Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

No Levy on iPods in Canada

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the business-as-usual dept.

Media (Apple) 236

colinemckay writes "The fight over a levy on iPods and other digital music devices ended Thursday when the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear any further arguments on the matter. That means there will be no levy applied to digital audio recorders such as Apple's popular iPod and iPod Shuffle as well as other MP3 players like iRiver."

cancel ×

236 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Pack of Rats (3, Informative)

bigwavejas (678602) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190726)

It also collects a levy on blank audio such as CDs and mini-discs.

Who the hell are they giving tariff royalties to from blank media? That's asinine. The CPCC are just like our RIAA, all a pack of crooks. If you want royalties to go to the Artists, than lower the damn price of the music your sell and people might actually buy a CD. Inflating the price of a CD to pay for the CPCC/ RIAA Rats, who claim to "protect" Artists is wrong! I'm curious how much of these collected tariffs actually makes its way back to the Artists.

Re:Pack of Rats (1)

kihjin (866070) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190762)

$0.02 CDN ;)

Re:Pack of Rats (3, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 9 years ago | (#13191024)

If it works the way it does in the U.S., it has nothing to do with artist revenue. It's composer and publisher royalties. Artists don't get squat.

The equivalent here is divided proportionally to the amount of airplay (IIRC) among ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. They subsequently divide it among their members whose songs showed up in at least one station's reporting in a manner proportional to the approximate number of airplays for songs by that composer and/or publisher.

Re:Pack of Rats (-1, Flamebait)

AutopsyReport (856852) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190771)

The CPCC may be a pack of crooks, but at least my health care is paid for through taxing. If it wasn't, then I'd care about paying royalties on blank media.

Re:Pack of Rats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190815)

Hello fellow canadian here, if you could please do the rest of us a favor and give up access to telecomunications, that be great thanks

Re:Pack of Rats (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190816)

The CPCC may be a pack of crooks, but at least my health care is paid for through taxing. If it wasn't, then I'd care about paying royalties on blank media.

I'm having trouble following your argument: unless you work for the CPCC, what has their racketeering the digital media market got to do with your health care being paid or not? These aren't the same taxes: theirs is a thug tax on blank CDs, not a legitimate government tax...

Re:Pack of Rats (1)

AutopsyReport (856852) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190851)

It's still a tax I pay nonetheless. I'm not going to complain about having to pay an additional few cents on every piece of media I purchase, because my tax dollars have afforded me luxuries I could normally not afford (health care).

If I took what my tax dollars give me for granted, then I'd bitch about the levy.

Re:Pack of Rats (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190897)

This tariff doesn't go into general revenue, for goodness sakes. Do you know anything at all about it, or is this just that moronic Canadian response to any criticism?

Re:Pack of Rats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13191083)

Standard moronic canadian response, thank you very much...

Re:Pack of Rats (2, Informative)

Da Fokka (94074) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190913)

The two are totally unrelated. The money collected goes back to a related fund, in this case the artists (hopefully). If it were a tax, it'd go to the Canadian treasury, but it's not, that's why it's called a levy. So you'd have the exact same health care without the levy.

Re:Pack of Rats (1)

AutopsyReport (856852) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190935)

I was under the impression the two taxes were much in the same, hence my original statement. Thanks for clearing that up :)

On behalf of all Canadians here... (2, Insightful)

oldwolf13 (321189) | more than 9 years ago | (#13191107)

Please shut up.

You're giving us a bad name.

Re:Pack of Rats (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190876)

What does that idiotic tariff have to do with healthcare? I'm a Canadian, but I'm sorry, fellow countryman, if that was your attempt at defending the moronic and crooked, it came off as just plain lame-ass.

Re:Pack of Rats (1)

Curtman (556920) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190772)

I agree completely. I don't recall the last time I burned an audio cd, it's been too long. Why should I have to pay royalties to crappy CRTC approved bands as a tax on my data only media? I don't see the harm in applying the levy to MP3 players though, I figure if you're paying the levy you must have a license to copy the material from at least those bands as much as you want.

Re:Pack of Rats (5, Insightful)

a.different.perspect (817184) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190838)

Yup, it makes no sense at all. Most obviously, there's a bizarre assumption of guilt in collecting levies on all blank media. Why should the RIAA be paid for me burning my children's photos to a disc? What have I gotten from the RIAA for my money? More interestingly, it means that copyright holders have been reimbursed for any piracy on that media - and that they should have waived their right to seek further damages. And if you've already paid for your piracy, haven't you a license to pirate as much as you want, then? The answer is apparently nope and nope. Which, it is equally apparent, makes no sense. The music industry wants it both ways - being paid for piracy in a way that implicitly legitimizes it while insisting on its illegality. And who can blame them for trying to get as much money as they can? What's astonishing is that they're being allowed to do it.

Re:Pack of Rats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190855)

Actually, because we in canada pay this levy, our government protects us from legal action for downloading music. With the low cost of blank media in the first place I have no problem with this. I'm sure if you'd prefer to get sued for downloading music that can be remided though.

Re:Pack of Rats (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190924)

It protects us for now. With the Canadian version of the DMCA coming out sometime this year or next, you can be sure we will be at the mercy of the record and movie industry. What do you want to bet that the tariff will remain on blank media?

