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."
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.
"Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
Is there still a levy on that? Seems like they could use this to try and get rid of that . . .
But as far as I know DVD-R and CD-R blank media labeled for "music" use have a piracy tax applied to them.
Many consumers are tricked by this because they don't know much and think blank media labeled for "data" will not support mp3s, etc. which is not true.
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
"The money is sitting in an account and will be returned to the importers and manufacturers of the products, said Basskin."
I think it should be going to the consumers not the corporations and distributors. I spent way too much on my 3Gen iPod when it first came out. I wouldn't mind an extra $25 in my pocket.
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! --
"Obviously we're disappointed. We felt it was self-evident that those products are sold for the purpose of copying music," said David Basskin, of the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC), the non-profit agency which collects tariffs on behalf of musicians and record companies.
Yes, yes, everyone who owns an mp3 PLAYER, must have bought them to STEAL MUSIC. As opposed to, oh I dunno, LISTENING TO MUSIC.
Next thing we know everyone who owns a kitchen knife must have bought them to KILL PEOPLE.
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
There is an insane clown who stands on a podium in the middle of the computer room to make sure that all the code is extremely poor in quality. The clown holds his cock all the time for no reason.
Oh, he has his reasons.
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.
Since the link is down, here's another article.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
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.
Life, Liberty, Some Property, but not TOO much, Healthcare, French People, The Word "Eh", Maple Syrup, Mounties and now, I-PODs. Perhaps it is time to move north! Wait... French People... I'll bide my time.
"Digital Audio Tape (DAT) and micro-cassettes are not typically used by individuals for copying music for private use and, therefore, are not subject to a levy."
"Yes. Both "ordinary" CD-Rs and CD-RWs and their "Audio" counterparts can be used to copy music, and both are commonly used for this purpose. In fact, in volume terms, most CDs used to copy music are "ordinary" CD-Rs and CD-RWs (subject to a levy of 21), not "Audio" products (subject to a levy of 77)."
do.what.promptcmds
And why would I want him on my iPod anyway?
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Maybe this is the final word on the matter, but I'm pretty sure these levies were ended months ago. Any mp3 player fanatic in Canada (such as I) probably noticed the significant reduction in prices.
You can now roughly predict the price of an Ipod in Canada by just taking it's US dollar price and doing the exchange rate. It used to be that it was much more expensive here.
This ruling also puts into doubt the legality of copying music to Ipods.
There is no such thing as fair use rights in Canada. The levy was designed to provide an exemption for copying of audio recordings (the ruling suggests this does not apply to Ipods).
Does this now imply that Ipod's are not covered under the private copying exemption?
...kind of makes you wonder if perhaps you got it wrong the first time when you put the levy on blank media, huh Parliment? Death to the CPCC and their outrageous greed.
----- sXe
Obviously you care, or else you wouldn't have posted here.
I find that, for the money, the iRiver is a much better player and has many more features. I have an iHP-140, and the things it has built-in that a standard 40GB iPod does not have are: A) Vorbis support - the best (in my audiophile and freedom-loving opinion) lossy format! http://vorbis.com/ MP3s distort the high and low end a *lot*. Makes songs sound awful. But everyone loves .mp3 for some reason... weird.
B) FM tuner - Not that I *listen* to the radio
C) Built in recording support as either .wav or .mp3 - and the ability to use an external mike.
D) Shows up as a USB Mass-storage device on every operating system - so you don't need any crappy proprietary software to get access to *your* data! Besides, you have music players and jukeboxes on your machine already, right?
E) Long battery life - mine lasts 13 - 16 hours playing 256K vorbis files, after owning it for more than a year.
F?) Not sure if iPod has this, but optical output as well as analog. Awesome sound quality.
G) Other codec support - .wav, .wma, .ogg, .mp3.
Check it out if you are thinking of buying a music player - http://www.iriveramerica.com/
Also check out the XClef, who's main feature is that it has a *lot* of storage space. The largest I have seen was 100GB. Disadvantage is that it is shaped like 1/2 of a brick.
http://xclef.com/pro03_e.htm This is the up to, apparently, 137GB model.
-Nick
My memory is really foggy on this, but when I was a teenager back in the late 1970's, I had heard that when you buy blank cassette tapes, you paid a one cent [tax|levy|fine] for each cassette. I asked my father (whom worked peripherally with recording studios) about this. He told me that you are paying "the industry" because they think you are going to pirate music with it.
I'm thinking that this is the same or similar situation happening now.
-Scott
My other sig is a Glock
eCommerceTime article
It sounds better as "In Soviet Russia, fuck up shuts YOU", heh I'm kind of liking that. Thanks man.
No Levy on iPods in Canada
I read that as Levis, ie pants.
