Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Proposed Canadian MP3 Player Tax Struck Down

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the guilty-until-proven-innocent-tax dept.

Sgs-Cruz writes "The Globe and Mail reports that the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal has struck down the Canadian Copyright Board's proposed tax on the capacity of digital music players such as the iPod. The article also makes clear why this won't lead to an end to the levy on blank media such as CD-R in Canada."

23 of 36 comments (clear)

  1. Good and bad? by Hemogoblin · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Here's Dr. Michael Geist's take on it:
    http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2552/125/

    While this kills the application of the private copying levy to iPods (subject to a possible appeal by the CPCC), it also means that Canadians who copy music from their CDs to their iPods are not covered by the exception and thus arguably infringe copyright. The issue therefore moves from the Federal Court of Appeal to Industry Minister Jim Prentice who must decide whether he will amend the law by creating a clear, uncompensated exception to format shift (as the United Kingdom has just proposed) or leave millions of Canadians in legal limbo.
  2. Wow by jmpeax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wouldn't taxing people for copyright violations they may commit be the best way to show them the door to illegal copying?

    Never mind the fact that the taxes would apply to technology copyright holders rely on to push their content, notably digital audio players such as the iPod.

    --
    Amnesty International
    1. Re:Wow by webmaster404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, wouldn't suing single mothers for over $100,000 for like 10 songs counterproductive? Or how about DRM to make music fans have to pay several times to use the same song on different devices counterproductive? Or what about saying that ripping a CD onto a digital audio player should be illegal? Isn't that counterproductive? Or what about installing a rootkit onto thousands of computers to enforce DRM, isn't that counterproductive? And what about forcing people to "piracy" with "region protection" and DRM to get the media onto their devices? Face it, the media companies don't think logically. They only care about the money, they are willing to sacrifice the customer, their reputation and even the artists just to make a buck.

      --
      There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
    2. Re:Wow by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't taxing people for copyright violations they may commit be the best way to show them the door to illegal copying?

      Canadians are not committing copyright violations when they make copies for personal use. That's what the private copying right (part VIII of the act) is about. Those are legal copies they're making.

      The problem is giving appropriate compensation to the copyright holders for these free copies. The act imposes the levy to pay for it, but lots of people don't use levied media to store their songs: they save them to hard drive and iPod, not CDR or tape.

      It's very likely the levy will go away soon, but I'd guess the private copying right will disappear at the same time.

      I think the levy is a good solution. I don't want to have to go through some DRM'd online store to get music, I'd like to just download it. Why shouldn't I do that, if the copyright owners are being compensated properly?

    3. Re:Wow by jmpeax · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't I do that, if the copyright owners are being compensated properly?
      Because it's not just users of their music who are compensating them, but anyone with a hard drive, iPod, CDR or tape, whether they store music or not. This means that people unaffected by this legal benefit of the tax have to pay it anyway.
      --
      Amnesty International
    4. Re:Wow by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      Everybody has the private copying right, whether they choose to make use of it or not. Freedom is a benefit.

      By the way, it is unlikely to be applied to generic hard drives, just as it doesn't apply to recordable DVDs: the levy is only placed on media where the main use is to hold music. Currently that's audio cassettes if they are 40 minutes or longer, CD-R, CD-RW (and the Audio versions of those), minidiscs. There was a proposal to extend it to the media in music players; that's what was overturned, basically on a technicality because of the wording of the Act.

    5. Re:Wow by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it still applies to CDRs. When was the last time you burned Music in CD-Audio Format to a CD? I think I did it recently, but most of the CDs I burn are for computer data. The funny thing is that I've switched to buying only DVDs, and using those, even when I'm only storing 200 MB, simply because they are cheaper than the CDRs due to the fact that they don't have the levy.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    6. Re:Wow by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Ah, but if you've already paid for it, it isn't illegal, now is it?

    7. Re:Wow by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      Two points:

      1. Yes, CDRs are becoming obsolete as the medium for storing music. That's why the levy should have been applied to MP3 players.

      2. Why is using DVD-R's for backups funny? That just seems rational. The levy is supposed to apply to media that are mainly used for music. That's still true about CDRs, but has never been true about DVDs.

    8. Re:Wow by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      If by "just download" you mean without purchasing, that is not covered by the levy.

      You should read the Copyright Act. That's not what it says.

    9. Re:Wow by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      I wrote: the levy is only placed on media where the main use is to hold music.

      Some AC wrote: That is blatantly false. The levy is also charged for media that is used primarly for backup and distribution of data and other non-music content. Like Linux for example. Every time I burn an ISO, I have to pay the levy with no benefit to the producers of the content in the ISO.

      I wasn't talking about your personal use, I was talking about the overall use by everyone, in the view of the Copyright Board. Read the Copyright Act, paragraph 79.

  3. Bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The law effectively legalized file sharing and its been shot down so the fights will go on. I like the idea of paying 50$ extra for an mp3 player and getting free music to fill it.

