The following are my replies to the interrogatories from CPCC:
Q. Have you filed your objection primarily on the basis of the impact of the levy on you personally, and any organization you are involved with, or based primarily on the overall impact of the levy on Canadians, or on your belief that the levy is in principle unfair and unjustified, or based primarily on some other reason? In addition to your primary reason for objecting, what other reasons led you to object? R. My objection was filed due to the conviction that the amounts proposed are unsupportable by the market for the products the levy intends, and that this would severely impact the industries I have been engaged in for the past 25+ years.
Q. Please identify and, wherever possible, provide copies of all articles, statistical data, research studies, or other information you relied upon in reaching your decision to file an objection. What other factors influenced your decision? R. Factors which influenced my decision to file an objection (and which continue to influence it) include:
Appendix 1 – Usenet News discussions: (note – only my postings are shown, along with included text of postings by others to which I add)
From richard@belcarra.com Fri Mar 29 22:08:38 2002 Subject: Re: Govt Proposal to raise media levy! - $0.59 PER CDR, $2.27 PER DVDR, $21 PER GB on HDs!!! From: "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:08:38 -0800 Message-Id: <pan.2002.03.29.22.08.38.458920.24993@belcarra.com> References: <ce3s8uk0c87ilc67l7biepd713fabmanuh@4ax.com> <vjft8u0o2p7nibjhn6c0j12dh1ut9b5g67@4ax.com> <AvTj8.1175$5m3.28934@news1.mts.net> <fb7o8.214707$kb.12000583@news1.calgary.shaw.ca> <Lqcp8.234252$kb.13291200@news1.calgary.shaw.ca> X-Comment-To: "The Unexploded Scotsman" <plaid@kaboom.com> Newsgroups: van.general,can.general Pan-Reverse-Path: richard@belcarra.com Reply-To: richard@belcarra.com Pan-Server: shaw Organization: Belcarra Messaging Corp Pan-Attribution: On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:54:51 -0800, The Unexploded Scotsman wrote: Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:08:38 -0800 Status: O
Oh I don't know - at $21/Gig, about 10 times what larger format drives are worth all told per Gig (40Gig for $150 or so) even the Canadian razbucknik will have to fall farther than the peso to make those of us still here quail at purchasing from remote shores.
Personally, I think I'll emmigrate to Lower Slobovia. Hopefully they have Net access.
richard
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:54:51 -0800, The Unexploded Scotsman wrote: >> >> > Of course that advantage--surprising as it is--will go out the window > when our dollar drops below fifty cents US. *g*
richard
-- Richard C. Pitt C.E.O. Belcarra Messaging Corp. richard@belcarra.com 604-644-9265 www.belcarra.com Embedded Linux Systems: Design, Creation, Integration Specializing in USB, Flash, and all things TCP/IP
From richard@belcarra.com Mon Mar 25 14:13:48 2002 Subject: Re: How you can effectively fight the Recordable Media Levy From: "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 14:13:48 -0800 Message-Id: <pan.2002.03.25.14.13.48.905757.25032@belcarra.com> References: <PTNl8.8333$Ff3.1254909@news20.bellglobal.com> X-Comment-To: "Digital Home Canada" <digitalhomenospam@sympatico.ca> Newsgroups: van.general,can.politics Pan-Reverse-Path: richard@belcarra.com Reply-To: richard@belcarra.com Pan-Mail-To: richard@pacdat.net Pan-Server: shaw Organization: Belcarra Messaging Corp Pan-Attribution: On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:18:50 -0800, Digital Home Canada wrote: Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 14:13:48 -0800 Status: O
There is much confusion over this whole thing.
First, SOCAN is not directly doing this - the group is CPCC www.cpcc.ca and they are empowered by the Copyright Act as it was changed in 1997.
See the web site at: http://www.sycorp.com/levy/index.htm or my article at: http://www.pacdat.net/Digital_Rag/2002/March.htm for links and discussion and what we are doing about it.
There is an electronic petition on the Sycorp site - please take a look and sign it if you object (and I hope you do object)
At this time, the only thing we can object to is the amount of the levy, and what CPCC is proposing to add to the list of items the levy is to apply to. We cannot directly address the fact that there is a levy (except by showing that for all items it should be zero - which leaves CPCC to try again with a new proposal in a couple of years). Only getting the Copyright Act changed will get rid of the possibility of the levy entirely - and that is not likely to happen since there are already 25+ other countries in on this scam.
There may be valid reasons to have a levy on some things. I'm not arguing that there should not be a levy as that is not in the "rules of engagement" of this proposal's trek through the Copyright board.
The problem at this time is that CPCC is proposing to extend the levy to re-recordable media and in amounts which will send a chill through the whole digital product industry - especially for portables, cameras, cell phones, PDAs, etc. since all of these use the same (FLASH) technology and applying the levy to micro-disks (iPOD for example) is the thin edge of the wedge to applying it to all hard disks eventually.