I know Paris Hilton has some funky cases for her cell phone and such, but I didn't think an iPod had to have pants on too.
How about a thong for it?
Don't steal. The government hates competition.
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.
3 9149
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/39129.html#rid-
Waaaait a second...
So the levy has been overturned, but they've still collected MILLIONS of dollars on it in the meantime...
Consumers should sue the CPCC to get their money back - it shouldn't be going back to the importers and manufacturers... Do I hear class-action?
And in the meantime, has anyone heard of the CPCC actually giving out any of the money they've stolen from consumers yet? Last I heard, they were sitting on it and just funding themselves (and not releasing the books because they're a private entity - why the HELL should our government give levy-power to a private entity without any sort of public accountability on where the money goes...)
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
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).
Signed.... John Hancock etc etc
I don't like proprietary systems either, but to play devils advocate:
- Most MP3 players don't play DRM'd music at all
- competing players CAN legally play apple DRM'd music. You just can't legally un-DRM it in the US. The problem here is the law sucks.
- You aren't limitted to MP3 for non-DRM'd music on the iPod. It still plays non-DRM'd AAC.
If you sell music online, you have to expect that people will do one of the following:
a) not have a clue what DRM is or care and just work within the system provided (for example, iTunes/iPod)
b) hate DRM and not buy any DRM'd music
c) be annoyed by DRM limitations and crack it so they can excercise fair use
d) pirate it regardless
I suspect most of the people under "a)" would not own an iPod and use a music store other than iTunes anyway; but I could be wrong there.
----
All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
No one is going to be giving their friends iPods full of music. Or if they are, I would like to become their friend.
After all, I am strangely colored.
Mean old levy taught me to weep and moan, oh yeah
Mean old levy taught me to weep and moan, oh yeah
Thinkin bout my baby and our iPod at home
All last night, spat on the levy and moaned
All last night, spat on the levy and moaned
[song continues]
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Please shut up.
You're giving us a bad name.
If I can't smoke and swear I'm fucked.
Everything I've experienced when I go to Montreal is amazing. Montreal is a very relaxed / cultural / party city. People there are friendly, easy to talk to, don't take themselves serious. It's very similar to europe where it's more about slowing down to smell the roses then it is about working so hard that life passes you by.
The food is amazing! I don't get it. In the states everything is deep fried. Everyone is fat because all they eat is greasy food. The French in Canada created Poutine. French fries, cheese curds and gravy. It's a heart attack in a single dish, and it is just so amaizingly tasty. It's what every Mc Donald's eating american dreams for. I think French food alone would make people fall in love with them.
Last but not least is the French women. They are very beautifull, and with cities like Montreal where the people are very relaxed, the women too are very friendly and aproachable.
Overall, they are great.
Treat me like a marketing stat, and I'll treat your movie like a series of ones and zeros
I agree with you 100% that it's the infringers who are the crooks. The difference is, in Canada, not all trading of music is defined as copyright infringement. If you make copies from someone else's CD, this is not copyright infringement in Canada. Ergo, it is not theft. The tarriff is the tool used to enable this kind of copying while protecting the copyright holders. Remember -- copyright infringement doesn't exist until it is legislated to exist. Theft of material goods exists de-facto.
Well, it depends on who you think paid the levy. You could look at it as the consumer paying the levy, in which case the consumer should get the money back. You could also view it as the manufacturer paying the levi, and passing on the cost to the consumer.
The manufacturer passes on the cost of a lot of things to the consumer. If you see it the 2nd way, then the company should get the money. And in that case, it's entirely up to the company to decide if they want to give the money to the consumer.
Lets say a company is selling widgets for $2 each, and suddenly an accounting error at the widget plant is found and the company realizes they actually paid 10 cents less than they thought to make each widget. Does the consumer feel they are somehow entitled to a 10 cent refund for every widget they bought last year? Of course not, that's silly. The company will naturally chalk it up as a "revenue enhancement" and bump up their stock dividends oh.. something like 10 cents. If you're very lucky as a consumer, they might drop the price of new widgets by 5 or 6 cents, to increase sales of widgets and optimize their proffit. That's what it's all about.
I'm quite surprised that money's still sitting in a bank account, untouched. I thought by now they'd have descended on that cash like a flock of pidgeons after popcorn in a park, and you know after that there's no getting the money back.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
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! :)
Hey it sucks to have the levy on optical media (How in the world did this pass in the first place I don't know) but it has essentially legalized downloading of music. See, I bought these blank CD's with taxes on it specifically because they need to make up for the lost revenue of 'real' cd's not bought, now why in the world would I pay double the CPCC tax and buy the proper album.
If I want to support the artists directly I buy their stuff at a show.
