Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

The existentialism of iPods

CHRISTOPHER MAUGHAN

Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 5:08 PM EDT 12/02/07

Is it a player? Is it a recorder? For some in the music industry, that question means big bucks ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Jack Black from Alert, Canada writes: Music downloads existed before iTines. Music downloads were free. Music downloads are still free. Apple now sells music downloads and have been successful with it and its still growing. Apple has in fact got people in the habit of paying for music downloads on a large scale - even though you can download files for free from other places. The music industry should be thankful to Apple for getting people in the habit of downloading music. No?
  2. David Rokeby-Thomas from Salt Spring Island, Canada writes: Many people do use their players as an external hard drive. The introduction of the video screen in ipods means that many store videos, shows, and movies, as well as other things they wish to back up. There are plenty of non musical uses. The real problem with the levy is that if people are looking at a potential $75 surcharge, they will likely start looking at out of country markets. Places such as ebay, even with the shipping and currency exchange will still make a more affordable purchase. If the the proposed levy was in a more realistic range, than more units would be purchased in Canada, hence more money for Canadian artists.
  3. Shawn Petriw from Prince George, Canada writes: An iPod is not much more than a hard drive and a controller. Is the government going to tax hard drives on computers, too? What about the flash based devices? Should they tax all flash memory, too, like the ones used for photograhpy. And what about video. They record audio, too.

    Imagine - this again after Steve Jobs puts out a public letter emploring the big music companies to sell stuff without DRM because DRM doesn't work.

    Maybe we should go back to rubbing two sticks together.
  4. R W from Ottawa, Canada writes: Let's see, music industry already gets 25 cents from every blank CD that I use to back up my photos. iTunes and other DRM already restrict the number of copies to external players (i.e. it's paid for in the price of the music). So now they want to levy a fee on music players. Why not go back and levy a fee on turntables, cassette decks, speakers, headphones, radios, heck anything that comes in contact with the music. Why not levy a fee on me if I decide to humm the song while walking down the street.

    Pretty soon people are going to get so annoyed they will stop buying music and will boycott shows. I for one refuse to buy any music with DRM.

    Have the lost their minds?
  5. reality check from outer space, Canada writes: Music Industry:
    Evolve your business model - don't stagnate technology
    Subsidies and taxes will just hurt you further...
  6. M Haman from Vancouver, Canada writes: The EMI news made me want to buy an iPod with a large capacity, and fill it with purchased music via download (assuming that it isn't just a rumour).

    This article makes me want to toss the whole idea in the trash bin.

    Stop stifling the market. Stop giving me reasons NOT to buy, and then calling me a pirate because the deal stinks so bad you would have to be a criminal to accept it. Stop tell me I have to pay for the music, pay for it again if the disk breaks, pay for it again when my car is broken into, pay for it again if both of my ears want to hear it ...

    On the other hand, there are many, many people who take the attitude of "if you levy it, I will fill it for free". They simply decide that the levy means they are entitled to it.

    Ok, so then we have the Canadian Recording Industry of America (CRIA) who demanded the levy on the blank CDs back in the 90s. Now they HATE that law, since they also find they can't sue Canadians randomly. We did pay the levy. Now they hate the law they asked for. And, their sidekick now wants it on the iPods.

    I say we give it to them, but fight to keep the fee reasonable. Paying $20 or so in exchange for protection from those random lawsuits is cheap. Americans pay a ton of money to their lawyer, just so they can settle out of court for $5000-$10000 for something they didn't do. Its just cheaper to fold at $10,000 than to pay $50,000 to go to trial.

