|
January 2002
February 2002
April 2002
March 2002
May 2002
June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
| |
In the immortal words of the beer commercial
"I AM CANADIAN"
but contrary to historic trends of the average Canadian, I'm pissed off and
I'm willing to stand up and tell the rest of Canada, and especially our
government, government funded special interest groups in general and the music
industry in particular.
I don't know, but maybe this is the beginning of a bout of activism, or it
may just be an aberrant blip in my otherwise complacent and typically Canadian
demeanor. Your reaction to this article may make a difference.
The subject of my ire is the proposed changes to levies under the Copyright
Act for blank recording media. The document which describes these changes is a
PDF
file on the Canadian Government Copyright
Board web site.
Amongst other things, it proposes to increase the levy on blank
CD-Recordable disks to $0.59 each - what in effect is over 100% tax on items
which in bulk generally sell for less than $0.50 each currently.
This money is to go to the CPCC, allegedly
to be distributed in compensation to the musicians and music producers of our
great land for revenue lost due to copying of music by the general public.
None has yet been distributed - but that is another matter.
There are a number of reasons why I object to the levy in general, and the
proposed extensions of it in specific. You will find others' reasons and more
information on the Sycorp web
site's special levy section along with the petition I signed today at
http://www.sycorp.com/petition.htm with the following comment:
I absolutely resent being pre-judged as a criminal. I have
taught my children (now in their late teens) that they are not to copy
music (or anything else that is copyrighted). I (for example) own 3 copies
of Eagles Hell Freezes Over - cassette, CD and Video and have purchased CD
copies of vinyl records I've owned for decades.
Artists can go back to doing live acts to make money if their public
doesn't feel like paying for recordings. If government feels that this
special interest group should pick my pocket, I'll create a S.I.G. of
buggy-whip makers and demand that a levy on all automobile sales and
accessories be turned over to me - the music industry is retarding the
development of technology and trying to live in the past. Get your hand
(and theirs) out of my pocket!!!!! |
I also sent out an e-mail to as many of my Canadian friends and contacts as
I could identify, urging that they consider doing a similar thing.
I don't normally do such things. Normally I'm similar to the rest of the
silent majority in this country in that I put up with a lot of the lunacy I
see from government, work a bit harder, do without some things, all because in
general I like living in Canada despite its annoyances.
My Reasons
Before I visited any other sites with opinions about this, I looked within
myself to see why the first and in fact all subsequent mentions of this levy
have made my blood boil.
In no particular order:
 | I don't copy music (or any other copyrighted work) except as allowed in
the context of making a security backup in case of damage to the original -
or in the case of allowing me to use my chosen player to play that music more
conveniently than the commercial media available allows (i.e. "rip" it to MP3
and play from my computer) |
| I use all of the various types of storage media for recording original
information and for legitimate backup of owned copyrighted materials. |
| I have created copyrighted materials (non music) in the past, and expect
to do more in the future, and nobody is offering to share the proceeds of
this levy with me or others like me despite the fact that I am sure that my
works have been copied without compensation to me. |
| musicians around the world are learning to live with the changes that
technology have brought to the publishing process - why should Canadian ones
be shielded from having to learn too? |
| The technology changes of the Internet era are only just beginning.
Nobody - especially not government - can predict what will happen in the next
few years. Putting a damper on the adoption of technologies by making them
prohibitively expensive will harm Canada more than the levies will help
Canadian musicians. |
| Canadians purchase (and allegedly copy) music from all across the world.
