Slashdot Mirror


MP3 Player Tax Proposed In Canada

Interoperable writes "The status of sharing music in Canada is, to some extent, ambiguous. This is partly due to a levy imposed on blank media, CD-Rs and cassette tapes, that compensates artists and the recording studios for a loss of revenue due to copying. Legislation proposed by the NDP and supported by the Bloc Quebecois would extend that levy to cover MP3 players with the intent of decriminalizing audio file sharing for Canadian citizens. The proposed legislation, however, faces opposition from the governing Conservative party; the Liberal party has agreed to discuss the proposed bill."

281 comments

  1. First psot by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

    First poost, eh?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:First psot by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      I could go for some poutine (with squeaky cheese) right about now...or a kebab...it's one of those mornings.

    2. Re:First psot by Heed00 · · Score: 1

      Hoser.

      --
      Thought thinks itself.
    3. Re:First psot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take off eh

    4. Re:First psot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A mutant in the forbidden zone!

  2. Useful by symes · · Score: 1, Funny

    A little bit extra for an aweful lot more - this makes perfectly reasonable sense. Lets just hope the money gets to the struggling artists!

    1. Re:Useful by mr_da3m0n · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lets just hope the money gets to the struggling artists!

      I envy your optimism. It will most likely go the recording industry -- the ones who have to be appeased over the digital equivalent of mixtapes.

    2. Re:Useful by value_added · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Lets just hope the money gets to the struggling artists!

      I'd have guess that it would be spent on either donuts or hockey tickets, but Wikipedia offers a different take:

      The private copying levy is distributed as per the Copyright Board's allocation as: 66% to eligible authors and publishers,18.9% to eligible performers and 15.1% to eligible record companies.

      Maybe my Canadian friends can elaborate as to how effective this scheme is.

    3. Re:Useful by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How do they determine eligibility? Do they collect a sum from sales, then divide it proportionally based on percent of actual, normal sales?

      Say Britney got 57% of all audio sales in Canada, does she (and her company) get 57% of the money?

      And is that 57% based on units sold (albums, singles) or on $ sold? If she can charge more for an album than a nobody, does each of her album sales count as more towards that percent than each album for the nobody? Like if she sold 10,000 albums at retail of $20, but the nobody sold 200 albums at $10, is her share 10,000 x 20 vs. 200 x 10 for the other guy? Or 10,000 vs. 200?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re:Useful by Yvan256 · · Score: 5, Informative
    5. Re:Useful by Akira+Kogami · · Score: 1

      I hate major labels as much as the next guy, but to be fair supporting the corporation that the artists rely on for profit kinda is helping the artists.

    6. Re:Useful by Galestar · · Score: 1

      Can I start my own band + label, and sell a single CD to my brother for 1 BILLYION dollars, and get ALL of the fund?? In that case, TYVM NDP!

      --
      AccountKiller
    7. Re:Useful by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Which artists will it go to? Who gets to decide how the money is divided up? ...or is it all spent on fancy part^H^H^H^Hmeetings where people sit around deciding how to divide up the money?

      --
      No sig today...
    8. Re:Useful by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yvan already debunked this. The recording companies aren't paying artists properly already. This tax will be another form of corporate welfare, pouring money into the pockets of the real music pirates ... Sony, BMG, etc.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    9. Re:Useful by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think it should all go to me. So far, I have received no money at all from my music, which must be due to piracy[1]. Therefore, my sense of entitlement tells me that society owes me approximately $2m (Canadian).

      [1] The fact that I have not produced any music does not detract from this argument in any way.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:Useful by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      hopefully they screw the RIAA and write in that the money collected goes directly to Canadian artists only and must have full accounting reported or heavy fines will be levied against the RIAA.

      Come on, appease and screw them at the same time.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:Useful by SIBM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This "tax" is imposed to try and help avoid an American DMCA style law that would, in the end, screw everyone. If the "industry" gets their share then they will, hopefully, back off and let Canadians be free from their oppression.

      They charge high prices then wonder why people don't buy their product. If they were a small business then they would go belly up, but since they are large they are safe and can bully everyone into bowing to their whim. They must have understood this at one point or they would not have gotten to where they are today. THe economy in Canada, and around the world is going towards a Less for More model. THe consumer gets less for their buck which they are just ignore because their corporate profits are more important. (Sad)

      --
      Scott
    12. Re:Useful by DiademBedfordshire · · Score: 1

      The private copying levy is distributed as per the Copyright Board's allocation as: 66% to eligible authors and publishers,18.9% to eligible performers and 15.1% to eligible record companies.

      I may be wrong but aren't the Record Companies the Publishers?

    13. Re:Useful by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not the RIAA up here. It's the CCRA, IIRC.

      There are three factors that prevent RIAA-style tactics in Canada.

      First, it is not illegal to download music. It is, however, illegal to upload. So in a very real way, P2P clients are illegal here. I get around this by setting my ratio to cap at 1. It's a bit jerky to the other people after me, but it's how I interpret it. (IANAL) My ISP suggests setting the upload ratio to the lowest possible setting, and lists steps for how to do so in various clients.

      The other factor is that we have a loser-pay court system. If the Canadian Copyright folks want to sue me, they would have to pay my court costs when they lose. If they drop a case, they would be out all of my out-of-pocket expenses. Since I've already paid a levy for copyrighted materials, I (or more accurately, my lawyer) would argue that I've paid for the material that is being copied. Poor logistics on the part of the store, government, and rights holders are not my problem.

      Finally, this levy is brilliant. It bypasses the conservative's attempt to make copyright violations illegal. (We've talked about Bills C-60 and C-61 before.) By adding the fee, you give the okay to piracy by charging what is, in essence, a pirate licence. (I would happily pay a few bucks extra a month to get a pirate's licence, by the way.)

      Notwithstanding all the hoopla about music, which is ubiquitous, there are real dangers in copyright violations. However, those revolve around industry. If you're doing this for personal use, it should not be illegal. Once you try to sell the stuff or engage in fraud, then it's time for the law to step in.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    14. Re:Useful by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1
      Good luck to them fighting off DMCA, ACTA, and any other international IP legislation designed to limit their rights.

      If they were a small business then they would go belly up, but since they are large they are safe and can bully everyone into bowing to their whim.

      Yeah, we have that in the States, too. We call it "Too big to fail". They prefer to receive their fair share of tax revenue as one lump sum, or "bailout".

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    15. Re:Useful by Rary · · Score: 1

      Lets just hope the money gets to the struggling artists!

      I envy your optimism. It will most likely go the recording industry -- the ones who have to be appeased over the digital equivalent of mixtapes.

      The levy already exists. This is merely an extension to it. The money is distributed by the Canadian Private Copying Collective to the various organizations that already handle royalties for everything else in the industry. In the case of songwriters, that means SOCAN.

      So, if you're a struggling artist, and you have not handed your copyrights over to a record company, and you're a SOCAN member (membership is free, if I remember correctly), then you are eligible to receive part of this money.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    16. Re:Useful by Propaganda13 · · Score: 1

      How do they determine eligibility? Do they collect a sum from sales, then divide it proportionally based on percent of actual, normal sales?

      Say Britney got 57% of all audio sales in Canada, does she (and her company) get 57% of the money?

      And is that 57% based on units sold (albums, singles) or on $ sold? If she can charge more for an album than a nobody, does each of her album sales count as more towards that percent than each album for the nobody? Like if she sold 10,000 albums at retail of $20, but the nobody sold 200 albums at $10, is her share 10,000 x 20 vs. 200 x 10 for the other guy? Or 10,000 vs. 200?

      The problem is how does copying affect sales. Did the person just create an additional copy of "The Great White North" that they purchased or did they copy it from someone else? Hell, did they just buy a downloadable version? Why is someone who hates Britney (or Alanis) paying them money because they're popular?

    17. Re:Useful by sneaker98 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely, I agree with you on this. I'm perfectly fine with paying a tax on my mp3 player if it means I don't have to look over my shoulder when I try to fill it with songs. I have a tonne of CD's, and I buy fairly regularly off of iTunes, but the sheer capacity of modern mp3 players make paying a buck a song ludicrous. (Do the Math. 3 mb's a song, 30 gb capacity, means 10,000 songs or $10,000!)

    18. Re:Useful by CapnStank · · Score: 1

      The private copying levy is distributed as per the Copyright Board's allocation as: 66% to eligible authors and publishers,18.9% to eligible performers and 15.1% to eligible record companies.

      I may be wrong but aren't the Record Companies the Publishers?

      In some cases yes, record companies also publish music. I know a couple people however who have published albums for local bands but wouldn't really qualify as a record label. So while some receive both percentages, others will only be applicable to one.

    19. Re:Useful by Sunshinerat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you will not be happy with paying income tax over that $1Bn revenue.

      --
      Load New Commander (Y/N)?
    20. Re:Useful by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      That's what I always wondered. Why is a song $1?

      Do movies cost $1500? That's what they would cost if you charged the same per bit. Does a movie cost $100? That's what you'd pay based on time duration once you've figured out the commentary, extra scenes, trailers, etc.

      I think they just took the price of a CD, divided the cost by the number of songs, and got $1. Never mind the fact that the audio is compressed or that the cost of the good is essentially zero. (I pay my ISP for the bandwidth.)

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    21. Re:Useful by sonnejw0 · · Score: 1

      This is a ridiculous law. It's like putting an additional tax on every piece of cutlery because someone might use a knife to kill someone at some point. It's not my responsibility when I want to buy a knife to cut my steak.

      I know in Canada the assumption is guilty until proven innocent, so obviously this is a democratic way of saying "we're all guilty". Maybe the labels should actually get enough evidence together to show that they make less money because of piracy and actually go through the judicial system ... oh wait, because they can't get any evidence of the sort!

      At one point when I was very young and Napster was first released, I may or may not have downloaded some songs and listened to them, having no inclination whatsoever to spend money on them. I am older now, and I have no inclination to pirate music over the internet or otherwise, and I still do not spend any money on CDs. If I want music, I go to Pandora and listen to all of my favorite, thumbs-up songs for free. Limited to 40 hours of listening a month per channel? So what, I've got 12 different channels that all play the same songs.

      This is all bullshit. Maybe if you didn't have so many lawyers on retainer, record labels, you'd end up with more profits. I don't "not buy" CDs because I can pirate them. I don't buy CDs because music is a luxury that I can get for free legally elsewhere, and that I can more often than not do without, especially if the only way I can get it is to sell my soul. People still buy Elvis or Beatles CDs because Elvis and the Beatles were interesting. Taylor Swift and Rhianna are not interesting. That's why you have to show so many boobs on CD covers ... otherwise no one would care. No one cares that you have a studio pitch-match their sucky vocals to some guitar player, and for people that actually have more money than hormones (i.e. what your demographic should be), boobs are free.

    22. Re:Useful by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      I do not believe those are the same institutions.

      The folks to distribute the Copyright Levy Tax, are a Government appointed corporation. From my general knowlege they had a lag time when it first started years and years ago, but within 3 years or so, caught up and distributed all the money. From what I understand all the money goes out each year using set rules and equations to artists, recording companies and the like.

      That said I couldn't tell you how fair those rules are or how they are applied.

    23. Re:Useful by somersault · · Score: 1

      Charging for digital media by the bit makes about as much sense as charging for all electronic equipment by weight. I think this is one of those "straw man" arguments..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    24. Re:Useful by mandelbr0t · · Score: 1

      It's pretty effective. The prices for blank media didn't go up dramatically, and until this article, it was easy to forget I was even paying it.

      Unfortunately, this is one of those issues that you need to be partisan on; the NDP is currently the only political party in Canada that is publicly against any kind of copyright reform. Unfortunately, their plans include things like this. Still, I'd rather the NDP get their way than the Conservatives, who have already twice tried to slam the Canadian DMCA down our throat.

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    25. Re:Useful by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      You're so cynical. Of course, money will go to the struggling artists. Well, first the Recording Industry will need to that their cut, of course. I mean, they are the ones doing all the work by managing the copyrights, leveraging the brand and all those other buzzword-y things. After that, they'll put the remaining money in a big trunk easily accessed by the artists. The artists merely have to look in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard". I don't see how the Recording Industry could make things any easier.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    26. Re:Useful by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      The folks getting sued for 6 billion are the Canadian music industry associations that own money to individual artists.

      From my understanding, if a label made a CD for an Artist, they pay them a royalty per CD. So for instance Bare Naked Ladies would get say, 2$ per CD sold. If they sell 1,000,000 CD's they would get paid 2million bucks from the label.

      However...

      If the label made a CD that was say "The Best of" or Dance Mix 2009 or something like that, where songs from different CDs all get mixed into one, they pay a "pending" royalty, which I suppose depends on how much money they make (as it isn't fixed perhaps).

