Canadians [Will] Pay Levy on MP3 Players - Updated 665
Capt. Canuck writes "According to this Toronto Star story,
the Canadian Copyright Board may approve a 20% levy on electronic media tomorrow,
including MP3 players and hard drives. With the Canadian Dollar
rising and this on the horizon, maybe now is the right time to get that
iPod." Update: 12/12 16:33 GMT by M : rcpitt writes "The Canadian Copyright Board has (finally - a year late) issued its ruling on the latest round of blank media levy - the controversial (in the rest of the world as well as Canada) private "tax" on recordable media used to copy music which proceeds go to the music artists in Canada. The ruling by the board and a press release were posted to the Board's web site at 10AM Ottawa (CST) today. The ruling continues the levy amounts from the previous 2 year period (2001-2002) to the end of this period (2003-2004) at the same amounts as previously set but adds new levies on portable (MP3) digital audio recorders of from CDN$2/unit to CDN$25/unit depending on internal storage capacity."
Abolish copyright--a solution to the insanity. (Score:4, Interesting)
Agree on abolishing copyrights and patents? The poster argoff does as well. You are not alone.
RIAA crossed the border (Score:5, Interesting)
The Copyright Board decision comes as the Supreme Court of Canada begins a landmark copyright case that will determine whether Internet service providers must pay a tariff for being a conduit for the rampant downloading of free music.
Hmmm... we should also charge them for the lost business from gaming that they create! Oh, and let's tax them so that the telephone industry gets a cut since so many people are using instant messaging and IRC rather than calling people. Hell, let's just shut them down entirely because they can be a conduit for crime!
Remember, what you choose to spend money on is no longer up to you.
Canadian Dollar (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes but... (Score:4, Interesting)
So does that make P2P legal in Canada? (Score:5, Interesting)
What does this solve? (Score:2, Interesting)
So I say: Come up with something better, will ya?
too powerful (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know anything about Canadian Law, or Canadian internet/music habits, but I'd guess only a minority of users are downloading (copyrighted) music. I think it's absurd the entire industry could be forced to pay a tariff.
It's almost enough to make me glad that in the US, the RIAA has to sue individuals, and haven't (yet) been able to bill ISPs directly.
CD-Rs more expensive too? (Score:5, Interesting)
My laptop uses the same HD type found in small mp3 players, would it fall under the tax?
So, I assume all this money will be going directly to the artists, who have been so badly hurt by the mp3 downloading craze? Yeah... right.
Re:Yes but... (Score:1, Interesting)
It is. Borrow a CD from a friend, or a library, then make a copy it. It's legal to do that in Canada. The only thing that's not allowed is making copies yourself to give to other people -- this, unfortunately, is what file sharing networks come under.
If only there was a file sharing network that 'lent' you files which you could then 'personally copy' once they got to your machine, then you 'returned' the files...
Re:Everything happens (Score:1, Interesting)
Nice try though
How to destroy an industry..101 (Score:4, Interesting)
Legislation (Score:2, Interesting)
Frankly, I think this is another example of intelligent Canadian legislation. The tariffs on CDR media and (potentially) MP3 players may not be palatable to consumers, but they keep the dogs of the music industry at bay. Meanwhile, South of the border there is a dearth of similar legislation. What happens? The heads of the RIAA are weeping and gnashing their teeth, launching lawsuits against pre-pubescent downloaders.
Although I'm not terribly fond of either option, I'd much rather pay a bit of a premium if the alternative is getting lubed up and penetrated by American-style "Justice".
That said, I might be wrong. I know the RIAA suits have pressed charges on non-American downloaders. Can anyone confirm whether (or not) any Canadians have been taken to task?
Anyways, it's no big deal because I've already got my iPod :)
Re:Abolish copyright--a solution to the insanity. (Score:2, Interesting)
Music piracy still goes on, you can get any CD for 25 pesos (less than 0.25 USD), while us that still like to buy original CD's have to pay extra so people can get theirs in 0.25 USD.
