Canadians Overpay Millions on Copyright Tax 144
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.'"
Nothing mentioned about DVD-R (Score:5, Insightful)
Last year I got 100 DVD-Rs for $25. At 25 for 4.7GB there's not much incentive to even buy CD-Rs if the tax alone is 21 for 700MB.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nothing mentioned about DVD-R (Score:5, Informative)
Copying Has Nothing To do With CSS (Score:2)
People over in the PRC press out massive quantities of DVD copies, CSS included, *all the time*.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Board concluded in the decision issued today that recordable and rewritable DVDs, removable memory cards (such as SmartMedia, CompactFlash and Secure Digital Memory cards) and removable micro hard d
Re: (Score:2)
The levy only compensates for musical works by Canadian creators (broadly speaking). There's no equivalent for film, photos, or literature (which I unsuccessfully argued was arbitrary and discriminatory) or foreign-produced musical works (which I successfully argued was a violation of our NAFTA treaty obligations
Re: (Score:1)
Wasn't the levy also based on the size of the media? (i.e. a 20GB player paid more than a 512MB version)
If that were the case, it probably would have made DVDs too expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
The iPods and MP3 player levy was overturned at the Federal court, I'm glad to say. This is why Apple had an iPod rebate in Canada, after and because of this ruling. When active, it was divvied up with different charges depending on the size, i.e. some thing like media players less than 5GB, those from 5GB-20G
Re: (Score:2)
Because my car's CD-MP3 player doesn't play MP3s on DVDs.
(That'd be sweet... 4.7GB of MP3s - could drive across North America and never hear the same song twice...)
Re: (Score:2)
Even more interesting is, why is there no tax on _recorded_ media, going to the artists and creators?
Let anyone produce and distribute the media, and do away with the whole IP industry debacle by simply putting a levy on revenue made off the final product and paying the creators out of that. If there really is a need to subsidize creativity beyond what the free market does anyway. Which the last decades explosion of free creative work indicates there might not be.
Someone clearly does not understand (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think most people just pay and don't think twice about the price of buying a 50-pack of DVDs. Also given that the quality of readily available DVDs can be called into question, I would hardly want to consider the quality of black market DVDs.
Back in the hands of the consumers...? (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, always finding something bad even in a good news, aren't you Mike.
How on Earth would this "return in the hands of the consumers" be organized. How do you imagine the logistics of such an outcome. Maybe you bring your receipts and they give you 1 cents for each disk or something?
What they did is the best they could do. Manifa
Re:Back in the hands of the consumers...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Brilliant!
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Brilliant!
Oh yea, brilliant. If you can arrange that only people who buy CD-s get sick. And the more CD-s they bought, the worse the illness.
Since, I mean, what if the whole RIAA becomes hella sick. The whole pan goes to pieces.
Re: (Score:1)
Instead of nay-saying, which is a better solution? Let's see - on the one hand, "Manifacturers (sic)/retailers/importers get back the money" and the customer sees none of it OR the customer may or may not benefit from better funded health care. In one case, the original customer is certainly not going to benefit. In the other, the customer may or may not benefit.
Stop being s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Back in the hands of the consumers...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright jubilee (Score:2)
In order to compensate consumers for overpaying, we can download and copy anything we want royalty-free.
If it works out well, we can do it every year.
Re:Copyright jubilee (Score:4, Insightful)
In order to compensate consumers for overpaying, we can download and copy anything we want royalty-free.
If it works out well, we can do it every year.
Don't forget: copyright isn't your enemy, RIAA/MPAA and organisations like them who abuse copyright, are.
As someone who produces something worthwhile myself, I don't want everything I did copied around for a month, thanks.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
ooh your thoughts are sooo precious
Re: (Score:2)
I'm currently 25, I'm certain before I retire, the only kind of work 90% of the people in a modern country will do, will be intellectual. Be it design, engineering, research, medical (which is mostly intellectual, and surgery will likely rely more and more on guided tools in time).
We'll be making our money with precious thoughts.
Re: (Score:2)
Since this "functions like a tax" then maybe the better thing to have done with it would have been to give it to the Canadian Government, like other taxes...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, always finding something bad even in a good news, aren't you Mike.
Well here in Australia we have centrelink which pays out money to various people due to various things (single-mother's benefits, old-age pension, dole, etc). If the government overpays then they take it out of the money they owe in the future. I don't know why the Canadian government doesn't do the same in this case. Oh, that's right. Its because the money goes to corporations not private individuals. I guess they're more important.
How on Earth would this "return in the hands of the consumers" be organized.
Pay it back to the government who then puts it to use in public services.
simple (Score:4, Insightful)
By suspending the levy entirely until the overpayments have been made up for.
Why not back to artists! (Score:1)
So, maybe this IS the solution? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:1)
Re:So, maybe this IS the solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The recording industry suits got the levy put in to compensate the "poor starving artists", yet the money ends up in the pockets of the same industry people, and not the artists.
