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.

Comments

Does it mean we can pirate legally

[anandsr]

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.

Re:Does it mean we can pirate legally

[gregfortune]

I've got a great idea.

1. Start a business model that bases making money around a product that can easily be duplicated and shared.
2. Cry foul when consumers realize they can share the product easily. (Ignoring the possiblity of a utopian society where everyone is honest)
3. Earn income from your government because you are being cheated.
4. Move an arm of your business to Canada.
5. Repeat Steps 1-3 while expanding to as many countries as necessary.

Ya know, that's a dang nifty idea Wonder if there's any possibility... nah...

Re:Does it mean we can pirate legally

[cgenman]

Blank videocasette tapes in the US are sold with a portion of sales going to the MPAA for lost revenue due to piracy. This does not mean that pirating videos is legal. This means that stopping the casual piracy of videos is unenforceable, and as such consumers are free to illegaly copy videos, and the companies involved have been justly compensated.

The sad thing about all of this is that most of 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?

All that this means is that audio piracy is now a unstoppable institution, and "creators" are being paid by it. It may not be legal, but now it is moral.

(IANAL)

Re:Does it mean we can pirate legally

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

This means that stopping the casual piracy of videos is unenforceable, and as such consumers are free to illegaly copy videos, and the companies involved have been justly compensated.

Since everyone has to pay the levy, and not everyone is pirating, the companies might have been compensated but they have not been justly compensated. This whole model is intrinsically unjust.

Imagine a proposed law that said, since shoplifting is common and unstoppable, all customers at every store will be stopped, background-checked, and strip-searched.

Public's fault

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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 .. unless a major lobbying force and an education campaign happens.

If Canada wants to compete technologically this is a extremely bad move and it will screw over the economy.

This is absolutely disgraceful

[drsquare]

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.

Re:This is absolutely disgraceful

[Richthofen80]

Holy god! someone finally used the 'real' definition of monopoly!
Talk about an abusive monopoly -- this should be the definition in Websters.

This is a monopoly because the government is sanctioning it... no monopoly can exist without the use of force, and the only legal user of force is the government. Normally, the government only uses force in retaliation to protect its citizens who have had force used against them, but here we see otherwise. Monopolies can only exist through the use of force, like here. Here, consumers are forced to fund a company (RIAA/MPAA), they can't chose otherwise. Here, no one can start their own company that makes CD-Rs that are not taxable. This is what a monopoly really is, a company backed by the physical compulsion of a government.

the piracy tax

[wildcard023]

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

One interesting thing about who gets the money....

[phunhippy]

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?

It already is

[Anonymous DWord]

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.

Re:Another case of Too Much Government

[orcrist]

Only by your standards, because you artificially make others' statements into a boolean of 'government interference' OR '! government interference' which would also make the following (hypothetical) person appear to be a hypocrite:

"I am against the government passing a law forcing me to vote Democrat" ('government interference' = FALSE)

"I am a proponent of the government locking away rapists" ('government interference' = TRUE)

Hypocrite!!

I know these examples are extreme; the point is, yes people are selective because they aren't using the same (Libertarian) ruler as you are. The fact is, most people you label as being 'selective' are measuring one view on 'government intervention' when a crime has been commited vs. 'government interference' in anticipation of a hypothetical/potential crime. Try to at least see what kind of ruler others are using.

-chris

Re:Some context is necessary

[g00z]

First -- MOD THIS PARENT UP

Holy crap! Excuse me for being a doubting thomas, but can you point to some evidence about the $0.21 tax on CD-R (Data - not audio). If your right about that, I think I might seek out a lawyer and try to sue the RIAA. I'm not kidding at all.

See, as an indipendent musician, I press my songs to CD-R's that I sell at shows I play, online, and through mail order. Now, I've known about the whole CD-R Audio scam for a while, and that's why I've never purchesed a CD writter that requires one of these taxed CD-R Audio discs. I mean, common! Why should the RIAA, who are by all means my main competitor, get any cut of the money I make off of selling my music? What kind of mafia extortion bullshit is this? But if it's true that regular CD-R's (data) are "taxed" as well, I think the RIAA owes me *ALOT* of money.

Once again, I'm not kidding. Are you an indie musician too, who is using CD-R's as your sales medium? Sue the RIAA. Talk about an abusive monopoly -- this should be the definition in Websters.

Come to think of it, this should piss off more than just musicians. How many companies back up server data (or whatever) onto CD-R? Should record labels get a cut of the money you spend on CD-R's, even though it's used for data?

So, anybody got any links/etc to back up this claim? I think it's time to try to rape the RIAA for some money for a change. Turn the tables, so to speak.