They wanted to tax computing equipment for the same reason, but it hasn't, AFAIK, gone through legislation.
MP3 player levy loophole (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Enough is enough with these thugs in Canada (Score:5, Interesting)
If the cost of recording media goes up, it makes it more expensive to record, and makes it much more costly to distribute one's music for free. If it costs me $4 to make a demo to give away, then it's costing almost as much to make music to give away for free, as it would cost to buy some music produced by a corporation!
This isn't about piracy, it's about controlling whose art gets distributed. Stalin had different methods, but it's the same goal.
The levy (probably) legalizes the copying of music (Score:5, Interesting)
While this has yet to be tested in courts, what consumers get in exchange for the levy is permission to make copies of music for personal purposes. In other words, it legalises the _download_ of MP3s for which you don't own the cd or other media. This is, after all, what the levy is compensating artists for.
However, it does not legalize the _distribution_ of copyrighted works. Hence you're in the clear if you only download, but not make anything available from P2P networks. An interesting compromise.
Canada has not yet signed the WIPO treaties which would be breached by the compromise reached by the copyright board. Naturally, copyright holders argue that this is a mis-interpretation of the law, and that we should be both paying the levy AND barred from copying for personal purposes.
Compare the Canadian Copyright Act to the Australian Copyright Act, and you find that the consumer comes out far ahead in the Great White (as in snow, not culture) North. In Australia, making a backup copy of music that you've purchased is a technical (but again untested) breach of the Copyright Act.
In the end, I'll take a $25-$200 once-off levy over not having permission to copy CD's that I've purchased, or being subjected to the DMCA, or being subjected to the WIPO treaties any day. As an added bonus, artists who have limited distribution of their works (i.e. the Little Guys) see some of this cash. This helps the economy a lot more than slowing down the sales of portable music devices.
Shakespeare vs Brian Herbert (Score:5, Interesting)
A middle ground would definitely be a good idea, though. I would be happy if copyright was limited to the lifetime of the artist, and/or non-transferable. An artist gets paid for their creations for their whole lifetime, but Brian Herbert and Disney have to come up with something original if they want to pass themselves off as artists.
What about porn? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Legalized piracy? (Score:1, Interesting)
Private Copying allows you to visit your friend, use your friends CD collection, computer and blanks (or your own for the last two) to produce a copy and take it with you. However, your friend is not allowed to make a copy to give to you.
Any other attempt to argue that you've paid your tax to the music industry will be summarily laughed upon.
That said, it's a tough call who's making the copy in the case of something like P2P software. Could someone design a P2P app that exploits this exception? It would require that the person making the copy not be the person with the original.
But imagine this: when you send an MP3 to someone, you have no way of knowing in advance whether they're using it as a stream directly out to their speakers, or if they are actually saving it to disk. Sending a stream, broadcasting, is not considered duplication (pay mind, there are other licensing issues with broadcasting in Canada). As such, if someone saves that stream to disk, it might be argued that the person making the copy is the person who was receiving the stream, not the one sending it. Just like pressing "record" on your radio/cassette player is considered making a copy, not the broadcaster.
So don't ship blank hard drives. (Score:3, Interesting)
The "levy" is only for blank media.
So put a recording on the hard drive.
Not only would you avoid the tax, you also can claim to be a music distributor, and collect a portion of the tax paid by your less savy competition.
Make the recording an advertising jingle, and you can get someone to pay you to install it.
And maybe you can get a spot on the top ten best sellers list - after all, how many recording artists sell albums for the price of a hard drive?
-- this is not a
Re:But I never copied a file.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, actually. Although you will have to prove it (which isn't that hard if you are using them for backups at work or otherwise can objectively demonstrate that you have substantial non-infringing use that can be recognized as applicable directly to your own situation).
Re:Abolish copyright--a solution to the insanity. (Score:5, Interesting)
Now consider the original purpose of copyright. It was not developed to bring profit to those who distrubute conent. The founding fathers, and others around the world who introduced copyright, intended it to be a legal mechanism to shut down people who pass off the work of others as their own for commercial gain. Copyright periods were very short-only a few years-and typical cases involved large operations that mass produced works without permission.
