Canada to Raise Tariffs on Recordable Media 849
Joel Ironstone writes: "A new Canadian levy will be introduced in 2003 on all recordable media (pdf). The magnitude of these tariffs is staggering: $1.23 for all CD-RW's, $2.27 on all DVD-R's, and get this: $21 for each gigabyte of storage on portable MP3 players. That's an extra 160 dollars for a Nomad." Like in the U.S., this tax is collected and given directly to the record industry, a governmental subsidy for no apparent societal benefit.
I see a market in smuggling MP3 players. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I see a market in smuggling MP3 players. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I see a market in smuggling MP3 players. (Score:2)
Re:I see a market in smuggling MP3 players. (Score:2, Informative)
See vachealait [vachealait.com] (french link) for details.
Re:I see a market in smuggling MP3 players. (Score:5, Funny)
We in return want Canadian high capacity toilets.
The low water capacity toilets do not flush sufficiently for American (yes the whole continent)style loads.
Re:I see a market in smuggling MP3 players. (Score:3, Informative)
Here you go [yourtoiletsource.com]. (Slogan: Tired of flushing twice?)
Apparently the toilets are shipped from the Canadian side of Niagara falls, for $70. Ironically, one of the brands they sell is "American Standard".
They're actually imported legally, which makes sense-- toilets would seem kinda tough to smuggle.
Does it mean we can pirate legally (Score:5, Insightful)
and MPAA then it should be legal to pirate. They
will be able to make all their money by subsidy.
Re:Does it mean we can pirate legally (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Start a business model that bases making money around a product that can easily be duplicated and shared.
2. Cry foul when consumers realize they can share the product easily. (Ignoring the possiblity of a utopian society where everyone is honest)
3. Earn income from your government because you are being cheated.
4. Move an arm of your business to Canada.
5. Repeat Steps 1-3 while expanding to as many countries as necessary.
Ya know, that's a dang nifty idea Wonder if there's any possibility... nah...
Re:Does it mean we can pirate legally (Score:2, Interesting)
But this sort of substantial tax could be the beginning of a positive development by making it clear that consumers have the *right* to make copies, share with their friends, and use digital copies of the works of others as they see fit in their own creative endevours. After all, the consumer will already have paid a substantial amount of money earmarked to reward the professional content creators in the first place.
The real question is whether the citizen will have any direct say in deciding how the pool of media tax revenue will be distributed among various professional content creators. If there is no system of direct voting or the like put into place, it means that they will have to rely on their indirect representation through parliament --- or more likely, their doubly indirect representation through government appointees on the appropriate content councils.
Re:Does it mean we can pirate legally (Score:2, Interesting)
Courtney Love had a great article on record companies being the pirates [salon.com]
Consumers already have the right to make copies for backups, show to friends and reference from
The real question is why should people be taxed to backup their computer on CD or DVD if they already have that right and have paid for the products?
I want to know why I should have to pay a tax to make a digital copy of my content, why should I pay to record music I bought or video I produced?
Re:Does it mean we can pirate legally (Score:3, Informative)
But please-- if you are going to read that minimal treatement of the issue-- consider also the Steve Albini version at Negativland's Intellectual Property Issues [negativland.com] page. That page has many more essays by real artists that have been involved in a great deal of legal wrangling surrounding copyright and have been at it since the early 80's.
It already is (Score:4, Insightful)
silver lining Re:It already is (Score:5, Funny)
yeah but at least it means she might retire sooner which would be a good thing.
Re:It already is (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It already is (Score:5, Informative)
Unless I'm misunderstanding? Please correct me if I am.
Re:It already is (Score:4, Informative)
Furthermore, I do not see any text stating you are allowed to lend your CD to others for the purpose of copying. In fact, if you record music for the purpose of distributing, you've broken the law. S
So, you copy a cd, and lend it to a friend so they can copy it. Boom, you've broken the law because you've made a copy for the purpose of distributing that copy to others for copying.
