Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Copyright Group Wants iPod Tax
soulxtc writes "Unable to define memory as a 'recording medium,' Canada's Private Copyright Collective goes directly after portable music player devices, memory cards, and anything else that can be used to make private copies. The PCC submitted a proposal to the country's Copyright Board that suggests levies of $5 (Canadian) on devices with up to 1GB of memory, $25 for 1-10 GB, $50 for 10-30 GB, and $75 for over 30 GB. If approved, this propoal would increase the price of a 30-GB iPod by 26%. These collections are intended to compensate artists and labels for the losses they suffer when people 'illegally' copy or transfer music. The PCC is also seeking a new $2 to $10 tax on memory cards. The backbone of digital photography has become tangled up in the fight for making sure music companies get every nickel and dime they feel that they deserve."
So, this means that I get to download anything I want while in Canada free of guilt and cost... right?
It's good to know that the record industry in the US aren't the only thugs in the business. Yeah, let's just assume everyone is a crook and charge them up front! The greed of these fuckers is absolutely endless.
Do they want me to stop buying music? If I am going to be charged for buying a new iPod, I should be able to download at least as much music as it costs for the fee right? If they are going to accuse people of being thieves, then I suppose they have no choice but to stop buying music completely and just pirate it. Way to go CRIAA. Have fun with bankruptcy.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Eventually, if this tax is approved, the entire weight of the tax is going to shifted onto the consumers. Why must the consumers be punished by the same people they're purchasing music from? And people wonder why I never listen to/buy new music these days.
These collections are intended to compensate artists and labels for the losses they suffer when people 'illegally' copy or transfer music
No, they're not. They're intended to set up yet another cash cow for large recording companies, irrespective of whether individuals put legal or illegal copies of music on their recording devices.
And no, they're not intended to supplement the compensation of artists, regardless.
Geez, that was easy to translate. The recording companies don't even try to hide their intentions behind competent PR any more.
Kythe
habeas corpus?
memory cards are the backbone of digital photography and they want to add $2-$10 to them.
If they think this is a good deal, then why not make it part of a package when one buys an iPod? Spend an additional $5 for your 1GB iPod, and you get a contract that says you can download as much cartel music as you want, from any source, to that device.
For people who want to go the iTunes route, they could simply turn down the contract.
Sigh. Something tells me the fact that they're trying to legislate this means they wouldn't go for my idea. Not enough free money in it for them, I'm guessing.
Kythe
How do I contact the organizations making these proposals? I want to give them a piece of my mind, namely to tell them they can't have it both ways:
1) Make unauthorized copying illegal.
2) Charge me for it.
Do they want a compulsory licensing scheme, as has been proposed by The Register, or do they want people to pay for each copy of music they purchase.
They should make up their damn minds, because they can't have their cake and eat it too.
This space left intentionally blank.
I always did find "innocent before proven guilty" to be rather ineffective. Why not just calculate the average of criminal activity among the whole population, and incarcerate each person for the amount of time found in the result? Think of the money that could be saved when the courts are closed down.
For each 700mb cd-rw, the levy is 30 cents.
A 30gb ipod has 30000mb-
30000mb/700mb = 42.9 cdrs
42.9 cdrs x 30 cents = 1286 cents = 12.86 dollars
The association better have a very good reason why they want to charge for than 3x for the ipod compared to cd-rws.
Also, why stop with ipod? I can record information on harddrives too! Let's see, a typically hard drive in a computer has 250 gb. Obviously, if a 30gb ipod costs $40, a 250gb computer should cost (250/40) x $40 = $240! We all know computers are the main source of illegally downloaded mp3!
I agree that these taxes are ridiculous - $75 being quite a hefty price increase - however, if this is a replacement for record companies suing random 12 year olds for $5000, I can't say it's totally bad.
Really? Why would you suggest knuckling under to it at all? Don't BUY an iPod, or anything else the bastards tax. Let your voice (dollars, euros, whatever) be heard. At the end of the day, business buys legislatures and your money effects business. Vote where it matters - forget the ballot box.
1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
> state-sanctioned anal penetration!
Saynkshunned? Looks like you misspelled "mandated" there.
