Canadian Music Industry Seeks Copy Tax On Memory Cards

An anonymous reader writes "The Canadian music industry's copyright collective is demanding the creation of a new copying tax on all memory cards sold in Canada. The Canadian Private Copying Collective has filed for a tax of up to $3 per memory card to compensate for music copying on SD cards. If approved, the tax could cost consumers millions of dollars." Makes no less sense than the current levy exacted on blank CDs and audiotapes in Canada — and no more sense, either.

Comments

great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

so once you have paid the copy tax you are free to copy as much music as you like?

Re:great idea

[Barbara, not Barbie]

so once you have paid the copy tax you are free to copy as much music as you like?

No - there position is that this is to compensate for undetected copying - if they catch you, I'm sure they'll be willing to deduct the $3 from the $BAZZILLON_BUX_FOR_COCAINE_AND_HOOKERS that they'll try to get from you - and you can be sure that the artist will still end up getting the sharp end of the stick when it comes to apportioning that money.

Re:great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

This is untrue. The Copyright Board of Canada has advised that the levy DOES protect copying and P2P downloading.

Re:great idea

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

I live in Germany.
They have this "tax" on various devices / media such as: writeable CDs, CD/DVD burners, printers (!), I can't remember what else.
That does not stop them going for people they think are file-sharing, copying content or whatever.

Absolute parasites. The government are just as bad for forgetting who they are supposed to be representing and going along with this theft.

Re:great idea

[Sqr(twg)]

Don't know about Canada, but in Sweden: Yes. The tax is there to compensate the music industry for the fact that you can legally give a copies of music you bought to friends and relatives. (Massive copying is still illegal.) Those who need large quantities of storage media, such as professional musicians and photographers, are exempt from the tax. This is an awesome solution compared to most countries where you are a thief if you make a mixed tape for a friend.

Re:great idea

[green1]

The current official government position on the existing levy is YES. There are some oddball rules, but yes.

The law as it stands right now is that you are allowed to copy for personal use providing you have the original legal copy in your possession at the time you make the recording. They don't however deal with how you came to have the original in your position. Seems reasonable enough on the surface, however it gets odd in the implementation, I'll give some examples:
- I buy a CD, I lend it to you, you copy the CD and give back the original. Perfectly legal.
- I buy a CD, I copy it and give you the copy. although the end result is identical to the first case, this way is illegal.
- I buy a CD, I copy it, I keep the copy and give you the original. Perfectly legal.
- I buy a CD, I lend it to you, you copy the CD and give back the copy. although the end result is identical to the last example, this is illegal.

Additionally, the Canadian courts have ruled that downloading music IS legal per this situation (uploading however is not)

Now I still don't like the levy, because it is paid on all blank media, regardless of what you do with said media. which means when I make server backups, the recording industry gets a cut. What may however be an even bigger miscarriage of justice though is that small independent artists, with no affiliation to the large media conglomerates, have to pay this levy on all of their blank media as well, with no hope of recovering any of it. (Large record labels don't pay the levy as they press CDs instead of buying recordable CDs and burning them)

Of course while all this is going on, the record industry is ALSO working very hard to ban copying for personal use, however I have a feeling they have no intention of having the media levy repealed when they succeed (and I say when, not if, because it has been before parliament at least twice so far, only failing due to a fall of the minority government, since the recent election the Conservatives now have a majority, and this is one of the bills they have promised to pass quickly, so unfortunately I'm pretty sure we will lose all fair use rights very soon)... and I really have a problem paying a levy on the assumption that I will do something that is illegal.

Re:great idea

[realityimpaired]

In Canada, it's been used to justify downloading/copying, but distribution is still verboten.

If the Conservative government tries to introduce a Canadian DMCA like they have in the past, I expect the levy to be used as grounds to challenge it in court.

Re:great idea

[Barbara, not Barbie]

This is untrue. The Copyright Board of Canada has advised that the levy DOES protect copying and P2P downloading.

I believe you are incorrect. The section of the revised Copyright Act only grants a limited right to making a private copy.

While subsection 1 of section 80 does indeed grant a limited right to make a private copy, it has restrictions, as noted in subsection 2:

(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.

You can certainly make a copy of your own CD. You can't use a P2P program to share (and because even leachers need to at least take part in sharing the data as to what parts they need of the .torrent, it can be argued that they are also taking part in (c) above, and not exempt).

The big print giveth, the fine print taketh away.

Re:great idea

[Dcnjoe60]

I live in Germany.
They have this "tax" on various devices / media such as: writeable CDs, CD/DVD burners, printers (!), I can't remember what else.
That does not stop them going for people they think are file-sharing, copying content or whatever.

Absolute parasites. The government are just as bad for forgetting who they are supposed to be representing and going along with this theft.

They probably don't charge $3 (or whatever the Euro equivalent is) per blank CD, though.

Re:great idea

[fhage]

so once you have paid the copy tax you are free to copy as much music as you like?

According to the copyright collective; Yes, Provided you record audio from your stereo speakers onto a SD card using a portable stereo recorder.

You may also make a personal mix tape from your own record collection.

Re:great idea

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

The prices for blank CDs and DVDs are here (in German, go to Page 3). They vary from 6.2 cents for CDs, to €3.473 for a Blu-Ray DVD.

A PC with a burner comes in at €13.65, not sure if they differentiate between CDs and DVDs.

With respect to printers, that is still being fought out in the courts.

Re:great idea

[Adambomb]

Not that it makes the concept any less parasitic its not QUITE that bad here.

Canada's current private copying levies are as follows: $0.24 per unit for Audio Cassette tape (40min or longer), and $0.29 per unit for CD-R, CD-RW, CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio and MiniDisc. [1]

Re:great idea

[Moryath]

Well, that's how the MafiAA works.

They want a "tax" levied by the government, paid to them.

On top of it, they want it to be illegal to exercise the right that the tax is supposedly being paid for.

Not so different from the USA, where the DMCA and constant copyright "extensions" paid for by Disney bribing Congress have pretty much destroyed the idea of the public domain.

Re:great idea

[Jane Q. Public]

"The government are just as bad for forgetting who they are supposed to be representing and going along with this theft."

Mod parent up. And let's not forget this here in the United States!

Re:great idea

[Jane Q. Public]

"You can't use a P2P program to share (and because even leachers need to at least take part in sharing the data as to what parts they need of the .torrent, it can be argued that they are also taking part in (c) above, and not exempt). "

And that is the problem here. I am not aware of a single P2P program that is commonly available that lets someone download without also uploading. If there are, I would like to know about them.

I think the fear is that if people aren't forced to share, they won't, and the whole P2P thing would collapse. That may have been true in the beginning, but I don't think it is anymore.

Further, I believe that if anything, a P2P program that allows "download only" would encourage the availability of more legal material... because people will share legal material willingly. They might not so willingly share illegal material.

Re:great idea

[Jane Q. Public]

It may work, in Sweden, but I disagree that it is an "awesome solution", based on principle. And that principle is: it forces people who behave legally to pay for those who behave illegally.

Of course, in exchange, in Sweden personal copying is now legal... but it's still extortion in principle. "Protection money". This arrangement is nothing more than a "protection racket" perpetrated by the content industry.

Here in the US, we believe that extortion is wrong.

Re:great idea

[Jane Q. Public]

"Now I still don't like the levy, because it is paid on all blank media, regardless of what you do with said media. which means when I make server backups, the recording industry gets a cut. What may however be an even bigger miscarriage of justice though is that small independent artists, with no affiliation to the large media conglomerates, have to pay this levy on all of their blank media as well, with no hope of recovering any of it. (Large record labels don't pay the levy as they press CDs instead of buying recordable CDs and burning them)

Of course while all this is going on, the record industry is ALSO working very hard to ban copying for personal use..."

Mod parent up. Exactly. This reinforces my claim that such a racket is nothing but "protection money". Extortion: guarantee us our money, and in exchange we will make sure no "accidents" (like the unjust lawsuits that have been filed in the U.S.) happen to you...

And as you say... a great injustice is that people who are NOT "guilty" end up paying for those who are.

It's a bad system.

Re:great idea

[BlueScreenO'Life]

This is an awesome solution compared to most countries where you are a thief if you make a mixed tape for a friend.

It's a rather common "solution" in the EU. But it isn't that awesome: copyright levies are so wrong, for so many reasons - for one, they violate presumption of innocence. We shouldn't have to choose between criminalized copying and copyright levies. We should consider abolishing the levy, like the Netherlands' government is doing, and that doesn't mean unlicensed copies have to become a "crime".