Compensating Canadian musicians for the (alleged) copyright violation of
non-Canadian artists is at best unfair, and at worst a potential
international problem. |
| Screwing with the free market may be construed by other nations as
grounds for imposition of duties on imported Canadian music - to the
detriment of the Canadian artists this whole boondoggle is supposed to help. |
| There are only a couple of reasons the music industry could get the
Canadian Copyright Board to accede to the concept of a levy in the first
place:
 | The Canadian Government seems to encourage S.I.G.s (Special Interest
Groups) and pays them much heed (especially if they come with money in hand
- minimal or non-existent lobbying laws) - and even gives them grants! |
| Canada is soft on the "arts" |
|
| I am of the opinion that the fact that enough others copy music that the
industry feels threatened is every bit as much the fault of declining
emphasis on civic and civil values in our society. This decline in turn is
the fault of changes in our education system and its failure to adapt to
changes caused by rapid communications and larger urban concentrations. |
| The concept of paying a levy on media such as flash memory and mini-hard
disk (used in MP3 players amongst other things) as transient storage is not
justified at all - the music industry has made no move to create an equitable
method of distributing music for use in these portable systems - and the
media is used in many other things for many other purposes. The cost of the
levy will unduly impact the sale of such items as PDAs, cameras, cell phones,
etc. regardless of whether they are deemed to be not-primarily for music,
since it applies for example to all Flash cards which might be added to such
items. The camera I have came with 8 Megs - and I bought a 32 Meg to replace
it - the levy would have added about $2.50 to its price - but THE CAMERA
DOESN'T RECORD MUSIC!!!! |
| The potential amounts, both of individual levies (at $21/Gig a 10 Gig
hard disk equipped MP3 player like the Ipod adds $210.00 to the price) and
the potential total levies through purchase of blank media (at $0.59 each,
purchase of the 3 packs of 50 CDRs I got my family for Xmas last year would
have been $88.50 in levy) can rise far beyond the amounts that commercial
establishments pay for a full year's broadcast of music in public places
($100 per year for something like a "community" system in a townhouse complex
for example.) |
| The extension of a per-Gigabyte levy onto the march of technology could
see the levy on an MP3 play of $2100.00 if the manufacturer included a 100
Gig drive because they couldn't buy anything smaller. Note - have you tried
to buy a hard disk with less than 10 Gigs on it lately for your home PC -
they are no longer available new!!! Micro drives of 100 Gigs are already
coming out of the lab and will be in production, probably before this levy
goes into effect!!! |
| The levy is on the landed or manufactured cost of the media/unit -
subject to markup and all other taxes (GST, PST, etc.) and so will affect the
end price far more than the amounts proposed in the CPCC document. Typical
multiplier for manufacture to retail is 4 (i.e. costs $0.53 each - sells
for 4 x $0.53 = $2.12). The real effect of the levy will probably be
less, but it will not just be the amount of the levy. At minimum, it is
likely to be somewhere around double (i.e. CD-R manufacture cost of $0.10
plus the levy of $0.53 will result in retail of something around $0.10 x 4
plus $0.53 x 2 = $1.46 each.) Apply this to a MP3 player such as
iPod, and the amount the levy
affects the retail price might be $420 per unit instead of the $210 the
levy adds at import/manufacture. And then you'll pay PST and GST on this
inflated amount making the total effect of the levy $480.90!! |
| It is not possible for any human to listen to more than 60 x 24 x 365.25
minutes of music per year (525960) and at average of 3 minutes/song, this is
175320 - which the US music industry has deemed should cost a Web caster
US$245.45 (at 0.0014 per song) - and this allows for multiple people to
listen (and is 1/2 this amount if the music originated from a radio station
and is simulcast.) So... allowing for bathroom breaks and a bit of sleep, you
might consider 2/3 of this amount as reasonable maximum, or US$162.00 or
about CDN$260.00 per year.
| Factor in the CPCC's own estimates of how much this levy should bear in
terms of total compensation taking into account the fact that some people
pay for some music via legitimate (retail) channels, and that some portion
of the various media is used for things other than copying, and the levy
should have something built into it to limit the total it collects to
something less than $100/year.
| July 18, 2003 - An update to this
calculation - the CPCC presented evidence, supported by many, that the
average Canadian listens to recorded music for about 20 hours/week. This
further mitigates the amount "owed" by reducing the possible listening
time to 52x20 hours = 62400 minutes.
In addition, the US tariff on Internet streaming
music has been cut in half to US$0.0007 per 3 minute song (still far more
than a radio station pays.)
The CPCC and the music industry in general also
claim that their "loss" of sales is about 20%, so the levy should come up
with something to replace this 20% (something I dispute but we'll leave it
here for now)
So... 20% of 62400 minutes = 12480 minutes / 3 =
4160 songs at US$0.0007 each = US$2.91 or about $4 Canadian/year. Quite a
difference! |
|
|
| The use of re-recordable media in the process of listening to music for
which I have paid is condoned in other context in the Copyright Act outside
of the section 80 "Copying for private use" in that (for example) section
30.9 says a broadcaster may make a copy of music which it has purchased on
one medium to another medium/format "appropriate for broadcasting..." The
music industry does not commercially provide music in a format which I can
use in my MP3 player, nor is it practical for me to carry a CD player capable
of delivering the variety of music I want while I am on my bicycle or skiing,
running, walking, commuting, etc. Therefore, a levy on re-recordable media
such as Flash, CD-RW, and hard disk (of any size) in unwarranted. In fact, it
is not unreasonable to extend this principle to the use of CD-R to create
compilations of MP3s out of otherwise owned music, invalidating the concept
of the levy totally. |
| Regardless of the size of a medium, there is a practical limit to how
much music the average individual can record and organize and listen to.
Beyond a certain maximum, the fact that music has been recorded can only be
viewed as part of the "fair dealing" (section 29) aspect of Copyright, where
the individual is doing research into what music interests them and is worthy
of owning and/or playing more than enough to establish lack of merit. What
this maximum is is open to debate, however I can give empiric evidence that
wading through the 2500 or so songs I have in my MP3 collection (of copies of
CD, tape, and vinyl recordings I have paid for) is a pain. This has direct
bearing on what is a reasonable maximum levy for any recordable medium or for
the aggregate levy of all recordable media a person might purchase over a
lifetime or any other period. |
The Government Doesn't Understand the Changes
in Technology that are Happening
An example: During my time with Wimsey I had some conversations with a
senior bureaucrat at the National Archives of Canada about their stated
intention of copying all Canadian web pages and making them available via
government web servers. She had a tremendous problem getting her head around
the concepts of the web, figuring it was "just another type of paper".
She wanted to set up systems and mandate that all web publishers give the
government a copy of every public web page - with the intention of making
these "historic" documents available via the government's own web servers with
no compensation whatsoever to their originators.
She couldn't understand that unless the government also included the
advertising and other "clickable" items such pages might contain - and keep
them current - and provided back to the original publishers a record of such
"click-throughs" as happened on the government's web servers, that the
government would literally be stealing revenue from the pages' authors.
Special Interest Groups are an Industry
The SIGs in Canada are no longer just about redressing perceived wrongs,
they are an industry bent on perpetuating themselves at the direct expense of
every Canadian taxpayer - and the government not only allows them,
it supports them with our
tax dollars. They have learned what buttons to push, push them frequently and
effectively, and are not going to stop.
In my humble opinion, SIGs should be wholly supported the the members of
the SIG, by donation, possibly tax deductible if they can attain charity
status and keep their nose clean. They should never be
directly publicly funded under any circumstances!
The only way the SIGs are going to be stopped is if we taxpayers put our
foot down and tell them and the government that we won't put up with it
anymore. This in fact will mean we need to create or join our own SIG - and
the one I've joined is the Canadian
Taxpayers Federation.
Text of e-mail read on-air by Peter Warren -
CKNW talk-show host:
| I object strenuously to the levy on "re-recordable" media -
FLASH memory, hard disk, CD-RW and the like.
These units are for transient use only - they do not represent permanent
storage - and the music industry has not even tried to deal with the concept
of a "subscription" service to deal with them.
Example - I own 3 different versions of Eagles Hell freezes over -
cassette, CD and VHS - and cannot use any of these on my MP3 player - so
_MUST_ copy.
see my web site at www.pacdat.net for
more comments
richard |
Text of e-mail sent to Peter Warren - CKNW
talk-show host:
| March 24, 2002
RE: Further to CPCC Levy discussion of March 23, 2002
Peter
This subject has moved me to download and read the Copyright Act Chapter
C-42 as enacted in 1997 from
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html, something I never expected to
actually do.
On Saturday March 23, David Baskin of CPCC
stated that the levy was to compensate for making copies of music that was
already owned by the copier for their personal use - and stated that the
levy did not cover or excuse the copying of music the copier had not already
purchased.
This contradicts the Act - Section 80 "Copying for Private Use" does not
distinguish between copying something already purchased and copying from for
example the radio. It simply says "... the act of reproducing all or any
substantial part of ... (recording, performance) onto an audio recording
medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not
constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the
performer's performance or the sound recording." Provided it is not for
selling or other distribution (which covers giving a copy to your friend) or
performing or transmitting to the public.
This means a few of things to me:
1 - CPCC is covering its butt with respect to the normal distribution
channels (retail) by ignoring or lying about the scope of the lawful
ability of the private individual to copy.
2 - a private individual may make a copy of another private individual's
purchased copy. (for private use, etc.) But the owner of a paid-for
copy can't make the copy and give it to his friend. Semantics
3 - a private individual may make a copy from wherever they can find the
original - broadcast, Internet, friend's stereo system, etc. The act is
mute on where the original might come from.
4 - the retail music industry may be doomed
I may be wrong - I'm willing to be convinced that I am - but that's the
way I read the Act.
In regards to the levy on re-recordable media:
1 - the act allows (for example) a library, Archive or Museum to make a
copy "in an alternative format if the original is currently in an obsolete
format or the technology required to use the original is unavailable" and
"... if the original cannot be ... listened to because of its condition" -
both of these lead me to believe that such similar need to copy in order to
listen to my old records (try finding a needle for my turntable) or music
on CD when I don't have a CD player handy might be viewed as legitimate
reason to copy regardless of Section 80's blanket waiver.
2 - Today's technology involved in taking the information from (for
example) the surface of a CD, through the unit, and turning it into sound,
involves storing some or all of that information on - erasable media. In
most cases this is RAM of some kind - but it might be FLASH or hard disk
depending upon the way the unit is designed (I have first hand knowledge of
the design of such systems - that is the business I'm in). Putting a levy
on such media is not justified IMHO.
Regardless of whether the levy is justified on any media, having a levy
which has no ceiling is not justified.
Technology is not standing still - by the time the proposed levy expires,
it is conceivable that a portable MP3 player might have a 100 Gigabyte or
more hard disk in it - the technology exists. The unit may have a disk that
size because the manufacturer cannot purchase a smaller one at all. The levy
on such a disk would be $2100.00 - a ridiculous amount for the following
reasons:
a - no single user would ever be able to fill such a drive with music
that user would actually listen to - taken to the next level where the
drive is thousands of Gigabytes, the concept becomes insane.
b - the average user would never purchase 1400 CDs ($2100 / $1.50 per CD
imputed compensation amount per retail CD purchase) within the lifetime of
such a unit - a total of $28,000 at $20 per CD.
c - The Act specifies a compensation of $100 on the first $1.25 million of
annual advertising revenue for broadcasters and a similar amount per year
for community systems (which allows them to play in public any amount of
any music). Requiring an individual to pay far in excess of this amount
just for the hardware that might be capable of playing music (and has to
record a copy of it in order to do so) is absolutely outrageous.
d - The music industry has been discussing what might be a "reasonable"
annual subscription for a service such as Napster - giving the subscriber
the right to listen to by whatever means whatever music they want. The
amounts discussed have been on the order of $50 per year (i.e. not less
than $5 and not more than $500) with the expectation being less than
$100/year.
e - at the stated rate for use of songs by web-casters ($0.0014 per song in
$US) the maximum amount any one person could listen to would be US$245.45
worth of music per year if they listened to 3 minute songs for 60 x 24 x
365.25 minutes/year (i.e. no sleep) and this doesn't take into account the
fact that multiple people can listen to this stream for the same price.
http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,50551,00.html is reference.
So there must be some reasonable upper limit on what any person might pay
towards the compensation pool - and that limit must also take into
consideration the fact that this does not represent the whole method of
compensation - people still buy music CDs.
Thanks for airing the segment yesterday
This is not going to go away
richard
|
If you have comments about this page, or just want to show support, please
e-mail me at richard@pacdat.net
Last updated:
July 18, 2003 13:46 -0400 |
|
| |
|
