Slashdot Mirror
Canada Quashes Copyright Tax on MP3 Players
Rippy the Gator writes "The Globe and Mail says that consumers may soon be paying less for MP3 players because the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that special copyright levies applied to digital music players are not legal. You might want to keep those receipts if you're giving them as a Christmas Gift."
Look...
How will canadian artists and record companies stay in business if everybody is going to rip them off and the government isn't going to help them by encouraging consumers to pay taxes to help their brother canadians.
You're all so selfish. I feel like moving south to the U.S.
I hope consumers who paid can get a rebate or refund of some kind.
Isn't it strange how Canada seems to have such a different attitude to copyright enforcement to America, when Europe seems to want to follow in the footsteps of American law? Canada is culturally more similar to America than Europe is, besides the obvious geographical proximity. Is this the Canadian government deliberately being contrary? I'd be interested to hear from some Canadians on the matter.
apterous.org
According to the article, the law doesn't include any text about MP3 players, so collecting levies on them isn't allowed. As in many decisions, it has been left to Parliament to make the final choice.
The short of it is that if lobbyists get their way, the levy will be back on MP3 players; all that's needed is for an amendment to the Copyright Act to be drafted and passed.
Since the taxe is on all music related product like recordable cds and MP3 player I think it is a really good idea for people like me who can, in a manner, contribute to the music industry. I would really want to know what kind of people did complain about the system that is almost invisible to customers.
I always thought that this money will never be seen by the artists, and was essentially just a scam.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
I wouldn't mind paying a 'mp3 tax' if it means that I can share MP3s with friends. Think of it like the TV tax (something that we have in some Euro countries) it's basically a tax to see TV. You pay it once a year and you have the right to have as many TVs as you like and watch as much as you want. so If they could come up with a similar yearly tax for having the right o use MP3s (or oggs or wavs or whatever the current flavor of the month) with the right to download and use any music then I would gladly pay it (as long as it doesn't cost more than 12CDs :) as I rarely like 12 CDs a year.
Or there's always Ebay...if the US shipper agrees to indicate "Gift" on the box, you won't pay any taxes whatsoever.
All that was found was that the law that allowed them to tax blank writable media wasn't written broadly enough to include MP3 players. All they have to to help protect the poor recording industry from the scourge of piracy will be to amend the law slightly.
Will there be a big outcry if they do? Will the combination of industry pressure and promised revenue overcome whatever outcry there is?
Behold the riant ape! Beware, his crooked thumbs!
they are taxing consumers for an industry? holy carp
;)
just wait until America gets a hold of this idea, the RIAA would love this. just remember, they are not taxes, they are fees
.. and we have tax on CDR and tapes and other stuff for the longest time. However, the tax itself is not really meant to make copying legal. But instead, the tax were simply there to minimzes any damange that you might be doing! What if you are using the CDR for personal data only? You are technically not required to pay it. However, the process of recovering those tax are lenghty and trouble some. So most let it go. What I don't understand is. How could someone pentlies you for something you haven't done yet? I think this is where the system become flawed. Owning a tool and having the potiental of doing something is NOT a prove of being guilty. You need to have prove of using it in illegal means! Sadly enough, 80% of those devices only DO use them illegally. So the fact actually justifies the tax, even if it doesn't really make sense. The only question I got is, where did those money went? Did they actually give them to any artists? If not, why even tax it?
Digital sharing of copyrighted music in countries which put a tax on CD-Rs, MP3 players, etc. is effectively legal, since you're paying for the priviledge of doing so whether you actually are or not.
...kinda like communism, but with more, eh?
-- Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Your post is funny but in all seriousness it's kind of odd that Canadians rant against the US music industry for its aggressive campaign against illegal file traders when in Canada, people have already been paying the music industry whenever they buy mp3 players and blank CDs. At least in the US, you get fined after breaking the law instead of beforehand in anticipation. I guess ignorance is bliss.
Remember, Canada still has it's CAN-CON laws for the radio. 1/3 of all music played on the radio has to be from a Canadian artist. Even still, in some cases it's caused more harm that good. Making people sick of local talent.
I'm still a big fan. If you looked at my CD collection, it's all Canadian or UK. Maybe I'm just a patriot, but all the mp3s of canadian artists I have I own on CD as well (except for rare deleted stuff)
Cheezit! We're boned! - famous 31st Century bending unit
Guys,
Artists make most of their money from live performances anyway.
Levies are great for Canada. Canadians can download American music without fear of repercussions, while still supporting Canadian artists who can then export their music to the US and other markets. Everyone wins :) Except those who buy the music. I'm sure I'm not forgetting anyone.
They actually had this as a law? What a retarded law. It's like putting a tax on television sets because people steal TV's....