Re:great idea

[shutdown -p now]

It's a bit more tricky than that (and in a good way). You can copy for private use, but you do not need to own the media which you're copying.

What this means in practice is that you can lend your CD to a friend, and it is entirely legal for him to make a copy for his own use while he is in possession of that CD. The copy remains legal once he returns the CD.

On the other hand, if you were to make a copy and then give that to your friend, that would be a copyright infringement. Go figure...

Oh, and all of the above only applies to "sound recordings of musical works". There are no similar special provisions for anything else.

Re:great idea

[eleuthero]

I am not aware of a single P2P program that is commonly available that lets someone download without also uploading. If there are, I would like to know about them.

For movies or music (yes, there is music there if you can demux)

Youtube+Firefox+Downloadhelper (or similar variant)

[insert random divx or flash or mp4 movie site found by google search here] + Firefox+Downloadhelper (or similar variant).

It turns out it's a way to have quick flicks right now and still save them. If you do this on a computer isolated from the rest of your network or in some fashion sandboxed, you reduce the risk of one of Adobe's countless holes causing you problems by going to the "wrong" site. Of course, you would then probably also want to keep it sandboxed, but then, most have separate media computers anyway, right?

Re:great idea

[s4ltyd0g]

Nothing in those 4 points prohibits downloading music. So while you are not permitted to distribute, the tax does indeed appear to allow us to download to our hearts content.

regards,
p.

Re:great idea

[the_enigma_1983]

Well ... technically, those are programs that don't require you to upload.

That also means they aren't P2P. The GP seems to have forgotten that P2P stands for peer-to-peer, and by definition means that there is no central server that everyone downloads from, but rather that each peer does it's own share of uploading and downloading.

Re:great idea

[ILongForDarkness]

Hmm I seem to recall, not sure if this is true, that Napster let you set your upload rate to anything including 0. There is no technical reason why the copyrighted content has to be shared by everyone in P2P just that someone out there is sharing it so you can download it. It doesn't mean you "have" to upload back into the swarm as most torrent sites would have you believe. IMHO it is only smart to be greedy, copyright infringement happens when you distribute the work getting a copy from someone else isn't infringement on your part just theirs. So why share if you don't have too?

Re:great idea

[ILongForDarkness]

Quite right. If it is legal in Sweden to distribute copies than why are they levying fees on it? It isn't a sales tax no music/movies were sold (at least in the sense that the disks didn't come with data already on them or the requirement that they only be used for copyrighted works), it isn't a import duty (it didn't necessarily cross borders etc. In short why should media be receiving money for sales of items when there is no proof that the items are being used to distribute their products? Go after the infringement if you wish, DRM to your hearts content, but a blank disk shouldn't be taxed in case you use it for something that a group of private companies doesn't like (and a rather minor piece of the economy ~ 1/2 of a Microsoft for the north american market and ~1 Mircosoft for the entire world music industry). It is up to the copyright holder to bring claims against the supposed enfringers not the government to assume (with a huge amount of lobbying help) that the copyright holder would take offense (or even be allowed to, there is after all fair use clauses in the copyright laws of most if not all nations) to every possible use of the recording media.

Re:great idea

[the_enigma_1983]

I wouldn't be surprised if you could. And with DC, you can willingly not share anything, and I'm pretty sure there are BitTorrent clients out there that don't upload, too.

However, in my eyes, as soon as you do this, you are no longer using peer-to-peer services. The idea behind them, to me, has always been a "shared" responsibility for the workload. If you just download from a network, then I would count you as a regular downloader, or user, of a server (or network of servers) and no longer using peer-to-peer services (as you are no longer acting as an equal).

I mean, sure, you can download from a service that "internally" runs as peer-to-peer. And by "internally" here I mean everyone who contributes to the service is contributing some of the workload, but that doesn't mean you are also acting as a peer.

For example, NTP runs as a peer-to-peer service, somewhat, in that many servers around the globe communicate to keep an accurate time. But if I sync my clock to some NTP server once a day, that doesn't mean I'm a peer. That just means I'm a user. Similarly, DNS runs, between servers, as a peer-to-peer service. But just because your browser does some address lookups doesn't make you a peer.

But that's just my take on it, if you're just applying "P2P" as a label, to all users of a given protocol or program that is aimed at P2P services, then the label by your own definition applies.

Re:great idea

[ILongForDarkness]

Good points. There is a third option though: you seed some stuff a lot and than leech from others. Thus it is peer to peer in that everyone is sharing with everyone else but isn't that you share everything that you have. That way I'd think if they catch you they can only prove that you infringed some of the things you downloaded not all of it. For example personally if I download a tv show that is a week old and there are 3k seeds and 200 leechers I don't feel guilty not sharing after I got the file. But if I'm one of the first to complete a download I'll keep it on for a while to get the torrent to a good speed for everyone else.

I personally find private torrent sites that encourage 1.00 ratios silly. It is impossible. By definition someone is going to be the last to download so they are not going to seed the file to 1.00. Also bad files deserve to die. Things lose relavence with time etc. On the opposite sideI think a big part of the copyright problem is it lasts too long. Labels shouldn't still be leeching off of songs performed in the 50's, but they are. At some point a song has to become part of "the collective" and not part of the individual. At some point it becomes an essential part of culture and IMHO a member of society shouldn't owe fees to a company to participate in culture. Sure if you have to have the latest and greatest you should pay for it. But if you want to study the evolution of the guitar in rock from the 50's till 80's why should you have to spend hundreds of dollars in copyright? At some point stuff just becomes essential for culture to progress and to train the next generation of artists or even to just preserve the good parts of days gone by.

Re:great idea

[Jane Q. Public]

Peer-To-Peer is a kind of network, and it does NOT require you to upload in order to download. You are confusing the programs with the protocols.

I installed networks for many years, and especially in the beginning (before Ethernet became so popular) many of them were P2P. It is a network architecture, and has nothing to do with uploading or downloading.

Re:great idea

[Jane Q. Public]

I didn't say don't upload. What I want is the ability to choose what to upload and what not to upload. There is a very big difference. I mentioned this very issue. You seem to be one of those who assume that if it's made voluntary, the system will collapse. Well, I don't think so.

With today's BitTorrent clients, AFAIK, you don't have a choice. And I don't think that's right, either.

Re:great idea

[ustolemyname]

None of those bills banned private copying. The only thing they have all had in common is a ban on DRM circumvention.

Also there were three: Bills C-60 (liberal), 61(con) and 32(con).

Re:great idea

[the_enigma_1983]

Computer networks can be peer-to-peer. Something being peer-to-peer doesn't mean it has to be a computer network. In my eyes, if you are only downloading, and others are uploading to you, then you aren't operating on the same level as the others (as they are uploading, and you are not), which I believe makes them a "server" (or group of servers) and makes you simply a "client" requesting resources.

Re:great idea

[the_enigma_1983]

I never made any assumption about whether the system would collapse, and I'm not sure how it would seem like I did.

Here is my take on things. Assume we have a network, with a bunch of users sharing (so both uploading and downloading to each other) a particular object.
If you are downloading from and uploading back to the system, you are using a peer-to-peer system.
If you are only downloading, you are using the system as a server, and you are a client.

If you want to choose to only upload A, but not upload B but only download it, then for the instance where you are uploading A, you are using a peer-to-peer system, and for the instance where you are only downloading B, you are a client to the network.

I'm not sure what in particular you want with a BitTorrent client. Researchers have created clients that do not upload, and there is (or at least was) one out there by the name of "BitThief" that does not do any uploading at all, and there are enough open source clients that anyone with the ability, or money to hire someone with ability, could create their own. Of course, the issue arises when using these that because they do not upload, they are given low preference when a node decides to share out bandwidth.

Re: great idea

[jsepeta]

you've already paid for their assumption that you're a criminal

Re:great idea

[Beerden]

so once you have paid the copy tax you are free to copy as much music as you like?

True, so long as your a Canadian taxpayer. Just don't get caught using your tax dollars that Canada's fascist government has earmarked for the corporations.

Re:great idea

[Jane Q. Public]

I get your point, and I'm not saying it's not valid. But P2P technically still refers to the network.

I'm not saying "download, don't upload". I'm saying give people control over what they download and upload. That's all.

A genuine P2P network that does this is OneSwarm. It is backwards-compatible with BitTorrent, but it allows you to create your own private P2P friend-networks, in which you have full control over uploading and downloading.

