• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Canadian Tarrif's on flash media, hdd's and writable media

J

JasonKurtz

Member
I don't usually consider myself a social activist, but I know that I'll be writing a letter to my local MP and I encourage the rest of you Canuckleheads to do the same.

Joel Ironstone writes: "A new Canadian levy will be introduced in 2003 on all recordable media (pdf). The magnitude of these tariffs is staggering: $1.23 for all CD-RW's, $2.27 on all DVD-R's, and get this: $21 for each gigabyte of storage on portable MP3 players. That's an extra 160 dollars for a Nomad." Like in the U.S., this tax is collected and given directly to the record industry, a governmental subsidy for no apparent societal benefit.

taken from http://slashdot.org/articles/02/03/12/0243237.shtml?tid=141

You can find the fulltext of the proposed law here: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs/proposed/c09032002-b.pdf and your local MP's address here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/house/PostalCode.asp?Source=SM

Again we see an example of government completely overplaying their hand and siding with the wrong people (companies in this case). This tarrif does nothing but a) legitimize piracy (if you've already paid a significant sum for the media because of the assumption that you're going to use it to steal, it in a sense makes it "ok" to steal), b) provide the RIAA with even more cash to feed their legal machine which will continue to pressure governments to raise taxes/tarrifs, and will continue this vicious cycle and c) stifle independent artists who are actually helped by online music distribution. Not to mention the fact that Canadian law already recognizes that it is perfectly legal to back up music you've purchased for personal purposes, so what sense does this make?

I encourage everyone to write in with the good ole pen and paper as it's usually the only way MP's will listen.
 
LOL. Don't forget to mention we canadains already pay about $0.15USD more per cd in tarrif's already.

 
I hate all our stupid bonehead Canadian governments.

I can't believe how quick they spread their legs for the media giants.
 
Well if they can screw us over on taxes once, why not again? (And again and again...) [sigh]
Why do you think we get taxed so much more than the Americans? We allow it! We need to riot/revolt or something... it's in the Canadian Constitution (if it's called that - I forget) that we have the power to reject the government if we feel it is not doing its job.
 
Well, my digital camera needs CompactFlash cards to take photos, why does a portion of my money to buy them goes into the pockets of Alanis Morrisette and Roch Voisine's boss's pockets?

Have you seen the tariff on "non-removable storage on digital music devices"? $21 per gig. That makes the Nomad Jukebox and Apple iPod automatically $100 more expensive, as if electronics in Canada aren't expensive already.

Guess we all should flock to a Best Buy in Buffalo next time we go shopping. :-\
 
Well if they can screw us over on taxes once, why not again? (And again and again...) [sigh]
Why do you think we get taxed so much more than the Americans? We allow it! We need to riot/revolt or something... it's in the Canadian Constitution (if it's called that - I forget) that we have the power to reject the government if we feel it is not doing its job.

There's nothing in the constitution about that. In fact, it's only "tradition" that a government must dissolve itself within 5 years for a new election.
 
hrm.......when was this passed? i dont recall any news about this being un the parliment or anything!

Grr :|

Akaz
 
Canadians should be especially pissed. You know why? Our own government doesn't set the tariffs. An unelected, unappointed, industry group does. I've fought the battle way back in 1999 before the first CD tariff hit, and I found that unless you had some major money to back you up, you weren't going to be able to fight these special-interest groups. But I think you'd find it interesting to hear from one of the Canadian RIAA-equivalent group presidents. He actually replied to me. Here is his reply to my e-mail in 1999:



<< Thank you for taking the time to send me your thoughtful comments. We have received dozens of emails objecting to the tariff, and expect to receive many more. Sadly, most of them are flame bait of the "get your thieving hands out of my wallet" variety and do not address the broader issues.

I won't reiterate the points I made in the message you've already seen, but I'd like to address some of your comments directly:

1. As an advocacy group, CMRRA, and its parent body, the Canadian Music Publishers Association (CMPA), have no obligation to pursue legislation which does not further their aims. That's what trade associations such as ours do - we attempt to persuade the government to make changes in the law that will improve the lot of our members. In this case, we were out to ameliorate some of the damage caused to songwriters and music publishers by unauthorized copying of commercial recordings of our music.