Is anyone surprised...
Anyone?
anyone??
Buhller?
At least the existence of the levy gives us Canadians tacit approval to download.
Re:So, maybe this IS the solution? (Score:4, Informative)
- CPCC
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting side note: I was listening to the radio once and they were asking the question "How much music on portable music players is actually paid for?" The answer was around 2% and the rest was pirated or ripped from CDs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No you can't.
In fact even if you totally don't have a TV they will try to squeeze the fee out of you.
You try calling up to explain your TV is magically "detuned", they don't give a shit.
Re:So, maybe this IS the solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So, maybe this IS the solution? (Score:5, Informative)
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
Oh even better, it's a great idea. Pure capitalism economics forces in place.
So you buy blank CD-s and copy hard metal all day long, and the fee you paid goes to... Britney Spears' come-back album. Since according to "statistics" she has much larger market share than anyone.
Of course it's even worse than this, since right now the actual singers don't see a single cent from the blank media fee. It goes back to RIAA (and equivalent in other countries) and the labels.
What solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, we pay for nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you pay copyright holders anything when you don't use the blank CDRs to copy copyrighted material?
What if you simply used those CDs to burn Linux distro's or make fair use backups? Why should you pay the tax?
What about the artists? (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe... (Score:1)
Finally... (Score:1)
*ducks*
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
thanks.
The collective? (Score:3, Funny)
Who wrote this? Am I going to be assimilated?
h
Re: (Score:1)
Will trade CD-Rs for Meds. (Score:5, Funny)
License to pirate! Whee! (Score:2)
The grey Market in Canada (Quebec specificly) (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Next you want freedom for all and a government representing the people. Jeesh, the youth of today...
Re: (Score:2)
"black market for blank CDs has not materialized" (Score:4, Funny)
Re:"black market for blank CDs has not materialize (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Set us up? (Score:5, Funny)
He set us up the post?
Corruption and Greed (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
If only the Dutch rightsgroup would open this up (Score:2)
Right now, it's a very murky picture.
We pay a copyright levy on CDs, cassettes, videotapes and DVDs (and we have a 0-levy on mp3-players, meaning that there is technically a levy on mp3players and portable storage devices, but it's 0. They wanted to increase this amount earlier this year, but that was thwarted (thankfully))
But we have absolutely no idea how many is being received by that org
Why? (Score:1, Offtopic)
From TFA: Create a new crime of life imprisonment for using pirated software - Anyone using counterfeit products who "recklessly causes or attempts to cause death" can be imprisoned for life...Justice Department officials gave the example of a hospital using pirated software instead of paying for it.
Is there a point to this? If anyone "recklessly causes or attempts to cause death", aren't they going to be punished under
I don't mind the levy (Score:1)
Personaly I welcome our overpaying overlords... (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Mixed thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The consumer made a free market exchange here. They thought the price was fair for the product, and they paid for it.
We're talking Canada here, right? Most of us are overwhelmed by US media, and thus US legal terminology and attitudes. We generally haven't even heard of the levy. And, since it's 21 cents per disc, the lowest price available for CD-R's is inflated to false levels, so the market bears what the retailers can give, because there is no other reasonable choice. They only think the prices are fair because that's all they can get. The market is NOT free in that sense.
Consumers get "reimbursed" by virtue of (hopefully) lower prices in the near future, until the surplus is exhausted.
I don't necessarily think that customers
Re: (Score:2)
No one is controlling the supply or the demand of this produc
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps we disagree on what it means to be "free" or "fair". Nobody held a gun to the customers' heads and forced them to buy media subject to the levy. These people are not starving, or forced out into the streets, because they gotta have CD-Rs. They evaluated the availability of the product and its price, and decided they wanted to buy it. If they didn't think the exchange was fair, I don't think it's reasonable that they would have done it.
I think we do disagree on the definition. For a market to be functionally "free" then customers have to be extremely well-informed about their choices. Regulated markets try to pick up the slack (well, in theory). Unfortunately, customers are not well-informed (nor even rational, but that's kind of a different discussion).
Yes, no one was holding a gun, to use your metaphor. However, there is an element of fraud or obscurity. So: be mugged, or be conned? While this isn't life or death, what are the choic
As a Canadian (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What pisses me off is paying this levy, and yet it is illegal for me to actually take advantage of it. So what's the point? What am I paying for? More generally, it bothers me
Re: (Score:2)
You're misinformed. Its perfectly legal because of this levy for you (in Canada) to grab a CD off a friend, rip it to your computer or burn a copy, then hand it back to him or her. Americans have no such legal right. Its also legal for you to make private copies of broadcast works for your own listening pleasure, even if the artist or station tells you not to.
