Canada's Copyright Cops Give Go-Ahead For iPod Tax 230
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.'"
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)
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.
Re:Tax them for using law enforcement resources (Score:5, Informative)
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
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)
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:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the courts disagree with your interpretation [michaelgeist.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Tax them for using law enforcement resources (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or got a CD from the library?
It doesn't matter where you got the original. The CPCC is quite clear - if you plan on space-shifting, don't purchase it in the first place - you're only paying twice.
Re: (Score:2)
The CPCC is quite clear - if you plan on space-shifting, don't purchase it in the first place - you're only paying twice.
One more example of how broken copyright law is. The music ends up in the same place in the end.
---
Creating simple artificial scarcity with copyright and patents on things that can be copied billions of times at minimal cost is a fundamentally stupid economic idea.
Re: (Score:2)
So it either is just for the private use of music you Already_legally_purchased or it covers copying the music from a source you don't have a right to copy from. In the later case, downloading from the internet would be included/covered too.
I dunno, I don't think you should have to pay a tax just for the right to do something
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Who gives a flying monkey? It's a grab for the end user's money and I couldn't care less who's pocket it ends up in. You can bet it won't be the artist in any case.
Copyright law is completely broken.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, When downloading something, you are at worst, making a copy for yourself unless your sharing something too. I tend to think that whoever is hosting the file is making the copy. Other copyright licenses seem to back this up like the GPL and so on, the host(er) is making and giving the copy the re
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Also seems like a great way for small indie bands to get exposure.
Re: (Score:2)
ie. you can make a copy for yourself, and lend (or give or sell) the original to someone else so they can make their own copy, and that's perfectly legal.
Re: (Score:2)
. that it supposedly legitimizes something that was actually perfectly legal in the first place (personal and private copying being supposedly exempt from copyright infringement).
Unfortunately, personal and private copying is NOT legal in Canada. The concept of "fair use", which American copyright law has, does not exist in Canadian law. It is even illegal to provide speech translations for blind people without paying for a copy.
See
http://www.carl-abrc.ca/projects/copyright/pdf/per ceptual_disability.pdf [carl-abrc.ca] for details.
Copyright law is not the same from one country to another. The United States has fairly lenient laws about private copying, but strong laws against sharing with others
Re: (Score:2)
But the levy doesn't even have to exist to "permit" personal copying because personal and private copying of audio works was already explicitly mentioned in the Canadian Copyright Act as being exempt from copyright infringement anyways. In the end, the consumer actually gets absolutely nothing in exchange for the levy, which is what m
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
Taxes don't work that way. (Score:2)
The most typical use of ipods is probably playing commercial music. If en
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That being said, the idea for a levy is sound IMHO. Take the gas tax for example. It's a special tax that's levied on sales of gasoline; the revenues derived from it are supposed to pay for the upkeep and construction of public roads.
Now, someone might claim that they should not have to pay the tax because
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Music != schools, roads, or any other service that it makes sense for the government to provide.
Music is entertainment, and they're taking money from people to give it to rich people just in case the original people might steal music.
I can also guarantee you that at some point, something that you use comes by way of road. Even if you walk to the supermarket to get food, that food has to be delivered by road (or air/rail/ship but I bet most of it is truck delivered).
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Case in point -- Nelson Mandela. Freedom fighter or terrorist [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I blame our current administration for diluting the meaning of important words like "freedom", "democracy", and "terrorism". And I blame idiots for calling everything the US does "terrorism".
Re: (Score:2)
Really, historical relativism is going way too far when it equates things like the Boston Tea Party with terrorism.
Given that it's Boston and given their recent track record with the lite brites, I'd say that it's not nearly far enough.
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:2)
Not all the cars were at dealerships:
http://cbs4denver.com/investigates/local_story_139 164953.html [cbs4denver.com]
Russell Bishop and his wife Evelyn got lucky. They found one of the firebombs beneath their Hummer and it did not go off.
"They're not just burning up a car," Bishop said. "They're risking people's lives."
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Mr. Burns: "That intrepid lad is my great grandfather, Franklin Jefferson Burns. Tossing that tea, without a care for what the caffeine would do to the Fenway Flounder."
Homer: "Is that a fish?"
Mr. Burns: "It was."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if this is just your opinion, but the attacks on the Beirut and Saudi Arabia were military targets and classified as terrorism. As was the attack on the USS Cole.
Re: (Score:2)
Saboteurs are regular military forces that go in disguised.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
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:2)
In this case, what is being discussed is an excise tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax#Excises [wikipedia.org]
There's about a million different types and legal definitions for taxes, so I'll excuse your ignorance of the matter.
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:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is correct, but I wasn't talking about it being distribution. Downloading is reproduction, a different type of potentially infringing conduct.
However, in Canada, which is what we're supposed to be talking about, even uploading is not considered distribution.
Well, you're the one that brought up the US. I don't know Canadian law and I'm not going to make any claims about it.
Even in the US, proving that someone
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I am thinking of Motown v. DePietro, where the E.D. Pa. said (edited a bit):
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that leads into a rather interesting area of debate. While most have taken it for granted that uploading is distribution, and the courts have so ruled, I think that the language of the statute is in fact to the contrary. Distribution requires that the title or possession of a copy change hands, but in the case of uploading, there is a copy at the server
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it is -- why else do you think it's ILLEGAL? (hint: what laws do you think the tobacco and alcohol industries have bought?)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People who choose a career that contributes only marginally to society should not receive the ridiculous amounts of attention from the legislature that they do.
It's like giving surfers power over when and where you can go to the beach so they can maximize their surfing time. It's just absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
You also seem to think your own opinion is self evident and all others are wrong, so I don't think I want to talk to you anymore.
Can I just fling my iPod at the band instead? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can agree that it might feel like a tax, however... but unlike a tax, it's not illegal to evade it.
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.
-------
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Insightful?! You've been watching too many "when you copy you hurt the artists" commercials.
You're innocent until proven guilty of what? Personal copying is legal in Canada. There's nothing to be innocent or guilty of. You're no more "on the right side of the law" burning a copy of Gentoo than you are a copy of The Tragically Hip. Heck, burning the music should be MORE legal, you've paid for the right to do it. If you choose not to enjoy that right, that's your problem. Not to say I support expanding the
p2p? (Score:2)
Can't have it both ways... (Score:2)
being cool... (Score:2)
A breif summary (Score:2, Informative)
It is legal in Canada to make copies of audio recordings on approved media for personal use. Full stop. No conditions, levies, anything involved. Copying something and giving it to a friend? Illegal. That would be distribution, and not for personal use. Offering a friend the use of your computer while there's a blank CD in one drive, an audio CD in another, a burning app
Blank DVDs are way cheaper (Score:2)
Anyway I'm Canadian and I'd rather have this levey than put up with a bunch of corporate bullshit from the RIAA.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)