summarize some of the limits imposed on the Board's
powers in this matter:
(1) The Board must certify a tariff and set a levy. Those who own the rights to sound recordings of musical works (composers, authors, performers and producers) are entitled to be remunerated for private copies. No purpose is served by asking the Board to reject the tariff as a whole.
(2) Only persons who own rights in sound recordings of musical works are entitled to share in the remuneration; owners of rights in other works (computer programs, movies, literary works) are not.
(3) The remuneration must be paid by manufacturers and importers of blank audio recording media, in the form of a levy to be imposed on those media. The obligation to pay arises when the media are sold or otherwise disposed of in Canada by the manufacturer or importer. The Board cannot set the levy at the retail level.
(4) The levy is payable on all media that qualify, without regard to end use. No purpose is served by asking that the tariff include a mechanism that would allow those who can prove that they use qualifying media for purposes other than reproducing musical works to be exempted from payment or to receive a refund.
(5) The Copyright Act exempts from the levy recording media that are sold to a society, association or corporation that represents persons with perceptual disabilities. The Copyright Board cannot grant any other exemption.
I think I'm gonna have to take trips to the States more often to smugle CD-Rs.
GFK's
Wtf, i NEVER use CDR or CDRW for music, I just use it to store personnal data and other stuff but NEVER for music, while would a pay for something I dont use ?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes the quality of US commercial beers may not be on par with canada's but it does have some real good microbreweries. Saranac (a very large, almost commercial one) in New York makes some fine tasting beers.
Peace out.
Veramocor
Veramocor
I see this law as a blatant violation of WTO rules. See, american companies make these devices. These new "tarriffs" will hurt sales of the devices, thereby causing american companies to loose sales. This is an unfair law! Canada can't go changing it's laws to hinder free trade! SO.. all the companies that make the devices can now SUE canada for losses. And canada has to pay!
In case you weren't aware of this pesky little law, here in CA we are going to wind up paying some candaian compay that makes MTBE for gasoline. See, we found out that MTBE contaminates groundwater, kills people, so we are banning it's use here in the state. But WTO rules say that this is a violation of free trade and so CA taxpayers are going to wind up paying some settlement for excersising our INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHT TO NOT DRINK POISON. I figure if the laws work on that absurd situation, it should certainly apply for silly tarrifs like these.
I would just like to draw peoples attention to the following article in the Globe and Mail
article
It has a lot of usefull information about the current situation
"We deal in lead" - Roland of Gilead
Ok. Let's tax blank cd's,dvd's, portable mp3 players, and vhs tapes and give the money to the RIAA and MPAA to compensate them for "possible" theft. That makes so much sense!
I can see book publishers getting in on this too! "Oh, those scanners and digital cameras, along with copiers, could be used to copy our books! We need compensation for our potential losses. Oh yeah, don't forget to tax pens, pencils, paper, as well!"
The people that commit the crimes should have to pay. This is like the entire population being punished for the crimes of a few. So why is it that the U.S. and Candian citizenry have to subsidize the RIAA and MPAA? They've got such a good scam going...
Yo folks, haven't you heard of the Boston Tea Party? Colonists protested unjust taxation on Tea imports by breaking into a tea shipment and throwing it into the ocean. Perhaps it's time to repeat this bit of history...
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
Editors really need to get a clue. They say that the levy would be $1.23 for each CD-RW...
actually CD-R's & CD-RW's have a levy of $0.59
You have the option of paying more if you chose to buy CD-R Audio discs. (Same things, except with the word "Audio" printed on the box).
"blank audio recording medium" means 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 for that purpose and on which no sounds have ever been fixed, including...
So, if I read this right, there's a useful loophole for any of the re-recordable media, like CD-RW, flash, hard drives.
Put some sounds on it before you ship it.
Ta da, it's not a blank audio recording medium, hence not covered.
Everybody's gotta have a racket. Here's a free-as-in-beer scheme to try if the tariff only applies to blank media. Buy a stack of blank CD-RW media overseas. Record a copy of Richard Stallman singing "Software wants to be Free" on each. Import them as music; pay the import levy on the cost of the media. (IMHO, you ought to be able to set the value at -$100, but the taxman isn't a music critic). Then sell your hit single at prices below others, since you don't have to pay the RIAA tax.
Envy my 5 digit Slashdot User ID!
do we pay tariffs in the us on recordable media?
Can someone provide a link to this?
Douglas Calvert
I wouldn't sweat this too much. This tariff will result in the creation of huge black markets, and in a few short months no one will be paying these fees except the people that have too much money to care. The only people who should really be worried are Canadian vendors, who are about to lose a significant amount of business. You'll be able to easily find some seller on EBay who is selling for the (US) market price. You'll probably be able to find a lot of small vendors who are unscrupulous enough to sell you the goods regardless of the tariff. The only added costs here will be those due to inefficiency, e.g. the extra price you have to pay to get things shipped in from the US. And of course it will make regular citizens criminals. This scenario occurs like virtual clockwork whenever the government tries to excise tax/prohibit a good or service that enjoys widespread social acceptance. Look at our present war on drugs or the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s. Looks like some stupid Canadian bureaucrat forgot the most important rule of them all: you don't fuck with the law of demand.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Do it right, apparently they essentially ignore you unless you jump through a lot of hoops:
So if you are Canadian and don't want to be ignored, follow all the steps and become a formal objector, and read the info on what are reasonable grounds for objection. Apparently they won't even consider your objection if you say "people who can prove they aren't pirating music shouldn't be subject to these levies". You might get somewhere, however, if you talk about software backup, digital photography, etc.
I know it was a joke, but I don't think it would work.
AFAIK, the CPCC distributes the money through a SOCAN-like system. SOCAN decides how to distribute tariffs based on media sampling. If your songs don't get heavy play on Canadian radio, you don't get paid.