The range of arguements includes:
re-recordable media is only involved in the playing of music, not the long term "owning/holding" of music
re-recordable media is involved in the research and/or private study aspect of choosing which music should be added to a permanent collection (ever tried to remove an unwanted song from permanent storage?) - research and/or private study is an acceptable use of copying under the "fair dealing" section - outside of the context of section 80 under which this levy is applied - and assumes destruction of the copy after the study/research has taken place.
even if a levy on FLASH/micro-hard disk is acceptable, the fact that it has no ceiling is not. Today, a 10 Gig drive is pushing the limits of cost-effective technology, however we have seen that even within the 2 year life-span of this particular proposal, the technology could evolve to the point where a manufacturer cannot even buy a drive that small. Putting a $21/Gig levy on what might end up being a 100 Gig drive ($2100.00) is ludicrous for a couple of reasons:
1 - other royalty fees in the Act are on the order of $100 per year (Community broadcast royalty) or $100 for each $1.5 million in advertising revenue for a radio station. Even the US industry has only levied about a $285/year royalty on webcasting - a royalty that all agree is far too high.
2 - when the music industry even talks about subscription fees for such things as Napster, etc. they talk on the order of $100 per year per person.
3 - no matter what the drive size, there is a finite limit to the amount of music the average individual can organize and listen to.
4 - a high levy will simply mean the industry will either not ship into Canada, or will ship with no memory - starting a pissing match between industry and the CPCC of new and onerous regulations.
5 - the corollery to 4 is that individuals will purchase from US or other foreign sites and import themselves - thereby bypassing the levy which is only for people who are importers/manufactuers for resale (same applies to CD-Rs as well)
6 - the upshot of 4 and 5 is that the Canadian retail industry will suffer along with the musicians.
The above arguements point to putting a ceiling on all such levies per individual of something like $100 per year. Note that this is impossible under the current Act, so the arguement must be something like: "the average person buys X CD-Rs a year and a MP3 player once per 3 years, ... so the levies on such and so should total to average $100/year less the amounts the individuals already contribute to the pool via legitimate purchase of CDs, etc.
I'm in the process of putting a formal objection together - has to be in the board's hands by May 8, 2002 - and am looking for help, constructive criticism, support (moral or...)
Canadians have generally allowed themselves to be railroaded in things like this. I know I basically ignored the process leading up to the changes in 1997 that allowed this crap in the first place.
I've gotten to the point where I am no longer willing to be pushed around by the SIGs (special interest groups) and am fighting back.
Michael Campbell, a well known (here in the West) economist and talk-show host (CKNW/Chorus radio) (and brother of our beloved premier too) has talked about a figure of $48 Billion per year going from various levels of government to SIGs.
This is just one fight - there are others
I'm fighting mad
hope you are too
richard
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:18:50 -0800, Digital Home Canada wrote:
> The Canadian Private Copying Collectives recently proposed new and > increased levies on recordable media. > > These levies could add $120 to the cost of a new Apple IPOD or $92 on a > new digital camera. In addition to a $21 per gigabyte tax on an MP3 > player and an $80 per gigabyte tax on compact flash media for your > digital camera, the tax would add 69 cents plus GST and PST to the cost > of every blank audio cassette and 59 cents plus GST and PST to every > blank CD-R. This tax would add over $33 to the price of 50 blank CD's! > > There will be no exemptions and all proceeds will go to the Canadian > recording industry. Canadian software developers who also suffer from > digital piracy will not get a dime of the new proposed revenues. > > Digital Home Canada believes this tax is unfair both in how it extracts > revenue and how it disperses it. > > The typical response is for individuals to petition or email their MPP > or send a note to the CRTC. > > We feel these measures will have no effect and have an alternative which > we think will be more effective. > > That measure is a boycott. > > To read more about this levy click on this link > http://www.digitalhomecanada.com/news/anmviewer.asp?a=116&z=2 To read > about how you can boycott click on this link > http://www.digitalhomecanada.com/news/anmviewer.asp?a=119&z=1 > > To comment and make your voice heard visit our Boycott the Levy Forum > > ----------------------------- > Canada's online information source for the Smart Home can be found at > www.digitalhomecanada.com > Sign up for our free newsletter, place an ad in our free classifieds, > add your website to our directory or browse our active forums.
-- Richard C. Pitt C.E.O. Belcarra Messaging Corp. richard@belcarra.com 604-644-9265 www.belcarra.com Embedded Linux Systems: Design, Creation, Integration Specializing in USB, Flash, and all things TCP/IP
From richard@belcarra.com Thu Apr 18 13:11:47 2002 Subject: Re: Musings on the proposed CD tarrif From: "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:11:47 -0700 Message-Id: <pan.2002.04.18.13.11.47.444704.4623@belcarra.com> References: <3CB6642E.2AC18304@telus.net> X-Comment-To: "Ya`akov N Miles" <yehudi@telus.net> Newsgroups: vanlug.general Pan-Reverse-Path: richard@belcarra.com Reply-To: richard@belcarra.com Pan-Server: vanlug Organization: Belcarra Messaging Corp Pan-Attribution: On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:36:03 -0700, Ya`akov N Miles wrote: Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:11:47 -0700 Status: O
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:36:03 -0700, Ya`akov N Miles wrote:
> (1) This tariff is only $0.59 on "our" kind of CDs. Special "Music" > CDs are taxed at $1.29 each, and can be identified by the unique > "wobble" track. Some CD players will only play "music" CDs with the > correct music "wobble" track.