This is all probably in there so that you can buy a cd, make copies of the cd for personal use (such as to play in the car, you cd player, etc), and lend the original to friends to make copies. That is, as long as they make the copy to keep for themselves. Anything else is a copy for the purpose of distributing.
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
Limitation
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.
1997, c. 24, s. 50.
Re:It already is (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is the whole point about copyright: it's about what you can and cannot do with a copy of the work. You cannot distribute copies, but you can enjoy them for your personal benefit.
In the following process, where do I distribute a copy of the work?
1- I buy Celine's new CD (yeah right)
2- I make a backup copy to use in my car (personal use of a copy, perfectly legal)
3- I lend my CD to a friend (no copying occured, I distributed the original)
4- My friend makes a copy for his personal use (he didn't copy a copy, he copied the original. hence "for the private use of the person who makes the copy")
5- I get my original CD back.
What would be illegal, as dumb as it sounds, is for me to lend/give/sell my backup copy to a friend, since then I would be distributing a copy of the work, which would not be considered for personal use.
Furthermore, I do not see any text stating you are allowed to lend your CD to others for the purpose of copying.
I think you get the law backwards. For something to be illegal, the law has to explicitely forbid it, not the other way around. The point is moot anyway, since copyright law restricts what you can do with copies you make of a work, not what you can do with something you legally bought.
Re:It already is (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does it mean we can pirate legally (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Does it mean we can pirate legally (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad thing about all of this is that most of the independent labels with bands worth pirating wouldn't see a dime from this outrageously high tax, and I severely doubt that, say, Qbert, DJ Seishi, or Courtney Love will get their fair share. Do artists ever get a cut from the RIAA?
All that this means is that audio piracy is now a unstoppable institution, and "creators" are being paid by it. It may not be legal, but now it is moral.
(IANAL)
Courtney Love? Are you serious? (Score:3, Informative)
Courtney Love, being nothing but an opportunistic sellout, would certainly see her fair share of the proceeds if anyone would.
Read [arancidamoeba.com] the original essay by Steve Albini that that gold-digging no talent hussy plagarized during the napster fallout.
She's nothing but a corporate stooge pretending to be a revolutionary.
Re:Does it mean we can pirate legally (Score:5, Insightful)
Since everyone has to pay the levy, and not everyone is pirating, the companies might have been compensated but they have not been justly compensated. This whole model is intrinsically unjust.
Imagine a proposed law that said, since shoplifting is common and unstoppable, all customers at every store will be stopped, background-checked, and strip-searched.
Re:Does it mean we can pirate legally (Score:3, Insightful)
A better anology is that "since shoplifting is common and unstoppable, stores will raise their prices to compensate." Which is exactly what they do today. So it's not unprecedented.
Now, in the case of stores, it is within their power to control shoplifting, and they have to compete price-wise with other stores, so it's subject to free economy forces and such.
In the case of this tax (which is ludicruous, in my opinion), it's would be applied across the board by law, and no doubt distributed in unfair and political ways. If they tax data CD's (whatever *that* distinction really means), then it's going to seriously hurt many consumers and businesses who rely upon low cost CD's for distribution, backup, and so forth.
The level of the tax is also ridiculous, in relation to the cost of a blank CD. If it were 5% or whatever, it wouldn't be such a show stopper, just an annoyance. In Canada, almost every product is subject to a 15% HST tax. And income taxes are over 50% over $50K or so. Adding a 20% tax on top of that for CD's is insane.
You have to earn something like $4.00 of salary, to be able to afford a $1.00 CD. (Of course, one doesn't have to sell your house if you have a serious prolonged illness with no insurance
-me
only if u burn them to removable media (Score:2)
Re:only if u burn them to removable media (Score:3, Insightful)
Which begs the following questions:
Begs the answers maybe, not the questions (Score:4, Informative)
begging the question [skepdic.com] does not mean the same thing as raising the question.
