Canadian Appeals Court Rules That ISPs Don't Have To Pay Copyright Levy

from the not-everyone-is-a-criminal dept

Fri, Jul 9th 2010 1:48am — Mike Masnick

Up in Canada, it seems that there's a constant push to expand copyright levies (the "you must be a criminal tax") to nearly everything from iPods to ISPs, despite the fact that many people recognize what a joke the levies have become. After failing to get it expanded to cover iPods, supporters of the levy pushed for ISPs to have to pay the levy, because people using their internet connection might possibly access content. Thankfully, a Canadian appeals court pointed out that access to broadcasts of content is not the same thing as broadcasting it and rejected adding the "you must be a criminal" tax to internet access.

Of course, there is one rather interesting part of the ruling, which is that the court notes that one of the reasons for this ruling is that ISPs are effectively "content neutral." If they were to stop that (i.e., and break net neutrality concepts), they could open themselves up to having this tax come back:

In providing access to "broadcasting", ISPs do not transmit programs. As such, they are not "broadcasting" and therefore they do not come within the definition of "broadcasting undertaking". In so holding, I wish to reiterate as was done in CAIP that this conclusion is based on the content-neutral role of ISPs and would have to be reassessed if this role should change

This is notable because, as in the US, there has been talk among ISPs of breaking basic net neutrality concepts. Perhaps this ruling will get them to think twice.

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, isps, levy, net neutrality

22 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2010 @ 2:00am

I don't get those levy's they are just nonsense, why should people have to pay for the possibility of others breaking the law?

Why are people accepting those levy's without questioning them?

I would like to see a Jigyo-shiwake in the U.S. and see live how people explain those things to everyone and of course the Canadians should demand that too, I want to see they justify that in public to all to see.

http://fumijp.blogspot.com/2010/04/jigyo-shiwake-in-japan.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 9 Jul 2010 @ 4:36am
  
  Re:
  "Why are people accepting those levy's without questioning them?"
  
  Apparently someone is questioning them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2010 @ 8:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    Not enough apparently.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BigKeithO (profile), 9 Jul 2010 @ 6:24am
  
  Re:
  I am Canadian and I can tell you that the vast, vast majority don't even know they are paying this levy. I'm sure if people were aware that 90% of the price of their blank media was going to this levy you would see some protests of some sort (that or an increase in "piracy", hey we're paying for it already aren't we?).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 9 Jul 2010 @ 9:47am
  
  Re:
  These stupid levys have been around since the days of cheap cassette tapes when Canadian "artists", a curiously unique and uniquely unique entitled bunch at that, became afraid that someone might tape a LP and pass it to a friend. It was something like a nickle a tape and it's still there.
  
  Then came CD recorders and players and the uproar became louder to the point where blank media is about 70% levy. The rest going back into a pool that some outfit like CAPAC gets and distributes back, allegedly, to the artist. (See: BMI, ASCAP.) Just to make things more urgent at the time the branch organizations of the **AAs got into the act and assured the same treadment for DVDs as CDs.
  
  It's not like CanCon regulations that came into effect on radio and television (regularly ignored on commercial networks) that the Canadian music and recording industry has grown and flourished to where it can compete with anyone, anywhere, any time. In English or French.
  
  Still, the bureaucrats and money collectors and (alleged) distributors want more which led to ISPs.
  
  Sound familiar? :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2010 @ 3:47am

This is so backwards. Why isn't the Canadian Government more concerned about taxing all this IP? That's the direction they should be moving in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liquid (profile), 9 Jul 2010 @ 4:32am

Good Decision
That is about the best statement/ruling since the whole crusade against file shares began back in the late 90's. A court that finally realizes that ISP's are nothing more than gate ways for the masses to access content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2010 @ 6:44am

absolutely nothing surprising in this ruling at all. as long as isps provide only pipe, they are safe. however, as they get into selling access to specific content (and making it available, storing it, etc) they risk crossing that line.

more than anything, it shows that you cannot have full net neutrality and unique customer offerings at the same time, either these companies are dumb pipe providers, or they are integrated media sellers. true net neutrality would require them to stop offering anything other than pipe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jimr (profile), 9 Jul 2010 @ 6:48am

It is better that everyone pay a very small amount (levy) than a few individual sued or forced into bankruptcy to defend themselves from copyright allegations.

I would happily pay a fee per medium to stave off fighting a expensive legal challenge for myself or others. It is much like a massive Canada-wide insurance policy. With out I might be in the stupid US system that even though I do not infringe I still may have to fight an allegation or pay a huge fee to settle out of court.

Getting back to the ruling it does make Sense to me. The ISPs are just the carries of material. Does the post office have to pay a copyright fee if it delivers copyright material? Would a phone company have to pay a fee if in the back ground of your phone call a copyrighted music played? Overall a good wording by the judge to refer to the ISPs as effectively "content neutral."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 9 Jul 2010 @ 7:30am
  
  That has still failed
  If this small "levy" actually worked, the RIAA along with ASCAP and the other collection companies would be able to stop lobbying to Congress for stricter enforcement.
  
  As it stands, even in the US, with our levy, people continue to be sued as the revenue from CDs goes down.
  
  I've never been a fan of a levy, simply because it perverts the issue of the cause of higher prices.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - crade (profile), 9 Jul 2010 @ 7:41am
    
    Re: That has still failed
    Actually what it does is make people who are buying *other* (possibly vaguely related) things also pay the RIAA. It's much worse than higher prices. If, for instance you are trying to boycott the RIAA because for whatever reason you might disagree with their practices, you would have to stop using the Internet (and probably a bunch of other non-RIAA products) at all to avoid supporting them.
    
    Still, it is the lesser evil compared to a DMCA if you ask me.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2010 @ 8:36am
  
  Re:
  Well, it's a good thing that Canada doesn't accept small-time IP litigation right now...but only because our courts are smart enough to see them as wastes of time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2010 @ 8:54am
  
  Re:
  It doesn't work that way, the dark side still wants draconian laws passed the levy is just a form of free money for them and many governments don't mind because people think it gives them something when it does nothing of the sort.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2010 @ 7:20am

DUH!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2010 @ 7:28am

I doubt US ISPs would have any reason to worry about this: there's no such tax in the US and none of them want to adopt non-neutral policies that privilege infringing content anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2010 @ 8:55am
  
  Re:
  Yes there is, cd/DVD/Bluray players I believe are taxed for this very purpose.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 9 Jul 2010 @ 7:33am

Policies intentionally privileging infringing content isn't the issue. The issue if if they have policies that try to prevent infringing content but fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd, 9 Jul 2010 @ 7:46am

"Perhaps this ruling will get them to think twice. "
>>Perhaps this ruling will get them to think twice.

Heck, I'd be delighted if they thought once. Modern corporate execs most parrot what they are told by their own lobbyists and lawyers. Original thought seems to be beyond most of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2010 @ 8:31am

If there is a blank media levy to cover the costs of copyright infringement, then I observe that as permission now to go ahead and copy whatever I want. Now it has been paid for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brad, 9 Jul 2010 @ 8:35am

Implied Consent
I see the levy as implied consent to pirate content. If I'm paying for it anyway....why not!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 9 Jul 2010 @ 9:13am
  
  Re: Implied Consent
  Fighting piracy is only spoken of in relation to the levy as a deception when they are marketting it. Actually, it does not address piracy in any way and is only compensation to allow people to do things like format shifting and other stuff they should be allowed to do without paying extra anyway.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Serge, 12 Jul 2010 @ 1:33pm

Uh, no.
This court case had absolutely nothing to do with any copyright levy. Suggest you read it before writing about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]