It is going to the CANADIAN GOVERNMENT for the explicit purpose of doing typically Canadian things with it e.g. paying Tequila Shiela to give everyone who asks a flag, paying Annie Get Your Gun to come up with an invasive, rights-destroying set of laws masquerading as gun control. And I'm sure that a couple of golf courses in Shawinigan will change hands at hundreds of thousands of dollars more than they're worth, with Jean Chretien getting his cut.
Or maybe King Jean has a singing fountain in a river or a portrait gallery or something in mind.
It's a cash grab, pure and simple, for Ottawa bureaucrats to waste on their pet projects.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
It exists to compensate the publishers for losses that are recognized as not being recoverable without forcing the end users to give up all fair-use rights. Adding a tax to writeable media doesn't suddenly make it legal, or even necessarily moral to copy what you weren't supposed to before. This tarrif exists to _ENSURE_ that Canadians continue to enjoy the rights of fair use, to placate the recording industries, since they are receiving some compensation, not to stick it to the end user, and not to justify the actions of piracy. All it really means is that in Canada, that fair use doesn't come for free, it's a priveledge that you pay for up front. I for one would far rather legally pay for the priveledge of fair use and continue to enjoy it than suddenly have them revoke the right out from under me just because they think that'll stop their losses. All that would do is make fair use a crime.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Now the church has to pay the levy on all tapes and CD-R's it buys. Of course this increases the cost of the recordings which get passed on to the consumer.
So in a way, I'm effectively being charged a tax by the government for failing to attend church. (Yes I am aware of the holes in this argument, but think about it for a second). There are plenty of non-infringing uses, all of which are now taxed. (And charged tax on the levy)
This is definately not right, particularly since people who use CD-R's for non-infringing purposes tend to do entirely non-infringing things. People who copy music CD's tend to do only that...
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
The only way to get the government to listen is to get everyone to write in a formal complaint... otherwise we'll all be forced to pay out these rediculous fees (imagine, an EXTRA $840 charged on a portable MP3 player just so they can send the money back to the RIAA!)
[message template]
send to: Claude Majeau majeau.claude@cb-cda.gc.ca
[you need these first paragraphs to have your letter considered as a formal complaint]
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.
I do not wish to take part in the pre-hearing conference on May 23, however I do wish for my objections to be made part of the official records of these proceedings.
[insert your objections here. Make them clear and consice, state your reasons for objection, etc]
Thank you,
[your name]
[your address]
[your phone and fax #]
[your email address]
The listing of all the current tarrifs in place can be found at jttp://www.cpcc.ca/English/FAQ/faq.html. This is the group setup to administer these funds Rates for 2002/03 Audio Cassettes (40 minutes or more in length): 29 CD-R or CD-RW: 21 CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio or MiniDisc: 77 You would think with all that money coming in they could afford a better website design.
I recently bought a 30GB Nomad Jukebox (now only $400US). This tarif would more than double the price given the current exchange rate!
I bought the thing partly to replace my failing cd changer and just for the convenience since it will hold my entire (purchased) cd collection. I guess I don't really own those cd's after all and I get to pay extra to listen to them when/how I choose.
I'm a Canadian citizen, and obviously I find
this legislation and the proposed tariffs odious.
I'm sending the following letter to majeau.claude@cb-cda.gc.ca. If you are a
Canadian citizen, you should do the same:
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.
I cannot participate in the pre-hearing conference to be held on Thursday,
May 23, 2002.
My objection is in regards to two types of media: CD-R/CD-RW and
DVD-R/DVD-RW.
My company makes extensive use of these media as data backups. Clearly
this use does not constitute a copyright violation, and is not the
intended target of the levy.
I realize that the CPCC cannot rescind the act under which this
tariff will be collected. However, the CPCC can make this levy
trivial - for example $0.01 per media, and I think it should do so.
The copyright act is wrong, and the CPCC can migigate it:
I think the act is severely flawed, in several ways:
* It presumes the guilt of consumers (that they will use such media
to make illegal copy of audio material). This contradicts the
normal workings of Canadian law -- i.e., presumption of innocence.
* The act ignores the applicability of this type of media to non-audio
applications (e.g., data backups, as used by my company).
In short, the act penalizes both innocent consumers and those people
and organizations who use such media for applications other than audio
content.
Both of these outcomes are presumably unintended, and morally wrong.
If anything, the act gives moral legitimacy to copyright violations -
presumably an unintended outcome.
It is not CPCC's mandate to redress flawed legislation, but it should
be within CPCC's power to limit the impact of this legislation -- by
reducing the tariffs to a negligible amount.
I think the CPCC should do so until such time as the act is amended by
our legislature or repealed by the judiciary.
Thank you for your consideration,
-- sign.
Anyone manufacturing music in Canada should have to pay this tax on the blanks they buy or manufacture. Fair is fair. How long would this law last if the big music companies suddenly had millions of $ of extra taxes to pay?
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Maybe you should have gone to a better law school. See guide to copyrights. Quoting from page 11: [example of non-infringement use] "borrowing a musical tape from a friend to copy onto a blank tape for private use".
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
unless these are front organizations.h tml
the tax has been set by this organization
http://www.cpcc.ca/English/english.
These are the member organizations that will get the money. I think Sony, Vivendi et al are represented in the first, but most of these organizations are author-oriented, not corporate-oriented. Anyone have more info on these organizations? Are they in fact fronts for corporate interests?
http://www.cpcc.ca/English/Intro/intro.html
Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency/Agence Canadienne des Droits de Réproduction Musicaux (CMRRA)
Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada/Société Canadienne des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs de musique (SOCAN)
Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada/Société du droit de reproduction des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs du Canada (SODRAC)
Neighbouring Rights Collective of Canada (NRCC)/La sociéte canadienne de gestion des droits voisins (SCGDV)
i allready dont make any money and it costs around 4$ per cd
on the other hand the Canadian government dosn't really care about their starving canadian artists...
