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."
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 can speak about the going ons inside the house [since I don't really care to watch] but from a "consumer" standpoint I saw visible protests by stores. It wasn't uncommon to see "you pay more because of canadian levies" in shops as huge as FutureShop [equiv to the american BestBuy].
... Neither are the citizens since well I use my recordable media for software backups not music.
It was quite clear that the retail outlets weren't too happy about the levies.
However, the canadian music industry feels they "deserve" more money. Instead of actually, oh I don't know, earning the fucking money they'd rather guilt trip the citizens and pressure the house to bend to their whims.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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.
I'm a Canadian and this is bad news. I would prefer to have a levy on my mp3 player or any other device/recordable media.
Why? When the RIAC(dunno if that's what it's called or not just guessing) wants to start suing their customers, we point to the levy and kindly ask them to stuff it.
The Canadian way is to pay levys/taxes on everything so we don't have to worry about anything. Healthcare, perscription drugs, and social programs are just a few things that are subsidized or free because of levys and taxes. 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.
Sometimes it feels we *are* just being contrary. Although, in this day and age that isn't necessiarly a bad thing.
Being contrary for the sake of being contrary helps people who are insecure in the Canadian identity distingush themselves from our American cousins. You'd be surprised how many people up here are like that.
However, in this case, it may just be that we haven't been completely overtaken by our corporate overlords yet.
I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
.. 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?
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.
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.
No, it was ruled that the levies were illegal because only Parliament (the upper house) has the authority to enact such a levy, not the Copyright Board of Canada. Whether or not the levies make sense or are appropriate is not the issue. This ruling was simply about legal jurisdiction, and I am very sure we have not seen the end of this.
No, it's not. It punishes those who have done nothing wrong. It's like having mandatory jail sentences for all citizens for crimes that they might commit at some time in the future. Will Canada pass a law that forces all 18 year olds to spend 2 years in jail? It wouldn't surprise me.
I am a Canadian and I disagree with the 'canadian way'. I guess we all have our differences, I for example am for a 2-tier health system, fewer social programs and I am definitely against any taxes (give me 15% flat tax anytime) that I have to pay without getting anything tangible in return.
Also I don't download copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holders.
You can't handle the truth.
I would really want to know what kind of people did complain about the system that is almost invisible to customers.
Me. I believe the tariff is effectively a tax on high tech and creative industries. I am a software developer. I distribute my work on CDs and now have the privilege of paying SOCAN royalties so I can distribute my own work. Many of my friends are artists, small label musicians or small business owners who use CDR for everything BUT copying mainstream music.
Of the 100 odd blanks I have gone through in the last year I believe I shared a single album. Everything else was work related, backups or "car copies" of CDs I own.
When I originally expressed objections to the tariff, I raised many of the same concerns we are seeing now. For example, you say that you would be happy to pay the tariff on an MP3 player. What if you bought a digital camera? It's the same media so the tax either applies or it doesn't.
The way the money is distributed also has the peculiar effect of siphoning money FROM struggling new artists (and not just musicians) to large record companies. If you want to support an artist, go to his concert or buy her cd. If you want to support a lawyer, buy a blank CD.
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.
Sorry I forgot to reply on the hospital issue. I'm also sorry about the unfortunate experience you had with the healthcare system.
I understand it's far from perfect and very effective at wasting money. I however hold out hope that because of the current situation our current government some real change will happen this time. A good example is how the current round of funding has strings attached regarding how it is spent. Provincal governments have proven through past deeds they are unable to manage their healthcare funding any better than a toddler. At the end of the day it's our responsibility to hold those in charge accountable and to let them know we will.
Regarding the Doctors: I find your point of view very cynical and depressing. I'm a very talented programmer (not so good with grammar and spelling) and I could make far more money doing it in the US. Why don't I? Because I love the cold? No - because I love what I do, and I love Canada. It's not perfect but it's mine. Doctors feel this way too, so equating low pay with low talent is unfair.
When some actually manages to say "Atheism is a religion", I can pretty safely ignore anything else they have to offer, since it's likely to be incomprehensible nonsense. (Reads the rest of your post) Yup.
The courts are quite atheistic, true. They are _supposed_ to be that way. They are not supposed to consider matters of religion. They are not supposed to care if you are christian, muslim, pagan, whatever. They are _supposed_ to be based on facts and evidence, not faith or belief; i.e., atheist. Theoretically, as far as the US government is concerned, religious beliefs do not matter one whit.
Of course, it doesn't always work out. Churches demand and get tax-free status for billions of dollars of income and property. Religious groups railroad through legislation legitimizing their fantasies (e.g., creationism, the pledge and motto). Bush Sr. said that he thought atheists ought to be stripped of their citizenship. Did you know that there are 7 states in the union whose constitutions explicitly forbid atheists from holding public office?
So go on, tell me about how you poor, poor christians are being oppressed. Tell me about how you'd be totally understanding and not worried at all if a judge had "Allahu Ackbar" embroidered on his robes and declared that he would dispense Sharia law.
Dyolf Knip
1- actually no, it is not fair, thats why you have the right to get that money back, you can if you want ... Fill some forms...
... The thing is that its not clear if burning CD hurts or help sales. My original CD collection contains about 250 - 300 cd alot of them are the next or previous record of one i have burned. I would never have been willing to pay 20-25$ bucks for an artists i dont know about.
2- Im not discussing if the way the money is spent is okay.. I dont know about that ( you probably don't know yourself ). It would be great if it was
used to promote unknown talents like you... Actually Quebec gouvernment give a couple millions a year to promote new bands ( as you know cultural stuff/ art is provincial juridiction ).
3- Living in community is about giving and receiving. If you pay money to give food to prisonners is it fair? If you give money to lazy ass Social Security users is it fair? Its not only about fairness, A LOT of people are copying CD. I have about 100 burned copyrighted CDs im my collection, i would be happy if i pay a small cut to help artists and still getting those cdr cheaply, and i would be sad if my neighbor go to court for burning that brian adams CD
Artists that plays on the radio get the priviledge of being heard freely by alot of people. P2P give the power to anybody to be heard by alot of of people, Share your songs and sell your CDs you could be surprised....
And please be intelligent alot of those 12 years olds teen learn to love music with p2p, dont ask them to buy all your CD with their parents 5$ a week rent...
(sorry english is not my mother tongue)
Overuse of the Pumping Lemma causes blindness