Canadians May Face 25% Download Tariff 615
C-Yo writes "While Canadians have battled against an iPod tariff for more than a
year, now comes news that Canada's copyright collectives are seeking a
tariff on iTunes as well. Professor
Michael Geist (who last
week dismantled music industry claims about peer-to-peer) reports
that one collective is demanding an incredible 25% of the gross revenue
of music download services as well as 15% of webcasters' gross revenue
and 10% of gamers gross revenue (free
version of report or Toronto
Star reg. version). When combined with other tariff
proposals, it would appear that Canada's collectives want to the kill
the download industry, demanding at least 40% of everything iTunes,
Napster, and other new services earn."
It isn't just downloads.... (Score:5, Informative)
industry" as much as they are still upset about the United States
failure to comply with the WTO ruling on the Byrd Amendment. In fact,
on March 31st of this year Canada put this out:
"The Government of Canada announced today that it will retaliate
against the United States in light of its failure to comply with the
World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling on the Byrd Amendment. Following
extensive consultations with domestic stakeholders, Canada will impose
a 15 percent surtax on U.S. live swine, cigarettes, oysters and
certain specialty fish, starting May 1, 2005"
Seems to me this download tariff is just another retaliation like the
above. It isn't just Canada either, several countries are upset that
the US has not complied.
For those that don't know, The Byrd amendment, passed by Congress four
years ago, provides that when foreign manufacturers are found to be
dumping goods in the U.S. market -- that is, selling at unfairly low
prices -- any anti-dumping duties that are imposed can be handed over
to the U.S. companies that brought the dumping case, rather than to
the Treasury. It has benefited U.S. firms in industries including
steel and pasta, with one of the largest beneficiaries being Timken
Co., an Ohio maker of bearings, which collected about $40 million last
year.
Re:It isn't just downloads.... (Score:5, Funny)
I knew it was pretty easy and cheap to buy politicians, but now Canada is taxing them? How do I get into this racket?
Will Canadian musicians be affected.? (Score:2, Funny)
Will this produce a negative impact on any Canadian artists such as k.d. lang, barenaked ladies, Celine Dion, Avril Lavigne, etc., etc.?
Re:Will Canadian musicians be affected.? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It isn't just downloads.... (Score:2)
industry"
I think Canada's collectives want to assimilate us and fit us with various technological improvements, like unhinged heads. Resistance is futile.
My apologies to the Canadians, I couldn't help it. Much love!
Re:It isn't just downloads.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh my gosh. There are still people who believe this is wrong?
Sure, let's go and give incentives for farmers to farm the heck out of their land. Then what do you do when the land is useless for a couple of decades? Appropriately rotating crops and leaving the land to rest at times will give more production than killing the land in a few short years. So no, it isn't "not growing crops."
And price fixing in small amounts is also justified, if the natural mark
Re:It isn't just downloads.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If it was just the farmers' fine. Problem is, it may make economic sense for farmers to "mine" their land -- to maximise production for several years, take their profit, and leave a desert. Same as the timber industry -- given the choice between moderate profits indefinitely and high profits for 10 years and cashing out, economics pushes you to go for the shorter term, clearfelling, rather than selective harvesting. Or fisheries -- take all you can this year and don't care about wiping out the next generation. And if any competitors go for the long term, they go broke as they can't compete on price with someone who doesn't care about is destroying their land.
The quarter-by-quarter business model is fine for some industries, but not agriculture.
Re:It isn't just downloads.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yea right.. We aren't talking about generation to generation farmers here. Start looking at the greater economic picture, where every industry turns into a small number of large coporations who leech off the resources. It will always be more profitable to leech off the land for 5 years and dump it, only to buy new land and do the same, over and over again. I'm not talking about Farmer Brown who sits around driving his tractor and taking care of his crops. He has a vested interest in his land and his family farm. But the same absolutely CANNOT be said about a coporation, no matter how you slice it.
Even if coporations outsoruced all their farming to the locals, they would just cut big bonus checks to them to crank out the max in the short term and then drop them. The local wouldn't have a problem because he would probably be set for life after that point. What does he care if his soil is useless... He is rich now and has a retirement account.
Your points only make sence if every farmer in the country ran like a small family business and passed it down through the generations selling to local grocery stores and farmer's markets. This lala land you dream of doesn't exist. There are greater economic factors at work here. Walmart sells produce now if you haven't noticed. Small businesses don't sell to walmart. Small businesses don't sell to Walmart's competitors. The economics are so significantly more complicated than you can imagine, and you boil it all down to "People protect their stuff." Give me a break.