Glad to be of help.
[...]we can pirate legally[?]-by US standards, yes (Score:4, Informative)
Here's the act:
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html
And at the bottom:
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-337
This is where it describes your "fair use" rights.
All Canadians should read this. This is what you're paying for when you pay that levy.
Weasel words (Score:2)
Holy Shit! (Score:2)
Seriously.. I wonder if this will make prices jump overnight or what?
Dumb question... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dumb question... (Score:2)
Re:Dumb question... (Score:2)
Re:Dumb question... (Score:3, Informative)
It Hasn't Been Decided Yet (Score:5, Informative)
That doesn't mean that it won't be, though. Canadians: contact your provincial premiere and let them know that the idea of a tarrif on media may be legit, but the prices proposed are simply unacceptable.
Hell, you elected them -- that's why they're there.
Re:It Hasn't Been Decided Yet (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It Hasn't Been Decided Yet (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It Hasn't Been Decided Yet (Score:2)
That being said, I do oppose the cost-per-gig levy on MP3 players. They're not used to pirate, they're used to play. May as well levy tape machines and CD burners too.
Second, if you do oppose it, don't harass your premier. First, unless you're in his constituency, you'd be better off talking to your MLA. Second, this is federal, not provincial, so your MLA will tell you to write your MP.
Just write your MP in the first place, it'll save you time.
--Dan
Re:It Hasn't Been Decided Yet (Score:2)
Furthermore, if this is Federal, the Premiers have shit-all to do with it. You'd have to mail your Members of Parliament.
And even furthermore, because currently the Liberal government is running a majority government, any bill that's set forth in front of parliament will basically go through. Why? because Canada's political system is almost as much of a democratic smokescreen as the States.
A tarif on media is NOT legit (Score:5, Interesting)
tarrif on media may be legit
Oh no it 'aint!
I use CD's solely to make HD backups and blank casstte tapes solely to record myself playing the gutair!
Or are we now suddenly all guilty of piracy and have to prove our inocence?
The worst part... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The worst part... (Score:2)
Making it MUCH cheaper to just buy... (Score:4, Funny)
Ergh. =] At least I didn't meantion that goat site.
-Sara
Public's fault (Score:4, Insightful)
Government is elected by the people, when laws like this pass and the people dont hold the government accountable, more laws like this will pass. Unfortunately only tech types understand the issues here, so basically everyone's screwed
If Canada wants to compete technologically this is a extremely bad move and it will screw over the economy.
Re:Public's fault (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the worst part is, cigarette taxes are use-based (you only pay them if you actually smoke), while these are broad-based (you pay even if you only back up, say, digital photos) -- yet the latter is less controversial than the former.
This is absolutely disgraceful (Score:5, Insightful)
The only solution to this is to import everything from the US for a much lower price, and to pirate much more music as revenge. Actually, it wouldn't be piracy, as the music has already been paid for through taxes.
Re:This is absolutely disgraceful (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Some context is necessary (Score:1)
by g00z on 4:58 Tuesday 12 March 2002 (#3147848)
(User #81380 Info | http://www.circleofthunder.com/)
First -- MOD THIS PARENT UP
Holy crap! Excuse me for being a doubting thomas, but can you point to some evidence about the $0.21 tax on CD-R (Data - not audio). If your right about that, I think I might seek out a lawyer and try to sue the RIAA. I'm not kidding at all.
See, as an indipendent musician, I press my songs to CD-R's that I sell at shows I play, online, and through mail order. Now, I've known about the whole CD-R Audio scam for a while, and that's why I've never purchesed a CD writter that requires one of these taxed CD-R Audio discs. I mean, common! Why should the RIAA, who are by all means my main competitor, get any cut of the money I make off of selling my music? What kind of mafia extortion bullshit is this? But if it's true that regular CD-R's (data) are "taxed" as well, I think the RIAA owes me *ALOT* of money.