The proposed tariff is $0.59 each - currently it is $0.21 each.
In Canada, the CDs identified as "Audio" are almost impossible to find.
> > (2) If you, like myself, ship CDs with data out of Canada, you do not > have to pay the CD royalty on those exported CDs, even if the CDs > were recorded in Canada.
You will not be able to purchase them without the levy. The levy is applied at manufacture, or at import (for resale). There is no claim for rebate if you export them.
On the other hand, if you import them yourself, for your own use, not for resale - there is no levy, regardless of what you do with them (other than resell them)
> > (3) The proposed act barefacedly says that the proceeds of levy is > for musicians only, and that no sort of compensation is considered > for software authors whose intellectual property rights are being > violated. Why not?
The musicians got the Copyright act changed and their agency (CPCC) has been appointed to collect and distribute the levy. The Act allows for other segments to step up and do the same thing - but none have yet.
> > (4) I would be prepared to "bond" myself to the government in exchange > for the right to make unlimited copies of non-music CDs. This bond > would be forfeited if the government found I ever copied a CD > containing music. >
There is nothing in Canadian law to allow for this - it would take an act of Parliament to ammend the Copyright act to allow for this, and that would take many years.
The only thing that can be done right now is to file an objection (must be done correctly, by May 8, 2002) on the amount and basis of the levy, not on whether there should be one, or whether there should be exemptions or additional beneficiaries (separate problem).
Se my page at http://www.pacdat.net/Digital_Rag/2002/March.htm and the page at http://www.sycorp.com/levy/index.htm for details and other comments, etc.
richard
-- Richard C. Pitt C.E.O. Belcarra Messaging Corp. richard@belcarra.com 604-644-9265 www.belcarra.com Embedded Linux Systems: Design, Creation, Integration Proud sponsor of www.cd-linux.org
From richard@belcarra.com Sun Apr 21 15:17:10 2002 Subject: Re: Media Tax $21 per gigabyte! From: "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 15:17:10 -0700 Message-Id: <pan.2002.04.21.15.17.10.26418.16919@belcarra.com> References: <lmpw8.24252$N16.1015851@news1.calgary.shaw.ca> <laEw8.75176$de1.3535358@news3.calgary.shaw.ca> <7u66cukrhakp0jitnanpqc9u5n8moklfcv@4ax.com> <3cc32ae4@news.sentex.net> X-Comment-To: "Hartmann Schaffer" <hs@heaven.nirvananet> Newsgroups: van.general,bc.general,can.general,bc.politics,can.politics Pan-Reverse-Path: richard@belcarra.com Reply-To: richard@belcarra.com Pan-Server: shaw Organization: Belcarra Messaging Corp Pan-Attribution: On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 14:11:00 -0700, Hartmann Schaffer wrote: Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 15:17:10 -0700 Status: O
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 14:11:00 -0700, Hartmann Schaffer wrote:
> In article <7u66cukrhakp0jitnanpqc9u5n8moklfcv@4ax.com>, >> Not true, it seems there is no levy on computer HD's, on MP3 players >> it's a different ball game altogether.... > > not quite true either. this levy is raised on anything that might be > used in mp3 players or similar recording devices to store data, even > though its use is not restricted to them. you essentially pay the levy > for PDAs, or some portable computers.
In the proposed levy CPCC wants to include FLASH and RAM and removable micro-hard disk "removable electronic media card" that are sold as _add-ons_ with uses such as digital cameras, PDAs, laptops and MP3 players at the rate of $0.008 (8/10ths of a cent) per megabyte - which works out to $8.00/Gig on the micro-drives if my math is correct or $80 on a 10 Gig drive - absurd!!!
richard
-- Richard C. Pitt C.E.O. Belcarra Messaging Corp. richard@belcarra.com 604-644-9265 www.belcarra.com Embedded Linux Systems: Design, Creation, Integration Proud sponsor of www.cd-linux.org
From richard@belcarra.com Tue Mar 26 15:07:55 2002 Subject: Re: Govt Proposal to raise media levy! - $0.59 PER CDR, $2.27 PER DVDR, $21 PER GB on HDs!!! From: "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:07:55 -0800 Message-Id: <pan.2002.03.26.15.07.55.110029.22563@belcarra.com> References: <ce3s8uk0c87ilc67l7biepd713fabmanuh@4ax.com> <vjft8u0o2p7nibjhn6c0j12dh1ut9b5g67@4ax.com> <AvTj8.1175$5m3.28934@news1.mts.net> X-Comment-To: "Sydney Weidman" <weidmans@mts.net> Newsgroups: van.general,can.general Pan-Reverse-Path: richard@belcarra.com Reply-To: richard@belcarra.com Pan-Server: shaw Organization: Belcarra Messaging Corp Pan-Attribution: On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:01:04 -0800, Sydney Weidman wrote: Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:07:55 -0800 Status: O
Actually, only hard drives built in at manufacture of a device primarily intended for playing music are in the current proposal, not accessory ones and not ones in general purpose computers (is the iPod general purpose?)
