Canadian Copyright Group Wants iPod Tax

soulxtc writes "Unable to define memory as a 'recording medium,' Canada's Private Copyright Collective goes directly after portable music player devices, memory cards, and anything else that can be used to make private copies. The PCC submitted a proposal to the country's Copyright Board that suggests levies of $5 (Canadian) on devices with up to 1GB of memory, $25 for 1-10 GB, $50 for 10-30 GB, and $75 for over 30 GB. If approved, this propoal would increase the price of a 30-GB iPod by 26%. These collections are intended to compensate artists and labels for the losses they suffer when people 'illegally' copy or transfer music. The PCC is also seeking a new $2 to $10 tax on memory cards. The backbone of digital photography has become tangled up in the fight for making sure music companies get every nickel and dime they feel that they deserve."

The very least they could do

Is have a true sliding scale. Under that pricing scheme, the 1gb ipod has a $5 tax, while the 2gb model has a $25 tax rather than $10. Sheesh.

Re:The very least they could do

Really? Why would you suggest knuckling under to it at all? Don't BUY an iPod, or anything else the bastards tax. Let your voice (dollars, euros, whatever) be heard. At the end of the day, business buys legislatures and your money effects business. Vote where it matters - forget the ballot box.

Re:The very least they could do

Well, getting more people who might say "ok" to it to realize it is disproportionate and object on that ground would be nice too. As for the tax thouhg, doesn't canada have fair use rights? If so then why aren't these considered above possible illegal copying? And how long will it take before Apple sells the memory as an addon to the "Ipod canadian edition" to keep them affordable and end up having these people try to tax hardrives? I mean $75 for 30 gig? when the storage in the ipod is basicly the same thing? And herddrives can hold music too!

Anything to get people to reject this so some common sence can be used.

But what are they taxing?

If I read this correctly, the people wanting these taxes also want to tax memory cards of a sort that work in MP3 players but are more often used in digital cameras. What should the digital photographers do, if this law is passed, when their current stock of memory cards runs out?
And if hard drives get taxed, what will you do when your current HD dies?

Re:The very least they could do

you sound just like the record industry when they cry wolf: "mp3 means the end of music as we know it". if I had mod points I would have modded you -1 Overrated.

get real, man. portable players were here long before you heard about the iPod, much longer than the 1998 Diamond Rio. At the time there was no market, yet the players did exist.

also, economics 101: if you want to recover your money from a bad investment, you DO NOT raise the price. you lower it. you sell it to the first jerk that show up, then "Take The Money and Run".

Re:The very least they could do

also, economics 101: if you want to recover your money from a bad investment, you DO NOT raise the price. you lower it. you sell it to the first jerk that show up, then "Take The Money and Run".

That theory applies to most of us, but in advanced Econ 748 - Economics for Cartels - we learn that it the previous economic principles are only valid when you fail to properly legislate yourself a revenue stream and business model.

Should I move to Canda?

So, this means that I get to download anything I want while in Canada free of guilt and cost... right?

Re:Should I move to Canda?

That's the way I go about things. They're pretty much just yelling at us "Hey, go for it. We think you're stealing anyway."

Wouldn't it be grand if the people who distribute software started pulling this crap too? I'd feel obliged to take them up on their fees and start downloading away.

Re:Should I move to Canda?

Wouldn't it be grand if the people who distribute software started pulling this crap too? I'd feel obliged to take them up on their fees and start downloading away.

That'd be great since I wouldn't feel bad when I download OpenBSD instead of buying the CDs. The government would obviously give them their fair share of the levy...

What's more...

...considering that you could fit maybe 250 128 bps mp3's on a 1 GB iPod (that comes to about $.02 per song), I guess we know now how much people should be penalized for illegal music sharing.

Re:Should I move to Canda?

So, this means that I get to download anything I want while in Canada free of guilt and cost... right?

Actually yeah. In Canada we pay a small tax on blank tapes and a special kind of recordable cd that nobody buys. The upside is that it is perfectly legal for Canadians to share their music with each other and to download music off the internet. Making files available on the web is brodcasting and therefore illegal, and charging money for copying is also illegal. However, if you want to set up an mp3 server at work, there is no law preventing that.

What it comes down to is you cannot tax illegal behaviour. Our courts would never accept it. So this isn't that scary, in that there an upside because they also enshrine the right to share music with those players. As for digital photography? That would result in too many pissed off taxpayers. Probably the worst would be some brand of memory card being released with an absurd tax just like for cds. And it will quietly be ignored by consumers, if they ever see it.