Once again, I'm not kidding. Are you an indie musician too, who is using CD-R's as your sales medium? Sue the RIAA. Talk about an abusive monopoly -- this should be the definition in Websters.
Come to think of it, this should piss off more than just musicians. How many companies back up server data (or whatever) onto CD-R? Should record labels get a cut of the money you spend on CD-R's, even though it's used for data?
So, anybody got any links/etc to back up this claim? I think it's time to try to rape the RIAA for some money for a change. Turn the tables, so to speak.
--
"The Wright brothers were the first to fly with a heavier-than-air machine, but boy did they have a lousy plane"
Re:This is absolutely disgraceful (Score:4, Insightful)
Talk about an abusive monopoly -- this should be the definition in Websters.
This is a monopoly because the government is sanctioning it... no monopoly can exist without the use of force, and the only legal user of force is the government. Normally, the government only uses force in retaliation to protect its citizens who have had force used against them, but here we see otherwise. Monopolies can only exist through the use of force, like here. Here, consumers are forced to fund a company (RIAA/MPAA), they can't chose otherwise. Here, no one can start their own company that makes CD-Rs that are not taxable. This is what a monopoly really is, a company backed by the physical compulsion of a government.
This is ridiculous... (Score:3, Insightful)
News like this always make me wonder when there's finally going to be a new revolution in "the land of the free" which would make it that once again.
But I'm afraid that after 9/11 it'd be very hard to do something seemingly against your own country... Pity.
I actually do hope the craziness ends someday.
I never thought I'd post this, but... (Score:2, Informative)
I heard him do one of his talks about copyright in London a few weeks ago. I was a sceptic on some of this views, but the extremity of some of them now seems to be matched by the extremity of the legislation we are now seeing around the world (DMCA, the EC thing, and now the Canadians).
I would recommend we all take his advice and boycott action that infringes the right to share information.
G
The solution (Score:2, Insightful)
charging (Score:2, Insightful)
or cell phones... but i guess that would be going too far...
Sell the mp3 players without storage (Score:2)
Problem solved, for now...
As it stands though, looks like Canada has just made buying an mp3 player a reason for a trip over the border.
Some context is necessary (Score:5, Informative)
Right now, the tariffs for recordable media are as follows (from http://www.pch.gc.ca/culture/cult_ind/cpb-pdd/arc
Audio Cassette Tape > 40 minutes = $0.29
CD-R and CD-RW = $0.21
CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio, and Minidiscs = $0.77
In 2003, this will nearly double, but the most significant impact is the $/GB:
CD-R and CD-RW = $1.23
DVD-R = $2.27
$/GB storage on MP3 player = $21
This is completely unfair for independant artists who release their tracks exclusively in MP3- their fans are effectively paying the recording industry to buy independant music.
Re:Some context is necessary (Score:4, Insightful)
Holy crap! Excuse me for being a doubting thomas, but can you point to some evidence about the $0.21 tax on CD-R (Data - not audio). If your right about that, I think I might seek out a lawyer and try to sue the RIAA. I'm not kidding at all.
See, as an indipendent musician, I press my songs to CD-R's that I sell at shows I play, online, and through mail order. Now, I've known about the whole CD-R Audio scam for a while, and that's why I've never purchesed a CD writter that requires one of these taxed CD-R Audio discs. I mean, common! Why should the RIAA, who are by all means my main competitor, get any cut of the money I make off of selling my music? What kind of mafia extortion bullshit is this? But if it's true that regular CD-R's (data) are "taxed" as well, I think the RIAA owes me *ALOT* of money.
Once again, I'm not kidding. Are you an indie musician too, who is using CD-R's as your sales medium? Sue the RIAA. Talk about an abusive monopoly -- this should be the definition in Websters.