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
i mean, does it go to the artists (in which case, are we going to be looking at richcer Celine Dion, Rod Stewart and Bryan addams?)...i mean i would even understand a tax on such CDs if artists were fairly repaid for their spent money on this tax (i sold way over 100$ worth of copies of my CD...and i wasnt even trying to...with this tax i would have easily plunged 25$ of that into this tax!)...but i seriously anyone will get any money from this, except for perhaps the above mentioned 3 canadian 'talents'.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Section 42 creates a criminal offence (aimed at wholesale commercial "piracy") while section 80 is just a definition of infringment - the copyright owner can sue the infringer for damages in civil court.
Note that 42(c) says "distributes infringing copies" while (a), (b), (d) and (e) say "copy" (singular).
i'm stuck in a hicktown who's represented by a far right psychochristian from the CRAP party who could care less about guys like me...
thanks for the thought though, i'll make note of it to anyone else...
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
lol...
too bad i dont really have 1k$ to spend...
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
It used to be tobacco and alcohol were the only things smuggled across the border!
"If you're not failing every now and again, it's a sign you're not doing anything very innovative." -- Woody Allen
elections were in octobre, i was born in decembre...
:(
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Hell, I think this levy should pass, not only in Canada (eh) but also in the USA. Then, I can use this as a legal precedent to start a subsidy on all new music,movies,magazines and television shows on the basis that I might watch it, and therefore it might waste my time (and money). By wasting my time, I am less productive, thereby hurting the economy.
The US did *not* learn with cocaine and Mexico. How the fuck are you going to stop people crossing a border as big as Canada's?
I mean, you make $50 profit for each spindle that gets across the border! Hell, *I'd* smuggle them at that rate, and it's not like it's hurting anyone (I'd have qualms about smuggling drugs, yes).
Thank you ;)
Attention: Svend Robinson, MLA, Burnaby-Douglas
Dear Mr. Robinson,
The levies proposed by the copyright board (see attached) on various digital recording media are clearly to the detriment of the Canadian computer, electronics and retail industries as well as a ridiculous burden for the Canadian taxpayer and are clearly not in the public's nor Canadian industry's best interest. As the president of a Canadian computer software company which wastes hundreds of dollars each year to support the current levy, I strongly urge you to examine this matter and vigorously oppose its adoption.
b) Levy on CD-R and CD-RW media. More computer software than music is recorded on such media, yet no equivalent to the CPCC exists for computer software companies and software companies are specifically excluded from the current program. This tariff should be eliminated entirely or modified to serve all the industries for whom usage of these media affect.
d) Levy on removable storage, flash cards, removable hard disks. This is clearly the most significant abuse of the Canadian computer industry. This affects anyone who uses PDA's, or other portable computer equipment, regardless of whether they use these devices for music or not and is a shocking burden for the computer industry to bear. With current IBM microdrive units passing 1Gb of storage, within three years, they should easily pass 100Gb (100,000MB). This means a levy of $800 on a device which should sell for under $1000 based on today's market. This clearly provides the music industry with an enormous cash-cow at the expense of the computer industry and the Canadian public.
e) Levy on DVD recordable media. DVD's are best suited for digital video applications, they will not play in portable CD players, in cars, or in most computers. DVD video disks are copy protected so that people cannot copy them. This levy should not be implemented.
f) Levy on built-in flash or memory storage on portable digital music players. Based on today's products, this seemingly small levy will represent more than half the purchase price of a digital music player within two years. Two years ago portable digital music players had a capacity of 32MB, today some have a capacity of 20,000MB.
g) Levy on built-in hard disk storage on portable digital music players. Just as two years ago computers commonly came with 8GB hard disks and today they come with 100GB. Within two years, portable digital music players will easily contain disk-based storage in excess of 100GB (100,000MB) which under this proposal means a levy of $2,100 on a device which would be priced under $500 based on today's market. Even at 10% of the rate they are proposing, this levy would effectively eliminate the market for portable digital music players in Canada, would promote smuggling from the U.S., and definitely does not serve the best interests of the Canadian public, electronics manufacturers, or retailers.
With all record companies currently testing copy protection systems and companies like Vivendi-Universal (which represents approximately 20% of the music industry) publically stating that all of their CD releases will be copy-protected by mid-2002, effectively preventing Canadians from exercising the rights they are paying for with these levies, Canadian lawmakers should be looking at reducing or eliminating these levies, not increasing them.
Sincerely,
Damn flappy headed beady eyed canadians.
I like things that are sweet and not things that are lame. --
For the 20GB NOMAD, that would add an extra $420. (21*20=420). Why not just buy a damn laptop. It's be cheaper.
Dear Sir,
2 -b.pdf (page 6, item 4), the tax is applied to all media that qualify, regardless of end use. This would also apply to compactflash memory which is primarily used in Digital Cameras.
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 wish to provide my comments to the board.
I have, primarily, two concerns. The first is in regards to to the term primary use. If an MP3 player uses a common IDE hard drive, than common IDE hard drives now qualify for the levy. So, for example, a 40 GB hard drive that currently costs $130, will now cost (40GB * $21/GB= $840 + $130= $970) $970. Since, According to http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs/proposed/c0903200
The second concern I have is in regards to the way the levy is imposed. Charging based on a $/MB or $/GB basis is not very well thought out. The rate at which storage related technology increases capacity is exponential. For instance, not too long ago, a 6GB hard drive was the same price, if not more, as a 40GB hard drive is today. Charging on this basis will cripple Canadians ability to keep up with technology by making it too expensive to use. A per unit levy would be more reasonable in the long term.
Thank-you for your time.
Instead of stealing money from your citizens to hand to artists by virtue of their Canadian-ness, how about letting the free market ensure that artists get paid according to the number of people who buy and enjoy their recordings?
I know that's a radical right-wing concept, but, hey, it works over here (or would work, if not for the RIAA's legalized-payola machine).