Re:great idea

[Jane Q. Public]

It's still a P2P network, no matter how you use it. If you own a Honda Civic, you can drive it however you like. That doesn't make it either a race car or a horse & buggy.

Re:great idea

[__aancvu2993]

Thanks. Finally an informed post. In Spain it's the same, we pay when buying blank media, printers, memory cards, etc.

This is not of course some 'fine' just in case you copy, nor does it give you any right to copy illegally, that would be blatantly unconstitutional but somehow uninformed people like to jump at the idea (we are being treated like criminals!! ZOMZG!)

It gives us the right to make private copies and to lend. Judges agree P2P is akin to personal lending assuming you have the original, which is why it's legal here in Spain, there have been enough rulings now so that this is settled. What's illegal is to profit from the copying or the linking. If you make a website with P2P links, that's ok unless there are advertisements in it, even google ads, then you are game. But P2P as it is is legal if you own the original. Otherwise it's not.

Finally, to add some information to your post: some groups have successfully sued the Spanish MAFIAA and got their money back for the blank media if it can be proven that the use of the -in this case- DVDs was to record works not protected by the racket like court proceedings (yes, the people suing were lawyers, they don't pay for their time and it's a lengthy process and it must be provan case by case so most people storing home movies don't bother but it's doable).

Great!!!

[dskoll]

This will stimulate international trade! US citizens will buy their drugs from Canada and we'll buy our storage media from the US.

Re:Great!!!

[EdIII]

Yes, but then you will have to start buying canned air like in Space Balls.

Using that same logic that storage media facilitates crime, I will argue to the Canadian government that breathing itself greatly facilitates crime and must be taxed and monitored.

Re:Great!!!

[purpledinoz]

I'm doing to use floppy disks from now on. There are no levies on them. That'll learn em.

Re:Great!!!

[RobertM1968]

Why don't they just tax RAM, the music is loaded into there all the time. Let's see each time the music is played.

What the hell is wrong with you?!?!?!? They're perfectly capable of coming up with idiotic, oddball ideas on their own! Don't go giving them any new ones!!!

Only if we get an equal tax on the music industry

[Barbara, not Barbie]

... to compensate for all the brain cells that were destroyed trying to make sense out of their stand ...

There can be some justification to tax the specific device (ipod), but not a multi-purpose medium.

Greedy ****'s

[DigitalSorceress]

Just gotta get this out of my system... what a greedy bunch of ****suckers!

Ok, maybe some folks use SD cards to copy music, but the assumption that everyone's going to use them for that purpose is beyond stupid.

I own several SD cards and several CF cards and I've never ever put a single song or other piece of copyrighted work on any of them... well, ok, actually I have... I use them in my cameras to take pictures, so I put MY OWN copyrighted work on them.

I know obvious post is obvious, but these Canadian MPAA-Wannabees already get a tax on every blank CD and DVD sold in that country... I can't believe they were allowed to do that, and now they want more... Why don't they just tax brain cells since I might REMEMBER what one of their songs sounded like.

GARRHRRHHHH!!!!

Re:Greedy ****'s

[atchijov]

Agree. And the fact that these days more and more people do not store ANY music at all, but instead stream it over internet makes it even more idiotic.

Re:Greedy ****'s

[failedlogic]

There aren't a lot of industries that can just go to the government either and get special taxes setup for them for consumer purchases. These ideas also remain hidden until they are just about to be passed.

My entire purchased @retail or Amazon CD collection (300+ CDs) is all backed up using rips in FLAC. Why? Sounds good. And I also have one of the few MP3 players able to play it. So my entire retail purchased CD collection also exists on Memory Cards. I'm quited peeved at this news. I started buying a bit on iTunes since better selection than physical copies but even then, are they going to tax my Operating System for being able to interpret all storage media to play their bloody songs.

Screw you Music Industry Lobby! I how ALL of you lose your jobs when artists go independent of your labels.

Re:Greedy ****'s

[statusbar]

They have been collecting the tax on writable CD media for a long time - I was told that out of all the money that was collected so far from that levy, none of it has been dispatched to SOCAN, which would be the appropriate place in order for the artists to be compensated.

Does anyone know if this is true or still true? Or has this money been dispatched to the places that they said they would?

--jeffk++

Re:Greedy ****'s

[The Grim Reefer2]

I own several SD cards and several CF cards and I've never ever put a single song or other piece of copyrighted work on any of them... well, ok, actually I have... I use them in my cameras to take pictures, so I put MY OWN copyrighted work on them.

Perhaps you should lobby for your own tax on memory cards to, or to collect a piece of this "copyright tax". Obviously you have proof the someone has used these cards for storing your material on. ;-)

Re:Greedy ****'s

[Hultis]

The tax actually applies to all memory cards, which means that it applies to the (usually MicroSD) ones in phones that people do put legally and/or illegally obtained music on. In other words this is only slightly more stupid than the really stupid law on CDs and DVDs.

Re:Greedy ****'s

[kimvette]

Screw you Music Industry Lobby! I how ALL of you lose your jobs when artists go independent of your labels.

"Artists" are in a catch-22 when it comes to the music industry: the labels are evil (see the music label "who owns who" chart and read "Some of your friends are already this fucked"/"The Problem With Music") but they have a near-monopoly on radio stations (they still engage in payola/pay-for-play or simply own the stations outright through holding companies), on ticket outlets, and so the advertising and distribution media you want to use are locked down pretty tight.

Going independent and retaining or re-acquiring ownership of your work is possible when you achieve the kind of success that The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Elton John, Aerosmith, Queen, and other uber-successful bands and artists have achievef, where YOU can call the shots with the record label and put a stop to their trashing your work by distributing it in ways you believe destroys artistic integrity,. but to achieve that level of success you first need to get your work known. You can do it the hard way and go on gruelling, life-consuming tours and hopefully gain some mass appeal at the grassroots level in clubs, or you can enjoy a minimal success pandering to true indie labels and college radio stations, or take the "easy" road and play ball with the labels, knowing they're ass-raping you up front through hollywood accounting, assigning a metric fuckton of debt to you, but if you're marketable enough (if you're a guy be a freak, or if you're a chick be willing to whore it up and let your tits hang out on stage) you might have a snowball's chance in hell of not only recouping the "debt" you've incurred, but achieve a decent income, and if you become a real hit with a couple of successful albums in a row, and have a strong following, you might be able to get enough clout to regain control of your work from the label, and instead assign distribution rights only, on specific media to the label, and reserve all other rights to yourself.

Playing ball with the labels is the only realistic way of getting even a small shot at stardom in the music business, aside from blind luck or the grace of god.

Re:Greedy ****'s

[Tobenisstinky]

I agree, this is basically calling everyone who purchases writeable media a thief. "Oh you bought media that you can copy too? You must be stealing it from somewhere!" In my opinion, this now gives me the right to copy stuff; since I'm paying to do so. They can't have it both ways!

Re:Greedy ****'s

[rolfwind]

Don't play into their game and go on the defense. Go on the offense. Just tell them to fuck off and push to repeal the tax on CDs/DVDs. Or they'll be pushing for HDDs/SSDs next.

Re:Greedy ****'s

[GrumblyStuff]

Ah HA! You admit to storing copyrighted works! Just wait until the owner's lawyers get wind of this, you damn thievin' pirate!

Re:Greedy ****'s

[hedwards]

In the US, they usually do it by getting tax breaks. It's essentially the same thing, the taxpayers have to then pay more in taxes or get less in the way of services, but ultimately in any case it's a tax that the taxpayers get to pay. And don't forget about the times when they go for protections and monopolies, then it's not technically a tax, it's just a price increase on all sorts of services or a case of getting less for the same price.

Well, well...

[alexandre]

I'd rather pay 3$ per memory card than have a DMCA++ / ACTA laws enacted that just screws everything up!
You can't sue people who have paid a copying tax can you?

Re:Well, well...

[DigitalSorceress]

yeah, but I think they get that AND they push for the punishment stuff too. They want it both ways. Their business model is becoming irrelevant... it was based on high barrier to entry into the music production, marketing, and distribution world.

The Interwebs has changed the game, but rather than find a way to make a living out of it in a way that adds some value to the world, the music industry seems to be having a giant temper tantrum and throwing a LOT of money around to buy the best legislation they can.

Re:Well, well...

[atchijov]

Do not full yourself. They will charge you $3 AND then sue you (or rather sue 10K of Jon Doe's - and you may just end up one of those)

Re:Well, well...

