# CTV story on proposed iPod Tax Levy



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Don't see a link on their website yet, but CTV just ran a story on a proposed iPod Tax Levy. (With footage from Carbon Computing in Toronto!)  

They said the proposed levy could raise the price 27% on the iPod Classic.  

I'm about to blow a gasket. 

The *#$#& idiot who spoke from the Canadian Tax levy something, something said, "Our studies show that most content on iPods are pirated."

I am going to call, write my MP and protest this like crazy. 
Who's good at organizing? Let's organize a concerted protest from ehMac.ca members!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

They have on-line petitions somewhere out there. I don't have time to take it on but it makes me mad as well. How can such a tax be constitutional? 

It assumes everybody is breaking the law.

If they pass it, then I might as well pirate since I am paying for it.


----------



## rodneyjb (Apr 9, 2006)

*Again???*

Didn't they just take the levy off of ipods about a year ago....when I bought my 3rd gen ipod back in 04....I was just over the window for a rebate of about $25.00 or something like that. I am also going to write my MP on this as well.

edited about 2 mins later. Here is a link.

CBC.ca Arts - Apple to give levy back to iPod owners


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Vandave said:


> They have on-line petitions somewhere out there. I don't have time to take it on but it makes me mad as well. How can such a tax be constitutional?
> 
> It assumes everybody is breaking the law.
> 
> If they pass it, then I might as well pirate since I am paying for it.


It's the stupidest thing....ever. 

It 100% sends out the message that you have paid a tax, now you are free to pirate. 
Not to mention, open up a huge industry of importing iPods from the states. 

I'm going to individually send every ef ing receipt I have from the iTunes store to my MP.  :heybaby:


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

everything you ever wanted to know about the copyright lvy but were afraid to ask.

Canadian copyright levy on blank audio recording media

it's not like it's a new thing. It's even been on MP3 players before. every two years it comes up for debate and every two years you can submit feedback, but even after 8 years it seems that no one knows about it so I don't see it going away any time soon.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group. 
*
Very good resource. 

Added to my signature.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Ha!

I pirate all the time, and I don't even own an iPod! Ha!


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Ha!
> 
> I pirate all the time, and I don't even own an iPod! Ha!


lol... let's see them levy THAT! :lmao:


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

They will never end the piracy. By doing this they will only create an underground illegal industry. Just like bootlegging during prohibition in the US. They need to get creative and do what Universal Records has proposed. That is, to be able to download MP3s from their website that would be clean and illegal, but you have to watch a commercial for say 30 seconds per download. Companies would pay a fortune for those 30 second commercials and thus revitalize the music industry.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Adrian. said:


> They will never end the piracy. By doing this they will only create an underground illegal industry. Just like bootlegging during prohibition in the US. They need to get creative and do what Universal Records has proposed. That is, to be able to download MP3s from their website that would be clean and illegal, but you have to watch a commercial for say 30 seconds per download. Companies would pay a fortune for those 30 second commercials and thus revitalize the music industry.


I like it the way it is right now. 99¢ a song, sans ads, sans levy, and I its mine to own for the rest of my life.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

It'll just promote buying MP3 players in the States or promote piracy.

It's strange, but I think I buy more CDs now that I do have an iPod.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

This is completely rediculous.

If they are going to impose a levvy, then it should become legal (no shades of grey) to download music from any source deemed appropriate, industry-sanctioned or not.


----------



## Carl (Jun 7, 2003)

It is legal to download. Most people dont get that. Its in the privacy act that actually prevents the Draconian measures you hear about in the US happening here. ISP's can't give up identities of people because we are protected under very powerful privacy laws. I think it is because of this, that they have decided levies on media are the only way to go. Downloading data isn't illegal and in order to look at what you are DL, they need cause to get a search order. Why would anyone have cause? Maybe you are DL a YouTube video or using Skype.
So, the government is going to say levies are OK, then say downloading is not? Doesn't paying a toll imply payment for something?
What about the 2 Gig card in my camera? Why am I paying a tax for music on a card that stores my pics? What about my USB flash drives that I use to take documents on for meetings? I don't have a USB player, I have an iPod. 
Maybe someone should tell the CRIA that CD sales might be down because the choice just hasn't been that great lately. I bought the new Eagles CD for $11 at WalMart. Cheap and excellent music. I'm a criminal because I don't want Justin Timberlakes new CD? Britneys new masterpiece? Puhlease!
Anyhow, the levy doesn't really amount to much when you think that only a few years ago we were paying a 40 percent premium on an iPod because of the 65 cent dollar. Really, what difference would it make to anyone paying a few bucks extra?


----------



## hbp (Apr 18, 2007)

This is so stupid, many many many people have legit MP3's on their iPods.


I don't.


----------



## Roosterboy (Jun 10, 2006)

*Not Just for Tunes*

Is the basic premise by these money grubbing slimes that these devices are used solely for music or video. Never ASSUME you make an ASS of U and ME. As an avid photographer the primary use of my 60Gb drive is to download my RAW data images when out on a long shoot. So where do they get off taxing my personal imagery? Perhaps I should take a significant tax deduction at years end to off set the draconian measures being taken. I have a solution publically execute one oil executive, one music executive and one criminal a week. See what gets clean up first? Any takers.
:clap:


----------



## rodneyjb (Apr 9, 2006)

i also thought I read or heard that Canada's version of the RIAA...is it SOCOM? Well..they have tried to sue as the RIAA does in the US, but our Supreme Court has always overturned it as we pay a levy on blank media, which goes to the artists. So I agree that this will promote more illegal downloading and piracy. I have so far avoided that trap, as itunes was a good alternative...but may have to change my thinking.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

the thing that is sooo ironic, are the people who scream and holler about levys, and then turn around and scream and holler about fair copyright rules, and again, denouce the draconian measures of the riaa.

The fact that we have levies here in Canada, is the reason why we don't have the draconian measures of riaa here, and are allowed to download without fear of being sued for thousands of dollars. It is also a good arguement againt the US style copyright rules that are being proposed.

However, when and if those US style copyright laws are passed, we will see the removal of all the levies, likely including all the cdr etc. perhaps only seeing very bare bones levies, which would make lots of people happy, but, we can all enjoy being sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars for torrenting anything. Because downloading in Canada will now definitely be, illegal.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Personally I'm not for the large ipod levies proposed, before anyone gets nasty. But if you're going to allow legal downloading of copyrighted material, and want relaxed copyright rules, don't be surprised when a levy system gets put into place.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

I say leave the levy. But, if that's the case.. we should be able to download our content from any source possible WITHOUT feeling bad about doing so.

Sure, it's legal in Canada. But, if they're going to impose a levy on almost anything that could hold an Mp3, then.. they should also broadcast that you can download your content at will. They can't have their cake and eat it too. By imposing the levies.. it should be stated in law that it's completely legal to download whatever you wish in Canada. Be it music, movies, video.. etc. 