Canada's copyright legislation remained unchanged from 1924 to 1988, and change - "Phase I" of the process - only came after massive lobbying by copyright creators and owners, fighting intense opposition from users such as educators, librarians and broadcasters.

Phase II, which was enacted in 1997 after nearly nine years of struggle, was even more difficult. The amendments to the Act created by Bill C-32 created the tape levy and a new right for the benefit of performers and record producers which will enable them, for the first time, to be paid when their songs are played on radio and television. Seasoned Ottawa observers have said that the copyright reform battle has been more intensely lobbied than almost any other issue in their memory.

This was not a private, secretive process. The Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of Industry, which share jurisdiction over copyright law, received a huge number of submissions from creator and user groups, and public hearings were held by the House of Commons and the Senate. Speaking as someone who has been closely involved in this effort for a decade, I can tell you that it wasn't a walk in the park. For reasons best known to themselves, the manufacturers and importers of blank media didn't enter the lobbying process until very late in the day, and weren't as persistent as the representatives of the music industry in promoting their point of view. In the lobbying process, persistence pays off.

To suggest that another amendment to the Copyright Act would be easily obtained - even if we shared your point of view, which we don't - is to misunderstand the complexity and difficulty of the lobbying process. If you want to campaign for the repeal of Part VIII of the Copyright Act, you're welcome to do so; I guess we'll see you up in Ottawa.

2, While it's true that blank digital media such as CD-R's can be used to store data or music, we don't agree with your suggestion that we abandon the levy on this ground. As I noted in my original response to Mr. di Pede, it is possible that the ultimate form of the tariff may contain provisions for zero rates or levy rebates for those who can document that their purchase of blank recording media is not intended for the reproduction of music. However, in the face of an impending explosion in the use of blank CD-R's for the recording of music, it would be folly on our part to abandon the levy on this media outright.

3. You suggest that a levy on recording devices should take the place of the levy on blank media. Several countries, including Germany and the U.S., place a levy on recording devices as well as blank media, but none that I know of put the levy on the devices alone. The reason for this is simple: the number of recording devices sold is a tiny fraction of the number of blank media. For the levy to realize even a reasonable amount, a levy on recording devices alone would have to be an enormous amount, likely exceeding the cost of the machines. Obviously this isn't politically or economically viable. As it happens, we lobbied for a levy both on media and devices, and the government chose to institute the levy on media only. So the legislation could have been better, or worse, depending on your point of view.

4. Finally, you suggest that the levy won't be distributed fairly. While I appreciate your concern, I'm by no means as pessimistic as you are. How much do you know about the work of the existing collectives which distribute royalties to songwriters, music publishers, artists and record producers? I refer to SOCAN, CMRRA, SODRAC, SOGEDAM, AVLA and others. Each organization is owned by its members, who take a strong interest in ensuring that royalty distribution is made on a timely and accurate basis, and at the lowest cost possible. Speaking as the head of CMRRA, I can tell you that when our clients have a problem with our work, they have no hesitation in speaking up - and this is how it should be. I invite you to visit CMRRA if you'd like to see more for yourself.

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to discuss these issues with you.

David A. Basskin
President
CMRRA Ltd.
Toronto, Canada






"Paul Jara" <pjara@home.com> on 01/02/99 01:58:28 AM



To: David Basskin/CMRRA

cc: Karygiannis.J@parl.gc.ca



Subject: RE: What is the CDR tax going to be?



Fax to:





Mr. David Basskin,

I was forwarded this e-mail from a colleague of mine, and I would like to argue my own opinion. I agree to some extent with the opinions expressed by you and your organization. However, I strongly disagree with some of your key arguments, and I would like you to hear what I believe to be some valid points.