[munky99999]

Dont worry. Soon Canada will have both.

Re:Well, well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but soon we will get both !!

Re:Well, well...

[RobertM1968]

I'd rather pay 3$ per memory card than have a DMCA++ / ACTA laws enacted that just screws everything up! You can't sue people who have paid a copying tax can you?

Yes, yes they can. Read the proposed law. They still plan on. This is solely to make up losses for their pathetic, outdated, ineffective business model.

Re:Well, well...

[crossmr]

You'll get both. don't be so naive. Harper has his majority now, Canada is completely fucked.

And next...

[Goose In Orbit]

...paper - in case somebody writes down the music in score form

Re:And next...

[Gerzel]

Why not tax brain cells and get right to where all the illegality happens?

People listen to music and make copies of it! They remember, and never pay royalties on their memories! The music industry is losing quadrillions every day of unpaid memory royalties!

Think of the poor starving artists who need to be compensated for their work or else you won't have any good music!

Unlike Europe - where this is outright ILLEGAL

[FriendlyLurker]

Where: 'EU court rules Spain's "digital copyright tax" illegal'

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) today declared illegal any digital canon which is being imposed indiscriminately on all equipment and materials used for reproduction and not only that which presumably can only be used for private copying , as applied in Spain. Spain imposes a "canón digital", a small tax on all digital media (CD's, tapes, DVD's and associated equipment) which is given to the General Society of Authors for copyright payment in case the media is used to copy work.

Re:Unlike Europe - where this is outright ILLEGAL

[Anonymous Coward]

No it is NOT illegal in the EU. Germany is one of the worst in this regard. We pay levies on blank CDs/DVDs/etc., other storage mediums (not just memory cards, e.g. HDDs, USB sticks), printers, PCs, mobile phones, recording equipment (e.g. CD burners), portable audio players, photocopiers and so on and so forth.

At least all these levies eliminated ANY moral qualms I would have had pirating music, movies and books. They took my money by force of law. It's only fair I take their products in return. Sure it may be illegal, but seriously, fuck them. I have no respect for unjust laws.

I still pay for all software I use since they are not part of this corrupt system.

Re:Unlike Europe - where this is outright ILLEGAL

[BenoitRen]

Really? Because last I knew, there is still a similar tax on blank media here in Belgium.

Re:Unlike Europe - where this is outright ILLEGAL

[FriendlyLurker]

Yes really, see here in post below: http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2154928&cid=36127664

Re:Unlike Europe - where this is outright ILLEGAL

[FriendlyLurker]

Euhm Yes! See the part of the ruling you overlooked here in post below: http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2154928&cid=36127664

Re:Unlike Europe - where this is outright ILLEGAL

[FriendlyLurker]

Canon is not illegal - extending it "indiscriminately on all equipment and materials used for reproduction" is illegal. See my post below: http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2154928&cid=36127664

In consumers and political minds, SD = Cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference between approving a tax on CDs and a tax on memory cards will be the perception in the minds of those voting on it and in the minds of those who vote for the politicians.

CDs are perceived as music storage mediums, but SDs are perceived more as picture storage mediums.

Already it was a bad idea for a tax on CDs, but if the tax is applied to SD cards then it's an easy road to hard drives, cell phones with flash memory, thumbdrives and probably even Web hosting in general.

Google and Amazon won't have to get licenses for music storage, they'll be paying the tax anyways.

Re:In consumers and political minds, SD = Cameras

[MachDelta]

We already had that fight - the courts here ruled that 'non-removable' storage (hard drives, embedded flash) or devices containing such things (iPods, PCs) are exempt from the tax. So this just seems like the CRIA trying to pick up any scraps it can.

Makes *less* sense

[sunderland56]

How many people copy music on SD cards? 99.9% of them are used in things like digital cameras. Other than a few VW owners (some models have a SD card slot in the dash connected to the music system) I don't know anyone who would.

Go ahead and tax iPods, which actually *are* used for copying music - but don't try and kill off the photography industry by adding useless taxes.

Re:Makes *less* sense

[SuricouRaven]

The law lags. I would guess - based on nothing more than anecdotal observation - that most pirated music (And probably most non-pirated purchased music too) ends up being played either by a computer, or on a mobile phone. Dedicated portable music players are actually getting less common now, as even the cheaper mobile phones include the same functionality.

Re:Makes *less* sense

[donaldm]

How many people copy music on SD cards? 99.9% of them are used in things like digital cameras. Other than a few VW owners (some models have a SD card slot in the dash connected to the music system) I don't know anyone who would.

I am surprised they did not mention USB sticks or Memory Stick or XD cards. You are right most people would use some sort of music player to copy music to rather than use a card. If I want to play recorded (ie ripped) music in my car all I do is copy the appropriate files to my Android phone and play via my AUX connection to my car radio. The same is true for the iPhone.

Go ahead and tax iPods, which actually *are* used for copying music - but don't try and kill off the photography industry by adding useless taxes.

Actually any smart phone (and some not so smart) as long as it has some storage can act as a music player. To me this tax is crazy since most people use cards in cameras rather than copying music to them.

Re:Makes *less* sense

[OttoErotic]

Yeah, but you might use that memory card to take a picture of a copyrighted CD. Then the record executives' children would starve to death, or have to rely on our overburdened welfare system, and we would all end up living in a socialist ghetto just like Canada. Do you hate children and America or something?

Re:Makes *less* sense

[adolf]

Does your Android phone have an SD card in it?

Mine does, right behind the battery cover. Most others, AFAICT, use SD as well.

Is there some reason why the SD card installed in a phone would not be taxed?

(Yes, I'm being vague with my terms, since my phone uses MicroSD and cameras usually generally use SD, but the two of them are electrically identical, and both are part of the same set of specifications.)

Re:Makes *less* sense

[mjwx]

Go ahead and tax iPods, which actually *are* used for copying music - but don't try and kill off the photography industry by adding useless taxes.

Further more, taxes from this should go into state or federal coffers as it is a disincentive to commit an undesirable act, not a revenue stream for already rich companies.

Makes even less sense

[Junta]

The CD tax is senseless, but if grading on a curve, the memory cards makes even less sense.

At *least* burning music to CD represents a larger share of what is done with blank media, so that people can pop portions of their collection into their car cd player (and nowadays to a less extent in other cd players). Of course they penalize everyone 'just in case' and even in the case of burning music to CD there are plenty of fair-use sorts of applications ('mix tapes', burning legally purchased music, etc), which makes it absurd.

In the memory card situation, mostly I see them purchased for cameras, game consoles, and general sneakernet of data. There isn't a huge ecosystem of music players that take memory cards as the primary medium. Must music lives on an iPod or cellphone and arrives on other stereo systems by way of bluetooth, aux jacks, or iPod dock connection. Sure, there are things that take usb hard drives as sources and primarily play music, but I think that's such a vanishingly small use of even those specific units as to render any sense of entitlement beyond absurd.

Re:Makes even less sense

[realityimpaired]

There isn't a huge ecosystem of music players that take memory cards as the primary medium

My last 5 cell phones all had a microSD slot, which was used for storing pics from the camera, and for storing media for the phone's built-in mp3 player.

Re:Makes even less sense

[rolfwind]

Don't worry, they'll go after HDDs/SSDs and Internet connections themselves next. This is how it works, the more successful they are in asking for money, the more lawyers/lobbyists they'll be able to afford, and the more things they'll have their hand out for.

The only correct response is not to get defensive, but go on the offensive and get the initial tax (CDs/DVDs) repealed.

Re:Makes even less sense

[Junta]

Compared to CD players footprint, there's not many. I don't know a soul with a Sansa device.

Also, note I said where memory card is the primary playback case. I don't know about Sansa, but usually when a device has the slot, it's usually largely ignored in favor of wireless or wired transfer between it and a computer or a server. People using sneakernet-style transfer I would wager in the vast vast minority.

only fair IF

[TheGratefulNet]

everytime I make a .zip or .tar file, the music 'industry' pays me BACK.

the gall of the 'industry' to take what is essentially 99.9% data-only (NOT music) format and try to gouge 'usage fee' for it where its absurd beyond belief.

stop following their rules (like we even have to state this anymore). when the laws become bought and paid for by the rich, its time to start ignoring the laws.

you want us to respect the laws? make them respectable. we'll wait. until then, we'll do pretty much any damned thing we want (torrents, usenet, whatever).

grow up, and we'll treat you like adults. (isn't that a switch!)

