Canada One Step Closer To Adding The 'You're A Criminal Tax' To iPods

from the automatically-guilty dept

Fri, Jul 20th 2007 5:38pm — Mike Masnick

Remember two years ago when Canada's Supreme Court said that iPods shouldn't be subject to the blank media levy that the entertainment industry had convinced Canada to put on blank media like recordable CDs? Well, apparently the Supreme Court isn't the last word on the matter. Earlier this year, we noted that the Canadian Private Copying Collective, the group that administers this "you must be a criminal" tax on media was pushing to get the levy included on iPods anyway. Now, the Copyright Board of Canada appears to be supporting that position, saying that it's clearly within the law to tax iPods and other such devices. As Michael Geist notes, the ruling could also apply to such things as personal computers as well, as the entertainment industry may now start to claim that it needs a tax on anything that can store recordable content, even as it continues to fight piracy in Canada. So, at what point do people realize that the entertainment industry is getting paid twice here? First when they get the "you must be a criminal" tax and then again when people buy legitimately purchased content.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: canada, copyright, ipods
Companies: apple

53 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2007 @ 6:39pm

Levy-free south of the border
I have a co-worker who has parents that lives in the next state over.

This state doesn't have a sales tax, the state we're in does. As a result
he will occasionally tell his parents to buy certain big-ticket items
before his trip home...

Don't most people in Canada live near the US border?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2007 @ 7:15pm
  
  Re: Levy-free south of the border
  "Don't most people in Canada live near the US border?"
  
  Strange that you brought that up. I was just thinking that most people in US live near the Mexican border.
  
  /sarcasm
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2007 @ 7:21pm
  
  Re: Levy-free south of the border
  It is actually illegal to just go over to the States, purchase whatever (even clothes), and bring them back to Canada without paying customs fees. You never get checked/searched, but it is still illegal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2007 @ 8:23pm
    
    Re: Re: Levy-free south of the border
    thats why you get a gift receit and claim it as a gift. Its legal and you don't have to pay the tax.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2007 @ 11:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Levy-free south of the border
      thats why you get a gift receit and claim it as a gift. Its legal and you don't have to pay the tax.
      When was fraud legalized?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Canadiana, 22 Jul 2007 @ 3:29pm
  
  Re: Levy-free south of the border
  Ok, first, no Canadians do not mostly live close to the US border...get an atlas. The US is not the centre (yes, its CENTRE not CENTER) of the universe and we don't live in igloos.
  Second, What this does is make pirating legal. When someone is arrested, and charged with "stealing", the simple defense is...no I paid...the levy on the media is payment to the artist (at least that is what they levy is SUPPOSED to be for) and thus constitutes payment for said merchandise, namely the music.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2007 @ 11:37pm
    
    Re: Re: Levy-free south of the border
    Well...the map of Canada shows that the northern end of country is inside
    the Arctic circle. This is the cold end of the country...it's probably
    warmer to the south.
    
    This includes the thing called the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor,
    which alone accounts for over 55% of the population.
    
    It's quite sensiable really-- build your house in a place
    where it's warm. I suspect that around there, igloos are built for fun...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2007 @ 7:00pm

how are they getting paid twice, if the songs were illegally downloaded? "You're a criminal", well you probably are. If you took a census of all the ipods being used, the majority contain illegally obtained songs. It's reasonable for the state to help cover artist's losses with music piracy so rampant today. Record companies aren't evil, you are for stealing music that people have put a lot of time and money into creating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe, 20 Jul 2007 @ 7:33pm
  
  Re:
  Have you actually researched where the money goes when you buy a CD? Talk about inflated and misplaced value!
  http://www.cnn.com/interactive/entertainment/0101/cd.price/frameset.exclude.html
  So where does the difference go when it's downloaded content? Sure you have bandwidth and storage fees, but those costs pale in comparison.
  The industry (and now politicians) have found a way to convince consumers (legal-downloaders) to pay more for less. So when you look at the "Record Companies" in this aspect, "evil" might be a bit strong, but it's definitely unmoral!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2007 @ 9:45pm
  
  Re:
  
  Record companies aren't evil, you are for stealing music that people have put a lot of time and money into creating.
  
