Copyright Levies on digital music players not legal? (Canada)

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by adamberti, Dec 17, 2004.

  1. adamberti macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    #1
    Well, I wasnt aware it was in the news, but apparently the Federal Court of Appeals in Canada made the decision that those copyright levies on Digital Music players (iPod) are illegal. I think we pay $25 per iPod at the moment.

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1103293376265_13/?hub=SciTech

    The article is clear to point out that the old Copyright Act is just old, and that if revised, the new one could still have these levies. But I'm hoping not!
     
  2. jimjiminyjim macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
    #2
    This is quite an interesting discussion. While the copyright levy annoys me because I purchase my music, $25 will only cover two pirated CDs or about 20 songs! That really isn't very much, especially for people who can find the cash to dish out for an iPod. Plus, as it gets publicized that there is a levy to compensate for downloaded/pirated songs, people (canadians) can justify doing it, since "we pay for it anyway." All in all.... quite silly. And how come I've never heard about the discussion of songs played on the radio. I've always wondered how much musicians/labels are paid per song played. Sure, you don't have the convenience of playing the one you want at the time you want, but you still get to hear them! Anyway, it will be interesting to see what the verdict is.
     
  3. adamberti thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    #3
    Yes I'm never encouraged when people say it's not illegal because we pay for it. It doesnt cover it. And it's just their way, in my opinion, of trying not to feel guilty. Deep down they know its stealing, but they need to justify it to themselves.

    But back to the point, I have more of a gripe about the fact I pay a levy when I burn my photos to CD to take them to London Drugs for printing. That bugs me the most. I can kind of appreciate the levy for the iPod, but not the way it was slapped onto the exsisting laws. Good for them to realize it was illegal and maybe they will work to institute it properly.

    But this mostly means the existing laws will be re-examined, and hopefully cleaned up a bit to appreciate these changing times.
     
  4. haiggy macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #4
    I'm not positive but I think Radio stations get their music free and they play it, basically making the music an advertisement. If somebody likes a song, it's not going to be on the radio at any time they want so they go out and buy it so they can listen to it whenever. So yeah, I think they get the music free and play it so the public can hear it and later purchase it if they like it.
     
  5. rock6079 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #5
    nope radio stations pay royalties, and sometimes its the other way around when a record company really wants to get a new song out, they will pay to have it constantly played

    nothings free :mad:
     
  6. jimjiminyjim macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
    #6
    What interests me is to find out how much artists/labels make in a year for one song that is played at least once daily. You know, there is all this hype about 99 cents not being enough per song for apple to make much money, since the labels/artists *need* it all.... really, what is a true comparison of pre-digital music income to the last 5/10 years?
     
  7. TLRedhawke macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    #7
    Actually, the decision specifically held that the current levies on blank media are not unconsitutional. That is, they are not a tax. As such, it's not likely that the laws will be reconsidered for a fair amount of time. Moreover, blank media manufacturers don't suffer the same sort of losses that hardware manufacturers might. A $0.10 levy on a CD is not major, but a $25 levy is quite considerable. Moreover, because the levy on digital music players was a scaling levy, it put manufacturers of high capacity players an unfair disadvantage. The players would cost more inherently, but also had a larger levy imposed. As such, larger players lost market share.

    Bear in mind, however, this case may be appealed to the Supreme Court, and as such, it's a bit too early to be holding our breath, hoping for Canadian iPod prices to drop.

    As for the statement that the levy justifies "stealing music", you seem to be missing the point. The rulings regarding the downloading/sharing of music are entirely different from those governing the "personal use" of acquired music, and data generally. That is, the levy imposed on blank media allows Canadians to make copies of all such data, and use them for personal purposes. That is, music CDs, games, etc. can be copied, and given to friends and associates, or used as backups, so long as they are not sold. The same applies to VHS tapes, audio cassettes, etc. The rulings regarding online filesharing held this to be an extension of the personal use rulings, to an extent. Despite the fact that legitimately obtained files were being shared for personal use, the Canadian courts have not ruled out entirely the possibility for liability to be imposed for the uploading of music. However, it has been barred by two procedural problems. First, it was held that most online filesharing is blind, and akin to putting a photocopier in a library. That is, it is not an intentional breach of copyright, but rather, the creation of a situation which will most likely lead to such a breach. This would normally be illegal. However, due to Canadian copyright legislation which allows personal use copies from library texts, without the payment of a levy, such online sharing is valid. The second roablock is that due to privacy legislation, Canadian courts will not force an ISP to hand over information about customer on mere suspicion of copyright breach. There must be proof on a balance of probabilities that the named individual has breached copyright law.

    In short, the sharing of music online is permissible whether or not levies have been paid on blank media. In that light, it's not so much that one is trying to justify his actions by claiming that the artists are being compensated by these levies, so much as it is the truth. That is, the artists are being compensated, though minimally, where they need not be. I, personally, have no problems downloading and uploading "illegal" music, because it's already been put into the public domain via radio. Moreover, since the music industry needs desperately to alter their business model, I've no problem nudging them into it. If only there was something I could do to solve the problem of decadence in major league sports.
     
  8. TLRedhawke macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    #8
  9. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #9
    Yep, that is why there are some stations that do not webcast....
     
  10. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #10
    Even then, some of the iTMS comparisons have shown that the artists make next to nothing. Some are hoping that they are the next "Beatles" or "Rolling Stones" in order to really make the money. The labels and and RIAA knows this, and live off the corporate greed on false hopes.
     

Share This Page