Come to think of it, this should piss off more than just musicians. How many companies back up server data (or whatever) onto CD-R? Should record labels get a cut of the money you spend on CD-R's, even though it's used for data?
So, anybody got any links/etc to back up this claim? I think it's time to try to rape the RIAA for some money for a change. Turn the tables, so to speak.
Re:Some context is necessary (Score:4, Informative)
Holy crap! Excuse me for being a doubting thomas, but can you point to some evidence about the $0.21 tax on CD-R (Data - not audio). If your right about that, I think I might seek out a lawyer and try to sue the RIAA. I'm not kidding at all.
We're talking about Canada so I don't know if the RIAA is even involved. There is something in Canada called the CPCC and it exists to collect this money and disburse it. Yes, CD-Rs get taxed at $0.21, which is cheaper than the $0.77 for CD-R Audios. See http://www.cpcc.ca/English/FAQ/faq.html [www.cpcc.ca].the piracy tax (Score:4, Insightful)
In 'free' countries, taxes are supposed to be levied for the benefit of the people. The money collected should be put back into a social program of some kind. Canada is supposed to be a socialist government, but it seems that they're trying to more and more make the same mistakes as the US without taking any of the virtues. I don't know about the rest of the country, but BC is becoming about as democratic as the old USSR. If the Campbell administration doesn't like the way a arbitration turned out (doctors) or that a labor union is striking (the teachers) they just legislate the problem away. The doctors aren't even allowed to sue the government over the issue under the bill that was passed.
The recordable media issue is just more of the same. We're losing our freedoms, not to the big scary governments, but to the corperations; to people we can't vote out of office and can't effect in any way. They obviously have 'representatives' at their beck and call (DMCA) to make whatever laws that they feel benefit their profit margins (SSSCA). Government is supposed to be representing the best interests of the people of the country, but it seems here to be representing the best interests of the corperations.
The Canadian government, like it's Big Brother to the south, has traded consumer piracy for corporate larceny.
--
Mike Nugent
Be sure to write your law makers (Score:3, Informative)
Not a MP3 player (Score:3, Insightful)
So the question is: will all devices that CAN be used as a MP3-player be taxed (Pocket-PC devices etc.)?
How about a MP3-player that comes with no memory of it's own.
Compensation for copyright problems (Score:2)
Off course, the ammount is way to high and it is hard to determine what should be taxed and what should not be taxed.
This could be used to tell the music industry to stop whining, since they get something for their effortd. Which is what happend with audio cassette earlier. ?It worked then, why not now?
One interesting thing about who gets the money.... (Score:5, Insightful)
One intersting thing is that it specifically states that only Owners of copyrighted MUSIC can share a portion of the tarrifs... and specifically excludes "Computer Software Programs"....
Now correct me if I'm wrong.. Doesn't the Software industry claim to lose even more billions of dollars a year in piracy revenue(potential or not) then the music industry does?
Now why would the software industry not lobby for a levy like this?
1. Perhaps they know there would be a large backlash against their industry?
2. They know the whole concept is just free cash for the music producers?(granted its canadian play money but hey ya know...)
3. OR IS IT THE MUSIC INDUSTRY specifially wanted them excluded from the deal so they don't have to share there free cut of the cash cow.
things that make ya go hmmmmmmmm..............eh?
Re:One interesting thing about who gets the money. (Score:2)
Re:One interesting thing about who gets the money. (Score:2)
Somehow I doubt that Bryan Adams, or for that matter any artist, will ever see a single red cent of the money collected from these taxes. Its the record labels that get the money, and its the record labels that will keep the money.
Re:One interesting thing about who gets the money. (Score:3, Interesting)
Hehehe... you mean you don't trust the record labels to distribute this new source of income derived from the work of artists back to the actual artists!!! shame on you!
