No Levy on iPods in Canada

colinemckay writes "The fight over a levy on iPods and other digital music devices ended Thursday when the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear any further arguments on the matter. That means there will be no levy applied to digital audio recorders such as Apple's popular iPod and iPod Shuffle as well as other MP3 players like iRiver."

Comments

Pack of Rats

[bigwavejas]

It also collects a levy on blank audio such as CDs and mini-discs.

Who the hell are they giving tariff royalties to from blank media? That's asinine. The CPCC are just like our RIAA, all a pack of crooks. If you want royalties to go to the Artists, than lower the damn price of the music your sell and people might actually buy a CD. Inflating the price of a CD to pay for the CPCC/ RIAA Rats, who claim to "protect" Artists is wrong! I'm curious how much of these collected tariffs actually makes its way back to the Artists.

Re:Pack of Rats

[dgatwood]

If it works the way it does in the U.S., it has nothing to do with artist revenue. It's composer and publisher royalties. Artists don't get squat.

The equivalent here is divided proportionally to the amount of airplay (IIRC) among ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. They subsequently divide it among their members whose songs showed up in at least one station's reporting in a manner proportional to the approximate number of airplays for songs by that composer and/or publisher.

Re:Pack of Rats

[shark72]

"The CPCC are just like our RIAA, all a pack of crooks."

Who modded this "informative"? Sheesh.

The CPCC is most definitely not the equivalent of the RIAA. The CPCC primarily represents artists, while the RIAA is a trade group representing record companies. Each group has different goals.

The CPCC is a non-profit agency that was set up to distribute the money collected from the tarrif. They distribute the money to songwriters, music publishers, recording artists, and record companies. Specifically, 66% goes to songwriters/composers/publishers, 18.9% goes to performers, and 15.1% goes to record companies. This breakdown is similar to the levy collected in the US on music CD-Rs -- it's primarily for the benefit of artists, with record companies getting the small slice of the pie.

Interestingly, presently only Canadian artists are eligible to collect this money. So, while the tariff is seen by many Canadian Slashdotters as a moral and legal free ride to pirate music, it's only Bryan Adams, Anne Murray and their ilk that are getting compensated. So, you Canadians... start pirating more Rush! Leave our poor US artists alone!

Since the link is down

[AutopsyReport]

Since the link is down, here's another article.

Re:Not much

[SheldonYoung]

How is $4million, split between the many record companies and artists, a substantial amount?

The $4 million was only the amount collected on non-removable memory, such as iPods.

Re:How about CD media?

[Bun]

How about DAT? minidisc? Those are digital recorders too, are there levies on those?

No to DAT, yes to minidisc.

More complete bullshit being modded insightful?

[Some Random Username]

Canada most certainly does have fair use exemptions to copyright. But regardless of that fact, the levy was designed as a way for corrupt scumbags to steal from consumers, it has nothing to do with fair use in any way.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/39129.html#rid-3 9149

Re:More complete bullshit being modded insightful?

[miles_thatsme]

Fair dealing is not fair use. See http://www.faircopyright.ca/principles.html for example.

The child-post is correct that Canadian copyright law contains no true equivalent to fair use. The other child post is regrettably incorrect about the effect of the Berne Convention. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/10.html

You will notice, notwithstanding the fact that the phrase "fair use" is employed, clause 2 states that 'fair uses' will stipulated by the member countries (and in the Canadian case, restricted to a narrowly defined set of "fair dealing" practices). In any event, in Canada, like the US (but unlike certain European countries), international conventions have no direct domestic application. Domestic law prevails.

The Supreme Court's refusal to take this is unsurprising. In all likelihood statutory authority for an iPod levy will be worked back into the Act with the copyright reform that's been discussed here last week (e.g. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/13/23 14242&from=rss ). Unless, of course, CRIA takes a look at ITMS music sales of late. They might be dumb enough to do it anyway...

Re:Returning The Loonie's

[aristotle-dude]

Because it was not the importer or manufacturer that paid the levy. It was the consumer who was charged the levy at the time of sale.

Re:Copyright holders aren't crooks, infringers are

[jcr]

yes copyright infringement is theft,

No it's not, it's infringement. That's why it has a separate definition in the law.

-jcr

Re:Not much

[quantaman]

Last time I checked, 100% of the monies collected from the very beginning were still with the record companies. Nobody had been able to find a single example of an artist who had received even $1 from the levies. This may have changed in the last year, however.

Apparently it has. My friend used to play in a band who put out a CD. Some time ago he did received a check in the mail from that very levy, it was only for $1.29 but receive it he did.