Re:It isn't just downloads.... (Score:3, Interesting)
You must apprentice for 4 years to become certified as a brick layer. Why force it on the people? Why not just let people lay their own bricks, and bricks all over town? Why go through any kind of government regulation if all it is is just laying bricks? Lets all just tell the Joe Schmoe's around town to start laying bricks, and when they all fall on Granny Smith next year and cause her to fall and break her hip and have a heart attack, we wi
Re:It isn't just downloads.... (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I firmly believe you are DEAD wrong. Economic theory, as I learned it, states that those owners of the land would not overfarm it but would take care of their land to produce for decades. Such is the argument for privatization of public fishing grounds, etc. If someone owns the lake (or in this case, the land), then they wont
Re:It isn't just downloads.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Weyerhauser owns a lot of land in Oregon. Because they own the land they're obsessed with making sure it yields maximum production. They work with the Forestry department and with large universities to determine how best to protect their land, since that's their livelihood at stake. Because of this they're moving away from monoculture crops and recommending selective harvesting, rather than clear-cutting. This is a timber company, mind you. In opposition to extremist greenie thinking they're at the forefront of sustainable land management; not because it's the 'right' thing to do (whatever that means) but because it'll keep the land productive for centuries to come.
Other timber companies rent public land and clear-cut the hell out of out, then often renege on their minimal replanting duties until they can tuck away their profits and dissolve the company (Southern Georgia, anyone?). Why should they give a shit about the land? The public will bail out their mess, after all.
For people with half a brain owning the land means taking care of it. Anything else spells disaster in the long run. This must be why Weyerhauser plans *100 years* into the future in terms of land management.
Max
Re:It isn't just downloads.... (Score:4, Interesting)
'some leftie ecogroup says it's bad'
Interesting...you're saying that, lo and behold, the "leftie ecogroup" was actually right in saying that clear cutting was bad all along?
You think that's just some coincidence, or maybe that they actually know what they're talking about?
You don't clearly state it, so I won't accuse; but your tone is coming close to saying "Weyerhauser invented non-homogenous tree planting and has moved away from clear cutting because they learned it was bad for the land. Coincidentally, 'leftie greenies' have been saying the same thing for 40 years, but it's just luck that they had it right this time."
You think W would have ever even considered this strategy if it wasn't for the education and research that leftie greenie organizations and PhDs have done?
Re:Who cares about the WTO? (Score:2)
Re:Who cares about the WTO? (Score:2)
Shame the rest of America doesn't feel that way.
Re:It isn't just downloads.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:For the clueless (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll take a stab at this. Domestic demand in Europe and Japan is stagnating, Japan has been in and our of deflation for over a decade, Germany is toying with it. Germany is facing 12.6% unemployment right now the highest numbers since the thirties. Europe can't escape the massive future liabilities the government has amassed due to its low birth rates, and therefore has to import as much labour as it can simply to keep going. The threat of low-cost labour from the rest of the EU, and the curtailing of benefits that have come to be seen as a right threaten to harm the social structures of Europe in irreperable ways.
You've been paying attention only to people who say what you want if you really believe that there has ever been any chance of the Euro becoming a reserve currency in the world economy. Ireland even began issuing some of it's sovereign debt in USD a few weeks ago! Extrapolating this assertion and saying this was the reason for the Iraq war borders on voluntary lunacy. The US trade deficit has been nearly the only thing that has kept Europe and Asia from operating in a severe recession over the last few years.
Basically America's consumer, partially aided by the Fed's policy of low interest rates, has been supporting the world's economy. Economists have been wringing thier hands for years over how the world economy is running on only one engine. Part of the hope was that during this period Europe (really talking about Germany here, the largest economy in Europe by far) and Japan would reform thier labour laws, and banking system respectively, creating domestic growth and genuine domestic demand, and start to buy stuff not only from themselves, supporting thier own economies, but also from America.
Aside from the fact that the social structures of Japan and Germany, as well as the government leaders have pretty much failed to address the structural problems that have brought their domestic economies to thier knees while they had a chance. The consequences of this so far have been a falling US dollar, but could easily be protectionism, which is really unfortunate.
But that's just what I've grokked over the last few years. I could be wrong. But I doubt I'm more wrong than you in this case.
Kalin
Re:For the clueless (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you're a little too close to the problem to see the big picture there mate. The people of Japan and every other nation would be a lot better off spending their time and resources to improve their own lot in life rather than improving yours.