Re:only fair IF

[Pi1grim]

It's not time to start ignoring the laws, it's time to start changing the laws.

Re:only fair IF

[TheGratefulNet]

how's that working out for all of us?

its a non-starter. the laws - even less so, today - are not there for us. they are there for the powerful and actual owners.

you and I are seen as 'renters'. truly.

our votes do not carry any weight. its the lobbying that needs fixing. until then, voting is a scam; only for show to keep the masses sated in their ignorance.

Re:only fair IF

[donaldm]

It's not time to start ignoring the laws, it's time to start changing the laws.

Unfortunately it is very difficult to change laws no matter how stupid or unfair once they have been passed by politicians.

Re:only fair IF

[bipbop]

Only if you're rich enough to buy them. No? Then good luck!

Re:only fair IF

[CondeZer0]

> its time to start ignoring the laws.

As Ian Clarke said in an /. comment many years ago:

"It is the responsibility of every citizen to ignore dumb laws."

And as dumb as most laws are, this kind of tax reaches a new level of idiocy.

The price we pay for sanity

[mauriceh]

In Canada this is the price we pay to prevent the criminalisation of our private music use.

Copying music for personal use is legal here and institutionalised.

Re:The price we pay for sanity

[Tridus]

No, in Canada this is the price we pay for "culture" industries being protected and coddled from reality.

There is no connection between this and music copying, at all. It's a cash grab. SD cards have as much to do with pirating music as video cards do.

Re:The price we pay for sanity

[SuricouRaven]

Why would that stop them bringing civil cases against individuals as well?

Re:The price we pay for sanity

[ColdWetDog]

I have no idea what anyone would use a 32Gbyte or 64Gbyte SD-card for, it is an insane amount of storage for most digital cameras, but pretty neat for storing entire seasons of TV-series, or all the music you have ever had the chance to leech.

Video. The new thing in DSLRs is videos and even dedicated video cameras are using SD. 64 GB is a nice big number for video.

Re:The price we pay for sanity

[Radtoo]

I guess in some roundabout way it makes sense for things like CDs and MP3 player devices. But this is supposed to be a tax on memory cards! There's a very small fraction of these being used in mobile phones, and whatever is being used for music often got paid for, again, through iTunes and co..

The real large bulk of usage is other data on mobile phones, as well as use in cameras. Is the entire software industry being recompensated, too? And how is that large fraction of the price of especially the smaller memory cards appropriate when most usage is NOT for music?

Re:The price we pay for sanity

[green1]

It is at the moment, but the Conservative government has promised to outlaw fair use as soon as possible. The copyright reform legislation died with the previous minority government, but now that they have a majority they have vowed to pass it as quickly as possible.

Somehow I doubt they'll repeal the levy once they repeal our fair use either...

Re:The price we pay for sanity

[green1]

Because our laws at the moment give us the right to copy for personal use... don't worry, the government has promised to remove those rights as quickly as they can (I believe this is in their "100 day plan" from the election we had a couple weeks ago)

Re:The price we pay for sanity

[MachDelta]

Because up here the last time they tried, they lost and lost BAD.
BMG Canada vs John Doe resulted in the judge declaring file sharing was entirely legal! It was a sledgehammer to the balls for the music industry. It took a year for the Federal Court of Appeals to nix the previous judges ruling (while not making any judgement themselves), leaving the question of file sharing legality an open and unanswered question. That was six years ago. The Canadian music industry is waiting for copyright reform (probably coming in the next year) before they risk slamming their collective dicks in a door again. In the meantime they'll just soak up some media levy - it's cheaper than constantly hiring lawyers anyway.

Re:The price we pay for sanity

[Maow]

No, in Canada this is the price we pay for "culture" industries being protected and coddled from reality.

No, in Canada this is the price we pay for having mostly unrestrained multinational corporations in unusually close proximity to USian culture and practices.

I think you can find posts in this very /. story about Europeans dealing with this (i.e. it's illegal, at least in Spain). So I don't expect they sat around and said, 'See what Canada is doing?!? Let's ban it before it gets to our shores.'

I'd argue that Canadian culture has strongly benefited (and by extension so have Canadians) by SOME of the coddling, such as CanCon (Canadian Content) broadcast requirements.

Just my Cdn$0.02 worth...

Re:The price we pay for sanity

[mauriceh]

I read all the comments, and, sadly enough, a lot of you are looking for reasons to politicize this.
Stop it already! Go to your room~!

Seriously though, the changes in the Canadian Copyright Act was modifed to provide for personal copies of music with no criminal liability.
A blank media levy was introduced in Canada in 1997, by the addition of Part VIII, "Private Copying".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy#Canada

This practice is in place in over a dozen countries.

It was a fairly rational approach to the fact that outlawing music copying is completely ineffective.
The idea was that if they tax the media we keep the music on, they could use teh revenue to
pay the rights-holders ( notice I did not say pay the musicians).
This is no different than the "Legalise marijuana and tax it" argument.
The biggest flaw is in the fact that they have no effective way to determine frequency of use by song, so no way to fairly compensate the rights-holders.

Re:The price we pay for sanity

[Mashiki]

No. The GP is correct. Cancon's exists because it gets it's funding from general revenue(heritage and culture + CRTC). This ends up protecting us from criminalization of the music industry.

Re:The price we pay for sanity

[Bungie]

You're being tricked by the media companies if you think most people know how to download entire TV seasons and save them to SD Cards. You would be suprised to find out how many people don't even know how to rip a CD in iTunes...

Most of the people I deal with have no clue how to use things like torrents to pirate media. Even if they could do it, they are usually against the idea because they are scared of getting viruses, getting in trouble, doing something immoral, or else they just want to honestly support the music/movie industry. When there is a TV show or band they like, they always purcase the CD's or DVD's from a retailer.

The people who are storing 64GB of media on SD cards and arraging them into collections are true pirates. A lot of these people just enjoy downloading and collecting media (even if they will never be able to watch or listen to all of it).

But even they would probably just be using a portable hard disk, which is cheaper and much better for storing TV and music collections than a bunch of SD cards.

Re:The price we pay for sanity

[nahdude812]

If this wasn't possible, I have no idea what anyone would use a 32Gbyte or 64Gbyte SD-card for, it is an insane amount of storage for most digital cameras

Are you serious? If I'm out shooting for a day, it's not uncommon for me to pop off 1,200-1,500 photos. Storing RAW+JPEG on my Nikon D300, I can easily fill up a 32gb card (somewhere around the 1200 mark). My camera shoots 9 frames per second, so assuming I just shoot in 1 second bursts and make only one attempt at a given subject, that's only 133 subjects. I'm not even pro. If you're shooting a wedding, good luck taking less than 3,000 shots.

Cameras with larger sensors are out there. Maybe 64gb is overkill for a little point & shoot that can only take 1 shot per second tops, with a 5mp sensor, but those of us who are actually into photography may even still find it a little constraining.

Digital Cameras

[r_jensen11]

Aren't memory cards more commonly used in digital cameras than for music? I know that many phones now use memory cards for storage, but I'd have to imagine that more people have digital cameras, and multiple cards for said cameras, than people who have phones with memory cards installed....

Re:Digital Cameras

[garcia]

I'm guessing with the surge of being able to add additional storage to many phones via SD, this is what they fear.

But yeah, I have never used an SD card for anything except my cameras.

Re:Digital Cameras

[PixetaledPikachu]

And I don't know about everyone else but I have a card in my phone... for my camera.

Well, to be fair, almost all of Nokia's ExpressMusic phones storage come in the form of Micro SD cards.

if you can no longer compete

[nurb432]

Get legislation enacted to guarantee your revenue stream.

Re:if you can no longer compete

[Anonymous Coward]

steal

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:if you can no longer compete

[mattventura]

And you would protect him by making everyone else pay for what got stolen? By treating everybody like the thieves that broke into his house?

Also, I think your definition of competition is a little off. Running in a race is competition. Tripping another runner is anti-competitive. Breaking into a house is not competitive. Not to mention copyright "theft" does not carry the same implications as real theft, thereby making your analogy worthless.

Re:if you can no longer compete

[jez9999]

Get legislation enacted to guarantee your revenue stream.

That's how the BBC get their revenue stream, and many Slashdotters say they'd like to have that system in their country.

Re:if you can no longer compete

[Xtifr]

I think it means a whole lot more than you think it does. Even perfectly legal activities like plagiarizing public domain works are called "stealing" in English. The authors of Forbidden Planet stole liberally from Shakespeare.