But hell, I don't think anyone sells a CD player that cannot play MP3's - so does that make every CD player taxable or does it have to say "Plays MP3's" on the product description? What a bogus law.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Apparently it's not enough to buy the CD's. They are so afraid you will send copies to your friends that you should have to pay twice for your music?? And what kind of music has come out in the last 25 years that's worth paying twice for? I thought that's what 99cents per song on the iTunes music store was about? I think music, along with gasoline shouldn't be taxed. Just like food, they are necesseties. Come on Canada, wake up and smell the rats. BS
Hmm, so if we Americans started charging, say, a burglary tax to everyone we could not ever have to worry about going to jail for burglary. That sounds great, plea bargains before the act is even committed!
Sure people like to argue about how well the system works, but last time I checked people don't go backrupt when they get sick here.
Ah, I love this Canadian mentally that has them believing that everyone here dies on the street because they are uninsured. Sorry, but it's a huge myth. Moreover, Canada caps its doctor's salaries so most of the really good doctors who specialize in the rare and complicated diseases that save people's lives come to the US because our schools are better and you actually get paid properly for your skills. I'm not going to open the socialism debate, but it certainly has its own set of flaws.
Canada: "What would you like to buy today?"
Me: "I'll take two burglaries, please."
Canada: "Would you like any lies with that?"
Me: "Lies aren't free?"
Canada: "We sell perjury lies here, sir."
Me: "Oh great, that should be illegal and it might come in handy if I go to court. I'll take some of those, thank you."
Canada: "Ok, sir, that'll be $10 please."
Me: "Super!"
I find it funny that the article stated, as a matter of fact, that the ruling would erode revenue to muscians. But even though there are probably tens of thousands of musicans in Canada, the journalist couldn't find even one to interview about the alleged hardship?
Does anyone have any real evidence that musicans actually get this money? Everything I've read about the music industry says they get zero.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Does this mean the Canadian music industry will have to make a living by suing its customers, like the US industry does?
You are paying a tax to corporations to get immunity from breaking the law in the future. Great system, eh?
this only removes the tax on MP3 players. the tax on blank cds and tapes remains. but hey, it's only $0.25. i can deal with that.
and the canadian court system already informed the CRIA (canadian RIAA) that they can take their ideas to sue and stick them where the sun don't shine, so this isn't gonna change that in a hurry.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
It's a scam no matter who gets the money. You're basically admitting to guilt and paying the fine before you've even done anything wrong. I can see how this is appealing to many people, though, considering how little respect most people on Slashdot have for laws.
That's why she was exported to Las Vegas. :-)
Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
Whenever I investigate buying a new electronic device from the U.S., I cannot complete the transaction because the vendor will not ship to Canada. I've seen this on thinkgeek and amazon. I wonder if this is (one) bottleneck and the removal of the levy will allow cross-border shopping?
When the levy was put in place, the music industry was trying very hard to write the act in such a way as to collect money from everyone that bought any form of electronic media (SDRAM, hard disks, RAM, all forms of tape etc). Consequently, the forms of media the act applied to had to be specified. In this case, the judges have simply ruled that a SRAM module is not a CDROM.
IMO, the music industry is unlikely to gain any more ground here. The premise of the original act was borderline absurd ("CD-R is primarily used to share music") so trying to raise a stink over solid state media (used in MP3 players and cameras) may do them more harm than good particularly if the movie and software industries get it into their heads to score a piece of the pie.
So basically there's nothing to see here. It's an interesting decision because it legitimizes C-32 somewhat and it sets the boundaries but that's about it.
Egonis (155154) wrote:
> On one hand, yes.. copying music is breaking the law, but on the other hand...
> the levy tax pays the record industry as a whole for their "losses" --
> so there is a half-right and half-wrong to the concept of levies.
Except that in Canada it is legal to copy music for personal use
Not breaking any laws here.
I just want to say that people and companies should just get over it. One simple fact is that, as long as there's an internet, people will continue to share music. Puting taxes on media that "may" be used for questionable material is just another money maker for the companies and in this case the artists. Which the artists don't seem to be very hard up at all driving around in multiple $100-$500 thousand dollar vechile's and living in their multi-million dollar mansions. Ya, they must just be getting so ripped off from all the file-sharing going on... Give me a break
If there's a good quality CD, I'll buy it, I have absoulty no problem with that. However if there's a CD with like 1 or 2 songs on it and the rest is crap. Don't waste my time, maybe the artists should be more concerned with making good quality music instead of simply trying to find the next quick buck.
Ooohh - Canada. The silver lining in the Global Warming cloud.
--
make install -not war
Making me pay for something I didn't choose to buy, with no return for my money, isn't legal? Imagine that. Normally, when you buy something and don't receive the thing you bought, it's called fraud. How is that any different then taxing people to support the music industry- forcing them to effectively pay for music, which is then not delivered to them?