For god sake don't go and mod such an ignorant statement as informative, the guy blatantly assume stuff and judges others on it. Lemme set thing straight a bit:
-All the money they get trough the Levy is splitted proportionnally amongst all artist who received royalties during the year.
-The idea comes from the fact that most popular artist get pirated more often and indeed that's true, while the obscure ones don't get pirated much.
-The system isn't perfect but it's the artists who receives the money comming from the Levy, it is directly proportionnal to the royalties they initialy generated.
-Before you draw doubtfull conclusions again: the various types of royalties are all taken into account here, royalties for public diffusion, mechanical reproduction and the grand rights. So when some artist play more on radio or in live events then they sell record they also get royalties from the levy proportionnally to what they generate.
I am agaisnt that levy big time since I never have copied music on blank cds, if I did it was my music that I composed, I use cd-rs to backup or transfer files hence I have ammassed enough copyrights to download almost all I want but it doesnt work this way. If you don't use your levy it's gone. I am not against it because this money goes into some big scary abusive organisation like you claim but because it is an abuse it itself. It isn't managed abusively though...
check your facts before spitting venom...
Yes, but the reason it's legal in many cases is *because* of the levy, which justifies letting basic pirating go, since compensation has already been paid via the levy. It's not that the government have said "pirating music is and has always been okay, but we're going to take a tonne of your money because we can". It's more like "pirating music is bad, but as long as everyone agrees to pay this tax (which will fall disproportionately on those who pirate music) to compensate those who own the rights to the music, we'll let it slide".
As there is on blank CDs, DVDs, and minidiscs.
Now what's also absurd is that the money collected is distributed only to Canadian artists, so, sorry Britney, this tax is not for you eh?
/ Library/Computers/cd_levy.htm
How did this get passed? Ask Sheila Copps why on earth she passed this assinine "guilty so pay up" levy.
Here's an update from London Drugs in Canada on the Levy:
http://www.londondrugs.com/Cultures/en-US/Content
Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
The levies were applied at the time of "sale" on top of the sale price. It was essentially like another sales tax we "consumers" had to pay at the time of sale above the "purchase price".
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Good work Canadian supreme court.
A Multiplayer Strategy Game for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux
Now think about doing the same thing with an iPod.
They are more concerned with "distribution" of music illegally than downloading. That is why downloading music is not an issue here in Canada but uploading is.
I personally get my music these days from iTMS.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
>> Dude man, the French in Canada are the best!
You're obviously not talking about Quebec City
Montreal is a paradise, yes... but Quebec City balances it out
If I can't smoke and swear I'm fucked.
"competing players CAN legally play apple DRM'd music."
This is news to me. I am aware of a few audio players that support AAC without DRM...in fact the fine print for those products say "will play AAC, but not AAC files purchased from iTunes Music Store"
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
The tax is not about piracy; it is about good taste. If you can prove you have not used your blank media to record Alanis Morissette, Celine Dion, Bryan Adams or Geddy Lee, you can recoup the extra charges.
Oh? The local stores I were at had signs up saying that the price of the players had an extra $25 (or other levy amount) included in the store's price.
So you're saying that if the manufacturer or importer had to pay the levy, it wasn't just passed-along to the consumer?
Mighty generous of them...
Now I suppose you could argue that consumers should go after the manufacturers, but let's be honest, the CPCC should be the ones paying to cut-out the middle man.
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
It's not really free music, if you've paid for it :) lol... anyway you know what i mean
replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
They should put a tax on listening to music. After all, Mozart could reproduce any piece of music after listening to it only once, obviously he'd be a cp infringer in these days.
Hey hey mamma, said the way you be,
Gonna take your iPod, play my M.P.3....
[Self-indulgent guitar solo...]
Old people fall. Young people spring. Rich people summer and winter.
yes copyright infringement is theft,
No it's not, it's infringement. That's why it has a separate definition in the law.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Celine Dion.
Now I need to go bleach my brain, as simply mentioning her name has caused that horrific "Titantic" song to lodge itself in my brain once more.
C'est beau. C'est pas comme si on te voulait ici de toute façon.
In case you're too lazy for babelfish, he/she said that it was pretty up there, and they didn't want you in Canada anyway.
Luke
----
Tired of answering basic computer questions for people? Send them to ChristianNerds.com instead!
Did someone say Free Music?
All songs are RIAA free as far as I can tell. In short, I've already got the free music. The 'industry' hopes I haven't found it yet, so they'll trot out Shitney Beers or some other jailbait teen with more T&A than talent hoping I'll bite. The special interest groups can go f' themselves as far as I'm concerned. I don't buy, listen, or even want any of their crap, so they'd best keep their grubby hands out of my pockets.
