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.'"

48 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 timmarhy · · Score: 2

      I'm australian, and i don't see how our government is WORSE? sure there's a few idiot senators and back benchers that have voiced moronic ideas, but as far as i'm aware they haven't even tabled anything like a copyright tax?

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    4. Re:Tax them for using law enforcement resources by dextromulous · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is not a tax and has nothing to do with pirated music or lawsuits related to pirated music. It is a private copying levy and is applied so that when you put your legally purchased music (e.g. CDs) onto your iPod, artists get some money.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: those who divide people into two types and those who don't.
    5. Re:Tax them for using law enforcement resources by syousef · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    6. 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.

    7. Re:Tax them for using law enforcement resources by dextromulous · · Score: 2, Informative

      In Canada it is a Levy, and if you had quoted further, you would have seen that the wording is indeed important. "A distinction is sometimes made between "tax" and "levy" based on the recipient of the accumulated funds; taxes are received by a government, while levies are received by a private body, such as a copyright collective.)"

      In this case, the distinction is made because the government is not getting any funds from this, therefore it is not a tax. Although, it is confusing, since it is legally called a Tariff, and referred to by the CPCC as both a tariff and a levy...

      When you've already legally purchased a CD there's no issue about artists not getting monetary compensation since you've already purchased that CD.

      This is the issue the private copying levy is attempting to address. Not illegally downloaded music. The private copying levy is strictly in place to cover you privately copying your legally purchased music from one medium to another (e.g. CD to CD, CD to iPod, iPod to your phone's SD card, etc.)

      I know, that on the surface, it seems that this is in place to make money off of illegal copies. If it were, I wouldn't be so outraged. What they are doing is charging you a fee to do something legally. If you don't believe me, look on the CPCC's website for any mention of illegal copying. If you are interested in what the CPCC considers private copying, look here.

      Unfortunately, I did not find this particular FAQ until I finished writing the above. It is a little old, but not too out of date. A few choice FAQs:

      5) Isn't this just another tax by the federal government? The private copying royalty is not a tax. Unlike a tax, which is collected by the government, the private copying royalty is collected by the CPCC to provide remuneration to rights holders for private copying. The private copying royalty helps to ensure rights holders receive some payment for the copying of their work and to assist them in the creation of music.

      11) Isn't the point of the levy to compensate rights holders for losses due to peer-to-peer file trading on the Internet? No. The private copying legislation that passed in 1997 did two things. First, it made it legal for individuals to make copies of recorded performances of musical works if the copies were made for the private use of the copier on a medium ordinarily used to copy music. Second, the law provided for a fair and equitable levy to provide remuneration to copyright holders for the making of those private copies. The legislation recognizes that privately made copies have their own inherent value and for that reason it ensured that rights holders received compensation for the copy itself through the levy. It was never the purpose of the private copying levy to compensate copyright holders for lost revenue due to peer-to-peer file trading.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: those who divide people into two types and those who don't.
    8. Re:Tax them for using law enforcement resources by IHateUniqueNicks · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why try and explain something that's not true? Unfortunately, you got the concept backwards. We pay a levy on blank media because it's legal to copy audio to that media for personal use. Canadians have been in the clear downloading things off of P2P for years (apart from the minor snag of needing to make the copy to an approved, levied, media). It's funny how many people complain about standard copyright law being broken in an age of infinite supply, but then refuse to acknowledge an attempt to bring the laws up to date. 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.

    9. 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
    10. 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. Levy by gulfan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, if I'm paying a levy it means it's legal! Thank you Canada.

    1. Re:Levy by mark-t · · Score: 2, Informative

      Private copying is legal, yes. Distributing copies to other people, even though you have paid this fee, is still not legal without consent of the copyright holder (specifically, the Canadian copyright act makes the original _copying_ of the work criminal after the fact if you do something with the copy that you made which voids a notion of private use copying).

      Of course, one might think that's what sucks about the whole levy in the first place... that it supposedly legitimizes something that was actually perfectly legal in the first place (personal and private copying being supposedly exempt from copyright infringement). But since the levy applies to all blank media, regardless of form, it actually legitimizes private copying of _ALL_ forms of copyrighted works that can be copied onto such media, where the Canada Copyright act only exempted private copying of audio works from infringement.

      Info about the blank media levy in Canada can be found here.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  3. Suppose... by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. 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.
  4. Recreate the Boston Tea Party.... by dave-tx · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...and throw them in the harbor! If you're not near water, feel free to send them to me and I'll do it for you.

    --

    >> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"

    1. Re:Recreate the Boston Tea Party.... by bladesjester · · Score: 2, Informative

      Terrorism is never ok.

      It wasn't an act of terrorism. It was an act of rebellion. There's a difference.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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".

  5. Step 3: profit? by rustalot42684 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Step 3: profit? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, no you don't understand. After the government is done charging their oh so modest administrative fee, they will give the money to the RIAA or some related body, who will also take an administrative fee out of the money so raised. The 2 or 3 cents left will be divided equally between all the artists who were already registered when the levy went into effect. And since it isn't possible to pay in fractions of a penny, never mind.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:Step 3: profit? by Mia'cova · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sign up with SOCAN. Look around there first. Google it if you need more.