Then, I'm for it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

agreed vexel.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

I too agree with Vexel - though I would like a little more proof that CRIA and company are actually getting the cash (or some of the cash) from the levy into the hands of the artists themselves. 

They (the lobby groups) have done enough whining about the fate of the artists with all this "rampant piracy" but everything I've heard from Canadian artists themselves about the subject (which admittedly isn't a great amount) says that the funds generated by the levy aren't reaching them.

It seems somewhat greedy and hypocritical... I know, hard to believe, "greedy and hypocritical" from a lobby group! Who would have thought!


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> They will never end the piracy. By doing this they will only create an underground illegal industry. Just like bootlegging during prohibition in the US. They need to get creative and do what Universal Records has proposed. That is, to be able to download MP3s from their website that would be clean and illegal, but you have to watch a commercial for say 30 seconds per download. Companies would pay a fortune for those 30 second commercials and thus revitalize the music industry.


It's not about ending it. It's about taxation as a source of revenue.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Absolutely.. I definitely agree that the levy should involve a significant amount going to the artists. And the Levy group should be the ones responsible for assuring that the artists get their money.

I believe it's a really simple solution.. and I wouldn't mind paying the levies if it were the case. 

Now, the problem I see with it is that there are people that don't download music/movies/video... so, in other words.. this negatively affects them. But, how would that be managed?

Maybe impose a card system where by if you use these things professionally you don't have to pay the levy for the item? I don't know.

There's a lot of stuff that really needs to be figured out. The only problem with what's going on now is that no one is thinking of fairness. Sure, they want to be paid but some rational thinking must be done before they impose a levy at all. Studies should be conducted to provide information on how to impose the levy and why.. not a "because we said so!" answer.

I don't think anyone will stand for it if that's the case.

It's going to require a federal group to govern how the levy funds are managed.. to ensure that everything is dealt with fairly.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Your wish has been granted.

Except it isn't a governmental group, and levys are not a tax. Taxes, are what are collected by the government. This, is not collected by the government.

this is the group that collects, and distributes. Here is the actual financial numbers.

Financial highlights

Lots of other info on the site.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Then maybe it should possibly be a tax and not a levy? It's quite obvious that something is amiss in the whole spectrum here. Either, someone wants to be paid for something they shouldn't be paid for. (Levying those who don't illegally copy/download content.) Or, when they should.. they're not providing the compensation needed to the people that deserve it.

What I guess I'm saying is that there should be a complete overhaul of the system.. and I think it should be done by a 3rd party that isn't currently involved. If it has to come to government regulation, then so be it. At least then there would be an active involvement from someone who doesn't benefit from either cause. (somewhat)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

but, that is the way it now?

check the links.


----------



## Corvillus (Nov 15, 2007)

AFAIK, this levy has been on various types of music targeted media for years (this is why "music" CD-R's cost more than data ones). If they put it on devices that are created and marketed for the sole purpose of playing media (read: not cellphones, PDAs, game consoles, computers, etc, only dedicated media players with integrated storage), this would fall right in line with what they have been ding for years. That said, as long as they do gave this levy, they should not be turning around and passing DMCA type laws like the CIRA is trying to have them do. They should not be getting to have their cake and eat it too. I can understand them wanting to prevent piracy (although what the DMCA does for that vs how it hampers other rights makes it a poor choice of law for this purpose, but that's another topic), and I could also understand them wanting to make money off of pirated works (the media levy). But it should be one or the other, not both.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Corvillus said:


> AFAIK, this levy has been on various types of music targeted media for years (this is why "music" CD-R's cost more than data ones). If they put it on devices that are created and marketed for the sole purpose of playing media (read: not cellphones, PDAs, game consoles, computers, etc, only dedicated media players with integrated storage), this would fall right in line with what they have been ding for years. That said, as long as they do gave this levy, they should not be turning around and passing DMCA type laws like the CIRA is trying to have them do. They should not be getting to have their cake and eat it too. I can understand them wanting to prevent piracy (although what the DMCA does for that vs how it hampers other rights makes it a poor choice of law for this purpose, but that's another topic), and I could also understand them wanting to make money off of pirated works (the media levy). But it should be one or the other, not both.


No levies, no DRM, high quality digital files... for sale on iTunes and other online stores that work on any devices at good prices, respect your customers, and songs will be sold in the the Trillions, fans will go to concerts, take their friends, buy T-Shirts, etc...

That is the answer.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

Vandave said:


> It assumes everybody is breaking the law.
> 
> If they pass it, then I might as well pirate since I am paying for it.


No, no, no! That's part of the problem, a big HUGE part of it- as far as making personal copies of music is concerned:

It's NOT illegal in Canada
It's NOT piracy. 
And you shouldn't feel bad about it, because you aren't doing anything wrong!

As a canadian, you are legally entitled to make copies of music for personal use. This is already written in to copyright law. Borrowing CDs and ripping them is personal use. Downloading them (not uploading) is personal use. P2P is somewhat a grey area. But basically anything that would be considered making a copy for yourself is perfectly fine.

The VERY SAME group that is petitioning for this levy, are the ones that pushed for the already existing levy on blank media, ANY blank media, even if it's not used for music. They collect this as compensation for the whole personal use clause.

Worse than this levy, they also proposed a levy on music you download from pay sites like iTMS. In other words, they want the people who are ACTUALLY BUYING MUSIC to pay a levy as compensation for those who aren't.... it boggles the mind.


----------



## fender_guy (Dec 12, 2007)

There was an outcry when a levy was proposed on blank CDs and Tapes. I'm supportive of the idea to make sure artists are compensated for their work.
As a musician I've never received any proceeds from the levy but I'll bet Britney Spears and Avril Lavigne have received funds from the levy placed on the blank CDs I've used to backup my recording projects (even though I wouldn't listen to either of them). The money paid to recording artists(?) is based on assumptions of what people are listening to and that it is obtained illegally. I buy music from iTunes and have a large CD collection as well as old vinyl. I've already paid the artist royalties.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

What a sham, just another tax grab that will go nowhere. If they put a tax on iPods, then I will simply go to the US to buy one. As for the state of the music industry, they are in a sorry state because they are greedy and corrupt. There was a time not long ago when one could go to a place known as a "record store", browse and buy something. These places are basically gone, with Music World the final survivor slated for closure soon. With nothing left, people are faced with the lack of a choice, so they are forced to "download" music. And it is this that hurts the music industry. Instead of spending $12-18 to buy a CD when I may only really want one or two songs, I can just buy it online for a dollar a song. But one is not so tempted to buy something online because you can not touch it, look at the cover and all of those things that people do in a "record store". Nor are there knowledgable staffers who can make recommendations. And all of the "downloading" sites assume one has ready access to "high speed internet" - which really, is not widely available outside of the bigger centers. 

