# iPod levy rejected by court?



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Globe & Mail


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

I see an appeal in the works. Until then, however, it appears the levy is gone.

The only avenue for appeal is the Supreme Court of Canada, which is free to reject any appeal without a written reason (and they do so, a lot). So, expect a little time before any announcement is made, as the appeal will have to be carefully crafted.

Should the Supreme Court decline to hear the appeal, then yesterday's decision is final, period; the legislation would have to be changed to bring it back.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

I have to laugh at the lawyer who suggests it's illegal for me, who purchased the CD, to copy it onto an iPod.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

This is the best news I've read in awhile!!!!!    

Hurray for sanity and reason!!!!!


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

I haven't read the article. Are we eligible for a rebate?


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

Apple Canada's website still shows that the price includes the levy.

The levy is charged to Apple, who passes it along in the cost to the resellers. It'll be interesting to see how Apple handles this.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

The major retailers are selling these things as fast as they can get them. Can't see them dropping the price til after christmas. Even so, if the tax is uncontitutional, shouldn't it be refunded to all who paid it?


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

I'm actually a bit disappointed to see this levy go. Until now I have felt no remorse in downloading shared music, as I pay for it every time I by media, and when I purchased my ipod. If the feds are gonna charge me for sharing, don't ask me not to share. Anyway, IMHO removing the levy makes me want to share less.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

The levy is not the property of the Government to give back, and Apple can only do what it's told to do, and when it's told to do it. Apple doesn't make the rules, they just follow them.

Since all the iPods currently in country have already paid the levy, I would expect that until resellers see a means to get it back, they won't take it off the retail price; they've already paid it.

You would need to start a class-action suit against the Copyright Collective to get it back, or perhaps a small claims action. Unless of course they voluntarily offer to do so, but having seen them at work for the last 10 years, it doesn't sound like the kind of thing they are inclined to do. Put simply, they want it all.

I don't think Apple would lead that charge, preferring to wait for someone else to (inevitably) do it.

Remember, they need to stay on the good side of the music industry. I don't think it would make iPod owners happy if the iTMS-C was affected by bad blood between them, and the labels have that trump card to play.

Relax. Something will happen. It's just probably not going to happen before lunch time this morning. The real world moves slower than the ehMac forum does.


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

gordguide, I think that was the clearest, most well-thought out post I have ever seen on ehMac.

Not to say most posts are bad, but that one was particularly good.

Great job!


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

Apple canads should keep the price the same, and use the $25 to pay those loser futureshop reps. Maybe that would be incentive to actually try to sell Apple products.


----------



## Todd (Oct 14, 2002)

I read the article and the summary of Judge Noël's decision was that the current Canada Copyright Act does not give the Copyright Board of Canada the power to enforce a levy on MP3 players - like it allows them to do with blank media.

This hardly means the issue is gone. It means the Copyright Board of Canada must first have the Canada Copyright Act changed to include MP3 players. Then they'll enforce the levy again.

You're also welcome to feel disgusted to be Canadian after you realize that the blank CDs you buy to burn photos _you made_ or blank DVDs you buy to burn movies _you made_ and send them to Grandma include a levy to "compensate" people who have nothing to do with what you're recording.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

* would expect that until resellers see a means to get it back, they won't take it off the retail price; they've already paid it.*

For those of you who bought your iPods at London Drugs:

London Drugs is (as far as I know) the only retailer in Canada that did not include the levy in the retail price of the iPod (or any other player). Instead, the 429$ 20 GB iPod was 404$ + 25$ levy + tax. 

As such, the 429$ 20 GB iPod is now 404$ + tax at London Drugs, and probably will be at least until Monday. I do now know what will happen then, but I expect the price to rise again seeing as at 404$ the profit margin is razor thin.

Also, LD is currently working on a getting something together to inform customers of the ruling, and hopefully get their money back. It does, as previously pointed out, depend on LD getting the money back first though.

Just thought you'd want to know.

*You're also welcome to feel disgusted to be Canadian after you realize that the blank CDs you buy to burn photos you made or blank DVDs you buy to burn movies you made and send them to Grandma include a levy to "compensate" people who have nothing to do with what you're recording.*

Firstly, there is no levy on DVD-R/RW or DVD+R/RW media. 