  6. 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.

    1. Re:As a canadian... by mark-t · · Score: 3, Informative

      The levy does not legitimize the sharing of copyrighted works over the internet without permission of the copyright holder

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    2. Re:As a canadian... by compro01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    3. Re:As a canadian... by dryeo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well according to various federal courts of Canada (including rulings by the Supreme Court) it is legal to download music and it is also to make your shared music folder available over the internet. Sounds to me like sharing is legal though purposely sending music to someone would still be illegal.
      See for example http://www.michaelgeist.ca/resc/html_bkup/may30200 5.html or for the text of the Supreme Court decision http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc45 /2004scc45.html

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  7. Re:Tax me all you want! by rustalot42684 · · Score: 2, Funny

    GINORMOUS TAXATION That's funny, I didn't recall there being a tax specific to gin; I thought they were lumped together into 'spirits'.
  8. Hold up here by zerocool^ · · Score: 4, Informative


    1.) So, owning a device which can contain copyright-infringing music is grounds for the government to assume you *are* using it to contain copyright-infringing music? If so, is there going to be a tax on plastic baggies? Cause they could be containing cocaine...

    2.) IF this tax is put in place on iPods, and the reason behind it is because they assume that the contents of the iPod have been obtained outside of the legally approved methods, does this mean now that you can steal as much music as you want in canada, if you own an iPod? Because, otherwise... what the fuck is the tax for? How are they going to bring a court case against you for depriving them of money, when you have in fact given them money because the government assumes that you're doing the very thing you're being sued for!

    --
    sig?
    1. Re:Hold up here by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Informative

      In Canada, downloading music for your own personal use is not illegal. It's also not illegal in the US, the UK or Australia... despite the vast "education" campaign carried out by the RIAA to make people think otherwise.

      I guess it is working.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Hold up here by mark-t · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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).

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    3. Re:Hold up here by compro01 · · Score: 2, Informative

      no, the supreme court has found that uploading is legal as well.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    4. Re:Hold up here by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Informative

      [Downloading music for your own personal use is] also not illegal in the US

      It depends. If it's copyrighted music, and you're downloading it without the permission of the copyright holder, then it is prima facie infringement. It might not be infringing if it's a fair use, but merely because it's for personal use doesn't necessarily mean that it will be a fair use. So I'd be careful; it's not accurate to say that it's not illegal, as a blanket statement. It might be legal, it might be illegal, it depends on the circumstances, and it is important to be cautious about it.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  9. Can I just fling my iPod at the band instead? by gelfling · · Score: 4, Funny

    Because that's what it would come to. Y'all better duck because your motherfucking copywrited material is coming back at your head at about 60mph.

  10. This will kill retail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

  11. My bad.... by mark-t · · Score: 2, Informative

    Or I could read a bit of the site that I linked to myself and see that the levy actually _doesn't_ apply to anything other than audio works, making the levy redundant.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  12. 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".

  13. 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 rhombic · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

      --
      1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
    3. 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.

    4. Re:That's what Bin Laden said. by kalel666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Tell that to the Fenway Flounder!

      Mr. Burns: "That intrepid lad is my great grandfather, Franklin Jefferson Burns. Tossing that tea, without a care for what the caffeine would do to the Fenway Flounder."

      Homer: "Is that a fish?"

      Mr. Burns: "It was."

      --
      I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
  14. Just what am I paying for? by javacowboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    -------

    --
    This space left intentionally blank.
  15. Re:George Washington WAS a terrorist by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    attacking armed forces is not terrorism.

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

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  17. Re:Tax me all you want! by reddburn · · Score: 2, Informative

    Evidently, "ginormous" is now a real word, found in both Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary.

    --
    "Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand" - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
  18. A breif summary by IHateUniqueNicks · · Score: 2, Informative

    I wish the posts that explained this were modded higher, but since I don't have mod points, I'll try to raise awareness through repetition.

    It is legal in Canada to make copies of audio recordings on approved media for personal use. Full stop. No conditions, levies, anything involved. Copying something and giving it to a friend? Illegal. That would be distribution, and not for personal use. Offering a friend the use of your computer while there's a blank CD in one drive, an audio CD in another, a burning application open, and the mouse hovering over the "copy" button? Legal.

    As a result of this new reality, the Canadian government felt bad for all the money "lost" by artists, and decided to create a way for them to be compensated without relying on people purchasing their recordings.

    That's what this levy is.

    Unfortunately, the two laws were conceived of to work together, so the personal copying law is limited to copies made on approved media, and only media covered by the levy are ever listed as approved. So currently, copying a CD to your iPod is not considered a legal personal copy. It may be legal due to format shifting and other fair-dealing clauses in the copyright laws, but not the personal copying law.

    Expanding it to cover additional devices is an attempt to expand the legal rights of Canadians, and (much more so, I'm sure) provide additional revenue to the poor deprived artists.

  19. 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.