Slashdot Mirror
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."
Is there still a levy on that? Seems like they could use this to try and get rid of that . . .
in fact, of the legal products and services generated in Canada, music is in the top ten, along with telecom and other useful things.
So if they don't need this tax, why do we, music importers in the US, need one?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Why these people didn't suggest a levy on tapes while they were widely used, this is all greed...
How is $4million, split between the many record companies and artists, a substantial amount? I don't agree with the levy, however, was it even doing much in support of the artists? Yes each little bit helps, but if the CPCC was serious about collecting lost profits on behalf of the artists and companies, they would at least have a bit more bite imo
do.what.promptcmds
So why in gods' names do we pay a levy on blank CDs, when blank CDs are MUCH more likely to be used for non-music purposes?
I hate politicians and special interest groups.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Here's more info on what we pay in Canada: http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml Check out their proposed levies if you want a good laugh! I believe you pay similar levies on older recording media in the U.S. (like tapes), but the legislation regulating that hasn't been updated to cover newer storage mediums. Lots of countries have similar legislation.
I buy the media labeled 'music' on purpose actually. Then I fire up a bittorrent client, or limewire pro, and get whatever music I want. You know why? 'Cuz Fuck em, I'm not paying twice! If you treat people like criminals, then that's what you get.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
Let's consider for a moment what would have happened if this levy passed. Quite simply: Free music for everyone!
Does this sound counterintuitive, or just nonsensical? Hear me out.
As a Canadian university student, I feel I have a pretty good idea of how the music-swapping scene looks in Canada. There's one group of people who happily share as much music online as they want; then, there's a second group of people who still buy CDs (either because they like the pretty package, or because they actually want to pay for the things they receive).
However, everyone I know in that second group (including myself, among many people) stopped purchasing audio CDs after the Canadian levy was placed on blank CD media -- after all, even though it was of grey legality, the prevailing thought was, "Hey, I'm already paying the music industry each time I purchase a blank CD, to compensate them for people downloading songs and putting them on blank CDs. By that token, it is my right, since I have paid this compensation, to go and download all the songs I want and put them on this CD."
This very line of thinking played a role in trials held against music sharers in Canada in early 2004 (they were all exonerated).
Since I no longer burn songs to audio CDs, but rather put them on iPods, I (and everyone I know in that "second group") have once again started purchasing music CDs in stores. However, were a levy to be placed on iPods, well...that exact same argument used for blank CDs could be applied to iPods. And you know that wouldn't make the industry very happy. I mean...40 GB iPod vs. an audio CD...heh.
Of course, now some audio CDs in stores include copy protection. I have yet to purchase one, but I assume this would make it impossible (or difficult) to get the songs onto my iPod from the CD. So, you can probably tell exactly what will happen with that "second group" as soon as this protection becomes more prevalent. The industry is so skilled at alienating its remaining customers (with what is an illegal practice in the first place, since under Canadian copyright law, to the best of my knowledge, you must be allowed to make a backup copy of any digital media you purchase).
As a musician, and member of a musical band, I would say that I encourage "free music". Our CDs aren't sold that much, as we did not sign any contract with big label corporations such as Sony Music. We do not make our profits from the CDs we sell directly but more on the shows and materials we sell there such as t-shirts. We even intentionally share our music over the internet! As a result, we get to make more shows and the t-shirts sells more. Long live the MP3! Long live Free music! :)
...the more they change.
Back when this battle was fought over VCRs and casette tapes, the eventual conclusion was levys and then the matter was settled.
I think, however, that this time around, the companies and corporations have enough influence, a greater hold on the justice system, that consumers won't get the same deal they did before. The slow warping over time of copyright laws shows this trend quite clearly, methinks.
The argument, of course, is that this digital stuff is somehow different; in reality, it's only more effective at distribution, the fundamentals of being able to copy, etc are still the same, and the fact that (with the exception of Canada, for the moment) the issue is not being resolved the same way it was in previous technological iterations, well, that's a sign of the times a changin'.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!