Secondly, CD-R Audio is levied at a higher rate than CD-R (77¢ per disk vs 21¢ per disk), because they are a medium intended for music. Blank tapes also have a higher levy than CD-Rs. Since many people I know don't burn music it may seem like a rip off, but considering that _most_ people I know use 90% of their blanks for music still, you can see where the CPCC gets their justification for charging it even on "regular" CD-Rs.

Lastly, Canada is not unique in having a levy on blank disks. In fact, most of the G8 countries and most of the EU nations have a levy of some sort. Even the US has levies applied to CD-R Audio (and DAT tapes, apparently, just not CD-R).

So if you're going to feel disgusted about something, you're welcome to find something else.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> As such, the 429$ 20 GB iPod is now 404$ + tax at London Drugs, and probably will be at least until Monday. I do now know what will happen then, but I expect the price to rise again seeing as at 404$ the profit margin is razor thin.


wouldn't the profit margin remain the same?


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

okay nevermind. i'm an idiot.


----------



## mr.muggles (Jul 27, 2004)

Should I hold my breath and wait for the refund.







I must have thousands of dollars owed to me since I have been paying the levy on CDs for years, now DVDs and my iPod. Strange too that I only ever used CDs and DVDs for backups and project file distribution and not to illegally copy music.

MM


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... It means the Copyright Board of Canada must first have the Canada Copyright Act changed to include MP3 players. Then they'll enforce the levy again. ..."

I hope not. Let's just keep nice and quiet about this little victory.

Any proposed changes to the Copyright Act will bring planeloads of lawyers and lobbyists from all over the globe to our fair land, attempting to expand the scope of copyright to all new and imagined media, further extend the protection period for everything from books to film, and give the CCRA plenty of good face time telling our politicians how much they need a legislative stick as well as a financial carrot to survive.

It might help to realize that not one single person on this Earth is happy with any copyright law ever written, in any country. Since their lawyers are much more numerous than ours, I say don't give them a chance in the first place.

Smile, gloat even. Just don't call for a change to the Act. You won't like what happens next.

Just ask Australia, which, effective in about 2 weeks, will change it's copyright act to comply with the recent FTA with the US, which essentially makes Australian law identical to US law.

There is no such thing as "Fair Use Rights" in the US, even though it's often referred to that way.

"Fair Use" is a US legal precedent; essentially a defense which you may employ; you have to prove the precedent also applies to you during your trial. It is not a "right". You can still be charged (or sued) for almost any form of copying in the US.

Note that these changes affect existing works; ie if a copyright was set to expire in January 2005, it now won't expire until 2025.

Period extended from 50 to 70 years.
No right to copy music, film, television, or published work of any kind under any circumstances. No, you can't make a copy of a CD you own in Australia, or tape a TV show.
No personal use rights.
No "Fair Use" defense. Just like the US, Australian courts have previously ruled on this matter. The verdict? Guilty as charged.
Allowing others to make a copy under equipment you own or have control over makes you liable for prosecution (in other words parents are liable for their kids' copying, as are libraries and universities, internet cafe's, ISP's, etc).

Australia has had levies on blank media (currently struck down by the courts, but being re-introduced in 2005) even though making copies is illegal under almost any circumstance.

You may make one (1) backup copy of a computer program you are licensed to use.
You may back up data that includes programs as part of a reasonable backup strategy.

You cannot backup any program or data if the original disk employs any form of copy protection.
You cannot copy anything that is not specifically computer code; ie you cannot backup music, manuals, or video even if it is included as part of the original installation media.

You do not have the right to resell software without the express permission of the copyright owner. This is a strange one, but essentially it goes like this: since software is copied to the hard drive or memory when in use, the copyright owner controls who has the right to make such a copy and grants you alone that right. You need his permission to transfer that right to another. The copyright owner has the right to demand a new license fee from the buyer of used software, even if it was entirely complete as first sold.

Legal Copying in Australia ("Fair Dealing")
Research or Study as part of a recognized educational curriculum.
News reporting.
Legal citation.
Criticism or review.

You are required to prove that such Fair Dealing is genuinely for the purpose cited and must be "fair" to the copyright owner. Any use that infringes on the owner's sole right to profit from copying is by definition unfair under Australian law.