Some of these "solutions" which are supposed to solve the piracy problem are getting totally out of hand. Just because someone has an mp3 player does not mean they have an intent to pirate music. Push the offender, not the device that does the offending.
In my native tongue (French), Noël means Christmas. Wonder if that's a hint...
There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
I think music, along with gasoline shouldn't be taxed. Just like food, they are necesseties.
Gasolline, sure. People have got to get to work, and not everyone is within walking/biking distance. But music as a necessity? Sure, life would be boring without it, but it's hardly essential to live.
Will people be able to get their money back that they had to pay on this tax? If so who will be paying it back?
Im suprised they will not just scrap this who tax levy (I think they call it a copyright levy in the news article).
"This year, MP3 sales are expected to generate $5-million of the $25- to $30-million in levies collected for musicians. The levies range from as little as $2 to $25 per device."
Anyone have any figures as to how much was spent because of this tax, not just for MP3 players, for but all media that is affected by this?
TruePunk | Games
Stop right there! What is the Canadian government giving away for free that isn't being funded through taxes?
Any way you look at it, government IS taxes. Government cannot exist without taxes. It's a zero-sum. Just thought I'd point that out.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
Canadian's have essentially avoided most of the litigation involved with downloading copywrited music and other media as the government has levied tax on all blank media. The monies collected are 'redistributed to artists'.
So, while some people might think this ruling is a great idea - it's really not. While it might not be illegal to download and copy the music to CD (taxed media), will your flash stick now be considered an illegal media to hold your downloaded songs?
Take it one step further - untaxed iPod users are arrested with 'up to 2500' accounts of copywrite infringement... I can't wait to see the Canadian Apple-hating cops in full riot gear trying to quell the next generation of iTunes users.
Im reading the posts and a lot of people seem to forget that they have that copied cd in their collection.
The reason of the tax in canada it's that everybody is doing it... If you buy CDR's you are copying copyrighted music.. stop the lying...
Maybe their are exception... But im pretty sure its less than 1%, so even if you pay 20cents tax on that 50 cd spindle, You deserve it.
You may think this is a culpability judgement before the proof of the crime, but you'll be the first to cry if the Music industry take the phone directory and pursue everybody (bah even if they lose a small percentage of them)....
Overuse of the Pumping Lemma causes blindness
Originally this scheme was started with the rationale to capture revenue lost when you copied an album from a friend. Knowing there was no way to stop this or prosecute this, the entertainment lobby came up with a way to get paid for this "violation". At the same time the law was amended to allow private copying. A coup really. The industry allows a concession that was unstoppable and in return taxes all media.
Cue the internet music boom. Buisness as usual, time to go to war and kick in the doors of some file sharers, sue some grannies and single moms when there kids download music. But wait, that dang private copying amendment makes it a grey area.
Unfortunately what will happen next is there will be an attack on the "private copying" portion of the law. It will be changed, eventually we too will have RCMP raiding file downloaders. But of course the levies will stay as well.
The simple fact is we are in a corpocracy. The law is for the corporations. The certainly won't give up the revenue stream from levies but they will loby until they change the laws so they can sue.
Eventually we will have the worst of all possible worlds.
Some of these posts are really ignorant.
Ok first of all it's not the RIAC- it is the CRIA.
The levy is going to the CPCC.
For all the people who are saying this is a bad thing- you are complete morons. We are in a common law system- putting music on a hard drive is not going to be suddenly illegal because the courts found the CPCC levy illegal. The CPCC does not have unlimited powers of taxation-- and I am glad that this has happened.
So for all you trolls- nothing has changed regarding your rights, and it is doubtful that the Liberal government is going to start passing laws limiting your rights-- it is political suicide for them.
You are wrong, it means that Canadians cannot hide behind a levies law anymore.
It means that soon the floodstreams of lawsuits against illegal users will flow...
--
Me cynical, in 2004? --Yaa101
Ok first of all it's not the RIAC- it is the CRIA.
So, does that rhyme with ``creep'' or with ``crybaby''?
Both are fitting...
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
So when is the US going to kill off Sony's fucking 'copyright' levy on DAT sales? And get rid of the bloody SCP in consumer DATs?
Never. The American government's long since pwned by corporate interests.
Except that in Canada it is legal to copy music for personal use .
Not breaking any laws here.
Okay, I'm sick of people correcting specific wording... and thinking that EVERYONE is wrong; anyway, here is the reasoning for my statement:
If the levy did NOT exist, then the record industry would scream up and down that what is happening is wrong, etc etc... therefore, the implementation of a levy has therefore MADE it legal to copy music... the pressures from the record industry upon the government would be pretty huge, and they obviously don't want that.