    Also its impossible to argue that mp3 players are used legally.

    I have an iPod 80gig. From iTunes if i bought music there it would cost over 10,000$ to fill it easily. I seriously doubt anyone is willing to pony up that kind of cash for an mp3 player.

    1. Re:Bad news by webmaster404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are ways to get legal songs. First off there are CDs which anyone who has lived within the last 10 years probably has enough CDs to cover quite a few GB of songs. Secondly, there are songs that are free (legal) to download under CC and the like licenses. Also, there are other ways to fill up storage other than just songs, photos and videos are also there. Its as much as an argument to say "we should tax 1 TB hard drives because you can't fill up 1 TB with legal media".

      --
      There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
    2. Re:Bad news by Ammin · · Score: 1

      Until the RIAA comes after you for ripping your CDs to MP3s. That's still a technical copyright infringement.

      --
      Step out the front door like a ghost into the fog . . .
    3. Re:Bad news by Giltron · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately this is also an option that has been/is being considered.

    4. Re:Bad news by webmaster404 · · Score: 1

      But when it is Canada without(?) A DMCA (I am not Canadian nor do I study Canadian law so I don't know) but you can then rip DVDs to iPod video and put them on there legally and when a DVD is 3-4 gigs, that can fill 80 gigs very fast. Sure it isn't RIAA/MPAA approved but in Canada it doesn't matter as much as in the US, (Canada actually seems to know not to punish customers)

      --
      There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
  4. The Canadian Songwriters Ass.'s proposal by Lord+Satri · · Score: 3, Informative

    This news item published today in French on the national news network made me aware of the Songswriters Association of Canada's proposal of 5$/month/Internet user for unlimited legal download of any music on any media. It is a very interesting read which includes several pertinent references and statistics (whatever stats are worth). On this page, you'll find support for the proposal from the Canadian Music Creators Coalition. It's nice to see pressure on the CRIA coming from many fronts. I don't know the SAC's importance in the industry, but since it made the national news, maybe it's not completely irrelevant.

    --
    Animoog.org
    1. Re:The Canadian Songwriters Ass.'s proposal by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not to sound harsh, but in my Canada songwriters get paid to write songs, not because I have an internet connection. Breweries don't get paid because I have water to my home. (and I might use it to brew beer)

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    2. Re:The Canadian Songwriters Ass.'s proposal by Luthair · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thats not really a good analogy. The real question is where does it end? Would we need another 5$ each for Books, Movies, Encyclopedias, Software, etc. Before you know it we're paying $100 a month for Internet access.

    3. Re:The Canadian Songwriters Ass.'s proposal by piltdownman84 · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, but I would love that everyone with water at home pay $5 a month, so I got unlimited beer.

    4. Re:The Canadian Songwriters Ass.'s proposal by RobinH · · Score: 1

      Not to sound harsh, but in my Canada songwriters get paid to write songs, not because I have an internet connection. Breweries don't get paid because I have water to my home. (and I might use it to brew beer)

      I don't get the analogy between songwriting and beer brewing. With brewing you can make something tangible that can only be used by one person at a time, and thus you can sell it. However, a songwriter can create a song once that can be enjoyed by everyone.

      The difficulty is in figuring out how to compensate a writer based on the utility that the song creates. A songwriter who writes songs that nobody likes or listens to should get nothing, but a writer who writes a song that millions of people enjoy is doing something valuable for those people. I can think of a few different schemes that we could try:

      - Everyone contributes money to a central account proportional to the amount of music they listen to, and artists/writers, etc. get reimbursed proportionally to how much their work is being listened to. The problem I have with this is privacy and the dangers of having a centralized system. Practically it could work (think of a music club where playing a song is a fraction of a cent and you have access to any song you want to hear next). Personally, this is where I'd like to see the industry move, with appropriate privacy safeguards.

      - Artists are free to license their work in whatever form they want (one time use, x number of uses, lifetime usage by one person, lifetime per household, etc.). Ideally there would be just a few standard licenses to make it simple. This fixes the privacy problem, but makes it completely impractical since it becomes worthwhile to make illegal copies of songs. This is close to what we have now.

      - The totally immoral Canadian gov't idea is to charge you money based on the blank media you purchase, ignoring the fact that non-music data can and does get stored to that media, and it's a bad correlation to who is actually listening to more illegally copied music.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
  5. Darn... by Cervantes · · Score: 1

    I was kinda hoping it would go through.
    Nothing says "fun conversation around the water cooler" like flimsy moral justification for continued song downloading.

    --
    If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
  6. Re:Hooray by empaler · · Score: 1

    You must really have a huge inferiority complex since you keep shouting bad stuff about black people all the time. Did black bullies kick your little ass in school? Did a black guy take the virginity of your childhood crush?
    Btw, in the future, it would be much appreciated if you log in when spouting senseless dribble, as I can then filter out your account.