Canadians Overpay Millions on Copyright Tax

An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist has up a post on his site about the Copyright Board of Canada's decision last week on the controversial private copying levy, which functions like a tax on blank media. The good news? The Board reduced the levy on certain media such as CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio, and MiniDiscs. The bad news? The millions of dollars in overpayment from these media will go into the pockets of manufacturers, importers, and retailers, not back to the consumers who paid in the first place. 'In addition to the overpayment issue, the decision contains several interesting revelations ... the decision sheds some light on the CPCC's enforcement program. The collective has aggressively targeted those parties that do not pay the levy, with 21 claims over the past three years. In fact, the enforcement program has been so effective that the Board found that concerns about the emergence of a gray or black market for blank CDs has not materialized.'"

Re:As a record store owner.

[dattaway]

Sounds like a good business, but who is going to buy a HUGE CD when alternatives like SD chips are much more portable and more resistant to abuse? Who buys cassette tapes anymore? Is the decline of reel to reel tapes and vinyl due to piracy?

You need to have a good business plan. Don't blame others for your lack of technological vision.

So, maybe this IS the solution?

[Maury Markowitz]

So we pay a little more for CD's, and that money goes to the copyright holders (we hope).

Umm, maybe this isn't such a bad idea? After all, there is a TV Tax in the UK for the same reason. Everyone complains about it, but not *that* much.

Maury

Re:So, maybe this IS the solution?

[dave420]

It's not a tax but a license. The money goes to the Licensing authority, which then passes it on to a company which then spends it to make more programming. It has nothing to do with copyright.

Mixed thoughts

[Fastolfe]

I have mixed thoughts on this. This levy was charged to the manufacturers/importers/retailers, right? The consumer made a free market exchange here. They thought the price was fair for the product, and they paid for it. Why should consumers get reimbursed?

If the government retroactively reduced corporate income taxes for last year, should consumers expect checks in the mail for all of the purchases they made? These are all business costs that factor into the price.

Now don't get me wrong: I completely disagree with the purpose of the levy to begin with. But I'm not sure how consumers must necessarily be the ones to benefit from this. Kudos to the corporations that do pass their relief onto their customers, but I don't understand how people are jumping to the conclusion that there's a legal obligation to do that.

It might have made more sense for them to make the adjustment, and simply deduct it from future sales. Consumers get "reimbursed" by virtue of (hopefully) lower prices in the near future, until the surplus is exhausted.

Well, get your money's worth

[Bullfish]

And download enough to cover the overpayment. Consider it like a credit.

Levy isn't charged!

[teknokracy]

Folks, let's just step back for a second. I have never paid the levy on media here in Canada. Why? Because the retailers I buy it from refuse to pay it. Go shop at your local little computer store, or even at London Drugs, where they do not pay the levy and refuse to do so, simply because of this reason! The levy exists, but to my knowledge only fools are charging their customers the levy, and only fools are paying it.