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.

51 of 759 comments (clear)

  1. I see a market in smuggling MP3 players. by w3woody · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:I see a market in smuggling MP3 players. by red5 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You know canadians will actualy drive to the US to buy canadian beer and smuggle it back to canada.

      --
      I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.
    2. Re:I see a market in smuggling MP3 players. by ObitMan · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well Canadians gan get all the MP3 players from us they want.
      We in return want Canadian high capacity toilets.
      The low water capacity toilets do not flush sufficiently for American (yes the whole continent)style loads.

      --
      Who run Barter Town?
    3. Re:I see a market in smuggling MP3 players. by mdecerbo · · Score: 3, Informative
      >We in return want Canadian high capacity toilets.

      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.

  2. Does it mean we can pirate legally by anandsr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Does it mean we can pirate legally by gregfortune · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

    2. Re:Does it mean we can pirate legally by cgenman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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)

    3. Re:Does it mean we can pirate legally by gilroy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    4. Re:Does it mean we can pirate legally by PhotoGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.
      Yet another sensational, inappropriate analogy on /. Imagine... :-)

      A better anology is that "since shoplifting is common and unstoppable, stores will raise their prices to compensate." Which is exactly what they do today. So it's not unprecedented.

      Now, in the case of stores, it is within their power to control shoplifting, and they have to compete price-wise with other stores, so it's subject to free economy forces and such.

      In the case of this tax (which is ludicruous, in my opinion), it's would be applied across the board by law, and no doubt distributed in unfair and political ways. If they tax data CD's (whatever *that* distinction really means), then it's going to seriously hurt many consumers and businesses who rely upon low cost CD's for distribution, backup, and so forth.

      The level of the tax is also ridiculous, in relation to the cost of a blank CD. If it were 5% or whatever, it wouldn't be such a show stopper, just an annoyance. In Canada, almost every product is subject to a 15% HST tax. And income taxes are over 50% over $50K or so. Adding a 20% tax on top of that for CD's is insane.

      You have to earn something like $4.00 of salary, to be able to afford a $1.00 CD. (Of course, one doesn't have to sell your house if you have a serious prolonged illness with no insurance :-)

      -me
      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    5. Re:Does it mean we can pirate legally by ichimunki · · Score: 3, Informative

      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
  3. It Hasn't Been Decided Yet by citizenc · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:It Hasn't Been Decided Yet by DataSquid · · Score: 5, Informative

      Deadline for written comment is May 8, 2002. So get writing! And for the love of God, use paper, much better impact. Remember, you don't need a stamp to mail your MP, so enjoy the free ride :) Look up an address here.

      --

      DataSquid.net, a little about me.
    2. Re:It Hasn't Been Decided Yet by smallpaul · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, you can write to your Member of Parliament but the PDF also says how you can directly comment to the board. You need to read it to understand how to have the most impact. There are certain arguments that they feel they cannot accept because of the overriding law. I think the weakest point would be the idea that a removable flash memory storage device is an "audio recording device." These things are used as much in digital cameras and PDAs as in MP3 players. Once they start expanding the definition in this way they will eventually get to plain old hard drives eventually.

  4. Making it MUCH cheaper to just buy... by neuroticia · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

  5. Public's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Public's fault by gilroy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Blockquoth the poster:

      Worst part is that a tax on cigarrettes would be fought vigorously and there would be national debate


      No, the worst part is, cigarette taxes are use-based (you only pay them if you actually smoke), while these are broad-based (you pay even if you only back up, say, digital photos) -- yet the latter is less controversial than the former.
  6. This is absolutely disgraceful by drsquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This is absolutely disgraceful by seann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Origional Comment here
      Re:Some context is necessary (Score:1)
      by g00z on 4:58 Tuesday 12 March 2002 (#3147848)
      (User #81380 Info | http://www.circleofthunder.com/)
      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.

      --
      "The Wright brothers were the first to fly with a heavier-than-air machine, but boy did they have a lousy plane"

      --
      I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
    2. Re:This is absolutely disgraceful by Richthofen80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
  7. This is ridiculous... by Kopretinka · · Score: 3, Insightful
    OK, I'm European. I've spent a year in the States, though. Oh, and I know this is in Canada, which I thought was saner than the USA, but this is obviously the result of MPAA's and RIAA's boldness.

    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?
  8. Some context is necessary by CmdrTaco+(editor) · · Score: 5, Informative
    Some context is necessary to make this more or less shocking.
    Right now, the tariffs for recordable media are as follows (from http://www.pch.gc.ca/culture/cult_ind/cpb-pdd/arch ives_e.htm):

    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.

