Slashdot Mirror
Canadians [Will] Pay Levy on MP3 Players - Updated
Capt. Canuck writes "According to this Toronto Star story,
the Canadian Copyright Board may approve a 20% levy on electronic media tomorrow,
including MP3 players and hard drives. With the Canadian Dollar
rising and this on the horizon, maybe now is the right time to get that
iPod." Update: 12/12 16:33 GMT by M : rcpitt writes "The Canadian Copyright Board has (finally - a year late) issued its ruling on the latest round of blank media levy - the controversial (in the rest of the world as well as Canada) private "tax" on recordable media used to copy music which proceeds go to the music artists in Canada. The ruling by the board and a press release were posted to the Board's web site at 10AM Ottawa (CST) today. The ruling continues the levy amounts from the previous 2 year period (2001-2002) to the end of this period (2003-2004) at the same amounts as previously set but adds new levies on portable (MP3) digital audio recorders of from CDN$2/unit to CDN$25/unit depending on internal storage capacity."
With the Canadian Dollar rising and this on the horizon, maybe now is the right time to get that iPod."
...
Or you could just get one from a country outside Canada. Say, like one that's big on technology, with small(er) taxes, not too far from Canada and with a currency that's falling through the floorboards
Hint: it's not Mexico, Greenland or Russia.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
First, the blank-tape tax.
Then, the blank-CD tax (20$ for 10 blank CDs? Madness!)
The proposed internet bandwidth tax. Grrr!
Now a hard-drive tax?
I'm going to have to pirate music extra-hard from now on, just to get my money's worth!
It looks better than the previous scheme, which charged a fixed amount per megabyte of storage.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
As usual, the moderators seem to be bringing their own baggage to the table.
This is a perfectly-legitimate opinion. It's a howlingly-stupid opinion, but it's still on topic, coherently-stated, and worthy of discussion. Unpopular opinions are not always trolls. Mod it back up, please.
AC comments get piped to
Luckily I live right near the boarder (Thunder Bay Ontario). If I want that ipod I just take a trip to Duluth for the weekend, take my laptop, load it up with mp3's and pretend I had it all along. The strong Canadian doller will make this cheaper than buying it in Canada :D
History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it - Sir Winston Churchill
Don't throw tax money at a problem and hope that it will go away. And, don't believe a politician when they say that the tax is going to be used to discourage the use of something. They know very well that the usage rates won't drop much, which means pure profit. You can tax beer, but everybody still likes to get drunk. Most importantly, when you have people who want to tax items that don't directly have to do with the problem in order to make money, it might be a good idea to relocate to another country, because the people in charge of yours might be getting a little bit greedy and a little bit socialist at the same time. That's quite ironic, because isn't socialism supposed to prevent from greed? It seems like that's just being collectively greedy. Anyways, be careful where you move, though, you wouldn't want to move to another country that's just as bad if not worse, right? You could learn a lot from a Libertarian.
Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
That's the question that I had. Assuming that this 'tax' is being distributed to the copyright holders, to pay for the music I am assumed to be pirating, shouldn't that pirating now be allowed? Afterall, I have now paid for it. Or is this just going to be another way for the RIAA/MPAA to milk people dry? Now, granted, I am lucky (in this case) that I live in the US, but how long before our congress decides that this is a good idea and impliments it here?
At the moment, I don't download music (I just don't care enough), but if something like this were to go into effect here, I think I would probably start downloading music, just to make up for the cost.
Got to hand it to the people that thought this one up, they may have created a self fullfilling prophesy. Assume everyone pirates music, so charge a tax for it. People either think that its now OK, becuase they are paying for it, or people get pissed about it and start pirating music, just to get their money's worth. Suddenly, everyone is pirating music, and the initial assumption becomes correct.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Does this mean that everytime I take a picture with my Canon D30 camera I will see a cut of the 20% lavy. I mean it is my copyrighted work on the CF card.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Why bother with an iPod? I have my Linux powered PDA. Serves very well as a music player, and actually has other uses as well. And these days you can pick up an older one is dirt cheap.
>Without copyright, nobody would have a legal right to prevent others from copying music, and thus would have no justification for asking for a tariff on equipment for recording music
How does the legal right to prevent others to do something allow them to set up and benefit from a tax?