I really can not blame people for "pirating" music, when there is no way to purchase recordings through legitimate channels. And I think that one should be able to exchange "obsolete" media for the current technology - ie. I can trade in my 8 tracks for DVD versions, something that is pretty easy to do with Torrents (which also cater to those who do not have high speed connections.) The government should be ashamed to involve themselves in the greed of the record producers in such a manner.

And will they give back the tax money to those who have legitimate uses for their iPods. For instance, those people who create or listen to PodCasts? Or those who use iPods for recording interviews for various journalistic projects...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

wow. You almost need a 2 x 4 to get people to get it that it is, NOT a tax.

One more time, it is NOT a tax. The government has nothing to do with it, and I personally, think that is a very good thing.

There are some good points I agree with by some posters.

I have to wonder though, how many out of the ones screaming industry corruption, and how concerned they are about whether the actual artist is really getting screwed by said industry, support artists by supporting them with sales through indie labels, or even directly from the artist. Sites like cdbaby etc. all have a very wide slection of music dwithout the industry 'corruption' in there.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

I know what you mean groovetube - how many people actually put their cash where they put their opinions. It is all too easy to walk into Walmart (though at this time of year it is much more difficult to actually walk out of Walmart - at least if you're buying something.)

I buy direct from local artists or their distributors whenever I can - if I can't I go towards sites like Warp Records and their associated Bleep Music site - which don't treat their clients like potential criminals and sell interesting independent stuff.

I haven't yet bought anything from iTunes... but my physical CD library is large enough that if half of the shelves were to fall onto an industry lobbyist the words "poetic justice" might be used at the funeral.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

This whole situation would be a lot more cured if "The Powers That Be" would realize that they are NEVER EVER going to stop piracy.

Stop wasting your damn money on trying to make things harder for pirates and use it to make it easier for your paying customers to get their content! 


Until then. "ARRRRrrrrrr Matey!"


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

Vexel said:


> This whole situation would be a lot more cured if "The Powers That Be" would realize that they are NEVER EVER going to stop piracy.
> 
> Stop wasting your damn money on trying to make things harder for pirates and use it to make it easier for your paying customers to get their content!
> 
> ...



Again, because it's a very important point to understand, copying music for personal use is NOT PIRACY! There's nothing to stop. This is about them grabbing as much money as they can.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

polywog said:


> Again, because it's a very important point to understand, copying music for personal use is NOT PIRACY! There's nothing to stop. This is about them grabbing as much money as they can.


I think there should be an unwritten rule though... if you like music, and want to keep it, and can afford it, you should purchase it. 

When I was a very young lad, and in high school. I made tons of copies of music. I had copies from originals on tape of The Joshua Tree, Bad, Unforgettable Fire and so many bootlegs. I loved it... I told all my friends about it...

No that I'm older and have a disposable income, I have been to about 10 U2 concerts, purchased their entire catalogue, bought the books and DVD's, inadvertently got a U2 iPod  , and they have probably made a thousand dollars off me. 

My oldest kid has a $10 / month iTunes allowance. (If she does her household chores and does her math tutorials)


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

ehMax said:


> I think there should be an unwritten rule though... if you like music, and want to keep it, and can afford it, you should purchase it.
> 
> When I was a very young lad, and in high school. I made tons of copies of music. I had copies from originals on tape of The Joshua Tree, Bad, Unforgettable Fire and so many bootlegs. I loved it... I told all my friends about it...
> 
> ...


That's the thing. You HAVE paid for it, even without buying an album... you pay for it every time you buy a blank CD, minidisc, etc. I have a spool of 100 blank CDs sitting in front of me, NONE of which have music on them, or will have music on them. Quite frankly, if I've paid a levy that allows me to copy music, why shouldn't I get my money's worth? 

Don't get me wrong. I probably spend at least $1500 per year on music, be that purchases online or in stores, or concerts. There was a time when I wouldn't copy a thing, because I wanted to support the artists. But once the levy came into play, and copyright law was amended, I certainly didn't feel bad downloading the odd album (usually cause I couldn't find it) since the artists were being compensated either way. Sometimes twice - (if you buy an album off of iTunes, and burn it to CD.)

I think the important point is, moral boundaries aside, people in general have this ingrained notion that personal copying is piracy and illegal. And that's wrong.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

polywog said:


> That's the thing. You HAVE paid for it, even without buying an album... you pay for it every time you buy a blank CD, minidisc, etc. I have a spool of 100 blank CDs sitting in front of me, NONE of which have music on them, or will have music on them. Quite frankly, if I've paid a levy that allows me to copy music, why shouldn't I get my money's worth?
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I probably spend at least $1500 per year on music, be that purchases online or in stores, or concerts. There was a time when I wouldn't copy a thing, because I wanted to support the artists. But once the levy came into play, and copyright law was amended, I certainly didn't feel bad downloading the odd album (usually cause I couldn't find it) since the artists were being compensated either way. Sometimes twice - (if you buy an album off of iTunes, and burn it to CD.)
> 
> I think the important point is, moral boundaries aside, people in general have this ingrained notion that personal copying is piracy and illegal. And that's wrong.


They should take the levy off of CD's then too, because there is no way in hell, the few CD's I have purchased have paid for all the music I have purchased off the iTunes Music store. 

This whole topic is so stupid.  

It's such a bloody simple formula: Artist makes music -> I listen to it and like it -> I purchase it, put it in my car, on my iPod, on my Mac, go to concert etc...


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

polywog said:


> Again, because it's a very important point to understand, copying music for personal use is NOT PIRACY! There's nothing to stop. This is about them grabbing as much money as they can.


I didn't say anything about people copying things that they already own. I was talking about the people who download music which they do not own. That's what this whole idea is about. The reason they're proposing the levy is because they're losing money from people who download the files but haven't purchased it.

My point is.. if they impose the levy.. then, there shouldn't be any question as to whether it's legal to download and share music in Canada. And, you shouldn't have to feel bad about doing so.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

Vexel said:


> I didn't say anything about people copying things that they already own. I was talking about the people who download music which they do not own. That's what this whole idea is about. The reason they're proposing the levy is because they're losing money from people who download the files but haven't purchased it.
> 
> My point is.. if they impose the levy.. then, there shouldn't be any question as to whether it's legal to download and share music in Canada. And, you shouldn't have to feel bad about doing so.


I wasn't talking about that either, you're missing the point. Personal copying doesn't mean taking a CD you own (well, you DON'T own, you purchased a license to listen to the contents) and copying it to a new medium. It means copying any music, be it from your buddy, or a library for your own personal use. Could be MP3s. Could be a CD. Or vinyl. It doesn't matter. You have the legal right to do it. It's NOT piracy. Likewise downloading music is NOT piracy. 