A modern example of true copyright violation can be found in the movie bootleggers of Hong Kong. Take a walk down the street, and you'll see a variety of dirt cheap dvd's with good enough quality that only the most sophisticated consumers can spot the fakes. The pirates reap massive profit and gain control over how the work is presented while the creators are marginalized. This is what copyright was created to stop.
However, corporations bent on extracting maximum profit have perverted copyright into something it was never meant to be. In fact, through the contractual transference of copyright, companies now use copyright laws to screw the original artists! This is why we see non sequitors such as the tax on media: Corporations have no regard for the rights of customers or artists. They will abuse both in the name of profit-that is the purpose they were created for, and they would be deficient if they were not to do so. Lobbying for bad laws is only one mechanism for maximizing profit.
Clearly copyright has lost its original purpose and is now used to restrict the arts rather than encouraging them. Commercial interests, not artistic integrity, drive popular modern artistry. The artists themselves have no power and loathe the corporations that keep them on a leash. Small steps will not fix this. Shortening copyright terms or removing levies will not discourage those who make a living by abusing the system.
To encourage the arts and give artists true freedom we must go back to the models of the past. Artists can make a living through live performance, patronage, and teaching. Corporate middlemen should be removed, and profit should take a back seat to improvement of the human experience. This can only be accomplished by abolishing copyright as we know it.
Of course, you ask, "What will happen to the professional pirates that caused the creation of copyright in the first place? Won't they run rampant after copyright is abolished?" This problem can be solved through existing mechanisms. We already have trademarks. Trademarks are a mechanism for guaranteeing that the stated brand or credits are accurate. We can simply link content to brand. Suppose an aspiring artist writes a song that turns into a hit. The artist names the song, and trademarks that song name in association with the artist's own name. Much like how patent implementations are provided along with statements, the song itself is given as an implementation of the trademark. Now, it is illegal to make use of that specific implementation without naming the original artist as its creator, and it is illegal to use the artist's name and trademark without permission. Professional pirates are outlawed, and bringing a case against them is trivially easy. Artists gain total control of their works, and noone owes anyone anything except the truth.
That's what copyright was meant to be after all-a method of forcing people to tell the truth, and not lie about where content came from. By abolishing copyright and using more limited mechanisms to enforce honesty we can bring back artistic integrity and remove the subversive corporate influence from the humanities.
Fund my unemployment, then? (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe the copyright board can donate some of that 20% to Employment Insurance, because I can forsee more than a few computer retail jockeys looking for new places of employment. Want to guess how many CDs and DVDs I'll be able to purchase on the dole while I hunt for work in a place that won't get screwed over with massive tax increases that will likely not reach the artists that really need the cash yesterday? Want to guess how many hard drives and burners people, including prospective artists, will purchase? Want to guess how many demo and promo CDs Joe the Band will be able to pump out for distribution now? And when CD sales continue to fall as the homogenization of pop music continues, guess what the industry will come crying for again. I don't intend retail to be a career, but it pays the rent until I can move on to something better. I can already see how this action will harm me and the people I work with.
Thanks for nothing.
Preloaded music... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:2, Interesting)
The average user DOES NOT qualify for a rebate, so basically whether or not this gives us new rights, does not automatically mean we can get a rebate (http://www.dww.com/articles/billc32article.htm)
A rebate of levies paid is available to societies, associations, and corporations representing persons with perceptual difficulties. No-other exemptions or rebates are available in the Act, however, the CPCC has voluntarily established a zero-rating program that will allow certain groups of users, on application to the CPCC and subject to specified conditions, to purchase blank audio recording media levy-free from participating importers and manufacturers. Levy-free purchases may also be made from a distributor of blank audio recording media if the distributor has made a prior arrangement with a participating manufacturer or importer that meets the criteria established by the CPCC. This program does not apply to CD-R's and CD-RW's. The groups covered by this program include: Religious Organizations, Broadcasters, Law Enforcement Agencies, Courts, Tribunals and Court Reporters, Music and Advertising Industry and Schools and Professional Users.