I spoke to Laura Davison, Manager of Collections and Enforcement at CPCC today. According to her, none of the levies collected to date have actually been distributed to anyone. Also, she wouldn't release any information about levies distributed now or in the future, citing confidentiality reasons. As a non-profit agency, I thought that they had to release this kind of information to the general public? Any fellow Canadians care to comment?
pi=sigma{n:0-infinity}[(1/16)^n][(4/(8n+1))-(2/(8n +4))-(1/ (8n+5))-(1/(8n+6))]
Here's a letter to send if you're too lazy to write your own.. take it and do whatever you like with it, but please send it ASAP to:
majeau.claude@cb-cda.gc.ca
unless you can do more than a simple comment.. thanks!
Dear Sir,
I am objecting to the CPCC proposal for further taxation on computer back-up media and other recordable Compact Discs, as I believe that the proposal will further impose unfair penalties on the honest people that use Compact Discs.
It is evident that the monies collected from the proposed tariff will be paid to representatives of the music industry, even though I personally use the Compact Disc media itself solely in a legal fashion, as I am entitled to by copyright law. I find it quite distressing that this proposal advocates paying another tax in excess of those already levied merely to support continued legal use of the Compact Disc media that I use. I contend that if I am to give money to the record industry, that I should receive fair value in exchange - and furthermore, that any transaction should be willful and deliberate, not in the form of the extortion that the proposal suggests.
I thank you for your time and consideration, and hope that this proposal is rejected summarily, so that my rights, and those of my fellow Canadians, may not be unjustly abrogated.
Sincerely,
HN
break into comp usa or best buy, or better yet, a distribution warehouse (or should we call it a warezhouse), grab all the cd-r's and rw's, fill em full of music tracks and mp3's from riaa artists, and then distribute them for free to any canadian citizen who desired it. It would be a powerful bitchslap to the RIAA pigs, and the dumbass who came with the this tax idea for media. After our canadian friends are done hosting the "party" they can come down to the US and lay low for a few years :) Call it returning the favor for the Canadians letting Americans hide up north during Vietnam :) Oh well, i guess my blood level of caffiene is dangerously low, time for a refill.
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
yet again governments not working for the people they are designed to guide and help, but for the corporations which would do nothing but serve those who become rich by making the rest of us poor. it's a sad world.
Who wants to start a fund to use in legal expenses against our own governments on the basis that they are damaging our ways of life without recompense whilst the big businesses (their mates) get richer.
You forgot one slightly important fact in your argument - it's us Canadians that are paying the tax, so why shouldn't the money go to Canadian artists?
Much as I despise Brian Adams, I'd still rather pay him than N'Stink.
I don't agree with the tax at all (especially the fact that the vast majority of CD-R use is most likely for data storage), but if I have to pay that tax, there's no way in hell that I'm sending that money back to the U.S.A.
Canadians artists have a hard enough time making it into the charts as it is (we have to compete against the same mainstream crap your indie labels do - and then some).
Go Nickelback, go!
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.
Whoa! I live in Windsor! Where do I find those teenage prostitutes?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Step 2: Declare a reasonable tariff. This is tricky. Consider what proportion of media is used to violate copyright (which will change over time), how much is used for fair use of copyrighted material (not a violation), and what the monetary loss is to the authors (not the 10x or 20x that quantity that is a loss to the publisher). This might amount to a fraction of a penny per gigabyte (for example).
Step 3: Collect the tariffs on new media, and pay royalites to the authors. Why not the big companies? Because the social value of copyright is seeing that authors are compensated, not that currently profitable companies remain profitable. The big companies can continue to prosecute specific cases of copyright infringement under existing statutes.
But how to divide the royalties? Hmmm... This is, of course, a problem with any tariff scheme.
There are two kinds of societies: sustainable and doomed.
So I guess it's 100% ok for me to pirate mp3's, after all, I paid for them.
Does this make copy protection illegal?
I've just read the whole thing and have set up appointments with my MLA, and
intend on going to Ottawa for the hearings, this is just WRONG. Not only
does it violate the spirit of fair use laws, but it has questionable legal
grounds to begin with. The board (IMHO After reading the document) has
demonstrated it has no clue as to what it's talking about as is evidenced in
the tariff amounts themselves.
A 40min tape, which at best is 40megs of mp3 info, is $0.60, yet cd media
over 100meg is $0.59cents.
Any mp3 player is to be subject to $0.021/mb or $21/gb, forgetting of course
there are 1024mg in 1gb, which should make the tariff either $21.50 or
$0.0205078125 ($0.0205 for simplicities sake) depending on how you view it.
This tariff would also apply to Sony Memory Sticks, Compact Flash cards,
SmartMedia cards, and Secure Digital cards, IBM MicroDrives (and
competition) and Backup Tapes, many of which are in no way used for music
piracy.
Forget that it would double the cost of CD-R Media, and put the cost of Mp3
players even further out of reach of most people, it plain doesn't make
sense.
Why should we be taxed so the government can take money and give it to RIAA
member companies, who suffered a NEGATIVE Billion dollar loss last year
thanks to p2p and cd-r/w. If anything p2p and cd-r/cd-rw media is of BENEFIT
not harm to the motion picture and sound recording industries.
As a small business owner, we rely on cd-rw media quite heavily, for offsite
back-ups and transporting files and software to our clients. Why should I
(we) have to pay a tax to an un-related industry? If piracy is the big deal,
then why aren't organizations (and their member companies) like CAAST
(www.caast.org) getting some of that money either? More people steal
software then they do music via cd.
As musician, as are some of my friends, do you realize such a tariff would
mean that we are paying the competition to put us out of business? Being
self produced, as many bands are starting up their own labels, this means we
will be paying companies like Sony, BMG, Universal, the competition, to make
it even harder to compete. (Less money for us, more money for them, and what
did they do to deserve it?)
By paying such a tariff the government is declaring you guilty of violating
copyright law before you even have. Forget the idea of innocent until proven
guilty, you will now be forced to pay a fine before you committed the crime,
just cause you "might" or "most likely will" do it.