    $20 is cheap, for a trumped up charge in which the government of canada finds you guilty of theft, and fines you in advance.
  7. steph johansen from Calgary, Canada writes: Go ahead, add that fee. Please. That means the artists are being compensated, so I should no longer have to pay for my music. I currently legally download my music from the iTunes Store. But if I have to hand over money to Canadian artists - most of whom I wouldn't buy from anyway - I'll make it a point to illegally download as much of their music as possible. What can the law do to me? The artists got paid by me, and I got music. Seems perfectly legitimate to me.
  8. Law Reform from Toronto, Canada writes: You are correct steph. If you pay the levy, then you are entitled under the Copyright Act to download as much as you want because you have "paid" a royalty fee that gets distributed to artists. In any event, downloading is already presumably legal (just not sharing with others). I point you to s. 80 of the Copyright Act: Copying for Private Use Where no infringement of copyright 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. Limitation (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. Download away!
  9. bruce desjardins from Windsor, Canada writes: These are the guys who tour the country using strong-arm tactics to try and extort annual fees from your dentist, employer and stores who dare to play music broadcast free on the radio (by a starion who has paid a fee already) for the enjoyment of customers. The music industry is shooting itself in the foot.
  10. Jared Colautti from Canada writes: It amazes me that the music industry still hasn't learned how to live symbiotically with digital technology. After nearly 10 years the best they can come up with is fining people for buying music players?? How embarassing. Their business model is archaic and needs to be re-invented and fining your customer base is the wrong answer.
  11. John Doucette from Manotick, Canada writes: Have I got this right? The Music Lords actually want me to pay each time I wish listen to something. Ok, how about legislation which requires radio stations, TV stations, advertisers, political parties, etc., to pay me every time I am forced to listen to something I don't wish to hear! Seems only fair to me.

    Each day, in order to hear the weather report I am required to listen to Mutt and Jeff, or Mini and Maxi or whatever, aimlessly talking about their inane lives, playing continuous ads for Auntie Maud's Mortuary, filling the air on "CHUMP radio", or "1051 The Weasel" in order to get a 30 second, usually incorrect, summary of the weather. Canadians should be paid to listen to that garbage, not the other way around!
  12. H Edwards from Edmonton, Canada writes: Word to Jared Colautti's reply.
    The recording industry just doesn't seem to get it do they? Purchased music via legal downloads and cd's have increased every year since the last ruling and the greed continues.
    They shouldn't have a chance of winning this levy (fine) as it would then suggest that cell phones, blackberries, notebooks, etc. should all be in the same category. Recording industry and artists are a bunch of uninformed BS whiners. Maybe fans should sue them for extorting us with the price of concert tickets these days.
  13. Kelly Godfrey from Vancouver, Canada writes: Can this industry be more myopic ?! This strategy will backfire, as it will in the U.S. I can't understand how educated people supposedly in power of this industry can be so completely misguided
  14. Jeff Kelly from Kitchener, Canada writes: While I in general agree with the sentiment expressed in some of the posts, I do wish people would be more accurate when describing their music downloads. Downloading music for free (IE, Kazaa, Bittorrent, etc) is PERFECTLY LEGAL in Canada. Downloading music that you pay for from iTunes or another retailer is no 'more' legal.

    Depending on your own personal beliefs, it may be more ethical to pay more for music, but it's not "legal" downloads versus "illegal" downloads. All of these downloads are legal in Canada, and since I'm being ripped off and paying a surcharge on all of my blank media, I make a point to legally download as much free music as I can. Federal court has ruled on this twice. So please stop playing into the hands of the CRIA by talking about legal vs illegal downloads. No such thing.
  15. Adam Hanson from Winnipeg, Canada writes: I'm totally confused by this article. I use my Ipod to listen to PURCHASED music. So I don't think anybody is getting screwed by the method I choose to listen to music. Are they going to tax CD players as well? This is goofy. I agree with other posts that the industry will just have to evolve with the technology.
  16. Altered Beast from Hamilton, Canada writes: My iPod is filled with music ripped from CDs that I already own. I paid for the music once already, and now these clowns are trying to convince me that I should be paying for it again? Jerks like David Basskin are the reason I don't buy major label music anymore. Everyone involved with the Canadian Private Copying Collective should be exposed as the crooks they really are.
  17. Phil Harrington from Canada writes: lets get some facts striaight. the proposed $75 does not benefit the artists, it benefits the record companies. If I pay for a CD why should I have to pay for it again when I want it on my ipod ? Outrageous.
  18. stan bink from Tee Dot, Canada writes: I can't believe that this proposed law would have any other effect than to encourage piracy. How stupid can the music industry be?