Firstly, although the process by which the CMRRA and the Government of Canada ammended the Copyright Act through Bill C-32 was a public affair, your organization made little effort to publicize the hearings in the mainstream media. It is true that rumours of this levy were floating around niche reports on the internet, however little effort was made to include the opinions of all Canadians. I am completely dismayed that no attention was given to the computer industry and their interests. The computer industry is completely seperate from the music industry and should not have to compensate the industry you represent through the purchasing of CD-R media. CD-R media is a necessity to Canadian technology-based firms and their usage in no way conflicts with the interest of the industry you represent. I myself, although only 18, have spent a year co-operative education term with Indigo Technologies, based here in Toronto. A small upstart company, Indigo Technologies focussed on the creation of custom software, and as such, CD-R media was in constant use. It is companies such as this one, and other Canadian technology-based companies across Canada that will be forced to bear an unfair business disadvantage to their already larger, and more influential American counterparts, because of the levy that has been introduced. The computer industry should have been immediately included in the negotiations so as to arrive at a fair compromise to an all-out CD-R levy.

CD-Rs are dual-purpose digital media. I have began a campaign to have the Copyright Act ammended to exclude dual-purpose digital media from this levy. By dual-purpose digital media, I am referring to a digital medium that is capable of storing computer-formatted information in addition to information recognizable to household audio equipment. Examples of dual-purpose digital media would be CD-Rs, and soon, DVD-Rs. On the other hand, digital media such as DATs, DCCs, and MDs would still have the levy acted upon them. As I mentioned earlier, the reason for this is quite simple. Computer companies, home computer users, and other technology-related organizations have absolutely no obligation to compensate the music industry for lost revenue, when in fact their use of the digital media is unrelated to the copying or distribution of pre-recorded audio. I strongly suggest that you, as a responsible Canadian organization, submit a request for ammendment to the Copyright Act to exclude dual-purpose digital media from this levy. It is the ethical thing to do!

You mentioned, and I am already aware of, dual-bay CD copiers that are beginning to appear on the market. May I suggest that you place a levy on the actual copying equipment and NOT the media that the equipment uses itself. This is the common sense thing to do unless you are looking for lots of revenue, in which case, placing a levy on media would result in a larger stake of the pie.

The levy itself fails in its purpose. The purpose is to compensate those artists who have their works copied. I have absolutely no objection to this. Artists must be rewarded for what is rightfully, their intellectual property. However, I have some doubts as to how the collective agencies themselves will distribute the money. Will it be distributed based on the popularity of the music, or by whose music gets copied the most. Ideally, and theoretically, those artists who have their music copied the most, should be the ones to receive larger pieces of the pie. However I seriously doubt this will occur as there is absolutely no accurate way to determine whose music gets copied the most. In my opinion, Rap artists and R&B artists have their music copied the most. It is an accepted part of that genre's culture. Mix tapes are readily created by DJs and sold legally in
stores. Home users themselves create their own mix tapes. This is the
preferred way for listening to this type of music, to copy and mix pre-recorded audio. However, I am concerned that these artists will not receive a proportionate amount of the revenue collected from this levy. If the levy is distributed by popularity, I am sure that rock and contemporary artists will receive a larger piece of the pie. Thus, the purpose of this levy is immediately defeated, and again, it simply becomes a cash grab.

Finally, let me point out that the overwhelming ammount of music that is copied, either as a personal copy, or illegally, is American content and NOT Canadian content. Ethically, American artists should receive this money. I strongly doubt that the Canadian collective agencies will send their American counterparts 90% of the revenue collected from this levy, which is, in my conservative estimation, corresponds to the ammount of content copied that is American. More and more, this levy becomes a cash grab.

Mr. Basskin, my brother is in the Canadian film industry and I know the hardships that Canadian artists face everyday. I understand the disrespect given to intellectual property that occurs everyday. I understand the impact that free trade had on all the Canadian arts industries. However, I don't understand this levy. It seems to be a bandaid solution to a gashing wound. It seems to be a cash grab for associations that are seeing their interests being jeopardized by the presence of the internet and how it will forever change the face of audio distribution. It seems to me, that a special interest group representing a severe minority of Canadians lobbied the government and won, despite the fact that the majority of Canadians ethically have the upperhand. The common notion among music industry associations like yours, is that all Canadians are lying thiefs. This is not true. I am unaware as to whether you had this part of the Act ammended as well, but up until now, it was never against the law to create a personal copy of a CD for listening to the car.