    1. Re:Some context is necessary by g00z · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "The Wright brothers were the first to fly with a heavier-than-air machine, but boy did they have a lousy plane"
    2. Re:Some context is necessary by smallpaul · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      We're talking about Canada so I don't know if the RIAA is even involved. There is something in Canada called the CPCC and it exists to collect this money and disburse it. Yes, CD-Rs get taxed at $0.21, which is cheaper than the $0.77 for CD-R Audios. See http://www.cpcc.ca/English/FAQ/faq.html.
  9. the piracy tax by wildcard023 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  10. Be sure to write your law makers by Technician · · Score: 3, Informative

    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!
  11. Not a MP3 player by Peer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  12. One interesting thing about who gets the money.... by phunhippy · · Score: 5, Insightful



    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?

  13. It's only on blank AUDIO media by Technician · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!
  14. It already is by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:It already is by thogard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What would happen if a bunch of Linux coders from Canada sued the goverment agency asking for their cut?

    2. Re:It already is by ParisTG · · Score: 5, Informative
      Nope. Copying music for "personal use" is specifically allowed. See this link.

      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.

      Unless I'm misunderstanding? Please correct me if I am.

    3. Re:It already is by Blymie · · Score: 4, Informative

      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. Re:It already is by CaptJay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, you own a CD. You are allowed to make a copy, BUT NOT TO DISTRIBUTE IT.

      Which is the whole point about copyright: it's about what you can and cannot do with a copy of the work. You cannot distribute copies, but you can enjoy them for your personal benefit.

      In the following process, where do I distribute a copy of the work?
      1- I buy Celine's new CD (yeah right)
      2- I make a backup copy to use in my car (personal use of a copy, perfectly legal)
      3- I lend my CD to a friend (no copying occured, I distributed the original)
      4- My friend makes a copy for his personal use (he didn't copy a copy, he copied the original. hence "for the private use of the person who makes the copy")
      5- I get my original CD back.

      What would be illegal, as dumb as it sounds, is for me to lend/give/sell my backup copy to a friend, since then I would be distributing a copy of the work, which would not be considered for personal use.

      Furthermore, I do not see any text stating you are allowed to lend your CD to others for the purpose of copying.

      I think you get the law backwards. For something to be illegal, the law has to explicitely forbid it, not the other way around. The point is moot anyway, since copyright law restricts what you can do with copies you make of a work, not what you can do with something you legally bought.

      --
      "I remember Y1K, every abacus had to get another bead"
    5. Re:It already is by evil_one · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly right. According to what he's presented, if you do it in private, it's Ok.

      --
      Desperation is a stinky cologne
  15. And... by Iamthefallen · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  16. silver lining Re:It already is by peter+greaves · · Score: 5, Funny

    >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.
  17. Re:Another case of Too Much Government by orcrist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    --
    San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
  18. 400% tax? by qseep · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  19. How is this different from other tariffs? by Bamafan77 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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.

  20. Re:One interesting thing about who gets the money. by phunhippy · · Score: 3, Funny

    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..

  21. Courtney Love? Are you serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  22. Re:One interesting thing about who gets the money. by phunhippy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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! ;)

  23. Don't laugh by jeti · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  24. Hit Your Gov Where It Hurts... by weave · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I live in Delaware. Some little pissant state wedged between many others. We have a hard time raising taxes on stuff because it's well known that people will just go over the border and buy it, which hurts businesses in the state. They cry foul, never passed.

    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.

  25. A tarif on media is NOT legit by SomethingOrOther · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  26. Look at the loophole! by eldurbarn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Look at the loophole! by Keith+McClary · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      Plus, if it's a Canadian "beep" then you should get a slice of the levy money when it's distributed to the "rights owners".

  27. Hack for mp-3 players by alexjohns · · Score: 3, Interesting
    $21 per gigabyte of storage on mp3 players? Well, you can buy a roopaq without a hard disk, then buy the hard disk separately. Hard for Fujitsu or IBM to know you're going to be putting it in an MP3 player. I would imagine if something similar passes in the US, it won't be long before most MP3 players come without built-in storage. You'll just buy flash cards or hard disks separately.

    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?

  28. RESPOND to the REQUEST FOR COMMENTS!!! by FFFish · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  29. Boston Tea Party by chuckw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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*
  30. This just in: New bill before congress by locust · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.