And your dismissal o
Re:For the clueless (Score:5, Insightful)
Your arguments are big on grand sweeping statements but short on details and evidence. I'm afraid you're playing your hand as someone who has not looked deeply into competing explanations for what is going on. Seriously, can you point to any large-scale flight to safety from US treasuries to other currencies or assets? It just isn't realistically happening. Do you really think that some scheme cooked up by Chirac and Hussein to sell Iraqs meager oil output in Euros would have been likely? Do you honestly think that this fairly insignificant move would cause the trillions of dollars in treasuries held as a reserve currency to be liquidated in favor of Euros? Do you have any idea how momentous that move would be, and how massive events that have triggered a change in global reserve currency have been in the past? Are you actually suggesting that Saddam Hussein had a great beneficient financial program for the world?
Occam's Razor my friend, look into it.
Some sort of Baran-Wallerstein type theory of global immiserization is not "an accepted fact" as you claim, but actually widely discredited. Because post-war Germany and Japan, South Korea, Canada, all the greatest trading partners of the US are not 'exploited'. I'm sorry, you lose, move away from the table.
Look, I can tell that you're not going to be convinced by anything anyone says about this that doesn't fit your world-view, but I'm going to give a simple analogy for anyone who might stumble across this discussion. If you buy stuff from me, I prosper more than if you don't. If I am Germany, and I have stuff for sale then I am better off if people buy my stuff. If no one offers to buy it, then I have less money to spend on things I need. It would hurt me, as Germany a great deal if suddenly the US started trading with me less. OK, that's not too hard to understand.
Yes it would be good if Japan was also buying more Japanese goods and services and Germany more German goods and services. It would also be nice if Japan's banks weren't supporting billions upon billions of bad debt, and if German firms weren't regulated out of hiring new employees in defference to those who already have jobs. Having high exports, built on the back of American sovereign and consumer debt hasn't made these problems worse, but it may have forestalled their domestic resolution. It certainly isn't good for the long-term in America to have such high debt and low savings, but that's the price you've got to pay when you're basically supporting the world's economy. The alternative of allwoing Japan and Germany to sink into depression is too harsh for everyone.
BTW, I don't live in the US, not that I see what difference that makes, I thought we were discussing ideas here.
Re:For the clueless (Score:3, Informative)
What is Indymedia? Never heard of it.
Seriously, can you point to any large-scale flight to safety from US treasuries to other currencies or assets? It just isn't realistically happening.
No it's not. The logical chain of events that would precede that goes as follows:
1) Countries start accepting an alternative currency for oil, such as the euro. 2) Other countries start purchasing oil in those currencies where it's appropriate 3) Those
Re:For the clueless (Score:3, Informative)
I find that hard to believe, but I apologize for what some might consider an ad hominem attack. All attempts at humor aside.
No it's not. The logical chain of events that would precede that goes as follows:
1) Countries start accepting an alternative currency for oil, such as the euro. 2) Other countries start purchasing oil in those currencies where it's appropriate 3) Those countries no longer need to keep a reserve of USD, so they maintain it less as they become m
Re:For the clueless (Score:3, Interesting)
Absolutely.
This is why the idea that we
Re:It isn't just downloads.... (Score:3, Funny)
What are you talking about? We leave the fucking of livestock to the individual farmers. As for the lumber, well, those trees are just too damn sexy.
Re:It isn't just downloads.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, the US has imposed the tariffs because we say Canada is giving illegal subsides to its timber industry. Outside observers, including the WTO, side with Canada in saying the tariffs are unjust. The American timber industry has a strong lobbying organization, which may have an influence on our trade stance.
This is all very similar to t
Re:It isn't just downloads.... (Score:3, Informative)
Ohio still has large remnants of old labor-intensive commodity-based industries, such as steel and rub
And your little dog too! (Score:5, Funny)
And 7% of gross revenue from hamburger sales since it's been shown that copyright violaters eat them, and 11% of posters of 70s rockers in cheesy poses since their images retain valuable copyrightable money-making potential, and 3% of the sale of every wheelbarrel since they can be used to haul off copyrighted material, and 1% of every breath you take since that's part of a copyrighted song lyric...
That doesn't make any sense... (Score:5, Insightful)
But, at least in the case of iTunes, you're already PAYING for the product. So there's no need to tariff it because the product is being legitimately purchased.
(Of course, that won't stop your friendly government from figuring out how to tax you...)
Re:That doesn't make any sense... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That doesn't make any sense... (Score:2, Informative)
The government is getting its cream out from this, at the very least charging the collectives for doing the work for them.