If you purchase from the US and import yourself, not for resale - there is no levy. This means the Canadian retail industry gets it in the rear and simply goes to point up that this whole thing is artificial and akin to nailing jello to a tree.
My thoughts at: http://www.pacdat.net/Digital_Rag/2002/March.htm
richard
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:01:04 -0800, Sydney Weidman wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:52:59 -0600, Daniel wrote: > >> Here was my reply to Mr. Claude Majeau, in an attempt to play by the >> ridiculous rules that were set in the PDF file at >> http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs/proposed/c09032002-b.pdf >> ------------------- > > [snip] > >> It is also possible to sell an MP3 player with no hard drive installed, >> and for any user to simply pop in a standard laptop hard drive. Such a >> hard drive would slide in as easily as a cartridge, and the average >> individual would have no trouble doing so, if the MP3 player was >> designed to allow quick removal and insertion of hard drives. If I >> purchase a 20 GB MP3 player from the USA by mail order, who collects >> the $420? A levy of such a high magnitude is obviously designed to >> simply prevent the sale of such devices, and is so unreasonably high, >> it effectively prohibits them. >> >> > Amazingly enough, even regular and laptop hard drives will be taxed > based on their size. > > Apparently, the lobbyists already thought of this. > > Cheers, Syd.
-- Richard C. Pitt C.E.O. Belcarra Messaging Corp. richard@belcarra.com 604-644-9265 www.belcarra.com Embedded Linux Systems: Design, Creation, Integration Specializing in USB, Flash, and all things TCP/IP
From richard@belcarra.com Thu Apr 18 14:53:22 2002 Subject: Re: Blank Cd Tax From: "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:53:22 -0700 Message-Id: <pan.2002.04.18.14.53.22.769854.4623@belcarra.com> References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204181326530.27203-100000@vc.local> X-Comment-To: "Daniel Dent" <ddent@vc.bc.ca> Newsgroups: vanlug.general Pan-Reverse-Path: richard@belcarra.com Reply-To: richard@belcarra.com Pan-Server: vanlug Organization: Belcarra Messaging Corp Pan-Attribution: On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:29:41 -0700, Daniel Dent wrote: Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:53:22 -0700 Status: O
The point is, this is _not_ a tarrif. It is a levy. It is not collected by the government, it is collected by CPCC - Canadian Private Copying Collective - an agency of the music industry, not the government.
Your arguement is valid in any case, but the problem is that there are other things to consider with this particular proposal - i.e. the levy on re-recordable media (the thin edge of the wedge IMHO) which includes micro-disk drives in MP3 players as well as flash, both in MP3 players and sold as add-on.
My point is that the levy proposed on disk is userous when you consider that within the 2 year run of this particular levy proposal, the size of the micro drives could have a _floor_ of tens of gigabytes (i.e. manufacturers can't buy one smaller than xxx Gigs) and even at the current 10 Gig max (iPOD) it would add over $200 to the price of the item.
Considering that not many of us can actually organize much more than a few 10s of Gigs of music (tens of thousands of songs) there is little chance that all of a large drive would ever be used, so there is no justification for having a levy with no maximum.
Other comments on other parts of the levy in my web site and elsewhere.