You shouldn't feel bad about it now, since it's already legal, and you're already paying a levy for the right to make personal copies. 

And the industry still hasn't been able to show that they've any lost money as a result of personal copying.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

polywog said:


> Could be MP3s. Could be a CD. Or vinyl. It doesn't matter. You have the legal right to do it. It's NOT piracy. Likewise downloading music is NOT piracy.
> 
> You shouldn't feel bad about it now, since it's already legal, and you're already paying a levy for the right to make personal copies. .


*Yes, IT IS PIRACY*, unless you have been given permission from the copyright holder. 

If I make something, and copyright it, and you copy it without my permission, you have pirated it by every definition imaginable. Whether you've broken a law or not is irrelevant, you have pirated it. 

If someone has the means to pay for a commercial product that they enjoy, use, and are keeping, *THEY SHOULD* feel bad for not paying for it. 

Yes, if they put 27% levies on iPods etc.. than many people won't feel bad... Until under the new draconian rules and your ISP gives your info to the folks who want to sue your @$$. 

Let's due away with all this stupid talk of paying levies and then having free reign to download all the music we like for free.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

wow what a topic. Almost worse than religion, gets the beer bottles flying.

you're right ehmax. As a working musician, it always irks me to see people assert it's their right to take what I've worked hard to make. Even worse when they try to trumpet my cause somehow, having been ripped off by labels. It's disingenuous. 

Well, regardless of where you sit on this issue, I think it's my right to say if my music is free. That's one of the big problems to me about current, and proposed copyright laws, there doesn't seem to be any flexibility, and seems to serve ONLY the purpose of protecting and enforcing corporate rights. There's been some movements, creative commons, copyleft etc. I think they do have the right idea, but, I can tell you you certainly get a frigid feeling from labels and publishers should you even muse about such a thing.

In a perfect world, there would be no levies. I don't like them either really.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Vexel said:


> The reason they're proposing the levy is because they're losing money from people who download the files but haven't purchased it.


Yeah, but you know what though... that's where the true BS lies in what they're doing. It's the same argument the film industry is using to back up their vigilant attacks on people who download movies, claiming they're losing millions in *potential* dvd sales.

Here's a thought, most of those people WEREN'T GOING TO BUY THE FRICKIN CD OR DVD ANYWAY!

That's where I stand on this whole crapfest. It's a bunch of old farts who fail to recognize exactly what it is they're dealing with. They see people using technology, and they think how can they get a piece of that pie. They blame people for their loss in revenue on an aging infrastructure, and instead of coming up with new ways to take advantage and integrate these new technologies, they attack people, sum everyone up in the same category, and claim they're losing millions because of it.

Not only that, but it's beyond reasonable to think that ANY and ALL digital recording media should be levied. Flash cards, blank discs, MP3 players, etc... THIS MAKES ZERO SENSE!! And it just shows you exactly how ignorant these people are.. they just don't get it.

SWIM downloads movies all the time, but SWIM would never have bought those movies, EVER, so NO it's not a loss in revenue for the movie distributors. Same goes with all of the music SWIM downloads, SWIM would never have bought ANY of that music, so again, there is absolutely NO loss in revenue.

I wish these people would do as lemmings do......


A perfect example of how artists should present themselves and distribute their work is by looking at Radiohead's latest release. Most people actually payed for their downloads, even though they could've entered $0 and downloaded for free. It was because of such a nice gesture, most people payed, not because they had to, but because they wanted to.

This is where I stand with all of this, if I really like something, and I know my money is actually going to the ARTIST and not some old farts stealing from them, then I'll gladly pay for it.

Recording media, flash, electronics, whatever.. if I know there's a levy on it, I'M NOT BUYING IT. I'll go grey market, buy from the US, etc.. I will NEVER give them any of my money.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Bought a two pack of 2 gb SD Flash cards today at Staples on sale for $39.99
I shouldn't need any more flash cards for my camera for awhile now.

Just let them raise the price...I don't care.

Dave


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

ehMax said:


> *Yes, IT IS PIRACY*, unless you have been given permission from the copyright holder.
> 
> If I make something, and copyright it, and you copy it without my permission, you have pirated it by every definition imaginable. Whether you've broken a law or not is irrelevant, you have pirated it.
> 
> ...


Whoa. Just because you want to call it piracy doesn't make it so. Piracy is the UNLAWFUL violation of copyright law.One of the stipulations of that law is that you need the permission of the copyright owner to copy whatever it happens to be. Another is that personal copying of music does not constitute copyright infringement. In other words, the consumer does not need permission from the copyright holder to make a personal copy. It is NOT piracy. 

You keep carrying on about 'paying' for it if you have the means. 

Forget the iPod levy. The levy THAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE was put there by the Copyright Board of Canada. THEY Are the ones that said $0.21 per CD was fair compensation for the right to make personal copies. In other words, it's BEEN paid for. It continues to be paid for, even by those who DON'T exercise their right. Hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars have already been distributed by the CPCC. 

If the board feels that sum is no longer they will re-negotiate. If the market thinks addition levies are unfair, the levies (and personal copying) will likely be repealed. In the meantime, your personal moralities don't entitle you to brand law abiding people as criminals.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Hello everyone,

Ok let me see if I understand the following correctly:

If I buy a blank CD, DVD, VHS Tape, memory storage device ( memory cards for camera or other storage) that the tax levy already imposed on these items is going to music artists only?

What I'm trying to figure out is, if I buy any of the above items, does this mean the tax levy only goes to music artists?

What if I buy a blank CD or DVD and put my photos on it? Which music artists deserves my tax levy on that CD or DVD? If I buy a memory card for my digital camera, which by the way holds photos of which I take on it, does this mean some music artists is benefiting from the tax levy imposed on the memory card?

If what I wrote above is true, then I say ALL music artists are getting more than they should from this tax levy that already exists on blank media period!!! And that truly would **** me off if that was the truth. Why should ANY artist get money from me, when I am using the blank media or memory storage for things other than music?

Can anyone answer this? Or clarify to me how it works right now with buying blank media and memory storage devices? Are we paying a tax levy on these items right now?

If so, I want my money back from all the artists who have collected this levy from me, and perhaps I need to open a massive law suit against them all for stealing my money on items I use that are not for music period!!!!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ok. It's really very simple.

If it was really thought that every cdr was going to contain an artists record, or, even multiple records, do you really think the 20 cents makes up for that?

It's kinda like going in to the Bay. And buying a bunch of clothes, jackets, etc. or to a supermarket. You end up paying a certain amount of money already added into the price of your purchases, that goes to cover the cost of shoplifting and similar crimes in the store. Except, you don't see it, nor do you get to rant about it in a forum. 