    Like Altered Beast already said, I put my entire CD collection on my iPod, which I have already paid for. It's mine. And now you want more?

    I don't think so... where's that Kazaa link again...
  19. William Ashley from Waterloo, Canada writes: would that mean cell phones that play mp3 players, computers, and even video players like dvd players etc.. would all cost 75$'s more.

    I personally think that media rights people are smoking crack, which explains there quest to think that I'd actually play their artists music.
  20. William Ashley from Waterloo, Canada writes: like every data storage thing that can be used to play music data? that is connected to an audio output?

    crazy
  21. William Ashley from Waterloo, Canada writes: quick get your eyepod now before the price gougings start!!
  22. Mitch Gullison from Fredericton, Canada writes: Why should the music industry be compensated for sales of MP3 players. They get money already when someone downloads music from a music download service to play on these players. It sounds like double dipping to me.
  23. Brad Buss from Toronto, Canada writes: These grey haired wonder execs in the music industry sure are keen to NO innovate but just go around trying to scoop free money. Shame. I thought the entertainment business was about creativity.
  24. 1 i from northish gta, Canada writes: I wonder how the revenue collected by these mechanisms is distributed to the children, er, the artists ? Who gets how much ? What is it based on ? What are the controls on 'administration fees' ? It resembles an unfettered charity program, and we've seen repeatedly what happens to those.
  25. david coates from toronto, Canada writes: Further to the comment about the record companies trying to double-dip with this move and the unliklihood that any of the money will make its way to the musicians, does anybody know of any musicians who have ever received royalty payments? Maybe Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, Leonard Cohen, the Guess Who and, latterly, the Barenaked Ladies, maybe the Hip in their earlier days, but the rest of them are simply indebted and indentured chattels of the labels that signed them, then set about beggaring them.
  26. D K from Calgary, Canada writes: The Canadian Private Copying Collective and CRRIA (those who sue uploaders/downloaders) are working at cross-purposes here. A levy on recordable media (and I think an Ipod qualifies) would seem to legitimize, financially, the sharing of music. CRRIA is pushing for tougher copyright legislation to more harshly target online sharing. They ought not to be able to double dip.
  27. Paul Aparycki from St. Jean sur Richelieu, Canada writes: The music "industry"? has been trying for a long time to get a tax on ALL recording devices, so their "poor, starving artists" can be paid a fair share. The real truth is that most artists will never see a cent of this fraud . . . one of the reasons you see more and more artists, established or otherwise, going the independent (honest) route where they will actually get paid for their work. When the CD was pushed upon us, the production costs to the "industry" dropped dramatically. Average cost for a $16-17 vinyl LP was about 25% production, royalty to the artist (typically a dollar or two), and the remainder going to the recording company who cried about "artist development" costs etc, which are ALWAYS billed back to the artist when they start to sell. An $18-20 CD today costs LESS than a dollar to produce, royalties are about the same, and the profits have increased considerably. The film industry suffers from the same "creative" accounting. Both industries brag in ten foot high neon letters about how this artist or this film is bringing in a trillion a week . . . then when they want the free ride, all of a sudden those millions upon millions are absorbed in "expenses". My livelihood depends upon IP protection (I work in photography and film), but quite frankly, I would exhort EVERYONE to steal and steal some more from the music "industry" and the others who are stealing from "their" artists, and from you the consumer.
  28. P Martin from St. John's, NL, Canada writes: The music industry is above themselves, not consumers or artists. There is a reason that many artists are trying to find alternative ways of selling their music.
  29. Phil O from Ontariario, Canada writes: This levy WOULD apply to iPods, but not to most other portable music/video devices. A huge part of Apple's incredible success with miniaturizing these devices is that they have intentionally removed the hard drive vs. processor distinction - they are one and the same device now and are indeed inseparable, so the proposed and even current laws DO APPLY.
    I could care less becuase I'm not an iRobot and did not pay $200 more than than the no-name portable music player just so I could dance in silouette like Bono. This levy wouldn't apply to all the good players out there, that separate the media from the product, so I say go ahead and screw the iPod community, you marketting gullible morons have it coming..and go ahead and keep paying a buck a song at the iRobotStore too, you idiots. Until the price comes down to 10 cents a song - their REAL worth - I could care less what government body or what music agency demands I pay for. Illegal downloading all the way, and I feel no guilt or shame, considering how guilty the industry and government are in applying a 1000% markup on a product they had nothing to do with producing. I'll give the money directly to the musicians when I see them live.
    Tip for all the up-and-coming musicians: get a tech-savvy buddy, set up your own website, and maek your money directly paypal, screw the government and the music companies and Apple all in one shot, becuase they are all taking food right off your plate while non of them, Apple too, contributing anything at all to the final enjoyment of your product.
    As for whoever thinks Apple is contributing to legal online music sales by encouraging people to use the iStore - all they're encouraging is for you to waste an extra 90 cents on their stupid ads, while still the musicians remain empty handed. 10 cents a song would be real incentive, although I can't see SJ voluntarily taking a 90% pay cut.
  30. Altered Beast from Hamilton, Canada writes: It's been a few days and I'm still angry about this story. Who are the musicians and record labels hiding behind this "Canadian Private Copying Collective" nonsense? I want names. Then let the boycott begin. I encourage you all to join me.
  31. sam themacman from Canada writes: Just goes to show you, GREED is at the root of it all. Just how many hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, do these artists have to make? Who are they? And yes, a boycott to shut them all down would be a nice message to send to them! Besides our elected officials have more serious issues to deal with rather than the pocket books of musicians!
  32. Jason Robbins from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Can someone please help me with the math that The Canadian Private Copying Collective uses on their website? (http://cpcc.ca/english/finHighlights.htm)

