# Canadian Tax On iPhones And iPads. A Stupid Idea That's Finally Put To Bed?



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

In a report published yesterday in _The Globe & Mail_, Canada's federal Industry Minister rejected new calls for a federal fee on smart phones and handhelds, such as the iPhone, iPad and Blackberry, to compensate Canadian artists for file-swaping.

Politics aside for a moment (I'm no fan of Industry Minister Tony Clement), this is a rare moment of common sense to come out of Ottawa, that I am giving a full standing ovation and slow clap to. The idea of putting a Canadian specific tax or a levy on handheld devices that do an amazing myriad of functions besides listening to music to compensate artists for file-swaping, is as the Minister described - A dinosaur of an idea. 

As background, for almost the past decade, Canada has levied a charge on the purchase of CD's that is supposed to compensate artists for the private copying of music. The levy outrageously collects 29¢ per CD, more than the value of a blank CD these days. The tax grab currently collects about $15 Million a year right now. The "Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists" has been pressuring Ottawa to extend this to devices like the iPhone. 

Ottawa's response was, “The business model that the original levy was on has changed. The whole music industry has changed. The whole entertainment industry has changed,” industry Minister Tony Clement told reporters.

“The fact of the matter is that Canadians do not expect that their handheld devices, their iPhones, their BlackBerrys, their smart phones, their iPods are going to be subject to a made-in-Canada tax.”

Standing ovation! My iPhone is used for making phone calls, running productivity apps and games, taking photos and shooting video. It acts as a GPS and map guide, receives email and browses the web. I use it to text message my friends, control my entertainment centre, wake me up in the morning. Oh yeah, it also plays music and TV shows *THAT I HAVE PURCHASED*!

The speakers I bought recently for my entertainment centre also play music that I purchased, perhaps a special Canadian tax should be levied on those speakers too so that starving Canadian artists can eat? 

The Industry Minister warned such levys could create a “gray market or black market” for devices to avoid the tax and he's absolutely right. From personal experience in the Mac and iPod industry, the slightest discrepancy in currency will send many Canadians to the US to purchase their electronics. Adding a Canadian specific tax on iPods, iPads and other similar devices will create a gray market for these devices and will send many Canadians to the US to make their purchases. 

Perhaps the voices that have been pushing to put a special Canadian tax on these mulit-purpose devices will finally drop their archaic ideas of compensation and look at new ways to create revenue streams for their content in this digital age.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Good article. Bang on and a great decision by Tony.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

This is a non-starter and no party supports the proposal. Beg to differ on it being Clement's decision because we all know "the decider" is PM helmet hair.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> This is a non-starter and no party supports the proposal. Beg to differ on it being Clement's decision because we all know "the decider" is PM helmet hair.


 Does everything have to become an opportunity for a Harper bash for you? It's getting a little tired and old. :yawn:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Well, I'm not really sure where I stand on this, to be honest. There are different methods to deal with file swapping I guess,. Here, we've had the levy which, has sort of kept things semi legal in a way. Or, we could move towards the US style of copyright laws, which the cons seem to want to move towards, and haul someone's mom into court and fine her 10 million bucks for the 20 songs she shared.

Neither solutions seem great, though be careful whose back you pat, I don't think mr. clement gives a rats behind about artists, or our non-US style copyright laws.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

jimbotelecom said:


> This is a non-starter and no party supports the proposal. Beg to differ on it being Clement's decision because we all know "the decider" is PM helmet hair.


Don't care if the decision came from a parliament page or Don Cherry, I just fully support the decision.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> Does everything have to become an opportunity for a Harper bash for you? It's getting a little tired and old. :yawn:


Yes, this government is getting tired and old. Time for a change

The sooner the better


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> Well, I'm not really sure where I stand on this, to be honest. There are different methods to deal with file swapping I guess,. Here, we've had the levy which, has sort of kept things semi legal in a way. Or, we could move towards the US style of copyright laws, *which the cons seem to want to move towards, and haul someone's mom into court and fine her 10 million bucks for the 20 songs she shared.*
> 
> Neither solutions seem great, though be careful whose back you pat, I don't think mr. clement gives a rats behind about artists, or our non-US style copyright laws.