But I am guessing, that should we also see what we are paying to cover these associated costs, we would be screaming holy hell in here too.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

polywog said:


> Forget the iPod levy. The levy THAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE was put there by the Copyright Board of Canada.


They had it in place, and the Courts ruled that they did not have the jurisdiction because such devices can be used for means not directed at the music industry, and thus, would not be in contravention of copyright laws. For instance, an iPod can be used for storing photographs, recorded interviews, or for external hard disks. They dropped it, only to come back to the issue after they attempted to make barber shops pay royalties for having the radio on.

Here is an idea. Instead of robbing people of their money in an illegal levy - why doesn't the industry just record some of the bands that people want to listen to? You know, make it worth while for people like you and me to purchase a CD, instead of the schlock they produce now.

And I should have the right to have my levy directed at those bands that I pirate from, bands that I end up having to download because there are no stores left in which I can buy their products. I choose not to have my levy go towards funding Celine Dion, but rather, I think it would be better directed at Goddo...



> In the meantime, your personal moralities don't entitle you to brand law abiding people as criminals.


I agree. In the "old days", I would just go down and buy cassettes (or whatever) from the local store. But the last music store in town folded about five years ago, so I ended up having to go to Hogtown. But those stores have folded as well. So if the industry is failing, it is only because there is no way to actually purchase their product. Piracy thrives because people can not obtain those things that they would otherwise purchase. And there is no illegal levy that can solve that problem.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> Here is an idea. Instead of robbing people of their money in an illegal levy - why doesn't the industry just record some of the bands that people want to listen to? You know, make it worth while for people like you and me to purchase a CD, instead of the schlock they produce now.


That always makes me laugh.

If the music was really so crap, then why are people downloading it so much?


There is lots of great music out there to buy. It's just that it generally isn't on the front rack with Britany Spears.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

I place ALL the blame for this issue squarely upon the shoulders of the record company execs! They've had PLENTY of time to get onboard the digital revolution and re-strategize.

While a levy or fee on players may rile the masses, no other means of easily and successfully generating earnings comes to mind. In the end, the simplest method would be to include a fee on every player and give away music for free.

The music industry has been turned on its head by technology. New thinking is needed.

It's a shame we, the honest minority, will suffer the most.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

polywog said:


> Whoa. Just because you want to call it piracy doesn't make it so. Piracy is the UNLAWFUL violation of copyright law.One of the stipulations of that law is that you need the permission of the copyright owner to copy whatever it happens to be. Another is that personal copying of music does not constitute copyright infringement. In other words, the consumer does not need permission from the copyright holder to make a personal copy. It is NOT piracy.


piracy |ˈpīrəsē|
noun
• the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work

You wanna tell me where you got the UNLAWFUL part?  
Also, making a personal copy implies that you have something to copy - Downloading off the internet, to me, is not making a personal copy. 

If I buy a CD for example.. than yes, I can make a personal copy of it to put on my iPod, make a CD to let my brother listen to it, to add it to a mix CD when going on a road trip. If I don't have the music, how can I make a personal copy of it? You can't, you have to pirate it off the internet.


----------



## fender_guy (Dec 12, 2007)

I'm still wrapping my brain around this levy.
I've just purchased a pile of music from iTunes and I've been copying music from some older CDs legally purchased(and which I'm allowed to legally make copies for personal use) but I'll now be expected to pay a levy if I want to listen to this music on an MP3 player.
Or I'm expected to pay a levy on flash disks for my camera which I use for pictures taken on my camera.
As a musician, I'm absolutely in favour of compensating musicians for their work. I'm not in favour of assuming that every device capable of misuse is being misused. I don't like the idea of assuming misdeeds by all and making everyone pay the price.
If they impose this levy I doubt I'll ever see my minuscule share but I'll be paying into it.


----------



## Corvillus (Nov 15, 2007)

fender_guy said:


> I'm still wrapping my brain around this levy.
> I've just purchased a pile of music from iTunes and I've been copying music from some older CDs legally purchased(and which I'm allowed to legally make copies for personal use) but I'll now be expected to pay a levy if I want to listen to this music on an MP3 player.
> Or I'm expected to pay a levy on flash disks for my camera which I use for pictures taken on my camera.
> As a musician, I'm absolutely in favour of compensating musicians for their work. I'm not in favour of assuming that every device capable of misuse is being misused. I don't like the idea of assuming misdeeds by all and making everyone pay the price.
> If they impose this levy I doubt I'll ever see my minuscule share but I'll be paying into it.


You're expected to pay this levy on anything that could be considered to ne music-specific storage media (so likely on actual players themselves only). And yeah, the levy basically exists because according to the CIRA everybody is a pirate and therefore everyone must compensate them. Also, I agree that musicians won't see a dime of this money since it doesn't count toward album sales, which is how they're compensated by the labels. Basically it all goes to the middlemen of the major labels.

Another thing I really dislike about this is that it really does nothing to compensate independent musicians or labels, and if anything it hurts them since they tend to be among the biggest adopters of online distribution. Many independent artists primarily distrbute online because if the reduced costs and risk. With this levy people are expected to pay a good chunk of their digital music storage costs to the major labels, even if they don't use them for their music, which is preposterous.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

fender_guy said:


> I'm still wrapping my brain around this levy.
> I've just purchased a pile of music from iTunes and I've been copying music from some older CDs legally purchased(and which I'm allowed to legally make copies for personal use) but I'll now be expected to pay a levy if I want to listen to this music on an MP3 player.
> Or I'm expected to pay a levy on flash disks for my camera which I use for pictures taken on my camera.
> As a musician, I'm absolutely in favour of compensating musicians for their work. I'm not in favour of assuming that every device capable of misuse is being misused. I don't like the idea of assuming misdeeds by all and making everyone pay the price.
> If they impose this levy I doubt I'll ever see my minuscule share but I'll be paying into it.


I'm in the same boat as you. My thoughts are that if there is a levy that it be a small one. There's no way of determining which device would be used for piracy, and if the device would be used for piracy at all. So a smaller blanket levy would be all that's needed, sort of like the levy I referred to we all pay when we go to a grocery store that pays the cost of shoplifting, even though I've never shoplifted in my life.

In a perfect world...

I highly doubt they will get the levy they are asking for. I know that they always shoot higher, but my prediction is they don't even get the levy.


----------



## Guest (Dec 25, 2007)

One thing that I think everyone is missing here ... it is most certainly NOT legal/ok/allowable to download content which you haven't purchased or own copyright for. There is NO type of guarantee of your safety in any way, shape, or form with or without this levy. It is against the law and they can not excuse it, plain as that, it's copyright law. Just because the courts haven't pushed for prosecution on that stuff (yet) it doesn't mean it's allowed, it just means that no judge has had the cahonies to set the precedent yet. It takes exactly ONE time and it's all over folks.

