Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canada's Copyright Cops Give Go-Ahead For iPod Tax

Posted by Zonk on from the pay-for-your-piper dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist reports that the Canada's Copyright Board has given the go-ahead for a new copyright tax on iPods, despite an earlier court decision blocking the fee. The Board apparently ruled that not including iPods would make criminals of millions of Canadians and that the levy could conceivably be applied to cellphones and personal computers. 'If we're going to make P2P legal through a levy system, the system must (1) address both downloading and uploading; (2) consider addressing non-commercial use of content; (3) cover audio and video; and (4) more closely link the copying to those paying the levy. The government has yet to play its hand on this issue, but with the prospect of an unpopular levy and mounting pressure for a Canadian fair use provision, it will have to take a stand sometime soon.'"

19 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. Tax them for using law enforcement resources by syousef · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Justifications aside this is just a grab for money. They'll still persue downloaders and still seek to make downloading illegal in every country on the planet.

    Disclaimer: I'm not a Canadian. I'm Australian. Our government's much worse on these issues.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Tax them for using law enforcement resources by i_should_be_working · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'll choose to look on the bright side. This levy will make it harder for the Canadian version of the RIAA to convince the lawmakers that filesharing of copyrighted music should be illegal. It's somewhere between a grey area and perfectly legal right now.

    2. Re:Tax them for using law enforcement resources by Mistlefoot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Justification is the key word.

      If I bought an iPod and used it to archive my legal purchased CD's and music that I bought from iTunes I can use this justification for downloading other music I may not currently have. To do otherwise would be to pay a levy for songs I legally buy.

      My teenage children will surely understand this simple concept - they pay for something ('illegal' mp3's ) they get something. Now try to explain to them why it's wrong to take something they paid for.

    3. Re:Tax them for using law enforcement resources by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't understand why the artist should get extra money because I listened to the music I purchased from them on a different device. It isn't like I'm listening to it on separate devices at the same time. I can only listen to one copy at a time.

    4. Re:Tax them for using law enforcement resources by IAmTheDave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really? Doesn't seem like the RIAA has had much trouble convincing government officials of just about anything they've set out to do. It's only the courts that seems to have any degree of understanding. They're the ones that are actually pushing back on the RIAA, awarding attorney fees to victims of lawsuits, etc. They're the ones that already said "no" to the iPod levy in Canada.

      But lawmakers? They have no idea what anyone is talking about, and the organization with the biggest campaign contributions win. There has yet to be a law enacted (that I've seen) that has been enforced that benefits the consumer. Fair use? We're holding on to it for dear, dear life.

      --
      Excuse my speling.
      Making The Bar Project
    5. Re:Tax them for using law enforcement resources by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't like the levy the way it's implemented, but the lawmakers were thinking straight when they decided to make an activity performed by a large part of the population (copying audio recordings without permission) legal, and finding new ways to compensate creators where copyright had broken down.

      See, here's where your argument breaks down ...

      Prior to the media lobby groups convincing our government that I needed 'permission', we had a concept of "fair use" strongly embedded in Canadian Copyright law. One of the things I was explicitly allowed to do was to make mixes, personal copies, and limited copies for friends of music I had legally purchased. It was already legal to copy to that media -- the lobby groups just managed to convince the government they needed to get paid for something it was already legal to do without the levy; the levy doesn't give us any new rights, it allows us to buy-back the ones we already had.

      There was absolutely NO need for me to ask permission, or compensate the media companies. I go out, I buy a CD, I have legally guaranteed things I can do with it. This little extortion scheme basically amounts to them saying "you can only do that which is already legal if you pay us, because we're sure you're doing something illegal and we're losing revenue".

      I own several hundred CDs, most of which have been bought in the last 5 years. When I buy CDs, I usually buy $100 or more worth at a time. The artists I like lead me to new genres of music, new artists, and all sorts of more cool music.

      For me to pay this tax (I don't care if you wish to call it a 'levy', to me, it's a fscking tax) on an iPod which is going to be used to store MP3 copies of my legally purchased music (NOT downloaded from P2P) basically is extortion and it really chafes.

      They've been compensated when I buy the CD. This presumption that since I own an iPod I'm surely ripping off the content creators (and I don't mean the media companies, I mean the artists) is utter bullshit. I make a point of buying albums from the artists I like so they DO get paid and keep making music (or, in the case of some of them, get paid for the music they made over a decade ago so they can keep eating).