Not true gt:



> Bill C-32...
> 
> This bill will dramatically reduce an individual’s exposure in cases of non-commercial infringement. In such cases, statutory damages will be reduced to a one-time payment of between $100 and $5000 for all infringements that took place prior to the lawsuit.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Yes, this government is getting tired and old. Time for a change
> 
> The sooner the better


:yawn:


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> :yawn:


tptptptp


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Not true gt:


I'll believe that when it's passed (if).


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> Don't care if the decision came from a parliament page or Don Cherry, I just fully support the decision.


+1 I agree.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> Yes, this government is getting tired and old. Time for a change
> 
> The sooner the better


:clap::clap:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> I'll believe that when it's passed (if).


Well the only way it could be amended to be otherwise is if the opposition vote en force to do so in Committee and then it passes in the House. Presumably, if anything, the opposition would want to make the penalties lighter if anything, so I don't know why you would be sceptical.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> All of this discussion is moot and only designed to be a distraction from the Digital Locks clause, the part of the bill that makes all the rest of it irrelevant.
> 
> Unlocking your (reduced-tax) phone: illegal.
> Copying a CD to your (reduced-tax) phone: Illegal if the manufacturer chooses to put in the smallest bit of "copy protection", even if the CD ripper does it for you automatically.
> ...


Sask Langer

Tony Clement won’t stand for a tax on his iPhone – or yours - The Globe and Mail

The lock provision trumps this minor announcement.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Ottawaman said:


> Sask Langer
> 
> Tony Clement won’t stand for a tax on his iPhone – or yours - The Globe and Mail
> 
> The lock provision trumps this minor announcement.


Lets look at and live in the real world shall we... If you break a digital lock and it is purely for personal purposes who is going to know?

The government knows this... digital locks are maintained in the Bill to keep the various content creators/producers industries and their associations happy. In the real world for you and I so long as we are just going about our business for personal use it is going to mean squat.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

jimbotelecom said:


> Yes, this government is getting tired and old. Time for a change
> 
> The sooner the better


Then thank god the libs will be out of ontario once and for all.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

screature said:


> :yawn:


+ 1




jimbotelecom said:


> Yes, this government is getting tired and old. Time for a change
> 
> The sooner the better


There is nothing better.


----------



## kevleviathan (Apr 9, 2008)

screature said:


> Lets look at and live in the real world shall we... If you break a digital lock and it is purely for personal purposes who is going to know?
> 
> The government knows this... digital locks are maintained in the Bill to keep the various content creators/producers industries and their associations happy. In the real world for you and I so long as we are just going about our business for personal use it is going to mean squat.


It's generally not a good idea to pass legislation that will be ignored and people know beforehand is completely useless.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

This thread is about the tax levy on electronic devices. If you want a political party discussion, please move it to the Everything Else forum.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kevleviathan said:


> It's generally not a good idea to pass legislation that will be ignored and people know beforehand is completely useless.


Really... Every hear of drug laws... :lmao:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> This thread is about the tax levy on electronic devices. If you want a political party discussion, please move it to the Everything Else forum.


Thank you Mr. Mayor. I would have said so earlier but then I would have been blamed for being a thread cop... I have tried to keep threads on track in the past and due to people complaining I have abandoned said practise and just go with the flow. But thank you for setting at least this one back on track. :clap:


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Wow, for once I agree with the Tories. Now let's abolish the existing levies and just make clear and understandable copyright laws, including a "fair use" law.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yeah, let's end this gravy train!


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

On Topic....

I am glad to be hearing this news. There has been this threat for years now.

I wish they would repeal the media taxes. I really don't use that much media, but it does bother me that I am paying an artist tax on my media recordables, even though I legally purchase all my tv shows, movies, and music. Its not like the tax makes it legal for people to share media files.