Re:Pack of Rats (1)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 9 years ago | (#13191009)

The Canadian version of the DMCA will have a hard time passing parliament. Our House of Commons is in disarray, so there's no telling if it'll pass or not.

Re:Pack of Rats (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 9 years ago | (#13191037)

Both the Conservatives and the Liberals are in the paws of big corporations. It will pass, though I've written a letter to my MP trying to explain why it's a bad idea. Unfortunately he's a right quack and slavish uber-conservative, so he'll probably think anything that keeps me from grabbing mp3s to replace my dying Black Sabbath audio cassette collection is a good thing.

Some time ago... (3, Insightful)

Zzyzygy (189883) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190925)

My memory is really foggy on this, but when I was a teenager back in the late 1970's, I had heard that when you buy blank cassette tapes, you paid a one cent [tax|levy|fine] for each cassette. I asked my father (whom worked peripherally with recording studios) about this. He told me that you are paying "the industry" because they think you are going to pirate music with it.

I'm thinking that this is the same or similar situation happening now.

-Scott

Copyright holders aren't crooks, infringers are (0, Flamebait)

geekee (591277) | more than 9 years ago | (#13191081)

"Who the hell are they giving tariff royalties to from blank media? That's asinine. The CPCC are just like our RIAA, all a pack of crooks. If you want royalties to go to the Artists, than lower the damn price of the music your sell and people might actually buy a CD. Inflating the price of a CD to pay for the CPCC/ RIAA Rats, who claim to "protect" Artists is wrong! I'm curious how much of these collected tariffs actually makes its way back to the Artists."

People steal (yes copyright infringement is theft, don't bother with equivocating) music, and the only option the Canadian govt. gives music labels is this lame tariff on media. So music labels accept this as better than nothing, but they're the crooks? Give me a break.

Forcing someone to lower their prices under threat of theft if they don't is a vioation of indivdual rights. /.ers love to bitch about their rights but then tranple over the rights of those they disagree with, and get modded up by other hypocrites.

Re:Copyright holders aren't crooks, infringers are (1, Insightful)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 9 years ago | (#13191171)

People steal (yes copyright infringement is theft, don't bother with equivocating) music, and the only option the Canadian govt. gives music labels is this lame tariff on media. So music labels accept this as better than nothing, but they're the crooks? Give me a break.

I agree with you 100% that it's the infringers who are the crooks. The difference is, in Canada, not all trading of music is defined as copyright infringement. If you make copies from someone else's CD, this is not copyright infringement in Canada. Ergo, it is not theft. The tarriff is the tool used to enable this kind of copying while protecting the copyright holders. Remember -- copyright infringement doesn't exist until it is legislated to exist. Theft of material goods exists de-facto.

How about CD media? (2, Interesting)

mingot (665080) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190727)

Is there still a levy on that? Seems like they could use this to try and get rid of that . . .

Re:How about CD media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190752)

One step at a time, its so nice to live in a civalized country.

Re:How about CD media? (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190780)

How about DAT? minidisc? Those are digital recorders too, are there levies on those?

And of course, there's the good ole cassette tape recorder. Admittedly, they're not digital recorders, so anything you copy out of a copy will get degraded. But still, many MANY people copied music on cassette, and the *AAs have stopped making a fuss over that decades ago. Digital copying is arguably no different, and anyway, the *AAs' record sales are here to show they're not harmed by copying one bit (pun intended).

Re:How about CD media? (4, Informative)

Bun (34387) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190861)

How about DAT? minidisc? Those are digital recorders too, are there levies on those?

No to DAT, yes to minidisc. [cb-cda.gc.ca]

Re:How about CD media? (3, Funny)

Curtman (556920) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190888)

"How about DAT? minidisc? Those are digital recorders too, are there levies on those?""

Here [justice.gc.ca] is the law that enforces the levy. It just says "blank audio recording medium". I don't see how a CD is a blank audio recording medium any more than a hard drive is, but let's not tell them that. Before we know it we're paying the levy on RAM too. ;)

Re:How about CD media? (3, Interesting)

Nogami_Saeko (466595) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190934)

BTW: If you import your media into Canada from another country (the U.S. springs to mind), you pay no levy on media.

And Canada Customs will NOT collect the levy at the border (they've said that it's "someone else's problem to collect" - quote from a customs officer when I asked him).

N.

Re:How about CD media? (1)

shawb (16347) | more than 9 years ago | (#13191077)

But if you went to the US, you might have a problem with the strong US vs Canadian dollar. And the price of the trip (well, unless you just pick them up when you happen to be out of the country) would probably outweight the taxes. Now, you may be able to work it out by buying online, not sure if importing would be the same as bringing back for personal use. That, and losing a little money in the deal is worth it to some people just on the princible of the whole thing.

more apple (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190734)

less pie
woot
frosty post

A fair comparison of Java and Perl -- interesting (-1, Offtopic)

(TK)Dessimat0r (668222) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190741)

This is NOT my response to the oh-so-dull and typical flame-wars regarding whether the GNOME or KDE desktop is "best". I have an opinion on that, but that's not what this is about. This is about how I picture the development process of each of those fine desktop products.

Warning to readers: this is mildly offensive, however it's not particularly obscene, for most values of obscene. On a flame-o-riffic scale of one to ten, it rates about a seventy-three.