  The problem is that the money from most music sales aren't going to the people that worked to create it. It's going to some old guy in a suit that doesn't do anywhere near as much work as the artist that created it.
  
  This is just an attempt to keep their middleman role alive in a changing music distribution world.
  
  And as for the "you probably are" card:
  
  Most people in US prisons are young black males. Should we play the "you probably are" card here and just throw them all in jail before hand?
  
  Most people that drive have broken the speed limit at some point. Should we play the "you probably are" card here and just start mailing speeding tickets out to drivers everywhere?
  
  The most popular portable music player is the iPod. Should we play the "you probably are" card here and just take all other portable music players off the market?
  
  And speaking of this levy/tax/what-the-frack-ever will only be placed on iPods?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 20 Jul 2007 @ 11:08pm
  
  Re:
  how are they getting paid twice, if the songs were illegally downloaded?
  
  For every legal purchase, they're now getting paid twice.
  
  Record companies aren't evil, you are for stealing music that people have put a lot of time and money into creating.
  
  Fascinating. I've never once downloaded an unauthorized song, so why would you accuse me of infringement? I'm simply pointing out that it makes no sense for the gov't to prop up a broken business model. And, by the way, learn the difference between infringement and stealing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mike allen, 21 Jul 2007 @ 2:59am
  
  Re:
  the only criminals are the record companies who tie up artists in contract that the actual artists get no copyright money what so ever the record company gets the lot and keeps it. They are the criminals.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Corrupt, 21 Jul 2007 @ 11:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Good thing there's no music worth listening to these days. All I need is dad's old tapes recorded from the radio back in his day."
    
    I hate people like you. Plenty of good trance, electronic, and ambient music is recorded these days. People like you don't try hard enough.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - YouKnowNothing, 23 Jul 2007 @ 6:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Trance Music" is an oxymoron.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sendeth, 21 Jul 2007 @ 8:41am
  
  you know what assuming does
  you are assuming that everyone is a criminal. if you buy a song legally, than they ARE getting paid twice. this is just an incentive to steal all your music because you are only going to pay for it once. i intentionally steal most of my music just to say "to hell with the artist". except the really good ones who aren't whiny bitches wanting to sue everyone. how about embracing the new model laid out in front of them, rather than fight it and (as mc lars says) "run your label like it was 1992... you overcharged for music for years. all we are looking for is a level playing field."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mystified, 21 Jul 2007 @ 10:58am
  
  Re:
  Anonymous Coward comment 2 - Please learn to read! The post in comment 1 clearly states "and then again when people buy legitimately purchased content." We all should be able to figure out that if the content is stolen, then the second 'tax' isn't paid.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- R3d Jack, 21 Jul 2007 @ 8:15pm
  
  Re:
  If your assessment is true, then we should simply pay the tax, which really covers unlimited downloading of material. Since we are all criminals by decree, the fact we are criminals really has no moral or ethical significance. Furthermore, everyone should download as much as possible, since we would be foolish to not get our money's worth.
  However, your incredibly self-righteous and arrogant assessment is false. The real solution is to find means to protect intellectual property without root-kitting the customer's PC or dragging people into court, claiming damages 10 or a 100 times the actual losses. I'm no fan of piracy, but the current behavior of the media industries is intolerable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- niftyswell, 21 Jul 2007 @ 8:49pm
  
  Re:
  Is it just me or does it seem like the MPAA and RIAA have figured out this blog exists and always have someone quick to endorse the industry? Every time a story goes up about the assumptions of the recording industry leading to indiscriminate taxation there is immediately an anonymous coward backing the RIAA. If it werent for IPODS and their download site the industry would be all but dead by now. Keep up the taxation, lawsuits, or other ways of making money without adding any new creativity to your market and people will figure the best way to get around it is to go completely underground where they dont even engage in legitimate sales....just watch!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2007 @ 11:57am
  
  Re:
  You believe the "piracy is evil" bullshit the media companies force down our throats?
  
