Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

How smart is your iPod?

GRANT ROBERTSON AND DAVID GEORGE-COSH

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 10:43 AM EDT 24/07/07

Lawmakers wrestle over definition of modern day music box ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Martin Hunt from Canada writes: The Copyright Board's stance is just the latest example of how irrational the intellectual property laws are. It can only come to a bad end. On the one hand, the music industry is claiming the right to compensation for devices that might be used to copy music. They don't assert that any violation of copyright has occurred when the device is sold. They assert that there might be a violation later. Well, they may be right - people may in fact use the devices to copy music. Does that entitle the music industry to charge a fee to everyone who has a recording device? I say no. But - I can imagine people getting all sweaty at the thought of tapping in to the money stream that such a fee would generate - but that is hardly a good reason for the rest of us to let them have their way. On the other hand, imagine the pool of money that would be generated by such a fee, if it were implemented and effective. Just who would have access to that money? A pool of money like that would be an endless source of corruption and an endless invitation for abuse. Why in the world would we let the music industry have its way in this matter?
  2. one thinker from Canada writes: I don’t think the debate has been properly addressed. It is not whether the levy should apply to a MP3 player or not, the debate should be on whether the levy should exist at all.
  3. Adebisi TheGamer from Canada writes: This whole levy amounts to nothing more then treating everyone like a criminal, even if they are not.

    It is a fine for something we might do.

    You may as well stick a toll boot up on the 401 and have every driver pay $50 bucks cause, lets face it, a lot of them are going to be speeding, so let's just fine them all.
  4. Carmen Branje from Toronto, Canada writes: This is ABSOLUTE BS extortion at its worst. It is time for these insane copywrong laws to be taken off the books. How exactly can you own an idea, you can't, its craziness.

    Heres my question, how on earth can they possible divvy up the extortion money fairly amongst artists. Heres the answer : THEY CAN'T.

    This is BS start to finish
  5. Brian Lowry from Canada writes: My iPod doesn't contain a single illegally downloaded or copied tune, out of 4,000 or so -- if they institute a levy, I think it'll be worth challenging it in court -- there are a fair number of people who use iPods for non-music applications as well, including file transfer and watching videos. Perhaps a class action suit is also in order: against the music industry for throwing up so many monopolistic barriers to enjoying their product legally. No wonder so many people ignore music copyrights, when the industry clearly has zero respect for their honest customers.
  6. Mike Quinlan from Gatineau QC, Canada writes: I think the point is being missed here. There is already a fund that is distributed to Canadian artists according to a formula. I believe the fear is that in the future the revenues from blank CDs will go the way of revenues from the sale of blank cassettes, basically into freefall. What the music industry is seeking is a means to preserve revenues for its artists that are being eroded due to a change in user technologies. A levy on iPODS and MP3 players is not unreasonable. If you love music you should be willing to spare some change for the artists.
  7. Andrew Burke from Canada writes: "If you love music you should be willing to spare some change for the artists."

