If they have included the media in the tariff, then they have said that it is a legal recording media under the tariff. Apparently they expect the audio CD's to be used more often, so the higher tariff. Also, if they put the higher duty on the "Data" CD's, they would have had a much harder time justifying the tariff to people using those CD's for data. 5 cents is swallowed by those who are exclusively data users, without a complaint, and barely a notice.
The "Audio" label suggest higher fidelity, but does not preclude you from using those CDs for data, and vise-versa.
The actual price is 5.2 cents for data CD's and 60.8 cents for Audio CD's. There is also a tarriff on audio tapes as well. Here is a link to the government pubs. http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c19992000fs-e.html
The tariff on the data CD's is only 5.2 cents, while the tariff on Audio CD's is 60.8 cents. This explains why the Audio CD's in the store are so much more expensive. It also explains why may people who burn their music to CD's are still using data CD's, rather than the Audio CD's that are suppose to be better quality.
If you are in Canada, then data CD's are taxed on import at 5 cents, while 'Audio CDs' are taxed at 60.8 cents. That is why the Audio classed CD's are so much more expensive in the stores. If you data CD's are 10$/40, then the importer paid $2 when they brought them in. They must be getting them pretty cheap to sell them for $8 and make a profit.
I am not opposed to paying a tax on something that I use. Case in point is the tariff that was imposed on CD's. I am willing to pay the 5.2 cents on my data CD's, even though I use them for backing up my personal data, and not copy righted material; but I would not be willing to pay the 60.8 cents that is charged on the Audio CD's, if I was only using them for my data. I am sure people who create their own music cringe at the idea of the 60.8 cents to place their own music on the CD's.
In this scenerio, everyone with an Internet account is going to be called a crook and be forced to pay royalities to SOCAN, even if they do not download music. I would agree with the flat rate, 25 cents per subscriber per year (or even per month), but 10% of the advertising profit from the ISP seems unreasonable. If they must, then collect a tariff as they do with the CD's, and charge a flat rate for all users. All of this money can go into on fund, and anybody who thinks that they have a claim can try to get the money from the government (be is SOCAN, software publishers, etc), and when the fund is empty for the year, so be it. I would expect that in a flat rate system, my ISP would pass that 25 cent charge directly onto me.
I think that this may hurt the music industry more than help them, as people will then say, "I now have a right to download the music, and I don't have to worry about buying the CD, as I have supported them through the tariff!"
Slashdot Mirror
If they have included the media in the tariff, then they have said that it is a legal recording media under the tariff. Apparently they expect the audio CD's to be used more often, so the higher tariff. Also, if they put the higher duty on the "Data" CD's, they would have had a much harder time justifying the tariff to people using those CD's for data. 5 cents is swallowed by those who are exclusively data users, without a complaint, and barely a notice. The "Audio" label suggest higher fidelity, but does not preclude you from using those CDs for data, and vise-versa.
CD-R and CD-RW have the same duty.
You are wrong, we don't may that much. It is only 5Cents on normal CD-R and CD-RW, and 60.8 cents on those that are labelled AUDIO. Read it for yourself Copyright Board's Decision Private Copying 1999-2000
The actual price is 5.2 cents for data CD's and 60.8 cents for Audio CD's. There is also a tarriff on audio tapes as well. Here is a link to the government pubs. http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c19992000fs-e.html
The tariff on the data CD's is only 5.2 cents, while the tariff on Audio CD's is 60.8 cents. This explains why the Audio CD's in the store are so much more expensive. It also explains why may people who burn their music to CD's are still using data CD's, rather than the Audio CD's that are suppose to be better quality.
If you are in Canada, then data CD's are taxed on import at 5 cents, while 'Audio CDs' are taxed at 60.8 cents. That is why the Audio classed CD's are so much more expensive in the stores. If you data CD's are 10$/40, then the importer paid $2 when they brought them in. They must be getting them pretty cheap to sell them for $8 and make a profit.
I am not opposed to paying a tax on something that I use. Case in point is the tariff that was imposed on CD's. I am willing to pay the 5.2 cents on my data CD's, even though I use them for backing up my personal data, and not copy righted material; but I would not be willing to pay the 60.8 cents that is charged on the Audio CD's, if I was only using them for my data. I am sure people who create their own music cringe at the idea of the 60.8 cents to place their own music on the CD's.
In this scenerio, everyone with an Internet account is going to be called a crook and be forced to pay royalities to SOCAN, even if they do not download music. I would agree with the flat rate, 25 cents per subscriber per year (or even per month), but 10% of the advertising profit from the ISP seems unreasonable. If they must, then collect a tariff as they do with the CD's, and charge a flat rate for all users. All of this money can go into on fund, and anybody who thinks that they have a claim can try to get the money from the government (be is SOCAN, software publishers, etc), and when the fund is empty for the year, so be it. I would expect that in a flat rate system, my ISP would pass that 25 cent charge directly onto me.
I think that this may hurt the music industry more than help them, as people will then say, "I now have a right to download the music, and I don't have to worry about buying the CD, as I have supported them through the tariff!"