You'd have to be an idiot to go through medical school and years of residency only to end up being paid the same as someone with a bachelor's degree. All doctors consider the money, even the ones that do want to help people. Medical school is no little picnic where you just say, "Oh hey I'm gonna go get an MD because I'd like to help someone." Maybe in Canada the standards are much lower, I guess. It's best left that way because I don't want someone with the education of a mechanic operating on me.
So you think it best to just pay the exploitative tax so you can sleep better? I think it is insane to punish ALL consumers for the trespasses of a few.
Whats next? Why stop at the recording industry.
The government should not be confiscating money from the people to pay to corporations or similar bodies. The government should be protecting the consumer from them, not abetting them.
I'd rather have the RIAA or similar breathing down the necks of people who break the law than having to pay so some schmuch can download stuff without paying for it.
It is NOT the same as paying taxes for medical care or such. That is exactly the line of thinking the RICA/RIAA would love people to believe.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The Mp3 tax idea would never halt any sort of piracy on music. It would only provide the goverment with a healthy income until something else comes out in 5-10years or sooner.
Got a question about UNIX ask it here : Unix/xBSD Forum
Hey, If the burglar comes in with a device that makes an identical copy of all my stuff, then leaves, how am I out anything (assuming we are just talking about "stuff", and not personal papers/documentation, etc.).
That's exactly the problem, though. You conveniently exclude "personal papers/documentation" because that's exactly the kind of stuff patents and copyrights protect. You wouldn't mind if I copied some design you created (hypothetically) and sold it as my own? You have to look at the bigger picture, not just your petty desire to get free music.
You have identified the major flaw in this Canadian scheme. I'd rather have the RIAA suing illegal file traders than have to pay a tax for an act I'm not going to commit.
The Canadian version of the RIAA is CRIA. (Canadian Recording Artists Association)
I am a Canadian and I disagree with the 'canadian way'.
So are you really a Canadian? Or someone who just lives here?
Someone semi-famous, and I don't remember who, said:
:)
"Canadians look like Russians pretending to be Americans".
Actually, I was surprised to see this on the front page of the news today (the Province, I think, for British Columbians).
Most articles of this nature usually end up being buried amongst other "lesser" news as technical mumby-jumbo etc etc.
It's really quite nice to see that not only has this stupid tax been repealed, but that the media are giving notice to it. I wish they'd do so more often when they try and slip these things in.
One thing I wonder though, as it mentions "keeping Xmas receipts" - is whether or not consumers can request a rebate on the tax if they've paid it already, as it's been ruled illegitimate.
But then we get back into the usual stupidity:
He said the Copyright Act clearly defines media that legally can be used for private duplication of copyrighted material and MP3 players no longer meet that criteria.
Sorry buddies, while this might mean you can't copy a disc from your friend, it certainly doesn't take away any rights I have to copy my CD to my own iPod. My music, my property, my right to do what I want with it (within my domain).
while there may be an argument that artists might deserve renumeration for the private copying that does go on, and in particular, the copying that is performed under the protection of personal and private copying, but is ultimately used for non-personal reasons (which does, btw, violate copyright, and is primarily why the levies were introduced in the first place -- to offset the inevitability of such actions), as long as a copy that is made is strictly for private use, it _DOES_NOT_INFRINGE_ on copyright. Full stop. Period. Do not pass go, do _NOT_ collect your $200. Whether or not levies are collected is irrellevant to this issue, a personal and private copy does not infringe on copyright in Canada.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
when has this ever happened? It hasn't, unless you're talking about the government (public schools for instance) trying to celebrate christmas.
There is no way for the government to recognize any religion with discriminating against all others. And if the government recognizes all religions equally It will draw excessive attention to members of the minority religions.
imagine the outrage as the administration at your local Texas public school tells parents "I'm sorry, we have to celebrate Koshogatsu because little Kahori is Shinto and you insisted that we celebrate Christmas"
This isn't flamebait, he makes some valid points and is only expressing his own oppinion
Amen to that. While I'm not a Canadian, I'll be happy to join you complaining about that "almost invisible" tax on creativity (and put my name on that complaint, too).
Imagine that you run some kind of mafia business, demanding a "share" in any business transaction within your "territory" (say, a few city blocks) in return for "protection". Specifically, anybody buying a copy of an audio recording must pay you a percentage on top of the price already paid in order to be allowed to play that recording. Since you are then profiting on someone else's creative work, aren't you committing copyright infringement?
If merely demanding a percentage isn't infringement, let's make it visual: You sit at the front gate, inspecting the shopping bag of one your subjects who just arrived home. The bag contains a pack of blank CDs and a note with downloading instructions for some software or music already paid for. You confiscate both, but offer to do the downloading and return the written CDs for a small fee. The alternative is not to bring in any music or software at all. Your subject accepts the offer.
