What is Digg?218 Comments
- norman619, on 10/11/2007, -1/+122They have the tax on blank media and now this. Since the artists are now being compensated for their music is it now ok for us to download music?
- StalfoS, on 10/11/2007, -1/+112Sweet! I can now download all the music I want from P2P networks because I paid a levy on my iPod!!
- DavidGX, on 10/11/2007, -2/+54So everyone who buys an mp3 player is ASSUMED to steal music and charged for it? What kind of ***** is that?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+53exactly how will this be distributed to the artists fairly?
- akatherder, on 10/11/2007, -4/+47Not to start a gun control debate, but this is like putting a murder tax on guns. They just assume you are going to do something illegal?
- RogerStrong, on 10/11/2007, -4/+35- Uploading is illegal.
- Downloading is a grey area, and will probably be made illegal.
- Trading music with friends and family is legal - this is spelled out in Canadian copyright law. In return the artists get the blank media tax. This only applies to music, not say, video.
This is another reason why music DRM should be fought in Canada, and breaking any music DRM for personal copying should legal. I'm forced to pay for the right to copy music - whether I choose to or not. Every time I back up my photos or source code or documents - several times a week - I pay a tax to the musicians. If they legalize copying in return, fine. But if they add a DRM scheme that's illegal to bypass, well, the law is wrong and should be ignored. - ToadLeg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+23They should tax TVs to compensate news programs that could be received on them, tax anything metal to compensate metalworkers, tax food to compensate farmers, tax glass to compensate glassmakers, tax microchips to compensate chip manufacturers. Everything that is made or could be made should be taxed to compensate people or potential people for making it.
- TheRealToma, on 10/11/2007, -0/+211. Become musician
2. Dont buy ipod
3. ????
4. Profit. - abid786, on 10/11/2007, -1/+22Instead of taxing blank media, which may or may not be used for pirating music, it is probably better to come up with better distribution methods for music, getting rid of greedy coorporations such as the RIAA.
- YuriSakazaki, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20I'm a musician, where do I apply for my cut?
- wheeze, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19Music has the right to freedom ;-)
- davidjunit, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19Ironically I think this news deserves a depressing song from Boards of Canada.
- iwatts, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17So your co-worker the musician is not enjoying commercial success and much airplay? How the heck do you think the CPCC determines which artist gets what of the media and iPod tax? They base it off CD sales, digital music sales and air-play. The cheque for $2.19 from the CPCC will get the musician a large dbl dbl from Tim's, not freedom from office drudgery.
The notion that anyone who purchases media or an iPod is by default, a thief, is asinine and insulting. - djaoki, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18Are these the first steps towards socialized...music???
How is it decided WHICH artists receive compensation. Suppose I am on an independent label and have music available for retail sale, but a majority of it is acquired on P2P networks. How would it be determined the amount or even eligibility for compensation.
Quite a bit of gray area if you ask me... - phoomp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15This isn't the Conservatives (yet). Right now, it is the Copyright Board of Canada. They're probably the exact same people who pushed this through when the Liberals were in power.
No matter. I'll gladly pre-pay 10-20% the price of an iPod for legalized sharing "unauthorized copyrighted material". - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16How can people be calling this socialism. This is just the opposite this is corporate welfare
- Roger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14I almost dugg this story until I realized it wasn't about BoC.
- restlessdesign, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13not one cent of it. i imagine they're just going to be used to keep the courts open to hear all the ridiculous cases brought against your average joe.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13The Board apparently ruled that the levy could conceivably be applied to cellphones and personal computers too.
It's 2004 all over again... - Tearlock, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Sounds like your friend is a good musician but a crappy businessman. Instead of trying to leech off of the consumer and use them as a scapegoat for his lack of financial success, perhaps your friend should be exploring the new effective ways the Internet is making even unsigned artist financially independent. We're in an era where a garage/rock band can screw around on some treadmills with a consumer grade camcorder and experience overnight success. Tell your friend to learn to market himself, it's getting cheaper and easier.
- MercedRocks, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Yah, and Im sure musicians will see all of this money.
Here's an idea, make good music and sell it at a fair price DRM-free.........its not rocket science.
Sorry but, maybe, just maybe, your buddies music just plain sucked. :) - RogerStrong, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12>> Musicians need to be supported.
If I have to pay him every time I back up my source code, photos or documents onto blank media, I should get something in return. If I have to pay him when I buy flash memory for my Pocket PC or camera, I should get something in return. What Canadia law gives consumers like me is the right to private copying among friends and family, but NOT public performance or broadcast rights.