Loophole (Score:2, Interesting)
They just don't get it (Score:4, Interesting)
Better start buying old computer hardware people, before the CPCC,RIAA and MPAA force the hardware manufactures into putting "approved" DRM controls in the hardware.
Sorry for the ranting, but this shit just gets under my skin...
Collected Money Going To American Artists? (Score:5, Interesting)
Over here in Mexico there's a tax on CD's that goes to Music distributors to compensate for CD piracy.
Yeah, it's the same in Canada.
But the funny thing is that we're being forced to pay for piracy of music that no intelligent human being would tolerate in an elevator, let alone pay for.
The tax levied on Canadians goes exclusively to Canadian artists to pay for all the copies of Tragically Hip's Bobcaygeon and Rita McNeil's Now The Bells Ring allegedly floating around on Kazaa Lite.
Of course, that's bullshit; Canadians with MP3 collections have stashes of the stuff that gets little airplay here because of the 40% Canadian Content laws. And those Canadian artists who have actual talent have generally fled to greener pastures south of the border... think of Rush, Celine Dion, Barenaked Ladies.
If they really wanted to help out those being hurt by people with large MP3 collections, send the money south of the border! (But, of course, that will never happen. Some Liberal-appointed 85-year-old Supreme Court justice *knows* that good Canadian kids are only listening to all that top-flight good Canadian music that has to be forced onto listeners with Canadian Content laws!)
If it's anything like that in Mexico, you must be as frustrated as I am. I'm paying a tax - for music that I couldn't be paid to listen to - to burn Knoppix demo CDs for friends.
I'm *so* proud of the protectionist pandering-to-special-interest-groups stupidity of my country.
Re:Enough is enough with these thugs in Canada (Score:2, Interesting)
*******
Dear Sir,
I recently read that you will be making a decision shortly on adding an additional tax to electronic media in order to satisfy the recording industry's claim that everyone who buys media is a pirate.
I am wondering why stop there? Why not add a levy for the movie industry for all the pirated movies being stored, or the software industry for all the pirated software, or the printed media industry for all the scans. For example, to make sure all these industries are getting their share, a single blank CD should be charged a levy of $500, give or take a few dollars. The beauty of this outrageous price is no one will buy any media and thus stop pirating since that's all anyone does.
Of course legitimate businesses might suffer but since they are by far the minority according to the record industry, it shouldn't be a problem.
Best regards,
CBC Newsworld Discussion (Score:5, Interesting)
I tried in vain to call in since the issue of the blank media levy was not addressed, and I hate the idea that uneducated people out there were watching that and possibly becoming sympathetic to the music industry.
Re:Abolish copyright--a solution to the insanity. (Score:2, Interesting)
What the retailers should do... (Score:3, Interesting)
Since it appears that consumers in Canada are able to be trampled on just as much as they are in the U.S., why don't some of the retailers who are going to feel the pinch put pressure on the lawmakers?
Re:Buy an iPod in the states - import duties? (Score:4, Interesting)
However, many people don't, especially if it's an item (like an iPod) that they could easily say that they owned it before hand. Especially at busy ports of entry, Customs officials (at least a couple of years ago anyway) are general hesitant to stop the flow of traffic (whether it be cars or people at airports) unless they figure something major is going on (or see something so glaringly obvious that they can't ignore it).
If you move into Canada, and have acquired posessions abroad, they will also charge you duty on them as well. I recall that the company I was working for at the time, in California, was considering relocating the QA team (which was almost exclusively Canadians) back to Canada, and rent office space there. In order to get our test lab equipment into the country though, we were looking at paying somewhere around $100,000 to get it through Customs.
I deal with this stuff every Christmas when I go back to Canada to see my family. The bitch of it is that I'm treated better by Canadian customs than U.S. Customs (probably because I'm Canadian and have a Canadian passport).
