Music Man
2005-07-29 13:30:51 UTC
Note to reader: This issue does not pertain to people in the USA.
There is no such extra tax in the USA on digital media or media
devices like blank CD-R disks or MP3 players.
-------------------------------
I don't quite understand this.
Are they saying that because the tax on digital music players has been
removed (removed permenantly or indefinately), that people who copy
music to those players have lost the protection (or right) to copy
music to those players? (ie - that users of MP3 players were
protected from copyright prosecution *because* of the tax on the
players?)
Is the music industry (in Canada) acknowledging that the special tax
(on items like CD-R's) gives Canadian's protection from
copyright-based legal action by the music industry? If so, then how
can they continue to go after Canadian up/downloaders of music on the
internet?
Why wasn't this issue settled when we were using Sony Walkmans and
taping music off the air or from records onto casette tape?
See also:
Big Music fumbles in Canada
http://p2pnet.net/story/5741
(reproduced below)
--------------------------------
Top court removes levy on iPod-like devices
http://www.metronews.ca/tech_news.asp?id=9880
Consumers (In Canada) no longer have to pay a $2 to $25 levy on
digital music recorders, but with the levy gone, legal experts say
those who copy their personal CD collections onto the popular devices
are no longer exempt from copyright legislation.
In other words, they may be breaking the law.
The Supreme Court of Canada refused yesterday to hear an appeal that
was expected to clarify whether copying songs to digital music
players, such as Apple Computer's popular iPod, can under certain
circumstances expose consumers to copyright infringement lawsuits.
"If someone takes a lawfully store bought CD and makes a copy onto an
iPod, there doesn't appear to be anything in Canadian copyright law
that gives them the right to do that," said Michael Geist, a
technology law professor at the University of Ottawa.
"In theory, someone could be sued for making copies of CDs to listen
to on their iPod."
With the country's top court deciding to stay clear of the issue,
Geist said the pressure is on lawmakers to directly tackle any legal
uncertainties that remain.
David Basskin, a director with the royalty-collecting Canadian Private
Copying Collective (CPCC), which launched the appeal on behalf of
music rights holders, said there's nothing theoretical about the
issue.
"The law is pretty clear," said Basskin. "Unauthorized copies made to
digital audio recorders infringe copyright. This isn't just an iPod
issue, there are many other products that fit the description."
Basskin wouldn't say whether there was a serious risk of consumers
being sued, but industry observers say it's doubtful music companies
would target their best customers.
The case centred on a controversial levy that is currently applied to
blank CDs and other recordable media. It grants consumers an exemption
that allows them to make copies of music - say, from a CD collection
for personal use.
In 2003, the music-industry collective convinced the Copyright Board
to approve a new $25 levy on digital audio recorders with more than 10
gigabits of embedded memory, $15 on devices with between 1 GB and 10
GB, and $2 for less than 1 GB.
The move was strongly opposed by a group of major retailers and
electronics manufacturers - including Apple Canada Inc. and Future
Shop which convinced the Federal Court of Appeal to kill the
unpopular "MP3 player" levy in December.
But the legal battle didn't end there. With the music collective
hoping to reinstate the levy and the retailing and manufacturing group
wanting the entire levy scheme declared unfair and unconstitutional,
both parties separately appealed to the Supreme Court.
Now that the top court has refused to take on the case, partial
victories are being claimed on both sides.
The Retail Council of Canada and the Canadian Coalition for Fair
Digital Access, representing retailers and electronics manufacturers
in the case, said consumers will save millions of dollars by not
having to pay the levy.
"But we're disappointed that a constitutional case won't be heard at
this time," said Howard Knopf, a lawyer representing the retailers.
The music collective, interpreting the Supreme Court's refusal to hear
the appeal as indirect support for the constitutionality of the levy
system, said it was disappointed it couldn't reinstate the levy on
digital music recorders and will be exploring its options.
About $120 million collected to date through the levy is supposed to
be redistributed to copyright owners. Legal observers figure the music
collective accumulated more than $4 million in levies from iPods and
other digital music recorders in 2004, an amount it plans to
reimburse.
Basskin said with the levy gone, consumers should realize they no
longer have a blanket exemption to copy songs to digital music
recorders, though songs can be legally downloaded from specially
licensed music sites such as Puretracks and iTunes.
In a release, the Canadian Recording Industry Association said by not
accepting the appeal the Supreme Court affirmed that the "unauthorized
file sharing to hard drives of any kind including those on home
computers is illegal."
The association, however, seems to make a distinction between file
sharing through the Internet and the act of "ripping" CDs for personal
use.
----------------------------
Big Music fumbles in Canada
p2pnet.net News- Has the Big Four record labels' CRIA opened its mouth
too wide following yesterday's Canadian Supreme Court decision to
refuse an appeal by vested interests to confirm the tax on portable
music players?
Canadian law professor Michae Gesit believes that may be the case.