A regular pirate makes a profit by copying music made by others without paying royalties, and selling the copies. What if he were to sell his "product" in parts, ready for "assembly" by the customers themselves, demanding only to be paid per copy?
This reasoning of course wouldn't work in a court of law, but morally I think I can claim that anybody charging you with a fee (without my permission), for copying (with my permission) software or music I have written, is guilty of copyright infringement. If you allow others to copy your software, maybe you can add a clause to the license requiring that no levy be paid for the medium used (much like shareware distributors aren't allowed to charge for downloads)?
Will the real copyright holders please stand up?
The problem is this. A law may create a huge loss to consumers (lets use the US for example) of say 360 million dollars. Thats roughly about $2 per person. Now lets say 300 million of that is burned to heat the whitehouse (wasted in some way), and the RIAA gets the other 60 million. Now how many Americans will go lobby congress for $2? On the other hand, do you think the RIAA will lobby for 60 million, even if it is bad for America as a whole? You can bet they will.
The reason consumer advocacy groups will never be sufficient is because consumer advocacy is a public good (everyone benefits, even hilary rosen) and so there will be a massive free-rider problem. Everyone wants someone else to pay for it because they get just as much benefit.
The problem is uneven distribution of wealth, hence the rich get richer, at the expense of the poor, and usually the whole.
I don't know if there are any solutions to this without a major overhaul of congress and maybe even the constitution itself. So the point is props to Canada for looking out for its citizens. Now if only we could get the rest of the 1st world to follow suit.
Well, we aren't this lucky in Iceland. Here MP3 players (even HDD based) are really expensive because they are considered devices often used to steal music from artists. So we have to pay a % of the products cost (with VAT) in taxes, which are then paid to STEF (like RIAA in the US).
.. 317 dollars) in the duty free store at the airport. If you buy the iPod from the Apple store in Iceland you pay 50.000 IKR (that's around 595 Euro or 793 dollars).
A little example:
The iPod 20GB costs around 20.000 IKR (around 238 Euro
But we do have the luxory of clean fresh water!
Canadians Do Not want to subsidize the music cartels!!! Look at music sales in Canada. They're down and the music industry is going down the toilet because of the taxing levy on blank media. Since it's legal to copy music for personal use, there are plenty of CD swapping events going on.
Moreover, one singer of The Barenaked Ladies has publicly called music downloaders thieves. I remember seeing the same guy bragged how their band used to encourage tape swapping as a key to their success. It's really really difficult to download lossless songs (nobody offers any,) so what's the difference between tape trading and downloading? The end result is quite similar.
It's kind of funny I am listening to Trigun's Permanent Vacation. Yes, I bought my copy. One last thing, since you don't know anything about Canada, please shut the fuck up!!!! Thanks kindly.
i don't even pay that per cd
[I live in Canada]
We are allowed to copy music for personal reasons. In exchange, a levy is placed on blank media.
All for the good.
And now, the appeal ruling is that MP3 players are not subject to the levy, because the Act doesn't mention them.
All for the good -- except that the Act may/will be changed to allow the levy.
Most MP3 devices do NOT facilitate the copying of music! If you can show me how to plug media into an iPod (for instance) to allow the iPod to function as a duplicator; or you are willing to GIVE your iPod to someone else, then the iPod should have the levy applied. If the iPod is capable of downloading music without another computer with media, it should be levied.
And here's the problem -- an iPod CAN'T download from the internet, and you WON'T be lending it out, and it CAN'T have media plugged into it.
About the best you can do is a player with a built-in FM radio, and the ability to record to a removed Flash device.
And the levy should be placed on the Flash media.
Not the players.
So, the ruling is good, but the REASON is wrong, because it opens up the possibility of a lobby to change the Copyright Act.
I just hope that when that happens, the politicians see their way clear to a correct ammendment (say, a levy on blank VCR tapes and DVD recordable media, and allowing personal copying of video).
Now, the joker that suggested that is was not OK to use your iPod on Dec 15, is basically full of it. The personal copying provision allows us to copy to ANY media that is commonly used for the storage of music. That would (by design) include your iPod. So suck it up -- that cannot be removed without changing the Copyright Act.
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
I'm Canadian and unfortunately i've had to deal with the healthcare system first hand. Canadian doctors seem to undertreat patients and drag things out. I can't speak for the US system but from what I hear you can basically get in for special tests with little wait time.
So the question is, would you rather live in a country with 'free' healthcare but extremely long wait times or a country where you can get immediate specialist care?
You can't put a price on life and the sooner you get treatment for a problem the better the outcome. It could easily mean the difference between life and death.