      Anyway the industry associations have been very bad about actually paying out this pending royalty, in that they haven't been. Multiply that by over a decade of abuse, and angry artists... So the artists filed a class action suit against the associations using the per song copyright infringement penalties being used in the US. This has NEVER been awarded in Canada, nor has a single case been tried, so the likelihood of wining this is pretty much NIL.

      The whole point of this is to put the 6 Billion dollar figure in the paper and media so that people are aware of the music associations shenanigans, which would hopefully force them to pay up.

    27. Re:Useful by RelaxedTension · · Score: 1

      First, it is not illegal to download music.

      That is questionable. I believe the original case that determined that was overturned on appeal.

      Since I've already paid a levy for copyrighted materials, I (or more accurately, my lawyer) would argue that I've paid for the material that is being copied.

      The CCRA and the various other artists groups maintain that the levy is solely for format shifting. This personally blows me away that they would claim this, and expect a person to buy a copy for each device you want to use the media on.

      Finally, this levy is brilliant. It bypasses the conservative's attempt to make copyright violations illegal. By adding the fee, you give the okay to piracy by charging what is, in essence, a pirate licence.

      If only that were the case. In reality, we will get screwed by the conservatives who will either 1. Implement ACTA, saying they have no choice, or 2. Come up with another terrible set of laws, complete with DMCA style anti-circumvention, and probably little or no fair use, saying it's based on their consultations with Canadians. This new law (or ACTA implementation) will of course negate all previous laws.

    28. Re:Useful by Zordak · · Score: 1

      Say Britney got 57% of all audio sales

      Please, we hear enough dystopian doomsday scenarios with the pending vote on Obamacare. Can we just skip this particularly bleak vision of the future?

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    29. Re:Useful by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      But you don't have to fill it up with music. There's also video. Start downloading iTunes movie rentals, and you could fill the thing up for $50. Also there's a lot of other stuff you can put on there for free, like podcasts and photos you own. Also, I don't get why anybody has the 30+GB ipod. I got an old 4GB Nano, and it has way more than enough space. You don't have to bring every song you own with you. That's a nice thing to be able to do, but not necessary.

      --

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

      excellent sense of humor or is it a sarcastic remark? I mean some artists will get some money I am sure but judging by the way things are going this is probably not true. OTOH somebody must stop the nonsense that is going on good that O2 is trying.

    31. Re:Useful by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Also, I don't get why anybody has the 30+GB ipod. I got an old 4GB Nano, and it has way more than enough space. You don't have to bring every song you own with you.

      <mod>+1 funny</mod>

      Surely, you jest. When I make a cultural reference to something from the movie 'Hoodwinked' ("what do you expect, I was raised by wolves...", "Be prepared...") and the other people go "huh?", don't you think it's important I am able to pull my pocket media player out and play them the movie? Or when someone talks about an auction and I say "I came to america on the atlantic auction", or a math prof talks about a 'radius' and I say "that's WJZ", don't you think I should be able to pull that clip out of The Cocoanuts out and play it for them? Boy, you must be no fun at parties. (Plays clip of door to door salesman sketch from Monty Python).

    32. Re:Useful by BForrester · · Score: 1

      ...which makes it bizarre that the idea was introduced by the NDP, the left-wing party that claims to stick it to big business and fight for the rights of the little guy. (American readers: the NDP has traditionally been so far left that they make your Democrats look like hard-right fascist rednecks in comparison).

    33. Re:Useful by firefly4f4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unlike similar levels on blank media, at least an MP3 player is designed with a PRIMARY purpose of playing music, as opposed to the levy we currently pay on blank DVDs and the like.

      With that said, I'm sure this won't make people who legally pay for music via iTunes and the like happy.

    34. Re:Useful by m.ducharme · · Score: 2, Informative

      Errr, the big labels are opposed to the media levy. They originally supported it, but when that one decision came down stating that charging a levy meant they couldn't sue for file downloading, they did a quick about-face.

      The media levy got in because the CRIA thought they could have their cake and eat it too. When a judge told them that wasn't going to work, they decided that law suits would be more lucrative than the media levy, and if they can't have both, they want the levy gone, not expanded.

      The NDP is no friend of the corporations, and Charlie Angus, MP (who introduced the new bill) is himself a musician, with no particular love for the major labels.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    35. Re:Useful by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Here's $10 (US).


      Disclaimer: Canadian, but I know from experience what most American's think the exchange is :(

    36. Re:Useful by schon · · Score: 1

      First, it is not illegal to download music.

      Partially correct. It is legal to download music for your own private use. If you are downloading it for someone else, then you need the copyright holder's permission.

      It is, however, illegal to upload.

      Also correct, but irrelevant, because nobody is talking about uploading. They are running software with files available, which is not illegal. When someone else downloads from them, the person with the original files does nothing to initiate the connection, so therefore is not uploading.

      So in a very real way, P2P clients are illegal here.

      Absolutely wrong.

      It's legal for someone to come over to your house, use your computer and blanks to burn copies of music CDs you own, as long as they're doing it for their own private use. It is *not* legal for you to use your own equipment and blanks to burn those same CDs for them - they must do it themselves.

      Using P2P software is exactly the same - as it's the recipient making the copy, no laws are being broken.

      If a P2P software existed that required you to acknowledge the transfer before it began, then using it would probably be illegal (again, unless you had the copyright owner's permission.)

    37. Re:Useful by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Future?

    38. Re:Useful by Zordak · · Score: 1

      If it is the present, then all is futility, for we are already irredeemably lost.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    39. Re:Useful by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Not really. Go look at the Wikipedia entry for Mussolini and see which parties he was involved with. And, whilst attempting not to Godwin, check out the roots also of the name of the other mid 20th century fascist government of note.

      The tends to swing this way pretty often.

      “Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power” -- Benito Mussolini

    40. Re:Useful by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Oops

      "The left tends to swing this way pretty often."

    41. Re:Useful by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the insight. I guess I shouldn't be surprised with the recording industry and their antics, but I still am. Still, if this passes, it is just going to pour money into corporate pockets. If it is less than the big labels would hope for, I can't say I feel sorry for them.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    42. Re:Useful by mirix · · Score: 1

      Actions speak louder than party names, but you can go on believing whatever you want.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    43. Re:Useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your brother has 1 billion dollars to spend on a single record...why are you bothering with a band, label, or cheating the government?

      Just mooch off him the rest of your life.

    44. Re:Useful by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Lets just hope the money gets to the struggling artists!

      From what I've read about this media tax in the past, they seem to collect the tax money and just kind of sit around with it, waiting for artists to contact them and ask for a slice of the pie. This actually opens up a new business model for indie bands: Make some tracks, leak them onto torrent sites (bonus points if people actually download them), then send the bill to Canada.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    45. Re:Useful by fractoid · · Score: 1

      (I would happily pay a few bucks extra a month to get a pirate's licence, by the way.)

      A pirate's ricense? Is that what you need to fly pranes in China?

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    46. Re:Useful by fractoid · · Score: 1

      It's not a straw man because he's not trying to imply that the GPP was making either of the justifications he suggested.

      And my guess would be that $1 is just the biggest nice, round, small number. Virtually no-one would say "$1 is too much." Over $1 and you start getting people thinking 'hmm, $1.50? maybe. $2.00? nah." So they started with $1 per track and it stuck.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    47. Re:Useful by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Does the levy apply to thumb drives? What about to phones? (Since virtually all phones can play MP3s nowadays).

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    48. Re:Useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the RIAA up here. It's the CCRA

      That doesn't matter. In the end, they're both organizations controlled by Warner, Universal, Sony, Disney, etc.

    49. Re:Useful by somersault · · Score: 1

      Hmm okay, it's not a straw man then, but it is completely nonsensical and irrelevant as an argument on the value of art and entertainment. The GGGP mentioning that an MP3 player can hold $10,000 of music was also irrelevant.. it's kind of like saying that fuel should be cheaper for cars with larger fuel tanks.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    50. Re:Useful by somersault · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and all those people with mansions should get 90% discounts on their furniture, fittings, and utility bills - it's ludicrous that they should have to spend so much money to make use of all that space that they unwittingly managed to purchase!

      By the time we have 1TB media players, they should be paying us to listen to music and watch movies - otherwise it's just not fair! Waaah!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    51. Re:Useful by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      And the actions are that the left is attempting to implement a policy that funnels money directly from the taxpayer to the pockets of corporations.

    52. Re:Useful by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      The key thing about the media levy is that money does seem to be going to the artists. The levy is actually a pretty good compromise. The numbers I found (which admittedly were out of date) were that the authors were getting about 60%, the performers maybe 25% and the recording industry was getting the balance (note of course that the calculations get complicated when you have several authors/performers for one piece of music).

      I don't think it's entirely unfair for the distributors to get some share of the levy, as long as they don't get all of it. What's despicable of course, is that they want the whole boodle, and they're not getting it.

      If you're curious, you can check out the copyright board's website, they have a lot of information, including financials. Copyright board

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    53. Re:Useful by sneaker98 · · Score: 1

      You could respond like the arse you are, or you could actually try to understand the point I'm trying to make: we live in a society that actively encourages piracy. Be it overpriced CD's, draconian DRM restrictions, or gigantic capacities for mp3 players - it is currently the better option for the consumer to pirate a song than to legitimately purchase it. If I pirate a song or album, I know that I will always have this copy available to listen to. I don't have to worry about a server going down, or losing the cd, or being restricted by the number of devices I can copy it onto.

      This trend needs to change in order to decrease piracy, and increase sales.

    54. Re:Useful by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    55. Re:Useful by somersault · · Score: 1

      it is currently the better option for the consumer to pirate a song than to legitimately purchase it

      Hmm yeah, I'm definitely the one being the arse here. Acquiring things illegitimitely is definitely the way to go, then you don't have to worry about being responsible and looking after things! Thanks for setting me straight.

      --
      which is totally what she said
  3. Well, I know which country hosts my next VPS by autocracy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just saying... :)

    --
    SIG: HUP
    1. Re:Well, I know which country hosts my next VPS by corychristison · · Score: 1

      I really hope you are joking... I am Canadian and looked for months tryin to find a good reliable VPS host with reasonable rates. Our bandwidth is really expensive here, apparently. I opted for a VPS in Dallas, TX. 80GB storage, 80GB transfer, 1GB RAM (2GB burst), great speeds for about $30 USD a month. Won't mention the name cause I'm not advertising for them just saying our bandwidth prices up here just suck. Same vps here would be over double what I'm paying.

  4. The levy only compensates Major Label artists by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Informative

    Indepedent artists are still left out in the cold.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:The levy only compensates Major Label artists by yincrash · · Score: 1

      Exactly. However, if there is a way to get a share of the tax revenue, sign me up.

    2. Re:The levy only compensates Major Label artists by xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's not entirely true, depending on what you mean by "independent". So long as you are a member of SOCAN and have music tracked by SoundScan, you're eligible for the levies, regardless of whether you're signed onto a major label. This flow chart (warning: PDF) describes the pay-out structure.

      The media have been kind of lacking here, though. I have no idea how this pay-out scheme works in practice :(. Go go go investigative journalism!

    3. Re:The levy only compensates Major Label artists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (warning: PDF)

      Who cares?

    4. Re:The levy only compensates Major Label artists by JobyOne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Of course they are. They don't have enough money to be of concern to a government.

      In all seriousness though, this is how it always goes: somebody has a halfway decent idea but somewhere along the line of being implemented it gets perverted by the special interest with the most money. It's always subtle though, that way the special interests get what they need and the politicians still get PR points.

      Remember the increase in tobacco taxes here in the US recently? Pre-rolled cigarettes (made by giant corporations) saw a modest increase in taxation of about 150%. Rolling tobacco (mostly made by smaller, often local businesses) saw their taxes increase by 2,200%.

      The net result? Big tobacco actually gets more business as people ditch the now-obscenely-expensive rolling tobacco, so they're happy. Politicians get to say they're raising money and helping the budget. In reality though, we're driving small businesses down and moving smokers into spending their money to buy an arguably more dangerous cigarette while at the same time not supporting their own local economies.

      I basically assume anything I hear on the news or from a government press conference is at least a gross misrepresentation - if not a flat-out lie.

      --
      Porquoi?
    5. Re:The levy only compensates Major Label artists by Zalbik · · Score: 1

      (warning: PDF)

      Who cares?

      Anyone who uses Adobe Reader cares

    6. Re:The levy only compensates Major Label artists by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      People who are both stupid enough to install Adobe Reader, complete with security holes and too stupid to add a line to their user CSS that flags PDF files. For these people, I offer this code:

      A[HREF*=".pdf"]:after { content: " [PDF]"!important ; font-variant: small-caps ; vertical-align: super ; font: xx-small sans-serif}

      This adds a small, superscript, [PDF] after each link to a PDF (and, unfortunately, after links containing .pdf elsewhere in the filename, due to limitations of CSS). If you don't want to accidentally click on PDFs, add this to your user CSS files, don't whine when people link to PDF files without warning you.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:The levy only compensates Major Label artists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that logic (warning: Requires software) would be just as appropriate. Everything can be vulnerable, and PDF is the most widely used format anyway for sharing docs like these so it's expected.

