Canadian CD-R Tariff Proposal Explained

Kushana writes: "In this story Slashdot reported on an application by the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC)to increase the tariffs on recordable media (including CD-Rs, DVD-Rs, and cassette tapes) in Canada for 2003-2004. That announcement by the Copyright Board of Canada outlined the new tariffs but did not provide any justification. The Copyright Board has now published a CPCC document (Adobe Acrobat Reader required) that outlines the CPCC's rationale for their proposed increases and new media to be covered." Read below for more details.

"The actual basis of these tariffs is a complex formula that involves (among other things) the percentage of the media sold to consumers, the fee payable to the copyright holders from an average pressed music CD, and the percentage of CD-Rs that end up as coasters. The formula can be found in the document that describes the tariffs for Private Copying 2001-2002 (Adobe Acrobat Reader required).

In the case of CD-Rs, the proposed increase from $0.21/CD-R to $0.59/CD-R is due to an increase in the percentage of CD-Rs bought by consumers (45% to 70% since late 2000), an increase in the percentage of CD-Rs used to copy music (56% to 62% in the same time period), and the advent of 80min CD-Rs that can hold more music. However, there is one more factor.

There is currently a "secondary value" discount on the levy to reflect the fact that copies are worth less than the originals. In the 2001-2002 decision the Board applied a 37.5% discount to that effect. The CPCC now claims that because so few copies are of the whole album (10% by their numbers) the discount should only apply to those."

Comments

Let's Evaluate

[erasmus_]

Let me see if I got this right. The top reasons for raising the tariff from $0.21 to $0.59 per CDR are:

1) Increase in number of users who are purchasing CDRs and using them to copy music.
Ok, and why does this justify raising prices? Since the tariff applies to all CDRs, this means that more people are already paying, and they should be making proportionately more tariff money. How does one justify raising the cost of the product when more people are buying said product?

2) 80 min CDRs are now more popular
Let's see, because of the miniscule rise in the fraction of storage now available, they want to increase the price 2.8 times. Again, I haven't seen this magic formula, but that additional 50MB must sure weigh in heavily.

3) 37.5% discount should not apply because few are copying whole album.
Right, so copies should now be worth even less, as most of them are incomplete. To me, this is an argument for raising the discount instead of lowering it. How do you raise the price for something you're now arguing went down in value?

This whole thing is so screwy.

Re:Let's Evaluate

[Sentry21]

1) Increase in number of users who are purchasing CDRs and using them to copy music.
Ok, and why does this justify raising prices? Since the tariff applies to all CDRs, this means that more people are already paying, and they should be making proportionately more tariff money. How does one justify raising the cost of the product when more people are buying said product?

The logic is that instead of 45% of the CDs being bought by home users, 70% now are, and only 30% are for non-home use (i.e. data backups at work, etc.). It's not more in numbers, it's more percentage of the numbers.

As for the rest, the increase in 6 minutes of audio will allow between one and two average-length songs to fit on one CD (instead of ending up with 71 minutes and two 4 1/2 minute songs, you can fill the CD).

The last one makes no sense though. Perhaps it's the logic that people aren't buying CDs for whole albums, and therefore they shouldn't be discounted for making crappy copies of whole albums. Who knows.

--Dan

Taxation Without Representation

[jo42]

And what about the independent artists that use CD-R media to release their work? Now they have to support commercial artists - which don't support them back in turn. My, my this truly sucks, don't it, eh?

Since you are paying for it, is it legal now?

[Faldgan]

I don't know about everyone else, but I don't particularly mind paying (even paying the record companies!) to listen to music. What I do mind is the amount I have to pay for music I don't want. I like a few songs by dozens of bands, but they want me to pay for the full album. Not a chance. If I can pay my $21per Gb to be legal on my MP3 player, and I can play ANY music I want, and change music as I wish, I'll pay it. Gladly. But if you want to charge me, make me pay for the music, and then still call me a criminal, then f*ck you.

Re:Since you are paying for it, is it legal now?

[plcurechax]

You can legally make copies of recorded music for your own personal use. You won't be called a
criminal for that.

Yes you can copy audio legally for your own pesonal use, part VIII of the Copyright Act.

But the greedy media mogals will still call you a criminal though.