Angus Proposes iPod Tax... Balanced With Greater Fair Dealing Protections
from the is-it-a-trade-worth-making? dept
As was expected, Canadian MP Charlie Angus has introduced a bill that would expand Canada's "you must be a criminal" blank media tax (they prefer "levy," but it's a tax) to iPods and other media players. However, to "balance" that out, he's also proposing a change to copyright law that would make Canada's "fair dealing" laws more flexible. Expanding fair dealing is definitely a necessary and important move, but it seems unfortunate that it appears to be coupled with this idea of taxing people just because they might make use of unauthorized 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, charlie angus, copyright, fair dealing, ipod levy, ipods, tax
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Still, it's trivial to purchase from the US and just avoid the tax altogether.
Of course, the biggest problem in all this is who actually benefits? Such a small proportion goes to the artists this is supposed to support it is almost laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Might Use
This is the problem though. We know from many studies (and frankly common sense) that have been posted here and elsewhere, that these days the vast majority of the millions of iPods are already filled "unauthorized content".
In Canada, because of current law we have thankfully been exempt from the kind of legislation (though they have and are trying) and litigation that the US has had. I am not big on propping up business models with taxes, but I can see this as being much further protection for consumers at relatively little cost. If that cost is a more expensive iPod/MP3 player (which is a non-necessary item) and the few people who only have legally ripped/purchased content paying the tax for others, then it really doesn't seem to bad a trade off for proper fair dealing, considering the situation.
Hell, I pay for health care taxes and have never been in the hospital, but I won't be complaining as it gives me the protection to know that I won't be caught broke with a hospital bill I can't pay like in the US (or sued like you can be for infringement in the US).
That isn't to say that I don't see the dangers as well though. The definition of what constitutes a music player, how much the levy will be, and what are the fair dealing options are, will be very important if this is to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Might Use
While you're at it, why not start paying television insurance, or how about news insurance. Because we all know that some people are getting "unauthorized content".
It's not all that much different from the insurance you pay to Vinny, you know - because it would be a shame if anything bad happened ... You haven't had a fire yet, but you never know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Might Use
There is a huge divide between music sharing and TV/news. The vast majority of people don't download TV and the vast majority of TVs aren't playing unauthorized content. However the vast majority of MP3 players are. Same with news. Situation may warrant a different approach. And if that approach give greater protection for legal uses and expands legal use, is the offsets greater than the loss of a small cost on MP3 players? I think it may be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Might Use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Might Use
This simply isn't true. I pay for my music. Not all of us are illegal music downloaders (although I still don't think downloading bootleg music is a crime worthy of the enormous civil punishments meted out by juries on behalf of the goons at the RIAA). If I was Canadian, why should I pay a sin tax when I buy an MP3 player to compensate for what someone else does?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Might Use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Might Use
However, this "mp3 insurance" will not help you at all if you're caught accidentally infringing. It's the equivalent of paying for health insurance, and then getting the full bill when you finally need to go to the hospital. I wonder if you'll be complaining then...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should amend section 29 of the Copyright Act in such a way as to expand the Fair Dealing provisions of the act; specifically by deleting section 29. and inserting the words,
29. Fair dealing of a copyrighted work for purposes such as research, private study, criticism, news reporting or review, is not an infringement of copyright.
29.1 In determining whether the dealing made of a work in any particular case is fair dealing, the factors to be considered shall include,
(a) the purpose of the dealing;
(b) the character of the dealing;
(c) the amount of the dealing;
(d) alternatives to the dealing;
(e) the nature of the work; and
(f) the effect of the dealing on the work."
This is what will be changed. The important part is:
"Fair dealing of a copyrighted work for purposes such as ...."
This give huge amount of interpretation allowed in courts and open up many fair dealing rights that don't currently exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2691226
"I think it's totally nonsensical. We cannot have a strategy of greater access to Internet and to have a better digital economy in this country and, at the same time, have this NDP plan to tax iPods and to tax BlackBerrys and other portable devices." - Industry Minister Tony Clement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I think it's totally nonsensical. We cannot capitulate to entertainment industry demands and U.S. pressure to impose DMCA-style copyright laws and, at the same time, have this NDP plan to expand fair dealing in such a broad and consumer-friendly way." - Industry Minister Tony Clement (translated from the original Conservative double-speak by Anshar).
Thankfully, our Industry Minister is a complete idiot and not fooling anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They forgot personal backups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Worth the Trade
We already have the levy on blank media, and it doesn't do a damned thing to stop complaints from the US to make our copyright laws worse. I strongly doubt a new larger levy would achieve anything different. Except for digging deeper into our pockets up front. And still demanding our government betray us.
Honestly, I'm a bit surprised Angus proposed this. The fair dealing makes sense, but I thought he knew better than the tax.
Why not just propose that good half? If the levy is so ridiculous (as Clement says) let's just do the fair dealing part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Levy isn't to compensate for "unauthorized" downloading
It's not this levy that is protecting Canadians being sued by the music industry. It is the Copyright Act itself. If you read this case file (Michael Geist directed me to it), it shows quite clearly that courts have decided downloading songs from the Internet for free is legal if it is only for personal use: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/criadoe33104opn.pdf
So the CPCC, who collect the levy, say copying music from a CD to an iPod is currently illegal in Canada. By its logic, this levy would make that legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Levy isn't to compensate for "unauthorized" downloading
Of course they say/write/publicize that position. For context, here is an excerpt from the CPCC's own "about" page at www.cpcc.ca:
"Established in 1999, CPCC is an umbrella organization that represents songwriters, recording artists, music publishers and record companies."
Draw your own conclusions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Levy isn't to compensate for "unauthorized" downloading
Not only that, but then they also make format shifting illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Levy isn't to compensate for "unauthorized" downloading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lets not forget coffin makers
and we can make dead people pay fo rhtis too
start up the lawsuits RIAA/CRIA on dead people to recover your money now
ANGUS is a musician wannabe, and a writer like hte NDP leader
and the liberal leader
all the top 3 parties are now shille dout
ENJOY ACTA canada
the americans can fuck you in hte ass now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NDP quote
notice word amazing there
PROVE it
thats like advertising bias if ever i saw anyhting.
the solution is to drop term lengths to sane levels NO MORE then ten years
put a copy tax on the sale of the books
put a copy tax on the sale of a cdr
put a copy tax on blanks
put a copy tax on hard drives
put a copy tax on flash drives
put a copy tax on on internet
put a copy tax on on libraries
put a copy tax on printers
put a copy tax on scanners
put a copy tax on binoculars
put a copy tax on cameras of all kinds
put a copy tax on crayons
put a copy tax on paint
put a copy tax on inks
put a copy tax on electricity for using the above
put a copy tax on monitors
put a copy tax on all tvs
.....
heck lets put one on pencils and pens
and tape recorders and vcrs
and goto peoples homes and search these dastardly people out to make sure they paid the tax
and we can have harpers warrant less search and seizure laws to do this anytime you get mouthy and piss of the govt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One problem
I expected better from Charlie Angus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tax vs. levy
Even though they're both fees added on top a good or service, a tax (properly speaking) goes to government, while a levy goes to non-governmental entities.
This this new fee is not going to the government, but to artists supposedly impacted by file sharing, it should be called a levy.
You wouldn't call a German Sheppards a Golden Retrievers, and vice versa, so don't call a levy a tax please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]