Slashdot Log In
Canada's Copyright Cops Give Go-Ahead For iPod Tax
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Jul 19, 2007 06:19 PM
from the pay-for-your-piper dept.
from the pay-for-your-piper dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist reports that the Canada's Copyright Board has given the go-ahead for a new copyright tax on iPods, despite an earlier court decision blocking the fee. The Board apparently ruled that not including iPods would make criminals of millions of Canadians and that the levy could conceivably be applied to cellphones and personal computers. 'If we're going to make P2P legal through a levy system, the system must (1) address both downloading and uploading; (2) consider addressing non-commercial use of content; (3) cover audio and video; and (4) more closely link the copying to those paying the levy. The government has yet to play its hand on this issue, but with the prospect of an unpopular levy and mounting pressure for a Canadian fair use provision, it will have to take a stand sometime soon.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Tax them for using law enforcement resources (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I'm not a Canadian. I'm Australian. Our government's much worse on these issues.
Re:Tax them for using law enforcement resources (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But lawmakers? They have no idea what anyone is talking about, and the organization with the biggest campaign contributions
Re:Tax them for using law enforcement resources (Score:5, Insightful)
If I bought an iPod and used it to archive my legal purchased CD's and music that I bought from iTunes I can use this justification for downloading other music I may not currently have. To do otherwise would be to pay a levy for songs I legally buy.
My teenage children will surely understand this simple concept - they pay for something ('illegal' mp3's ) they get something. Now try to explain to them why it's wrong to take something they paid for.
Parent
Re:Tax them for using law enforcement resources (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Tax them for using law enforcement resources (Score:4, Insightful)
See, here's where your argument breaks down
Prior to the media lobby groups convincing our government that I needed 'permission', we had a concept of "fair use" strongly embedded in Canadian Copyright law. One of the things I was explicitly allowed to do was to make mixes, personal copies, and limited copies for friends of music I had legally purchased. It was already legal to copy to that media -- the lobby groups just managed to convince the government they needed to get paid for something it was already legal to do without the levy; the levy doesn't give us any new rights, it allows us to buy-back the ones we already had.
There was absolutely NO need for me to ask permission, or compensate the media companies. I go out, I buy a CD, I have legally guaranteed things I can do with it. This little extortion scheme basically amounts to them saying "you can only do that which is already legal if you pay us, because we're sure you're doing something illegal and we're losing revenue".
I own several hundred CDs, most of which have been bought in the last 5 years. When I buy CDs, I usually buy $100 or more worth at a time. The artists I like lead me to new genres of music, new artists, and all sorts of more cool music.
For me to pay this tax (I don't care if you wish to call it a 'levy', to me, it's a fscking tax) on an iPod which is going to be used to store MP3 copies of my legally purchased music (NOT downloaded from P2P) basically is extortion and it really chafes.
They've been compensated when I buy the CD. This presumption that since I own an iPod I'm surely ripping off the content creators (and I don't mean the media companies, I mean the artists) is utter bullshit. I make a point of buying albums from the artists I like so they DO get paid and keep making music (or, in the case of some of them, get paid for the music they made over a decade ago so they can keep eating).
The problem here is that 'standard copyright law' had already made it legal for me to format/mix/location shift my music as an enshrined right. Now, some dickhead gets to charge me money on the presumption that I'm ripping off Brittney Spears or whomever the media companies assume I must be stealing from, when nothing could be further from the truth -- cause I know damned well none of the artists I'm listening to are getting compensated under this model. They've basically painted everyone with the same brush, and convinced people that we're now paying for a right we didn't previously have.
It's a cash grab, pure and simple. Now, I could rationalize massive downloading of music on the basis that, since they're charging me this levy, I'm paying for the right to download music indiscriminately. I choose not to, but nothing I can do allows me to opt out of the fee which presumes I am.
Cheers
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We have no concept of fair use in this country. Until the end of June this year copying your CD to your Ipod was technically illegal. The same laws that made it legal make it illegal to backup your DVD. You use to have to prove someone copied a DVD to put them in prison. Now you just have to be in possession of a copied DVD - EVEN if that DVD is your own! So while they made things a little more sane for music they made them less sane and more draconian for DVD.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, the Canadians are actually trying to come up with a system that placates the music industry and still allows people the freedom to share music. Here in Australia we've only just managed to get some laws passed which makes it legal to tape stuff off tv.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Tax them for using law enforcement resources (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In Canada it is a Levy, and if you had quoted further, you would have seen that the wording is indeed important. "A distinction is sometimes made between "tax" and "levy" based on the recipient of the accumulated funds; taxes are received by a government, while levies are received by a private body, such as a copyright collective.)"
