Canada’s blank media levy proceeds
p2pnet news view Politics | Music:- “Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives set the stage for their first parliamentary survival test on Friday, but the threatened political showdown that could lead to an early election appeared to be losing steam,” says the Toronto Star, going on:
“The pre-election fever eased a notch yesterday when the New Democrats suggested they might be willing to back the government — thus averting a vote of non-confidence in the Commons — because of new help for laid-off workers being proposed by the Conservatives.”
Almost exactly a year ago, on October 15, after a general election, Harper lurched back into power with only a minority government to shore him up.
Just before the election, the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC) released the results of a survey sent to the five major federal parties, asking each for its views on Canada`s private copying regime, said p2pnet, going on:
“Bottom line? ‘The Green Party position, which calls for the private copying levy to be eliminated, would do irreparable damage to the rights holders we represent,’ says CPCC chair Annie Morin.
“The Conservative Party didn`t bother to respond, but, ‘they have been clear, in their most recent policy statement, that they favour the elimination of the private copying levy,’ she stated.”
Where does the CPCC stand with another possible election hovering in the wings? And does it matter?
Well-known Canadian copyright lawyer Howard Knopf believes the organisation’s day are numbered.
And while we wait to see if he’s correct, in his Excess Copyright post, “Here’s some interesting data backed up by the new Savethelevy Website and confirmed on the BNN interview with [CPCC direrctor, right] David Basskin and myself last week here,” says Knopf, continuing »»»
We have had blank media levies in Canada for almost ten years. The first tariff was imposed on December 18, 1999.
In that time, CPCC (the levy collective) proudly claims that:
Since then, more than $150 million has been paid to songwriters, composers, recording artists and other rights holders for the copying of their music. This money has been received by over 97,000 rights holders, most of whom would not be able to continue their careers without this revenue.
That’s less than $1,600 over ten years or an average of less than $160 a year for each of these rights holders, “most of whom” would supposedly “not be able to continue their careers without this revenue.
Anyone who knows anything about the music industry will know that most rights holders will earn less than that amount and a few will earn a great deal more. The ones earning a lot more won’t need it. And those earning the average $160 a year or less won’t be quitting their day jobs anytime soon to continue their careers in the music business as a result of this levy.
Moreover, since the figure of 97,000 “right holders” presumably includes publishers and record companies that could receive very substantial payments, the payout to individual songwriters, composers and recording artists is probably a whole lot less than $160 a year on average. That’s less than about half of the cost of pint of beer a week at typical Canadian pub. Hardly an amount that will sustain a career.
So who has benefited? About $22 million has gone to the costs of pursuing Copyright Board tariffs (lawyers, consultants, surveys, etc.), collection and enforcement (e.g. lawyers and auditors), and other causes such as communications and government relations – $1,272,000.” And that’s only to the end of 2007. See CPCC’s own numbers here.
The CPCC’s days are now numbered because its only real source of revenue is from the levy on blank CDs. When is that last time most people bought any of those? They are rapidly going the way of the floppy disc. So – the CPCC needs a new source of levy money and has now been turned down twice by the Federal Court of Appeal in its attempt to levy iPods and similar devices because the current legislation doesn’t apply to digital audio recorders.
“While it’s hard to see how this levy could have been much of an incentive to most of the musicians who have seen a piece of it, it’s not hard to see where the real incentive lies,” says Knopf, adding:
“No doubt there is a great incentive for those who work for the CPCC as as lawyers, consultants, employees, lobbyists and others to try to get the Copyright Act amended so as to keep the levy alive by extending its reach to iPods, cell phones, and beyond.”
Knopf is an Ottawa-based copyright lawyer who’s been lead counsel on legal challenges both at the Copyright Board and in the Courts against the excesses of the music industry establishment.
Toronto Star – September 15, 2009
p2pnet – Green Party upsets copyright collective, October 10, 2008
Excess Copyright – The Proceeds of Canada’s Blank Media Levy,September 14, 2009
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.
September 15th, 2009 at 10:34 am
I don’t understand why we have to pay any levy at all for private copying. It’s private – not for a profit.
September 15th, 2009 at 10:37 am
And on that note, why can’t filesharing be legalized for personal use if we have to pay the levy in the first place?
September 15th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
@RW:
Simple, they want more money! And as soon s CPCC gets money, more people will want more money too “if they can have it why can’t we” until the consumer is paying $100/mo for every damn organization that can’t cut any fat from their line because they don’t want too… meanwhile the artists will have even less money, less than $160/yr, while the consumer pays $1200 per year in levies (total) for websites, MPAA groups, RIAA groups, publishers, record companies (not covered under RIAA groups), ISP’s, bloggers whom promote RIAA content, media companies (including papers and TV and even Radio as they can’t afford to pay record companies and SOCAN and publishers too).
All of this will make them happy, but all the indy artists and labels whom too deserve funds will receive $0, and the consumers will be so broke they can’t afford to see any shows in the cinemas or purchase any cheap DVD’s at Walmart or rent movies or… So the industry will blame filesharing, choke internet usage down even more, demand more levies, and the process will repeat until the system collapses.
By then the fat lazy execs who claim to bring the talent to the masses will be off on their private islands while their supposedly represented artists die of starvation, next to the former consumers, in the streets of the once vibrant and culturally rich cities of the world.
But isn’t that how it is supposed to be? Until the starving realize that fat and lazy means delicious and slow.
September 15th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
No matter what scheme is created to collect money for artists and songwriters, these schemes wind up collecting money for the rights holders that scammed those rights from the artists and songwriters. The scam is always the same: After a drink, grass or a cocaine laced drink oe perhaps some sex (the latest tricks)… “We will give you a chance for money and fame if you sign here. Trust me”.
Then no one dares to accuse the new rights holder because that would be an admission to being dumb. This allows the scam to be repeated on an on.
The scam was invented at the same time as copyrights were invented. One goes with the other.
Trust me: The most abused words in scamming.
September 15th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Say it ain’t so !!!!
The only ones making out are the lawyers and the businessmen ???
No way !!
Colour me shocked .
Flabbergasted .. even.
September 17th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Dreddsnik=Snagglepuss?
Heavens to Murgatroid!