It is still legal under fair use laws to make a back-up copy of your cd's.
With this new tariff, you'll be forced to pay twice for the same music
(granted, not the same amount, but that is hardly the point).
Does no one else see a problem with this?
PrairieBoi
-In the event that you disagree with the previous comment, be advised that you are most likely right anyway.
You can claim the tax on CDs that were NOT used for music piracy, back on your tax return. That is what the 'other' fields are for.
How Revenue Canada is going to get its money back form the Canadian musicians society is their problem, but you can be sure that they will find a way to claw it back.
The gov bargains on the fact that few ordinary people will bother to claim the tax back, but large companies that make lots of CDs, certainly will.
I can't believe the Canadian government holds the view that the only copyright-holders worth compensating are those sponsored by large corporates.
Everybody produces work protected by copyright, whether they know it or not, almost every day.
But obviously some entities produce work that is more equal than others in terms of the protection/compensation imposed by this proposed legislation.
This measure is a ludicrous abuse of power, and will not benefit Canadians in any way whatsoever.
I am not a Canadian, I am from New Zealand, on the other side of the planet, but I fear that my government will foolishly follow the lead set by countries like Canada in introducing these despicable laws.
I would like to see how democracy is served by this proposed legislation - How many canadians consider this legislation beneficial?
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
... the US has no plans to nuke Canada !!!
http://www.sycorp.com/levy/index.htm
SSL Certificate
In the list of the most idiotic things governments have been doing recently, this is a close second to Bush's steel tariffs.
it's us Canadians that are paying the tax, so why shouldn't the money go to Canadian artists?
...especially the fact that the vast majority of CD-R use is most likely for data storage...
That's why. Besides, it's distributed according to lifetime album sales, which means Barenaked Ladies get a cut, Bryan Adams gets a cut, Sarah McLaughlin gets a cut. I doubt Nickelback will see too much cash from this.
If the money was used for something like promoting new bands, or giving out record contracts or something, I'd be all for it, but I don't see it helping Canadian music at all
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
because they said they were going to do this, but they didn't.... I don't bevieve a word of it.
ender-iii
Why the hell does the RIAA get money for this? The song, and it's performance belong to the artist, the only interest the Recording company has in said song is the final editing (and sometimes not even that) Therefore, at the most the RIAA should get 30% of this tax. The artist should get at least 60%. How many of you want to bet the artists will see 5%
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Anyone? Moderators?
I'm seeing comments like this and this being moderated up. Did any of the moderators read the article? If they did, they would have noticed on the second page that there is an email address to send comments and formal objections to (ie: not your premiere, although that would also help), and that they *prefer* electronic mail (not paper.) - to quote "Where possible, the board asks that all comments and objections be sent by electronic mail." They also outline the rules for making a formal objection.
Also, "If you file a letter of comment, it will be part of the record of the proceedings. CPCC will receive a copy of it and the Board will take it into account when making a final decision."
You are entitled to attend the hearing, and present your comments and objections. I will not be able to attend the hearing, but I am writing a formal objection. I suggest all Canadians do so - but read the article in its entirety so you know how to do it properly.
-kidlinux.
Does anyone know what the current taxes are on all the blank media here in the US are?
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
This is an ill-fated line of taxation AGAIN! I am a coder and I can tell you that this is not going to help me one bit. It will help the publishers, that put my hard work to media and resell it for 20X+ what I get paid for it, make more money. Instead of these greedy buggers figuring out better ways to protect my code and thus employing more of my ilk, they scream and yell that they are being ripped off until they get money from the gov't. This is AFTER they have already "reluctantly" raised their prices to "compensate" for the same. Yet I somehow doubt that I will see a raise in my income due to this.
This is just another case of our gov't giving into the demands of a bunch of businesses that can't balance their budgets, because they are too busy golfing. This is as a result of "blackmail" by the few publisher's we still have left here to take the services somewhere else unless we pay them more. Let's call this what it is: "The Keep Them Here Tax".
The Brain is recordable media, are we going to tax that too?
There is another topic developing in Washington that is the same veiled attempt of people who don't understand something attempting suck money that isn't there out of it. One day all the coders in the world are going to live in a small caribean island with no extradiction treaty with the US or Canada and then where will these 2 short sited countries be?
ARRRRGGGHH!!! Hasn't ANYONE ever heard of an honest days work anymore? Is it everyone's goal to make money off of someone else's time and energy? To the governments of the world I say: "Get your bloody hands out of my pockets!!! There isn't anything there anymore! I just submitted income tax!!!"
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the masters; seek only what they sought!" - Dogo -- Lambo
and how is that Audio industry gets its bids on to Video media. Maybe they should tax video tapes as well. Tapes known to make excellent replicas of CD recordings.
Just buy the CD-Rs from a mail order supplier and import it yourself. Since you are not going to resell it, no levy is due:
---
(3) The remuneration must be paid by manufacturers and im-
porters of blank audio recording media, in the form of a levy to
be imposed on those media. The obligation to pay arises when
the media are sold or otherwise disposed of in Canada by the
manufacturer or importer. The Board cannot set the levy at the
retail level.
(4) The levy is payable on all media that qualify, without re-
gard to end use. No purpose is served by asking that the tariff
include a mechanism that would allow those who can prove
that they use qualifying media for purposes other than repro-
ducing musical works to be exempted from payment or to re-
ceive a refund.
---
(3) Ce sont les fabricants et importateurs de supports audio
vierges qui sont tenus de verser cette rémunération, qui prend
la forme de redevances sur la vente de ces supports au Canada
par ces fabricants et importateurs. La Commission ne peut im-
poser la redevance sur la vente au détail.
(4) La redevance est payable à l'égard de tous les supports qui
se qualifient, sans égard à l'usage qui sera fait du support. Il ne
sert donc à rien de demander que le tarif prévoie une exonéra-
tion de paiement ou le remboursement de la redevance pour les
utilisateurs qui sont en mesure d'établir que les supports n'ont
pas été utilisés pour reproduire des oeuvres musicales.