-- Joe
Re:Throw the bums out! (Score:1, Interesting)
How is this for a "compromise": let the CPCC have their stupid levy -- 100% of all they have asked for -- but with the stipulation that there be a label slapped on every media to which it applies, specifying how much the levy adds to the cost, and where to get more information about it (the CPCC), including how to take advantage of the "zero rate" exemptions they make so difficult to collect (if people are even aware of them!). Give it a year, and I think we would finally see the stupid thing repealed entirely. It might actually be worth some short-term pain for long-term gain.
Re:Who needs an incentive to create work? (Score:4, Interesting)
I imagine anyone who does much creative work (writing, coding, composing, whatever) feels the same way, even if they choose to share it for free, they expect to be able to get credit for the work they have done. Taking this away WOULD drastically undermine people's incentive to share creative works with their community.
Re:CBC Newsworld Discussion (Score:3, Interesting)
Copying music for your personal use is not illegal in Canada. The Copyright Act [cb-cda.gc.ca] allows it, and puts the levy in place to compensate the copyright holders.
There's a long list of groups [cpcc.ca] who use blank media who are exempt from the levy, but it's probably hard for an individual to get on that list.
Side effects for sure (Score:5, Interesting)
I backup stuff regularly to cd's. I've NEVER burned a music cd.
I also have a handy little 128mb key drive. Wonderfully handy for transferring stuff I'm working on.
I could very well have a 40GB iPod and use it to hold music I own - why carry all those cd's when I can pop'em on my iPod, or use to start story all the music I CAN NOW LEGALLY buy online.
So add a huge tax to that and how do I feel?
Do my morals change? Do I all of a sudden feel that since I am paying for music via this tax that I had may as well benefit from this? Or do I happily understand that because someone else doesn't something "they" don't like that I should pay more?
Re:Collected Money Going To American Artists? (Score:5, Interesting)
Preemptive punishment anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, what we'e got here is a system that presumes everyone is guilty, and punishes everyone, knowing that if they punish everyone, they'll also be punishing the guilty ones by default.
This method has been used throughout history...such as when Hitler shot Jews en masse because if you kill them all, they'll be none to fight you.
In the U.S. we still pay a levy on every blank cassette sold. I wonder how many blank cassettes have music recorded on them these days?
This is Government at its worst...bought and paid for by big companies..Hmmm...maybe we should assume that all Govt. officials are corrupt, and then put them all in jail! That way we'd definitely be getting the bad guys!
Re:Throw the bums out! (Score:1, Interesting)
What do Canadian's get out of it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:RIAA crossed the border (Score:3, Interesting)
If the Levy goes through (and I have every belief that it will because non of our politicians are smart enough to understand that the CPCC is pulling one over on the entire Canadian public) and taxes MP3 players, harddrives, DVDs and every other media format these assholes can get their hands on to generate a buck...
I WILL BUY ALL MY MEDIA AND HARDWARE FROM THE U.S.A.
I refuse to give the bastards a cent, so I'll buy it from the US and bring it across. Imports from the US are NOT subject to the Levy (it's a reseller Levy), so you're free and clear if you mailorder or drive across and pick them up (you still need to pay regular tax however).
Of course, the possibility exists that they'll find a way to levy imports at some time in the future, at which point Canadian retailers will lose a ton of business to goods shipped in illegally from the US or overseas.
Retailers will have to pay the price for the government's foolishness.
Re:Blackmarket / stolen stuff (Score:2, Interesting)
yes a third, more than my number of zero, however far less than the money collected.... and how many years did it take to make that payout?
Some details.... (Score:3, Interesting)
http://cpcc.ca/english/infoCopyHolders.htm
The Copyright Board designates the proportion of total royalties that forms the basis of CPCC's distribution amongst each of the three eligible groups: songwriters and music publishers, recording artists, and record companies. These proportions are recorded in the private copying tariffs. It is then CPCC's job to allocate and pay the royalties to individual copyright holders. CPCC and its constituent member collectives have developed a distribution process that is enabling royalties to be distributed fairly amongst tens of thousands of copyright holders.