I honestly fail to see how copyright becomes this thing where we assume that all hard-drives are used to infringe on it.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
This is nothing less than extortion. When ever some "special interest" group complains about some imagined disparity, our government responds by promptly caving in to whatever they want. If this trend continues Canada will be a third world country in no time. If there are any politicians out there reading this, grow a set and tell these "special interest" groups to get a life, get a job, and earn money. Starving artists, if your "art" was any good, you wouldn't be starving. To all Canadian's lets download every piece of music out there, we're being forced to pay for it anyway
That's utterly ridiculous. You've jumped to the other end of the argument entirely, ignoring a more rational level in the middle. Abolishing copyright will very likely reduce the amount of quality art available quite drastically; the publishers should be looking to alternate sale methods rather than draconian tariffs and lawsuits. Abolishing copyrights will solve the problem only as much as this will.
Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
I completely disagree. The problem here is the government: it's using copyright as an excuse to suck money out of a growing market sector. Abolishing copyright would only force the Canadian government to search for something else to exploit.
When you litter and get a $50 fine, it's not you "buying a ticket to litter" though that might be the effect.
Your analogy is flawed though -- the fine/ticket's given to you after you litter.
Different analogy: There's a park that's always getting filled with trash. Finally, the government puts a gate in front of the park, and charges everybody who enters it a $5 "trash fee" because they figure you're going to litter.
Can you litter then?
Ok - not like this is a lone cry in the wilderness, but this just sickens me.
This does happen elsewhere. We pay for increased insurance rates when other people have more accidents. The prices in our stores go up when other people shoplift. The difference? The government doesn't raise the prices on tangentially connected items in order to compensate.
I'm not screwin around here. Several years ago I bought a hand-held dictaphone that used normal-sized cassette tapes. Sure, it's bulkier, but had a huge advantage -- those mini-tapes were mondo-expensive. I'd buy ten cheapo no-name standard cassette tapes (all I'd need for a lecture, etc) and I'd be set. Enter the levy -- doubling the price or more of the cheap tapes. May as well get pricey ones if I'm gonna get charged a flat fee per tape. And out goes the entire purpose of buying that particular model. Punished for an entirely erroneous assumption. And let's remember: mixed-tapes were legal, too. Mass production and use (as some DJ's would do) was a concern for the powers that be, but fair-use was still fair-use. Now we get slammed whether we break the law or no.
Is this a democracy or not? Who got to have a say on this issue?
It seems that one fair way to proceed is for the government to levy these taxes and then tell everyone to go nuts, copy everything you want, because it's all paid for. The problem seems to be that the copyright holders want it both ways: to collect the tax money but still have copying be illegal.
A better case would be if you walk into a resturant and order food. You have to pay, as soon as you order, a $50 "broken plates" fee. The fee is non-refundable regardless if you break anything or not.
Kinda tempting to actually break something, huh?
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
As a Canadian, this really pisses me off (fortunately, I bailed from North American over 4 years ago). I have tons of MP3's, but they are all ripped from CD's which I purchased and legally own. I do not share my music with anyone. (It's not that I am somehow morally above breaking copyright law -- it's that my girlfriend is a musician who would kill me if I violated copyright ;-) ). Anyway, bottom line is, if they want to impose a 20% surcharge on electronic media which I use for completely legal purposes, then they should rebate me on purchases of CD and other copyright material. :-p
While there are parts of the current copyright laws that need modification there is no reason to abolish it all together and much reason to keep the parts of it that encourage the making of creative works.
For example, attribution is a VERY important part of the copyright laws, that should in no way be abolished. Removing the laws that guarantee an author, musician, artist, etc. recognition for their works is the surest way to halt the creation of new works.
Destroying the laws that allow the creator of copyrighted works to make money off of his works is also very likely to reduce or even eliminate the incentive to create new works and the ability to make a living doing so.
What needs altering in the copyright laws are the sections dealing with work for hire and the length of time that copyrights last; these sections need to be altered to deter abuse of the copyright laws by, in today's world, large corporations, and to make it harder for artists to be exploited.