---
There are plenty of 16 and 17 year olds posing as 18.
18 is legal. Actually 14 is legal if the other person is 16 and not actually paying for services but even if they are the 14 year old is allowed to legally collect fees under current law but the purchaser is breaking the law not the seller at 14..
Read up in complete detail at http://www.eff.org/CAF/law/child-porn.can
That links has tons of age related info towards the bottom, and it covers all the post 1997 changes even though physical lap dances were made illegal in 97 but not enforced ever.... just as the 18 years thing is not 100% enforced.
I believe 18 is more common and the norm though. probably for certain, but you might as well check it out.... you live there.
Hey folks, there's an online petition against it: http://www.sycorp.com/petition.htm Damn, why is Sheila Copps always making things difficult for us Canadian folk. Doesn't she realize that all we want is to listen to our pirated music while playing hockey?
There is something in Canada called the CPCC and it exists to collect this money and disburse it.
Ahem... This organization exists to disperse funds collected due to alleged violations of intellectual property laws? How interesting and ironic, then.
The following e-mail was sent to several standard-ish e-mail addresses within the radioshack.ca domain. You know, legal@, sales@, webmaster@.
Dear Sirs,
It has come to my attention that your trademark, "You've Got Questions, We've Got Answers" is being used, presumably without your authorization, by a Canadian agency which was created to protect the intellectual property rights of others through dispersal of levies on media.
As I've come to associate "You've Got Questions, We've Got Answers" with my friendly and helpful local Radio Shack retailer, as a consumer, I find myself in a most distressing and confusing situation.
Your claim of trademark is available here:
http://www.radioshack.ca/eStore/content/legal.aspx ?language=en-CA
And the confusing use of your trademark is available on the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC)'s website, right here:
http://www.cpcc.ca/English/FAQ/faq.html
I would hope that you will take prompt measures to address this issue.
Thank you,
Lawrence Wade
Toronto, Canada
CPCC: I love you like a cold sore.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
News flash: A new bill is making its way through the sentate. Proposed by the senator from Disney, the Unlawful Music Memorization Protection Act (UMMPA) would protect the recording industry from violations of copyright by people who know all the words to any given song, or can hum it. Extra penalties are to proposed for people who can sing. The new law would levey a charge of 10$US per word for each word of a song that a person can remeber. Harsher penalties would be incurred for humming the tune. Under the new law people would be required to report to thier local music stores on the first of next year to be examined for song lyrics they can remeber and melodies they know. The bill would also transfer the copyright for any existing or newly created piece music to the MPAA, to be held in trust on behalf of the artists.
Cause then I'll smuggle a vanload of iPods and CR-Rs into the country and sell them at a insane markup on campus!
Give people a way to conveniently and securely make small payments, say 5 cents per song, and most will actually pay for content they copy. Make sure that this money actually makes it to the artists, including independents.
somebody on slashdot who can spell solely
to which I included.
Taxing computer hardware and consumables and paying it to the media conglomerates to prevent music piracy is like taxing paper and ink and paying it to banks to prevent counterfeiting .
I've tried to synthesize all the relevant comments from this article. So, if you live in Canada, copy/paste this letter to your MP. CC a copy to majeau.claude@cb-cda.gc.ca, who is the secretary-general listed in the PDF file at http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs/proposed/c09032002 -b.pdf
u se/PostalCode.asp?Source=SM
0 02 -b.pdf
...... music and advertising industries.
NOTE: Joe Clark is my MP - find out who your MP is at this location: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/ho
Joe Clark
Member of Parliament
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
March 12, 2002
Dear Joe,
I have been reading about the proposed increase in tariffs for blank recordable media (tapes, CDs, DVDs, Hard Drives, RAM, etc.). I have read through the supplement to the Canada Gazette outlining this plan at the following Government of Canada web site:
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs/proposed/c09032
and have some feedback. Hopefully you will share my concerns and will accept the task of expressing these and other objections more formally to the Copyright Board.
Shortly but sweetly, here is my list of objections thus far:
1: The tariff will now apply to devices used to transport and non-permanently store music. RAM and hard drives are not a permanent, single use storage medium, as are cassettes (short usable life) and CDs. This is an extension beyond what I believe is the logical scope of the original tariff, and the potential to future extension to similar devices is frightening (cables, computers, internet access). This is the second increase/extension since Bill C-32 in 1997. I wish I had been paying attention then.
2: My money is going to support record companies lost profit even if I am using the technology fairly, and even if I am using the media to record something other than music. Why BMG should get $.03 every time I make a computer backup or create a disc of pictures is beyond me. The Government is taxing the people in an effort to offset the people stealing from the music companies. There's no mystery here, which gives us 3.
3: Now that the Government has clarified their role as the tax collectors on piracy by fortifying the tariff of 2000, it gives the perception of tacit permission to illegally copy music. After all, the citizens of Canada are paying the music companies for the (implied) right to pirate music.
There is an ethical aspect to this question: taxing storage products on the sole reason that they may be used for piracy is a way to legitimize said piracy (i.e. if you already paid for what you may illegally copy, then why not do it?).
Additionally, there is a "constitutional" aspect: it's a bit shocking to see a government protect private interests, and more, actively help said private interests to bend laws and consumers rights to make more money.
4: This is a horrible situation for independent artists. Now the recording industry is receiving more money, while the independent artists themselves are giving it to the recording industry by buying the blank media to promote their work.
5: This proposed tariff increase will have a chilling effect on legitimate uses of blank recordable media, specifically within the technology industry, which uses blank recordable CD-R's by the truckload, but only for backing up computer data, not music. In effect, all businesses that use CD-R technology to backup their computers will be subsidizing the music industry, at the expense of their own legitimate businesses.