...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!
They represent less than 25% of the population but somehow every damn government we get seems to pander to them and pay them off.
From a statistical point of view, that's already better than pandering to the 9.9% of the population that is Alberta .
They are a have-not province. That alone is ridiculous. That means basically that they're a fcking welfare state, that makes our laws, takes our money and shits on our flag.
Now don't you get too american on us.
You can't get any government job of note without being bi-lingual which is BLATANT DISCRIMINATION!
Well, this worlks both ways. In Quebec, you also have to be bilingual to get a federal job of note even though the anglo population is small. But your frustation is understandable.
We shoulda shipped them back to france over a 100 years ago.
Like when Alberta did not even exist yet?
America got that part right. Speak english or get out.
I don't remember the americans doing that. You just get assimilated into the great melting pot although language laws have been creeping up in the last decades. The British did deport 10 to 12 thousand acadians between 1755-1762.
If the damn easterners vote in another corrupt liberal gov't after this last fiasco, Alberta will separate.
Quebec has been voting Bloc for the last ten years or so. You can't blame us for voting in the liberal government for that last decade. The Rest of Canada has been doing a great job at that without our help. It's not as if we liked Chrétien anyway.
We don't need Canada for anything. We have NO DEBT, billions in the bank, good healthcare and people that want to work.
And none of that is of your doing. I wonder how rich was Alberta before they started investing in the oil fields after the 1947 discovery of oil in Leduc (a french name by the way). Only because you're sitting on an oil field doesn't make you any better at administration or government (see the Middle East, not that i'm comparing Alberta to Saudi Arabia). Give me a pile of cash from oil and i'll make my province the richest.
damn french
You're funny.
I won't say i'm the best or portray that role, but i'm up to top two and my father's getting old.
More info on the various Canadian tariffs is available here.
The bits on the bus go on and off... on and off... on and off...
Copyright infringement - For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is often referred to as piracy or theft ... However there is no legal basis for this and indeed in one US copyright lawsuit the judge ordered the plaintiff's legal team to stop using the term.
Theft or piracy? I can understand why it should not be called theft in court, but piracy is defined as "copyright infrigement" in every dictionary I own, so Wikipedia is clearly wrong there.
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done
Just kidding...
I think, therefore I am...I think.
But that is a perfect example of a free market. If only the damn anti-market gubmint would stop interfering (it is the government that enforces the copyright laws), then everything would find equilibrium. If Free Trade, free market proponents want to bitch about government regulation, government interference, coerced taxation, etc., then they should not go crawling to the government demanding that 'intellectual property' 'thieves' be punished.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
I didn't see the previous poster threatening theft if the price wasn't lowered. I saw him giving sound financial advice to a retarded industry.
Sales and quarterly earnings down? Lower prices so that people who couldn't afford to buy before can, and so that others who were unsure if the music was worth the cost have an easier decision to make.
Economics has always been about supply and demand, but unfortunately, the music industry has supply, but isn't creating a price point where consumers wish to buy. Instead of following normal economics and lowering price to generate consumer interest, they scream that we're all pirating their music and we should be forced to pay fines for CDRs and the tools that create CDs. Bullshit.
Dictionaries don't form a legal basis. In legal terms, piracy is something that happens in rather wet places.
sigs are hazardous to your health
No Levy? Poor guy, I didn't even know he had an album out, let alone be barred from iPods.
Unix is mysterious, and ancient, and strong. It's made of cast iron and the bones of heroic programmers of old -
I see a lot of misinformation here about the levy and private copying in Canada.
Let's set the record straight: private copying of music in Canada is legal, and the levy still applies to CD-Rs and cassette tapes.
For more info and links, see this previous blog post: It's Not Illegal if the Law Says You Can Do It
yes copyright infringement is theft,
Learn the language, you ignorant slut.
n : the act of taking something from someone unlawfully
When you duplicate something, you have not taken it.
Well it's probably natural for someone that stands to get money to have a biased opinion.
I'd submit that by not being involved in the issue, my opinion is less biased?
Though I will certainly agree it's just a game to them. The idea is to wring some more money out of the consumer in such a way that they don't realize they've been bushwhacked until it's too late, and then to have it set up so everyone points a finger at someone else when you go looking to get your money back. I'll agree it's a scam, but I won't agree that it's an unusual scam, and I also won't agree that it's an illegal scam.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't be done.
----
All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
Sort of like "speeding is bad, but as long as speeding saves lives (in the case of ER), we'll let it slide." Note how this is different than "speeding is bad, but as long as people pay the fines we'll let it slide." If there wasn't an exception made for ER vehicles, the police would have to pull themselves over. I'll let the reader draw the rest of the conclusions (one way or the other).