CRIA's Higher Risk Strategy
By Michael Geist
Of all the reactions to today's SCC decision to skip the appeal of the
private copying decision, I thought the Canadian Recording Industry
Association's was the most remarkable. Ive obviously commented
regularly on its high risk strategy of suing individual file sharers.
I think this is a bad strategy for many reasons. Suing your customers
(and we should be clear, file sharers are the industrys best
customers) is never a good idea. Further, the immense energy devoted
to fighting file sharing, despite ample evidence that any industry
woes have little do with the practice, is wasted time that could be
spent actually responding to the market.
Today's response represents an even higher risk strategy. CRIA is now
going to war not only with its customers, but now also with its
artists. There have been several indications of this in the past year,
namely CRIA's opposition to artists on ringtone compensation and on
satellite radio.
But opposing the artists on private copying takes this strategy to new
heights. CRIA today claimed that artists will make up private copying
levy losses through the marketplace. The truth is that artists and
rights holders lost $4 million today, the amount collected from the
iPod and digital audio recorders during a fairly brief period. Longer
term, they lost tens of millions of dollars of potential compensation.
These are not the nickels and dimes that CRIA derides. If anything,
for Canadian artists the levy represents a potentially important
revenue stream that will not be easily recouped.
Today's decision also likely means the end of a private copying levy
that CRIA spent 15 years fighting to get. The system is clearly broken
and policy makers will either drop it completely (perhaps supplemented
by a fair use doctrine that will permit copying such as store bought
CDs to personal iPods) or expand the levy so that it resembles a
European approach that extends to both audio and video, while
providing even greater compensation.
Further, today's decision represents a serious blow to the iPod, which
has been an incredible boon to the music industry. Simply put, copying
store bought CDs onto iPods, as CRIAs own Graham Henderson has
supported, may now be unlawful in Canada since it is difficult to find
an exception within the Copyright Act that would permit that form of
copying. While perhaps some in the industry may think this is a good
thing as it transitions users to re-purchase the same music yet again
as MP3 files from services such as iTunes, I think it will ultimately
lower the value that consumers associate with music to the detriment
of everyone in the industry.
Finally, it is worth noting what this decision does not mean. While
CRIA claims yet again that this means that file sharing is unlawful in
Canada, the issue is still unsettled. They argue that "unauthorized
file sharing to hard drives of any kind, including those on home
computers, is illegal." Not so. A good argument can be made that
computer hard drives are not the equivalent of the hard drives
embedded in digital audio players. I don't think anyone knows for sure
and I doubt CRIA will try to test the issue. There is high risk and
higher risk but that lawsuit would involve perhaps the highest risk.
There is no such extra tax in the USA on digital media or media
devices like blank CD-R disks or MP3 players.
-------------------------------
I don't quite understand this.
Are they saying that because the tax on digital music players has been
removed (removed permenantly or indefinately), that people who copy
music to those players have lost the protection (or right) to copy
music to those players? (ie - that users of MP3 players were
protected from copyright prosecution *because* of the tax on the
players?)
Is the music industry (in Canada) acknowledging that the special tax
(on items like CD-R's) gives Canadian's protection from
copyright-based legal action by the music industry? If so, then how
can they continue to go after Canadian up/downloaders of music on the
internet?
Why wasn't this issue settled when we were using Sony Walkmans and
taping music off the air or from records onto casette tape?
See also:
Big Music fumbles in Canada
http://p2pnet.net/story/5741
(reproduced below)
--------------------------------
Top court removes levy on iPod-like devices
http://www.metronews.ca/tech_news.asp?id=9880
Consumers (In Canada) no longer have to pay a $2 to $25 levy on
digital music recorders, but with the levy gone, legal experts say
those who copy their personal CD collections onto the popular devices
are no longer exempt from copyright legislation.
In other words, they may be breaking the law.
The Supreme Court of Canada refused yesterday to hear an appeal that
was expected to clarify whether copying songs to digital music
players, such as Apple Computer's popular iPod, can under certain
circumstances expose consumers to copyright infringement lawsuits.
"If someone takes a lawfully store bought CD and makes a copy onto an
iPod, there doesn't appear to be anything in Canadian copyright law
that gives them the right to do that," said Michael Geist, a
technology law professor at the University of Ottawa.
"In theory, someone could be sued for making copies of CDs to listen
to on their iPod."
With the country's top court deciding to stay clear of the issue,
Geist said the pressure is on lawmakers to directly tackle any legal
uncertainties that remain.
David Basskin, a director with the royalty-collecting Canadian Private
Copying Collective (CPCC), which launched the appeal on behalf of
music rights holders, said there's nothing theoretical about the
issue.
"The law is pretty clear," said Basskin. "Unauthorized copies made to
digital audio recorders infringe copyright. This isn't just an iPod
issue, there are many other products that fit the description."
Basskin wouldn't say whether there was a serious risk of consumers
being sued, but industry observers say it's doubtful music companies
would target their best customers.
The case centred on a controversial levy that is currently applied to
blank CDs and other recordable media. It grants consumers an exemption
that allows them to make copies of music - say, from a CD collection
for personal use.