    8. Re:The levy only compensates Major Label artists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People on Windows, who have to live with Adobe Acrobat.

      +1 Mac/Linux

    9. Re:The levy only compensates Major Label artists by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >>>People who are both stupid... to add a line to their user CSS

      The what? I had no idea such a thing existed in my web browser (IE, FF, or Opera). And I don't consider myself "stupid"..... maybe "ignorant" but not stupid.
      .

      >>>adds a small, superscript, [PDF] after each link to a PDF

      Or just look at the status bar before clicking a link, and it will tell you what you're opening.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    10. Re:The levy only compensates Major Label artists by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Politicians == control freaks.

      It is not linear. Or liberty. It is serfdom.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    11. Re:The levy only compensates Major Label artists by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Except that in the real world, your LABEL gets the money. The artists never get anything from it. And that is the whole point.

      After all, the music industry is the natural enemy of the musician industry.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    12. Re:The levy only compensates Major Label artists by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      After all, the music industry is the natural enemy of the musician industry.

      I for one, would like to be the first to welcome you to the tautology club.

    13. Re:The levy only compensates Major Label artists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a comprehension club? You should join.

    14. Re:The levy only compensates Major Label artists by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      People who are both stupid enough to install Adobe Reader...

      Whatever one may think about the Adobe PDF reader, it does make a much better job of rendering a lot of files, particularly those created from paper documents scanned at an insufficient DPI resolution. Too many educational institutions are guilty of this particular misdemeanour. I know there are lots of alternatives to the Adobe offering, but occasionally they just don't cut it.

    15. Re:The levy only compensates Major Label artists by Spazztastic · · Score: 1

      Or just look at the status bar before clicking a link, and it will tell you what you're opening.

      Anybody who's been goatsed before should be doing that anyway on any site.

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    16. Re:The levy only compensates Major Label artists by jmac_the_man · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's Canada. EVERYONE is out in the cold.

    17. Re:The levy only compensates Major Label artists by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Is there a comprehension club? You should join.

      Yes... it's called the comprehension club and provides comprehension for those who really need comprehension and just don't want comprehension...

    18. Re:The levy only compensates Major Label artists by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Misdemeanour? I've been given pdf files that take 2 minutes per page to load (bmp background on EVERY page of a slideshow). This is a full-out CRIME in my books!!

    19. Re:The levy only compensates Major Label artists by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and if it's not cold enough, we'll truck in more snow from Manning :D

    20. Re:The levy only compensates Major Label artists by ZDRuX · · Score: 1

      Like the saying goes...

      I don't believe anything the government tells me, unless they deny it.

      --
      The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    21. Re:The levy only compensates Major Label artists by sachamm · · Score: 1

      I can confirm this. My dad was in an indie roots/folk band a couple/few decades back ("Les Frére Mallet"). He certainly never signed a record deal with the major labels, but still receives royalty cheques for their one album every once in a while. I have no idea if their accounting is accurate or fair, but they do pay people that are registered with SOCAN.

  5. Common Sense by Akido37 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They pay a copying tax every time they buy media. It seems to me this implies copying is then legal.

    However, with common sense and government, only occasionally do the two meet.

    1. Re:Common Sense by Kryptonian+Jor-El · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. They've had this CD tax for years that legalized music copyright infringement.

      Now that they're doing this for mp3 players (and I'm sure, PMPs in general), this would also imply that movie and portable game copyright infringement is legal too, eh?

      --
      All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
    2. Re:Common Sense by radtea · · Score: 1

      They've had this CD tax for years that legalized music copyright infringement.

      It isn't infringement if its legal.

      This levy is designed to compensate for private copying, not filesharing, so it covers format shifting but not downloading.

      The Conservatives are opposed to it because they are in bed with Big Media, as are the Liberals. This is still going to play well with most Canadians because we'd like to be able to compensate artists, and a (small!) tax on mp3 players and the like is the kind of pragmatic, workable solution that Canadians love. Implementing it will give us more free time to chuckle at the wacky antics of our ideologically addled cousins to the south.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    3. Re:Common Sense by dk90406 · · Score: 1
      Well your cousins to the South do not play a levy for format shifting. That is free (if not blocked by DMCA). No reason to chuckle, as I consider that the laugh is on you.

      But the RIAA in the US would surely love to (and are lobbying for) forbid format shifting without payment to the "suffering artists". You could soon be in the same boat.
      Here in Denmark, we also have a levy. That covers the copying of music within a family (I can give my sister a copy of one of my CD's if I wish). As far as I know format shifting is free.

    4. Re:Common Sense by mark-t · · Score: 1

      "if not blocked by the DMCA" is the caveat to that... and a very big one, particularly in an age where an increasing amount of copyright content can end up on digital media.

    5. Re:Common Sense by dk90406 · · Score: 1
      Absolutely true. I do however not think that anyone *cares* if they rip a copy protected CD/DVD they they bought. I have never heard of anyone getting sued for it, as long as it is format shifting for personal use. Just goes to show that laws need to be fair and make sense in order for people to respect them.

      Make to many stupid laws, and people will lose faith in the law altogether.

      Getting somewhat OT now.

    6. Re:Common Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe non-commercial sharing was permissible for songs but not albums is included ... ie giving someone a mix tape ( or a technological descendant of the mix tape)

    7. Re:Common Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I already spent some mod points here, so have to be an AC. Anyway, yes we generally do like solutions like this, but in reality it just won't work. I've heard all kinds of stories from various artists who say they've never received a dime from that cd-r tax. That tax money is just going into general revenue.

      Also, I need to add that here we go again with the Bloc. The great party devoted to stymie-ing Canadian national politics. They associate themselves with ideas like this in an attempt to make themselves appear relevant outside of Quebec. In reality, all they aim to do in politics is skew debates and scuttle parliament time with their large voting bloc, and their one true goal - secession from Confederation. They immobilize Canadian politics. They should be required to field candidates outside of Quebec too. Maybe then they'll get voted in and they can let themselves go, and we'll get down to business here in Canada.

    8. Re:Common Sense by Rary · · Score: 1

      Now that they're doing this for mp3 players (and I'm sure, PMPs in general), this would also imply that movie and portable game copyright infringement is legal too, eh?

      The law explicitly states that this applies to audio recordings only.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    9. Re:Common Sense by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that the current levy system includes hard drives and other storage media, which could be easily applied to MP3 players.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    10. Re:Common Sense by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      This levy is designed to compensate for private copying, not filesharing, so it covers format shifting but not downloading.

      But... format shifting hurts no one!

      --
      $ make available
    11. Re:Common Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm Canadian.. and you don't speak for all (any?) of us. The fact that we currently pay a tax that confers no additional rights to us (even though everyone thinks it does or should) is already a travesty. Adding another tax is just a big wtf, but no surprise that this is coming from the NDP.

      Two years after the first tax was enacted, the agency in charge still hadn't distributed any of the funds because they didn't have a clue how to do so. I do not know what the situation is now, but I would be curious to see how much of the fund goes to overhead and how much actually goes to artists (and how often).

    12. Re:Common Sense by Dzimas · · Score: 1

      The levy is ridiculously outdated, to the point of being inconsequential. The rate is 24 cents per blank cassette tape (longer than 40 min), and 29 cents per blank MiniDisc, CD-R or CD-RW. They might as well tax phonograph cylinders and 8-track tapes - it would have about the same impact.

    13. Re:Common Sense by DeepHurtn! · · Score: 1

      The angle is that it's only legal when you copy on to a medium on which you paid the levy. So, for example, we pay a levy on blank CDs. I can copy music I have (that was itself legitimately obtained) onto a CD -- that's covered by the levy. Putting it on a hard drive or iPod (for which there is no levy -- the Copyright Board authorized one, but the Federal courts ruled they didn't have the authority to do so) is, theoretically, infringing.

    14. Re:Common Sense by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      This levy is designed to compensate for private copying, not filesharing, so it covers format shifting but not downloading.

      Actually, it's still rather vague. One standing interpretation is that, when you download a file from P2P, so long as you do not further redistribute that copy, it is "for private use", and therefore is legal for you to make. However, the guy on the other end of the pipe, by uploading his copy, "distributed" it, which is not "for private use". So he violated copyright, but you did not.

      It's a mess, but then again when copyright wasn't that, in general?

    15. Re:Common Sense by c · · Score: 1

      > They pay a copying tax every time they buy media.
      > It seems to me this implies copying is then legal.

      Yep. The problem for the record industry is that the rules were created when people actually bought blank media in order to copy music. Portable players like the iPod pretty much eliminate the "buy media" part. The way it works now, most people who buy blank media aren't bothering to put music on it.

      Technology changes a lot faster than the law...

      c.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
  6. A good bad thing by Lord_Alex · · Score: 1

    It's nice that we don't face the same persecution the Yanks face from the MAFIAA, I like my shared music... And healthcare ;) But this system will alienate the one or two people who do still pay for music and cause them to re-evaluate their position on piracy. If it's justified through yet another tax, then why pay for music at all? And... what's the difference between music, movies and games? A bitstream by any other name is still just a bitstream.

    --
    How much work could a network work if a network could net work?
    1. Re:A good bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the record labels get their fingers burnt by lobbying for a tax on media which results in them losing more than they gain by sending their customers down the downloading route, then I'd feel it hard to be choked up about that. Maybe then someone will start asking why they spent so much money and so many years beating their customers with a big stick when they could have just got on with making money.

    2. Re:A good bad thing by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      I thought you guys already enjoyed a certain legal tolerance for sharing because you get taxed on CDs and such. If that's the case, what do you have to gain from another tax? If this one is passed, how many more taxes are you guys going to be hit up for? If sharing is quasi-legal indefinitely, they can come back in a few years and demand a tax on hard drives, SSDs, and any other storage media, most of which will likely never hold the copyrighted music files they are paying for.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  7. They finally realize they can't stop us by voodoo+cheesecake · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wish they would do this with my rolling papers and decriminalize non-medicinal marijuana!

    1. Re:They finally realize they can't stop us by voodoo+cheesecake · · Score: 1
    2. Re:They finally realize they can't stop us by deains · · Score: 1

      Decriminalise weed? This is Canada we're talking about...

  8. A great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A sensible solution to something which is not going away. music piracy is here to stay and a small levy on mp3 players is a great way to recoup some of the lost earnings.

    1. Re:A great idea by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sorry, but I already pay for CDs in stores, which I convert to MP3 using iTunes, then read them on my iPod. Don't want to pay a tax for something I already paid. I sometimes buy individual tunes from the Apple store when I know the album is not good except for one or two songs.

      I never download pirated content, and I don't want to pay for all those who do.

    2. Re:A great idea by epdp14 · · Score: 1

      If (assuming you are a Canadian) the government were to impose a tax to cover the lost revenue of audio file sharing then the industry would have a hard time winning a lawsuit claiming that you "pirated" the files, when, in fact, you paid for them already through such a tax. Therefore if you pay for an iTunes version of an MP3 instead of downloading one from your friend down the street you are double paying.

    3. Re:A great idea by delinear · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately governments don't think that way - I pay for BBC programmes to be made with my license fee but if I want the box set of the latest comedy or drama series I still have to pay them again. Moreover this tax hits everyone regardless of how they plan to use the media. They have sucessfully criminalised the entire media buying population by insinuating that they all intend to pirate, and while it might be convenient for those who did intend to pirate, it's hardly a fair or just way to handle the situation.

    4. Re:A great idea by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Are you actually using iTunes and an iPod and still using MP3 anyway? Or did you just say "MP3" to stay generic? You do know that AAC is better than MP3, right?

    5. Re:A great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The problem here is that you have already bought the corporate propaganda that this is "pirating". The point of the levy is that sharing music in Canada is legal. This has been shown in court.
      So pay the levy, and don't feel bad about sharing CD's with friends, or trading mp3.

    6. Re:A great idea by Locklin · · Score: 1

      When you buy from iTunes, Amazon, you (probably) have the expressed written consent (i.e., end user agreement) to copy to music to a music playing device device.

      Sites like Magnatune give you a licence to copy to as many devices as you like (even other people's devices).

      The tax doesn't cover file sharing. It only covers private copying of purchased music to a blank cd or, in this case, an mp3 player. This is no longer the only way, or likely the most common way, to fill up a mp3 player, so taxing them as such is just plain dumb.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    7. Re:A great idea by jofas · · Score: 1

      Exactly. There should not be a difference legally between sharing my songs with my friends on the internet or burning them a CD and mailing it to them. It is not for a private corporation to decide what I do with the music I buy from them. Corporations do not (officially) make laws.