    The problem with these arguments is your not actually supporting the artists like this but rather bloated greedy companies who apparently think their profit is more important than your freedom.
  8. Brian Maranta from Ottawa, Canada writes: Hey, if I already paid this fee when I bought my iPod, that means the artists have already been compensated, which means I can steal all the music I want! Huzzah! Come on to me, P2P networks!!
  9. Sarah Bee from Canada writes: This makes no sense to me. My MP3 player doesn't copy anything - it plays what I put on it from other sources. It is not like a blank CD or DVD, which, sad though it is, are primarily used for pirated materials. I buy music online, I buy audio books online... I've paid for this stuff already! I'm happy to support musicians but I'm not happy to get robbed! Double-billing isn't permitted elsewhere, why should it be permitted here?
  10. P Martin from St. John's, NL, Canada writes: I have always been peeved that the government passed a levy on CDs and other recordable blank material. They are assuming that I will be using it for pirated material. Proven guilty before the fact. That there is no pirated material on any CD that I own is besides the point. This is more about greed than it is about distribution of money to artists.
  11. andy c from Canada writes: i can't remember the last cd i burned that had music on it. not everyone burn's music onto cd's. the last few i burned had vacation pictures on them or a slide show for work. Adebisi TheGamer makes a very good point
  12. M Kwad from Calgary, AB, Canada writes: Well, with the high Canadian dollar it might be time to make a run for the border and buy some iPods.
  13. Marty McCluskey from Canada writes: Someone needs to investigate these music organizations. I bet they are inefficiently run with a bunch of "fat cats" at the top, looking out for themselves primarily, and artists' interests are just a guise.
  14. Rod Cater from Ottawa, Canada writes: Here's a modest proposal: Why not tax babies? After all, if CRIA is to be believed they're the ones who will soon pirate music. The baby tax also avoids the twin problems of assigning guilt (because babies are obviously innocent) and which technologies to target (because that would be hard). This fund could even be used to compensate other parties from whom IP has been stolen through advances in technology -- such as advertisers denied their chance to connect when we fast-forward through a commercial, or domestic publishers who lose revenue to unfairly competitive Internet offerings.
  15. Will Iam from Toronto, Canada writes: Well said, Adebisi TheGamer. This levy is another stupid product of what appears to be an inferiority complex in the Canadian entertainment business (others include CanCon rules and that dumb outrage over the Quebec action movie). The recording industry lobby group (whatever their name is) appears to be taking their cues from the RIAA, which is sad.

    Also, if you want to support the artists, go to concerts. Artists see very little of the money from a $16 CD but they make money from their tours. Alternatively, buy tracks/CDs from the artists' web sites (as long as they're not label-run sites, heh).
  16. Rain On Your Parade from Toronto, Canada writes: As soon as they come up with a program to levy more funds from the music lovers, the sooner music lovers will find another free venue to get music from. Long live freedom.
  17. Erik Richards from Winnipeg, MB, writes: A couple of thoughts...

    As a couple of other people have already suggested, if I'm paying a levy to support musicians then I can only assume this fee gives me licence to copy and burn MP3s for my own use. I mean you can't very well tax an activity and then turn around and declare it illegal, can you? That would be like taxing prostitution but keeping it illegal.

    I can see why the CRIA wants to levy a fee against CDs, but why are DVDs subject to a fee? I suggest there are far fewer DVDs being used as massive MP3 libraries. DVDs are vastly more likely to be used to burn movies, not music. Does CRIA represent actors, producers, movie studios, etc.? If not, are those groups being given their share of this levy on DVDs? If not, why not?

    I think there needs to be a LOT more transparency on this levy - how it is used, who it is benefiting, how much it's costing just to administer this stupid policy and, most of all, is it really doing what it's supposed to do - namely benefit the artists who are supposedly being harmed. I say supposedly because I will never accept the argument that every burned CD represents a lost sale. On the contrary, if I didn't burn the CDs I have I would just be going without.
  18. Mike Ram from Edmonton, Canada writes: SIMPLE solution: just make tougher copyright laws so these would be musicians are proteceted in the first place. Not everyone who is paying these stupid levies on CDs & DVDs download CANCON. Serious yet, this cancon levy only support a few lazy musicians. This is akin to charging every homeless person rent per chance they might sleep in your garage on a cool winter day. Let's not have laws that encourage stealing. As with all thieves, they belong in the slammer, why make an exception with music or movies? Stop these stupid reverse onus copyright laws.
  19. Trillian Rand from Canada writes: The real problem isn't in the definition of what the iPod or similar devices are, but the fact that musicians record their music in the first place.