The destruction of copyright may seem to provide relief for the current issues concerning it, but that is no more a viable solution than disallowing the creation of works, so that there would be no artists to exploit.
Your analogy is completely wrong. When you litter and get a $50 fine, that is for past misconduct. If you litter again and are observed again, you will get another $50 fine. Furthermore, fines don't go to private companies. And anti-litter laws are a choice that we all make as a community.
You don't get fined $50 preemptively because there is a presumption that you will litter.
These taxes, however, are charged indiscriminately, whether or not I have actually pirated anything. The justification for them is a business justification and their proceeds go to private companies.
If the government forces me to pay $100/year to some commercial recording or music outfit, I certainly feel morally justified in getting my money's worth by actually copying that much music. After all, the justification for transferring that money to that company is that they assume that I'm doing it anyway. Whether I can legally do so is another question.
This whole idea of compromise means the industry gets at least half a loaf, right out of the pockets of many people who never recorded a song in their lifetime. People who believe in compromise are the worst sort to have on regulation boards.
And taxing MP3 players is absurd. If you buy the music you should be able to listen to it on your iPod or any other player without additional charge. It's not like you're suddenly listening to it on your home stereo, car stereo, and iPod at the same time.
Canada needs a popular revolution, with a few decapitations thrown in for good measure!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I'm not Canadian, but this is what I think about the issue: If they start charging such exorbitant taxes they are just sending the message that it's okay to pirate the music because you're already paying for it in taxes.
Of course, this would be completely unfair to those of us who make enough money and have the moral character to actually PURCHASE our own music. The additional tax would be like welfare to support those who didn't feel like they should have to pay for music.
Most people probably don't use digital media to store music on anyway. Flash memory cards are primarily used in digital cameras, hard drives are used in PC's, CD-R's can be used for back-up and fair use rights, DVD-R's are used for making home movies from camcorders. Taxing any of these just to give free money to someone who didn't earn it is just plain wrong.
My suggestion? They should just do more to educate consumers about copyright law, and why it's important.
No, he's not confused. He's saying since the Canadian Dollar is going up, the price of an iPod is lower than it has been in a while. Now, since these dumbass levy's are going in effect soon, he's saying that anyone wanting to buy one to get one while the loonie is strong and there aren't any extra levys on it.
Rise in traffic accidents (and you're not one of them) --> increase in your insurance to pay for it.
Paid to your insurance broker, not for to a third-party. In music-world this would be equivilent to putting the levy on commercial discs, not recordable media.
Increase in shoplifting --> you pay more for the goods in that store as prices rise.
Same as above. You are not paying the government a "shoplifting levy" at every store you buy from, you pay more on the merchandise in a particular store.
That's a load of crap. Copyright only serves to restrict access. It's a method of exclusion. It keeps people out if they don't "play the game". It's censorship(-1, Redundant) Abolishing copyright will give us all access to more really horrible music, etc., but it won't reduce the amount of good music. On the contrary, it would allow more good musicians to get the their work out without having to go through a middleman. It would be easier to self publish, but this is something that powerful people don't want. These kind of people want to control what gets published, and copyright is(was?) the perfect way to do it
You really are talking complete and utter crap.
Copyright in no way whatsoever prevents an author or musician from publishing their own work. I can write a book this year, publish it myself next year, and the only thing preventing me (the guy doing it by himself with no middleman) from being royally screwed by the big guys is copyright.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Not quite. The "media tax" basically grants you another license to make a copy for personal use. It is, however, a blanket tax. Meaning every blank media sold is subjected to it.
Now you see the obvious problem: people who purchase CDs for reasons other than musical recordings also pay this tax (e.g. yours truly). And while the CRIA calls it a levy, everybody else calls it freeloading.
Justice Breyer, back before he was on the Supreme Court, wrote a paper on that, where he concluded that the costs of copying were high enough so that artists/authors didn't really need copyright, at least in some areas. Books, for example, usually made most of their sales soon after release, and by the time someone, using the best technology of the day, could get a knockoff out, it would not be profitable.
However, the costs of copying have gone WAY down since then. At the time Breyer wrote, it was close. The results now would alsmost certainly go the other way.
