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.'"

13 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

  2. Levy by gulfan · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

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

  5. 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.

  6. 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?
  7. 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.

  8. 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.

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

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  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.