    This 'problem' could be easily solved if musicians stayed away from recording studios and only performed their material live, in sound-proof buildings. It would take a few years, but eventually there would be very few recordings available and musicians and the entire music industry could be certain each and every musician was being adequately paid for his/her work.
  20. Swifty J from Mariposa, Canada writes: Face it. Whenever you listen to music without having paid royalties to the copyright holder, you are stealing. Time for an ear levy. Problem solved, at least until technology arrives allowing us to pipe music directly to the brain, bypassing the ears. Seriously: if I buy a copy of a recording then make another copy for my private enjoyment, that's fair dealing by any reasonable definition. Suck it up, CCRA. As a number of posters point out, many people will treat your ill-conceived levy as a licence to pirate music. In fact, many already do, including a number of judges. It's such an obvious consequence, it's hard to believe it's unintended. And yet now CCRA wants to compound its silliness. Unbelievable.
  21. Swifty J from Mariposa, Canada writes: Oops, I meant CPCC, not CCRA.
  22. Nancy C from Toronto, Canada writes: Such a move only punishes those of us who are honest enough to legally purchase all of the music for our iPods. I'm sure I'm not the only person who started buying MORE music once I got an iPod and had easy access to cheaper music through iTunes. If this levy goes through, I'll just stick with the radio after my iPod dies.
  23. True North from Canada writes: Thieves. I had to pay this levy to reproduce my own music - I was making a CD of music composed and performed by myself as Christmas gifts to friends. When I asked the CPCC, quoted in this article and who who also collects this levy, if they are able to charge me fees for reproducing my own music under the Copyright Act of Canada they would not give me a straight answer nor provide me with an exemption process from their scheme. It is very clear under the Copyright Act that I, as the creator of my work, am most certainly entitled to freely reproduce my work yet the CPCC provides no process whatsoever for independent musicians and composers. This levy is simply set up as a cash cow for the big music industry; not musicians and composers for in age of home studios and the internet, the big music industry is simply a bloodsucker. I am paying the music industry to put my own music independently and getting none of it back! Thieves. Also, the thinking behind this ruling would seem to also qualify personal computers and phones or indeed any device that plays audio as being subject to this levy.
  24. Brian Huzel from Canada writes: I view the music industry's position as nothing more than a money grab. I own an iPod. All of the music that I have on my iPod is either from my own CD's or purchased through iTunes. Therefore, I have paid royalties to the music industy for every selection on my iPod. To pay royalties a second time on the purchase of an iPod [or any other MP3 player] is ridiculous. To be fair to both the consumers of music and the creators of music either one or the other of two options should apply: either charge for the purchase of music and don't levy a fee on devices that can record music or levy a fee on any device that can record music and open up music to free unlimited downloads. To double charge would be doing the same thing to honest users of these devices that the music industry accusses illegal downloaders of doing: they would be ripping us off. The regulatory boddies should not sanction such behaviour. Go after illegal downloaders if you wish but don't victimize the honest.
  25. Sarah Bee from Canada writes: The music industry was so slow to adapt to the new technology when it came out... now they can't move fast enough to pick the pockets of all music lovers out there. Way to go in encouraging people to think of all record labels as money-grubbing jerks who deserve to get ripped off... and give people a reason to feel good ripping them off by downloading free music. No one is helped by this.
  26. Art Vandelai from Burlington, writes: An iPod cannot record anything (unless you buy a voice recorder attachment) that hasn't already previously been recorded or copied onto a computer in a format that the music player can read.

    The lack of a "Record" button on the iPod should be quite obvious.

    The iTunes software on the other hand can record to or from CD. That's what should be taxed. I propose that CCPC is entitled to a 1000% tax on the cost of the iTunes software. Since the software is freely downloadable from Apple, that workes out to a big fat ZERO.
  27. Tom W from Vancouver, Canada writes: Actually Swifty, by implementing this levy, the recording industry is effectively legitimizing piracy .. so our Canadian ears can burn, rip, and 'back up' all the music content to our hearts content.

    Looking to the future, once the traditional music industry has died a nasty death, I think it'll be likely we'll see some sort of surcharge/subscription service that essentially allows us access to ALL music, ever recorded. Perhaps implemented like TV is in the UK through the per-tv licenses , access to musical content could be so cheap and ubiquitous and people will prefer that over a download method that breaks copyright. Wouldn't everyone buy music if a song cost 5 cents and could be easily and quickly downloaded at a decent bitrate ?
  28. Austin Powers from Canada writes: Just what our retail sector needs - one more reason to head over to Buffalo...
  29. wawa dave from MiddleofNowhere, Canada writes: Cor-Pirations and the need for greed!!!
  30. Some Guy from Ottawa, Canada writes: Cassettes and cds are levied because they are recordable media that are intended to be distributed. The key here is distrubution. The idea behind levies are to recapture the alleged 'lost revenue' owed to creators through the readily available and frequently copying and distribution of copyrighted material. Levies are likely on these media types to 1) make a few more bucks for the industry and b) to recapture the alleged 'lost revenue'.