If this still doesn't seem reasonable, consider this: The blank media tax in return for legalized private copying scheme was created and pushed into law by the musicians and thier representitives, NOT the consumers. - fentanyl, on 10/11/2007, -18/+30***** the conservatives. They are going down at the next elections.
- KibibyteBrain, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12I've made software before. Can I just assume people are stealing it and get money from a tax on all new computers?
- rebrad, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13There is nothing like a government that assumes that all of it's citizens are criminals or just another excuse to legally confiscate your money. Either way they know you'll just roll over with your arse in the air.
- Argus2m, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Here is the legalese to how the Musicians get paid, this can all be found here http://cpcc.ca/english/about.htm
Eligibility of Payment
The Copyright Act identifies the general types of copyright holder on whose behalf private copying royalties are collected and 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.
Payments to Copyright holders
Responsibility for distributing private copying royalties rests with CPCC, the body that also collects the royalties. This is a role assigned to CPCC by the Copyright Board. The Copyright Board also designates the proportion of total royalties that forms the basis of distributions amongst each of the three basic groups eligible to receive payments: songwriters and publishers, recording artists, and record companies. Like the assignment of responsibility for distribution, these allocations are set down in the private copying tariffs .* From there, CPCC must divide the funds amongst individual copyright holders. Conservatively, one song will trigger as many as 12 payments. Although it has taken similar but bigger organizations in other countries far longer to effect their first distributions, CPCC began making payments early in 2003. In January, CPCC carried out the first of a series of payments being made from the over $28 million in private copying royalties available for distribution from 2000 and 2001. 2003 will also see payment from the additional $26 million available from 2002. CPCC has devised a process that will permit these funds to be distributed fairly amongst tens of thousands of copyright holders. A non-profit corporation run by copyright holders, CPCC withholds only those funds necessary to defray its costs of administration. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Well 98% will go to the major labels and 95% of that will be given to maddona of course!
The remaining 2% will go on "admin" fees - lacronicus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9How does one apply for this "compensation"? if its enough to get back money lost from piracy, it has to be considerable. can I just go up and say im an artist whose music is stolen and get a ton of cash?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Wrong, and Wrong
http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5182641.html
Uploading is legal, and so is Downloading.
"In a far-ranging decision, the court further found that both downloading music and putting it in a shared folder available to other people online appeared to be legal in Canada." - zenzizi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Yeah that's right.
- grubworth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9ORRRAANNGE
- Amnesia10, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Since something like 97% of music on iPods is from CD collections which we have already paid for, Canadians are effectively being asked to pay twice for the right to listen to their music. Heck on that basic Hollywood is entitled to a share of all TV's DVD players and video players sold in Canada as well
- DavidGX, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I don't think it's either. It just sounds like "*****" to me.
- maxtangent, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Because the Liberals have proven so fair and just?? It is the same false left/right paradigm as exists in the U.S.
- PedleZelnip, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8> Uploading is legal, and so is Downloading
In Canada, for the record. - lordmetroid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Yes, musician needs supported... He can be supported by providing me with something I want to pay for or giving me the price I am willing to pay. Not coerse me to pay his living!!! ***** communists!
- CraigNobbs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Here's my two cents: As previous court ruling have made P2P file sharing legal in Canada (you can download, but not upload) because of the current levy on blank media (CD, DVD, mini disc, etc), I would imagine that with precedence already set, that should someone be caught with "illegal" music on their "media playing device" that they can legitimately claim that they already compensated the artist via the levy that they paid for when they purchased the device.
There was an article posted from a news site quite some time back when the ruling was made that had a high ranking employee of CRIA (Canadian version of RIAA) stating that if this was going to be the case that they were going to seriously consider putting their weight behind having the levy removed.
I have to say that I'm not pleased about the levy in general, as hard drive prices seem to be plummeting, however, I do suppose that if this allows me to download all the music I could possibly want, then perhaps I could see fit to live with it. As long as they don't use one of their original ideas about the levy amount (which would effectively double the cost of any ipod), I suppose adding $20 to a 500GB hard drive is worth 10,000+ songs. =) - romsel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6similar tax is coming to switzerand too
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/social_affairs/detail/Judges_confirm_tax_on_digital_music_players.html?siteSect=201&sid=8013457&cKey=1184174694000 - DeFex, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6thats great now you buy an mp3 player to listen to non mainstream music because you can not hear it anywhere else (due to radio payola etc), they will pay money to mainstream artists.