6: This proposed tariff increase is inconsistently applied. For example, in the Definitions section of the aforementioned supplement to the Canada Gazette states that a blank audio recording medium is defined as follows:
2. (a)(iv) Removable electronic memory cards, removable flash
memory storage media of any type, and removable micro-
hard drives (Microdrive and any similar removable hard
drive);
I feel this definition to be overly broad and leaves excessive room for interpretation, and seriously impedes other legitimate uses. For example, my digital camera has a removable memory card, but no microphone or speakers, so it would obviously be impossible to use my digital camera to illegally copy music. However, I still end up subsidizing the music industry by using my digital camera to take photographs of my flower garden. If I don't have to pay a subsidy to the music industry to photograph my flower garden with my 35mm film camera, why must I pay the music industry a subsidy when I use a digital camera?
The same document also states:
(vii) Non-removable hard drives incorporated into an MP3
player or into any similar device with an internal hard
drive that is intended for use primarily to record and play
music; and
I recently purchased a second laptop computer, because my first laptop was getting a bit "long in the tooth". I now have two laptop computers with removable hard drives. The new one I use for manage my personal finances. Since the older laptop is rather slow by comparison, I have started using it to play music that I have legally purchased. However, when I bought the laptop several years ago, it's primary use was for personal financial management, not for listening to legally purchased music. Currently, neither of my laptops require payment of a tariff, but the proposed increases would require payment.
This is an unworkable proposal - how can my laptops be taxed? At the time of purchase, neither of them were "intended for use primarily to record and play music", and would therefore be exempt at time of purchase. My point here is the statement "intended for use primarily to record and play music" is overly broad, and I fear that if this tariff increase is passed, that it will open the door to permit all hard drives to be taxed, regardless of whether they're used to illegally copy music, or manage the personal finances of private citizens, or used to run our nation's air traffic control system. Taken even further, I suppose that pencils and paper, although their legitimate uses are numerous, could conceivably be used to write down the lyrics and musical notation of a copyrighted piece of music - will I have to pay a subsidy to the music industry the next time I want to write you a letter on plain old-fashioned paper?
7: One of benefits of living in the riding of Calgary Centre is the proximity to downtown Calgary, and the ability to walk or cycle to work every day. As such, I don't own a car. Some day I will have to pay $21 per spoke on my bike so that the oil and car companies will be fairly compensated. With logic like that used in Bill C-32 ('97) and the extensions, it's bound to happen some day.
8: Copyright is for a fixed term. This kind of tax implies that maximum copyright duration is respected, thus making large numbers of songs eventually fall into the public domain. However, the same government that created the tax does not seem to be inclined to enforce this kind of duration.
9: As a whole, the entire tariff is blatantly anti-consumer and holds the interests of the recording industry above the public interest. I draw your attention to the following excerpts:
The levy is payable on all media that quailify, without regard to end use. No purpose is served by asking that the tariff include a mechanism that would allow those who can prove that they use qualifying media for purposes other than reproducing musical works to be exempted from payment or to receive a refund.
The above excerpt basically states that all Canadian citizens are presumed guilty of copyright infringement without benefit of due process of law. To add insult to injury, the following excerpt
CPCC may waive the levy on sales to
is a blatant caving in to corporate interests without considering the interests of the public. Think about how this will affect small business and individuals who rely on CDs to backup data.
Your faithful constituent,
your_name_here
your_address_here
phone: (xxx)xxx-xxxx
email: you@youremail.com
cc: majeau.claude@cb-cda.gc.ca
I don't live in Canada, but I think it's important to show my disapproval nevertheless. Hopefully if Canada gets enough negative response, a similar tariff won't be proposed in other countries.
Are there any addresses (e-mail or otherwise) that I should write to?
I know you're talking about Canada, but in United States copyright law, the concept of Fair Use is as follows:
1. Anyone may make legal Fair Use of a work; the copyright holder does NOT have the exclusive right to such a use. (See Betamax ruling, also the wording in the law that says explicitly that such use is "not infringing".)
2. The copyright holder doesn't have an exclusive right to Fair Uses because the Congress / public never granted such a right in the first place.
Therefore no compensation is due.
Paying copyright holders for Fair Use would be like giving away $1000 to someone (the original grant of copyright) to try to motivate them to do something useful, and then giving them another $500 as a payment for being "allowed" to keep the rest of your property. That is, it would be absurd on its face.
(The end user) != (The end user). Because one is the end user of the entertainment industry's products, and another is the end user of blank media. The entertainment industry is accomplishing a cost transfer, forcing producers/consumers in a different industry to pay for their profits.
Thats silly, really, I live on the Can/Am boarder and I don't know ANYONE who crosses the boarder for beer. Liquor maybe, but beer, no.
I mean a trip across the 1000 Island bridge outside of Gananoque, Ont (just east of Kingston, which is east of Toronto....) costs $3 each time across ($6 bucks round trip), and how likely are you going to be able to smuggle a trunk load of beer across without the customs guys not noticing YOUR FREAKING CAR LOOKS LIKE AN INVERSE HOT ROD! I mean a trunk filled with beer has to weigh in very heavy. Not to mention the clinking sounds.
I think the intrepretation is wrong, what happens is, Canadiens are visiting the US, during their visit they want to drink beer, all to common pastime. They look at what is available, then they buy Canadien beer.
I think its shameful that this has anything to do with music. Is that what music is about?
I am unique, just like you, and you, and you...
I used to live in Canada. They threatened to do this 2-3 years ago as I recall... but for some reason did not.
Finally, the insanity of it all has come to light. What a shame.
I also remember that when cigarettes when to $8 a pack, smuggling skyrocketed, and the government backed off so they were back down to the $4 range (don't know what they are now up there). I hope the same thing happens with CDR's, etc...