Australia enforces the act via Criminal prosecution, Civil suits, or both. If we start to enact a new Copyright Act, we too will be pressured by the US to harmonize our law with theirs under NAFTA.

Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.

[ December 18, 2004, 04:09 AM: Message edited by: gordguide ]


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

* I must have thousands of dollars owed to me since I have been paying the levy on CDs for years, now DVDs and my iPod.*

Since the levy on CDs remains unchanged and there are no levies on DVDs, you *might* be entitled to a refund for the levy on your iPod (depending on how things pan out), but nothing more. 

Unless you bought multiple iPods, of course.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*if a big fuss is made about it.. people in high places will try to put pressure on our gov't to change the Copyright laws in Canada and also try to protect the labels from the likes of Kazaa and Bit Torrent in Canada*

The pressure is already there. Canada is considering ratifying the WIPO Internet Treaties of 1996 (more formally known as the WIPO Copyright Treaty or WCT), the very same treaties that lead to the implementation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in the US.

Read these for more info:

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/11/06/save_canadas_interne.html

http://www.digital-copyright.ca/


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

> "London Drugs is (as far as I know) the only retailer in Canada that did not include the levy in the retail price of the iPod (or any other player). Instead, the 429$ 20 GB iPod was 404$ + 25$ levy + tax"


This is a standard tactic of big box resellers. Advertise the lowest possible price, get you hooked and the levy shows up at the till. Legal but ethically suspect.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

daBoss - I know at London Drugs they always had signs in front of products that had the levy on them. They said something about that London Drugs and other retailers don't like the levy, and because of it they are not putting the levy in their prices so consumers can see the actual tax.

Basically, they are just advertising their price without the tax. There is nothing illegal about that. It may from one point of view seem underhanded, but from their point of view, they are just trying to show the tax and deflect as much anger away from them over the tax.


----------



## rogueToe (Dec 13, 2002)

According to the Globe and Mail, London Drugs has decided to drop the levy.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

daBoss,

In LD, there are signs everywhere around the CDs, tapes and etc explaining the levy. For a long time (until someone broke it) we had a sign about how people could do their part in getting it rescinded, too.

Also, in all the flyers they listed the price at the before levy level, and then made note that the levy would need to be charged.

rougeToe,

They have dropped the levy, as mentioned earlier.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

And so it goes:
CCRA Appeals to Supreme Court.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

_The levies set by the Copyright Board were $2 for non-removable memory capacity of up to 1 Gigabyte in a digital audio recorder, $15 for memory capacity of more than 1 GB and up to 10 GB, and $25 for memory capacity of more than 10 GB._

i was sure i paid more than $15 as the levy on my 4gb mini... may need to check my bill to verify, but can any other mini purchasers confirm that it was more?


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

*Class action in the wings?*

So, my hubby bought me a mini before the holidays and ended up paying the levy. Is there a way for him to get that money back? 

Sounds to me like a perfect class action lawsuit to me. Look how many of those things have been sold in Canada and the government has raked in all that cash...and it wasn't legally allowed to do so. 

Any thoughts on this?


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

So, here's an update from the Globe and Mail. 

http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050113.gtcopy0113/BNStory/Technology/


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

This is ridiculous. Ugh. If they get the levy (assuming that people are swiping music than people should be allowed to trade music digitally for free).


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... people should be allowed to trade music digitally for free ..."

The law in Canada says you can copy all you want, with or without a levy.

The levies have never paid for any rights to any music, and never will.


----------



## dmpP (Jun 1, 2004)

can we claim back $ we've paid in levies on ipods bought directly from Apple?


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Levy rejected *again* today, by the Supreme Court.


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

so what happens to the $4 million that was collected? the money gets sent back to the manufacturers. i doubt any consumers that paid that tax will see a cent!


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

> Obviously we're disappointed. We felt it was self-evident that those products are sold for the purpose of copying music," said David Basskin, of the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC),


I love that quote. No they are not sold for the purpose of 'copying music'. They are sold so that I can carry around my legally obtained music collection. It's not like I am plugging in my iPod to every outlet in the country allowing people to use my music.


----------