richard
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:29:41 -0700, Daniel Dent wrote:
> It is interesting to note that in general there are two types of > tarrifs, protective ones and revenue ones. Protective tarrifs are an > outrageous %, designed normally to protect local markets (what's it > protecting this time??), and they don't make much money. Revenue > tarrifs are a low percentage, and make more money. Every time cd prices > get lower, the tarrif seems to be raised - perhaps they want to avoid > having cd-rs really cheap? The levy should really be based on a > percentage of the cost of the disc, if there is to be one at all. <sigh> >
-- Richard C. Pitt C.E.O. Belcarra Messaging Corp. richard@belcarra.com 604-644-9265 www.belcarra.com Embedded Linux Systems: Design, Creation, Integration Proud sponsor of www.cd-linux.org
From richard@belcarra.com Tue Mar 26 15:21:18 2002 Subject: Re: How you can effectively fight the Recordable Media Levy From: "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:21:18 -0800 Message-Id: <pan.2002.03.26.15.21.18.61215.22563@belcarra.com> References: <mRNl8.8329$Ff3.1253673@news20.bellglobal.com> <Xns91D6CDBD886D1co2cx41a963442129071@66.185.95.104> <3C982189.2A33684B@IHATESPAMsympatico.ca> <Xns91D77B3DCD437co2cx41a963442129071@66.185.95.104> <a7c445$k51rb$1@ID-46095.news.dfncis.de> <3C99BEB1.5F91BB8@IHATESPAMsympatico.ca> <%mNn8.354882$A44.20623019@news2.calgary.shaw.ca> <CvRn8.2121$RQq.444@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <Ay1o8.166587$eb.8472709@news3.calgary.shaw.ca> <Wt2o8.6166$e94.3573@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> X-Comment-To: "Dan McKinnon" <danmckinnon@rogers.com> Newsgroups: alt.music.canada,can.internet.highspeed,can.general,van.general Pan-Reverse-Path: richard@belcarra.com Reply-To: richard@belcarra.com Pan-Server: shaw Organization: Belcarra Messaging Corp Pan-Attribution: On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:46:30 -0800, Dan McKinnon wrote: Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:21:18 -0800 Status: O
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:46:30 -0800, Dan McKinnon wrote: > "Richard Pitt" > >> Unfortunately, this is the kind of comment that the Board has >> specifically said it will not address: One that questions whether > there >> should be a levy at all. > > Wow! Whether something is legal or not is not relevant....what a > concept!<G> It will be interesting to see what they say when/if they > reply.....
The legality of the levy has to be taken up with the Federal government - as I said, a different fight altogether. The levy amount and stuff it is on is fought with the Copyright board and that is _now_. > > These new concepts of charging for media that _can_ be used > illegally... I can't wrap my head around it..... > and I can't get past it.
It isn't illegal to copy music for private use anymore - the Government has decreed this in section 80 of the current Copyright Act.
> Why not tax film in cameras, that can take pictures of copyrighted > works -especially other copyrighted photos, or scanners for computers > that can do the same? > > (I know - I shouldn't give "them" ideas........<G>)
You're not giving them ideas - just talking about something that somebody other than CPCC would do. It is perfectly possible that the movie industry, the software industry, and photographic artists could each put together an equivallent to CPCC to apply to the government for dispensation to put a levy (or an additional levy) on the various media and distribute it to their constituents. The possibility has been discussed in other forums.
> Sorry - but I can't think of any ideas. WHen the game is fixed, I > don't play. It's that simple.
Problem is that I don't expect to be able to migrate if/when we finally get another planet colonized - too old :(
> If you argue THEIR point, you are agreeing with it to some extent, > IMNSHO!<G>
No - just playing the game by the rules in place. Changing the rules will take longer than the few months before this proposal is acted upon (and even the 2 years of its effect).
In the mean time, we have to start somewhere.
> Best wishes,
Don't just say "best wishes" - that's the way of the historic Canadian attitude, and that's how we got into this mess in the first place.
Take the time to spread the word. Take the time to have your say within the rules - and make it count
Then take the time to tell your MP that you are pissed off, why, what you have done about it, and what you expect them to do about it.
And if you don't have the time, support those who are willing to put in the time in whatever way you can.
richard
-- Richard C. Pitt C.E.O. Belcarra Messaging Corp. richard@belcarra.com 604-644-9265 www.belcarra.com Embedded Linux Systems: Design, Creation, Integration Specializing in USB, Flash, and all things TCP/IP
From richard@belcarra.com Wed Mar 27 10:04:48 2002 Subject: Re: How you can effectively fight the Recordable Media Levy From: "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:04:48 -0800 Message-Id: <pan.2002.03.27.10.04.48.617572.22563@belcarra.com> References: <3C99BEB1.5F91BB8@IHATESPAMsympatico.ca> <%mNn8.354882$A44.20623019@news2.calgary.shaw.ca> <CvRn8.2121$RQq.444@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <Ay1o8.166587$eb.8472709@news3.calgary.shaw.ca> <Wt2o8.6166$e94.3573@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <Rn7o8.214764$kb.12002971@news1.calgary.shaw.ca> <aO9o8.6912$RQq.5356@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <6Uao8.169435$eb.8630927@news3.calgary.shaw.ca> <a7resi$nnold$1@ID-46095.news.dfncis.de> <rts3au8b3ccladfkqeh9d71q9sj53i08do@4ax.com> X-Comment-To: "Terry Taylor" <ttaylor@shaw.ca> Newsgroups: alt.music.canada,can.internet.highspeed,can.general,van.general Pan-Reverse-Path: richard@belcarra.com Reply-To: richard@belcarra.com Pan-Server: shaw Organization: Belcarra Messaging Corp Pan-Attribution: On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:40:01 -0800, Terry Taylor wrote: Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:04:48 -0800 Status: O
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:40:01 -0800, Terry Taylor wrote: > > Given Richard's rather advanced age :) and the large number of years > he's spent working with, in, around and on the Internet and related > subjects, I doubt he needed any instruction about the meaning of being > plonked. In fact, given his debating talents, I know he didn't. :) > What's needed is an English comprehension course for the hyper-sensitive > Mr. McKinnon. > > Terry Taylor
pot calling kettle black ;)
actually (blush) I've been away from Usenet News enough over the past 5 years (since Wimsey days) that I actually missed the inference. That's what working 18 hours/day, 7 days/week will do for you :(
Thanks for the note though - hope to see you around.
