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."

Comments

Should I move to Canda?

[mstromb]

So, this means that I get to download anything I want while in Canada free of guilt and cost... right?

Re:Should I move to Canda?

[Babillon]

That's the way I go about things. They're pretty much just yelling at us "Hey, go for it. We think you're stealing anyway."

Wouldn't it be grand if the people who distribute software started pulling this crap too? I'd feel obliged to take them up on their fees and start downloading away.

Re:Should I move to Canda?

[acidrain]

So, this means that I get to download anything I want while in Canada free of guilt and cost... right?

Actually yeah. In Canada we pay a small tax on blank tapes and a special kind of recordable cd that nobody buys. The upside is that it is perfectly legal for Canadians to share their music with each other and to download music off the internet. Making files available on the web is brodcasting and therefore illegal, and charging money for copying is also illegal. However, if you want to set up an mp3 server at work, there is no law preventing that.

What it comes down to is you cannot tax illegal behaviour. Our courts would never accept it. So this isn't that scary, in that there an upside because they also enshrine the right to share music with those players. As for digital photography? That would result in too many pissed off taxpayers. Probably the worst would be some brand of memory card being released with an absurd tax just like for cds. And it will quietly be ignored by consumers, if they ever see it.

Finally, just because they are asking for $25 doesn't mean the politicians won't just give them $2.50 and tell them to keep quiet. We have a minority government right now so the politicians are far too busy kissing voter but.

Re:Should I move to Canda?

[shark72]

"So it's just like the US (hint: Audio Home Recording Act)."

Nope. These two statements are true:

1. Canadians pay a levy on recordable media.
2. In some circumstances, it's legal for Canadians to share copyrighted music.

However, the following is not true:

Canadians pay a levy on recordable media. Because of this, in some circumstances it's legal for Canadians to share copyrighted music.

To be sure, lots of Canadians use the levy as moral justification to pirate as much music as they can, often citing the fact that artists are compensated by the levy (the reality is that it largely goes to Canadian artists). In other words, Canadians have their choice of 94 moral justifications for piracy, vs. the 93 that we in the United States have.

You're correct that the AHRA defines tariffs on some recordable media (including DAT machines, and those music CD-Rs that nobody buys). I'm sure there are lots of people who use the existence of this tariff as a moral justification for piracy, but the tariff certainly doesn't make it legal.

Re:You've gotta be shitting me

[Derek Loev]

According to this article" music sharing does not kill CD sales due to the fact that those that download music would not likely buy it in the first place. MP3 Players and P2P software have become the scapegoat of the music industry. They are trying to compensate for something they caused (by releasing music overpriced and more) by taking away from the consumer. It's completely ridiculous.

Re:Consumers

[ChoralScholar]

First of all, this is more "you have an iPod, you must be a criminal" nonsense. Well, here's what I have to say about RIAA and it's Canadian counterpart: If you treat everyone like they're a thief, it's probably because you're a thief too. (Credit to my father who said this referring to Wal-Mart) Furthermore, from their standpoint, why give people MORE ammo with which to justify pirating music and video. This will have the OPPOSITE effect than they want. (i.e. I paid $75 extra for this 30Gig iPod, and I'm gonna get my money's worth.. etc...)

Where's my brother's money, dammit?

[swordgeek]

My brother is a full-time professional musician in Alberta, and has been now for about 20 years. It's not an easy job, but it's his love and his passion.

He's now been an artist on about six albums over the years, one of which was nominated for a Juno. Why, pray tell, has he not gotten a single bloody cent from this tariff?

If I didn't know better, I'd almost believe that the point of it isn't actually to reward the musicians! But of course, that's just crazy talk.

Private Copying Levy

[vic-traill]

The Private Copying Levy is what lets me download with impunity in Canada. The dollars may or may not actually get to the artists (google away on this one), but it certainly does facilitate my p2p activities.

I don't know who the 'Private Copyright Collective' is, but this position is at odds with what we've been hearing about the Canadian Recording Industry Association's position - last heard as wanting to do away with the levy:

http://michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_conten t/task,view/id,1200/Itemid,85/nsub,/

I think this is an interesting tactic: collect levy at the front end, squeeze the availability of material via p2p networks through increased DRM on released materials.

Quite honestly, I don't really notice the levy at my pocketbook, and it does make for an entirely different legal landscape for p2p downloading. Michael Geist is the Guy in the Know about this landscape in Canada - check out his blog at the address above, there's reams of material there.

Re:Hey Canadians...

[edschurr]

You can copy music from a friend if you put it on a medium which has the levy, because then you have paid royalties. It may be the case that you can download, given the same condition. See A Guide to Copyrights: Copyright Protection.

It doesn't make sense

[Sgt_Jake]

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... ]]

Distribution of Tarriffs

[steveoc]

Never quite understood how these levies/tariffs are distributed back to the artists.

So say if I download a few songs from groups such as Blood-Axe, mix it up with a bit of psy-trance from Finland, and then round it out with some Pendulum ... and then burn it all on a CD for my car driving pleasure ... how does the RIAA know how to distribute the funds to the starving artists in this case ?

What, they dont ?

So you mean despite the efforts of the original muso's involved, plus my time to mix and burn the CD - they just end up writing out yet another cheque to Celine Dion for all of our collective efforts ?

Fuck No !

Ive never wanted to even to listen to Celine Dion. Not ever !

But when I step into an elevator, or pass through a shoe shop - there she is, singing in the background and generally ruining my day.

I dont want to listen to her, but yet she still gets royalties out of me when I make my own CD, or backup my harddisk ?

That is so totally around the wrong fucking way. Man - I should be PAID by Celine Dion instead as compensation for HAVING to listen to any of her music, which is clearly against my wishes. She infringes upon my personal aural liberty, and yet ... money from my pocket ends up in hers anyway ?

That is just WRONG on so many levels.

Seriously - does ANYONE go the effort of actually downloading Celine Dion music and burning it on CD's Why ? So they can hold hands with their so-called 'friends' and dance around and be silly between glasses of cheap wine ?

What they should do is just stick to selling normal CD's and iPods and things without the tarriffs, but give people the right, if they so choose, to pay $100 and get a licence key that will put their CD Burner or iPod into some sort of crappy 'Celine Dion Mode'. In the same way that you can take a perfectly good PC, and pay $400 or whatever it is to stick Vista on there - enabling 'Celine Dion' mode on the iPod will virtually trash the machine, in exchange for getting the 'Wow' of having it play Celine Dion songs .. for a fee of course.

The iPod should just operate normally, unless you 'opt-in', and pay the fee, after which the iPod degrades itself to the point where it will play Celine Dion music. 'Look Herbert, my iPod it now plays Celine Dion !!'. 'Yayy !'. 'Hey Clarence, your iPod - its turning a pale shade of Green !!'. 'Its all about the Yayy !!'.

Its just WRONG

Re:The very least they could do

[hjf]

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".