In 2003, the music-industry collective convinced the Copyright Board
to approve a new $25 levy on digital audio recorders with more than 10
gigabits of embedded memory, $15 on devices with between 1 GB and 10
GB, and $2 for less than 1 GB.
The move was strongly opposed by a group of major retailers and
electronics manufacturers - including Apple Canada Inc. and Future
Shop which convinced the Federal Court of Appeal to kill the
unpopular "MP3 player" levy in December.
But the legal battle didn't end there. With the music collective
hoping to reinstate the levy and the retailing and manufacturing group
wanting the entire levy scheme declared unfair and unconstitutional,
both parties separately appealed to the Supreme Court.
Now that the top court has refused to take on the case, partial
victories are being claimed on both sides.
The Retail Council of Canada and the Canadian Coalition for Fair
Digital Access, representing retailers and electronics manufacturers
in the case, said consumers will save millions of dollars by not
having to pay the levy.
"But we're disappointed that a constitutional case won't be heard at
this time," said Howard Knopf, a lawyer representing the retailers.
The music collective, interpreting the Supreme Court's refusal to hear
the appeal as indirect support for the constitutionality of the levy
system, said it was disappointed it couldn't reinstate the levy on
digital music recorders and will be exploring its options.
About $120 million collected to date through the levy is supposed to
be redistributed to copyright owners. Legal observers figure the music
collective accumulated more than $4 million in levies from iPods and
other digital music recorders in 2004, an amount it plans to
reimburse.
Basskin said with the levy gone, consumers should realize they no
longer have a blanket exemption to copy songs to digital music
recorders, though songs can be legally downloaded from specially
licensed music sites such as Puretracks and iTunes.
In a release, the Canadian Recording Industry Association said by not
accepting the appeal the Supreme Court affirmed that the "unauthorized
file sharing to hard drives of any kind including those on home
computers is illegal."
The association, however, seems to make a distinction between file
sharing through the Internet and the act of "ripping" CDs for personal
use.
----------------------------
Big Music fumbles in Canada
p2pnet.net News- Has the Big Four record labels' CRIA opened its mouth
too wide following yesterday's Canadian Supreme Court decision to
refuse an appeal by vested interests to confirm the tax on portable
music players?
Canadian law professor Michae Gesit believes that may be the case.
CRIA's Higher Risk Strategy
By Michael Geist
Of all the reactions to today's SCC decision to skip the appeal of the
private copying decision, I thought the Canadian Recording Industry
Association's was the most remarkable. Ive obviously commented
regularly on its high risk strategy of suing individual file sharers.
I think this is a bad strategy for many reasons. Suing your customers
(and we should be clear, file sharers are the industrys best
customers) is never a good idea. Further, the immense energy devoted
to fighting file sharing, despite ample evidence that any industry
woes have little do with the practice, is wasted time that could be
spent actually responding to the market.
Today's response represents an even higher risk strategy. CRIA is now
going to war not only with its customers, but now also with its
artists. There have been several indications of this in the past year,
namely CRIA's opposition to artists on ringtone compensation and on
satellite radio.
But opposing the artists on private copying takes this strategy to new
heights. CRIA today claimed that artists will make up private copying
levy losses through the marketplace. The truth is that artists and
rights holders lost $4 million today, the amount collected from the
iPod and digital audio recorders during a fairly brief period. Longer
term, they lost tens of millions of dollars of potential compensation.
These are not the nickels and dimes that CRIA derides. If anything,
for Canadian artists the levy represents a potentially important
revenue stream that will not be easily recouped.
Today's decision also likely means the end of a private copying levy
that CRIA spent 15 years fighting to get. The system is clearly broken
and policy makers will either drop it completely (perhaps supplemented
by a fair use doctrine that will permit copying such as store bought
CDs to personal iPods) or expand the levy so that it resembles a
European approach that extends to both audio and video, while
providing even greater compensation.
Further, today's decision represents a serious blow to the iPod, which
has been an incredible boon to the music industry. Simply put, copying
store bought CDs onto iPods, as CRIAs own Graham Henderson has
supported, may now be unlawful in Canada since it is difficult to find
an exception within the Copyright Act that would permit that form of
copying. While perhaps some in the industry may think this is a good
thing as it transitions users to re-purchase the same music yet again
as MP3 files from services such as iTunes, I think it will ultimately
lower the value that consumers associate with music to the detriment
of everyone in the industry.
Finally, it is worth noting what this decision does not mean. While
CRIA claims yet again that this means that file sharing is unlawful in
Canada, the issue is still unsettled. They argue that "unauthorized
file sharing to hard drives of any kind, including those on home
computers, is illegal." Not so. A good argument can be made that
computer hard drives are not the equivalent of the hard drives
embedded in digital audio players. I don't think anyone knows for sure
and I doubt CRIA will try to test the issue. There is high risk and
higher risk but that lawsuit would involve perhaps the highest risk.