I understand and even agree with the point you were trying to make--I just wish you'd find a less incorrect way of making it, because it actually undermines your point when your arguments are blatantly wrong.

RIAA is stealing from independent artists...

[xanadu113]

The RIAA is STEALING from independent artists, with this fair use tax. If a non-signed band uses CD-R's to record their music onto, they are paying a fair use tax.

The same people who claim we are stealing from bands by downloading music, are getting paid by bands who didn't sign any agreement with the RIAA or any record labels. Now WHO is stealing from bands...?

What's next, bailouts for record labels...?

Two advantages of this:

[benwiggy]

First:
So, presumably, by paying the tax, I can pirate as much music as I like! Excellent.

Second:
I've written and recorded a song. Where do I sign to get my share of the cash?

Hah

[Windwraith]

We got that in Spain. The thing ended up propagating to every multimedia device like photo cameras, HDDs and anything that can use removable memory. (and it's a large price difference!)
If you Canadians can stop it, this would be a good moment, before it spreads.

Re:Hah

[MachDelta]

A tax on HDDs and other "non-removable" media or devices (read: iPods) was already smashed. This is just the CRIA trying to pick up table scraps.

A Video Resume for the music industry..

[yossie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPgHbt0ODr4

Re:First they came...

[Barbara, not Barbie]

First they came for the recordable CDs, but I didn't speak out because I didn't use recordable CDs.
Next they came for the SD cards, but I didn't speak out because I didn't use SD cards.
I am not sure what they are going for next, I didn't even read RTFA, but I am sure it will be even more ludicrous.

Slashdotters are safe for now - the RTFA TAX ACT, (also known as the Murdoch-News Corp Entitlement Fund) only affects those who actually read the "fine" articles.

There is no cash for artists.

[raehl]

The fund gets paid out to record labels, not artists. The best you can do is sell your copyright to a record label so they can get your share of the cash.

Fine ...

[gstoddart]

Just so the Canadian music industry understands ...

I use my memory cards for my camera and my cell phones, and I use my USB sticks for work, and I use blank DVDs to make backups ... add another copyright tax (don't call it a levy) on my ability to have electronic data, and I will hand around copies of MP3s like they're candy.

I will get my money's worth out of this *&$#( levy -- if you continue the default position that I am pirating your music (which I'm not doing now), then my default position will be that since I've already paid for your music, I am bloody well entitled to it. I won't even draw the line at Canadian music -- I'll just assume you're tithing to the RIAA.

If your business strategy is to charge all of us for the music that we're neither listening to nor pirating ... well, I will pirate it just because I've already paid you for it.

In short, if you keep ripping me off, I'll start ripping you off -- and I won't feel even a little bad about it. Is that what they really want?

Re:Fine ...

[gstoddart]

Musicians who earn above a certain threshold in annual income shouldn't get any of this money. It's not them who "need" it, even if it's their music being pirated in greater quantities. The idea is to use the money to foster "culture" growth, not just keep some marketing machine for the latest autotuned tween band well lubed.

Horseshit ... this isn't some "feed the starving artists" fund. This is a tax to make up for the (claimed) lost revenues of the recording industry -- by making absolutely everyone pay for it. I'm sure as hell not in favor of paying into a fund just to fund the artists who "need it" on the principal that someone else might not be buying their music either.

The assumption that I'm pirating their music, and that I should be compensating them for their 'lost' revenue basically means they're taxing all of us. And we're all now kicking into a fund to keep corporate profits up and make sure that executive bonuses are at an all time high -- this is a cash grab, pure and simple. Artists likely won't even see a dime of this.

The only thing fund is intended to foster growth in, is their bottom line. And more or less entrench into law the fact that we all owe them their revenue -- even if we don't use their product or want it.

Hell, my parents are in their 70's, and they buy memory cards ... they sure as hell don't use them to pirate music. They use them for their digital camera, and their digital picture frames ... perfectly legitimate, non-infringing uses of the technology. Yet, this tax just assumes that anything capable of storing electronic bits equated to them losing money.

License to download as much as I like

[Xaximus]

If I'm presumed guilty, I'll gladly take this as a license to download as much as I like. It's kind of a great deal!

Following the election...

[ForgedArtificer]

I don't know about everyone else, but I'll certainly be writing my new MP about this.

compression

[goombah99]

so once you have paid the copy tax you are free to copy as much music as you like?

Yes! but data compression requires extra payment. So you can only use AIFF or FLAC not MP3

Re:compression

[BlueWaterBaboonFarm]

Nitpick: AIFF AND FLAC are lossless compression format, while MP3 is a lossy compression format.

Re:compression

[Bespoke]

FLAC is compressed too, so that would be out. However, I would think that you should really get a discount for using a lossy encoding like MP3, since you aren't getting all of the data.

Re:Goddammit!!! RELATED!

[ForgedArtificer]

It's a subtle push for you to actually learn how to spell.

Bad idea

[Blackout for Hungary]

Here in Hungary a similar tax was introduced by Artisjus (Hungarian RIAA). You have to pay it for CD-s, DVD-s, flash drives, and memory cards, etc... They even sued Nokia for not paying this tax for the built-in memory in cell phones. The result: Black market. A whole industry was built to import these stuff from Slovakia without paying any tax neither to Artisjus, neither VET.

Stop Feeding Them

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop buying Music
Stop feeding them

Re:Stop Feeding Them

[yossie]

I stopped consuming music years ago.
I am happy with the hundreds of hours of music I already own and generally find little new music I like. I get my new music fix from the radio, pandora, and the like. The only music I actually acquire are the free weekly downloads from itunes.
I stopped primarily due to DRM and crazy ass licensing. Less DRM now, but my new habits around this are established.
Our copyright/IP system is entirely broken and getting more so every day. Something has to break, I am sitting on the sidelines waiting to see what goes first - the last of our civil liberties, or the insane system we have built.

Taxation without representation

[mark-t]

Considering the government wants to lock down digital works so that a consumer would not even be legally able to freely engage in the copying that this levy is supposed to be for, in an age where the amount of works stored in a non-digital format is rapidly diminishing, there is absolutely no possible way that this proposal is not taxation without representation. Not merely taxing somebody on something that they don't actually do (because they could otherwise still have an ability to exercise the privilege at any time), but taxing somebody on something that they aren't even ALLOWED to do.

Re:Taxation without representation

[mark-t]

It was my understanding that taxation without representation involved taxation that is not represented by anything that the society has the ability to utilize or choose, whether that was in the form of an elected representative who presumably acts in the best interests of the society, or in the form of other things that the public are not permitted to legally benefit from.

Re:Taxation without representation

[ILongForDarkness]

It was also a means to balance the trade deficit. The old world was importing huge amounts of resources from the colonies but didn't have a lot that the colonies wanted back. England was funneling boat loads of money to the colonies and getting tobacco, furs etc back. The taxes were a way to subsidize british citizens purchases of foreign goods.

Next thing ...

[PPH]

... they'll be coming after my blank wax cylinders.

You kids stay off my lawn!

Re:Only if we get an equal tax on the music indust

[tepples]

There can be some justification to tax the specific device (ipod), but not a multi-purpose medium.

I believe the tax is proportional to the fraction of media that are used for the taxable purpose. For example, if 20% of memory cards are used for music, the tax rate is set at 20% of what it would be if all memory cards were used for music. Besides, iPod might not be the best example: an iPod nowadays is a nearly-general-purpose handheld computer, not just a music player.

Cellular radio

[tepples]

but [the major record labels] have a near-monopoly on radio stations

By "radio" do you mean all wireless transmission of music, or just the FM band? Anyone with a 3G data plan can listen to Internet radio in the car. Anyone without can listen to a webcast at home or work and record a webcast to listen to in the car.

Re:Cellular radio

[kimvette]

I think you know I am referring to FM + AM bands, not streaming IP audio over 3G/LTE.Suggesting otherwise is merely engaging in a pedantic argument. Yes, yes, 3G and LTE are technically radio, but is obviously not what I was referring to.

Re:Cellular radio

[tepples]

Perhaps my point missed you. Ideally, the growth of streaming IP audio over 3G/LTE and the time-shifting of webcasts will eventually break up the FM and AM bands' monopoly on promotion power.

Great News

[future assassin]

I just have to set up a photography business , set up a galley and then get tin on this racket as people might be using their camera to take photos of my photos and print them and then I'm out of money? Does what I wrote make sense, well no but that's my point.

