Slashdot Mirror
30 Days of DRM
sonofollson writes "Michael Geist, a Canadian law professor, in the middle of a 30 Days of DRM project,
which is targeting the planned introduction of the DMCA in
Canada. Each day, the project identifies an exception or
limitation that is needed to address the danger of anti-circumvention
legislation. Issues covered so far include interoperability,
privacy,
region
coding, and reverse
engineering. The project is also supporting a wiki version for
broader participation."
Michael Geist writes a weekly column on law and technology for the Toronto Star, Canada's largest newspaper. The Star is a significant venue because its middle brow (not tabloid, but not the New York Times), and always has a populist favour.
He is also frequently called on as a commentor on CBC radio (the public broadcaster, which by law can be heard by Canadians anywhere in the country). CBC radio recieves no ads and no coporate sponsorship (unlike PBS), so is generaly balanced on controversial issues.
In Canada at least, someone like Geist has a greater chance of reaching Jaques Six-Pack than he might have elsewhere.
As a Canadian, I can tell you that there are no such levies on CDs or DVDs, because they are argued as being used for computer data.
This is wrong. There are levies on blank CDs, because they are commonly used to record music, whether they are "CD-audio" or not.
See the current rates here.
In the U.S. the reason there are "music" CD-Rs that cost more than data CD-Rs is because of the American Home Recording Act. This was the grandfather of the DMCA. It requires a levy to be placed on all blank media for standalone digital audio recording devices. It was the AHRA that was used to attempt to bludgeon the Diamond RIO out of existence back in the day (it failed, because the Rio was judged to be a computer peripheral). The AHRA does not apply to computer peripherals, so that's why data CD-Rs are sold that are cheaper, even though you can record Red Book audio track disks with them. The AHRA was what killed the DAT as a consumer audio component back in the day and relegated them to studio audio and computer data applications.
I have a CD recorder / player (Yamaha) in my component stereo system, and it will only record on the "CDR Music" type discs that carry the extra fee. Of course, there is no way around this fee if I am recording, e.g., a session of my own band's rehearsal from an old cassette tape or whatnot. I've also not yet heard of any way to see the cashflow from the extra fee, in order to verify that it is indeed making it to the artists for which it was levied in the first place.
Lastly, if the manufacture of these discs ever ceases, I am stuck with a play-only unit in my stereo rack. Nice, eh?
Sure hope somebody reverse engineers these and starts manufacturing them independently one of these days. I'd actually pay *more* for a product if a portion of its cost supported anti-DRM organizations.
Pi Ran Out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_media_tax#Canad a
Fair dealing is much more limited than fair use. For example, it wouldn't allow you to make a copy for time shifting, or media shifting. But you might be right that it's closer to being "Canada's equivalent of fair use" than private copying is. I just tend to think of "equivalent" as being a black and white relation.
Wikipedia has a nice discussion of the differences between fair use and fair dealing.
I could have said "Canada has no equivalent of Fair Use. Our Fair Dealing is quite different.", but the private copying levy has nothing to do with fair dealing.
There is an exception to having to pay this levy.
In order to avoid paying this levy, you have to be an eligible organization (e.g. businesses who legitimately don't use it for ripping CDs, churches, NGOs, etc.). You then have to pay a $60/year ($15/year for non-commercial) registration fee with the CPCC, and you can only buy levy-free CDs from CPCC-certified manufacturers and distributors (NOT retailers).
So essentially, either you pay the levy to the CPCC, or you pay the CPCC other money so that you don't pay them the levy. Either way, you're paying more, and they're getting your money, all because they preemptively convict you of stealing music.
(Organizations for the perceptually disabled can get a rebate on their levy from the CPCC.)
Source: www.cpcc.ca
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!