Canada’s iPod levy: déjà vu
p2pnet news view | politics:- Canada’s private copying levy, which adds 21 cents to the price of every blank CD to compensate the music industry for personal copying, has long been a magnet for controversy, yet few would have anticipated that it would thrust an overhaul of the Canadian copyright collective system on to the political agenda.
In light of last month’s Copyright Board decision that re-opens the door to placing a levy of up to $75 on iPods, however, that is precisely what could happen.
The case may create a sense of déjà vu, since it marks the second time that the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC) has sought to include iPods within the levy system. It first introduced an iPod levy in 2003, only to have the Federal Court of Appeal strike it down as the court declared that “there is no authority for certifying a levy on such devices or the memory embedded therein.”
Notwithstanding the Court’s unambiguous language, the CPCC reintroduced the iPod levy earlier this year, arguing that the MP3 player comments were “obiter” (a legal reference to a passing remark that does not form a necessary part of the court’s decision). Canadian retailers and storage media companies unsurprisingly challenged that interpretation, leading to last month’s ruling that sided with the CPCC.
The Copyright Board did not mince words, suggesting that the levy could also be applied to cellphones and personal computers, and warning that excluding the iPod from the levy system would “instantly makes the conduct of millions of Canadians illegal, and even possibly criminal.”
The decision will presumably be appealed, virtually guaranteeing years of litigation that promises to divert millions of dollars earmarked for artists to lawyers instead. While the legal challenges are important, the political repercussions carry greater significance since they may lead to dramatic changes to both the levy and the Copyright Board.
The levy is likely to be on the chopping block, a victim of political promises – the Conservative party pledged to eliminate it in its 2005 policy declaration – and a global trend toward private copying without compensation (see “Around”). All of these countries have adapted their laws to meet consumer expectation that they are entitled to listen to the music they purchase on the device of their choice, while allowing the music industry to account for such copying within the retail purchase price.
Changes to the private copying levy may be unavoidable; however, the bigger question will be whether Industry Minister Maxime Bernier and Canadian Heritage Minister Bev Oda will wade into the broader question of reform of the Copyright Board and Canada’s emphasis on the copyright collective system.
Canadian policy has for years relied on the use of copyright collectives to efficiently license the use of copyrighted works such as music and books. However, the private copying decision highlights the growing dissatisfaction with the system. The Copyright Board’s willingness to dismiss the federal court while characterizing millions of Canadians as criminals for copying CDs on to their iPods suggests that the institution may need reform.
Moreover, the copyright collectives are increasingly finding themselves on the wrong side of public opinion. In addition to the iPod levy issue, SOCAN recently sent hundreds of demand letters to Canadian hair salons seeking compensation for background music, while Access Copyright, an authors’ collective, has established a financial reserve of more than $2 million to be used for expenses in obtaining copying fees from Canadian schools.
The copyright collective system was designed to pave the way for paying creators and facilitating access to copyrighted works. With 34 Canadian copyright collectives, a prohibitively expensive litigation process that excludes many interested parties, price-distorting fees such as the private copying levy, questions about the fairness of royalty distribution, and a Copyright Board that seemingly places its views above the courts, changes to the system appear to be long overdue.
Michael Geist
[Geist is the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. He can be reached by email at mgeist[at]uottawa.ca and is on-line at www.michaelgeist.ca.]
![]()
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.







August 6th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
If this goes through, the CRIA better back the f*ck off.
August 7th, 2007 at 4:43 am
IT’S BLACKMAIL
“SOCAN recently sent hundreds of demand letters to Canadian hair salons seeking compensation for background music”
So, if hair salons pay SOCAN to allow them to play SOCAN licensed music… can the salons really control what is played on the background so that only SOCAN licensed music is played? Of course not, if music is taken off the radio or if CDs (with only a few SOCAN licensed songs) are played.
Locally (this is american controlled territory) we have the same problem, will all sorts of venues. The performance right organizations demand payment but those that pay have no idea what music is paid for, as no music catalogs are received from the performance right organizations. Frankly, it’s BLACKMAIL.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:23 am
So, if i buy a cd to burn an iso image, or backup my data, i’m subsidising the music industry. Way to go canada!!
What happens if i backup some software, or ebooks ? do those companies get part of the levy also? After all, one without the others would be indicative of prejudice.
Again, the same principle applies to the iPod. It can store any type of file (being a usb storage device), including ebooks, videos, and yes, even software. The iPod firmware can be supplanted by *nix style operating systems, which means you store / run whatever you like on them. So the question is, why does only the music industry receive revenue from this?
August 7th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
How do they know how much money to pay various artists? Do they know what song you’re burning on a CD?
If you’re paying royalties on blank media then you might as well copy everything. After all, you’re paying to do it. Since you’re paying for it, it’s not even stealing!
September 7th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Rafael: It’s not just SOCAN music SOCAN collects for. SOCAN, as a member of the worldwide PRO (Performance Rights Organization) collective also claims on behalf of ASCAP, BMI, PRS and other SOCAN equivalents in other countries in Canada. The money collected is then distributed to the correct PRO who then pays its writer members. It isn’t blackmail, blackmail is extortion through threat of revealing a secret. You want to call it extortion but that is incorrect as well as no one is forcing you to use someone’s creative property. You are simply paying the people who created something to use it because you (you being a hair salon, not you personally) are enhancing the value of your product (haircut) by using music to make it a more enjoyable experience for clients.
Reader’s Write: As far as paying the various artists, radio data is used to determine how much money is given to whom as it is reasonable (though not even close to 100% accurate) that the music being played is the music being copied. And yes, this does fail miserably for indie artists. Which is why you should support your favourite indie bands by buying their cd because they won’t see a dime of blank media money.