Online polls and things of that sort do not work to get the point to your MP. You need to get things in your MP's face, things that they have to process and deal with directly in a physical manner, they don't have to do that with online polls, it's easy to ignore them. It's much harder to ignore paper that lands on a desk.

This levy is a farce. I have been a paying SOCAN member for almost 2 decades and you'll have to trust me on this one ... artists will NEVER see any money from this. Just how will they decide "ok, artist such and such was pirated 1000 times this week" ... that's how artists get paid (by their material getting played), and it won't happen like that, so the whole thing is nothing but a money grab that treats the public as guilty immediately and is totally unacceptable.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

wait a minute. So where is the money currently going? Over 100 million was distributed.


----------



## Cliffy (Apr 18, 2005)

groovetube said:


> wait a minute. So where is the money currently going? Over 100 million was distributed.



I think you mean the money was _collected_. They end up using it for "costs" (executive bonus) and "education" (political contribution). I feel sorry for musicians that get caught in the middle of this such as m guertin. I don't buy that they are protecting "artists rights", they want to protect an income stream that more ends up like a leaky faucet at the artist side. I bet they would charge people for thinking about a song...if they could figure it out.

The big record companies are being brought kicking and screaming into a new way of doing business and they don't understand it. It doesn't seem to help when they treat their entire customer base with such loathing. They had a great opportunity to get in to selling digital downloads years ago and they didn't. People had money in their hands, but no one would take it.

I do believe in copyright (and copyleft) but I also believe in being allowed to use what you paid for in any way you would like for yourself. Paying for a cd, sure! pay to get a digital copy of the same song? uh no. Pay for a digital download (DRMless please!), sure!. Pay for a segment of a song you already own for a ringtone? I don't even understand that.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Cliffy said:


> I think you mean the money was _collected_. They end up using it for "costs" (executive bonus) and "education" (political contribution). I feel sorry for musicians that get caught in the middle of this such as m guertin. I don't buy that they are protecting "artists rights", they want to protect an income stream that more ends up like a leaky faucet at the artist side. I bet they would charge people for thinking about a song...if they could figure it out.
> 
> The big record companies are being brought kicking and screaming into a new way of doing business and they don't understand it. It doesn't seem to help when they treat their entire customer base with such loathing. They had a great opportunity to get in to selling digital downloads years ago and they didn't. People had money in their hands, but no one would take it.
> 
> I do believe in copyright (and copyleft) but I also believe in being allowed to use what you paid for in any way you would like for yourself. Paying for a cd, sure! pay to get a digital copy of the same song? uh no. Pay for a digital download (DRMless please!), sure!. Pay for a segment of a song you already own for a ringtone? I don't even understand that.


No, I mean the money was DISTRIBUTED.

You make some interesting allegations. 

Proof please?

As a musician, I'm as you can see, very interested in this.


----------



## Cliffy (Apr 18, 2005)

The part about the levy monies not being distributed to the artists came from an interview I saw on TV with Michael Geist. It was a year or more ago, so the money could have been passed out in the mean time. He was talking about all the money coming in but not going out.

I am only speculating on what they do with the money, but I don't know how much of it is going to the artists as they claim they are collecting on behalf of. I guess the record companies are getting extra revenues with no requirement to pay artists for.

Kind of what the TV networks are going through with the writers. They make money on digital downloads but don't have to pay the writers. Maybe artists in Canada need to tell the record companies they should get some of that money.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Cliffy said:


> The part about the levy monies not being distributed to the artists came from an interview I saw on TV with Michael Geist. It was a year or more ago, so the money could have been passed out in the mean time. He was talking about all the money coming in but not going out.
> 
> I am only speculating on what they do with the money, but I don't know how much of it is going to the artists as they claim they are collecting on behalf of. I guess the record companies are getting extra revenues with no requirement to pay artists for.
> 
> Kind of what the TV networks are going through with the writers. They make money on digital downloads but don't have to pay the writers. Maybe artists in Canada need to tell the record companies they should get some of that money.


again speculation. Useless.

If Michael Geist said a year ago that no money had been distributed, then he is either an idiot, or a liar. The financial info is public info available on their site.

As for the issue of 'rights holders' and the percentages the record label or the artist gets, well that's a whole other topic altogether.


----------



## Guest (Dec 25, 2007)

Given how royalties work for both album sales and registered plays of the material there is no way it's even possible that SOCAN is getting any $$ to the musicians by design ... so that does lead to the question as to where the $$ is actually going.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mguertin said:


> Given how royalties work for both album sales and registered plays of the material there is no way it's even possible that SOCAN is getting any $$ to the musicians by design ... so that does lead to the question as to where the $$ is actually going.


Royalty distribution - Information for copyright holders

socan is indeed listed.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

fender_guy said:


> As a musician I've never received any proceeds from the levy but I'll bet Britney Spears and Avril Lavigne have received funds from the levy placed on the blank CDs I've used to backup my recording projects





groovetube said:


> wait a minute. So where is the money currently going? Over 100 million was distributed.





Cliffy said:


> I am only speculating on what they do with the money, but I don't know how much of it is going to the artists as they claim they are collecting on behalf of.


The CPCC website has all the information that you as a copyright hold need to know to claim payments from the levy distributions. Here is a brief rundown. I paraphrased some of it.

*Eligibility for Payment*

The Copyright Act identifies the general types of copyright holder on whose behalf private copying royalties are collected and which are eligible for payment. Songwriters, music publishers, recording artists and record companies – those with rights in the music copied – are all eligible. While songwriters and music publishers are eligible regardless of nationality, only Canadian recording artists and record companies may receive payments under current law.

*Allocation of Funds*

Since no inventory of privately copied tracks exists, distribution is based on representative samples of radio airplay and album sales, which are given equal weight in the distribution. Together they provide a proxy for determining the titles that Canadians typically copy for private use. Samples are regularly used by copyright collectives because the cost of capturing and analyzing all available information would be excessive.

The airplay samples are prepared by CPCC member collectives SOCAN and NRCC, and are based in an annual 14-day sample for each commercial radio station in Canada and a sample of programming from the CBC/SRC radio services. The specific methodologies used in the airplay portion of the private copying distribution are consistent with those used by SOCAN to distribute performing rights royalties to authors and publishers and by NRCC to distribute neighbouring rights royalties to performers and to makers of sound recordings.

The sales sample is based in SoundScan data. This portion of the private copying distribution of royalties for 2000 was based in a limited sample of album sales data, reflecting the substantially lower royalty revenue available for that year. Nevertheless, the albums identified in that sample accounted for 80% of record sales in Canada during 2000. The sample size was increased for the 2001 distribution, with the albums identified in the sample accounting for 91% of all record sales in Canada. 