Pr
Well, get your money's worth (Score:4, Interesting)
Master of the Obvious (Score:2)
So how about the fact that most people don't even use this kind of Blank Media for music? Is this tax imposed upon iPods/mp3 players? Otherwise this has turned out to be a waste of money for Canadians, and hasn't achieved the goal set out at all.
This is not necessarily good news. (Score:1)
Levy isn't charged! (Score:2, Interesting)
Free music. (Score:2)
Re:As a record store owner. (Score:5, Interesting)
You need to have a good business plan. Don't blame others for your lack of technological vision.
Re:As a record store owner. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:As a record store owner. (Score:5, Funny)
True, but I haven't noticed a change in the number of joggers running down the street with phonograph players in their hands.
Re: (Score:2)
In 30 years cd sales will probably go up slightly for the same reason.
Cut & Paste troll alert... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? Because losing 1 social 'war' is bad enough.
I do agree with the part of your post about punishing pirates, but I don't think it goes far enough. I think we should incarcerate them for 10 years in a windowless room, then suddenly let them walk out of prison, but as they walk out there's a trap door and they fall into a gigantic meat grinder which slowly grinds their flesh and bones into cat food over the course of a couple da
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Anyway, the answer is to tell your little daughters that the world has passed their old man by, and this is why they need to go to college. The other kids laugh because daddy is a moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First and foremost, when you invest in a dying business, you're the only one to blame if it goes south. The CD market is dwindling. Copying may play a role, but the bigger problem is that music and clothing, which has been
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What powerful pirate lobby? The ones that passed the DMCA? Or who are pushing the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007? Oh wait, wrong lobby.
Re: (Score:1)
I guess even keeping "the kids" away from offensive lyrics and listening to good, earnest Christian rock with mom and dad didn't prevent them from becoming bad (copyright infringing) seeds
on a slightly less (but only slightly) silly note: IF you were to open a "family music" music store, you deserve to go bankrupt...
An Alternative perhaps... (Score:5, Funny)
My business faces ruin. Software sales have dropped through the floor. People aren't buying half as many products as they did just a year ago. Revenue is down and costs are up. My store has survived for years, but I now face the prospect of bankruptcy. Every day I ask myself why this is happening.
I bought the store about 12 years ago. It was one of those little software stores that sell well known, major software releases that everyone uses, even the people that don't them. I decided that to grow the business I'd need to aim for a wider demographic, the family market. My store specialised in family software - stuff that the whole family could use. I don't sell sick stuff like violent games or gambling simulations , and I'm proud to have one of the most extensive education sections that I know of.
The business strategy worked. People flocked to my store, knowing that they (and their children) could safely purchase software that worked without coming accross profanity or violent games. Over the years I expanded the business and took on more clean-cut and friendly employees. It took hard work and long hours but I had achieved my dream - owning a profitable business that I had built with my own hands, from the ground up. But now, this dream is turning into a nightmare.
Every day, fewer and fewer customers enter my store to buy fewer and fewer titles. Why is no one buying software? Are people not interested in compters? Do people prefer to use pen and paper, outsource;? I don't know. But there is one, inescapable truth - Free and Open Source Software (F/OSS) is mostly to blame. The statistics speak for themselves - seven in ten webservers now run F/OSS. On The Internet, you can find and download replacements for thousands of dollars worth of software in just minutes. It has the potential to destroy the software industry, from lower management, to upper management to stores like my own. Before you point to the supposed "economic downturn", I'll note that the book store just across from my store is doing great business. Unlike software, it's harder to make F/OSS books and distribute them over The Internet.
A week ago, an unpleasant experience with these F/OSS'er communists gave me an idea. In my store, I overheard a teenage patron talking to his friend.
"Dude, I'm going to put Debian on my PC instead of this Vista junk, I'll download it right away."
"Yeah, dude, that's really lete [sic], you'll get lots of respect."
I was fuming. So they were out to destroy the software industry from right under my nose? Fat chance. When they came past the counter to leave, I grabbed the little shit by his shirt. "So...you're going to use unamerican, communist F/OSS replacements to good honest god-fearing proprietry software and tell your friends about it, punk?" I asked him in my best Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry voice.
"Uh y-yeh." He mumbled, shocked.
"That's it. What's your name? You're blacklisted. Now take yourself and your little bitch friend out of my store - and don't come back." I barked. Cravenly, they complied and scampered off.
So that's my idea - a national blacklist of F/OSS'ers. If somebody cannot obey the basic rules of society, then they should be excluded from society. If F/OSS'ers want to give stuff away for free, with the source code and divert cash from the software industry, then the software industry should exclude them. It's that simple. One strike, and you're out - no reputable software store will allow you to buy another title. If the F/OSS'ers can't buy the software to begin with, then they won't be able to make alternatives and give them away free over The Internet, will they? It's no different to doctors blacklisting poor people from access to non-emergency medical care.
Re: (Score:1)