richard
-- Richard C. Pitt C.E.O. Belcarra Messaging Corp. richard@belcarra.com 604-644-9265 www.belcarra.com Embedded Linux Systems: Design, Creation, Integration Specializing in USB, Flash, and all things TCP/IP
From richard@belcarra.com Wed May 1 09:14:12 2002 Subject: Media Levy - Formal Objections by May 8th - help!!! From: "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 09:14:12 -0700 Message-Id: <pan.2002.05.01.09.14.12.72428.10822@belcarra.com> X-Comment-To: ALL Newsgroups: can.general,van.general Pan-Reverse-Path: richard@belcarra.com Reply-To: richard@belcarra.com Pan-Server: shaw Organization: Belcarra Messaging Corp Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 09:14:12 -0700 Status: RO
I need feedback before I submit my objection Please see it at http://www.pacdat.net/Digital_Rag/2002/april_2002.htm
Please reply directly to me at: richard@belcarra.com or Followup to can.general please.
>From the "Notes" section of my formal objection:
It is not about the copying, it is about the change in playing technology. The change in the act which recognized the Canadian ability to copy music as part of their use of it simply recognized a fact of life as something that could not and should not be criminal. This is the same as recognizing that going over 15 miles per hour and not having a man walking in front of you while driving a car on a freeway should also not be criminal.
Technology changes the rules of the game, and nothing can be done about it but to adapt. In providing for a levy, the Canadian government saw fit to provide the music industry a way of lessening the impact of their adaptation process, in a somewhat similar fashion to how society might have provided some assistance to the man who used to walk in front of the car with a bell. The point is that there is no expectation that such an assistance should either continue forever, or get in the way of the march of progress. That would be somewhat akin to requiring all owners of cars to pay a person for the whole time they drove the car, regardless of whether the law required that person to walk in front of their car anymore.
The CPCC has a vested interest in continuing and enlarging the levy and what it is applied to. This does not necessarily coincide with the interests of the music industry.
Again, as the "referee" in this process, the board must consider the interests of the holders of the copyright separately from those of CPCC, and in light of other areas of the act and other methods already available and being used to compensate artists for use of their works.
It is not about compensating the musicians and artists, it is about increasing the amount of revenue that flows through CPCC.
The amounts of the levies proposed impinge upon the purchasing habits of the general public to the point where it will affect other revenue streams currently coming to the artists for which this levy purports to serve. "I've paid the fine, I’'m oing to do the crime" – so will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. This does not mitigate the argument about whether in fact the media is for "copying" as opposed to "playing".
If it is the music that sells MP3 players, then why are they not going after a levy on radios, cd players, and the like? Because if it was not for them, there would be no pre-recorded music industry and the artists would have to make their money solely by playing music and selling sheet music paper.
The MP3 player in all guises create a market for selling music in pure digital form. The CD-R, DVD-R, hard disk, RAM, and all other technology have simply become part of the method of playing music.
Making a copy is no longer the meter by which the music industry can measure the worth of their wares. I hear music via the air. Does this mean that CPCC has the right to levy the air?
I can store all of the music ever recorded in a beam of energy bounced between the earth and the moon. Does this give CPCC the right to levy every microwave oven? Or the electricity which I might use to power the beam?
As the "referee" in this process, the Copyright board must exercise its common sense in ruling that CPCC has not made a legitimate case for any substantial levy on any blank recording medium. At worst, the Copyright board might allow for an insubstantial levy for the period of this proposal in light of the effects of the changes in technology which the music industry has failed to react quickly enough to. In light of this, a continuation of the current levy per unit on retail packages of less than 10 quantity of permanent (CD-R) disk or tape recordable media is not unreasonable, however there is no justification for any levy on the media involved in playing music including CD-RW, DVD-RW, Flash RAM, RAM, micro-hard disk, or any other current or future technology of less than archival quality.