There will be no end to this

[erroneus]

The "industry" has made false claims of doom with every new technology from the player piano to tomorrow's next thing. They were successful in killing DAT and limiting other tech, having laws written and more and still they are not satisfied. They have taxes on media that may or may not be used to transport content that may or may not be theirs and still they want more.

Legislators need to wake up to the endless greed. They are rich and powerful, these media industrialists, because they are making enormous profits. They are able to influence legislators and hardware makers because they are making such enormous profits. When their excuse is "doom on the industry" is historically false and their "disadvantage" is demonstrably false by their own actions and use of resources, it's time to see them for what they are and stop.

It's time for the pendulum to swing. Their greed knows no ends and so far, the consumer's submissiveness knows no bottom.

Faulty logic

[Dcnjoe60]

- I buy a CD, I lend it to you, you copy the CD and give back the original. Perfectly legal.
- I buy a CD, I copy it and give you the copy. although the end result is identical to the first case, this way is illegal.
- I buy a CD, I copy it, I keep the copy and give you the original. Perfectly legal.
- I buy a CD, I lend it to you, you copy the CD and give back the copy. although the end result is identical to the last example, this is illegal.

Your logic is faulty. In the first case, you are legal, your friend has committed an illegal act. In the second case, you have committed the illegal act. In case 3, you are only legal, under personal use copy, until you transfer title of the original CD to your friend at which time your copy is now illegal as you no longer own the original. In case 4, you are legal, your friend is illegal for distributing the copy.

In all four cases, somebody is illegal and therefore the results are technically identical with the exception of who has violated the law.

Re:Faulty logic

[green1]

You obviously don't understand Canadian Copyright law.
Those 4 examples are all taken from the Canadian Heritage Ministry's official government website regarding the CD Levy. (I'd love to link to it, but I can't seem to find it any more)

In Canada copying for personal use is always legal providing you are copying for yourself, and from the original.

Re:Faulty logic

[green1]

To clarify, they specifically state that you do NOT need to keep the original CD in your posession for your copy to be valid. This is why we pay the levy, to legitimize such use.

Re:Faulty logic

[green1]

Sorry to reply to myself again, I still can't find the official government page I was looking for earlier (I suspect that's partially because one of their servers pch.gc.ca is down right now) however I did find this excellent FAQ including analysis of rulings by the Copyright Board of Canada on the subject:
http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml#copy_for_friends

I note the date is a few years ago, however the law has not (yet) changed on the subject

Re:Faulty logic

[index0]

As per the Canadian Copyright Act, it is legal as long as you are the one doing the copying and it is for your ears only. It can be copied from an original or a 2nd generation copy (but your friend that gave you that 2nd gen copy has no committed a crime). Both are legal as long as you are the one personally doing the copying. If you personally make a copy and that copy is for your self only, it is all legal. If you give that 2nd gen copy to anyone, you have now committed a crime.

Hey, while we're at it...

[dos4who]

We should also pay a walking tax for wearing shoes instead of putting money into the hands of big oil. After all, if you're not driving around all day in a gas guzzler, you're an enemy of the state, right? These "taxes" are such bull$hit money grabs!

Re:Goddammit!!! RELATED!

[countertrolling]

Actually it's a less than subtle push for me to get a new pair of glasses.. Spelling errors and typos are two different things

Free music in Canada!!

[motasinc]

Everytime I see something like this I think, why would I bother paying $15-$20 for a retail CD when I have already paid hundreds of dollars in "sin taxes" for all the data CDs I have used over the years. I mean clearly all the memory cards for my digital camera are used only for pirating music. Seems obvious enough to me. I love my country, but we could do without some of its inhabitants ;)

iPod for those too young for a job

[tepples]

Dedicated portable music players are actually getting less common now, as even the cheaper mobile phones include the same functionality.

In my experience, dedicated portable music players (e.g. iPod shuffle/nano) and dedicated handheld computers (e.g. iPod touch) remain popular with the under-18 crowd in the United States. Minors tend not to be able to afford Virgin Mobile USA's $300 per year voice and data plan for "even the cheaper mobile phones" such as LG Optimus V and Samsung Intercept.

Re:iPod for those too young for a job

[SuricouRaven]

I'm in the UK. I also work at a school, so I get to see a lot of what the youth are currently using on the go. Occasionally an iPod (And one even brings in a full iPad), but the vast majority of those who want mobile music use their phones. I've never seen a non-iPod music player used, except for one that was no longer used for music and served only as a rather bulky USB drive.

Framing by the MPAA-owned news organizations

[tepples]

it's time to start changing the laws.

How? I don't know about Canada, but the major news organizations in my country are co-owned with movie studios. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and Fox News have been seen to use their channels as soapboxes to frame the issues and candidates in a manner favorable to Walt Disney Pictures, Universal Studios, Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros. Pictures, and Twentieth Century Fox Films respectively. The news organizations hope that by election day, voters will 1. forget about copyright as an issue and 2. forget about any candidate who has expressed views that could harm the movie studios' opportunity for profit if enacted into law.

An unsigned band is its own label

[tepples]

If a non-signed band uses CD-R's to record their music onto, they are paying a fair use tax.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, a "label" is the owner of copyright in a sound recording, and a "signed" band is one under a contract with a label that establishes a work-for-hire or copyright assignment relationship. So if a band isn't signed, then it is its own label. Then why can't the band apply for its own share of the private copying royalties?

Re:An unsigned band is its own label

[RobertLTux]

because you have to have a pool of more than 5 lawyers to even get in the door to ask for the paper work to ask for a slice of that pie.

Please define "record labels"

[tepples]

The fund gets paid out to record labels

See my other comment.

Stop the madness!

[sillivalley]

Tax paper, pens, and pencils and stop this music madness at its source!

Re:Only if we get an equal tax on the music indust

[dgatwood]

So since probably at most 0.01% of flash cards are used for anything other than photography, this tax will be measured in thousandths of a cent, right?

These levies aren't to cover piracy...

[holophrastic]

They are to cover ANTI-piracy. Forget about what it is, and forget about what it means. It's not a good idea, it's a better idea.

Look at the US. Not at their piracy, but at their letigious anti-piracy. Think about all of the times that someone, especially the RIAA but not only them, takes legal action, of any kind, at all related to pirating music, in any way.

Now think of the costs spent, by the tax-payers, to pay the courts, the judges, the legal defense, cleaning the court rooms, publishing the court date, scheduling the legal battle amongst actual important things.

Think of the tax-payer money lost because people free to sue each other actually do.

$3 per memory card is WAY LESS than the cost of supporting people suing one another.

That's why we do it. It's cheaper to pay a tax than to deal with such an issue. So we'll wait for the US to solve piracy altogether -- you know, with dmca and such -- and until then, we'll take the lesser of two evils.

Re:These levies aren't to cover piracy...

[holophrastic]

Every one of your ideas is certainly very sound. Unfortunately, each one adds a huge expense in terms of complexity. That would defeat the purpose.

A simple tax from top to bottom is easy to pay, doesn't need to be reported, and can be collected by the government from the manufactures directly -- as opposed to from each distributor, or from each retailer, or from each consumer.

You're missing the point. The idea is not to get it right. The US will eventually figure out a way. It may take 100 years. Until then, the idea is to spend the least amount of dollars on the issue over-all. This is how we do that.

Re:These levies aren't to cover piracy...

[purpledinoz]

Here's a better idea. Stop buying RIAA music. Starve the beast, kill the beast.

Re:These levies aren't to cover piracy...

[DarthVain]

Nope. They want their cake and eat it too. Introducing new "levies" or taxes has nothing to do with not suing people. If they could, they would. They only reason they cannot, is our legal system isn't quite as loopy as the one in the US, specifically in crazy places like Texas. Our privacy laws are much stronger as well, making it difficult for the lawyers to get at names easily (in the US, they just sue John Does). This hasn't stopped the industry from trying to introduce new copyright into Canada that would do exactly that. In fact that Copyright bill has probably been introduced (and defeated) more than any other bill. However now that the conservatives have a majority, you can bet that is now coming. Also if you think after the bill makes everything illegal, and the industry starts bringing everyone into court, that those taxes and levies will disappear you are smoking the good stuff. Why do you think the conservatives want all those new prisons? It's to hold all the copyright evildoers. :)

Anyway hopefully the Conservatives will remember how big the Internet and consumer price gouging became an issue during the election, though I am not holding my breath. More likely they will introduce it quickly (in the next 6months) so that by the time election time comes around again in 4 years, everyone will forget about it. Of course that is assuming we still have elections in 4 years....