Once they know how much to give for a particular album that money is divided thusly:

* 66 % to eligible authors and publishers
* 18.9% to eligible performers
* 15.1% to eligible record companies.

*Mechanics or Payment*

As of the end of last year there has been ~178,887,000$ collected (and that's after around 20,500,000$ was subtracted for admin fees and other) collected. 

Money collected in a given year is distributed in quarterly payments starting in August the following year. So, monies collected in 2006 started getting dolled out in August 2007.

If you are selling albums and/or have radio play but haven't received funds then perhaps you aren't a member of whatever appropriate member collective/group/etc of the CPCC, through which payments are routed:

Songwriters and music publishers
Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency (CMRRA)
Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN)
Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada (SODRAC)

Recording artists
ACTRA Performers' Rights Society (APRS)
Union des Artistes (ArtistI)
American Federation of Musicians (AFM)

Record labels
Audio-Video Licensing Agency Inc. (AVLA)
Société de gestion collective des droits des producteurs de phonogrammes et de vidéogrammes du Québec



mguertin said:


> I have been a paying SOCAN member for almost 2 decades and you'll have to trust me on this one ... artists will NEVER see any money from this. Just how will they decide "ok, artist such and such was pirated 1000 times this week" ... that's how artists get paid (by their material getting played), and it won't happen like that, so the whole thing is nothing but a money grab that treats the public as guilty immediately and is totally unacceptable.





mguertin said:


> Given how royalties work for both album sales and registered plays of the material there is no way it's even possible that SOCAN is getting any $$ to the musicians by design ... so that does lead to the question as to where the $$ is actually going.



That you are a member of SOCAN does not guarantee you any remuneration from the levy, nor does how often your work is pirated. Again, it's radio play and album sales that determine it all.

I don't mean to belittle you or any of my friends who are musicians, but you do have to have significant enough album sales _which SoundScan can track_ and radio play enough that SOCAN would get your performing royalties to get a levy payment so until I hear directly from someone who meets both those requirements that they haven't received anything I am going to remian skeptical of the idea that the monies haven't been distributed because that would make all the information I have found a a great big case of fraud.

I'm not by any means saying that the method of calculating payments is fair. The SOCAN airplay sample is only 2 weeks of airplay from each Canadian station (hardly representative of an entire year) AND while the albums identified in the sales sample account for 90% of total sales in Canada anyone who isn't selling thousands and thousands of albums isn't oging to get counted. 

I'm just saying that It sounds like it's pretty much impossible to qualify for payment, and that this is why all the musicians I know aren't yet entitled to a payment under the terms, whether they are fair or not.


----------



## Guest (Dec 25, 2007)

Interesting ... but sadly no one I know personally (and some people I know collect pretty decent royalty checks) got any more than they normally did even though there was $48 million collected from 2000-2003. When they inquired through SOCAN they were told that these funds were "already allocated". Of course this entity is run entirely by the $$ they collect as well, and it's not public knowledge how much went to the administration vs. how much landed in the pockets of the writers and artists involved ... and either way around it's a sham. We're being treated like thieves in this whole situation and it's lame. If they want to address this, they should prosecute copyright infringers instead of encouraging them by charging these levies which hurt the people that are not stealing music, video, etc and encourage those that are by making them think it's ok since they are paying tariffs to allow this sort of behaviour to continue...


----------



## Guest (Dec 25, 2007)

It's determined by radio play and album sales yes, but from a 14 day period (!!!) and not a year's worth of airplay.



> The airplay samples are prepared by CPCC member collectives SOCAN and NRCC, and are based in an annual 14-day sample for each commercial radio station in Canada and a sample of programming from the CBC/SRC radio services.


How is this accurate in any way? And most importantly why should I have to pay for it!!?!? That's my biggest problem with it all.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mguertin said:


> Interesting ... but sadly no one I know personally (and some people I know collect pretty decent royalty checks) got any more than they normally did even though there was $48 million collected from 2000-2003. When they inquired through SOCAN they were told that these funds were "already allocated". Of course this entity is run entirely by the $$ they collect as well, and it's not public knowledge how much went to the administration vs. how much landed in the pockets of the writers and artists involved ... and either way around it's a sham. We're being treated like thieves in this whole situation and it's lame. If they want to address this, they should prosecute copyright infringers instead of encouraging them by charging these levies which hurt the people that are not stealing music, video, etc and encourage those that are by making them think it's ok since they are paying tariffs to allow this sort of behaviour to continue...


ok in order for people to engage in helpful discussion we have to do away with useless nonsense in posts.

If you want to see what the breakdown of admin costs, all you have to do is look on the very same site, and you'll find the financial info. You would find their reported expense to revenue is 10%.

PosterBoy brought up a good thing to look at. Perhaps the methods for figuring out how to distribute isn't as fair as it could be.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

The one point I will conceed is that I can't really tell where the cash goes, they don't seem to have a detailed financial break down of what cash goes where.

The CPCC is made up of groups like SOCAN. The CPCC collects the levy and then distributes it through groups like SOCAN.

It is entirely possible that the distribution numbers they provide are the amount of cash they transfer to groups like SOCAN, and that SOCAN is then charged to re-distribute the money and for whatever reason they do not.

That would be illegal though, and from what I can find out from SOCAN it seems more likely that a few acts are getting the bulk of the money, which seems likely due to the very small sample size they use for radio airplay times.

Not to mention that the way it's worded it sounds like you have to have both significant airplay AND album sales, that having one or the other but not _both_ won't get you anything. I could be wrong on that point though.

Oh, and as a side note, it's entirely possible that the 14 day sample days are non-contiguous. That is to say, it's possible (and would make more sense) that it isn't just a random 2 week period in the year but rather 14 days spread throughout the year.

I should also point out that every time the CPCC reviews and updates the levies (which is every two years minimum) there is a period of time where anyone can submit their opinion of the proposd changes, but no one does.

I used to submit my thoughts every time but I didn't last time and I haven't this time yet. There are some pretty stiff restrictions on what you can say, for example you can't say you think existing levies should be changed/stopped you can only comment on the proposed changes (such as the proposed MP3 player levy right now), and if you don't conform exactly to the guidelines they'll just throw your comments out unread.

That's why online petitions are useless, they don't conform to the guidelines set forth and as such are never read into the record when they can make a difference. I'll see if I can dig up the contact info later, but in the mean time what you should be doing is contcting your MP and asking them to change the copyright legislation (which regulates the levies) to make it more fair.


