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."
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.
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.
Since the link is down, here's another article.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
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.
Yup, it makes no sense at all. Most obviously, there's a bizarre assumption of guilt in collecting levies on all blank media. Why should the RIAA be paid for me burning my children's photos to a disc? What have I gotten from the RIAA for my money? More interestingly, it means that copyright holders have been reimbursed for any piracy on that media - and that they should have waived their right to seek further damages. And if you've already paid for your piracy, haven't you a license to pirate as much as you want, then? The answer is apparently nope and nope. Which, it is equally apparent, makes no sense. The music industry wants it both ways - being paid for piracy in a way that implicitly legitimizes it while insisting on its illegality. And who can blame them for trying to get as much money as they can? What's astonishing is that they're being allowed to do it.
How about DAT? minidisc? Those are digital recorders too, are there levies on those?
No to DAT, yes to minidisc.
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
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.
Actually I don't feel like you act like a criminal. In my opinion, buying "data" CDs and burning music from P2P on them would be criminal, but you've chosen to pay the CD tax, so you should bloody well be entitled to download 700M worth of music to put on each CD.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Umm...get your own blog dude.
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).
"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!
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
If I lived in Canada, why would I want to pay for "you" to download music off the internet?