When I contemplate how the Java and Perl desktops are developed, here is what I imagine:

Java
----

An army barracks in the UK where everything is crisp and clear-cut, with an army-style sense of order and sense. The computers and tables are arranged vertically in rows like a workhouse fashion, and each developer is made to wear a full uniform.

There may be a few spots of dust here and there, but if they are noticed by the officers in charge, every developer has to do push-ups until they die. At this point, they are brought back to life by the ressurection techniques which always work and never fail, and the spot of dust is then cleaned up before being noticed again.

All the developers are hugely muscular to the point of having bulging biceps and large packages. Any weedy developers are quicky gassed in the chambers at the facility.

Every once in a while, the army general will come along to the compilation box, to find that the compilation command has been typed out for him and is awaiting his next command. Everyone stands and salutes as the general then smashes his finger through the enter key to start compilation. He then breaks down in tears as he watches Java compile perfectly, which is has done from the start of time, and they all have a bug chaser party to celebrate.

If for some reason Java does not compile, there are gas buttons all over the facility available for use, which the general is authorised to use in case of emergency. These have never been used.

Perl
----

A funhouse at a fairground where there is sick all over the floor and graffiti covering the walls. The developers are kids aged between 9 and 12 with sticky hands and mouths after eating an exorberant amount of sweets and candy floss.

All their teeth have rotted away, and every one of them has ADHD and diabetes. There is cum all over the walls and floors as none of the children can actually be bothered to code, and resort to touching their junk in a spurious manner.

None of these kids have ever developed anything in their life, and anyone can come in and code for Perl. The funhouse has many sections including a bouncy castle and a rotating tube.

All of these devices serve as inspiration for Perl, as well as the smell coming from the sick on the floor which can be seen splashing about when the bouncy castle is used.

Compilation of Perl has only happened a few times when all the kids have a candy floss eating contest and then have a sugar rush. They then sit down at the puke covered computers of which only a quarter work to type random stuff until more stuff happens in a fit of ecstasy until they pass out.

There is an insane clown who stands on a podium in the middle of the computer room to make sure that all the code is extremely poor in quality. The clown holds his cock all the time for no reason.

Re:A fair comparison of Java and Perl -- interesti (4, Funny)

mingot (665080) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190774)

There is an insane clown who stands on a podium in the middle of the computer room to make sure that all the code is extremely poor in quality. The clown holds his cock all the time for no reason.

Oh, he has his reasons.

No levi in USA either (2, Informative)

Work Account (900793) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190743)

But as far as I know DVD-R and CD-R blank media labeled for "music" use have a piracy tax applied to them.

Many consumers are tricked by this because they don't know much and think blank media labeled for "data" will not support mp3s, etc. which is not true.

Re:No levi in USA either (2, Interesting)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190901)

I buy the media labeled 'music' on purpose actually. Then I fire up a bittorrent client, or limewire pro, and get whatever music I want. You know why? 'Cuz Fuck em, I'm not paying twice! If you treat people like criminals, then that's what you get.

Re:No levi in USA either (4, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190942)

I buy the media labeled 'music' on purpose actually. Then I fire up a bittorrent client, or limewire pro, and get whatever music I want. You know why? 'Cuz Fuck em, I'm not paying twice! If you treat people like criminals, then that's what you get.

Actually I don't feel like you act like a criminal. In my opinion, buying "data" CDs and burning music from P2P on them would be criminal, but you've chosen to pay the CD tax, so you should bloody well be entitled to download 700M worth of music to put on each CD.

Re:No levi in USA either (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190903)

Personally, I'm more frustrated with the fact that 99.9% of the CD-R and DVD-R I buy are for data backups that do NOT include audio or video, but I still have to pay the levy.

Returning The Loonie's (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190747)

"The money is sitting in an account and will be returned to the importers and manufacturers of the products, said Basskin."

I think it should be going to the consumers not the corporations and distributors. I spent way too much on my 3Gen iPod when it first came out. I wouldn't mind an extra $25 in my pocket.

Re:Returning The Loonie's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190832)

Why should it go to the customer when it was the importer or manufacturer who paid it in the first place? He may have passed the cost along to you, but look at it like this: If you ran a small business and the electric company had overcharged you by 1000 bucks last year would you disburse that among your customers?

Remember Canada is a Music Exporter (4, Interesting)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190748)

in fact, of the legal products and services generated in Canada, music is in the top ten, along with telecom and other useful things.

So if they don't need this tax, why do we, music importers in the US, need one?

NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR FUCKING IPOD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190753)

Seriously. Nobody gives a rat's ass about your featureless $300 fashion statement of an MP3 player.

Before someone says "Obviously you care, or else you wouldn't have posted here," SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Re:NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR FUCKING IPOD (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190866)

Obviously you care, or else you wouldn't have posted here.

Re:NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR FUCKING IPOD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190922)

In Soviet Russia, fuck up shut YOU.

Re:NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR FUCKING IPOD (2, Funny)

FLAGGR (800770) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190941)

It sounds better as "In Soviet Russia, fuck up shuts YOU", heh I'm kind of liking that. Thanks man.

Gee. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190757)

"Obviously we're disappointed. We felt it was self-evident that those products are sold for the purpose of copying music," said David Basskin, of the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC), the non-profit agency which collects tariffs on behalf of musicians and record companies.