I'd rather not pay, thank you.

[Shivetya]

Let those who are using the product; songs in this case; pay. I'd rather have those suing to prove the guilt of those they sue. I see no reason to just hand them money on the basis that some people are guilty, especially my money.

Whats next, raising road fees because we know some people exceed the speed limit?

CD levy == good thing

[Leolo]

The CD levy makes a good deal of sense. I download an album in MP3 format (currently legal in Canda) and burn it to CD that I paid the levy on, and I know the copyright holder will be renumerated.

Now, I assume the levy is then split between copyright holders proportional to their physical sales. Which means that if you download an obscure album, they won't get money. So I always buy album's from smaller, less well known acts on physical media. Ideally at their concert.

Note that IIRC, the RIAA has spoken out against the CD levy. It makes suing music fans in Canada so much harder for them.

so Canda is saying you don't ..

[josepha48]

own your own music? No idea what their laws are, but what if you don't download or use memory cards for music. Like if you are buying it for a camera or a thumb drive, or to put an OS on it. You still have to pay a tax? Do they have fair use in CA?

Re:Goddammit!!! RELATED!

[ForgedArtificer]

Sorry, my comment came out rather more snarky than intended. Should have replaced "you" with something a little more neutral.

I hear you about the glasses... problem is that you'd better be rich if you want to be able to see these days.

IT IS ILLEGAL IN Europe: imposed indiscriminately

[FriendlyLurker]

TO ALL in this thread replying that it is not illegal: You missing the crucial word of the ruling: indiscriminately

"declared illegal any digital canon which is being imposed indiscriminately on all equipment and materials used for reproduction"

Bottom line: extending and applying the canon to all memory cards indiscriminately - is illegal in Europe

Yes it IS ILLEGAL in Europe

[FriendlyLurker]

See the part of the ruling you overlooked here in post below: http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2154928&cid=36127664

Pirate for a day

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada needs to start having a national pirate day, week or month, where everybody downloads all their music illegally instead of buying it and see how they like the loss of revenue.

Re:Pirate for a day

[VortexCortex]

Yeah... that'll show 'em! Everybody make a special point to endorse the distribution of copyright restricted media. (Note: Piracy, much like over the air Radio, promotes sales -- Derp!)

iPods can use SD cards?

[HalAtWork]

What popular MP3 players accept SD cards? I think Sansa had one, but is it really that widespread? Most MP3 players can't even make use of SD cards. Due to the small size of SD cards and the popularity and permanence of write-once DVDs for backing up data, I don't even see SD cards as being a popular storage medium for MP3 files. Most don't even store MP3s, they create them when they rip the DVD, put them on their player, and delete the originals. Or they just re-download them from the place they bought them from.

I want a MPAA tax on wire, magnets and esp. sand.

[VortexCortex]

I have build a electromechanical non-volatile RAM device in my garage (two of its walls to be precice). The RAM module can store 2048 bits (2Kb, 256 8bit bytes). The contacter relays have been modified to mechanically operate toggle switches that then preserve the relays' state when powered down. Thus, Individual bits can be edited by hand. A computer can access the bit array via parallel port (8 bit module at a time -- the computer selects which byte is returned by first writing a selection byte). It's quite noisy, but simply fascinating when operating (especially in the dark due to sparks between the contacts).

Yes I know it's uselessly slow, and limited, but the kids now know more about, and show more interest in technology than any other subject. The text of a few children's books have traversed the GRAM (Garage RAM), and just for grins bits toggled here and there to see their effects on the familiar stories -- Identifying specific ASCII codes to target was mostly left up to me, but not always: They quickly picked up on the bad habit of identifying the bit #5 as being Caps / Lowercase toggle for letter codes :-) -- A neighbor's child is now very interested in programming due to my simple programmable byte selection system. (Perhaps I shall turn it into a full working computer if interest is not lost with age).

I would like to see MPAA support for a $100 levy per magnet (rare earth, artificially created, or electric), $1,000 levy per relay, $10,000 levy per foot of wire, $1,000,000 levy per kilo of sand, -- Prices given in relation to the chance that the type of component is being used to store copyright restricted information in breach of said information's license. ( It seems they've already done a good enough job on printer ink... ) I believe nothing short of this will rally the general public into making the right choice -- Stop allowing the Government to sell its citizens' freedom of speech rights to the media corporations.

Guilty

[SuperTechnoNerd]

I guess i'm guilty before the fact.. Must be a bunch of mind readers in Canada.

Re:Only if we get an equal tax on the music indust

[tepples]

since probably at most 0.01% of flash cards are used for anything other than photography

I imagine that 0.01% is far too low, especially for Android smartphones with a GB or less of internal storage and a microSD slot. These need a microSD card for any appreciable music and music video storage unless, as on the Archos 43 Internet Tablet, the internal memory has a fairly large partition mounted at /sdcard.

HDDs

[sourcerror]

Do they levy HDDs?

but u dont get prosecuted

[sourcerror]

Although, I don't remember torrent trackers ever going down. (I'm not so sure of this. Usually police targets pay for FTP servers.)
And users never get sued.

Re:Goddammit!!! RELATED!

[countertrolling]

Not to worry... I'm having too much fun watching the mod bombs I'm receiving over all the OBL stuff.. seems to be spreading to every comment I make now..

I hope Stephen Harper dies violently. Soon.

[Tolkien]

Fuck you Stephen Harper. Fucking brown-nosing American-wannabe.

Re:Next up: Paper tax.

[maxwell demon]

At some time they'll tax your mouth because you might use it to read books aloud, or to sing a copyrighted song.
And your ears and eyes because you can use them for consuming copyrighted content.
And since Braille exists, also for your fingers. Doesn't matter if you don't know Braille; they also don't ask if you actually have the ability to play music from your SD cards (you might just own a camera and a photo printer with SD slot, after all).

Why Stop Here?

[Nom du Keyboard]

Why stop with just the music industry? Why isn't every other industry whose product can conceivably be related to SD memory cards not also applying for their own personal levy piece of the pie? Go ahead an double, triple, the cost of digital memory. I'm sure that will bring the return of full employment and make Canadian society even better than it is now.

hmm

[ILongForDarkness]

Blank tapes and CDs have this already I think. My thinking: if you tax me assuming I'm going to copy stuff than you shouldn't try to sue me if I actually do. I paid for that copy :-) Or are we supposed to pay in case we might copy and then again when we actually do? Kind of like a first date, you pay in case of sex and then you pay for the rest of your life if you actually get it :-)

Lets Not Pretend

[ZombieBraintrust]

These taxes have nothing to do with copyright infringement. They are just corporate welfare.

Tax the internet

[pckl300]

They could probably convince the courts that they need to tax the Internet, because it's so evil and all. That way, they'll have a steady stream of income every month from millions of people.

Re:Canada has a Music Industry?!

[ControlsGeek]

Its called the CDP, Celine Dion Posse.

Re:Only if we get an equal tax on the music indust

[dgatwood]

I would argue that this should only consider flash cards purchased off the shelf, not flash cards that are bundled as part of a device. Most consumers won't ever change out the latter, so those are really no different than flash parts soldered to a logic board. By contrast, most digital camera owners have multiple flash cards.

But even if you consider flash cards that are part of a device, though, digital cameras seriously outnumber Android phones. I don't have Canadian stats, but there are twice as many digital cameras sold in any given year in the U.S. as there are Android phones in all of North America, if my stats are right (projected 25M digital cameras vs. somewhere around 13M Android phones).

Also, every Android phone is also a camera, so you have to partially count them in both columns, which leads to the question of what percentage of an Android phone's storage is used for what purpose. I'd expect most folks who buy smart phones typically use a bigger portion of their flash cards for photos and apps than music.

Add all that up, and I doubt you're more than a percent or two even if you count the hardware built into the device (which as I've said before, shouldn't really be considered, as those devices should come with a tariff on their own if they don't already; it's not fair to skew the stats for consumer flash purchases based on atypical end-user use).

Why not just tax per ear?

[dniq]

Since you have ears - you can listen to the music, so why not just tax per ear? Or better yet - per cell in your body, you know - just to make sure that no individual cell takes advantage of enjoying the music without paying...

It's a Made in Canada Solution

[rayk_sland]

As long as we don't also bring in a Canadian DMCA, I'm all for it.