      I sure wish Americans would cease their bull-headed notions that their way of thinking applies to the entire world, especially when their sense of entitlement has painted them all into a copyright corner.

      Does anyone really believe that millions of Americans aren't enjoying Canadian bittorrent sites? Seriously?

    8. Re:A great idea by asylumx · · Score: 1

      They have sucessfully criminalised the entire media buying population by insinuating that they all intend to pirate

      Actually, TFS says they want to

      extend that levy to cover MP3 players with the intent of decriminalizing audio file sharing for Canadian citizens.

      So they specifically *don't* want to make criminals of people for this infraction.

  9. May not pass by Jazz-Masta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Conservatives are opposed to the bill, and currently they have 145/308 seats in the House of Commons.

    They only have to convince 9 of the Liberals, NDP, or Bloc to agree.

    Not everything is voted on party lines, but most is. It is likely the conservatives will have to make a concession in some other form to get the Liberals to side with them. And that is extremely likely, because the Liberals no longer hold the threatening role they had a couple months ago.

    Yes, I am Canadian.

    1. Re:May not pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I am Canadian.

      I'm so sorry...

    2. Re:May not pass by Galestar · · Score: 1

      I'm so sorry...that I'm not

      Fixed that for you

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:May not pass by Jazz-Masta · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, I am Canadian.

      I'm so sorry...

      No no, it's my fault, I'm sorry for causing you to experience any thoughts of sorrow. Please accept my deepest apologies.

    4. Re:May not pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jazz-Masta is definitely Canadian, he's apologizing for something that's not his fault.

    5. Re:May not pass by Champion3 · · Score: 1

      It's also a private member's bill. They rarely get passed anyway.

      --
      I'm going to the casino. Don't gamble.
    6. Re:May not pass by canadian_right · · Score: 1

      Rare, meaning one every hundred years or so.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
  10. Ugh, this again by schmidt349 · · Score: 1

    Hasn't the runaway success of services like iTunes and Amazon MP3 and all the rest of them mitigated the need to play this game where we supposedly all obtain our music illegally and have to pay for it with levies on media and devices?

    Right, sorry, I forgot, the Soviet Socialist Republic of Record Labels wants its $20 cut of my iPhone/Nexus One/Pre/etc. And boy do they deserve it, considering the depth and genius of the cultural patrimony they've contributed. Like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.

    1. Re:Ugh, this again by Pojut · · Score: 1

      My question is, what about someone like me who very rarely listens to anything that could be considered major label? Tool is about the biggest band I listen to, and everything drops off sharply from that point...most of my music comes from people like me, guys or gals just putting stuff together in their bedroom. All of the creativity, none of the money given to the RIAA.

    2. Re:Ugh, this again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't get Amazon mp3 in Canada.

    3. Re:Ugh, this again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or what about someone like me who only listens to podcasts offered by CBC, BBC...
      oh, right, I'll just buy the Data player instead of the Music player

    4. Re:Ugh, this again by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!!

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
  11. Private members' bill is going nowhere by fishwallop · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This proposed legislation is going nowhere in this form.

    The bill being put forward by a member of parliament from the NDP, who are at the opposite end of the political spectrum from the governing Conservative parties. It will not get enought support to make it past first reading - it would need the support of the largest opposition party, the Liberals, and they're likely to just ignore it, because politically, it looks like a tax. Also, because there's finances involved, passing the legislation might be considered a confidence vote which would bring down the government and trigger an election, and this just isn't an issue the Liberals want us going to the polls over. Canada once did have an "ipod tax" of the sort proposed. The "private copying" regime in Canada makes it legal (i.e. not a violation of copyright) to copy music (but not movies, or non-musical audio recordings) for private use onto an "audio recording media". The flip side of the legislation is that a levy (tax) is imposed on "audio recording media" to compensate recording artists for the copies of their music that are copied in this way. For example, there's a levy of about 30 cents per blank CD. However, because the law doesn't model technology very well, there is no levy on blank DVDs, and when they tried to impose a levy on MP3 players several years ago, the Court struck it down, concluding that an MP3 player is not "audio recording media". Hard drives, similarly, are not "audio recording media" because they can hold anything, not just audio. Like I said, the law doesn't model technology very well.

    1. Re:Private members' bill is going nowhere by Jabrwock · · Score: 1

      Just a note, the reason the court struck down the MP3 player levy before was because it was going to be imposed by the copyright board. The court ruled the board had overstepped it's authority under current law. This bill is an attempt to add that authority to the law.

      --
      Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
    2. Re:Private members' bill is going nowhere by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      If the court argued that hard drives aren't "audio recording media" because they can hold anything, then wouldn't CDs/DVDs fall under that too? I've burned plenty of CDs and DVDs that consisted of no audio whatsoever. They contained photos, documents and other non-audio information. In fact, anything that can be stored on a hard drive can be stored on a CD or DVD (barring any space issues, of course).

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:Private members' bill is going nowhere by DeepHurtn! · · Score: 1

      The issue wasn't that they can 'hold anything', but that iPods and the such aren't 'media' within the meaning of the Act. They're integrated 'devices'. I'm not absolutely convinced the Court decided the issue correctly, but I think there is valid logic there; they were probably reluctant to expand the authority of the Copyright Board to things like hard drives and consumer electronics when that wasn't really contemplated when the levying powers were established (people were thinking about things like casette tapes and CDs).

    4. Re:Private members' bill is going nowhere by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You might have forgotten that the Liberals love taxes and screwing people over. Or were you out of the country for the 12yrs that Darth Jean was in power?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  12. Of course the consertatives oppose it... by mark-t · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They want to criminalize most forms of private copying in the digital age anyways, so it wouldn't make any sense to continue to have a levy for something that is illegal (contrary to what a lot of people think, the current levy only exists to compensate for private use copying, which is perfectly legal, not piracy).

    1. Re:Of course the consertatives oppose it... by delinear · · Score: 1

      [...] (contrary to what a lot of people think, the current levy only exists to compensate for private use copying, which is perfectly legal, not piracy).

      If that's true then it's seriously messed up. So I buy a CD, based on past experience and knowing they use the cheapest possible dyes and materials, I make a copy so that my original doesn't get scratched... and for that I'm expected to compensate the record labels? For providing an inferior product which is liable to be easily damaged?

    2. Re:Of course the consertatives oppose it... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      The answer to your underlying question, disregarding all notion of the actual quality of the work, is yes.

    3. Re:Of course the consertatives oppose it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like you borrow a CD, you like it, you make a copy. That's currently legal. This happened all the time in the old days of cassette-tapes.
      The artist still get compensated later when you go to a show, buy a t-shirt or actually buy his next CD. But this takes artists with talent, a rarity in recent years, mostly in the RIAA/CRIAA catalog.

      But this will probably not be legal anymore if this bill passes, since the "such as" clause clearly states items like research and reviews, and do not even hint as to personal-usage-copy.

      Note that it is currently illegal to make a copy and give it away to others. Only copy for personal use is permitted.

      Personally, I rather pay a few dollars a year on my blank medias (CD/DVD/hard drives, MP3 players, memory cards) that to be brought in court for 55 million dollars because I was curious about a new style of post-punk-polka.

    4. Re:Of course the consertatives oppose it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah - you are accepting of that protection racket i see..

      "So you pay us some money.. no one has to get 'inconvenienced', if you know what i mean"

      smashingly compliant of you, citizen

    5. Re:Of course the consertatives oppose it... by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

      I think you're giving them too much credit. The Conservatives oppose it because taxes and levies are unpopular. Politically, it's as simple as that.

      None of the parties have given the levy enough thought; there are so many reasons why it's bad and the product of old-school, bricks-and-mortar-store thinking.

    6. Re:Of course the consertatives oppose it... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Well, at the very least, opposing the levy is right in line with their intent to criminalize pretty well any technology that could be used without authorization to decrypt digitally stored copyrighted materials. Never mind that this is pretty much the same as outlawing crowbars to stop people from breaking into houses, it's still what they want do do, the bills that they have tried to push through in the past illustrate this. And really, in an age where an increasing quantity of material is getting stored on digital media anyways, if copying something even for personal use (unless the copying was explicitly authorized) is not really practical anymore for most people because the technologies that might be employed to do so are rendered illegal, it doesn't make any sense at all to continue to have a levy for it. People who want to break the law will continue to do so, while the honest consumer gets completely screwed over by DRM that it will be completely illegal to circumvent without authorization, for *ANY* purpose.

  13. Could be passed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's important to note that the Conservatives, though currently having the most elected, aren't a majority, and that if the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc got together they'd have a majority. It has a chance at least :)

    I like legislation like this simply because it would more explicitly decriminalize sharing music and it makes more sense to tax MP3 players than cd-r's and similar storage mediums because those are often used for other things. I wish it might go to the artists who need it rather than multinational corporations who post millions or billions in annual profits every year, but we can't have everything apparantly...

  14. Let's go all the way by Palestrina · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's have a tax on crowbars, because some will use it to break into houses and not be caught. And a new tax on automobiles, because some will go through red lights and not be caught. And a new tax on shoes, because some people will jaywalk and not be caught. And a tax on thinking because some will commit thought crimes and not be caught.

    1. Re:Let's go all the way by purpledinoz · · Score: 1

      I think this tax might not be a bad idea. The levy on blank CDs basically implied that downloading was legal. MP3 players are just an extension. It all depends on how much this tax is.

    2. Re:Let's go all the way by Palestrina · · Score: 1

      I don't know how it works in Canada, but in the U.S. a tax on something does not make it legal. Remember, Al Capone was finally caught for income tax evasion. That doesn't mean that his business activities were legit. And the U.S. once sold marijuana tax stamps, and I remember reading about a proposal to have a cocaine tax. It doesn't make it legal. It just gives the government another way to go after someone. In other words, it is perfectly possible to have a tax on illegal activities.

    3. Re:Let's go all the way by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Except you've got it backwards - Here in Canada, we don't define downloading music as an illegal activity, or if we do, we do NOTHING about it. In fact, I think its only Movies (which seems kind of double standards to me but hey its Canada). I know tons of people who download entire albums and never get so much as throttling from their ISP. I know a few people who tried to download a movie from Bittorrent a few times - WOOSH Throttled down within half an hour, and an email or phone call about not downloading that stuff because its illegal.

      This tax suggests that downloading music IS Legal, not illegal. To put it in a Car Analogy:

      It'd be like putting a tax on Electrical cars since they don't consume as much if any Gasoline. In most cases, this means money is coming out of regular consumers pockets and into those of an oil company or music label - which doesn't seem right - but on the other hand, its not punishing people for using their ingenuity.

      Savvy?

    4. Re:Let's go all the way by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Not in Canada its not. You can't Tax MJ or Cocaine because that would mean there has to be a legit transaction taking place, and if any of the substances are illegal, then its not a legit transaction.

      This is why they bust people for Possession, not tax evasion.

    5. Re:Let's go all the way by sedmonds · · Score: 1
      From the Copyright Act:

      Copying for Private Use Where no infringement of copyright 80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of (a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording, (b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or (c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording. Limitation (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c): (a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental; (b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade; (c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or (d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public. 1997, c. 24, s. 50.

      You can make a copy of musical works for your own private use. You can't make a copy for a friends private use. The levy is only peripherally related, as it is also addressed in the Copyright Act.

      Liability to pay levy 82. (1) Every person who, for the purpose of trade, manufactures a blank audio recording medium in Canada or imports a blank audio recording medium into Canada (a) is liable, subject to subsection (2) and section 86, to pay a levy to the collecting body on selling or otherwise disposing of those blank audio recording media in Canada; and (b) shall, in accordance with subsection 83(8), keep statements of account of the activities referred to in paragraph (a), as well as of exports of those blank audio recording media, and shall furnish those statements to the collecting body.

      Federal courts have decided that DVDs, MP3 players, hard drives and so on are not "blank audio recording medi[a]". As such, there is no authority in the Copyright Act from which the copyright board can impose a levy on those devices. Parliament would have to grant authority in order for those items to have a levy imposed.

    6. Re:Let's go all the way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a tax on thinking because some will commit thought crimes and not be caught.

      Not nearly enough people think for this to be a problem.

    7. Re:Let's go all the way by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      Maybe he had some legitimate businesses too, it's hard not to obey at least some laws.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    8. Re:Let's go all the way by ihatejobs · · Score: 1

      Really? I've been downloading movies off of my Eastlink connection (I live in NS) literally my entire teenage and adult life and I've never once been throttled for it. What ISP do you use? Sounds like you are getting the shaft good sir!

      --
      Can anyone tell me why 99% of /. users are total assclowns?
    9. Re:Let's go all the way by mandelbr0t · · Score: 1

      Ah. NOW you're thinking like the NDP :-)

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    10. Re:Let's go all the way by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      MP3 players are pointless WITHOUT filesharing though. I mean most crowbars aren't used in break and enters. The vast vast majority of mp3 players are used with file sharing.