    An iPod is not intended to be distrubed as a CD or cassette. Media that is attached to its drive or flash media is intended to stay with the owner and not be passed around for further copying etc. The iPod as a form of media is not used simply as a piece of recording media. The ideas and basis for reviewing the substance of an iPod to discover whether levies should be imposed is silly.

    The answer lies within its normal use. People are less likely to part with a $100-$300 iPod to have their friend make use of the media on it than they are to loan out their favourite CD (which their friend is likely to make a legal copy of).

    The government is interested in a cash grab for themselves and the recording industry will surely support it as they too are the beneficiaries.
  31. elle ryker lychkova from montreal, Canada writes: yeah, well the fact is you wouldn't have any music at all if the artist hadn't created it, therefore you should have to pay at least SOMETHING for it. i-pods are a capitalist device to cash in on consumers - they were not created by artists as a medium for their music to be distributed and enjoyed. if Apple makes money off the consumers and the artists, the artists should get a cut...and if the consumer wants the music, they should be willing to pay the music industry a fee as well. you don't go stealing magazines and books from stores, so why should you get someone's music for free? they're not asking for a monthly rental fee, it is a one time charge to allow you freedom to download tunes at will...it sounds quite fair to me.
  32. Some Guy from Ottawa, Canada writes: Besides, an iPod is a computer. It contains a hard drive, memory, a processor and an operating system. It is fundamentally different than a piece of recording media. If the government can levy an iPod they can levy your pc and mac.
  33. Erik Richards from Winnipeg, MB, writes: Tom W from Vancouver, Canada writes: Wouldn't everyone buy music if a song cost 5 cents and could be easily and quickly downloaded at a decent bitrate ? That depends. How am I allowed to pay for this song? With a credit card only? And what technical limitations are there with this song - can I copy it from my desktop to my laptop to my MP3 player and back it up on CD? Does it expire after a certain time? And I don't see 5 cents being close to what the rights holder would request per song. Otherwise you could buy, download and "own" a billion songs - probably all recorded music - for a mere $50 million.
  34. Some Guy from Ottawa, Canada writes: elle ryker lychkova from montreal:

    This isn't about whether consumers should pay for music. I think you have missed the point entirely.
  35. Gordon Smith from Canada writes: I read this article with great disgust of the music industry. The whole intent of ipods and other mp3 players is to play music that is legally acquired (either by uploading the music on legally purchased cds or downloading from such providers as itunes). The issue of illegally downloading music is a separate issue that should be dealt with separately. Furthermore there are people who purchase ipods as a device to exclusively listen to podcasts or store pictures. Why should they pay the music industry a levy.

    If the music industry convinces the powers to be that because music may be downloaded illegally that a levy should be charged on the devices that play that music. Does this mean that this levy will ultimately be charged on computers. Computers are the devices used for downloading the music, are the places where the music is stored, and in many cases are used to play the music. The next step would be to apply the levy to external memory devices such as hard drives because they may be used to store illegally acquired music. Where does it all end?

    Having said all this if their greed wins the battle people will just buy their ipods in the US.
  36. E Newell from Canada writes: The first and most stupid mistake Canadian lawmakers made was to give the music industry a cut of CD and DVD sales. Now, in their unlimited greed, the music industry believes that anything is fair game!
  37. elle ryker lychkova from montreal, Canada writes: i don't think i missed the point. music can be downloaded illegally and used for free. i don't agree that this practice is fair to the artists or the music industry and therefore i think the consumer should pay a levy on these devices. i also believe the same levy should be placed on computers. its a onetime lifetime (of the device) fee and its not very much for the ultimate value you get. you can easily hold thousands of songs on personal devices now. $75 is nothing in comparison to the price you would have to pay to purchase the equivalent in cds...i download music from sites all the time - if i had to pay a levy, i wouldn't mind. its better than spending $20 a pop for a cd.
  38. Paul Jay from Ottawa, Canada writes: The copyright reform process is dominated by the entertainment industry, whose executives essentially write the legislation for our sheep-like parliamentarians to sign. It is important for all you thoughtful folks in this comment section to write your MP and let him or her know that they should keep the needs of ordinary Canadians, not Hollywood suits, in mind when they draft copyright law.
  39. Some Guy from Ottawa, Canada writes: Goron Smith:

    And a duty tax would be applied to any iPod coming across the border into Canada. So, that would not resolve the issue.

    It is important to recognize that not all copying in Canada is illegal. Distributing or 'broadcasting' media is what makes it illegal. If you were to make a copy of your favourite Raffi CD and then give that copy to someone for their very own, this is illegal as it is broadcasting or distribution. Making a copy of your Raffi CD for safe backup in the event of fire however is not. If your friend were to borrow your Raffi CD and proceed to make a copy of that CD for themselves, this is permissable under copying for private use (refer to the Copyright Act), so long as they do not give away that copy to someone else.

    The issue raised in this article is whether an iPod can be defined as a piece of recordable media and therefore subject to levies.
  40. Jim Valentine from Toronto, Canada writes: I have approx. 9,600 songs on my iPod (and counting), most of it ripped from my CD collection and some bought online. I don;t begrudge paying the artists: they wrote it so they deserve to be paid; however, I paid the artists when I bought the music.

    This is clearly double-dipping by a music industry that assumes the music has been stolen - just more evidence of their hackneyed approach to digital music in the first place. They are paranoid and seemingly continue to be unequipped to deal with technological advances. They tried the same thing with VCR's in the '80's and continue to work hard to prevent the proliferation of music (and movies), at the ultimate expense of those they are trying to serve: the artists.
  41. K M from Canada writes: Bottom line, it's wrong and they are rich enough already! Get your hands out of my pockets and stop sucking all the fun out of what little we have left to enjoy.
  42. Krusty G from Ontariario, Canada writes: On the issue of levies, I don't like being taxed for something I MIGHT do - on the other hand, if I'm being taxed for it, it can't be illegal, so the tax implies it's OK for me to go ahead and steal these tunes, since I've now paid for them in the form of the levy. It's all pretty stupid really.

    But the article is about whether an iPod is a device that plays or simply the medium that stores. On most other mp3 players this is not an issue - they play, and the music is separable from it, often as a separate card that holds the music, but usually as a separate drive or disc within the device itself. With iPods and all the other iCrap, it's different - the two are inseparable. The storage drive and the computer that plays the songs are the different parts of the same thing. This is intentional. It makes for faster boot up and playback, and it really helps with the whole control-everything-including-the-content kick that Jobs is on. As the law with levies and everything stands right now, the levy should ONLY be placed on iPods and the other iProducts, since they intentionally try to be both medium and player. All other players that distinguish between file storage and the processor should get a free ride though. Take that Steve Jobs! You're not going to turn all of us Canadians into iRobots, however hard you try...lest we forget, the 'medium is the message', and Jobs is being loud and clear.
  43. Taylor McLaren from Canada writes: Some Guy brings up one of the more important points here, which is that the purpose of the copy should have some bearing on things. I can think of two main reasons for making a (hypothetical) copy of a CD: to give to someone else (who isn't likely to buy it at that point) or to keep in my car so that if/when somebody breaks into it and swipes everything in the glove box, I've still got the music that I paid for. Only one of these reasons costs anybody any sales, and it isn't the one that resembles how people use iPods. Country-of-origin issues are similarly thorny -- Canadian music doesn't come close to filling my iPod -- and the suggestion that PCs would be similarly taxable/leviable would take the mechanics of assigning payment one step further into the absurd. And what are the odds that the lawsuits will stop when this latest levy is applied? Pick a tactic and stick with it, lobby groups!
  44. Gordon Murray from Canada writes: ...but if I whistle a tune and it's sufficiently out of tune and sufficiently atempo and burn it onto 33 vinyl, that's sufficient to be free and clear of royalties due others, right?
  45. Glenn Finockio from Winnipeg, writes: Might as well start taxing our ears. In fact, that's what I'm going to call this new levy from now on (and you can too) - the Ear Tax.
  46. B Lam from Canada writes: Brian Maranta from Ottawa, Canada writes: Hey, if I already paid this fee when I bought my iPod, that means the artists have already been compensated, which means I can steal all the music I want!

