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.
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.
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
It sounds better as "In Soviet Russia, fuck up shuts YOU", heh I'm kind of liking that. Thanks man.
Umm...get your own blog dude.
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-
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).
From The Copyright Act ( R.S. 1985, c. C-42 ):
"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."
Please shut up.
You're giving us a bad name.
If I can't smoke and swear I'm fucked.
C'est beau. C'est pas comme si on te voulait ici de toute façon.
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! :)
As there is on blank CDs, DVDs, and minidiscs.
I think it has more to do with the copious amounts of advertising (and media attention) that the iPod receives. Its feature set is lacking, but the scroll wheel is a treat!
However, the iPod's interface, like any interface, takes time to understand and use effectively. The XClef also has a weird interface with a switch on the side to move up and down instead of the joystick that the iHP-100 series have.
iRiver have changed this in their newest version of the hard disk multi-media jukebox, and they use something different (my friend has one but I have never witnessed directory traversal on it).
So, my question, did you see the new (color) iRiver hard disk players, or the old 100 series joystick dealies?
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.
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."
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!
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.