Re:That doesn't make any sense... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That doesn't make any sense... (Score:3, Funny)
As a Canadian (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:As a Canadian (Score:2, Insightful)
You idiots, set a reasonable fee, like 5 cents, and watch 200 million people download your song. Charge $1 and get nothing.
I use Allofmp3 because they do pay royalties, I do not condone illegal copyright violations.
Dave from Downunder
Re:As a Canadian (Score:3, Interesting)
As a Canadian, do you know who gets money from the media tax? I don't mean this as a flame but rather a legit question. In principal it's seems like a very good idea to tax the medium in order to support media to put on it. But do copyright holders actually get compensated, and if so is it limited to Canadian copyright holders? What is the purpose of this t
Re:As a Canadian (Score:4, Informative)
As if. (Score:5, Insightful)
SOCAN's proposal does not stop with music download services. The new Tariff 22 also calls for a tariff of 15 percent of gross revenues from both audio webcast sites that feature content similar to conventional radio stations as well as from established radio stations that webcast their signal. Moreover, gaming sites that communicate musical works as part of their games face a potential tariff of ten percent of gross revenues. In fact, to ensure that no one escapes Tariff 22, SOCAN envisions a tariff of ten percent of gross revenues for all other sites that communicate music.
Ultimately, this is all a bunch of legal poppycock. It's a proposal, and I'd argue that it's a damn stupid, untenable proposal. We need to let the Canadian government know that its a stupid proposal, but I have a feeling that they'll see it for what it is. After all, they've ruled positively in downloading cases before - what with our tariff on blank media.
Re:As if. (Score:4, Informative)
The Canadian Government does not make rulings. It passes laws.
Courts or tribunals make ruling.
The government on the other hand, merely votes and passes a law. The government is essentially free to completely ignore reality if it chooses to, and put anything a majority of MP's would support into law.
What the government puts into law has nothing to do with any kind of "ruling". It is just politics.
It is illegal to lobby the courts in Canada. (at least in any way the court would notice your lobbying).
This makes sense, because to lobby the court, suggests that the court's ruling would be based on external factors beyond the "law" and the "facts" of the case at hand. It is insulting to the Court to suggest that sign waving and yelling has any relevence to the case. If you have anything RELEVENT to say, you would be permitted to testify under oath just like all the other witnesses.
So, unless you want to get slapped with a contempt of court charge, I would restrict your act of "let the Canadian government know" to the actual Government. Which does not make rulings.
Kill it in Canada, maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't see it killing these globally, just in Canada.
Anonymous Coward (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:3, Informative)
Not by much these days! :(
I saw someone confuse the Canadian price of a video game recently as being just a slightly-high price of an American video game.
I miss the days of, "$100 Canadian? Izzn'at like t'ree-fi'ty US?"
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:3, Informative)
(As a note for Americans, a weak US dollar is actually GOOD for US exporters and may help to balance the US's trade deficits by making foreign goods more expensive and domestic goods cheaper).
Potential problem for all access monopolies (Score:5, Interesting)
There are dangers to collectivist centralization. Give me the hell of high stakes competition and unclear standards.
Canadian Petition for Users' Rights (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ [digital-copyright.ca]
Dammit, they're taxing the wrong ones... (Score:4, Funny)
France has something similar... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:France has something similar... (Score:2)
Re:France has something similar... (Score:2)
Re:France has something similar... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a compensation for our fair use laws, it's said. Because you can copy music to your close friends and not violate any laws, they're said to need this compensation.
Re:France has something similar... (Score:2, Troll)
Re:France has something similar... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:France has something similar... (Score:3, Funny)
Let's see... (Score:2)
riiiight....
SOCAN The Saviors of Canadian Music? (Score:2)
Question is, if they were able to levy these tariffs, where would this money really go? Back to the artists? Into a legal fund? I doubt the artist would benefit one ioda from these taxes (much like Employment Insurance in Canada which is a huge ripoff taxgrab from the middle class worker).
So does this make downloading files legal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes! Re:So does this make downloading files legal? (Score:2, Informative)
I don't think this applies to me. (Score:5, Informative)
There's no incentive for us. We already pay a tax on our blank media, and downloading and uploading music are perfectly legal in Canada. Somehow I don't think that the online music companies are going to be shaking in their boots at all.