      For example, iPod has a 160GB. If you buy from iTunes, songs cost $1.29. The cost of filling an iPod is then $52,838.40. If you think that people are sinking that much money into their mp3 players you would be really really wrong.

      So the crowbar comparison is completely unfair. I'd be totally fine with taxing mp3 players, hell double the cost and make mp3 sharing totally legal. I'm sure the vast majority of people would be ok with that.

    11. Re:Let's go all the way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People keep saying that the levy "implies" that downloading is legal. This is not the case. We may wish that was the case, and we may *think* that it should imply such legality, but as written, in a court of law, it implies / confers no such protection.

      If you were hauled up before a court and charged with copyright violation in Canada, saying that the levy allowed you to infringe would not be an effective defense. So don't spread this FUD. The levy should be repealed, and the last thing we need is another one.

    12. Re:Let's go all the way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's have a tax on crowbars, because some will use it to break into houses and not be caught. And a new tax on automobiles, because some will go through red lights and not be caught. And a new tax on shoes, because some people will jaywalk and not be caught. And a tax on thinking because some will commit thought crimes and not be caught.

      You don't get it, you should use your crowbar to break into your onw home. That's whats legal.

      In Canada, I can buy a CD and copy it for personal reason such as having one in my car and one in my bedroom. It makes perfect sense don't you think. How come doing such a thing in the land of the free is illegal? Copying CDs to give to others is totally illegal.

      Copy for personal use : Legal
      Copy for sharing : Illegal

      That is how it should be everywhere don;t you think?

    13. Re:Let's go all the way by Palestrina · · Score: 1

      160GB iPods store video and photos. That's only 200 hours of video. Many of us have enough CDs and DVDs to legitimately fill 160GB. Also, there is a lot of free content out there, podcasts, etc. Can also boot iPod as a disk and store other files, documents, etc. Question: What happens to fines from those who are charged with illegal file sharing? Does that all go to the government's general fund? Or any of that make its way back to starving artists? If not, that might be a better way to handle this.

    14. Re:Let's go all the way by DeepHurtn! · · Score: 1

      Strictly speaking, this is not a tax, but a levy. The money doesn't go to the government, but to rights collectives. The whole point is that it does make something legal: activities that are covered by a levy are not an infringement of copyright.

    15. Re:Let's go all the way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly the best solution is to tax taxes, so that the taxes taxed by taxing taxes serve to offset those who skip out on their taxes. We could even start in Texas!

    16. Re:Let's go all the way by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Thats a cheap dodge. I could use a bag of coccaine as a doorstop too but I doubt anyone will accept that.

      And no, you can't use an ipod as an hdd without dling and installing itunes to enable use in that way. So only a smallminority of people do use it as a drive. If you just put files on the drive the ipod breaks itself and you have to format it (unlike any other mp3 player). And what percentage of people use their iPod to watch videos? I'd be surprised if that figure broke 5% for more than once per year use. I'm sure there are more people unaware that the ipod does video than people using the feature. So acting as if people are legitimately filling these things is overly optimistic or simply dishonest.

      "What happens to fines from those who are charged with illegal file sharing? Does that all go to the government's general fund? Or any of that make its way back to starving artists? If not, that might be a better way to handle this."

      That is a different issue all together. Keep in mind that Canada has more filesharers per capita than any other country in the world (and increasing). And not a single person has been charged in the entire country. Infact, laws has progressively allowed it more every few years. The tories were going to push something through bringing it in line with american laws and there were protests so the idea was dropped. Full legalization is coming, it is just a matter of when or if there are big setbacks. So to answer your question, I've no idea where the money goes since it hasn't happened. Likely though it would go to the government's general fund. When a conterfeiting ring gets busted the money doesn't go to Nike, so why would it go to musicians in this case?

      The vast majority of Canadians want to see this legalized. I don't see why we shouldn't.

    17. Re:Let's go all the way by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Telus. *shivers*

  15. Fuck Off, Eh by whisper_jeff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, it boggles the mind that the media corporations have managed to brainwash people sufficiently that they have politicians proposing a tax that enables them to be paid _FOR DOING NOTHING!_ Just because they exist, they expect to be paid. It's a degree of entitlement that my brain has troubles comprehending. I want to rant more but I'm just too flabbergasted to be able to put together a coherent sentence... I clearly went into the wrong industry - I actually have to work for my pay check. I should have gone into music distribution where I can get paid just for being there.

    Seriously, the media companies (music, first and foremost among them since the RIAA and CRIA are the most antagonistic of them) need to fuck off. Eh.

    1. Re:Fuck Off, Eh by Akira+Kogami · · Score: 1

      You don't think being an executive at a huge corporation is work? Fun fact: If they did nothing, no one would want to get signed.

    2. Re:Fuck Off, Eh by Spatial · · Score: 0, Troll

      Fun fact: Your reading comprehension is atrocious.

    3. Re:Fuck Off, Eh by c_sd_m · · Score: 1

      It's like healthcare: pay a little now and get protection from bankruptcy later. Plus it lets Canada legislate where the media tax proceeds are going.

    4. Re:Fuck Off, Eh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may look at it that way. I look at it this way.

      The CRIA is not going away. No matter how badly it's needed or how much people want it, it's not going away. It WILL get paid for music, there's no ifs, ands or buts about it. The only question right now is "how".

      The USA has opted for the 'pay $1 a song, no copying, drm-the-crap-out-of-it (although that one's slowly sliding away), and sue for a bajillion dollars anyone who does not follow our rules'. That method clearly sucks.
      If we can actually get the option of "tax on mp3 players", hell, I'm all for it! I've got somewhere around 2000 mp3's, and if I were forced to pay $1 for each of those... it simply wouldn't occur. For a tax on an mp3 player... even if it's like... $10 a player or even $100 (although I'm sure there'd be hell to pay if it was either of those, but go with me here)... that tax means I have unrestricted access to download every MP3 on the planet if I'm capable of it. $100 is 100 songs or thereabouts. Hell, even a few hundred songs if they're 'cheaper' ones. That's the discography of several bands. For the life of my MP3 player, I could download thousands upon thousands of mp3's, and have free access to move them, burn them, or play them however and wherever I want.

      At which piont... I'm for that mp3 tax. The option of "no pay in any way, shape, or form, legal download" simply doesn't exist, and never will. I'm way too realistic (or pessimistic) to believe it. It IS down to choosing the lesser of the evils. The tax is by far the lesser.

      Of course, we all well know that even fi they impose this tax, they will STILL try to force you to purchase mp3s, and attempt to prosecute you for downloading/uploading them. But at least if brought to court, the consumer has a bit more ammunition to work with.

      Note: Only posting anonymous because at work. Username Kabuthunk

    5. Re:Fuck Off, Eh by Akira+Kogami · · Score: 1

      You admitted that you were too flabbergasted to put together a coherent sentence. It's not my reading comprehension.

  16. Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Annoying government intervention is annoying. Can we fire these egomaniacs who keep trying to tell us how to use our toys?

  17. What about other data storage devices? by bradbury · · Score: 1

    Hmmm.... I don't own an MP3 player. Any MP3 files I might have are stored on my hard disk drive. If I wanted to play them on an MP3 player I'd probably build one myself (plans are available on the Internet) and store the MP3s on a USB drive. Surprising that they are stopping at simple MP3 players (which tend to be overpriced anyway) and not going after any and all data storage devices.

    Broken model --> Broken solutions.

    1. Re:What about other data storage devices? by msisden · · Score: 2, Informative

      The intent might have just been to extend to portable media devices, but the wording covers a whole lot more.

      The actual motion reads:

      "That the Committee recommends that the government amend Part VIII of the Copyright Act so that the definition of “audio recording medium” extends to devices with internal memory, so that the levy on copying music will apply to digital music recorders as well, thereby entitling music creators to some compensation for the copies made of their work." (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4349743&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3)

      So it doesn't just apply to mp3 players, but portable media players, digital camcorders, set top boxes, consoles, cell phones, digital cameras, computers, etc.

    2. Re:What about other data storage devices? by Galestar · · Score: 1
      From the article:

      It would extend the private copying levy — which adds a small tax to all blank media, such as CDs and DVDs — to devices that can reproduce media, including MP3 players and computers.

      My question is; which part of the computer? I custom build all my computers, so which individual part do I need to order from the US?

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:What about other data storage devices? by srussia · · Score: 1

      Hmmm.... I don't own an MP3 player. Any MP3 files I might have are stored on my hard disk drive. If I wanted to play them on an MP3 player I'd probably build one myself (plans are available on the Internet) and store the MP3s on a USB drive. Surprising that they are stopping at simple MP3 players (which tend to be overpriced anyway) and not going after any and all data storage devices.

      Broken model --> Broken solutions.

      All the music I listen to are re-performances in the Zenph sense (http://www.zenph.com/reperformance.html). Except where they use a piano and high-def MIDI, I use a different kind of electro-acoustic transducer and a different encoding scheme.

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    4. Re:What about other data storage devices? by mrsurb · · Score: 1

      If common sense reigned, the sound card - without which you could not listen to the MP3s.

      If only common sense were more... common.

    5. Re:What about other data storage devices? by cynyr · · Score: 1

      so what if my motherboard comes with onboard sound, and i buy a sound card? do i get double taxed?

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    6. Re:What about other data storage devices? by c_sd_m · · Score: 1

      More likely they would tax hard drives and other storage media. Streaming a radio station wouldn't get taxed.

    7. Re:What about other data storage devices? by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      I'd say the vast vast majority of mp3 players involve piracy. Only a chunk of hard drives are though. So the tax there would be misguided. Feel free to build a usb stick to avoid it.

      The law isn't perfect TRUE. But it sure as fuck is better than having the majority of Canadians commiting a crime. (If MOST of a population commits a crime it shouldn't be against the law). We can fix the details later, but for now file sharing should be legalized pretty much however it can get through.

  18. If I would have pay the tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I would have pay the tax I would feel quite entitled to pirate music, since I "pay" for it. I mean there is something wrong with this method.

    1. Re:If I would have pay the tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually there's nothing wrong at all. You paid the tax in order to decriminalize file sharing. I'd gladly pay a tax on an mp3 player to be able to download everything with impunity. I'd even pay a one time hefty fee for a lifetime license. I'd pay $1000 to have free access to the iTunes library for the rest of its existence.

    2. Re:If I would have pay the tax by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      Amen, brother.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  19. Computes by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    The original article mentions the tax is also proposed for computers.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Computes by dangitman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.

      Have you never read slashdot? Troll is used as a replacement for "I disagree" quite regularly.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  20. Re:If it were anywhere else I'd say YRO, but CANAD by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 2, Funny

    You must help me! I am the Prince of Newfoundland, wrongfully imprisoned for having hidden a stash of illegal mp3s from thousands of your favorite artists. If you email me back with your personal bank info, I shall split my mp3 stash with you. This is not a scam! (*legal disclaimer* this is totally a scam)

  21. Effective or not by vikingpower · · Score: 1

    Whether the measure is effective or not does not matter in the first place. What matters in the first place, is having laws that make sense. Here, there is perfect sense in "decriminalizing". Only after the Canadians have actually got the law, they will need to look into ways to enforce it. Way to go, Canada !!

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  22. Forget the MP3 tax... by Jabrwock · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm more interested in the other private members bill, the one that would expand the definition of fair-dealing.

    --
    Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
    1. Re:Forget the MP3 tax... by mandelbr0t · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't even worry about that. Canadian copyright law is plenty liberal, and if the Conservatives get their way, fair-dealing will be a moot point, just as it is in the USA.

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    2. Re:Forget the MP3 tax... by Jabrwock · · Score: 1

      Canadian copyright law is plenty liberal

      Whaaaaa? We can't legally format shift (lawmakers just turn a blind eye), and our fair-dealing is so restrictive that most educators shy away "just in case". Our copyright laws are MORE restrictive than the US.

      Our laws don't mention DRM, because they don't need to. Format shifting is currently illegal, so stripping DRM is covered.

      This is why we need expanded fair dealing.

      --
      Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
    3. Re:Forget the MP3 tax... by mandelbr0t · · Score: 1

      Our copyright laws are MORE restrictive than the US.

      No, because the DMCA prevents fair-dealing, period. While the law allows for it, you must admit to a criminal act to make the defense. As to format shifting being illegal, it is not a criminal offense in Canada to take private copies of pretty much anything you get your hands on. I'm really not that worried about the cops busting into my house while I rip my DVDs to my hard drive. In the USA, OTOH...

      Your point about educators is well taken, however. While I may not have any issues as a private citizen, it is true that many educators do shy away "just in case" because of the well-known bloodthirst of organizations like the CRIA. Anything that improves the quality of education is fine by me.

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    4. Re:Forget the MP3 tax... by Jabrwock · · Score: 1

      As to format shifting being illegal, it is not a criminal offense in Canada to take private copies of pretty much anything you get your hands on.