richard
-- Richard C. Pitt C.E.O. Belcarra Messaging Corp. richard@belcarra.com 604-644-9265 www.belcarra.com Embedded Linux Systems: Design, Creation, Integration Proud sponsor of www.cd-linux.org
From richard@belcarra.com Thu Apr 18 19:55:33 2002 Subject: Re: FW: Blank Cd Tax From: "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:55:33 -0700 Message-Id: <pan.2002.04.18.19.55.33.316048.4623@belcarra.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020411201436.02d25608@shawmail.vs.shawcable.net> <a9n9cn$31a$1@lios.aq2.gweep.ca> <3CBF629F.6050700@telus.net> X-Comment-To: "Richard Vickery" <Richard.Vickery@telus.net> Newsgroups: vanlug.general Pan-Reverse-Path: richard@belcarra.com Reply-To: richard@belcarra.com Pan-Server: vanlug Organization: Belcarra Messaging Corp Pan-Attribution: On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:19:43 -0700, Richard Vickery wrote: Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:55:33 -0700 Status: O
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:19:43 -0700, Richard Vickery wrote: > If the music industry is concerned about losing money th those who would > copy it, why don't they just add the tarrif charge the listener on top > of the price of the musician's cd
The point of the levy is that the music industry claims that all us loyal Canadians are crooks - we don't pay for CDs at HMV, we steal the contents from the Internet and from friends (some of whom are stupid enough to actually pay HMV). To get the same (estimated) amount of money - the price of a music CD would have to go to hundreds of dollars - then how many do you think they'd sell?
Actually, they lobbied to get the Copyright act changed so in fact we are _not_ crooks if we copy for our own use (not to give to somebody, not to sell) and use this blanket give-away to justify the grab on an amount per blank recording medium unit (CD-R, tape, micro-disk, etc.) - now they want to boost the per unit levy and extend it to cover other things too.
In fact, they've screwed the retail music industry totally. Something I'm not sure the likes of HMV have realized yet.
richard
-- Richard C. Pitt C.E.O. Belcarra Messaging Corp. richard@belcarra.com 604-644-9265 www.belcarra.com Embedded Linux Systems: Design, Creation, Integration Proud sponsor of www.cd-linux.org
From richard@belcarra.com Tue Mar 26 08:43:09 2002 Subject: Re: How you can effectively fight the Recordable Media Levy From: "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 08:43:09 -0800 Message-Id: <pan.2002.03.26.08.43.09.830111.14750@belcarra.com> References: <mRNl8.8329$Ff3.1253673@news20.bellglobal.com> <Xns91D6CDBD886D1co2cx41a963442129071@66.185.95.104> <3C982189.2A33684B@IHATESPAMsympatico.ca> <Xns91D77B3DCD437co2cx41a963442129071@66.185.95.104> <a7c445$k51rb$1@ID-46095.news.dfncis.de> <3C99BEB1.5F91BB8@IHATESPAMsympatico.ca> <%mNn8.354882$A44.20623019@news2.calgary.shaw.ca> <CvRn8.2121$RQq.444@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> X-Comment-To: "Dan McKinnon" <danmckinnon@rogers.com> Newsgroups: alt.music.canada,can.internet.highspeed,can.general,van.general Pan-Reverse-Path: richard@belcarra.com Reply-To: richard@belcarra.com Pan-Server: shaw Organization: Belcarra Messaging Corp Pan-Attribution: On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 19:00:50 -0800, Dan McKinnon wrote: Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 08:43:09 -0800 Status: O
Unfortunately, this is the kind of comment that the Board has specifically said it will not address: One that questions whether there should be a levy at all.
The only objections _at this time_ must be addressed to the amounts and products the levy is proposed to be changed to.
This means we need to come up with reasons that the proposed $21/Gig for micro-disks (and the amount is similar for Flash but they call it $0.021 per Megabyte because we don't yet have Flash in Gigabytes) is either or both of: too much (I feel there needs to be a maximum per unit instead of a levy per Gigabyte) should not be applied to this particular technology (I feel the levy should not be applied to re-recordable media at all)
Please try to make a relevant comment to the Board on this. By all means, send comments on whether there should even be a levy to Ms Copps and the rest of the government - that fight is only just going into its second round (first round was back in 1997).
richard
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 19:00:50 -0800, Dan McKinnon wrote:
> "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> wrote in message > news:%mNn8.354882$A44.20623019@news2.calgary.shaw.ca... >> And if you don't sign, then you should put your own comment to the > Board >> at: majeau.claude@cb-cda.gc.ca with a subject containing the words > "media >> levy" > > I sent a short one,a fter checking my dictionary which has a copyof the > cited article: > > Here was my main and only point: > > ****** > The levy is contrary to 11 (d) of the Canadian Charter of > Rights and Freedoms, the right to be > presumed innocent. > > This levy automatically finds ALL guilty, and they pay the > levy irregardless of whether they are using > the media for any illegal purposes, and as far as I know, > there is no recourse. > > Sincerely, > > Dan McKinnon > > ****** > > Dan
-- Richard C. Pitt C.E.O. Belcarra Messaging Corp. richard@belcarra.com 604-644-9265 www.belcarra.com Embedded Linux Systems: Design, Creation, Integration Specializing in USB, Flash, and all things TCP/IP
From richard@belcarra.com Fri Apr 19 17:43:16 2002 Subject: Re: Gov reply to: Objection to proposed removeable media levy From: "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:43:16 -0700 Message-Id: <pan.2002.04.19.17.43.16.223459.7055@belcarra.com> References: <3CC0AFC2.FC0CC6DE@shaw.ca> X-Comment-To: "Gordon Scott" <gordsmail@shaw.ca> Newsgroups: van.forsale,van4sale,van.general,can.general Pan-Reverse-Path: richard@belcarra.com Reply-To: richard@belcarra.com Pan-Server: shaw Organization: Belcarra Messaging Corp Pan-Attribution: On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:01:03 -0700, Gordon Scott wrote: Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:43:16 -0700 Status: O
Thanks Gordon
IMHO the objection needs to be along the lines of:
amount of levy on blank CD proposed is excessive because...