That's great news (Score:2)
Maybe NOT a 40% price increase? (Score:3, Interesting)
After reading the article and re-reading the summary, the key point here is that these groups want up to 40% of the gross revenue. Unfortunately I'm not 100% certain as to the definition of "gross revenue," but if as I suspect, that means "whatever is left in the bank after paying the related expenses" then this would be 40% of Apple's cut. If they (or the runners of other music download services, for that matter) only get to see 5% of my $0.99, and assuming they raise their price to cover this tarriff, then that would only be a 2% increase.
Of course, I may be wrong in my understanding. IANALOA (lawyer or accountant).
Re:Maybe NOT a 40% price increase? (Score:5, Informative)
Out of the $.99 they want $.40.
It is even more ridiculous in that at least in the US, $.70 on average already goes to the various copyright holders.
Re:Maybe NOT a 40% price increase? (Score:3)
Re:Maybe NOT a 40% price increase? (Score:3)
And remember, you always want a cut of the gross, not the net, because movies never make any profit.
Woah, exactly when (Score:2, Insightful)
A rule of thumb (:-)) (Score:2)
absurd (Score:2, Insightful)
As a canadian... (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article:
"...The SODRAC/CMRRA proposals demand the greater of either 15 percent of gross revenues or ten cents per permanent download..." Emphasis mine.
If by "permanent download", they mean non-DRM encumbered file that I may have unlimited personal use in perpetuity, then to me, that is a fair tradeoff for a small tarriff. The 25% figure quoted on the front page would be way too high, but if I can legally download an mp3/flac/ogg/whatever and burn it as many times, put it on as many portable players, and stream it from as many computers as I want for my own personal use, without some retarded DRM app phoning home to ask for permission, then that might be worth a small surcharge.
If they insist or crippling it with DRM or if (download price + tarrif) > (price I'm willing to pay), then guess what? They've just outsmarted themselves out of potential revenue (though we know who they'll want to blame for that...)
True, legimate buyers end up covering the costs of the thieves, but the same goes for any other industry (retail, insurance, etc). I think it's more important for both sides to compromise a bit to keep the system usable for the vast majority of legitimate users, then to screw everyone in sight.
Canadian Gov. (Score:3, Insightful)
That out of the way I have faith in Canadian regulators to find public methods of stimulating Canadians arts into which to dump the money so it won't benefit corperations (like it would in the states)...
The main reason, well if the RIC (or whatever is pushing it) then it's simply because they don't want to negotiate with apple which is silly because we have the same large music corperations (Sony etc.) but who knows maybe they're bitter.
The main thing that Canadians have and many other countries also have is regulations requiring media distributers to distribute a certain level of Canadian content (it's not bad maybe 15% or 25% but it's well regulated and has to be in prime time etc.) This leads to strange effects where artists become huge in Canada without any international acclaim.
Anyway this tarriff could be used to replace this clause, since we're getting RIC lawsuits anyway (Despite the fact that our laws will rule against them) it seems the only possible reason.
It's nice to be able to trust our government to have the interest of the citizens and artists at heart rather than industry, they do get a trifle misguided sometimes though I'll admit.
Re:Canadian Gov. (Score:3, Interesting)
There are a few problems with this, but overall it's a good system:
* I'm not sure about this one but it might not be a govern
They don't want to KILL pay-for-play, (Score:3, Interesting)
Where it got written (in either Canadian or U.S. law) that monopolies are entitled to maintenance and protection by either of our respective governments is beyond me. It's ridiculous. I'm sorry, I like music as much as the next man, but I don't consider the studios to be such an important national treasure that they can't be allowed to stand a little competition. And, if that competition proves to be a little too stiff and the music cartels just happen to go under
I believe they are the "evil entities" that both Captain Kirk and Captain Picard referred to in a number of episodes.
Not so bad (Score:3, Funny)
25% Canadian is only 20% American, after all.
And that's before converting from metric to Imperial.
Fat Chance (Score:5, Interesting)
Canadians are not facing ANYTHING. The governing party is in the midst of the biggest political scandal in 50 years. In addition, they are a minority government. They were only able to pass the budget because the conservatives were not ready for an election and allowed it to pass. By all the indication of the polls the next government will be a Conservative minority. That government won't be able to pass a bill against murder let alone something as complex as copyright. Canadians, for the forseeble future, have a government that is for all intent and purposes, nuttered; Just as it should be
Re:Fat Chance... thanks to NAFTA Ch11 (Score:3, Interesting)
So considering that Apple makes $.01-.02 cents a track, and now they want to charge
Apple will probably win, far more nefarious businesses have usurped p
Re:Fat Chance (Score:3)
A tax on DRM? (Score:2)
Canadian Business Opportunity (Score:2)
Somehow, I still think AssHol^H^H^H^H^hcroft and his band of merry goons would object. (SIGH).