Yes, yes, everyone who owns an mp3 PLAYER, must have bought them to STEAL MUSIC. As opposed to, oh I dunno, LISTENING TO MUSIC.

Next thing we know everyone who owns a kitchen knife must have bought them to KILL PEOPLE.

Re:Gee. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190919)

As opposed to, oh I dunno, LISTENING TO PEOPLE.

Tapes??? (2, Interesting)

mecanicaz (641010) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190768)

Why these people didn't suggest a levy on tapes while they were widely used, this is all greed...

Re:Tapes??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190951)

They did. And they got it. But it was a much smaller amount, since taped copies are "imperfect" (with the assumption being, somehow, that MP3s are "perfect"). It was also hidden...

Re:Tapes??? (1)

shawb (16347) | more than 9 years ago | (#13191089)

I think it's not so much that tapes are "imperfect" as you can only make a limited number of them before significant quality loss. With MP3s, after the initial transcoding, there is really no realistic cap to the number of copies that can be made without further degredation.

Re:Tapes??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13191157)

They did. And you're right: it's all greed.

Not much (2, Interesting)

JonN (895435) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190770)

The group said Thursday that approximately $4 million was collected between December 2003 and December 2004.

How is $4million, split between the many record companies and artists, a substantial amount? I don't agree with the levy, however, was it even doing much in support of the artists? Yes each little bit helps, but if the CPCC was serious about collecting lost profits on behalf of the artists and companies, they would at least have a bit more bite imo

Re:Not much (2, Informative)

yamla (136560) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190790)

Last time I checked, 100% of the monies collected from the very beginning were still with the record companies. Nobody had been able to find a single example of an artist who had received even $1 from the levies. This may have changed in the last year, however.

Re:Not much (4, Informative)

SheldonYoung (25077) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190825)

How is $4million, split between the many record companies and artists, a substantial amount?

The $4 million was only the amount collected on non-removable memory, such as iPods.

Text of article in case of slashdotting (0, Redundant)

DJHeini (593589) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190773)

No levy on IPods By ANGELA PACIENZA TORONTO (CP) - The fight over a levy on IPods and other digital music devices ended Thursday when the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear any further arguments on the matter. That means there will be no levy applied to digital audio recorders such as Apple's popular IPod and IPod Shuffle as well as other MP3 players like IRiver. "Obviously we're disappointed. We felt it was self-evident that those products are sold for the purpose of copying music," said David Basskin, of the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC), the non-profit agency which collects tariffs on behalf of musicians and record companies. The group had wanted the high court to overturn last year's Federal Court of Appeal decision which quashed the levy on the popular gadgets. The non-profit agency had been collecting the tariff - $2 for non-removable memory capacity of up to one GB, $15 for one to 10 GBs, $25 for more than 10 GB - since December 2003 through a tax built into the price of the devices. It stopped in December 2004 when the Federal Court overturned the policy at the urging of retailers and manufacturers such as Future Shop, Apple Canada and Dell Computer Corporation of Canada. The CPCC argued that since the new technology opened yet another avenue to make illegal copies of songs, a levy should be collected on behalf of music creators. The group said Thursday that approximately $4 million was collected between December 2003 and December 2004. The money is sitting in an account and will be returned to the importers and manufacturers of the products, said Basskin. The CPCC is an non-profit agency which collects and distributes tariffs on behalf of performers, songwriters, music producers and record companies. It also collects a levy on blank audio such as CDs and mini-discs.

Re:Text of article in case of slashdotting (1)

Nogami_Saeko (466595) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190965)

Waaaait a second...

So the levy has been overturned, but they've still collected MILLIONS of dollars on it in the meantime...

Consumers should sue the CPCC to get their money back - it shouldn't be going back to the importers and manufacturers... Do I hear class-action?

And in the meantime, has anyone heard of the CPCC actually giving out any of the money they've stolen from consumers yet? Last I heard, they were sitting on it and just funding themselves (and not releasing the books because they're a private entity - why the HELL should our government give levy-power to a private entity without any sort of public accountability on where the money goes...)

N.

Canada (0, Offtopic)

mashtb4 (902800) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190779)

That's it, I'm moving to Canada...

Gah! (3, Interesting)

FFFish (7567) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190784)

So why in gods' names do we pay a levy on blank CDs, when blank CDs are MUCH more likely to be used for non-music purposes?

I hate politicians and special interest groups.

Re:Gah! (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190885)

So why in gods' names do we pay a levy on blank CDs, when blank CDs are MUCH more likely to be used for non-music purposes?

That's right, they can be used to store movies too :-)

I hate politicians and special interest groups.

There is no difference these days. One group pushes laws in favor of the other, who in turn pays them to do so. Who loses: you, the voter/taxpayer. In case you wondered, it's called corporativism [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Gah! (1)

That's Unpossible! (722232) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190908)

I hate politicians and special interest groups.

Good thing you don't live in the USA then. We combined the two groups into one. It's called Congress.

Re:Gah! (1)

peteforsyth (730130) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190937)

somewhat off-topic, but what is the technical difference between CD-Rs and "Audio" CD-Rs? Are there some CD players that only work with the "audio" kind?

Cause I've never had trouble with the regular ones, which at least here in the US are not subject to the tax on audio media. (See, not entirely off topic ;)

Re:Gah! (1)

angle_slam (623817) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190977)

It used to be the case that standalone CD-Recorder cannot write to regular CD-Rs. I haven't seen a standalone CD-recorder in years, so I have no idea if that is still true.