    Brian, you do not have to steal. You are entitled to download or copy any music you want. You paid for it already when you puchase any recording medium.
  47. Ben Dover from Vancouver, Canada writes: I say the large greedy corporations that control mainstream media are the authors of their own demise. They did nothing to meet the growing consumer demand for mp3 files. Instead they let illegal services rise up to fill the need. Once they became firmly entrenched, the music industry tried all kinds of idiotic legal maneuvering to stem the loss of revenue. When that didn’t work, they launched their own online services with an unrealistic pricing model (99 cents a song with virtually no distribution costs… give me a break!) and digital rights management embedded in each file. Savy consumers looked at that offering and said ‘no thanks, I’ll stick with my illegal file sharing service’. Ten years later we finally have one of the labels looking at launching a DRM-free service. Most people didn’t flock to illegal music sharing services because they were too cheap to pay for their music. They did it because nobody was offering music from around the world in a digital format for sale. The music industry clung to their outdated distribution model and they are now paying the price. How can you feel sorry for any business that does that? Furthermore, how can you feel sorry for an industry that foisted all that Rap and Hip-Hop crap onto us over the last 5 years? I say let em’ fade away!
  48. Neil W. Humphrey from Vancouver, Canada writes: Ok, what's next levies on PC's because some people can't remove their hard drives from their PC.

    Total money grab by a part of the music industry like the whole music industry that is loosing money because of lousy products ie. Brit, Paris, Gangsta, & more junk!!!
  49. Intex Kit from Toronto, Canada writes: Royalties are taxable. I must defer the "issue" to the IntellectualExchange.com
  50. E Campbell from Chicago, United States writes: If they put this levy through, does that mean I can bring in all the CD's and Apple iTunes purchases from Canada in my lifetime to the CPCC for refund? That's the only way I can see this properly working.

    I don't mind paying the artists for their music - which is why all the albums/singles on my iPod were bought legally in the first place. But just because I am honest, this doesn't give them the right to make me pay twice. In fact, the above plan would be a win-win - the artists get their revenue - and I get a great deal on a lifetime subscription to the music of my choice!
  51. Robyn Tidd from NB, Canada writes: I don't see why they don't actually put some effort into fining people who illegally download music. Then they can charge those people fee's and leave all the honest consumers alone. I have no illegally downloaded music on my iPod and I haven't used a blanc cd for music in a long time either. All my pictures have been put on those. I didn't realize that i was paying a levy when I bought those for my digital pictures. That pisses me off.
  52. D G from Canada writes: Well, if someone legitimately goes to iTunes and buys songs but they still get charged a levy when they buy their iPod, they are paying twice. Therefore, won't most currently "honest" people be encouraged to download songs "illegally" if they feel they have already paid for the music when they bought their iPod and paid the levy? Somebody in the music industry didn't think this one through very far!
  53. * * from Canada writes: Like others who have commented, my iPod is full of music from two sources: legal iTunes downloads (that I purchased) and CDs that I purchased. I don't own a CD player, but I buy them to put on my iPod. A levy on the iPod itself is therefore unfair and unjustified. There may have been a time when burning music CDs was prevelant, but since the advent of the iPod and other similar devices, my only use of CD-R and CD-RWs is for data and personal photos. The fact that I am paying into some fund to support the music industry for that is bad enough. If I am subjected to more cost on my next iPod purchase, that's just wrong.
  54. brokeback mountain from Canada writes: my ipod contains no music files, I use my ipod for learning foregin languages, why am I paying a tax? this is just money grab.. if their logic holds, then the tax should be charged in all the countries the ipod is sold, not just here. I listen to the recording of my own voice, should I get a cut of the tax too?
  55. B Lam from Canada writes: We should send all used data CDs to CPCC for refund. I love to see how they handle the volume of the garbage.
  56. Darrell Hubert from Calgary, Canada writes: see CTV story;