      Private copying of audio files is legal (thanks to the levy). Format shifting, however, is not.

      I'm really not that worried about the cops busting into my house while I rip my DVDs to my hard drive. In the USA, OTOH...

      See my blind eye comment. While it's not enforced by cops raiding private homes, it's still illegal to format shift unless you are doing so on behalf of a library who wants to make available copies when the original gear to play it is obsolete or unavailable, or doing so for someone who is hearing impaired. And this only applies to sound recordings, not movies.

      --
      Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
  23. What? by dangitman · · Score: 1

    This is partly due to a levy imposed on blank media, CD-Rs and cassette tapes,

    So, blank CD-Rs and tapes are somehow different than "blank media"?

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
    1. Re:What? by c_sd_m · · Score: 1
      One use of commas is to denote optional phrases, such as explanations and elaborations. That sentence is, roughly, the same thing as:

      This is partly due to a levy imposed on blank media (CD-Rs and cassette tapes) that compensates artists...

    2. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I know is up here it costs me more to buy blank CDs than blank DVDs

  24. Parkinson's Law by lazarus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Parkinson's Law, theorized by C. Northcote Parkinson, a British Royal Navy historian and author, explains this phenomenon by stating that "work expands to fill the time available for its completion" and in bureaucratic organizations, the number of people required to do the work will continually rise whether the actual volume of work stays the same, increases, decreases or disappears.

    The question is how much do Canadian artists get handed from the government in the existing "tax the media" scheme? I'd warrant they don't get anything and that the government keeps track of what they collect and injects "money into supporting artists, including more money for the Canada Council for the Arts and the Canada Music Fund." (from TFA). I mean, what else could they do? Say I was a terrible artist (not too much of a stretch) and I put out a terrible album with nothing on it that anybody would want. Do I have my hand out for the MP3 tax? How much would the government give me? How would they determine that?

    They can't. And they don't. This is a stupid idea based on another stupid idea.

    Want to see what they do with the money?

    So they tax our media. Then they give it to bureaucratic organizations that consume themselves. And the indy rock band gets? You guessed it. The shaft. And we are proposing to extend this to new media. Excellent. Let me just get out my wallet...

    --
    I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
    1. Re:Parkinson's Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank-you.

    2. Re:Parkinson's Law by horigath · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Governor General's Award nominees pictured on the Canada Council website are old, because they are nominated for a major award for late-career artists. These are awards for career achievement, but the Canada Council is certainly more involved with the art scene here than you think and not just for olds. I'm employed by a non-profit artist-run centre staffed entirely by under-40s, most of us in our 20s, which is supported in part by the Canada Council as well as other federal, provincial and municipal government sources, private donors and members.

      In any case, this isn't where the money goes in this case. The copyright board distributes the money through SOCAN. That means that any indie band that gets radio play (and that means a lot in Canada where the radio spectrum includes very healthy college and community radio stations distinct from their US counterparts as well as the CBC, all of which are mandated to play Canadian talent that doesn't make it onto commercial radio) will get some money. And they do—not always much, but a nice benefit and a stepping stone to a successful career.

      There are perfectly good reasons to be opposed to this levy, or to dislike either the SOCAN or the federal arts-funding system (especially when the whole sector is destabilized by the expectation of unknown cuts to unknown areas, as we are now—makes budgeting tricky), but totally misunderstanding both isn't a great example.

    3. Re:Parkinson's Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Parkinson's Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your question should also involve which Canadian artists are receiving money. Is it simply the artists that are with the CRIA (Canada's RIAA)?

  25. Re:Punk Kids by Pulse_Instance · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The last time I even bothered looking into it, which was probably 5 years ago, they were selling music and data CDs as separate products and the levy only applied to music CDs and not data CDs.

  26. Double paying by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Seems like a small price to pay to get the MAFIAA off the case and out of the legal system (I'm sure they're already draining more money from you in taxes than you'll ever pay on mp3 player tax).

    --
    No sig today...
  27. Bill also deals with fair-dealing by Giltron · · Score: 1

    Expansion to the definition of fair-dealing is included in this bill. The headline and description only chooses to focus on the levy aspect/

  28. Like a condom tax to cover the cost of rape?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could government bullshit possibly be any more ridiculous?!

    And rape is an actual violation of Natural Rights, while "intellectual property" isn't based on Natural Law (i.e. tangible property rights based on scarcity) nor Contract Law - just a baseless construct backed by tyrannical government force!

    And remember - if you're not a libertarian / Anarcho-Capitalist / agorist / tax resister then you're an enabler of government tyranny, whether you support its individual bits or not!

    "Let them march all they want, so long as the pay their taxes." -- General Alexander Haig

    (Signed: Alex Libman's sock-puppet.)

    1. Re:Like a condom tax to cover the cost of rape?! by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      Actually rape is about as natural as you get.

  29. *whoosh*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think saying "I'm sorry..." was a dig at the overly apologetic nature of Canadians in general.

    Ever see the movie Canadian Bacon with John Candy? The Americans are busting through a crowd of Canadians pushing and shoving them aside, as the Canadians are falling they are all saying "Sorry" and "Sorry I was in your way" etc.

  30. Enough already! by radicalrendell · · Score: 1

    Please can we stop worrying about the artists already? Someone has to start thinking of the struggling lawyers and politicians.

  31. In Spain we have it "better" by iampiti · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In Spain we have this levy for blank media but not only CD and DVD but also USB flash sticks, memory cards, hard disks and doesn't end there: It also applies to Optical media recorders and MP3 players. If you can read Spanish it's explained here http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_por_copia_privada_(Espa%C3%B1a). And after all of this you'd think this would legalize filesharing ....it doesn't. This is supposedly a compensation for "private copy" which is something like making a copy from the original media for your personal use (for example copying an audio cd you bought to use it in the car and prevent the original one to get damaged). Of course the politicians are in bed with the intellectual rights societies (SGAE is the most important here) so this is unlikely to get better in the coming years.

  32. Try, try again by debrain · · Score: 3, Informative

    I participated in the effort to defeat this same proposal in 2002-2004. However these guys never quit. The good news is that they aren't particularly inspired – or inspiring.

    It's noteworthy that I found out about the last go-around of this effort by the Canadian Private Copying Collective on Slashdot.

  33. Ogg Vorbis by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Funny

    Fortunately I only play Oggs.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Ogg Vorbis by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      You're behind the times - now FLAC is the way to go :)

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  34. don't YOU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dont you know anything propsed by the Bloc Quebecois in Canada is pretty much the opposite of the majority in Canada. They are just stirring up the pot

  35. Don't like Adobe Reader? Just Foxit. by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People on Windows, who have to live with Adobe Acrobat.

    How? Foxit Reader > Adobe Reader.

    1. Re:Don't like Adobe Reader? Just Foxit. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Or GhostScript

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:Don't like Adobe Reader? Just Foxit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Once Adobe dropped bookmarking from Reader 9 it was the last straw; or I can't find it but Reader is still getting more and more bloated with every new version. The only thing that's a pain with Foxit Free is the installation has many install piggy back items to un-check when installing. At least the program tells you about them but it's still a pain.

    3. Re:Don't like Adobe Reader? Just Foxit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by > you mean sucks up as much memory.

      Foxit is lighter, but its memory leaks get horrendous if you leave it open for extended periods of time. I've had a 5 meg PDF eating up 700 megs of RAM with Foxit. I really should find a better PDF reader.

    4. Re:Don't like Adobe Reader? Just Foxit. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've had some luck with SumatraPDF, but I don't use windows much any more.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Don't like Adobe Reader? Just Foxit. by Nesman64 · · Score: 1

      Kpdf, anyone?

      --
      coffee | nose > keyboard
    6. Re:Don't like Adobe Reader? Just Foxit. by mirix · · Score: 1

      Kpdf has been replaced by okular, which is quite nice, imo.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
  36. Non-Canadians; UPC by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So long as you are a member of SOCAN and have music tracked by SoundScan, you're eligible for the levies

    So if you happen not to be Canadian yet are the author of music that has been copied in Canada, how do you get into SOCAN? And it appears you need a UPC to get into SoundScan, and to get a UPC, you need at least some sort of label (even if not major). Besides, I didn't see anything on your flowchart about download sales (e.g. iTunes Store).

    1. Re:Non-Canadians; UPC by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Informative

      So if you happen not to be Canadian yet are the author of music that has been copied in Canada, how do you get into SOCAN?

      You move to Canada.

      We don't do it to be righteous or to be nice. It helps foster the Canadian music industry.

      Keep the money in the Country.

    2. Re:Non-Canadians; UPC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I write software, software gets copied, where is my handout? I think consumers should be forced to support me.

    3. Re:Non-Canadians; UPC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if you happen not to be Canadian yet are the author of music that has been copied in Canada, how do you get into SOCAN?

      You move to Canada.

      We don't do it to be righteous or to be nice. It helps foster the Canadian music industry.

      Keep the money in the Country.

      And, apparently, try to grab either the music or the artists from other countries as well. Without paying.

    4. Re:Non-Canadians; UPC by tepples · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You move to Canada.

      So once I've moved to Canada, this means that I'm not American yet am the author of music that has been copied in the United States. So now how do I get my piece of the United States' AHRA levy? And what's the easiest way for a U.S. citizen currently living in the U.S. to qualify for Canadian residency?

    5. Re:Non-Canadians; UPC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to be with a label to get a UPC--any competent CD manufacturer will provide you with one as part of your mfg package, for around an extra $10. (Speaking from experience, last summer, via MMS.)

      You need the same UPC to sell CDs on Amazon, BTW.

    6. Re:Non-Canadians; UPC by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1

      The world appreciates it! We'd hate for the next Celine Dion or Nickelback to go undiscovered.

    7. Re:Non-Canadians; UPC by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to get money for music copied in the states and trying to get money for music copied in Canada? Because thats not how it works. You are getting your checks from the Government of Wherever you reside.

      I suppose a loop hole might exist somewhere if you gain Dual-Citizenship, but then again, I'm not a lawyer and I don't know these things.

    8. Re:Non-Canadians; UPC by debrain · · Score: 1

      So if you happen not to be Canadian yet are the author of music that has been copied in Canada, how do you get into SOCAN? And it appears you need a UPC to get into SoundScan, and to get a UPC, you need at least some sort of label (even if not major). Besides, I didn't see anything on your flowchart about download sales (e.g. iTunes Store).

      You could have a claim under the NAFTA.

    9. Re:Non-Canadians; UPC by tepples · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to get money for music copied in the states and trying to get money for music copied in Canada? Because thats not how it works.

      So people in whatever country happens to be not my country of citizenship get to copy my work with impunity. Why is that how it works?

    10. Re:Non-Canadians; UPC by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Because the Canadian Government doesn't care about American Artists and the American Government doesn't care about Canadian artists - I illustrated this earlier, they foster their own industries, not foreign industries. Keep in mind - this is not to your benefit, its to theirs.

      When Canada gives money back to a Canadian Band it is most likely going to be spent on Canadian soil on Canadian products, helping the economy up here.

      Basically what you are asking is for Canadians to pay a tax to reimburse you when you do not help our country. We'd much rather help our bands in Canada so that when they hold a huge concert in Toronto, Americans will come up here and spend their money. Or when they play over in Vancouver, maybe a bunch of Japanese and Chinese fans will fly over.

      I said this before, its not to be righteous or to be nice. It is an investment to help Canada, to encourage more artists to play in Canada, so that Money gets spent in Canada. So for every dollar they spend on helping Canadian artists they hope to see it back on taxes spent on other items by the band, other Canadians, and Foreigners because of the Band's success.

    11. Re:Non-Canadians; UPC by Stereoface · · Score: 0

      SOCAN pays out to the US Performing rights agencies quarterly. As do all PROs in the world. It takes time, but it works. ASCAP and BMI are the largest of the three PROs in the US, followed by SESAC. But what you're describing is for performing rights- ie. Radio play. Live shows, TV movies, ect.... If you are collecting revenue from itunes, that's a mechanical royalty, and that is handled by the CMRRA in Canada, or the Harry Fox Agency in the US. As a US citizen, you don't have to worry about it- you just pick between ASCAP and BMI.

  37. Come on Liberals by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

    Get us this option, please.

  38. New business model for artists? by hlavac · · Score: 1

    It amuses me how the "artists" are changing their business model from actually having to sell stuff (and make it good enough for anyone to want it) to something that boils down to a private tax on certain products...

  39. control the artists by jlebrech · · Score: 1

    it looks like a clever way for the government to be the major source of income for artists, that way they can remove funding from artists that rebel against the system.

  40. More like a little bit extra for nothing at all by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    Actually, call me a jaded old cynic, but what makes anyone think it would be different from the other levies?

