Canadian Copyright Group Wants iPod Tax 408
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."
Should I move to Canda? (Score:5, Insightful)
You've gotta be shitting me (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do I need to pay this? I buy my music @ iTMS (Score:5, Insightful)
Consumers (Score:2, Insightful)
Translation, please... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Should I move to Canda? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:misleading headline and writeup (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Consumers (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not make it an option? (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Brilliant (Score:2, Insightful)
$40 for a 30 gig ipod? (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Lesser of two evils (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The very least they could do (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sweet... (Score:1, Insightful)
Saynkshunned? Looks like you misspelled "mandated" there.
Re:Should I move to Canda? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
It doesn't make sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Translation, please... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Should I move to Canda? (Score:3, Insightful)
First, Canada never had prohibition. Second, you're thinking Al Capone. That's the US. The GP is saying that Canadian courts don't allow for explicit taxation of illegal behaviour. That has not ever really been a US thing (income is income, whether legal or not). It may be related to the concept that Canadians don't pay taxes on lottery winnings, but Americans do: income tax is targeted at employment income in Canada.
Re:Should I move to Canda? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:misleading headline and writeup (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, and you better start forgetting how to hum. We'll tax that too.
Hard disk prices (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where's my brother's money, dammit? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then consider that while my brother is recording gigs, practices, jam sessions, etc., any copies of original music that they've burned to CDR, they have to pay a bloody levy to NELLY FURTADO!!!
This isn't just a cash grab, it's theft from the populace, giving to the record companies and their pets.
Re:The very least they could do (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything to get people to reject this so some common sence can be used.
Re:Should I move to Canda? (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that being dead doesn't even protect you from a civil suit from the RIAA, I somehow doubt you not breaking any mere mortal laws would slow them down, either.
Hey, after all, it didn't stop them from attacking AllOfMP3, either. Or The Pirate Bay. Or any other site that they just don't like, eh?
Re:Should I move to Canda? (Score:3, Insightful)
As I have sold NONE of my CD's in Canada, clearly I have suffered the largest losses to piracy, and deserve the largest share of the levy.
Re:The very least they could do (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
SHOVE YOUR FUCKING LEVY UP YOUR ASS (Score:2, Insightful)
The memory card levy part of this is utter bullshit. Fuck this pisses me right the fuck off. I DONT buy new music or download it. I DO download music from cd's I already own which by the fucking way I buy at a pawn shop for $2/3 dollars. NOW I do take tons of photos with my Olympus E1. I fucking will not be forced to pay some shitty ass music artiss wages for the pleasure of storing MY OWN COPYRIGHTED photos from my camera onto a memory card.
And who the fuck stores music on memory cards? I dont have any links to data that will show this but I'm prety sure and everyone know this that sales of memory cards for digital cameras beats the sales of memory cards for music players by a long shot.Re:You've gotta be shitting me (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The very least they could do (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The very least they could do (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
prove to me the artists get the money... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:It doesn't make sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, is the levy applied to the price before or after sales tax/VAT?
If before, then there's your answer.
Re:Translation, please... (Score:1, Insightful)
SOCAN is crap for indie artists, I've never wanted anything to do with their fees.