I guess i will just buy it on ebay :) - CBTF, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7The only reason you think the conservatives havent been bad is because they're treading on thin ice with a minority government. Harper hasn't done much, but if he ever gains a majority I can promise you we'll see things go to ***** under his leadership...
- joot2112, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5This doesn't make any sense. If the tax is meant to compensate musicians whose copyrights have been ignored, how is the government going to distribute this tax money to musicians? Are all musicians somehow going to get a piece of it? What about non-Canadian musicians? This seems totally unfeasible.
- RogerStrong, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5The point of DRM is to maintain the monopoly of the big distributors.
The internet allows people to legally distribute their music without the big distributors. So, they keep trying not only to impose DRM schemes and make breaking them illegal, but to have the law *REQUIRE* DRM schemes on players. That is, ban the sale of players that play non-DRM media.
That way the musicians are forced to pay for distribution, via legal and license fees on the DRM scheme required for consumers to play their music. - mastercheif, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6How can this be legal? I really don't think it would hold up in a supreme court (or whatever Canada has). I shouldn't have to pay an extra tax on my product just because some people download music illegally. Why should I have to pay the labels and artists extra money even tough I buy CDs? You shouldn't be taxed for a crime you may commit.
- LethalAmbition, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5... And that, my friend, is how silly this tax is.
- TheRealToma, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5We real musicians play to entertain and bring joy to others. We real musicians have office jobs and hate them too. We dont have a greedy aspiration for a million dollars, just to know that people appreciate what we write, and inspires them in their own lives. Tell your buddy to suck it up and rethink what he stands for.
- HHP2K, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Sent an e-mail to secretariat@cb-cda.gc.ca, though I know it won't go anywhere.
Hello, my name is Jesse. I am a Canadian Citizen who has recently read about your organization's plan to induce an "iPod" tax on Canadian citizens.
This tax would allow the Canadian government to raise the price on digital audio players (mp3 players) simply because they are used to play music. The government spins this as a means to compensate "artists" who are - by assumption - being "deprived" of the royalties they deserve when people "steal" music from online P2P sharing programs.
How can we count the ways in which this tax is by and large a bad and wrong idea?
- The idea of artists losing money in royalties over "stolen" music has proven itself to be false numerous times.
- The tax is all-encompassing and vague. How does the government know I'm using it as an audio player? How can they assume where I'm getting my music from and whether I paid for it or not?
- The people who you are taking this money from have no idea exactly how these "artists" are being compensated with this money. If you can tax me for simply having an audio player, how will you find out what artists I had on the player so that they could be paid accordingly? If you were truly doing this "for the artists", then different approaches would have been considered which concentrate deeper on funding individual artists based on heavier research and customer feedback.
Overall, this tax is a sad attempt by the Copyright board to make itself seem like it actually cares about the money that artists are (in actuality NOT) losing when people share music through file sharing programs. It underlines a common theme of lawmakers being undereducated to the inner workings of the internet and networking, and not caring enough about what they enact laws over to actually research the subject and take a more reasonable and smarter approach. The tax is much too vague to ever be effective, and the methods of paying out royalties to artists via a tax on anything that can hold audio is the wrong approach. What it shows is that the music industry is getting desperate to have money funded into it, and now must come up with other ways of sapping money out of the general public, even if the means are unfair and nonsensical.
Look at the RIAA - Their primary source of income right now is through launching lawsuits against everyone under the sun.
Overall, this is not something I expected out of Canada. I've already read the reports, and I know this will fall on deaf ears. But just know this: enacting this tax would generate a lot of resistance with the consumers and would not make this board look very good at all.
That is all. - AlanJV, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Las time I checked, the artist was compensated when the consumer pays for the digital file. The artist had nothing to do with the creation of the iPod (or digital device), and therefore, doesn't deserve to make any money from it.
- zodieman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Yeah, then it would REALLY not sell.
- cyberwarriorx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I don't see how this can be confused to begin with. This isn't a government mandated change. This is done by a board that was setup years before the conservatives were even elected. I'd also like to point out the levies on cd's and mp3 players were originally enacted during the liberals reign throughout the 90's.
- Guspaz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4They HAD a tax on iPods. You used to have to pay $40 per iPod for the copying levy. The courts shot it down saying that the copyright board didn't have the authority.
Essentially, the copyright board now seems to be saying "Nuh UH! We do SO have the authority!" -
Show 51 - 100 of 213 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is