I don't beleive they should be taxing any devices to compensate artists.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yes we sure as hell wouldn't want to compensate the artists would we. Imagine the nerve of an artist, wanting to (GASP!) be compensated?

I think people are being quite naive if they think this bill isn't going to result in people getting nabbed.

Be careful what you wish for. You give companies some teeth, and they're gonna use it.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

groovetube said:


> yes we sure as hell wouldn't want to compensate the artists would we. Imagine the nerve of an artist, wanting to (GASP!) be compensated?


why should I be paying to compensate artist for works I do not use? Or for works I have already paid for?

I get it, people still file share, music, movies, software.... But how does a tax, which takes money from myself and is given to artist fair compensation. By that argument, I should be compensated for the tax and should be able to get some media in return for my payment.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> yes we sure as hell wouldn't want to compensate the artists would we. Imagine the nerve of an artist, wanting to (GASP!) be compensated?
> 
> I think people are being quite naive if they think this bill isn't going to result in people getting nabbed.
> 
> Be careful what you wish for. You give companies some teeth, and they're gonna use it.


The cost of litigation when the potential payout is capped at a one-time payment of between $100 and $5000 for all infringements that took place prior to the lawsuit means that it will be hardly worth it for recording companies to go after the individual user who breaks a DRM for personal use. Not to mention hardly anyone in the recording industry use DRMs any more. It is the commercial pirates and the big torrent sites (aka Pirate Bay etc.) that they are clearly after.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Do we know what the proposed tax was on such devices? Was it a flat rate or _ad valorem_?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> Do we know what the proposed tax was on such devices? Was it a flat rate or _ad valorem_?


It was groups like ACTRA and SOCAN who were pushing for the levy.



> The levy, says ACTRA, would be relative to the size of the device.


ACTRA Voices Concern over Copyright Legislation


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> The cost of litigation when the potential payout is capped at a one-time payment of between $100 and $5000 for all infringements that took place prior to the lawsuit means that it will be hardly worth it for recording companies to go after the individual user who breaks a DRM for personal use. Not to mention hardly anyone in the recording industry use DRMs any more. It is the commercial pirates and the big torrent sites (aka Pirate Bay etc.) that they are clearly after.


you miss the point screature. It isn't at that point about the money they get, it's the intimidation. I think you're being a little naive if you don't think the industry isn't going to use the new teeth to intimidate users, or that they won't lobby to raise the cap. 

And ertman, you're asking the same silly question many people ask. You're already paying puuulenty for lots of products you never stole and to fix a lot of property you never vandalized. The concept stinks but it isn't like it's new and isn't in widespread use. You just aren't told about it that's all.

I don't like the levies either. But I am in the unique position of knowing why conceptually, they are used. I'd love to hear of better ideas.


----------



## SD-B (Oct 28, 2009)

screature said:


> It was groups like ACTRA and SOCAN who were pushing for the levy.
> 
> 
> 
> ACTRA Voices Concern over Copyright Legislation



I was quite surprised when a friend of mine who owns a small coffee/sandwich shop here in Toronto received a letter stating he had to pay so much money for music he plays in the shop on CDs ( or at least that it what they believe he is using )

Cant recall the exact amount but was a bit taken aback from it considering the music he does play aren't commercial songs.

Hadn't heard of Socan before that but I was not at all impressed with that obvious grab of cash.

This was the second most absurd money grab I had heard of.
Glad someone has some common sense and has decided to cancel this legislation.
/sighs


It almost has the same feel as gangs coming around and forcing protection upon a cafe for a certain outrageous sum of cash

I dont like the sound of SOCAN.......


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

but they're still going to keep the levy on blank cds?

why?


----------



## can.rules (Jul 12, 2008)

screature said:


> Really... Every hear of drug laws... :lmao:


Or the cell-phone bans while driving?


----------