Since no inventory of privately copied tracks exists, distribution is based on representative samples of radio airplay and album sales, which are given equal weight in the distribution. Together they provide a proxy for determining the titles that Canadians typically copy for private use. Internet usage is not referenced in the distribution as no adequate documentation of this activity currently exists. Samples are regularly used by copyright collectives because the cost of capturing and analyzing all available information would be excessive.
Recognizing the relatively modest level of collections for 2000, CPCC opted to pay out royalties for 2000 and 2001 in a single, combined distribution.
While songwriters and music publishers are eligible regardless of nationality, only Canadian recording artists and record companies may receive payments under current law. In accordance with the Copyright Board's decisions, royalties collected for 2001 and 2002 are allocated as follows:
66 % to eligible authors and publishers
18.9% to eligible performers
15.1% to eligible record companies.
The allocation for 2000 is:
75% to eligible authors and publishers
13.7% to eligible performers
11.3% to eligible record companies.
Re:Abolish copyright--a solution to the insanity. (Score:4, Interesting)
Ex:
1. Joe copy's a song, == legal.
2. Joe copy's a song and sells it, == illegal.
3. J-corp copy's a CD and sells it to distributors, == even more illegal!
This of course applies to song/CD 's that they didn't create. And in my personal(and controversion I guess) opinion, it is up to the content pushers to get us to actually pay for thier stuff, whether through good(bonuses, artwork etc.) or bad(anti-copying technology.) .
Re:Side effects for sure (Score:5, Interesting)
it's like putting a tax on balaclavas and giving the tax money to banks that had been robbed. i agree. however, there are other bad things about this. consider:
as a side note - and this is important for all you canucks out there - the blank cd levy means that canadians can legally copy sound recordings for personal use. the details are here [dyndns.org]. please go easy on my server.
Re:Collected Money Going To American Artists? (Score:5, Interesting)
FUCK YOU! The Tragically Hip are a great band. And Canadian music is better than American music. Just have a listen to latest Matthew Good CD, it is much better than anything on your top 40 list.
*MY* Top-40 list? Well, for one thing, I am Canadian. And *my* Top-40 list is reads along the lines of Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, CCR, Dire Straits, ZZ Top, etc. You might or might not get the picture by now.
To illustrate the folly of your argument that Canadian music is great, I submit to you the very thing you're arguing as proof of the abomination of radio stations "forcing" American music on us:
The reason for content laws is because American music music (Which is complete SHIT) is forced down on us. Even With these laws, the radio stations manage to force the American popculture down on us. This is an abomination. The real artist get little attention will while your fucking britteny beers is played over and over again. If anything, we should ban American music.All righty, then.
Fact 1: Radio stations make money by selling advertising time.
Fact 2: Advertisers pay more money to run their ads when more people listen to a given radio station.
Fact 3: Increasing a radio station's listenership increases their profits.
Fact 4: To increase the listenership, the radio station has to play what people want to hear.
Summary of Facts 1-4: The radio station will make more money if it plays what people want to hear.
Therefore, if Canadian music is so great, listeners would want to hear it, and radio stations would play it on their own. No Canadian content laws would be required.
The fact that most radio stations play *exactly* their Canadian content requirements, many of them filling their 40% requirement during non-peak hours and playing their good stuff at drivetime (peak hours), should serve to illustrate the fact that Canadians don't especially care for Canadian music.
The one notable exception to this - the one national broadcaster who actually exceeds (massively or otherwise) the Canadian content requirements is the CBC. Nicknamed "The Corpse" in the broadcasting business, their ratings are tiny and their demographics are primarily shut-ins, 74-year-old women who would change the station but lost the owner's manual for the new-fangled radio they bought in the 1970s, and the 0.5% of 1% who actually think that Jean Poutine had been doing a good job as Prime Minister.
