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."

Comments

Why must my government stymy me again and again?

[Mark_MF-WN]

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!

Improvement

[Detritus]

It looks better than the previous scheme, which charged a fixed amount per megabyte of storage.

Re:Abolish copyright--a solution to the insanity.

[Fancia]

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.

not an isolated case, but still angers

[dandelion_wine]

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?

Re:Abolish copyright--a solution to the insanity.

[KanshuShintai]

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.

Not can copy, but can't block copies

[swb]

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.

I have no problem with this.

[RealityThreek]

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.