----------



## Guest (Dec 26, 2007)

groovetube said:


> ok in order for people to engage in helpful discussion we have to do away with useless nonsense in posts.
> 
> If you want to see what the breakdown of admin costs, all you have to do is look on the very same site, and you'll find the financial info. You would find their reported expense to revenue is 10%.
> 
> PosterBoy brought up a good thing to look at. Perhaps the methods for figuring out how to distribute isn't as fair as it could be.


groovetube.. what do you find useless about my post? The fact that I know a LOT of people in the music business who get royalty checks or the fact that they feel the same way that I do about the levy? I find it quite relevant.

I thought that as a musician you would be interested in this, but apparently I'm posting "nonsense" (your words).

I've had enough of this conversation and I'll let you, who apparently know more about this than anyone have your say (again, and again, and again).


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mguertin said:


> groovetube.. what do you find useless about my post? The fact that I know a LOT of people in the music business who get royalty checks or the fact that they feel the same way that I do about the levy? I find it quite relevant.
> 
> I thought that as a musician you would be interested in this, but apparently I'm posting "nonsense" (your words).
> 
> I've had enough of this conversation and I'll let you, who apparently know more about this than anyone have your say (again, and again, and again).


Because you posted misinformation that is easily found with either google and or the site I posted, right there in charts and figures all up to date. Sorry, it's just frustrating, and perhaps a forum is a bad place to talk about this, because I guess that's inevitable.

I just get tired of people posting BS over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over deflecting from good questions and issues I'm more interested in and calling it a sham without real facts. And yes as a musician of course I'm interested in this, but I'm interested in the truth.

I was beginning to wonder when some captain google was going to post that members of the cpcc took our money for a trip to cannes. That was a popular myth for people to post for a while.


----------



## Cliffy (Apr 18, 2005)

I was taking a look at the distribution figures according to the CPCC. It is interesting to see how behind they are in handing out the money. They still have between 35% and 45% of the money to hand out from each year between 2000 and 2005.

The procedure seems to be that the groups involved claim money by sales and airplay. What happens to excess monies collected from the levy that go unclaimed?

Now that the CPCC has started handing the money out to the "collective" parties, where are the numbers from them on the percentage handed to rights holders? This money is collected from the _public_ by permission of the _government_, and as such there should be transparency and some sort of external oversight.

It sounds like if you are independent it takes a lot to get some money out of this. And hey, as Canadian artists, you deserve a cut of this. Maybe signing up as an indie with iTunes would do the trick! (that is if they count digital music sales).


----------



## Guest (Dec 27, 2007)

groovetube said:


> Because you posted misinformation that is easily found with either google and or the site I posted, right there in charts and figures all up to date. Sorry, it's just frustrating, and perhaps a forum is a bad place to talk about this, because I guess that's inevitable.
> 
> I just get tired of people posting BS over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over deflecting from good questions and issues I'm more interested in and calling it a sham without real facts. And yes as a musician of course I'm interested in this, but I'm interested in the truth.
> 
> I was beginning to wonder when some captain google was going to post that members of the cpcc took our money for a trip to cannes. That was a popular myth for people to post for a while.


Fair enough, I stand corrected on the figures -- although I'm still dubious about who actually gets the $$, and I still stand by my opinion, and the shared opinion of all the musician/writer friends I have discussed this with that it is not the way to approach this issue.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mguertin said:


> Fair enough, I stand corrected on the figures -- although I'm still dubious about who actually gets the $$, and I still stand by my opinion, and the shared opinion of all the musician/writer friends I have discussed this with that it is not the way to approach this issue.


well that still doesn't mean *all' musicians and writers share your view...

I am in pretty deep, and I could say all my peers like the levy, but that doesn't help matters here at all.


I never said this was the best solution, nor do I not have concerns about how the money is distributed. I do.

edit: sorry for being frustrated but forums always invite this sort of thing. Peace.


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2007)

groovetube said:


> edit: sorry for being frustrated but forums always invite this sort of thing. Peace.


No worries man, this is like religion and politics, but rolled into one. If nothing else it provokes emotion.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

groovetube said:


> If the music was really so crap, then why are people downloading it so much?


I would think that people are downloading those things that are unavailable, and I think the better music that is not distributed very well makes up the bulk of downloads. That is, barring the junk that the kiddies download. I recall when the Captain and Tennile were considered "sappy" and "kiddie" - they would entirely rule over the garbage pushed by the record companies these days. I'd like to see a place where someone can go and get into some King Biscuit Boy or some Charlie Mingus or perhaps some of the newer acts like Nashville Pussy...



> There is lots of great music out there to buy. It's just that it generally isn't on the front rack with Britany Spears.


Perhaps, but since The Hammer is now without a record store (barring Sonic Unyon which carries alot of independent acts) - I think that there is no chance that piracy will cease. Shutting down Napster just helped to accelerate the technology of transmitting digital audio, in both quality and reliability. The record industry is filled with useless A&R people who use "market research" to bankrupt their own companies. I think people really have to support independent efforts, as for the most part, they are better than the commercialized garbage. No difference than the experience of The Doors years ago, when their "commercial" albums failed because they were garbage - while their own home recorded albums remain classics. I think I'll listen to Texas Radio And The Big Beat...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well just as I thought, the ipod levy was again not allowed.
source


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

ehMax said:


> piracy |ˈpīrəsē|
> noun
> • the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work
> 
> ...


Woops, lost this thread during the holidays, just when it was getting fun!

The statement was paraphrased by me, unlawful might have been the wrong word to choose, but it fits within the context of copyright, since unlawful duplication would be unauthorized duplication...

Copyright is not bound to a physical medium, it's speaks to the content. It protects _intellectual property._ You don't "own" a CD when you buy it, you purchase a license to listen to the contents. Personal copying does not mean making a duplicate of something you already have a license for. Personal copying is legally making a duplicate of copyrighted material for which you have no license.

In other words - downloading off of the internet is making a personal copy. That you got the content online should be no different than going to the library and signing out a CD, or borrowing a CD from a friend. Using the definition of piracy you quoted - how can you "pirate" something from the internet, when the copying is explicitly authorized in copyright law?

Where, the piracy takes place (or should anyway) is the person _providing the copy_ on the internet. That person is distributing copyrighted material without authorization - in other words piracy. (The part I bolded in the quote falls in the same category BTW. That's not personal copying, that distributing copyrighted materal. You pirate )


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

groovetube said:


> well just as I thought, the ipod levy was again not allowed.
> source


Excellent news!


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

News1130 - ALL NEWS RADIO.

Another news source. Hooray for decency and common sense!

May the iTunes music store and HMV continue to grab more money from me than a levy ever will.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Yeeeee Haaaaa!!!

I am so happy! Logic prevails! Hurray for the decision!!!! 
:clap:  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

One of the rarest of occasions a lawyer is appreciated.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Fantastic news. At last, sanity in the courts.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Woot!


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

It isn't over yet. The bill is still out there.

Fair Copyright For Canada


----------

