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

Suppose...

[fyngyrz]

...you use your ipod for nothing but your own performances, and/or public domain playback? Why is it you should pay this levy then?

Re:I wouldn't feel morally obligated to pay, then

[Anonymous Coward]

guilty? why? buy an ipod, pay the levy, (profit) download all you want guilt free - you paid your fair share to artists & record companies

This will kill retail

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm going to have to pay a levy for every piece of hardware that could conceivably hold an audio file there's no bloody way I'm going to buy any more music. I'll have to download everything I can get my hands on just to get my levy's worth. Of all the stupid... I wonder if anyone in gov't has given any thought to what this will do to retail?

Just what am I paying for?

[javacowboy]

I posted these comments on Michael's site, and I'll post them here as well:

--------
Am I paying for:

1) The right to share copies with my "friends" on the internet.
2) The right to transfer content that I already paid for to another device that I owned for my exclusive personal use. IE "private copying".

If I'm paying for 2), then this is an egregious form of copyright socialism whereby I have been deprived of the ability to choose the musical entity that I will support financially. This means, among other things, that I can't deprive the RIAA of my music dollars in favour of independent artists via emusic.

If I'm paying for 1), then our copyright laws defy logic and common sense. The notion that I must "pay" for the privilege of using the music I paid for more than once is repugnant. Also, it defies any reason, given the proliferation of computers and the internet.
-------

Re:That's what Bin Laden said.

[rhombic]

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

Re:Hold up here

[mark-t]

No. First of all, it's not a tax, it's a levy. Second of all, it does not exist to legitimize something that would have otherwise been illegal. It merely exists to (allegedly) compensate the artists for personal and private copying of copyrighted works. In actuality, the consumer doesn't get one single thing from paying this levy, although it's completely legal to avoid it by importing blank media from another country (as it is only the sale of such media within the country that triggers the levy, and neither the postal service nor customs are authorized to collect it).

Re:As a canadian...

[compro01]

the courts seem to disagree with your link

i believe that site is out of date in regards to the more recent court rulings regarding this.

Re:Tax them for using law enforcement resources

[syousef]

You're not paying much attention.

We have no concept of fair use in this country. Until the end of June this year copying your CD to your Ipod was technically illegal. The same laws that made it legal make it illegal to backup your DVD. You use to have to prove someone copied a DVD to put them in prison. Now you just have to be in possession of a copied DVD - EVEN if that DVD is your own! So while they made things a little more sane for music they made them less sane and more draconian for DVD.