Finally, just because they are asking for $25 doesn't mean the politicians won't just give them $2.50 and tell them to keep quiet. We have a minority government right now so the politicians are far too busy kissing voter but.

Re:Should I move to Canda?

"So it's just like the US (hint: Audio Home Recording Act)."

Nope. These two statements are true:

1. Canadians pay a levy on recordable media.
2. In some circumstances, it's legal for Canadians to share copyrighted music.

However, the following is not true:

Canadians pay a levy on recordable media. Because of this, in some circumstances it's legal for Canadians to share copyrighted music.

To be sure, lots of Canadians use the levy as moral justification to pirate as much music as they can, often citing the fact that artists are compensated by the levy (the reality is that it largely goes to Canadian artists). In other words, Canadians have their choice of 94 moral justifications for piracy, vs. the 93 that we in the United States have.

You're correct that the AHRA defines tariffs on some recordable media (including DAT machines, and those music CD-Rs that nobody buys). I'm sure there are lots of people who use the existence of this tariff as a moral justification for piracy, but the tariff certainly doesn't make it legal.

Re:Should I move to Canda?

What it comes down to is you cannot tax illegal behaviour. Our courts would never accept it.

Count yourself lucky, I guess. In the US, it is, for example, illegal not to declare your income from criminal activity to the IRS for taxation. (Which is why so many mobsters were eventually nailed for "tax evasion" as opposed to racketeering, extortion, theft, or murder.)

Further, I'm willing to bet that paying the tax would not protect you from a civil suit from the RIAA.

Re:Should I move to Canda?

I think we first need to ask who will actually get the money.

Sure, they say its for the artists - but once the PCC's "costs" are taken out - how much will be left.

How will they distribute the money? Proportional to the CD sales? To online sales? Will they just cut a check to every artists in canada? How will recompence non-canadian artists? Or is this just a scam fee going to the RIAA? (Just like the millions that the RIAA is making from their lawsuit business - that sure as hell ain't going to Justin Timberlake or Joni Mitchell)

Re:Should I move to Canda?

"How will they distribute the money? Proportional to the CD sales? To online sales? Will they just cut a check to every artists in canada? How will recompence non-canadian artists? Or is this just a scam fee going to the RIAA? (Just like the millions that the RIAA is making from their lawsuit business - that sure as hell ain't going to Justin Timberlake or Joni Mitchell)?"

The CPCC has a web site here [cpcc.ca]. Hit the link on the left labelled "Royalty distribution." It's a bit dry, but you should be able to get an answer to all of your questions.

Keep in mind that the CPCC != the CRIA (Canada's equivalent of the RIAA). The CPCC represents primarily artists.

Double dipping bastards

We had such a levy on iPods and other "recordable media" a few years back, it was struck down [slashdot.org] and collected levies had to be refunded. Now this organization wants to put the levies back (and expand them).

At the same time, the Canadian Recording Industry Association (think Canadian RIAA) is lobbying [slashdot.org] to eliminate fair use rights [slashdot.org] in order to "harmonize" with the US's draconian copyright system (the same harmonization that fucked over the Australians when they signed their free trade agreement with the US).

The attempt at double-dipping is truly mind boggling; it's depressing that no one in power cares.

You've gotta be shitting me

It's good to know that the record industry in the US aren't the only thugs in the business. Yeah, let's just assume everyone is a crook and charge them up front! The greed of these fuckers is absolutely endless.

Re:You've gotta be shitting me

According to this article" [com.com] music sharing does not kill CD sales due to the fact that those that download music would not likely buy it in the first place. MP3 Players and P2P software have become the scapegoat of the music industry. They are trying to compensate for something they caused (by releasing music overpriced and more) by taking away from the consumer. It's completely ridiculous.

I have an idea

Is anybody else up for a Canadian Tea Party?

Re:I have an idea

I'm guessing you aren't talking about this kind of Canadian Tea Party [wikipedia.org]

Why do I need to pay this? I buy my music @ iTMS

Do they want me to stop buying music? If I am going to be charged for buying a new iPod, I should be able to download at least as much music as it costs for the fee right? If they are going to accuse people of being thieves, then I suppose they have no choice but to stop buying music completely and just pirate it. Way to go CRIAA. Have fun with bankruptcy.

Re:Why do I need to pay this? I buy my music @ iTM

I have a better question: If this becomes Canadian law, does that mean that Apple's iTMS and other MP3 stores start providing their content free to Canadian individuals, but start charging the labels/artists per song?