Re:One interesting thing about who gets the money. (Score:3, Funny)
It's only on blank AUDIO media (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's only on blank AUDIO media (Score:2, Informative)
There's a 59c levy on CR-R/CD-RW with 100MB or more storage capacity and a levy of $1.23 on CDR audio and CDRW audio or minidisc. So no matter what you use it for .. you pay the levy !
Re:It's also DATA CDR's! (Score:2)
I can memorize MP3s! Help! (Score:2)
eek!
Better get that lobotomy now!
Ostensibly to "offset the costs of piracy"... (Score:2)
Until then, I'm going to consider any claim any of these idiots make with respect to "piracy" as complete and utter bullshit.
Insufficient Paranoia (Score:2)
And I thought I was predicting usury when I wrote this little ditty [vwh.net] a while back.
$21/Gig? I would never have believed anyone could seriously propose such a figure. Even if it is Canadian Dollars, it's still outrageous.
Schwab
And... (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, goverments world wide have added a tax for pen and paper and any copying techniques which will effectively raise prices by 800%. Mr. John Doeyes from GreedyBastardsPublishing was quoted saying: "This is very important for the entire books industry, after years of studying we found that people were actually copying selected sections of books! Furthermore we found that students and proffesionals were taking a lot of notes based on our material, this illegal activity must seize for the good of the nation and democracy. Copying books or exerpts is aiding communism and terrorism by blocking the freedom of fair trade.
Another proposed bill states that any books bought for multiuse purposes (meaning to be read to others) will see a price increase of 250%. Mr Doeyes again explains: We found that a large amount of parents actually read books out loud for their children, thus violating the single use license of the book. When someone reads the book out loud, 3 things happen, 1 person is reading it which is ok, then they relay the contents by voice, and another person listens, this is unacceptable because the industry loses the income it could've gotten from selling audio versions of the books. Not to mention infringing on the voice artists work by making a very poor copy of their effort, this is sheer terrorism at work! But after careful consideration we decided to only raise prices by 250% instead of 300%, this means that parents instead of buying a book license for themself, one audio license and one listeners license, they can get all 3 bundled at a lower cost, thus benefitting all.
When asked if this isn't just excuses and heavy lobbying from the book industry to increase their revenues at consumers expense Mr. Doeyes giggled like a schoolgirl and laughed all the way to the bank.
Or not, strange how different media have different rules ain't it?
Re:And... (Score:2)
Hehe, no. When a similar tax was proposed in Norway, it was delayed because EU wanted a uniform policy on all media....
Don't laugh (Score:5, Interesting)
the license terms for Adobe ebooks quite precisely:
No printing is permitted on this book.
This book cannot be given to someone else.
This book cannot be read aloud.
These are actual terms in the license for the ebook version
of 'Alice in Wonderland'. This is even more strange because
the original text is by now in the public domain.
You can get a free, legal copy at Project Gutenberg [promo.net].
It has even been suggested that the text of the ebook version was
actually taken from the Gutenberg archives.
Here's an article [thestandard.com] that a quick search retrieved.
I see a possible Loophole! (Score:2)
All one needs to do is to sell re-writables with pre-recorded free music from struggling artists?
I'll gladly pay a levy on that if the money actually goes to the struggling artists...
Hmmm...
Same old story (Score:2, Informative)
Second, the government has been trying to get this off the ground since 1999. (Many of you will remember the first time this story came around). However, I can still buy a 50-pack of 80-min CD-Rs for $35 CAD in Toronto. Public and political opposition to this move prevented it from being enacted back then; it can again this time. The story got a lot of press in Canada at the time and the Globe and Mail ran several high-profile editorials attacking the proposed levies. Remember: this levy is only a proposal, and the Copyright Board of Canada will be holding public hearings into the matter. It's a simple matter to type up a letter to your MP, and as many of them have so little to do that they are bored silly, they are likely to give your letter some attention, especially if it is halfway-intelligent.