    Artists taking credit for songs they didn't write prevalent in pop music scene

    everybody stealing from everybody else in the music scene...if you are paying cold hard cash for music you are a sucker.
  57. Chris Brand from Canada writes: Robyn Tidd asks they don't actually put some effort into fining people who illegally download music. That's easy to answer. The first time they tried, the Federal Court made it clear that they'd have to actually produce some evidence that illegal downloading had actually happened. Combine that with the "Private Copying" regime that they lobbied so hard for (which allows you to make private copies of music onto blank audio recording media), and they decided that they'd make more money if they didn't sue people but instead lobbied the government to change the law.

    As Some Guy said the real key here is that the Copyright Act shouldn't be concerned with copying, but only with distribution (like the very first copyright law) - it doesn't matter how many copies I make of something I've legally obtained if I keep them to myself. It's when I start handing them out to my friends, selling them, or sending them over the Internet that I'm actually hurting the rightsholders. Unfortunately, it was called the "Copyright Act" not the "Manuscript Rights Act", so there's very little chance now of taking "reproduction" out the list of exclusive rights granted by it.

    I do hope that everyone who commented here also wrote to their MP (as Paul Jay suggested). They're the people who need to know that it's no longer just the music and movie industry that cares about the Copyright Act. You can also sign the petition for Users' Rights - http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition.
  58. john august from Canada writes: Vinyl, 8 track, cassette, digital audio cassete, cd, and now the IPod.
    I've purchased them all, paid my dues to the industry you might say and quite often for material by the same artist for the same song. James Taylor comes to mind Dire Straits and Sting and I'm certain everyone has a list in direct proportion to their age. We all support the creative talent that produces the music although historically they are not the ones who benefit the most. The "suits" have always had contol and now that it's slipping away they are desparately trying to restore order to an art form gone mad. Imagine only buying the song that you like and not the entire album/cd/mp3. If it were up to them they would tax/levie/bilk us on record players, cassete players, toasters, TVs, and elcetric tooth brushes. I've never downloaded anything for free, bought and paid for every note and if someone wants to charge me AGAIN ! just to listen to it well I'm outta here. Where's my guitar?
  59. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: Just clarify for some people who seem a little confused about the levy.

    The levy is to compensate the recording industry for music you make copy's of, nothing more.

    It has nothing to do with whether the music was bought by you or downloaded illegally via P2P, it has nothing to do with distribution either, these are totally separate issues.

    Prior to the levy back in 1998 it was illegal to copy music in any way shape or form. That means copying your LP's to cassette or CD prior to 1998 was in fact illegal. But because it was impossible to enforce, the CRIA devised a way to get payment for the copy's being made anyway, a CD levy. But they couldn't ask for a levy outright, so they lobbied the government to change the copyright act & add in the Private copying section (written by the CRIA), which would take copying music off of it's current illegal status. In exchange for copying not being illegal any longer the government allowed the inclusion of a mechanism into the Private Copying section. This mechanism was Collectives & Levy's, copyright's holders/groups could form collectives (CPCC) which in turn could ask for Levy's. That's basically how the CPCC & Levy's came about, a trade off with the government.

    The real issue that needs to be addressed is how many times do we the consumer legally have to pay for something?

    By rights if I have two stereo's & two cars all with CD players, I should have to pay a levy if I play my store bought CD in more than one of these CD players, if not why is there even a levy?
  60. - - from Canada writes: If the CCB really wants to tax music players, that's fine. We'll all just buy them online from the US. Record companies won't get a penny, and Canadian retailers (and tax collectors) will be the only losers.
  61. doctor business from vancouver, Canada writes: Is an MP3 player the medium or the messenger? Who cares. The point is moot except in this law. What really should be opened up to scrutiny is how the recording industry levees are being spent and who is in charge of that? Is it used to support canadian artists or just big corporations claiming to represent them? I download all sorts of music from all sort of sources, but I never get the bad pablum that the 'Recording industry' shovels out. I don't want my taxes paying for brian adams!

