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.
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.
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?"
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.
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!
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!
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.
Talking about this, French government, that added a tax on CDR and CDRW since February 2001, is considering some tax on hard drives now...
See vachealait (french link) for details.
you shouldn't be so surprised; here in Spain we will be having a similar tax, and we're also Europe, you know.
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.
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.
Unless I'm misunderstanding? Please correct me if I am.
"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."
Sorry to confuse you with the FACTS, but what you are referring to is contrary to the Copyright Act and is a criminal offence. At least - that's what I learned at *my* law school.
And NO - we don't have a judicially recognized "home taping" fair use recognition in Canada, even of discs you purchased. The Americans recognize such a right - Canada does not.
******************
Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42
42. (1) Every person who knowingly
(a) makes for sale or rental an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists,
(b) sells or rents out, or by way of trade exposes or offers for sale or rental, an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists,
(c) distributes infringing copies of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists, either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
(d) by way of trade exhibits in public an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists, or
(e) imports for sale or rental into Canada any infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists
is guilty of an offence and liable
(f) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both, or
(g) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding one million dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.
.Robert
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)
rtrifts wrote: but what you are referring to is contrary to the Copyright Act and is a criminal offence. Sorry, but your conclusion doesn't follow from your evidence. In the act you quote, the terms prohibit "makes for sale or rental", "sells or rents out, or by way of trade..", "distributes .. either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright", "by way of trade exhibits
" and "imports for sale or rental".
A more credible conclusion is that one cannot
make copies for sale, or so many free copies as
to make the record unsalable. This is different
from making personal copies.
It's also unusual to cite a breach of the Copyright Act as being
a criminal offense: it's traditionally considered
part of the civil law, while matters under the
Criminal Code of Canada are traditionally considered to be criminal law.
davecb@spamcop.net
I trimmed the opening and closing. Here's the meat. Not that good, but you asked for it.
0 02 -b.pdf
I have been reading today about the increase in tariffs for recordable media
(tapes, CDs, DVDs, Hard Drives, RAM, etc.). I have read through the
document outlining this plan here:
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 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 but 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 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, I can feel justified that the
mechanism for control is in place, and feel right to take advantage of it.
After all, I'm paying the companies for the (implied) right to pirate music.
Let the good times roll.
4: This is a horrible situation for independent artists. Now the recording
industry is receiving more money, while they themselves are giving it to
them by buying the blank media to promote their work.
5: 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.
I really should be working now. Thanks for your time.
DataSquid.net, a little about me.
You left out subsection(2). If you look carefully, it's not legal to make a copy for the purpose of distributing, whether or not for trade (in other words, distributing for free isn't legal either). So, you own a CD. You are allowed to make a copy, BUT NOT TO DISTRIBUTE IT.
Furthermore, I do not see any text stating you are allowed to lend your CD to others for the purpose of copying. In fact, if you record music for the purpose of distributing, you've broken the law. S
So, you copy a cd, and lend it to a friend so they can copy it. Boom, you've broken the law because you've made a copy for the purpose of distributing that copy to others for copying.
This is all probably in there so that you can buy a cd, make copies of the cd for personal use (such as to play in the car, you cd player, etc), and lend the original to friends to make copies. That is, as long as they make the copy to keep for themselves. Anything else is a copy for the purpose of distributing.
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
Limitation
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.
1997, c. 24, s. 50.
"4. Section 80 does not legalize (a) copies made for the use of someone other than the person making the copy; and (b) copies of anything else than sound recordings of musical works. It does legalize making a personal copy of a recording owned by someone else. " (emphasis added)
Check out the document here.
Courtney Love may have been infringing on Steve Albini's intellectual property rights when she delivered that speech, and Salon is aiding and abetting! I'm kidding of course, and I'm glad that she managed to get this issue some attention and that Salon continues to provide that resource.
But please-- if you are going to read that minimal treatement of the issue-- consider also the Steve Albini version at Negativland's Intellectual Property Issues page. That page has many more essays by real artists that have been involved in a great deal of legal wrangling surrounding copyright and have been at it since the early 80's.
I do not have a signature
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)
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.
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
Here you go. (Slogan: Tired of flushing twice?)
Apparently the toilets are shipped from the Canadian side of Niagara falls, for $70. Ironically, one of the brands they sell is "American Standard".
They're actually imported legally, which makes sense-- toilets would seem kinda tough to smuggle.
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))]
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?
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.