A humble request (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190787)

This is off-topic but a desperate plea:

Could someone with NASA TV please create torrents of the Flight-Day Highlights & spacewalk video? The NASA TV real/wmv streams don't do the views justice, and NASA TV is Free, public domain video.

Thanks, and sorry to be off topic until the video iPods arrive. :)

Since the link is down (5, Informative)

AutopsyReport (856852) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190792)

Since the link is down, here's another article. [www.cbc.ca]

Levies... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190797)

Here's more info on what we pay in Canada: http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml [neil.eton.ca] Check out their proposed levies if you want a good laugh! I believe you pay similar levies on older recording media in the U.S. (like tapes), but the legislation regulating that hasn't been updated to cover newer storage mediums. Lots of countries have similar legislation.

Canadian Release (1)

Lord Marlborough (897605) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190798)

Life, Liberty, Some Property, but not TOO much, Healthcare, French People, The Word "Eh", Maple Syrup, Mounties and now, I-PODs. Perhaps it is time to move north! Wait... French People... I'll bide my time.

Re:Canadian Release (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190967)

Don't worry, move anywhere west of Ontario and you'll hardly ever run into a French-speaking person.. our supposedly bilingual culture is a totally false construct, forced upon most of the country by our Quebec-born elites in government with their own agendas.. to make it in politics in Canada, you need to either be from Quebec or have done business with the bigwigs there for decades. The only reason Canada keeps pushing bilingualism outside of Quebec is because the power structures are misproportionally representative of that province.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with multilingualism -- it's a good skill in our modern world. But it should probably be in a language other than Quebec-french. Something more worldy, like German, Japanese, Mandarin, or whatever. You know, something that's actually spoken *outside* the country.

Re:Canadian Release (1)

bananacalvin (796503) | more than 9 years ago | (#13191128)

Hmm, a shock to me? I thought last time I checked, France existed on the map?

I don't understand how people can hate the french (1)

asoap (740625) | more than 9 years ago | (#13191147)

Dude man, the French in Canada are the best!

Everything I've experienced when I go to Montreal is amazing. Montreal is a very relaxed / cultural / party city. People there are friendly, easy to talk to, don't take themselves serious. It's very similar to europe where it's more about slowing down to smell the roses then it is about working so hard that life passes you by.

The food is amazing! I don't get it. In the states everything is deep fried. Everyone is fat because all they eat is greasy food. The French in Canada created Poutine [wikipedia.org] . French fries, cheese curds and gravy. It's a heart attack in a single dish, and it is just so amaizingly tasty. It's what every Mc Donald's eating american dreams for. I think French food alone would make people fall in love with them.

Last but not least is the French women. They are very beautifull, and with cities like Montreal where the people are very relaxed, the women too are very friendly and aproachable.

Overall, they are great.

Re:Canadian Release (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13191159)

Wait... French People... I'll bide my time.



C'est beau. C'est pas comme si on te voulait ici de toute façon.

For reference (1)

JonN (895435) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190807)

Here is the Copyright Board's Private Copying 2003-2004 Decision [cb-cda.gc.ca] . Interesting about it, is a few of the generalizations they make:

"Digital Audio Tape (DAT) and micro-cassettes are not typically used by individuals for copying music for private use and, therefore, are not subject to a levy."

"Yes. Both "ordinary" CD-Rs and CD-RWs and their "Audio" counterparts can be used to copy music, and both are commonly used for this purpose. In fact, in volume terms, most CDs used to copy music are "ordinary" CD-Rs and CD-RWs (subject to a levy of 21), not "Audio" products (subject to a levy of 77)."

Re:For reference (1)

jjhlk (678725) | more than 9 years ago | (#13191007)

Did they ever do any research to back up those generalizations? Speculation is fun, but for making policy..?

(Did not RTFA)

So what happens to the money already collected? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190808)

"The money is sitting in an account and will be returned to the importers and manufacturers of the products, said Basskin."

So what will happen to this money when it's returned to the likes of Apple, Dell, Rio et al? Will it actually be returned to the customers who were screwed into paying the levy or will they just pocket it?

Who the hell is Levy? (3, Funny)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190811)

And why would I want him on my iPod anyway?

Re:Who the hell is Levy? (1)

Steve Cowan (525271) | more than 9 years ago | (#13191039)

He played the loveable dad in American Pie. Thanks to the Canadian government you can't get him on your iPod any more, even if you ask for him!

Re:Who the hell is Levy? (1)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 9 years ago | (#13191057)

It's a place where you can drive your chevy; because I think you can replace your ipods there, in case the music dies.

I got nothin!?

Re:Who the hell is Levy? (1)

Deodat (897896) | more than 9 years ago | (#13191080)

You know, I can't tell if you're making a (bad) joke, or if you're just being a simpleton.

Apple "Fairplay" is less open than Microsoft DRM (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190817)

Let me first state that I am against DRM as much as the next guy .. But I wish to compare Apples to Microsofts here ...