      The problem here is that 'standard copyright law' had already made it legal for me to format/mix/location shift my music as an enshrined right. Now, some dickhead gets to charge me money on the presumption that I'm ripping off Brittney Spears or whomever the media companies assume I must be stealing from, when nothing could be further from the truth -- cause I know damned well none of the artists I'm listening to are getting compensated under this model. They've basically painted everyone with the same brush, and convinced people that we're now paying for a right we didn't previously have.

      It's a cash grab, pure and simple. Now, I could rationalize massive downloading of music on the basis that, since they're charging me this levy, I'm paying for the right to download music indiscriminately. I choose not to, but nothing I can do allows me to opt out of the fee which presumes I am.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  2. Step 3: profit? by rustalot42684 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So how do I register as an artist and cash in?

  3. As a canadian... by Darkinspiration · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm strongly in favor of a levy on anything that can be used to play downloadable music if and only if the levy garantee that there will never be any trial of p2p downloader or uploader in this contry and that musician receive there due. I realise that it's atall order but in my mind anything less is a travesty.

  4. I have to agree. by Mister_IQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If I pay a bit extra for CD's and iPods and I get to freely download music, that's a fair trade for me. The money I pay in levies will be no where NEAR the cost of the music I'd get, hypothetically.

    I don't have kids in school, but I pay school taxes. My city taxes go to building hockey rinks I don't use. Other people's levies can go to paying for my music even if they don't "infringe".

  5. Re:Recreate the Boston Tea Party.... by machineghost · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only difference between an act of terrorism and an act of rebellion is which side you're on: if you're the rebel, it's an act of rebellion, whereas if you're the imperial power it's an act of terrorism.

  6. That's what Bin Laden said. by Imazalil · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ohh boy, here we go. If you were British, the Tea Party was a terrorist act. Much like the combatants in Iraq now are 'terrorists' here and freedom fighters / rebels to others.

    1. Re:That's what Bin Laden said. by riceboy50 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure dumping tea in the harbor didn't kill anyone.

      --
      ~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
    2. Re:That's what Bin Laden said. by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Neither did the ELF setting fire to a bunch of SUVs, but that's been declared to be terrorism under federal law.

      It was pretty much just luck that nobody was killed or injured by the firebombs which the ELF placed under people's cars.

  7. Re:George Washington WAS a terrorist by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    attacking armed forces is not terrorism.

  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. Re:Suppose... by chebucto · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The levy in question is pointless, because it doesn't give payees the right to share copyrighted works - it only applies to personal, private copies. Until real filesharing is legal, the system is broken.

    That being said, the idea for a levy is sound IMHO. Take the gas tax for example. It's a special tax that's levied on sales of gasoline; the revenues derived from it are supposed to pay for the upkeep and construction of public roads.

    Now, someone might claim that they should not have to pay the tax because they only drive their car on private roads which they maintain themselves. Why are they wrong?

    The answers I might give are: 1) There's no way to make sure that the claimant really only drives on private roads, 2) The vast majority of people drive on public roads, and it's simply more efficient overall to tax everyone than to make small adjustments and exceptions, and 3) Public roads are a public good, and their existence allows the claimant to use them in the future, if he so decides, giving him a potential future benefit.

    A levy would acknowledge the fact that most people share copyrighted works, create a manageable system for compensating artists, and would support the creation of new music. All in all, I think it'd be work a few cents per GB.

    --
    The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
  10. Re:Recreate the Boston Tea Party.... by bladesjester · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An act of terror is meant to throw people into a panic.

    An act of rebellion is used to further the breaking away from the existing authority.

    There is indeed a difference.

    --
    Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
  11. Re:Recreate the Boston Tea Party.... by verySmartApe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Really, historical relativism is going way too far when it equates things like the Boston Tea Party with terrorism. Was Gandhi a terrorist from the British perspective? There are right and wrong ways to engage in rebellion. Read Henry Thoreau. Passive Resistance.

    I blame our current administration for diluting the meaning of important words like "freedom", "democracy", and "terrorism". And I blame idiots for calling everything the US does "terrorism".

  12. this is the RIGHT direction if.... by vuffi_raa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    this is the RIGHT direction if they drop the lawsuits- that is what the taxes are supposed to be for on recordable devices- if they are still perusing lawsuits then they have no reason for a tax because they are not getting compensated for losses- I would even be fine if there was a reasonable ISP tax (if it was a few $ a month- not if it doubled ISP costs since I never bought that much music) if it opened up the P2P realm and stopped file filters and such.