This proposal is so basically flawed that it really stands little chance of ever being enacted and will likely fall to the wayside as it did in 1999. It is unlikely that this idea could withstand a court challenge. Moreover, were this levy actually imposed, there would be a big boom in business for American online computer shops. I'm pretty sure that Canada Customs has better things to do than to levy a $5 charge on your $30 CD-R purchase.
You can see the Copyright Board's original proposal from Dec. 2000 here [cb-cda.gc.ca].
$1.23CAN (Score:2, Funny)
what recordable media is suitable for? (Score:2, Interesting)
So...
I can't find the answer. I hope Canadian government does. BTW, notebooks are also quite good mp3 players, and they've got HUGE hard drives. As well I can mention mp3 workstations or... mp3 servers with terabyte raid arrays.
Confused (Score:2, Interesting)
Do I owe someone money ???
why should the MPAA recieve money on private data (Score:2, Informative)
1). I will not be able to back a backup of my personal data without paying the 'MPAA' tax.
2). I will not be able to create and distribute software (propriatory or Free) without pay the 'MPAA' tax.
3). I will not be able to create my own music without paying the 'MPAA' tax.
Surely the law makers must realise that this proposed tax is wrong, even if the MPAA is telling them that they are losing 'so much' money.
We (and I mean EVERY Canadian who reads this) should write and express our concerns about this.
The email address is:
majeau.claude@cb-cda.gc.ca
Simon Wood.
Text version (Score:2)
Instead, go to Adobe's PDF conversion page [adobe.com], paste
http:// @www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs/proposed/c09032002-b.pdf [cb-cda.gc.ca]
in the URL box, check "Reflow paragraphs", and click the big "get it" button. It intersperses English paragraphs with French, so isn't exactly easy reading...
Sorry about the lame-looking " @" business... it's the only way to keep Slashdot from putting a space in the URL towards the end and breaking the link. It works, but for the wary, the actual link doesn't contain the " @".
Re:Text version (Score:2)
Wrong levy amount reported (Score:2, Informative)
The $1.23 is for CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio or MiniDisc. If you bought one of those Philips audio cd copying boxes, which only use the high priced CD-R Audio, you pay that levy.
When the levy was first introduced a few years back, the lower levy for CD-R over CD-R Audio was intended to reflect the fact that CD-R's can be used for other purposes than making audio CDs. The Statement of Proposed Levies in the Canada Gazette specifically states not to bother protesting against the levy based upon provable end-uses "other than reproducing musical works". It also disallows refunds of the levy and denys exemption for such non-musical ends.
On the flip side, this levy means that we can copy audio CDs with impunity in Canada.
No way..! (Score:2, Informative)
I can't believe that they are gonna tax you per GB on portable MP3 players though.. I am genuinely stunned. Though seeing as some of the coolest ones use laptop harddrives, why not sell the MP3 players as 'bare bones' and then make you go buy the laptop drive seperately
What a stupid stupid tax..
400% tax? (Score:3, Informative)
Ratio: approx. $5/GB (3.5" HDDs are approaching $1/GB, but let's assume they don't use these in MP3 players)
They are levying a $21/GB charge on MP3 players with HDDs - so for a 40GB this is $840
So the tax is about 400% of the cost of the HDD! Even if you assume the base player w/o HDD costs $200, you would still be paying 200% tax on the entire device, making it triple what it would cost without the tax.
How is this different from other tariffs? (Score:3, Insightful)
How is this different from say, they way the US is taxing steel imports and farm product imports or the way Japan taxes automotive and electronic imports? Often, these taxes are used to subsidize the aforementioned industries too (especially, the farm industry).
I think this particular (potential) tax/subsidy strikes a nerve merely because it is something that falls within the collective radars of people who post here, NOT because it's something drastically different from things government has done in the past. The "societal benefit" is that it's protecting jobs of the people who work in that industry in that country.
"Free" trade? (Score:2, Funny)
"Free" as in beer.
"Free" as in speech.
"Free" as in anal rape?