Nobody can sell music DRM'd music that plays on the ipod. Yes, they can sell mp3's but these aren't protected. Yes I know DRM is crackable blah blah .. but the whole thing helps Apple keep it's monopoly position without worrying about iPod clones (competing mp3 players arent legally allowed to play protected songs bought off iTunes). Also, if you wish to sell music online ..unless you are prepared to make it mp3 and have no DRM .. you have to sell it through iTunes .. and they will take a chunk of the profit and/or tell you what to charge subject to whether they'll accept the song even.

With Microsoft DRM .. anybody can add DRM to their song and sell it on the net (without having to use itunes as the middle man and give Apple a chunk of change). You can protect your music and sell it online on your own website or elsewhere.

I'm not saying M$FT did this out of goodness etc. They basically had no choice.

Anyway ..dunno the point of making this point that others have been trying to make for a while .. cause people who hate DRM will mod me down, and Apple folks will mod me down too.

If they wanted to just sell mp3s, how come many indy and local bands don't put their music up for sale online?

Re:Apple "Fairplay" is less open than Microsoft DR (1)

DaCool42 (525559) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190989)

I don't like proprietary systems either, but to play devils advocate:

- Most MP3 players don't play DRM'd music at all
- competing players CAN legally play apple DRM'd music. You just can't legally un-DRM it in the US. The problem here is the law sucks.
- You aren't limitted to MP3 for non-DRM'd music on the iPod. It still plays non-DRM'd AAC.

If you sell music online, you have to expect that people will do one of the following:

a) not have a clue what DRM is or care and just work within the system provided (for example, iTunes/iPod)
b) hate DRM and not buy any DRM'd music
c) be annoyed by DRM limitations and crack it so they can excercise fair use
d) pirate it regardless

I suspect most of the people under "a)" would not own an iPod and use a music store other than iTunes anyway; but I could be wrong there.

They ended months ago (1)

i_should_be_working (720372) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190822)

Maybe this is the final word on the matter, but I'm pretty sure these levies were ended months ago. Any mp3 player fanatic in Canada (such as I) probably noticed the significant reduction in prices.

You can now roughly predict the price of an Ipod in Canada by just taking it's US dollar price and doing the exchange rate. It used to be that it was much more expensive here.

Re:They ended months ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190858)

Ahem [angryflower.com]

Is private copying to Ipods now illegal (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190826)

This ruling also puts into doubt the legality of copying music to Ipods.

There is no such thing as fair use rights in Canada. The levy was designed to provide an exemption for copying of audio recordings (the ruling suggests this does not apply to Ipods).

Does this now imply that Ipod's are not covered under the private copying exemption?

More complete bullshit being modded insightful? (3, Informative)

Some Random Username (873177) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190962)

Canada most certainly does have fair use exemptions to copyright. But regardless of that fact, the levy was designed as a way for corrupt scumbags to steal from consumers, it has nothing to do with fair use in any way.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/39129.html#rid-3 9149 [justice.gc.ca]

Re:More complete bullshit being modded insightful? (1)

jjhlk (678725) | more than 9 years ago | (#13191145)

Afaik, the fair dealing doesn't cover making copies of a record for your friend, or even for personal archive. I just skimmed it again, and I read it in the past (subsequently forgetting most of it), but hey, it's complicated and IANAL so I could be wrong. It handles things like educational institutions, archives (not defined apparantly), research, criticism, reporting, derivitive works (though I didn't notice it), and public broadcasting. Unless I'm mistaken, there was nothing about personal copies.

The media levy is just an organized way for royalties to be handled. Thus, if you buy media with which to copy a music CD, it's legal because you've paid royalties*. However, with DRM I guess you'd be breaking one of the newer acts. It is of course a bit stupid that I'm paying some music levies on my data CDs however (for data CDs the amount is in proportion to the number of people who will be copying music with it, supposedly).

* There was a website hosted by the Government of Canada where I found this information about the levy. I haven't been able to find it again. Besides linking to the actual legal text regarding the levy, it had a list of appropriate and inappropriate extrapolations, which is what I remember best.

Case law muddies the waters further.

Imo, the entire thing is tiring and annoying. If I can't get caught, I'll just do what I want I suppose.

Re:Is private copying to Ipods now illegal (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 9 years ago | (#13191055)

There is no such thing as fair use rights in Canada. The levy was designed to provide an exemption for copying of audio recordings (the ruling suggests this does not apply to Ipods).

I'm sorry, but the Berne convention says otherwise.

Treaties, especially multinational treaties involving copyright and such, tend to be far more powerful than one imagines.

And fair use has existed far longer than you've been on this earth.

Re:Is private copying to Ipods now illegal (2, Informative)

chaleur (896943) | more than 9 years ago | (#13191060)

This is just not true, though I can't count the number of times I've heard people say it. Of course we have fair use rights! As far as music goes, you are free to copy it in Canada for your own use, regardless of the royalty, which is a separate issue entirely. The royalty system is an attempt to create something similar to the compensation we pay to book publishers for losses they take because we insist that they put their stuff in libraries.

From The Copyright Act ( R.S. 1985, c. C-42 ) [justice.gc.ca] :

"80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of

"(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,

"(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

"(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

"(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):

"(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;

"(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;

"(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or

"(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public."

Gee... (1)

strAtEdgE (151030) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190863)

...kind of makes you wonder if perhaps you got it wrong the first time when you put the levy on blank media, huh Parliment? Death to the CPCC [www.cpcc.ca] and their outrageous greed [musicbymailcanada.com] .