Mr. Basskin, everyday people like myself are fed up. I have started a campaign to get Canadians to e-mail CIRPA and the CMRRA as well as their local MPs. I have had moderate success and the interest in my letter increases everyday. A lot of the e-mail I receive is from outraged, and misinformed Canadians. It does not sound like it was from Canadians who had the opportunity to have their interests voiced in the debates held before this legislation was introduced. Believe me in saying that if the CMRRA and other music associations had given notice in the mainstream media of their intent to include digital media in this levy, you would have heard all of this before the legislation was introduced, and hopefully a compromise could have been achieved. However, because most of your negotiations with the Government were kept quiet and not publicized, you have been successful in muting the opinion of the majority of Canadians from their very own government. Whether this was intentional or not, it shouldn't have happened. I don't think that this issue is said and done. Another ammendment to the law could be made. Canadians have always been considered voiceless "yes" men. The campaign I have begun has proven me wrong. For once, Canadians are standing up and taking objection to a levy which is wrong, which is broken before it has been properly implemented, and which shouldn't apply to media such as CD-Rs. I would personally like you to fill your obligation, not only ethically, but as a Canadian to see to it, that the interests of technology-based Canadian businesses, both big and small, and home consumers are not swept aside. Please put forth a request to exclude dual-purpose digital media from this legislation.

Sincerely,

Paul Jara >>

 


<< There's nothing in the constitution about that. >>


Yes there is - studied it in high school. 😉 I wrote a whole paper on the subject.... 10 years ago.
 
Damn. I'm suprised they're not going after hard drives too, after all, that "pirated" stuff has
to be copied from somewhere. Imagine having to pay a $2100 tariff on a 100Gb drive.
 
Whooaa! GL thanks for posting that! It's taking time to digest it all, but it seems our government has little or nothing to do with the tariff! :|
Is there a simpler version of WHY they want to charge this "tax" or is it as simple as:
"People are stealing music instead of buying it so we're taking back some of our losses."
Punishing all for the acts of some. A significantly large "some". :frown:

This is only going to tick people off and piracy will only grow.
 
GL, thanks for the insight. That is the first time I've heard one of the media guru's sound like an actual human being instead of simply a cash grabbing machine. It still doesn't change my opinion on the issue, as I think the points you made are all reasonable and logical ones. I just wish more people knew about this and were willing to take a stand. In reality, it's only going to result in my taking the short trip to Seattle whenever I want to pick up a couple hundred cd-r's (or dvd-r's). Those of us who use cd's legitimately (though I won't claim to be completely clean, I will say that I purchase dozens of cd's a year and have a vast dvd/vhs collection) are being burned despite being "good" contributors to the music/film industry. No pun intended.
 
Bluemax, our government has EVERYTHING to do with the tarriff- no other body can enact a tax or levy. Just because they didn't *THINK* of it is nothing new, when was the last time you actually saw a government do something innovative rather than re-active?

Maybe i'm off base, but personally i think a HUGE reason the media giants pushed this tax so hard is because it hurts indie artists and helps their signed performers. 'Take that, you struggling free spirits, we'll teach you not to attempt your own promotion & distribution"

As a consumer, i'm incensed at being judged "guilty" of piracy just because I want to back up my contacts list, or archive my expensive & easy to lose import CD. I just wish someone in our government had enough balls to say:

David Basskin: "... it is possible that the ultimate form of the tariff may contain provisions for zero rates or levy rebates for those who can document that their purchase of blank recording media is not intended for the reproduction of music. "

MP: "Why should an innocent consumer bear the onus of additional documentation? Since you are the one asking for the money, YOU should have to document that the purchase of blank recording media is intended for reproduction of music."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top