In this case, the distinction is made because the government is not getting any funds from this, therefore it is not a tax. Although, it is confusing, since it is legally ca
Levy (Score:5, Funny)
This will kill retail (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Private copying is legal, yes. Distributing copies to other people, even though you have paid this fee, is still not legal without consent of the copyright holder (specifically, the Canadian copyright act makes the original _copying_ of the work criminal after the fact if you do something with the copy that you made which voids a notion of private use copying).
Of course, one might think that's what sucks about the whole levy in the first place... that it supposedly legitimizes something that was actuall
My bad.... (Score:3, Informative)
Suppose... (Score:5, Interesting)
My personal use (Score:2)
My personal use is audiobooks and podcasts. There's so much free content for audiobooks and podcasts out there it's ridiculous. I also have some paid audiobooks. Even if I assumed that the levey meant it were now open season on uploading and downloading paid audiobooks, 0% of the revenue gained from the levy would go to audiobook creators. What makes music so special that it should get all the revenue for audiobooks, pictures (personal and commercial), PDFs (ebooks an
Recreate the Boston Tea Party.... (Score:4, Funny)
...and throw them in the harbor! If you're not near water, feel free to send them to me and I'll do it for you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It wasn't an act of terrorism. It was an act of rebellion. There's a difference.
Re:Recreate the Boston Tea Party.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Recreate the Boston Tea Party.... (Score:5, Insightful)
An act of rebellion is used to further the breaking away from the existing authority.
There is indeed a difference.
Parent
That's what Bin Laden said. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was pretty much just luck that nobody was killed or injured by the firebombs which the ELF placed under people's cars.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorism is doing something to - get this - terrorize. Smashing a plane into the WTC is terrorism. Their aim was to terrorize, and they succeeded.
The Boston Tea Party was a bunch of colonists throwing tea into the Boston harbor. This is a form of protest. Had they lynched a bunch of Tories and said "We will purge our land of the imperial British bastards - leave now or we'll get you too", then that would be terrorism.
Step 3: profit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As a canadian... (Score:4, Insightful)
Is the tax actually a license? (Score:2)
I have never (well, almost never) violated music copyrights. But were I a Canadian and paid this tax, I would treat the tax as a license. Does anyone know the legal status of this? Does anyone know of any research discussion whether people will behave as I said I would?
My impression is that the music industry is again shooting itself in the foot. But that actually depends on whether the tax does change behavior and enforcement.
I have to agree. (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't have kids in school, but I pay school taxes. My city taxes go to building hockey rinks I don't use. Other people's levies can go to paying for my music even if they don't "infringe".
Re:As a canadian... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
i believe that site is out of date in regards to the more recent court rulings regarding this.
Re:As a canadian... (Score:4, Informative)
See for example http://www.michaelgeist.ca/resc/html_bkup/may3020
Parent
Hold up here (Score:5, Informative)
1.) So, owning a device which can contain copyright-infringing music is grounds for the government to assume you *are* using it to contain copyright-infringing music? If so, is there going to be a tax on plastic baggies? Cause they could be containing cocaine...
2.) IF this tax is put in place on iPods, and the reason behind it is because they assume that the contents of the iPod have been obtained outside of the legally approved methods, does this mean now that you can steal as much music as you want in canada, if you own an iPod? Because, otherwise... what the fuck is the tax for? How are they going to bring a court case against you for depriving them of money, when you have in fact given them money because the government assumes that you're doing the very thing you're being sued for!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I guess it is working.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It depends. If it's copyrighted music, and you're downloading it without the permission of the copyright holder, then it is prima facie infringement. It might not be infringing if it's a fair use, but merely because it's for personal use doesn't necessarily mean that it will be a fair use. So I'd be careful; it's not accurate to say that it's not illegal, as a blanket statement. It might be legal, it might be illegal, it depends on t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Gotta be better than copyright (Score:2)
Note that I'm not saying anything about composers. Their work is a different kettle of fish and needs a different analysis.. and the royalty system we have now is a heck of a lot better than anyth
Can I just fling my iPod at the band instead? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah (Score:2)
Just what am I paying for? (Score:3, Interesting)
--------
Am I paying for:
1) The right to share copies with my "friends" on the internet.
2) The right to transfer content that I already paid for to another device that I owned for my exclusive personal use. IE "private copying".
If I'm paying for 2), then this is an egregious form of copyright socialism whereby I have been deprived of the ability to choose the musical entity that I will support financially. This means, among other things, that I can't deprive the RIAA of my music dollars in favour of independent artists via emusic.
If I'm paying for 1), then our copyright laws defy logic and common sense. The notion that I must "pay" for the privilege of using the music I paid for more than once is repugnant. Also, it defies any reason, given the proliferation of computers and the internet.
-------
Innocent until proven guilty? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)