So if they have to pay for it... (Score:2)
Wise King Solomon (Score:2)
The story goes that two women pitch up at King Solomon's court, both claiming that a baby they have with them is theirs. King Solomon, realising that he doesn't have his DNA testing kit handy, deals out a judgement that both women have a right to the baby and that the baby should be cut in half with swords and each woman shou
Not going to happen (Score:5, Informative)
The government's already decided that the blank media tax more than pays for lost revenue from the artists, and I doubt very much that SOCAN et al. will ever be willing to give that up.
Tarriff's compensate for non-purchase (Score:3, Informative)
So why should online be treated differently from regular purchases in this case? This money then gets sent off to the music industry.
-M
Re:Tarriff's compensate for non-purchase (Score:4, Insightful)
The music industry already gets paid for the download. The compnay (like Apple) have an agreement with the record lables, and a cut of the download goes to them.
Further, how is buying a blank CD like a download? Itsn't the download more like buying a pre-recorded CD? The download is a purchase, so why would they need compensation for a "non-purchase".
This is like wanting 40% gross on non-blank CDs, when they already get money from them.
Re:What the hell is wrong with Canada? (Score:4, Funny)
No! (Score:2)
Re:Did you even read the synopsis!? (Score:2)
Re:Oh Canada! (Score:3, Funny)
Er, they're Socialists ...?
Re:Oh Canada! (Score:2)
Woah, doofus, CRIA is a bunch of capitalist overlords, eh, they're about as pinko commie as the RIAA.
Re:Oh Canada! (Score:3, Informative)
SOCAN doesn't think anything is fair unless they say it is.
SOCAN - these people would have the government tax air if they could, since it is capable of carrying copyrighted material - is proposing a totally unreasonable tari
Re:Drinkin' the koolaid (Score:2)
I said 'reasonable" meaning "not onerous" - it adds pennies to the price of a blank CD. Your example is way over the top.
Why does your country accept this idea of punishing everyone evenly for possible illegal use of something that is generally used for legal things?
It's not punishment. Its trying to be fair to everyone.
How come copiers aren't taxed? And who gets that t
Re:Drinkin' the koolaid (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, there is a tariff on photocopiers and toner in Canada, with the proceeds going to rightsholders. And libraries have to keep complete logs send in part of their copy machine income to CanCopy [uwinnipeg.ca] as well.
I don't think the tariffs are high enough. There's no "punishment", and you don't help your argument by using such loaded language.
Re:Drinkin' the koolaid (Score:3, Interesting)
CanCopy doesn't represent corporate interests. It represents individual authors.
Tell you what: you get informed, and then we can talk. Until then, you're just another jerk with a Canuck-bashing agenda. You can "call it like you see it" all you like, but you see it wrong and I'd rather not waste my time with you.
Re:Drinkin' the koolaid (Score:2)
We agree. If your gun is designed for killing people, handguns for example, you'll go to jail for owning it. Better stick to hunting rifles and shotguns.
Re:Drinkin' the koolaid (Score:3, Insightful)
This whole socialism thing you're going on about? I think it's a better way to live, and so do most of the other ppl here. If I'm going to pay my taxes towards funding the operation of a society and live within it, I'd like one that is structured to support the people who live here. I'd rather see the ignorant educated, the ho
Re:Drinkin' the koolaid (Score:3, Informative)
I've grown up in Germany, lived in the US, Netherlands and Switzerland and currently in Canada, and guess what: I have had the same experiences in all the countries. Only difference? In the US the first thing they did was take my Credit Card.
Wait times? Not that much worse in Canada than in other places. Granted, in the US I could have just gone and paid,
Re:Drinkin' the koolaid (Score:3, Interesting)
A month wait?
Heck, I had three when I was deathly ill in intensive care in a Chicago hospital in 1998. I would have surely died in Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh Canada! (Score:2)
Maybe a few isolated Premiers, Boob Rae in Ontario, and Vander Zam(sp) in BC.
Aside from those brief red blinks we're pretty much 100% capitalist pig dogs. We just don't let people suffer because they can't afford healthcare, that line is purely American.
Re:Oh Canada! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'd bet not (Score:2)
Re:I'd bet not (Score:2)
Re:I'd bet not (Score:2)
MOD PARENT (Score:2)
$0.99 isn't enough, how about $0 biotches!
Re:The Conservatives will put a stop to that (Score:3, Insightful)