Post nazi: "iRiver" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190892)

iRiver isn't an MP3 player, it's a company who happen to make MP3 players.

IRiver and XClef vs iPod (1, Offtopic)

nickrooster (796216) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190923)

I find that, for the money, the iRiver is a much better player and has many more features. I have an iHP-140, and the things it has built-in that a standard 40GB iPod does not have are: A) Vorbis support - the best (in my audiophile and freedom-loving opinion) lossy format! http://vorbis.com/ [vorbis.com] MP3s distort the high and low end a *lot*. Makes songs sound awful. But everyone loves .mp3 for some reason... weird. B) FM tuner - Not that I *listen* to the radio C) Built in recording support as either .wav or .mp3 - and the ability to use an external mike. D) Shows up as a USB Mass-storage device on every operating system - so you don't need any crappy proprietary software to get access to *your* data! Besides, you have music players and jukeboxes on your machine already, right? E) Long battery life - mine lasts 13 - 16 hours playing 256K vorbis files, after owning it for more than a year. F?) Not sure if iPod has this, but optical output as well as analog. Awesome sound quality. G) Other codec support - .wav, .wma, .ogg, .mp3. Check it out if you are thinking of buying a music player - http://www.iriveramerica.com/ [iriveramerica.com] Also check out the XClef, who's main feature is that it has a *lot* of storage space. The largest I have seen was 100GB. Disadvantage is that it is shaped like 1/2 of a brick. http://xclef.com/pro03_e.htm [xclef.com] This is the up to, apparently, 137GB model. -Nick

Re:IRiver and XClef vs iPod (5, Funny)

jaycontonio (878262) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190956)

Umm...get your own blog dude.

Slashdot declaration of independence :dfdsdf (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190930)

Slashdot Declaration of Independence

(Quick summary: use http://www.digg.com/ [digg.com]

When other tech companies severely take advantage of their customers, dismissing
any notion of customer service or satisfaction, they are no doubt subject to criticism by
the ever vigilant masses of Slashdot. Why should Slashdot itself be any different?

We must remember that slashdot makes money off subscriptions and ad revenues.
There is no altruistic motivation behind their actions, and as such, the Slashdot editors
are not so much editors as they are salesman.

In addition, we must remember that Slashdot is NOT a legitimate journalistic endeavor.
These so-called editors did not attend journalism school, nor is there a centralized forum
to air grievances done on the site. To the slashdot editors, their words are final, and cannot
be criticized.

We put forth three major grievances we have with Slashdot and its editors.

1. Complete lack of dupe checking and article checking:
Imagine a newspaper that routinely prints stories from months, weeks and even days
before. Image the same newspaper placing all import on the headline, rather than the
content. Surely this newspaper would not last long. If the readers would write in to the
editor to complain, surely they wouldn't have chastised by the editor.

Yet, as we are all aware of, this is the biggest problem facing slashdot. Although there
is no editorial section in which we may submit letters, we have the option to directly
emailing the editors. What happens when we do? We are scolded and our opinions
are labeled as hate mail.

http://www.anti-slash.org/injustices/CmdrTaco/taco _dupe_lash_out/ [anti-slash.org]

2. Increased commercialization behind articles:
Many recent articles seem to be advertisement for products, and not really newsworthy.
Other articles (including the recent "discovery" of month old google products) try to get
Slashdot in good graces with particular organizations.

Here are more examples of such "Slash-vertisement"

http://www.anti-slash.org/injustices/other/extreme tech_slashvertisement/ [anti-slash.org]

3. Blatant editor errors:
The role of an editor is to oversee the final content of text before it goes into publication. That, believe
it or not, includes checking minor errors in HTML and spelling, in addition to larger errors.

There are several instances of items just not being checked:
http://books.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=157102&c id=13170467 [slashdot.org]
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=157 209&cid=13177798 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=157125 &cid=13172520 [slashdot.org]
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=156961&c id=13159282 [slashdot.org]

Where as grievance one details the question of "newsworthiness" of an article, grievance three
points out instances where article and summary do not agree, in addition to the smaller problems
of spell checking etc.

Resolution:
We do not have to stand for this lack of respect toward the customer. There are alternatives to slashdot.
http://www.digg.com/ [digg.com] has had good reviews from the slashdot crowd.

If leaving slashdot all together seems too extremist you can start demanding better treatment from the
editors. Demand a public forum where we can discuss our issues with slashdot, and see that they
are resolved.

Demand more from this money-making machine! You are all its customers. You have the power!

(Links taken from http://www.anti-slash.org/ [anti-slash.org]

Re:Slashdot declaration of independence :dfdsdf (1)

mackil (668039) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190979)

Signed.... John Hancock etc etc

Was it just me... (1)

coldmist (154493) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190958)

No Levy on iPods in Canada

I read that as Levis, ie pants.

I know Paris Hilton has some funky cases for her cell phone and such, but I didn't think an iPod had to have pants on too.

How about a thong for it [tmcnet.com] ?

A Strangeness to our North (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190964)

This is a strange (non-)decision. Buy a cassette or CD-R to store a handful of songs in Canada, and you pay a copyright levy. Buy an iPod to store thousands of songs, and you don't.

I've read Canadians complaining that their courts were getting increasingly strange. Now I understand what they mean. There's no other way to make sense of this.

