NDP iPod tax: ‘misleading blog commentary’
p2pnet view P2P | Politics:- James Gannon again.
That’s him on the right and in a promo piece thinly disguised as a genuine news item and prominently linked to, not at all coincidentally, by the Big 4’s IFPI (International Federation of Phonographic Industry), “I was dismayed, but really not surprised, to see how quickly the Haiti benefit album ‘Hope for Haiti Now cropped up on all the popular BitTorrent indexing sites like ThePirateBay and Torrentz” he wrote recently.
“Not only that, but out of the 9 front-page Google results for ‘Hope For Haiti Now torrent’, a dismaying 5 out of the 9 results (Torrentz, IsoHunt, BTJunkie, Monova, TorrentZap) are hosted or have some connection to Canada”, he said, adding:
“Looks to me like the Pirates of the Caribbean can be found right here in Canada.”
Now his name has cropped up vis-a-vis Michael Geist’s post on the Charlie Angus private copying levy bill.
“It seems necessary to dispel certain inaccurate and misleading blog commentary about what actually happened in the Heritage Committee yesterday concerning the NDP’s proposed iPod ‘tax’,” Howard Knopf says in Excess Copyright, quoting Gannon as stating in his blog:
“To be clear, the MPs who voted in favour of this motion were not voting ‘for’, or signalling any kind of ’support’ for, this amendment to the Copyright Act, but merely voting for the Committee to consider the amendment at a later time.”
But, “That’s not what happened”, says Knopf. Rather, “according to the official source, which is Parliament itself” and “according to the Committee’s official website” the Heritage Committee actually said:
“Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), that the Committee report the following to the House as soon as possible:
“That the Committee recommends that the government amend Part VIII of the Copyright Act so that the definition of ‘audio recording medium’ extends to devices with internal memory, so that the levy on copying music will apply to digital music recorders as well, thereby entitling music creators to some compensation for the copies made of their work.” (Emphasis added by Knopf.)
“That seems pretty clear to me and quite clearly contradicts Mr. Gannon’s speculation”, he says, noting:
“Mr. Gannon, who was called to the bar in 2009, is an associate at McCarthy, Tétrault, working under Barry Sookman, a well known lawyer/lobbyist for some very politically savvy clients, i.e. CRIA, CMPDA, and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. While Mr. Gannon may very well have been speaking on his own, Mr. Sookman was very quick to tweet a link to his blog.”
..… and identi.ca
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
genuine news item – Big Music plugs RIAA into Haiti tragedy, March 6, 2010
Michael Geist – Angus Introducing Private Copying Levy Bill, Flexible Fair Dealing Motion, March 16, 2010
Excess Copyright – The iPod “Tax”: Misinformation re Heritage Committee’s Report, March 17, 2010
blog – Depoliticizing the iPod levy, March 17, 2010
working under Barry Sookman – Bazza Sookman and the 3 Strikes Plan, January 22, 2010
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/feed
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Click here to learn what technologies might help you bypass censorship in your area.
March 18th, 2010 at 10:35 am
If only we could get the masses to write in to these “spokesmen” and say “hey, you don’t know what you are talking about, you don’t know the people or what the people want at all, go find some other line of work where you can’t hurt anyone!”
Just imagine, 500 000 letters written to members of Parliament and Congress, House of Lords, etc.., mouthpieces for the RIAA, DOJ, etc.. all saying the same thing, “You are wrong! Give it up and learn to adapt, we’ll never conform to your inaccurate, corrupt way of thinking.”
March 18th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
“If only we could get the masses to write in to these “spokesmen”
These “spokesmen” have a degree in twisting words. So kind of futile.
March 18th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
The day they put a tax on Mp3 players I will cease to by them and still them instead.
Sorry!
March 18th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
I used to bug Sam “The Cockroach” I Am to tell me just how much an RIAA shill gets paid. I wonder if James Gannon would give me an answer to that one.
March 18th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
@ Monkey:
You’d be better off asking his boss, Bazza Sookman – http://www.p2pnet.net/story/34478
Cheers!
March 19th, 2010 at 5:13 am
I don’t use CDR’s for audio and never have. Can you please exempt me from this tax? Thanks! /s
I can see why the interested parties would want a tax on electronic gear. It is all about getting ones foot in the door. Just think of how many different devices there are, all capable of storing information whether audio or not. Car stereos, cameras, phones, game systems, etc. There is a veritable fortune just waiting to be made and they know it. I’m primarily concerned regarding what the long term impact will be for both consumer and free market by creating a sort of welfare system, all for the express purpose of propping up an outdated industry that is dying and in all likelihood should die in order to allow more consumer and competition friendly business opportunities to arise. I also wonder how long until other sectors of the content industry start clamoring for their piece of the tax pie, as well as how much of the money taken in actually reaches the ones who most deserve it, the artists, without whom there would be no industry.
Even if the end result was more consumer protection against frivolous litigation, would it be worth that if it also meant the industry could now sit on their laurels, no longer having to put in as much of a creative effort as they used to thanks to the free income a tax would afford them? Remember, copyright was meant to “encourage a dynamic creative culture, while returning value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for the public.” I’m not so sure the content industry has been living up to their end of the bargain over the past decade as far as “affordable access to content for the public” goes. A big part of the problem is that they refuse to view copyright in the light it was meant to be. They see copyright as the right to own ideas as if they were property. The reality is that it was only meant to be a short term privilege where the ultimate goal was to culturally benefit the world. In other words, copyright was meant to benefit everybody, not just an elite few and certainly not for all of eternity. I hope our government remembers this every time the subject of copyright comes up, especially when it involves bills that may hinder or remove altogether some or all of our rights and freedoms in regards to copyrighted material, especially the fair use of such.
So long as the content industry continues to see us all as cash cows whom they feel obligated to wage war on, file sharing will continue to be the justified means by which we oppose them. Some people may disagree with this, but to them I would ask how else are we going to be heard or have any impact? When civil disobedience is the only means available, you thank your lucky stars that you have at least one tool with which you can make your feelings heard, and being heard we definitely are. It didn’t have to be a war of wills, but this is the path the industry chose and one in which they will have to live with the consequences. That is just the reality of how the world works and wishful thinking isn’t going to change anything. Will the content industry collapse? Probably. Will people lose their jobs? More than likely. Will something better take its place? Without any shadow of a doubt. Nature abhors a vacuum and so long as there are folks out there who love what they do and are willing to adapt, the content industry will continue to exist. It just won’t be the same as the one you know today. Evolve or stagnate, your choice.
March 19th, 2010 at 10:29 am
I would buy a new MP3 player (to replace the 512MB SanDisk m240 I currently use, old school okay? LOL) if a tax on it made it legal to download all the p2P audio I wanted.