  You haven't been reading techdirt for very long have you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wulven, 22 Jul 2007 @ 9:43pm
  
  Re:
  I would agree with you in point of fact if the "artist" received even a remotely fair share of the profits.. The record companies themselves are evil incarnate as they with regularity ask us to pay HIGHLY inflated media prices, put up with ridiculous laws and lawsuits, and foolish regulations (an example of this is radio stations having to pay double royalties if the broadcast their show on the internet.. Which I believe has since been removed). If the record companies stuck to doing what they should. Publishing and promoting the music artists make. Costs would go down and their profits would go up. Instead they spend ungodly sums of money "fighting" piracy, and lobbying for stronger DMCA laws, and filing stupid lawsuits.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old Guy, 20 Jul 2007 @ 7:18pm

Piracy
It's cool. I assume then that the American movie industry will be allowed to collect tariffs on all Canadian sold video cameras since half of the piracy is due to Canadians filming movies in the theater... hehe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
skimo, 20 Jul 2007 @ 7:39pm

Re: the majority contain illegally obtained songs
How is Apple making money off i-tunes if the "majority" of i-pods contain pirated songs? I'm betting most i-pod users don't even know they can buy music from places other than i-tunes. There may be a large number of pirated songs out there, but there are even more legally bought CD's that are ripped to mp3's and placed on DAP's. For those of you that think i-pod is the name for every player out there, DAP stands for Digital Audio Player. Assuming that songs are illegal just because they are in digital form is unconstitutional in the US, guess not in Canada though. ;)

Canadians, squash this movement before it's too late!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matty, 20 Jul 2007 @ 8:24pm
  
  Re: Re: the majority contain illegally obtained so
  Two words about i-Tunes:
  Loss Leader
  
  Look it up. . . .
  
  -M
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2007 @ 11:49pm
    
    Re: Re: Re: the majority contain illegally obtaine
    Two words about i-Tunes:
    Loss Leader
    Look it up. . . .
    Two words:
    B*** S***
    Look those up.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2007 @ 7:53pm

Levies aren't a 'tax' on illegal activity. Indeed, private copying -- the thing that the levy 'compensates' for -- is legal in Canada. What kind of logic could a government use to justify taxing an illegal activity? It would be an unbelievable conflict of interest; there would be actual disincentive to actual prohibit the activity.

I don't agree with the levy but this whole 'taxing an illegal activity' rhetoric is absurd.

Private copying should remain legal (and expanded from audio recordings) and the levy -- welfare for the recording industry -- should be abolished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2007 @ 8:26pm

As many people complain, piracy has built the music business. Many artists would get far less attention if people didnt share their music.

Also, a downloaded song isnt necessarly a lost profit. Many people download things which they would never pay money for. Who wants to pay $25 for a CD when you only like one song?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
James Jones, 20 Jul 2007 @ 11:31pm

Learn
...learn the difference between infringement and stealing...

Technically, literally, fugitively, ethically, or morally?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2007 @ 11:51pm
  
  Re: Learn
  Technically, literally, fugitively, ethically, or morally?
  Truthfully.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- YouKnowNothing, 23 Jul 2007 @ 6:39am
  
  Re: Learn
  Legally...the only difference that really matters here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Musicless, 21 Jul 2007 @ 12:15am

Good thing there's no music worth listening to these days. All I need is dad's old tapes recorded from the radio back in his day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Just Me, 21 Jul 2007 @ 7:18am
  
  Re: dad's old tapes?
  Lol, just as an FYI - taping music off the radio IS copyright infringement. It was just as illegal back then only they didn't have a way to enforce those rules.
  