    On the topic of the moot point: Is an ipod a computer? It could be, but some of the software and hardware is restrictive. Until I can run linux on it it is not a computer and should be taxed as something of a lesser public good. The definition of a computer is something that can run any code [theoretically - formatting is another issue].
  62. Art Vandelai from Burlington, writes: What if I buy another iPod, or maybe another manufacturers' player to replace a defective or broken one. Would I have to pay the levy again for the SAME COPY of the SAME MUSIC that I previously paid the levy for and paid for when I bought the CD or iTunes tracks? Is the tax refundable?

    Clearly the CRIA is out to lunch and this policy makes no sense other than to fatten the pockets of greedy recording execs by parasiting off of a very successful product.
  63. Nathan Weatherdon from Canada writes: It's simple - the price of any iPod could include a $50 credit towards downloads of ANY music or videos. Consumers should be allowed to choose which artists to support with their money rather than the record industry. Perhaps the option to donate it to a independent recording artist grant fund would go over better for most people than handing over the cash to the big boys.

    Or, accept reality and move into the new era. Recorded music is free, plain and simple. Produce a good rock concert and make the money their. You can never duplicate the experience by any means other than to go to another rock show.
  64. Apu Nahasapeemapetilon from Vancouver, Canada writes: Just a reminder that this levy is subject to the GST.

    Buy your iPod, MP3 player and blank media in the US. Cheaper to start with and no levies. Plus, since its a levy and it is collected for a non-government organization, CCRA has no authority to collect the levy at the border.
  65. Donalda Mann from Toronto, Canada writes: Perhaps a class-action lawsuit against CRIA for unjust enrichment is in order. After all, if most blank CDs and DVDs are being purchased ffor non-music copying uses, then no levy should be owned.

    It would also be relatively easy to prove what the discs were used for (photographs, business presentations, data backup, demo discs, etc.).

    As I have a nearly-full 30GB (20,000 compositions) iPod that doesn't have a single illegally downloaded item on it, the CRIA (Cryer?) can 'eph oph'
  66. Allan Sorensen from Canada writes: No one, including The Globe & Mail, has bothered to find out what happened to the money that was extorted from consumers who bought iPods years ago and were forced to pay $25 before it was even determined that the "tax" was illegal. Refunds were offered, but how many people took advantage of this? And what happened to the unclaimed (and illegal) revenues?
  67. Ricardo Viana from London, Ont, Canada writes: I may be one of the few who are looking at the iPod as a multimedia device and not just a music player. Yes, I will put my music on it (CD's and from iTunes) but the industry has already profited from these transactions. The rest of the space I plan to use for photos and videos I want to share of my family with my friends. Do I have to pay a leave/Tax so I can do this? Why should I have to give the music industry $75 so that I can show my friends at work the most recent video of my son? The iPod and most other media player are computers with multiple functions because of this one cannot assume that they will be used entirely for music, or even at all. For this reason the iPod should not have a leave imposed in the same way that I did not have to pay a leave when I purchased this computer. Take care.
  68. Michael Ruxton from Dartmouth, NS, Canada writes: If I own the CD, or if I purchase the music online, I already have the fair use right to listen to the music, regardless if I'm listening to it on my stereo at home, at work, in my car, or on my iPod. Don't alienate your legitimate customer base.

    Does iPod software distinguish between music transferred from CD, music purchased online, and music from other sources? If so, Apple should be able to provide statistics on this. I'll suggest that Apple include in their iPod software some use statistics, so that we get a good idea of what people are listening to. Gather some data, get some non-industry people to analyze the data.
  69. Freddy Sanon from Ottawa, Canada writes: Want to read something interesting? Go to the CPCC's website and see how much of the millions of dollars in levies they've collected have actually been paid out to content creators to date, versus the amount they've retained for whatever reason...

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.