But hey, you may be lucky and never experience a life threatening illness.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
With these taxes (levies), you pay regardless whether you're copying their content or copying your own. They're stealing from you and all you want is for them to get off your back? Have these taxes stopped them from banning VCRs and incorporating copy protections?
You are retarded. It's funny mods like to up retarded posts.
Why is the public paying to solve what is essentially a security problem with music distribution? Software companies invest millions to stop piracy.
That would have been Martin Short.
Just curious, have you lived outside of Canada? Specificly, have you lived anywhere that has just 15% flat tax?
"one singer of The Barenaked Ladies has publicly called music downloaders thieves."
I've listened to the Barenaked Ladies and I consider them thieves. They completely wasted my time and stole 4 minutes of my life that I'll never get back.
The Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) is the Canadian equivalent of RIAA.
Canada is America ( Courageous. Americans. Noble. Americans. Defender of. Americas)whe dont take bulshit from companies or other country who try to impose there view on us. Unlike the coward Etats-Unians who prefer to steal and rip of there fellow citizen , or have corporation and company do it in there name ,whe work out deal where everyone get out a winner. Thats the American way. Where everyone can live free and without fear protected by there government who is working for the people and not against them.
Its the coward Etats-Unians government who is contrary they let little corporate thugs dictate what should happen to there citizen.
The Etats-Unians think they are American , when everyday they show to be cowards , and everyday Canada ( real American ) show the way.
Can anyone find me ONE entertainer who is now living in a cardboard box on Sunset Blvd. as a result of music downloading!
Taxing the user for a potential misuse or alternative use is SIMPLE WRONG!
Limited the use of a purchased product is EQUALLY WRONG!
More artists careers have thrived or been born again because of the internet. The only ones who find the internet so distasteful are the robber barons who "controled" the distribution channels.
My2!
People getting sued are UPLOADERS without permission, which Canadian copyright law prohibits unauthorized distribution. These taxes as levies do not mitigate your idiocy for getting sued, nor will they prevent anyone from getting sued. However, Justice (judge) Konrad von Finckenstein's ruling on not identifying P2P users is a temporary "win" for UPLOADERS or people with copyright content in their shared dirs. This has nothing to do with the taxes on blank recordable media; and his decision was basically there weren't any evidence of infringement like photocopiers in libraries. The music cartels obviously appealed the case, here:
c h.htm
http://library.lsuc.on.ca/GL/
stay_informed_te
#Case comment on P2P file sharing decision
If you're really Canadian, this is great news. It's a temporary minor setback for the music cartels, but better than nothing. Get your refund while you can.
"Healthcare, perscription drugs, and social programs" are ESSENTIAL SERVICES, which mean you can't really live without them if you want any degree of a decent quality of life. The music cartels are desperately clinging on to their cartels. Why should Canadians subsidize entertainment cartels? Just so they won't sue you for breaking copyright law? Wait, I already said the taxes have nothing to do with their suing P2P users. What they want are the TAXES AND SUING P2P users.
will trade cheap recordable media for cheap prescription drugs--call me.
Which member of BNL was this, do you have a link.
They were the first major band to try and utilize p2p. When they released the single "Pinch Me" they posted it on Napster themselves, of course they added a little dialog in the middle of the track, but it was funny and I wish I still had a copy of it.
You're fucking clueless. It takes a distributor for you to copy/download music you don't own. Other than that, you already have the right to copy your own originals as backups. What the cartels did was taxing your backups and labelled it a levy, so it'll make you feel all warm inside about how all artists got paid.
Did these taxes prevent them from suing the 29 P2P users???? If our ISPs didn't step in, these 29 would have been identified and sued by now.
Which human culture doesn't have at least some form of music? Even if something may not be necessary for your physical health, it's possible for it to be necessary for your mental health.
The simple fact is we are in a corpocracy. The law is for the corporations.
Interesting Wikipedia articles include Corporatocracy and its "related topics", especially Kleptocracy and Corporatism. Specifically, copyright is fascist.
> The government should not be confiscating money from the people
The Canadian government doesn't collect any money from this. It's the special interest groups like SOCAN, and it's up to them to distribute the collection as they please. For all we know, most of the money can go to them. There is nothing preventing them from abusing their positions.
This is why the label is not a tax, but a levy or a taxing levy. SOCAN tried to put a taxing levy on internet usage, but our Supreme Court of Canada struck it down. What's currently happening is SOCAN and their ilk are pushing Canada to ratify WIPO. With WIPO, all nastiness are going to happen, such as paying fees to access websites and such. It's ridiculous.
I am reading these posts, and it seems like all nine people that live in Alberta are ON SLASHDOT !!!
gotta love having broadband in the igloos
when does the sun come back out, in like, April?