  Now they still can't enforce so they just levy everybody to make up the difference.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Luci, 22 Jul 2007 @ 1:04am
    
    Re: Re: dad's old tapes?
    Incorrect. It has always been /legal/, within the terms of fair use, to record music off the radio for your personal enjoyment. It is /illegal/ to record music off the radio to /sell/.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2007 @ 8:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re: dad's old tapes?
      The "over the consumer owned airwaves" radio recordings are legal unless you attempt to resell them. They are there for anyone and everyone who has the equipment to receive it. The recording industry tried to sue to stop recording and the judge clarified how it was fair use of freely available content. Now we've got the next level of the fight with digital content.
      
      The recording industry took a few notes last time around and went in head first into this round by sponsoring the DMCA. Before the DMCA it was gray area for all reverse engineering but commonly accepted as fair use. You can still reverse engineer physical objects as fair use but with the DMCA you can't do anything to break digital encryption (cough, DeCSS).
      
      The DMCA also covered the butts of the satellite industries long enough for them to all but eliminate people using signals forced upon them. Once we get high quality fiber to the home as a commonplace thing, the phone companies will quickly beat out cable and satellite providers with On-Demand HD shows. And THAT is why there is a battle over net neutrality.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
claire rand, 21 Jul 2007 @ 3:44am

I presume once you've paid this tax, you have 'paid' for the content you copy to such a device yes? presumably that means it no longer matters where that content comes from?

I would assume someone with a good knowledge of the law, certainly a better knowledge than myself, could run with this. I would also have thought any possibility of a judge agreeing with it would lead to a very fast out of court settlement, or a dropping of charges totally (probably with a gagging agreement maybe).

this could well be a two edged sword.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2007 @ 6:26am
  
  Re:
  It already is - as far as I understand it, it's impossible to burn an infringing CD in Canada because once you've paid this levy, you have the right to all music on the CD.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2007 @ 7:29am
  
  Re:
  I presume once you've paid this tax, you have 'paid' for the content you copy to such a device yes?presumably that means it no longer matters where that content comes from?
  Unfortunately, no. As I understand it, the record industry claims that this tax is only payment for copying stuff that you already bought and paid for once. For example, making your own mix CDs from CDs that you already bought. The kind of thing that's covered by "fair use" in the US. That's why people complain about "paying twice". The record industry claims that it is still illegal to download "unauthorized" music in Canada even with this tax.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TedK, 22 Jul 2007 @ 8:28am
  
  Makes illegal content legal?
  I'd think this levy would be a good deal. Pretty hard to be accused of stealing something if you've paid for it:
  
  It's a levy on the content of your Ipod.
  Therefore, any content on your Ipod has been "paid" for.
  Therefore, so long as you only listen to downloaded content on the device - you are free to get the content anywhere you chose.
  
  If there is a levy at point of purchase, proving you've paid for the device is proof you've paid for any content on it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sendeth, 21 Jul 2007 @ 8:44am

@post #2
btw, i was addressing post #2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BECAREFULWHATYOUVOTEFOR, 21 Jul 2007 @ 11:22am

Nobody to blame but...
Canadians and all those who live in democracies have only themselves to blame when Government entities run roughshod over them. They voted for these people. They are only a reflection of the idiots who put them in office. When the judges start legislating from the bench (judiciall tyranny) that is a different problem but still fixable by electing the correct people to appoint these black robed tyrants. Quit whining and start voting for those who respect, love and protect freedom.