The fact that the average American can't appreciate music that is a little bit more sophisticated is another matter.A recent Arbitron (radio station ratings) study in Toronto showed something very interesting.
First, prime time in radio is drive time [arbitron.com]. Morning and evening commutes. People listen to the radio in their cars.
Second, superheterodyne radio receivers (which is just about every radio receiver made since the 1930s) leaks an RF signal mathematically related to the station to which the radio is tuned.
Radio station ratings services like Arbitron use the above facts to calculate drivetime ratings for a given radio station very easily. Point some special equipment at a freeway, count the number of car radios leaking a local oscillator signal which would indicate the radio is tuned to that station, and compare that to the total number of cars going by tuned to other stations.
Arbitron found that, on one day in Toronto, close to 50% of radios were tuned to Buffalo NY radio stations. Granted, of course, Arbitron studies presuppose that your station's listeners will be employed (which is good, because you don't care to try to advertise to people who have no money) and who drive (again, good, because few reasonable people will take the bus to work if they don't have to).
Apparently, even in Canada's biggest market, Canadians aren't any more sophisticated than Americans.
Re:This isn't a levy. (Score:3, Interesting)
This levy was specifically designed to compensate copyright holders for this private copying right.
If you want a clear, correct discussion of the issue, see this post [slashdot.org].
I find it amazing how incorrect information gets modded as "Insightful" on Slashdot.
What if I burn in Canada and return to the US? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Collected Money Going To American Artists? (Score:2, Interesting)
I think that the 40% content laws are fine, and help provide exposure for some of the many great bands that exist in Canada. I don't like all of them, and neither will you. But that's my point. So let's take a good look. Some of them have gone clearly south (such as Neil Young), and others just look like they have (Shania Twain -- lives mostly in Europe now, but seen wearing ball cap with Canadian flag during TV interview for US station), and some just haven't (such as Sarah McLauchlan and Alanis Morriset). They are in no particular order:
Blue Rodeo, Bran Van 3000
The Tea Party, Leonard Cohen
Max Webster / Kim Mitchel, Joni Mitchell, Cowboy Junkies, Delerium, Front Line Assembly, Econoline Crush, Rick Emmett, Stephen Fearing, David Gogo, Mathew Good Band, Grapes of Wrath, Moist, Alanis Morrisette
Moxy Fruvous
Our Lady Peace
Pursuit of Happiness
The Rankin Family
The Rheostatics
VOIVOD
Roch Voisine
Jean La Lou
Lili Fatal
Neil Young
Skinny puppy
Sloan
Spirit of the West
Kinnie Starr
Shania Twain
Alan Parsons (aka Alan Parsons Project)
Michelle Wright
Hookers of Fire (I've never heard them, but I put them in because I love the name
KD Lang
Bryan Adams
Loreena McKennit
Sarah McLauchlan
54-50
Crash Test Dummies
Tragically Hip (dude, these guys are Canada's hosue band)
BTO
Bootsauce
Gowan
The Guess Who
Ronnie Hawkins
Jeff Healy
Helix
Honeymoon Suite
Colin James
Paul Janz
Killer Dwarves
Gordon Lightfoot
Loverboy
Bob and Doug Mackenzie (oh wait!)
Men WiThe Northern Pikes
Platinum Blonde
Prism
Robbie Robertson
Red Rider / Tom Cochran
Rush
Buffie St Marie
Steppen Wolf
Triumph
Trooper
Gino Vanelli
Re:Collected Money Going To American Artists? (Score:4, Interesting)
For example, a number of years back, the local CFL [www.cfl.ca] franchise Toronto Argonauts were having a great season, averaging 39 points a game! On offense, not total game score! Come September, the run to the playoffs is on, and they draw something like 20000 fans to a game, maybe less, I don't recall. That same weekend, an NFL [nfl.com] pre-season exhibition game also in Toronto drew 55000 people! Buloads of Torontonians regular travel down to Buffalo Bills games.
Toronto doesn't dislike Canadian music on it's merits, only because it's not American.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.