For what it's worth, I think all these levies are absurd. But if a tax exists, it should at least be fairly applied. As is, it's like apply sales tax to paperback books but not to hardbacks.

--Mike Perry, Seattle, Untangling Tolkien

Re:A Strangeness to our North (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 9 years ago | (#13191067)

No one is going to be giving their friends iPods full of music. Or if they are, I would like to become their friend.

Free Music (5, Interesting)

SpottedKuh (855161) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190969)

Let's consider for a moment what would have happened if this levy passed. Quite simply: Free music for everyone!

Does this sound counterintuitive, or just nonsensical? Hear me out.

As a Canadian university student, I feel I have a pretty good idea of how the music-swapping scene looks in Canada. There's one group of people who happily share as much music online as they want; then, there's a second group of people who still buy CDs (either because they like the pretty package, or because they actually want to pay for the things they receive).

However, everyone I know in that second group (including myself, among many people) stopped purchasing audio CDs after the Canadian levy was placed on blank CD media -- after all, even though it was of grey legality, the prevailing thought was, "Hey, I'm already paying the music industry each time I purchase a blank CD, to compensate them for people downloading songs and putting them on blank CDs. By that token, it is my right, since I have paid this compensation, to go and download all the songs I want and put them on this CD."

This very line of thinking played a role in trials held against music sharers in Canada in early 2004 (they were all exonerated).

Since I no longer burn songs to audio CDs, but rather put them on iPods, I (and everyone I know in that "second group") have once again started purchasing music CDs in stores. However, were a levy to be placed on iPods, well...that exact same argument used for blank CDs could be applied to iPods. And you know that wouldn't make the industry very happy. I mean...40 GB iPod vs. an audio CD...heh.

Of course, now some audio CDs in stores include copy protection. I have yet to purchase one, but I assume this would make it impossible (or difficult) to get the songs onto my iPod from the CD. So, you can probably tell exactly what will happen with that "second group" as soon as this protection becomes more prevalent. The industry is so skilled at alienating its remaining customers (with what is an illegal practice in the first place, since under Canadian copyright law, to the best of my knowledge, you must be allowed to make a backup copy of any digital media you purchase).

Re:Free Music (1)

MrRed (469298) | more than 9 years ago | (#13191091)

Copying for "private use" is legal in Canada - see Canada Copyright Act Part VII p.80 http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/39673.html#rid-3 9786/ [justice.gc.ca] .

Private use means not for selling, renting, distributing or performing. - looks like "listening" is OK.

Re:Free Music (1)

Mawen (317927) | more than 9 years ago | (#13191177)

"Since I no longer burn songs to audio CDs, but rather put them on iPods, I (and everyone I know in that "second group") have once again started purchasing music CDs in stores."

Why? There are thousands of IT professionals and other people making weekly backups of their data in case their hard drives crash, and the Canadian government, in its infinite wisdom (and who we the infinitely wise citizens elect) have figured out the grand central plan that somehow, CD-R revenues will balance out, and justify copying of music without restraint.

Whether you happen to use CD-R's or not is irrelevant: somebody does, and the government has it all worked out for us.

I have been in your "second group" who believes artists should get compensated. I buy my music from allofmp3.com, because I get to pick my encoding type and quality (ogg), they have a pretty big and easy to access collection (I don't like the ghettos of Kazaa) and the price is great ...it could probably double to $0.04/MB without me flinching. If I want it, I buy it. And I tend to pay a lot more money this way than I used to when buying $20 CDs that I can't even preview from the mall.

For all I know, that money I send to the motherland is going to the Russian mafia or to support the Chechyn rebellion, but I know I personally am still supporting "the artists" because I buy CD-Rs to back up my important files every month. (And I have the utmost confidence that the Canadian government knows about all the artists I like, even though none of them are on the radio, and the last I heard, that's what they go by. So I guess my money goes to Britney and the Chechyns. Nice.)

Talking about this makes me mad and confused. Somebody, please get elected Prime Minister and fix this madness. I'd vote for you, but it doesn't matter because I don't live in Ontario.

Our massive socialized health system seems to be too expensive, but for the most part it seems like a good idea, while it has worked. This, on the other hand, is blatent central planning that's antithetical to a free market and doomed to make a mess of any healthy music industry. Unfortunately, I think that there are much bigger messes in our country besides health and this levy/copyright law that need to be cleaned up.

fu3kR! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190982)

fear the reaper the next round of and mortifying have left in won't vote in a child knows coomon knowledge sure that I've Way. It used to be community. The words, don't get outreach are our cause. Gay I type this. out how to make the been the best, Paranoid conspiracy battled in court, OS don't fear the from within.

Is Slashdot sponsored by Apple? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13191058)

Is Slashdot sponsored by Apple or something? Why does every story (even the title) have to mention "Apple" "iSomething" or "Steve Jobs' delicious cock"? Did the bill actually say "iPods" did it mention Apple at all? If not, why single out a specific product from a specific manufacturer (which isn't even the one with the biggest market share, BTW)? Please restrict the advertising to the banners. Thank you.

When the Levy Breaks (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 9 years ago | (#13191102)

Mean old levy taught me to weep and moan, oh yeah
Mean old levy taught me to weep and moan, oh yeah
Thinkin bout my baby and our iPod at home

All last night, spat on the levy and moaned
All last night, spat on the levy and moaned

[song continues]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?