In the meantime, all Canadians are invited to buy their iPods in the good ole' US of A.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- SailorRipley, 23 Jul 2007 @ 7:37am
  
  Re: Nobody to blame but...
  and in what kind of vacuum have you been living your entire life?
  
  people living in democracies don't have themselves to blame for voting for "those people"...big business gives contributions to every candidate and expects "payback" once elected, regardless of what party the candidate belongs to or what platform he runs on (yes, of course there are exceptions). But to big business, it doesn't matter whether it's a Bush or a Clinton in the White House, or whether there's a Republican or Democratic majority in the House or Senate, a sufficient amount of members have been bought, lock, stock & barrel, so it really doesn't matter who you vote for
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Humored, 21 Jul 2007 @ 3:21pm

iPod music
I have an iPod with about 800 songs on it and ALL of them came off of LEGALLY PURCHASED CD'S by me (of which usually only one or two songs is WORTH listening to) and the rest were purchased on iTunes. I think if I purchase the music, whether it be on cd or on a legal internet site, that I should be able to put that song on any media I want for myself. I think the RI is completely full of (*&^ for saying that this music is stolen. Downloaded illegal music (that I've heard on others' players') is usually not worth buying. Seems anyone that can speak tries to "sing" and gets paid the big bucks..........witnessed on TV almost daily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2007 @ 12:17am

in Canada we can legaly download any copy protected content
it is legal under the same law that allows our libraries to function
so dont pay for a cd download it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eileen, 22 Jul 2007 @ 7:57am

why are we assuming that everyone steals?
I have songs on my ipods from my personally purchased cd's and itunes. Why are most of you working under the assumption that stealing is the norm? The tax is stupid and just another in a slippery slope. I hope they squash it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2007 @ 10:21am

Blank Media levy?
Does this blank media levy apply to paper? I'd hate to think people may be copying the lyrics to songs and passing them on, or possibly even trying to reverse engineer it by coming up with sheet music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2007 @ 3:16pm

Lets squash piracy by making it more costly and complicated to do things legally!

Ohh yeah, and all that money that is supposed to feed the "starving artists" instead goes to feed those "starving lawyers" who are paid round the clock to sue thousands of people for breaking unenforceable laws.

You can't fight the future, the music and movie industry must adapt or die, thats just natural selection. People want I pods, and they don't want to get waxed on the music they buy. The people will get what they want in the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harry, 22 Jul 2007 @ 4:00pm

How much money are we talking about?
This 'tax' is so little that it wouldn't pay for a guitar pick!

A pack of 50 DVDs (including this media tax) costs maybe $25.00. I can copy and burn a million tunes with this much space - mighty lean pickins' for the artists!

Same thing with iTunes - it's a drop in the bucket. Anyone who thinks this miniscule amount of money makes an illegal act legal must be smokin something!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Asian, 22 Jul 2007 @ 4:30pm

watch the south park movie... and blame Canada .. blame Canada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
comboman, 22 Jul 2007 @ 6:44pm

Another iPod tax?
Considering iPods are already more than twice the price of an equivalent non-Apple MP3 player, the "You're A Criminal Tax" would be in addition to the "You're An Apple Fanboy Tax".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2007 @ 8:23am
  
  Re: Another iPod tax?
  I've heard it all before, things like "twice the price of an equivalent non-Apple MP3 player"
  
  please tell me where I can buy a 80GB mp3 player for $175 or less...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
divine inspiration, 22 Jul 2007 @ 7:13pm

Only a dumbhsit would pay for music. Seriously I have no friends who actually buy music anymore. Its not like record sales even pay an artist. Buying music is for dumb rednecks who don't know whats goin on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2007 @ 5:28am
  
  Re:
  I have no problem buying music from artists that are not "represented" by the RIAA. At least in that case the money is actually going to the band thats busting its hump creating and playing music and all actual contributing parties involved and not going to some old guy in a suit that does nothing but sit in a boardroom counting money.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick (profile), 23 Jul 2007 @ 10:13am

How about adding this one to law: The "Your a Murderer" tax (aka prison/death penalty) to anyone who buys a gun?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lummer, 23 Jul 2007 @ 2:37pm

Are they not ENCOURAGING piracy now...
If we have to pay this levy, does this not legalize downloading music for free? You know, since we are being taxed already...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]