Here's the text of the letter I sent to Claude Majeau. I doubt it will do much good, but at least I earned the right to complain about it when the new tax is levied. So, to the rest of you people on Slashdot passively complaining about it, quit whining and do something! Dear Mr. Majeau: I am an unsigned musician living in Vancouver, British Columbia. I have recorded several CDs which I sell when I perform my work and give to friends and family. Your proposed taxes on blank recording media, intended to give money back to companies who lose revenues due to copyright violations will have the opposite effect in my case. Why should the taxes added to media that I use to distribute my own work be funneled into the bank accounts of large corporations who are, in effect, my competition? It is the responsibility of government to levy taxes in order to fund the programs that improve life for the governed, not to levy taxes so that powerful corporations may improve their bottom line. This new tax will punish those who copy their media for personal use on an equal level with those who actively pirate music. This is tantamount to taxing pens and paper on the off-chance that someone might use them to copy out a book. Punishing the entire populace for the transgressions of a few should be beneath the government of a country like Canada. The proposed tax on portable .mp3 players, in particular, is ridiculous. This tax will nearly double the cost of many popular units. Furthermore, I submit that portable .mp3 players are in no way responsible for the loss of revenue to Canadian artists. Indeed, many bands release their music solely in .mp3 format or make it freely available on the internet. This tax is making it more difficult for independent Canadian bands to get heard, while channeling more money into record companies. Are musicians who do not appear on the Juno awards of so little consequence? If not, why is their money going to be paying for those who do get famous?
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Cameron Widen
5515 Buchanan St.
Burnaby, BC
V5B 2R8
nerdup@shaw.ca
http://www.mp3.com/clockwork_v01
Before everyone gets up in arms, keep in mind that this is only a proposed levy. The bill has not been enacted and may not ever be. It is misleading and irresponsible to write that Canada WILL impose this levy until, and if, the bill becomes law.
http://www.sycorp.com/petition.htm
This petition influenced the outcome of the last blank recording media levy here in Canada. You'd do well to sign it now and get as many people as you know to sign it.
"The illegal we can do right now; the unconstitutional will take a little longer." --Henry Kissinger
... every day?
The amount being contemplated to let a bunch of fossil non-producers (Has the RIAA EVER produced an album? Has the MPAA EVER made a movie?) protect their turf is insane.
There must be terabytes if not petabytes backed up everyday. Every fucking day. All to CD-ROMs because that's cheaper and much faster than mag tape. What do you think banks and insurance companies and large (>500 employes,) corporations use?
That's is going to send the xxAA's revenues sky rocketing. They'l get more money in a year that they have earned, EVER.
Then there'll be congressional investigations. And I wouldn't want to be Valenti after his HMO jacks up ALL our rates to pay for the back up mnedia.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
If you're Canadian you have a right to officially object. I got this of of http://www.goldfishlegs.com (the forum). You need to follow this template for it to be considered an official objection, otherwise it's just a comment.
[message template]
send to: Claude Majeau majeau.claude@cb-cda.gc.ca
[you need these first paragraphs to have your letter considered as a formal complaint]
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.
I do not wish to take part in the pre-hearing conference on May 23, however I do wish for my objections to be made part of the official records of these proceedings.
[insert your objections here. Make them clear and consice, state your reasons for objection, etc]
Thank you,
[your name]
[your address]
[your phone and fax #]
[your email address]
[end message template]
Just to clear things up, this is an INCREASE. It covers ALL media, with separate categories for CD-R Audio and CD-R Data ($1.23/$0.59 per disc, from the current $0.77/$0.21 per disc, all prices Canadian, multiple by 0.6 to estimate US$)
0 00-b.pdf) is a sad fact of life. With the now rocky bottom price of the media itself, the levy will effectively be 60% of the retail price, which is just ridiculous. The copyright board talks about a potential grey market starting up, but found no evidence for it. They obviously didn't learn the lesson with cigarette taxes - if it goes up too much, people will smuggle because there's just too much profit involved.n s-b.pdf) is stated quite clearly, and it's no surprise that most of the points conceded originated from the plaintiff - Canadian Private
As a Canadian, seeing this levy increase every single year (http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs/certified/c16122
The reason for their decision (http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/c22012001reaso
Copying Collective (CPCC). CPCC is a close equivlent of the BSA for music.
I'm not sure if the music industry realizes that it's heading for self-destruction in its present form, and thus want to cash out before the scheme collapses.
I for one will be stockpiling CD-R and doing private sales (er.. free CD-R with purchase of magic pen?) because with a market of 100+ million CD-R's, the demand for el cheapo CD-R's are assured. With the prices as it is, a comparable industry is gasoline - taxed heavily by the government, used in general revenues, and bought in the grey/black market if the price is right (purple gas comes into mind). The only difference is, it's easier to police gas station for infractions then an individual for 100,000 blank CD-R's.
This is obviously needed so whores like Hilary Rosen can continue to live in style without actually working.
The artists? Screw them, let them get real jobs. The greedy bastards act like RIAA owes them something.
So far none of the money stolen from various parties via the courts over the last couple of years has made it into the hands of the people who do the actual work.
Minister of Justice Sheila Copps has announced that,
beginning in 2003, all Canadians will be
required to spend three days a year in prison.
"It's just become too costly to identify the few
actual criminals among the population.
The only efficient way to make sure we punish
the guilty is to punish absolutely everyone.
A few people may object, but they're obviously criminals in the first place.
The rest will go quietly; they understand that we know what's best for them."
Write a formal objection (which adheres to the government's guidelines, otherwise it will be considered a 'comment') If enough people object, they will have to alter, or at least consider altering, the proposed "levy." The simple fact of the matter is that this is just not on. The government is simply trying to find a way to tax the phenomenon personal computing. The next logical step is a tax on bandwidth. For every gigabyte downloaded, it's safe to assume that some, lets say 10 meg, is ill gotten gains. Perhaps a tax of $4.95 per gig d/l would sort that out. The tax could be applied retroactively, and could be levied on @home and other ISPs, and then transfered on the the customers (plus a little extra for their trouble, of course) in the form of a grossly inflated bill.
I see an add! I guess its time to subscribe. Either that or repedatly click on it.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;