I saw it on TV, but here's a link for you:
"
The Barenaked Ladies' Ed Robertson also wades in with, "I'm totally fine with people downloading music, as long as they steal everything that they want. If you want pants, go steal them. If you need gas in your car, you should steal it, because you can. As long as people are consistent I don't have a problem. As long as they see themselves
as thieves in general then I don't mind if they steal everything that they like. But it irks
me that it's only okay to steal music."
"
http://p2pnet.net/story/1434
Administration fees are where the money goes.
People, please read the Copyright Act.
Distribution of copyrighted material is NOT legal. This levy was a trade-off to make it legal for one person to make multiple copies of music that they already bought. An example would be to make a compilation CD of your favourite songs off of 10 CDs that you already own. That's right, we pay a levy to "compensate" artists for the "financial loss" caused by this "privelege" that has been granted to us. Its utter bullshit.
Burning a CD and giving it to a friend or trading MP3s is NOT LEGAL. That's distribution which is clearly prohibited by the Act.
--
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]
Finally someone insightful. Who the fuck wants to pay MORE money for no extra service other than the brainwashed?
I'm Canadian and I have felt the levy first hand: I have bought two MP3 CD players and an iPod while this law was active (not to mention CD-Rs).
All this does is personally justify the stealing of music. I feel that paying for the losses of the companies is no different than paying them for the CDs. Only this way I don't have to shift my fat ass out of my chair, visit several CD shops, go home without the CD because none of the crappy stores have anything I want, then either forget about it or beg someone with a credit card to buy the thing off of Amazon or something for twice the price it should be because of shipping/handling/exchange rates/etc. In this respect I like this commie tax. Instead of shelling out bucks to have to walk to get cumbersome CD's that, once MP3'd, get shelved for externity, I just download it, and if the fuzz comes knocking, I just say, 'Back it up ho! I've got an iPod and I paid the levy on it!'
BTW, how is this levy distributed? Who decides which company is suffering the most from illegal music sharing? Seems to me there's no good way to do it. Maybe I'll claim I'm an independent artist suffering losses of $10,000/yr. due to illegal sharing and I want my slice of the levy money!
This kind of reminds me of health care, where everybody pays no matter what (theoretically) so that those without the dough can still keep alive. I like to call it the 'Just Being Nice' system. But what am I paying this tax for? So teenagers who don't have jobs can download that latest shit that turns boys into dicks and girls into whores? So they'll download some spyware-filled, virus-downloading PoS software that I'll have to clean off later?
In conclusion, I don't appreciate paying bribes to the government to keep the Industry off my back if it's not going to work.
[anglozaxxon]
I'm one of those rare quacks who believe that the over-all best way to deal with mass-IP compensation issues is to tax the physical media.
And, for all practical purposes, the iPod *is* physical media, even if it's RAM or flash instead of "conventional" media such as tape.
Ironically pointing out the entire flaw with his reasoning and copyright law in general. If you wanted to and had the materials, you could see a pair of pants you want and make yourself a copy and no one would complain as long as you didn't sell them. You could refine your own gas (theoretically) and use it as long as you don't sell it. I don't need to pay anyone to make a personal use copy of ANYTHING if I have the tools and know how to make it myself.
Fair use and personal use don't vanish because something is digital. It just isn't my fault they make their living based on a product no one particularly needs that can be reproduced easily and effectively. Perhaps they need to reevaluate their business model.
Never confuse volume with power.
You are almost right..
Not only is it legal to make copies of your own music, you can borrow friends CDs and make copies of their music too. Or just download music from your favorite P2P program.
What is Illegal is distributing music without owning the copyright. Uploading on a P2P program, etc.
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Traditionally, it's called Danegeld.
sheesh
what tax isn't explotive?
is it any less insane to use litigation to make examples of some random few?
the insanity is in making sharing immoral
Words to men, as air to birds.
And how do you sign up? Until I see money trickling into my pockets or the pockets of the many musicians who I've met throughout the years, I call bullshit. Unless you mean celine dion and nickleback. [But then I wouldn't really call them musicians.] This is a scam.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
*gasp* marketed towards women from day one? I tell you right now the 'new kids on the block' were not supposed to appeal to males in the same away that they should have appealed to 12 and 13 year old females. It's easier to find good music when crap music isn't all you have access to and everything all your friends listen to. Hell it's easiest to find good music when you have no friends but do have a connection to napster...and most if not all women I've met have lived anything but lives without friends. But I digress.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
FWIW a burglary tax on pawn shops would be an excellent idea. It means pawn shops pay less to thieves, meaning that thieves get less for their loot, which means there might be a dissincentive to steal. I really like that idea.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
"The collective is a non-profit agency that collects and distributes private copying royalties to musicians, songwriters and record companies."