Yep. Under section (as I recall) 80 of the Copyright Act, you may make a copy of any recording, in whole or in part, for personal use. However, you may not make a copy for anyone else's use, nor may they make a copy for your use. You have to be the one making a copy from the original format (CD, etc).
You have that right regardless of whether or not this levy is in place. That right has been around for a long long time.
The levy is not a tax on doing that. So what is it a tax on? Because if you're being taxed for doing something, you may as well go ahead and do it.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Copyright has only one good purpose. That's prevent other people from claiming credit for your work. Everything else is just evil.(but profitable)
Spoken like someone who has never created anything of worth in their life.
Copyright is essential. It gives the average Joe who is good at - say - writing or music the chance to elevate themselves and get enough money to do *other things*. Otherwise, everyone would be working 24x7 just to make ends meet.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Why not a CPU bandwidth levy? After all, something has to decode those MP3 files and play them. Oh, and a sound card levy, and a RAM levy and ...
The old levy is bad enough, but the proposed ones are obscene. I agree with you. If the new levy goes through, or an ISP bandwidth tax, I swear that I will download a P2P program and start downloading MP3s for the first time! I'll tell my son to go ahead and download what he likes -- we're paying for it already. Until now, I haven't downloaded any of this stuff they claim the levy is for. I don't have a reason, and I feel the artists should get compensated for their work. But why buy audio CDs anymore if I am already paying for the "right" to download?
I have only ever made MP3s of my own purchased CDs, and then only rarely. More than 95% of the time, I am backing up my own #$@#$ copyrighted data -- same for the 512MB Compact Flash I use to create my OWN pictures with my digital camera. Have these people no pity for the home users that are creating their own copyrighted material? No pity for new artists that just want to make a demo CD and distribute it as cheaply as possible?
These people are nuts.
Time to write another letter to my MP.
I like to record my own music also, and the though of paying the RIAA for the privilege of doing so is galling. I am glad it hasn't come to that in the US yet. It is bad enough that I have to pay the RIAA everytime my wife uses a tape recorder to record notes to herself. I'll have to get her one of those gadgets that record to digital memory. (But tape recorders are dirt cheap.)
Why do you Canadians put up with taxes levied by corporations? Oh wait . . .
Rather than saying pirating must be allowed, I think it should say the reverse -- copying MUST be allowed, and copyrighted content and playback systems must be set up in a way that the content can be copied for personal use in a manner which retains the full value of the content -- ie, not just BS analog copies on yesterday's mediums, but full-value copies which retain all the advantages of the original material. The only mitigating factor allowed would be the lack of availability of consumer copying equipment (eg, DVDs prior to the availability of DVD recoders).
In other words, copyright holders are forbidden from encumbering their material for sale with copyright protection technology which would otherwise hinder consumers from making their personal use copies.
It's not enough to just say "OK, you can make personal copies" -- the industry will just push DRM and other onerous systems which prevent you from making copies. At this point, they are violating the spirit of a law which grants them royalties without having to prove a loss.
BTW, thanks to the guy in NYC on park ave & 37th with an open access point. My gay room in the Sheraton doesn't have hi speed access.
... because by establishing the levy, they'd also be effectively saying that they are not going to pursue the RIAA "shock and awe suing" campaign. Look at it as if they'd be saying, "Download all you want. We believe we're being fairly compensated."
Now, the last hurdle of the conscience driven user is gone. You don't have to feel the least bit guilty about downloading because you are paying for it.
So be a good consumer. Get out there and get the best bang for your buck that you possibly can!!
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
I personally think this is a fantastic idea. It not only validates the idea of downloading tracks for Canada (albeit in an indirect way), but it also screws over the recording labels from issuing lawsuits to 12-year old children in Canada. I don't quite know how this benefits artists, but surely a system based on the top40 for canada could be used as a method for compensation. If only more countries in the world had Canada's approach to civil liberties...
In Soviet Russia, the monkey spanks you!
But since we're already be paying for media we copy, that means copying is now legal right?
Otherwise, we're paying for the media twice.
:wq
Here's what will happen.
... they will simply wander on down to their local weekend flea market, for example the one in the big red building on Terminal Ave. here in Vancouver BC, and spend their money on all the stolen property stacked up in every stall.