Who gets how much is decided how? (Score:2, Interesting)
Hans Reiser
No benefit in the US? (Score:2)
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. 17 USC 1008.
Hit Your Gov Where It Hurts... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Canadian government should remember that most of the country lives within a shopping day-trip of the U.S. Not only will Canadian businesses lose money to those making casual purchases over the line, the Candian government will lose tax revenue via lost VAT (or whatever you call it). People will buy their mp3 players in the U.S., take it out of the box, chuck the box, strap it to them, drive back across the border. Maybe Canadians should discuss this concern with their elected officials.
It kind of makes you wonder about Canadian sanity. To the south we have Bush passing an import tax on foreign steel to protect a dying U.S. industry. To the north, we have Canadians passing a tax that will only affect Candians and will benefit an industry making loads of money already.
Look at the loophole! (Score:3, Interesting)
If the thing already has sound on it when it crosses the border into Canada, no tarrif can be levied. The user may then choose to keep or erase the "beep" that came with it.
(Standard IANAL disclaimer applies)
Re:Look at the loophole! (Score:3, Funny)
The user may then choose to keep or erase the "beep" that came with it.
Plus, if it's a Canadian "beep" then you should get a slice of the levy money when it's distributed to the "rights owners".
Hack for mp-3 players (Score:3, Interesting)
There's always a way around the draconian measures these idiots come up with. I'm already a criminal, (speeding, jaywalking, ripping tags off mattresses, driving after having a beer with dinner, taping NFL broadcasts without express written permission, etc.) what's one more illegal act?
RESPOND to the REQUEST FOR COMMENTS!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Comments should be emailed to majeau.claude@cb-cda.gc.ca
Please be polite but strong. Make it clear to them that this levy harms you, and is going to harm artists.
The most important bit of the proposal follows. Note that it doesn't matter that most of these media are used for data archival: everyone still gets punished because someone might copy a Canadian artist.
"3. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the levy shall be
(a) 60 for each audio cassette of 40 minutes or more in length;
(b) 59 for each CD-R, CD-RW or each unit of any other type of recordable or rewritable compact disc of 100 megabytes or more of storage capacity;
(c) $1.23 for each CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio or MiniDisc;
(d) 0.8 for each megabyte of memory in each removable electronic memory card, each removable flash memory storage medium of any type, or each removable micro-hard drive;
(e) $2.27 for each DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+RW, DVD-RAM or each unit of any other type of recordable or rewritable DVD;
(f) 2.1 for each megabyte of memory in each non-removable electronic memory card or each non-removable flash memory storage medium of any type incorporated into each MP3 player or into each similar device with internal electronic or flash memory that is intended for use primarily to record and play music;
(g) $21 for each gigabyte of memory in each non-removable hard drive incorporated into each MP3 player or into each similar device with an internal hard drive that is intended for use primarily to record and play music. "
Boston Tea Party (Score:3, Insightful)
This just in: New bill before congress (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Maybe (Score:2)
Re:Well that sucks (Score:2)
Read Page 7 of the PDF. It specifies AUDIO CDR's, not DATA CDR's in listing the media affected that may be waived when sold to qualified orginizations.
Re:Another case of Too Much Government (Score:4, Insightful)
"I am against the government passing a law forcing me to vote Democrat" ('government interference' = FALSE)
"I am a proponent of the government locking away rapists" ('government interference' = TRUE)
Hypocrite!!
I know these examples are extreme; the point is, yes people are selective because they aren't using the same (Libertarian) ruler as you are. The fact is, most people you label as being 'selective' are measuring one view on 'government intervention' when a crime has been commited vs. 'government interference' in anticipation of a hypothetical/potential crime. Try to at least see what kind of ruler others are using.
-chris
Weed for CDR's (Score:2)
Re:Not so bad... (Score:2)
The SSSCA and these taxes can be layered on top of one another easily, and that's what US legislators are trying to do.