    When the main medium of sharing were cassettes or CDs, did introducing those levies actually cause copying a cassette or CD to be decriminalized? Or I'm pretty sure I'm paying such an extra already both for DVD blanks and for any DVD burner I've ever bought. Does that cause them to even stop stop wasting my time with that "you wouldn't steal a car" anti-piracy warning on DVD's.

    Essentially I pay the levy _and_ get to be treated like a pirate, whether I actually pirate anything or not. And TBH it's the "or not" part that bothers me the most, but either is fundamentally wrong. We're basically taxed to pay those guys to make up for piracy, but don't actually get anything in return.

    It's essentially like, say, as if everyone in town gets to pay 5 bucks to Joe Landlord, owner of a nice orchard, for the fact that (supposedly) some people trespass on it and misuse it as a picnick ground. But basically nobody gets anything in exchange for those 5 bucks. It's still forbidden to trespass there, and Joe Landlord still gets to sue anyone he catches there. Then what are we paying for? And why is the town essentially subsidizing Joe's orchard?

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:More like a little bit extra for nothing at all by sneaker98 · · Score: 1

      I get what you're saying, but I'll use your own example to retort: Joe Landlord (ie: the record industry) hasn't sued anyone in Canada, despite the trespassing. Only recently was a fellow given 2 1/2 months in jail, and that was due to physically recording a movie in the theatre, which would not be covered by the levy. *If* we start getting sued by the labels, then I'll completely agree with you. But as it stands, no Canadian has been sued.

    2. Re:More like a little bit extra for nothing at all by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      When the main medium of sharing were cassettes or CDs, did introducing those levies actually cause copying a cassette or CD to be decriminalized?

      It did in Canada. If you make a copy for private use, such copy is legal.

      It actually works in a very funny way. Say, you want to share a CD (that you legally own in the first place) with your friend. If he gives you a blank CD-R, and you copy your CD onto it, and hand it over to him, what you just did was "distribution", and it wasn't "for private use" - so that's illegal.

      But if just give him the original CD, and he copies the file off it onto his own medium, and returns your CD to you, it's perfectly legal, because your friend did a "copy for private use". That he did it off a medium he didn't own is of no relevance according to the law as it stands.

      In fact, if you steal someone's CD (which they legally own), and copy it, you're not guilty of copyright infringement - only of theft.

      However, because the levy is only paid on blank CD-Rs that are labeled "audio", all of the above only applies to audio works, not to books, video or software.

    3. Re:More like a little bit extra for nothing at all by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      Actually, they did sue someone. And they lost. Which is why they stopped suing people.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
  41. Re:If it were anywhere else I'd say YRO, but CANAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mmhmm... And I'm the queen of Newfoundland...and even Labrador, so don't be at it! I'm going to assume the the one who posted that truly isn't from NL, but from either Alberta or Ontario...
    To equate us with an relatively poor African country shows how backwards people view Newfoundlanders, yes, we have our own dialect of English, which comprises of hundreds of sub-dialects, we have our own music and culture than the rest of Canada, however, "Newfie" jokes that portray us as stupid is demeaning... But alas, I digress as no one will listen to the plight of a townie or a bayman in these days of hardship... At least I can buy a house for 250 000$, and walk down the street in the middle of the night, and not have a gun put to my head because I'm wearing the wrong colour shirt [Like some areas of Toronto - D Block], or because I'm "different".

    P.S. I don't mind the tax at all.

  42. Not again... by yabos · · Score: 2, Informative

    How many
    http://news.cnet.com/No-iPod-tax-for-Canada/2100-1041_3-5809117.html
    times
    http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=235987
    are they going to try and bring this tax in? This has to be the 3rd or 4th time this has come up.

  43. Fock the bloc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fock the bloc, and the FLQ, all I gotta say... turned quebec into the most racist place in NA, beating out Texas & Florida!

    1. Re:Fock the bloc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is more than a grain of truth to this argument.

  44. Belgium: Auvibel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We already have that kind of tax here in Belgium, it's called "Auvibel".
    See this page for the fees:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy#Belgium

    For example, € 2.50 tax is added to a 16GB MP3 player...

    Matthias

  45. This was discussed back in 2002 - it won't die! by rcpitt · · Score: 2, Informative
    Back in 2002 I spoke before the Copyright Board of Canada about the Blank Media Levy. Then, the CPCC was asking for $10 per Gigabyte which in today's light would be even more absurd than it was then.

    The point is that no matter what the levy, in today's wired world the only losers would be the Canadian retail sellers of such items - because any levy would be enough to more than pay for the shipping of a unit from outside the country - so neither the musicians nor the retailers would profit.

    kind of makes me wonder if it is the US resellers who are behind this ;)

    --
    Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
    and didn't get it
  46. Double Tax by pastafazou · · Score: 1

    There's already a tax on MP3 players in Canada. This is a new tax they're proposing, meaning we will now be taxed twice on an MP3 player. Why hasn't this been mentioned yet by the stupid news reporters?

    1. Re:Double Tax by DeepHurtn! · · Score: 1

      Because this isn't really a tax, but a levy. There's a difference (in that tax goes to the government, whereas the entirety of the levy goes to the rights collectives, who then distribute it to their members).

    2. Re:Double Tax by pastafazou · · Score: 1

      And the one already in place is also a levy. So technically, I should have said double levy. But the point is that we already have one in place affecting every iPod sold in Canada. Now the NDP wants to implement an additional one

    3. Re:Double Tax by DeepHurtn! · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing...? Because no, there's no copyright levy on iPods &c. right now. The Copyright Board approved one several years ago, but the Federal Courts struck it down. Right now you pay *tax* on an iPod (GST or HST or whatever depending on which Province you're in) but there's no copyright levy on it. In this bill, an NDP member (it's a private member bill; the NDP itself didn't introduce it) merely proposed to explicitly give the Copyright Board the authority to extend the blank-media levy (which already covers blank CDs) to iPods. As well as expanding the scope of fair dealing, which is badly needed (US fair use is much broader than Canadian fair dealing).

  47. analog hole by tepples · · Score: 1

    "if not blocked by the DMCA" is the caveat to that

    The Digital Millennium Copyright Act has explicit exceptions (17 USC 1201(k)(3)) for some types of analog reconversion of music and video.

  48. Are you sure it's not a cover version? by tepples · · Score: 1

    most of my music comes from people like me, guys or gals just putting stuff together in their bedroom.

    True, the major record labels doesn't get a cut from your homemade recordings, but that's because the record labels technically own copyright only in the sound recording, not the underlying musical work. But how are you sure that major music publishers don't own copyright in the musical work, the sequence of notes that you're recording?

    1. Re:Are you sure it's not a cover version? by Pojut · · Score: 1

      But how are you sure that major music publishers don't own copyright in the musical work, the sequence of notes that you're recording?

      If you mean myself specifically, that's easy: because I've never done any business with them. The genres I primarily work with (spacey ambient and drone) are such a niche interest that there is no way I could make a living off it...so instead of selling it and making a few dollars, I just give it all away for free. Most people don't really like that sort of stuff, and if I charged for it in any way it would reach even less people than it already does. My interest is getting people who enjoy these genres to hear my music...not to pay for it.

      If you meant the general "you", I fail to see how a label could hold any form of ownership (legal or otherwise) over what someone has created entirely on their own.

    2. Re:Are you sure it's not a cover version? by tepples · · Score: 1

      If you mean myself specifically, that's easy: because I've never done any business with them.

      I'm sure you have done business with the major music publishers by having listened to the radio in your lifetime. The scenario I imagine is that some music publisher might accuse you in court of plagiarizing[1] one of its musical works, as in Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music.

      I fail to see how a label could hold any form of ownership (legal or otherwise) over what someone has created entirely on their own.

      If a work whose copyright is owned by a music publisher is well known, and your work ends up similar to that work, the music publisher can cause you trouble in court.

      [1] "Plagiarism" here means infringement without attribution.

  49. speaking as ... by rgviza · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... someone that pays for all of their music, without exception, I would certainly welcome such a tax. However I'd move to just copying everything instead of buying it. I wouldn't pay for my music twice ; )

    I'm pretty sure most other people would feel the same way. Doing this essentially socializes entertainment since the government becomes the record store.

    I'm pretty sure that doing this will result in a net loss for the music industry... There's no way people will buy their music unless they are idiots since this tax sanctions copying. People will just form music clubs where you can copy whatever you want without buying it.

    Record stores could simply burn mix cds for people. It's not online, the record store owner is simply copying with friends right?

    --
    Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    1. Re:speaking as ... by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

      Actually, burning a mix CD for your friend is technically illegal. However, if they borrow the CD and make a copy for themselves, that's fine. Our version of fair use tries to impose the burden of holding the media yourself so you don't make a dozen copies and give them out; your record store scenario is exactly the sort of thing they're trying to prevent (even if there's no money involved).

      Either way, this levy isn't very well thought out.

  50. Re:If it were anywhere else I'd say YRO, but CANAD by c_sd_m · · Score: 1

    Geez Danny, getting surgery south of the border and now this? We may have to revoked your Canadian license.

  51. MOD UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod this up! This is a sound peice of advice for Americans to hear as well. Take note all worthy Americans! This is a lesson well worth learning.

    1. Re:MOD UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God damn it. I'm Canadian, but I just chewed someone out for this thinking...

      Well. I guess I'll just link it ;)
      http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1584878&cid=31499628

  52. Where's the "-1 Misinformed, eh" mod. by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Informative
    1. p2p software is not illegal in Canada. You can use it to share linux distros, etc.
    2. downloading copyright music w/o the copyright owners' permission has always been a civil copyright violation. The "making private copies" is copies that YOU already have legal access to (eg: format-shifting, an extension of time-shifting from the vcr days).
    3. it is NOT a "loser pay legal system" in the sense you think. The loser is only responsible for certain costs, such as filing fees. Even if you lose, you don't pay the other sides lawyers fees, since those costs were entirely at their discretion. You would have to sue them.
    4. paying the levy doesn't give you the rights to the song any more than paying a fine for shoplifting means you keep the goods, or doing the time for bank robbery means you get to keep the money, or doing community service for stealing a car means you get to keep the car.
    5. unauthorized distribution of copyright material already a criminal act in Canada.

      42. (1) Every person who knowingly
      (a) makes for sale or rental an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists,
      (b) sells or rents out, or by way of trade exposes or offers for sale or rental, an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists,
      (c) distributes infringing copies of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists, either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
      (d) by way of trade exhibits in public an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists, or
      (e) imports for sale or rental into Canada any infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists
      is guilty of an offence and liable
      (f) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both, or
      (g) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding one million dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.

    You are "distributing" the music when you copy it from your computer to the mp3 player. You are no longer just a downloader, you are uploading it to the player.

    1. Re:Where's the "-1 Misinformed, eh" mod. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you're quoting the Copyright Act, you should at least quote the relevant sections of it:

      Copying for Private Use

      Where no infringement of copyright
      80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
      (a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
      (b) a performer’s performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
      (c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer’s performance of a musical work, is embodied
      onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer’s performance or the sound recording.

      Limitation

      (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
      (a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
      (b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
      (c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
      (d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.

      1997, c. 24, s. 50.

      Right of Remuneration

      Right of remuneration
      81. (1) Subject to and in accordance with this Part, eligible authors, eligible performers and eligible makers have a right to receive remuneration from manufacturers and importers of blank audio recording media in respect of the reproduction for private use of
      (a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording;
      (b) a performer’s performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording; or
      (c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer’s performance of a musical work, is embodied.

      Other sections in there establish procedure for collecting the levy and distributing it to copyright holders.

    2. Re:Where's the "-1 Misinformed, eh" mod. by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      With regard to "loser pays" costs awards, you're not correct either, I'm afraid. First of all, though it's true that Canada has a "loser pays" regime, it's the provinces who actually set the rules, so each province has a slightly different rule (and different case law applying it). In fact the rules may vary from court to court within a province as well.

      Second, the loser may indeed be asked to pay the other side's lawyer's fees, but will almost never have to pay all the fees. The judge has a wide discretion to vary the amount of costs, including waiving them. the usual award is often a fraction of the actual costs. The judge can also, in exceptional cases, specify that the loser's lawyer has to pay the costs (where the lawyer has been exceptionally naughty).

      Lastly, in Ontario at least, the winner can be hit with costs, if the losing side had made an offer to settle, and the winner's damage award is lower than the offer to settle. (i.e. the winner should have taken the settlement instead of going to trial).

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    3. Re:Where's the "-1 Misinformed, eh" mod. by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      downloading copyright music w/o the copyright owners' permission has always been a civil copyright violation.

      You sure about that? If I download something, I'm not the one making a copy, since I don't have the original to copy from. The person with the server is copying it. At worst, you'd be importing. But the law you quoted puts you on the hook for at most importing, and clearly says for sale or rent.