Re:Sweet...

state-sanctioned anal penetration!

It's a Canadian tradition. Why else would we legalize gay marriage?

Hey Canadians...

Is the fee you currently pay on blank CDs considered a license to burn whatever you want?

Re:Hey Canadians...

You can copy music from a friend if you put it on a medium which has the levy, because then you have paid royalties. It may be the case that you can download, given the same condition. See A Guide to Copyrights: Copyright Protection [ic.gc.ca].

Re:So...

habeas corpus?

Re:Consumers

First of all, this is more "you have an iPod, you must be a criminal" nonsense. Well, here's what I have to say about RIAA and it's Canadian counterpart: If you treat everyone like they're a thief, it's probably because you're a thief too. (Credit to my father who said this referring to Wal-Mart) Furthermore, from their standpoint, why give people MORE ammo with which to justify pirating music and video. This will have the OPPOSITE effect than they want. (i.e. I paid $75 extra for this 30Gig iPod, and I'm gonna get my money's worth.. etc...)

Translation, please...

These collections are intended to compensate artists and labels for the losses they suffer when people 'illegally' copy or transfer music

No, they're not. They're intended to set up yet another cash cow for large recording companies, irrespective of whether individuals put legal or illegal copies of music on their recording devices.

And no, they're not intended to supplement the compensation of artists, regardless.

Geez, that was easy to translate. The recording companies don't even try to hide their intentions behind competent PR any more.

Re:Translation, please...

Hey, I make music (actually, I don't, but let's play along here). How can I register as an artist that gets a slice of this pie?

What's that? The artists don't get paid directly, only the big companies do? Indie musicians aren't appreciated or compensated? Doesn't seem right, does it?

What about the other memory?

I know musicians who can reproduce a musical score after only one hearing. Are we going to find a way to control them? What's more - they have virtually limitless memory.

Someone call someone before the fabric of society is torn!

Re:What about the other memory?

The problem with current copyright laws is that in the future everyone might be able to have that sort of memory for hearing, sight etc. You can also have virtual telepathy. Most of the tech is already available, it's just a matter of cost and making the implants safer and better.

As it is, you'd probably have to have DRM in your brain "add-on", and possibly pay a fee just to remember stuff, and be prohibited from communicating with your friends about certain things.

A penny for your thoughts? That's probably too cheap for the RIAA, MPAA etc.

Where's my brother's money, dammit?

My brother is a full-time professional musician in Alberta, and has been now for about 20 years. It's not an easy job, but it's his love and his passion.

He's now been an artist on about six albums over the years, one of which was nominated for a Juno. Why, pray tell, has he not gotten a single bloody cent from this tariff?

If I didn't know better, I'd almost believe that the point of it isn't actually to reward the musicians! But of course, that's just crazy talk.

Re:Where's my brother's money, dammit?

It's a levy not a tax. You don't see it at the cash register. According to the Canadian Private Copying Collective they collected $35M in 2005 (http://cpcc.ca/english/finHighlights.htm). Up to 2005 they have distributed almost $93M. Why the OP's brother hasn't seen any of it, I can't say.

Re:Where's my brother's money, dammit?

As I purchase large quantities of CD-Rs for use at my workplace, I've done some research into this.

From the seller's point of view, it's not so much that they have to charge the levy to customers, but that they themselves have to pay the levy to the CPCC for any CDs they sell (the exception being sales to customers that have a levy exemption such as my workplace). Of course, that expense is passed on to the customers in the form of higher prices. In the interest of full disclosure, I've seen some places with signs out by the CDs/DVDs outlining how much of the price goes to the levy.

In this case with the seller you point out, there are a couple possibilities. The first is that they are indeed paying the levy to the CPCC, but are not raising their prices because they subsidize their CD sales from their other sales. The second is that they are not playing by the rules. If they're not paying the levy, they're engaging in illegal activity, to the best of my knowledge.

One other thing to point out here is that since it's technically that the Canadian sellers pay the levy on CDs they sell as opposed to Canadian customers paying it on stuff they buy, it's perfectly legal for Canadians to purchase their CDs from the US and avoid the extra costs associated with the levy.

Revolution!

The members of the RIAA and the Canadian equivalent will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Ah, fuck it. Why wait for a revolution? Everybody get your guns and we'll meet down at the bar to plan our attack on these useless leeches.