    Revenue from 2000-2005: $162.2 million.
    Amount available for distribution (less expenses): $145.3 million.
    Distribution payments to date: $92.7 million.

    Where is the other $52 million?

    Why am I paying a levy?
  33. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: I hate the CPCC, and I have HATED the Liberal's ever since they passed this stupid law (actually, thinking back, I think this was the straw that broke my otherwise Liberal friendly back). Everytime I buy a blank CD to put my family pictures on it, I am sending a dollar to Celine Dion, because obviously any CD any Canadian buys is going to be used for illegal purposes? That's some pretty disgusting logic. To hell with these guys.
  34. RJ Roy from Canada writes: Please, people, get your own law straight. Downloading music is NOT legal under our copyright law (technically), what the levies and laws allow you to do is make copies of the music you bought on CD, cassette, vinyl, or what have you for personal use only. You need to have already acquired the media in question beforehand. Law Reform quoted the actual section of the law earlier, but apparently people didn't quite get it. Sad, really.
  35. Ken Hass from Edmonton, Canada writes: Lers put levy on pencils and pens, someone might write down some lyrics.
    Jeeeeez.
  36. Tom Karches from Cary, NC, United States writes: I wonder if this tax will make up for corresponding lost sales of iPods in Canada? I see a business opportunity for proxy purchasing of iPods. Or just buy them from eBay.
  37. Gord Murray from Canada writes: Often the difference between a music collection paid for in full and proceedings towards personal copyright for software is little different than which set of laws is read and respected first. Often it's budget and the idea of the support of friends.
    How about those new 250G players with capacity for 4Meg/song x 1000Meg/G x 250G = 250songs x 250 songs = 62500 songs
    Stick a 99 cent price per song dimension, round up to $1 and you have possible $62,500 of possible pursuit.
    "Here...a gift for you...it has some songs on it. Merry Xmas."
    "NO WAY! GET AWAY FROM ME OVER $5,000!!!"

    Just listening to the radio is easier on the nerves I think.
    You got radio or something?
  38. gordon foster from Canada writes: I take a music file from my computer and palce it on my iPod shuffle. I now have two copies, one on my computer and one on my shuffle. I take the shuffle to work and place the file on the computer there. Hey presto, three copies! I then burn 700MB of music files onto a CD. 150 new copies at a time. Some people may use their MP3 devices solely for playback, but their not taking full advantage of their capabilities. And even so, they've still produced at least one copy of each file they are listening to. But did they record any music? I don't think so.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top