.... ... and millions will continue to go merrily along burning mp3's onto blank CD's, just now they're stolen CD's.
When the tax starts, which by the way also includes a massive increase to the music industry tax on blank CD's that will nearly double their already taxed price, far fewer people will want to buy the products.
However, they will still neeeeed the products.
SO
There's a couple stalls in particular that sell unopened, new stacks of CD's that are already a lot cheaper than retail and 'strangely' have no Music tax on them.
In the end, the music industry looses their tax grab (...that they were never getting anyways as the canadian government has not paid out ONE CENT of the money theyve collected in the past few years...), because fewer people can afford to buy the CD's, the crime rate goes up with more B&E's on businesses that sell blank CD's, or even through smuggling of cheaper CD's up from the US, The technology companies will offer fewer players as they become even further priced above what people will play, many will continue to gripe about a tax they are supposed to pay when they are just backing up their own data
Can't happen? look what happened in Ontario when taxes went too high on cigarettes (with the help of some slimy smugglers on a native reserve, and the bastard cigarette companies that covertly supplied the smugglers).
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Without copyright, DRM-protected content would either be ignored, or cracked for fun. Geeks who hate copyright tend to like very much encryption technology.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
This issue has come up in australia before, not sure what happened though. The governments of this world need to realise that this stuff has mostly legitimate uses.
A friend of mine made the paper about this issue story reproduced here.
He produces music CD's for sale on behalf of the copyright owner on CDR's, he shouldn't be paying the RIAA/ARIA etc (and hence other artists, BU*cough*IT) for music they have the rights for.
This is the same as taxing people for going to the bank so they can reclaim money from bank robberies.
I don't care how many people who use a particular device or service for illegal purposes, no-one should be suggesting to charge everyone who uses a device or service legitimately to pay for the shady behaviour of others.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
"Mozart (and other "classical" composers) were funded by the royalty and/or the church."
This is false.
Bach was a religious man, and he composed his music for the love of it. Bach is considered probably the most brilliant composer of all time.
Or maybe you think of Mozart. Mozart did take patronage from royalty, but the bulk of his operas were done commercially, all without the need of copyrights.
Move copyrights back to the original constituion; or at most, 17 years with a 7 year extension. Stop proposing welfare for the children of famous composers and musicians.
Copyright laws in general worked better well back when copying was much more difficult. It's easy to enforce this kind of "thoughtcrime" law when there are only a handful of pirate book publishers with big heavy sticky printing presses.
It's a lot harder today when every 12-year old has a high-volume distribution channel in their bedroom. Changes in technology threaten to make copyright laws unenforceable without imposing a police state.
Is promoting useful arts and sciences worth this price paid in freedom? Would progress really grind to a halt if, for example, non-commercial duplication of all copyrighted works were legalized?
Some people claim that the answer to those questions is obviously yes. I'm not so sure. Counterexamples like RedHat and the Grateful Dead prove that at least some content providers can feed their families without a total ban on copying.
If technology has changed and the price to society for enforcing a total ban on copying has increased, I would argue that maybe the number of content creators we can support should shrink correspondingly. Fewer content producers could be supported without a total ban on copying, but given that we are currently awash in a sea of content crap, I say that the media and software industries could stand a little weeding out. They certainly don't deserve to be allowed to turn this country into a fascist IP enforcement camp.
I know quite a few artists, working in many media (written, paint, etc.) Most of them do NOT make much money from their art, and might do a lot better if the large media publishing houses were less dominant (and people more more strongly enouraged to support local/live/original artists).
I make (some) money from copyrights myself, however...
Still, I think we would all be better off without the copyright system, which (a) feeds an unjust and unethical system, and (b) promotes medocrity and stagnation.