Private Copying Levy

The Private Copying Levy is what lets me download with impunity in Canada. The dollars may or may not actually get to the artists (google away on this one), but it certainly does facilitate my p2p activities.

I don't know who the 'Private Copyright Collective' is, but this position is at odds with what we've been hearing about the Canadian Recording Industry Association's position - last heard as wanting to do away with the levy:

http://michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_conten t/task,view/id,1200/Itemid,85/nsub,/ [michaelgeist.ca]

I think this is an interesting tactic: collect levy at the front end, squeeze the availability of material via p2p networks through increased DRM on released materials.

Quite honestly, I don't really notice the levy at my pocketbook, and it does make for an entirely different legal landscape for p2p downloading. Michael Geist is the Guy in the Know about this landscape in Canada - check out his blog at the address above, there's reams of material there.

Why not make it an option?

If they think this is a good deal, then why not make it part of a package when one buys an iPod? Spend an additional $5 for your 1GB iPod, and you get a contract that says you can download as much cartel music as you want, from any source, to that device.

For people who want to go the iTunes route, they could simply turn down the contract.

Sigh. Something tells me the fact that they're trying to legislate this means they wouldn't go for my idea. Not enough free money in it for them, I'm guessing.

How do I send them my comments?

How do I contact the organizations making these proposals? I want to give them a piece of my mind, namely to tell them they can't have it both ways:

1) Make unauthorized copying illegal.
2) Charge me for it.

Do they want a compulsory licensing scheme, as has been proposed by The Register, or do they want people to pay for each copy of music they purchase.

They should make up their damn minds, because they can't have their cake and eat it too.

why is it

that the recording industries believe that all they have to to do make money is to make more laws?

Why don't they try something novel like oh.... selling a product to us?

I say we pass a law that everyone that buys a crowbar has to pay me a nickel, to make up for the losses I incur every time someone breaks into my house. ya.

Idiots. No, I take that back. By saying that I'm just insulting the idots and that's not fair for even them.

$40 for a 30 gig ipod?

For each 700mb cd-rw, the levy is 30 cents.

A 30gb ipod has 30000mb-

30000mb/700mb = 42.9 cdrs

42.9 cdrs x 30 cents = 1286 cents = 12.86 dollars

The association better have a very good reason why they want to charge for than 3x for the ipod compared to cd-rws.



Also, why stop with ipod? I can record information on harddrives too! Let's see, a typically hard drive in a computer has 250 gb. Obviously, if a 30gb ipod costs $40, a 250gb computer should cost (250/40) x $40 = $240! We all know computers are the main source of illegally downloaded mp3!

Re:$40 for a 30 gig ipod?

(250/40) x $40 = $240

Let's have a moment of silence for the death of a teacher, because every time you multiply X by 1 and get something other than X, a calculus professor kicks the bucket.

They did it in Europe

A few years ago some countries in Europe adopted a similar taxing on media-carriers and media. The problem is that not a single musician or even a record label sees any of the money. The state forwards it to this 'non-profit' organization and recently a 'scandal' quickly buried by the media came out that actually in over 3 years, millions of euros have been collected and none have been paid out. It also came out that the employees of this 'non-profit' organization (similar to RIAA) had salary's exceeding 250k/year.

The content providers contribute very little

One point that everyone is missing is that many of the content providers pay very little tax - with Hollywood accounting blockbuster movies make a loss and with record company accounting even the performers have to pay for a lot of things which any other industry would pay for out of revenue - let alone money left over for to be taxed.

I think the suppliers of blank media make a greater contribution to the economy and the tax base - and really shouldn't be victimised because some loud tax dodgers with good lobbyists want a special tax to feed themselves and drain from another portion of the economy.

Goverments are not supposed to be fee collectors for private companies - they are supposed to work in the interest of their nations.

It doesn't make sense

I've seen it before, but I've never quite understood how any government can be convinced to collect taxes for a non-government enterprise. Unless the government is now going to start producing, regulating or in some other way getting involved in the music industry, and intends to use the taxes to pursue that enterprise, why exactly would they collect taxes for it? -- I know it's slashdot but this is a serious question if anyone knows [seriously though - I know it's slashdot, but please refrain from the corruption/collusion arguments for at least 3 posts... ] [[no, seriously... ]]

Distribution of Tarriffs

Never quite understood how these levies/tariffs are distributed back to the artists.

So say if I download a few songs from groups such as Blood-Axe, mix it up with a bit of psy-trance from Finland, and then round it out with some Pendulum ... and then burn it all on a CD for my car driving pleasure ... how does the RIAA know how to distribute the funds to the starving artists in this case ?