    4. Re:Where's the "-1 Misinformed, eh" mod. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Section 2b and 2d make it clear that you cannot take the copy you download and either further distribute it (by copying it onto another device) or play it in public (no speakers).

    5. Re:Where's the "-1 Misinformed, eh" mod. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Section 2b and 2d make it clear that you cannot take the copy you download and either further distribute it (by copying it onto another device) or play it in public (no speakers).

      Only if you intend to do either thing when making the copy. Proving the intent (or lack thereof) is a grey area, and can be different in every case.

    6. Re:Where's the "-1 Misinformed, eh" mod. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Read the rest - if you're using p2p, you're also uploading, which is distribution. And you're making an additional copy on your computer. AND you're making a 3rd copy when you copy it to your mp3 player, which is further distribution.

      Also, you (intentionally?) failed to account for this:

      distributes infringing copies of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists, either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,

      In other words, not just sale or rent. but anything that affects the owner's rights. For example, lost profits due to unsold copies, loss of reputation due to poor quality of the copies in comparison to the original, etc.

      The "but I woldn't have bought it anyway" argument doesn't wash - it's a hypothetical, and if you couldn't download ANY music, you'd have to buy SOMETHING, so at least some of the copyright holders have lost out.

    7. Re:Where's the "-1 Misinformed, eh" mod. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Again, you misunderstand what "costs" are. These are court costs and associated fees, not the other sides' lawyers time.

      You'll often see in motions this phrase "the whole without costs against [other side], except in event of contestation." It is referring to the awarding of the filing fees, court stamp tax, cost of service, and fees for witness tax at the current legal rate.

      It is very rare to get anything over that, except in the most abusive of cases. I've seen people spend $20k on legal fees, win, be awarded costs in the decision, and get less than $200.

    8. Re:Where's the "-1 Misinformed, eh" mod. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Intent only comes into play when you are prosecuted via indictment. When prosecuted as a summary offence, your intent (mens rea) is totally irrelevant.

      You'll see plenty of "dual-mode" offences in the Canadian Criminal Code, so don't think that you can get off just by saying "they can't prove I intended to do it."

      The simple solution is to just stop doing it. If you need the music that badly, pay for it. After all, would you argue that "identity theft" shouldn't be a crime because you still have your identity, or that they should be excused because you can't prove "intent" for their subsequent actions when they first stole your identity?

    9. Re:Where's the "-1 Misinformed, eh" mod. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Well, my simple solution is to buy from http://mclub.com.ua/

    10. Re:Where's the "-1 Misinformed, eh" mod. by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      Read the rest of what? If you're using U****t or Rapidshare or random web sites, or a private FTP or IRC or messenger clients, you're not uploading. Think about that - you assumed that downloading involves some sort of p2p application.

      "or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright" does not mean "anything that affects the owner's rights". The term prejudicially is in there for a reason. If I download an audio file so I can extract a fair-use-sized audio clip for educational purposes, this might affect the owner's rights, but not prejudicially.

      That last statement kinda outs your bias. I'd have to buy something? You're saying that if I couldn't download copyrighted music I'd have to buy something? Or are you saying that indy artists who give their music away for free, or the internet archive which has piles of legitimately free music, are no longer accessible? I do NOT have to buy anythnig - there is no law requiring that. Fortunately I'm American and don't have a tax on blank media (unless something passed without knowing it), so the blank media I purchase for my DATA files don't go to reward copyright holders for doing absolutely nothing. What would I have to buy? Is Celine Dion a required component of every citizen's music collection? Do I have to buy more than the two Cirque du Soleil DVDs I've already bought? No, I don't have to buy anything - there's plenty of GREAT stuff out there for free.

    11. Re:Where's the "-1 Misinformed, eh" mod. by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      Again, you misunderstand what "costs" are. These are court costs and associated fees, not the other sides' lawyers time.

      Thanks for correcting me. I'll be sure to pass on that information to my professor in Civil Procedure II, at law school. He'll be sad to know that he's been teaching the law of costs wrong for 25 years now. And of course the Bay Street firm he works for as well will have to be told too.

      You'll often see in motions this phrase "the whole without costs against [other side], except in event of contestation."

      I've never seen this phrase, despite reading dozens, maybe hundreds of costs awards, and having assisted in putting together motions for costs myself. I have seen costs awarded on a partial indemnity basis (some smallish fraction of total legitimate costs), a substantial indemnity basis (a rather large fraction of total costs) and even once in a while on a "solicitor and client" basis (lawyers hate that one, makes them look bad, insurers have to be notified, hell of a mess).

      It is referring to the awarding of the filing fees, court stamp tax, cost of service, and fees for witness tax at the current legal rate.

      It is very rare to get anything over that, except in the most abusive of cases. I've seen people spend $20k on legal fees, win, be awarded costs in the decision, and get less than $200.

      This may be true wherever you are, it is not true in Ontario. See The Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly rules 57 and 58 I believe.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    12. Re:Where's the "-1 Misinformed, eh" mod. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Again, you misunderstand what "costs" are. These are court costs and associated fees, not the other sides' lawyers time.

      Thanks for correcting me. I'll be sure to pass on that information to my professor in Civil Procedure II, at law school. He'll be sad to know that he's been teaching the law of costs wrong for 25 years now. And of course the Bay Street firm he works for as well will have to be told too.

      Please do so - he'll agree with me that "costs" are not necessarily what you think they are.

    13. Re:Where's the "-1 Misinformed, eh" mod. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Just a quick note - Ontario is NOT Canada. And your reference to the rules of civil procedure that you point out are also Ontario-specific, and even there it is not guaranteed that you get the cost of your lawyers. Look up "fee shifting".

    14. Re:Where's the "-1 Misinformed, eh" mod. by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      Guess what? I pointed out that the rules vary from province to province in my first post to you, above. You must have missed it.

      So I went googling, and it turns out that for most provinces (BC, Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan for sure, I couldn't find the Rules for every province) that they actually use almost the identical wording to the Ontario Rules. Which basically means that most of Canada uses a similar costs system to that of Ontario (including awarding costs against the winner, where applicable). The only province I could find that was noticeably different was Quebec. This isn't surprising as Quebec uses a very different system of law than the rest of Canada, as I'm sure you know.

      Everything I found on fee-shifting applied to US law, which isn't surprising as it's kind of a new thing there. I'm not sure what your point with that was.

      (re: your sig)
      Nice website, by the way.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    15. Re:Where's the "-1 Misinformed, eh" mod. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Funny, because the first article I found on fee-shifting was about Ontario. Try using something other than google :-)

      Also, the awards for legal costs are discretionary, and NOT the full legal fees by any stretch. It depends on the extent of the abuse of the system by the other side. If you intentionally run up a high legal bill by the use of overpriced lawyers, you will NOT get your legal fees covered, and could very well piss off the judge enough to give you zip, even if you win. The other side is also free to demand that the fees be arbitrated even if they are awarded.

      There's a simple principle of equity behind this - you are in control of how much you pay for legal advice, not the other party.

    16. Re:Where's the "-1 Misinformed, eh" mod. by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      Also, the awards for legal costs are discretionary, and NOT the full legal fees by any stretch. It depends on the extent of the abuse of the system by the other side. If you intentionally run up a high legal bill by the use of overpriced lawyers, you will NOT get your legal fees covered, and could very well piss off the judge enough to give you zip, even if you win. The other side is also free to demand that the fees be arbitrated even if they are awarded.

      You're absolutely right about this. I thought I mentioned it somewhere above, but I guess not.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    17. Re:Where's the "-1 Misinformed, eh" mod. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      It's all good. TGIF and all that.

      What I find amusing about this whole "OMG mp3 player tax" is that people are getting really upset about something that was inevitable. After all, how many people use their mp3 players exclusively for stuff they legally acquired?

      Then again, I have no stake in this fight either way - I don't download music, and I can't see myself walking the dogs with an mp3 player distracting me.

      Of course, maybe there should also be a noise pollution tax for everyone who has them so loud that you can hear them 30 feet away ... that's something I seriously don't get. What is it with that?

      Have a nice weekend.

  53. Not new. by ArundelCastle · · Score: 1

    Now that they're doing this for mp3 players (and I'm sure, PMPs in general),

    This isn't new at all, they're just trying harder to legalize it. I paid a levy on my iPod Mini in 2004. It was later refunded when the levy was overturned.
    http://news.cnet.com/No-iPod-tax-for-Canada/2100-1041_3-5809117.html
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/17/canada_ipod_tax_illegal/

    Then they tried again in 2007.
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/07/copyright-board-of-canada-gives-thumbs-up-to-ipod-tax.ars
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/01/ipod-tax-smacked-down-in-canada.ars

    So it's on about a three year cycle.

  54. Re:Vocabulary alert by motek · · Score: 1

    >> (I would happily pay a few bucks extra a month to get a pirate's licence, by the way)

    Once you pay the licence fee, you are not a pirate anymore. You would be called a privateer, in the employ of Her Majesty. However, do remember to carry your letters of marque on you while outside our territorial waters.

    --
    I would like to die like my grandfather did - sleeping. And not screaming in terror, like his passengers.
  55. US has charged blank media tax for decades. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've had that same tax on blank media in the United States for some time (no one remember Dee Snyder, John Denver and Frank Zappa testifying in front of Al Gore who was pushing legislation for his wife's pet project that was blatantly backed by the RIAA, which also brought us warning labels on music?), and the legality of sharing music has been anything but ambiguous here (at least in the eyes of the court).

  56. Finally something that doesn't screw me over by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    Finally some stupid levy idea that does not cause me to pay for something I don't use.

    MP3 players will have a levy on them? Go right ahead. Can we please get rid of the other levies though, like on hard drives and blank DVDs? I don't own an mp3 player, so it does not concern me, but I don't listen to music at all, and the other levies are definitely a discrimination against myself and the other people who do not download or listen to music but who do buy blank media and hard-drives.

    Thanks, idiots in the government.

  57. Communist in Canada? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [sarcasm] Communism in Canada? Never. [/sarcasm]

  58. No they didnt by unity100 · · Score: 1

    apparently you didnt have any marketing, or production planning, or any kind of optimization course.

    those prices are calculated as the MAXIMUM price they can sell a product over, in optimum numbers. they may be selling much more and making much more money by a lower price, but this is a method few corporations choose. rather, the aim is to sell minimum amounts of product from the maximum price possible, while targeting for a certain market share.

    if you are a media cartel, market share is 100% and you dont need to lose it. all media companies are in the same basket, since they arrange their prices to fit each others' accordingly. you dont find emi selling songs from $0.2 while others sell them from $1. so all illusions and delusions of 'free market' and 'competition', are void and null.

    especially when it comes to digital songs. basically the costs of reproducing these and distributing are close to nil. even less than printing cds. yet they are still sold over $1, because companies think that this is a price they think market can accept and they can get away with. and despite all the reductions in cost, there is no sign of any company cutting down their prices. they are selling songs with exorbitant profit margins online. and its not one or two company, all of them are doing it. and no antitrust watchdog, or government agency is going after them.

    it is another sign why the current system is beyond medieval, and why we desperately need piracy to sort it out.

  59. Nothing to see here, folks by gordguide · · Score: 1

    Some baseless rambling by a non-governing member of the opposition. The government of the day is against the idea completely. He could introduce a Private Member's Bill, but let me put it this way:

    You could lose a finger for every Private Member's Bill that made it into law in Canada in the last 100 years, and still be able to touch type 60 wpm.

  60. Not concerned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Canadian, I am not worried about this at all. If only the NDP and the Bloc want it we won't see the tax. The NDP doesn't have enough pull and no one cares what the Bloc thinks... well no one important.

  61. This levy is terrible for a lot of reasons by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

    Copying is ALREADY legal, irrespective of the levy. This is the biggest problem with the levy.

    Downloading music is NOT illegal. Uploading music IS illegal. Leaving the music sitting around with your file sharing client open is NOT illegal, because you're not actively giving it to someone. It's murky and weird.

    If there was a levy on bullets so that we compensated the families of victims of gun crimes, it wouldn't make shooting people legal.

    This is one of MANY reasons why the levy is a terrible idea. It gives people the idea that copyright infringement is now both legal and, to an extent, moral. If they've paid up front, why NOT download music?

    I pay for all my music. The music has value to me. To charge ME a levy is the height of bad planning. Why should I bother paying for my music in a normal way (like the iTunes music store, for instance) if I've kind of already paid for it through this device tax?

    It's a poorly thought out system. I'm all for compensating artists (obviously, if I'm the kind of person that pays for the music at a time where it's so easily acquired for free), but there has to be a better way than over-charging people like me, and under-charging those that download indiscriminately. It's a money grab for an industry and system that are antiquated.

  62. in Italy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...since january 2010, we have taxes on Hard Disks, USB Memory, Blank CD&DVD and Mp3 Player.
    For us is law, is not a proposal.
    God save us, that's just unbelievable.
    But it is true.