I have written the government department in charge of this telling them that this levy is punitive. People that are using digital media for data purposes are subsidizing an industry that should stand on it's own. Not only that, but where is the people trail for that allocation of this money? All I got back was a form letter saying they are taking into account concerns of citizens as well as musicians. Should software companies start charging a piracy surcharge on digital media? I don't think so.
it might be insane, but I'll get filthy rich if this thing goes through. cheap CDR's from the US will be easy to sell, and I'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
:)
see, not everybody loses
just like the humble blood clot... turboporsche@telus.net
And the original blues artists who formed the core of modern rock American music drew from traditional and religious music and unfunded. Held down and marginalized by a segregated society in fact, a triple whammy. Wait a minute, religious, traditional and folk music were written without protections too. Jazz and swing? So now we have more examples of great and original music genres without the 'benefit' of draconian copyright protection applied to listeners instead of publishers. Is it today's (Fruedian slip, accidentally typed "toady's" first time) corporately sanctioned governement protected Spice Girls / Britney / 98 Degrees pap we can thank to copyright? Music cartels are interested in protecting product, not music. I'd trade any day.
MC Hammer's now broke.
Your point?
Actually, I believe crucification eventually kills due to the victim not being able to breathe any more, due to the strain on chest. Or if you're really fit and last long enough, you just might die from dehydration first...
The Canadian copyright laws only refer to Canadian artists and Canadian contents.
That's not true at all. The Copyright Act applies to material produced internationally in all countries that participate in the Berne Convention, the UCC or the WTO.
People like me, who don't listen to Canadian artists or English-language contents, we're getting screwed. For other Canadians who listen to Canadian artists and contents, they're getting screwed if they want to back up their legally bought CDs.
You're not being screwed, those artists are. You are paying to record their music, but the money is going to Canadians. If there was no levy, they'd still be getting screwed, but it would be by you, not by the CPCC.
It's good to see that this "innocent until proven guilty" nonsense has not infected the Canadian justice system.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
The worst side effect of this is the punishment of the not guilty.
I tell you what, if they do pass this, what is to prevent the average law abiding person from simply saying, "Well, since I already paid a tax, I guess that means I have the moral right to download all the music I want for free." Seriously, if I have to pay for it already, I shouldn't have to pay for it again.
you'll notice I included a comment from slashdot (the analogy, I quite liked it, and sorry for ripping it off!) I'd also like to mention I got this reply within an hour of writing the email, impressive! I'll post more when the MP writes back (if he does), and it turns out to be intereting. Dear Jim, Thank you for your e-mail to MP Murray Calder regarding copyright levies. Murray shares your concerns on this issue and has written previously to former Industry Minister Allan Rock to express concerns similar to yours. I will pass your e-mail along to him, and expect he will respond to you directly. The Copyright Board operates at arms' length from Parliament, and Parliament doesn't have a say on the setting of levies. Again, I expect Murray will respond to you in greater detail. Best wishes, Richard McGuire, Executive Assistant Office of Murray Calder, M.P. Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey (613) 995-7815, fax: (613) 992-9789 caldem@parl.gc.ca -----Original Message----- From: Jim Whosit [mailto:nospam@ysd.com] Sent: December 12, 2003 12:32 PM To: Calder, Murray - M.P. Subject: Canadian Copy Right Board blank media levy Hello Mr. Calder, I'm a 22 year old consituent living in the Orangeville area, and I've been reading about the recent increases in the copyright levie's that have been slapped on almost all blank storage devices. I do not pirate copy-righted music, however I do rip bought CD's to my computer for use in other players (I-Pod) and backups (since CD's get scratched really easily). The fact that I am paying the music industry this levy, for something I already own, really bothers me. They're now talking about increasing the levie to $.49 per CD which will DOUBLE the price of a pack of CD's. I feel I am being labelled a criminal, or music "pirate" simply for using my bought media how I wish to use it. Therefore, why should I continue to buy my music? As far as I'm concerned, if I'm already paying for being a pirate, then why not do it? I also see they're trying to slap a levie on Internet Service providers. This makes absolutely no sense! It's like saying: You walk into a resturant and order food. You have to pay, as soon as you order, a $50 "broken plates" fee. The fee is non-refundable regardless if you break anything or not. Kinda tempting to actually break something, huh? A levie like this really irks me, and I urge and hope you will consider this matter, as if it does go through, I feel to "get my moneys worth" I will have to start pirating music. btw, why stop at the mucis industry? Movies, TV shows, pornography, and software applications are all being pirated too, why is the music industry favoured? Thank you, Jim
Not all dogs drink Coke.