What, they dont ?

So you mean despite the efforts of the original muso's involved, plus my time to mix and burn the CD - they just end up writing out yet another cheque to Celine Dion for all of our collective efforts ?

Fuck No !

Ive never wanted to even to listen to Celine Dion. Not ever !

But when I step into an elevator, or pass through a shoe shop - there she is, singing in the background and generally ruining my day.

I dont want to listen to her, but yet she still gets royalties out of me when I make my own CD, or backup my harddisk ?

That is so totally around the wrong fucking way. Man - I should be PAID by Celine Dion instead as compensation for HAVING to listen to any of her music, which is clearly against my wishes. She infringes upon my personal aural liberty, and yet ... money from my pocket ends up in hers anyway ?

That is just WRONG on so many levels.

Seriously - does ANYONE go the effort of actually downloading Celine Dion music and burning it on CD's Why ? So they can hold hands with their so-called 'friends' and dance around and be silly between glasses of cheap wine ?

What they should do is just stick to selling normal CD's and iPods and things without the tarriffs, but give people the right, if they so choose, to pay $100 and get a licence key that will put their CD Burner or iPod into some sort of crappy 'Celine Dion Mode'. In the same way that you can take a perfectly good PC, and pay $400 or whatever it is to stick Vista on there - enabling 'Celine Dion' mode on the iPod will virtually trash the machine, in exchange for getting the 'Wow' of having it play Celine Dion songs .. for a fee of course.

The iPod should just operate normally, unless you 'opt-in', and pay the fee, after which the iPod degrades itself to the point where it will play Celine Dion music. 'Look Herbert, my iPod it now plays Celine Dion !!'. 'Yayy !'. 'Hey Clarence, your iPod - its turning a pale shade of Green !!'. 'Its all about the Yayy !!'.

Its just WRONG

prove to me the artists get the money...

...and I might be willing to pay the fine.

Seriously, there is no evidence at all that the labels (almost all American, btw) will actually give a dime to the artists on top of their existing contracts.

The "standard recording contract" pays the artist an upfront advance that is recouped from the royalties (usually a meager 12-14%, some of which may go to the engineer or the producer). IF and ONLY IF that advance is recouped in full (and record labels have tons of accounting tricks to assert that even a million-seller didn't "recoup") will the artist actually start seeing real royalty payments come in. (BTW, through all of this and beyond, the label owns the music, not the artist.)

There is nothing in the artist contract that actually has allowances for when extra "fees" collected on behalf of the artists of the label actually is applied to the payment of the advance. There is nothing in the accounting systems of a record label that will actually distribute such collected fees back to the artists of the label, either as cash or as applied to the advance.

The label keeps the money, most of which is either pure profit (it didn't cost them anything except paying the lobbyist) or at least is applied to the "general fund" which is used to pay the advance for the next standard artist's standard contract, and the legalized slavery continues unabated.

Unless the law goes against the labels as well, requiring that they show proof that they have changed their contracting and accounting systems to actually give an acceptable cut of this income to the artists, then all that has happened is that the legislation has totally bought into the lies and deceits of the music industry, and is sanctioning theft of both the artists AND the consumers.

Just write some data to it, first

One of the details regarding the levy is that it is only on blank media that has never stored data. From http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml [neil.eton.ca]:

If you are a manufacturer or importer, you can avoid the levy entirely on your products as long as you record some sound on the media before you sell it. The sound recorded on the media can even be erased. Clearly this is not an option for CD-Rs, but for devices that include a hard drive, simply recording a sound on the drive and then erasing it exempts the drive from the levy. This is because (as the legislation now stands) "blank audio recording medium means a recording medium, regardless of its material form, onto which a sound recording may be reproduced, that is of a kind ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose and on which no sounds have ever been fixed..."

MP3 player manufactures could just preload some music onto it, and no levy for them! It's especially good for Apple then, that the Apple v. Apple thing has been settled.

Re:misleading headline and writeup

memory cards are the backbone of digital photography and they want to add $2-$10 to them.

Re:misleading headline and writeup

They've also been sounding out the idea of a levy on hard drives.

Re:misleading headline and writeup

I know it's too much to expect people to read the articles linked here, but could you at least read the entire summary?

The PCC is also seeking a new $2 to $10 tax on memory cards. The backbone of digital photography has become tangled up in the fight for making sure music companies get every nickel and dime they feel that they deserve."