How do they determine who gets how much of the royalties? They can't have any possible way of knowing accurately who's music is being pirated and who's isn't and how much of either, wouldn't this all be guess work with most of the royalties going to bands who are in the top10/20 on the charts? (If that is the way they determine this kind of thing)
I don't see how this could be fairly distributed...
I'd rather have the RIAA or similar breathing down the necks of people who break the law than having to pay so some schmuch can download stuff without paying for it.
And I'd rather have the right to make copies of recordings without worrying about paying for them. Making copies of a friend's recording for my own use is a reasonable thing to want to do; why should I be breaking a law when I do it?
The good thing about the levy is that I don't need to pay for songs that I download and then overwrite. Does the ITMS give refunds when you decide you don't like the song any more?
Not only is it legal to make copies of your own music, you can borrow friends CDs and make copies of their music too. Or just download music from your favorite P2P program.
Something that's often forgotten is that Canada followed the British "Fair Dealing" doctorine rather than "Fair Use". Fair Dealing doesn't include the right to media shifting. Until Part VIII of the Copyright Act came into existence, it was not legal in Canada to copy from your own CD to a casette tape so you could play it in the car (Part VIII is actually quite old. I believe in came in sometime in the 80s).
This law was brought in so that Canadians could have something equivalent to the fair use that Americans enjoyed at the time. It actually leapfrogged past fair use and added extra rights but with the cost of the levy.
And this is just the kind of thinking that explains the american way of life.
Higher taxes for the social net are not a PUNISHMENT. I gladly pay my high taxes, so that I can go to sleep knowing that every man, woman and child who call themselves Canadian can get necessary medical care without having to mortgage the house. I happily see my doctor, knowing that her salary is based on a reasonable, and still relatively high, cap, instead of a "Pay me $xxx,xxx or I won't save your life" ultimatum.
My high taxes aren't a PUNISHMENT. They are a SERVICE to my fellow Canadians, a symbol of brotherhood, a manifestation of the belief that each and every one of us is entitled to a healthy life, free of prejudice and unnecessary hardship.
And they're also a GOOD IDEA, because if I ever lose my job and am somehow unemployable for an extended period of time, I know that I don't have to fear for my life because my neighbors would rather have a shiny new SUV than ensure the people around them don't die.
That said... in Canada, I can legally copy music for personal use (don't nitpick, I know the details, it's just too much to type). The levy ensures that I can still have that right, despite all the dumbasses who copy music and then don't pay for it. The idea behind the levy is sound.
However, given the numerous studies that show either CD sales aren't declining faster than the economy drop, or that they're declining because new music is shit, I'd really rather see the issue revisited as to whether or not it is fair to tax consumers for recordable media when it has no ill effect on the artist. I'd also rather see the scale reversed, so that the poorest artists are the ones who get more. A CD sale lost to Ms (ug) Dion means nothing, but a sale lost to, say, Trooper, or The Watchmen (RIP), means much more.
And finally, I'd much rather have a levy that doens't result in me purchasing a spindle, taking it to the cashier, and having him ask me "So, if these are for recording music, the levy is X, but if you tell me it's for data, the levy is the much lower Y."
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
I wouldn't hold your breath if you are expecting to see a price reduction immediately. Expect the Copyright Board to appeal this decision in the new year. I'd say by NEXT Christmas we'll see a 10-25$ drop on MP3 storage devices.
In Canada, the rules allow downloading music from a p2p network without permission. Copying a borrowed CD is also permitted. Distributing copies to others is not necessarily permitted. These rules do not necessarily apply to other copyrighted works. Therefore, there might be something to be said for levies on blank media and certain devices used primarily for copying music. Of course, nothing is perfect. Consider someone downloading a song via p2p without permission and burning it onto a CD. On the other hand, consider someone purchasing a CD and making a copy on a CD-R for their convenience. The first situation justifies levies but not necessarily the second situation. It is hard to know what a buyer will use blank media for. There is also the issue of knowing who the levies should go to i.e. what songs get downloaded via p2p most often.
In the USA, downloading music via p2p without permission is not legally allowed. Even so, levies are charged on certain blank media used to record music. Unauthorized distribution of music is much more likely to involve CD-Rs than portable music players. Even so, someone might use a CD-R strictly to copy a CD they purchased. It was ruled that computer equipment and portable music players were not subject to the rules about levies. If someone purchases a CD and copies it to a portable music player, they are not likely to be hurting anyone.
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-42/sec80.html
Copyright Act
PART VIII PRIVATE COPYING
Copying for Private Use
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.
(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.
Is to make it more desirable for people looking for 'one stop shopping.' e.g. why go to a real computer or audio store, when you can park once and compare between 'two' stores?
Boo-urns.
The levy and the amendment bill to the copyright act were logically two separate items, though they were (obviously) politically tied together.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.