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

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.'"

Comments

Tax them for using law enforcement resources

[syousef]

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.

Re:Tax them for using law enforcement resources

[i_should_be_working]

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.

Re:Tax them for using law enforcement resources

[Mistlefoot]

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.

Re:Tax them for using law enforcement resources

[sumdumass]

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.

Re:Tax them for using law enforcement resources

[gstoddart]

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

Step 3: profit?

[rustalot42684]

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

As a canadian...

[Darkinspiration]

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.

Re:Recreate the Boston Tea Party....

[machineghost]

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.

That's what Bin Laden said.

[Imazalil]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Recreate the Boston Tea Party....

[bladesjester]

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.