I've seen it before, but I've never quite understood how any government can be convinced to collect taxes for a non-government enterprise. Unless the government is now going to start producing, regulating or in some other way getting involved in the music industry, and intends to use the taxes to pursue that enterprise, why exactly would they collect taxes for it? -- I know it's slashdot but this is a serious question if anyone knows [seriously though - I know it's slashdot, but please refrain from the corruption/collusion arguments for at least 3 posts... ] [[no, seriously... ]]
Next thing you know they are taxing paper (since I can hand-copy, or even xerox, copyrighted material), pens (Devil's instrument), headphones and speakers (cheap bastardic broadcasting equipment) and parrots, and they'll find a way for the Government to pass a law stating that airwaves qualify as comercial goods and so the more you get, the more copyrighted content you are stealing, you nasty little thief.
Oh, and you better start forgetting how to hum. We'll tax that too.
My 0.02 cents
That $100 HD will now cost $150. Nice.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
All good questions. His albums have sold modestly; the Juno-nominated one was in one of the 'other' categories (Best Aboriginal Album), so not huge sales. So as a result, Nelly Furtado gets the lion's share of this money (if any artists have ever gotten any--which I'm not sure has truly been established) and the musicians who are scraping by get nothing. Not a little bit, but NOTHING.
Then consider that while my brother is recording gigs, practices, jam sessions, etc., any copies of original music that they've burned to CDR, they have to pay a bloody levy to NELLY FURTADO!!!
This isn't just a cash grab, it's theft from the populace, giving to the record companies and their pets.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Well, getting more people who might say "ok" to it to realize it is disproportionate and object on that ground would be nice too. As for the tax thouhg, doesn't canada have fair use rights? If so then why aren't these considered above possible illegal copying? And how long will it take before Apple sells the memory as an addon to the "Ipod canadian edition" to keep them affordable and end up having these people try to tax hardrives? I mean $75 for 30 gig? when the storage in the ipod is basicly the same thing? And herddrives can hold music too!
Anything to get people to reject this so some common sence can be used.
you sound just like the record industry when they cry wolf: "mp3 means the end of music as we know it". if I had mod points I would have modded you -1 Overrated.
get real, man. portable players were here long before you heard about the iPod, much longer than the 1998 Diamond Rio. At the time there was no market, yet the players did exist.
also, economics 101: if you want to recover your money from a bad investment, you DO NOT raise the price. you lower it. you sell it to the first jerk that show up, then "Take The Money and Run".
The memory card levy part of this is utter bullshit. Fuck this pisses me right the fuck off. I DONT buy new music or download it. I DO download music from cd's I already own which by the fucking way I buy at a pawn shop for $2/3 dollars. NOW I do take tons of photos with my Olympus E1. I fucking will not be forced to pay some shitty ass music artiss wages for the pleasure of storing MY OWN COPYRIGHTED photos from my camera onto a memory card.
And who the fuck stores music on memory cards? I dont have any links to data that will show this but I'm prety sure and everyone know this that sales of memory cards for digital cameras beats the sales of memory cards for music players by a long shot.by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I think it's silly to do this because I'm pretty sure the money that these music companies are making has increased more due to the existence of iPods and other such devices than it has decreased from the potential "losses" that may arise from the sharing of copyrighted music, so it's a win-win situation but these companies seem to want to turn it into a situation where they're the only winners.
That theory applies to most of us, but in advanced Econ 748 - Economics for Cartels - we learn that it the previous economic principles are only valid when you fail to properly legislate yourself a revenue stream and business model.
...and I might be willing to pay the fine.
Seriously, there is no evidence at all that the labels (almost all American, btw) will actually give a dime to the artists on top of their existing contracts.
The "standard recording contract" pays the artist an upfront advance that is recouped from the royalties (usually a meager 12-14%, some of which may go to the engineer or the producer). IF and ONLY IF that advance is recouped in full (and record labels have tons of accounting tricks to assert that even a million-seller didn't "recoup") will the artist actually start seeing real royalty payments come in. (BTW, through all of this and beyond, the label owns the music, not the artist.)
There is nothing in the artist contract that actually has allowances for when extra "fees" collected on behalf of the artists of the label actually is applied to the payment of the advance. There is nothing in the accounting systems of a record label that will actually distribute such collected fees back to the artists of the label, either as cash or as applied to the advance.
The label keeps the money, most of which is either pure profit (it didn't cost them anything except paying the lobbyist) or at least is applied to the "general fund" which is used to pay the advance for the next standard artist's standard contract, and the legalized slavery continues unabated.
Unless the law goes against the labels as well, requiring that they show proof that they have changed their contracting and accounting systems to actually give an acceptable cut of this income to the artists, then all that has happened is that the legislation has totally bought into the lies and deceits of the music industry, and is sanctioning theft of both the artists AND the consumers.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe