Copyright tax for Canadian iPods?
p2pnet.net News:- A vested interest group wants all Canadian mp3 players to come pre-loaded —— with a new copyright tax.
Behind the demand are Warner Music (US), EMI (Britain), Vivendi Universal (France) and Sony BMG (Japan and Germany), the members of the Big 4 Organized Music cartel. They’re losing money largely because of bad management, bad business decisions, bad product and and their refusal to remodel outmoded practices to take into account the fact they’re now operating in the 21st digital century, catering to a customer base which is in large part, and for the first time in history, consistently and universally well informed, thanks to Net p2p communications.
In 2003, the Big 4 introduced a bizarre sue ‘em all marketing scheme under which they’re trying to force hundreds of millions of their own customers around the world, whom they call file sharing “criminals”and “thieves,” into buying over-priced, low quality digital music downloads.
Meanwhile, in 2005, Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the tax set by the Canadian Copyright Board on the internal memory of digital audio recorders was illegal and the decision meant makers had to refund $15 and $25 retail surcharges on mp3 players.
The Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC) had been trying to claim the board didn’t have the authority to impose a levy on memory permanently embedded in digital audio recorders and since December 12, 2003, had been collecting on non-removable memory, including both flash memory and hard drives, in digital audio recorders.
The CPCC boasts Richard Pfohl, general counsel to the Big 4’s CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association of America), as a board member.
“When you go and buy an iPod, the retailer gets paid,” says another board member, David Basskin, quoted by the Canadian Press. “So you can’t say that the people who make the music should get a free ride.”
Now the group wants the copyright board to say mp3 players fall under the category of audio recording media and if it gets it way, the price of portable music systems could rocket to $75 in some instances, depending on players’ hard drive capacities.
But, “They’re really getting quite existential here,” CP has CIPPIC’s (Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic) David Fewer saying.
Mp3 players fall into both the categories of “player” and “medium” and the CPCC is, “asking the copyright board to look into the sould of an iPod and determine its true identity,” says Fewer and,”That’s hard to do.”
However, Fewer says the CCPC demand is a step in the right direction because the other legal alternatives are impractical.
“It’s a good way to get our government to start thinking about policy in a different way than it has,” he says in the story.
“Digital copyright under the past few years has always been dictated by the big labels, which adopt the perspective that fans are thieves and that the lock ‘em up and sue em strategy is the only way to go.”
Also See:
illegal – Canada rejects iPod levy, July 25, 2005
Canadian Press – Music rights-holders try to re-instate MP3 player levy, prices could rise by $75, February 9, 2007
Want to subscribe to p2pnet by email with Feedburner? Just click here.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php | | And use our own p2pnet newsfeeds for your site
If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
February 10th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Here we go again, we’ll get taxed on our portables, but still end up getting a DMCA. They want their cake and eat it too!
February 10th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
I already paid this tax on my iPod in 2004, and while it may have been struck down later, nobody offered a refund to those of us who had already paid it. What happened to our money?
February 10th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
I dont understand how they can tax anything first of all, and second if they tax everyone who buys a mp3 player or blank media (CD, DVD) beacuse they say its compensating them for piracy then why do we have to pay for music to begin with, if im taxed when i buy media, then why do i have to pay for the songs that are going on the Disc, i mean you got your money when i bought the media, you didnt make the disc, iv never seen a band put out by memorex or fuji, so why am i paying you twice for one thing? Its either Money for quality content i can enjoy at my leasure, or money for the blank media i buy, not both. Frankly id rather pay the $2 tax on the media then pay the fucking insane prices on shitty quality music.
and while im on the subject, mp3 was popular beacuse it was small, easily transferable and a relatively tolerable sound format, if your going to charge a dollar a song i want it in FLAC, i dont have a fancy new sound system to listen to lossy mp3, charge me for what its worth, not for what you want it to be worth. My shit’s not gold and i dont try to pass it off as such.
February 11th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
This same scheme was tried in The Netherlands and was approved. Later under consideration that not only iPods but hard drives as well were to be taxed, it was axed. Simply the cost of hard drives and iPods made them so expensive that it was no longer a desirable item.
This same tax is paid on blank media in the states. It’s put right in the cost of the blank whether or not you are going to use it for copying legal material. There is no refund if the blank is intended for copying momma’s birthday party or the next business meeting. This has been on-going since the cassette era. Oddly, while it is billed to pay the artists, to date no one penny has made it to any artists’ pocket, inspite of lawsuits from the artists themselves trying to get their fair share.
Just like my northern brethren who pay for the right to copy, so have we. Nor do we see refunds for non-infringement uses, as it is assumed it goes for that no matter it’s use. I therefore feel all income has been paid for licensing on the date I purchase a blank for my use.
The cartels now want to kill the cd. The main reasons are that it is not as flexible in locking as digital files and they are getting static from the customer on a cd that doesn’t act like a cd when programming is put in, from the government wanting software laws to apply to music discs that have programming, and the cd patent owners that say the discs can’t be labeled as cd because they don’t meet cd qualification requirements for standards.
February 12th, 2007 at 2:58 am
…you can always buy elsewhere. Geesh, I don’t even have an Economy major.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:25 am
No they want your cake and to eat it to.