inclusion of flash RAM in levy proposal is not justified because...
if inclusion of flash RAM is justified then the amount is excessive because...
inclusion of micro-hard disk in MP3 player in levy proposal is not justified because...
if inclusion of micro-hard disk in MP3 player is justfied, then amount is excessive because...
same thing for DVD, etc.
My (still not finished) objection makes a distinction between permanent media and re-writeable (i.e. CD and CD-RW) on the basis that the latter (re-writable) is not primarily a copying medium but is in fact a part of the playing process. Re-writable includes CD-RW, DVDx-RW, flash, RAM, micro-hard disk)
My objection to the amounts is based on the size of the medium in the case of DVD and micro-hard disk, since there is a finite limit to how much music any individual can/will use no matter how large the storage medium is. I feel that there either should be a maximum per unit, or that the per Gigabyte amount should be much lower.
Onwards and upwards - ^(*&)'em
My site is: http://www.pacdat.net/Digital_Rag/2002/March.htm
richard
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:01:03 -0700, Gordon Scott wrote:
> I received this in reply to my CDR levy comments... Please use the > addresses at the bottom to voice your concerns as well. > snip...
> Should you wish to obtain information on the private copying regime or > the > Canadian legislation on the matter, I invite you to contact the > following persons: > > Mr. Albert Cloutier, Senior Policy Analyst, Intellectual Property > Policy, Industry Canada > Tel.: (613) 952-3804 > mailto:cloutier.albert@ic.gc.ca > > Mr. Luc-André Vincent, Senior Policy Analyst, Copyright Policy, Canadian > Heritage > Tel.: (613) 990-6127 > mailto:luc-andre_vincent@pch.gc.ca > > You may also contact the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC), as > follows: > > Ms. Laura Davison, Manager, Collection and Enforcement, CPCC Tel.: (416) > 486-6832, Ext. 224 > mailto:ldavison@cpcc.ca > > > > Claude Majeau > Secretary General > Copyright Board of Canada > 56 Sparks Street, Suite 800 > Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C9 > Tel.: (613) 952-8621 > Fax: (613) 952-8630 > mailto:majeau.claude@cb-cda.gc.ca
-- Richard C. Pitt C.E.O. Belcarra Messaging Corp. richard@belcarra.com 604-644-9265 www.belcarra.com Embedded Linux Systems: Design, Creation, Integration Proud sponsor of www.cd-linux.org
From richard@belcarra.com Sun Apr 21 14:11:05 2002 Subject: Re: Blank Cd Tax From: "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 14:11:05 -0700 Message-Id: <pan.2002.04.21.14.11.05.334359.16919@belcarra.com> References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204210157390.908-100000@vc.local> X-Comment-To: "Daniel Dent" <ddent@vc.bc.ca> Newsgroups: vanlug.general Pan-Reverse-Path: richard@belcarra.com Reply-To: richard@belcarra.com Pan-Server: vanlug Organization: Belcarra Messaging Corp Pan-Attribution: On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 01:59:11 -0700, Daniel Dent wrote: Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 14:11:05 -0700 Status: O
Focus on getting this change to the levies stopped. Your arguement is about the levy method, not the amount, and the Copyright board has its hands tied by the legislation at this point.
They don't give a damn about "fair" - only about the way the law is written right now. Talk to your MP about fair.
richard
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 01:59:11 -0700, Daniel Dent wrote:
>> Agreed and ditto for HDD. Basing it on capacity is insane. > Indeed. When they are setting the tarrifs at fixed rates, they are > artifically changing the cd market. It is impossible for prices to be > lowered, and makes it very difficult for the cd manufacturers to make a > profit in canada, which causes the price they charge to go up, which > causes sales to go down further, which .... > > <sigh> > > Now, a percentage of either the retail or the wholesale price... that > would be more fair. >
-- Richard C. Pitt C.E.O. Belcarra Messaging Corp. richard@belcarra.com 604-644-9265 www.belcarra.com Embedded Linux Systems: Design, Creation, Integration Proud sponsor of www.cd-linux.org
From richard@belcarra.com Wed Mar 27 13:08:07 2002 Subject: Re: Would intellectual properties be in trouble in the Internet environment ??? CD levy From: "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:08:07 -0800 Message-Id: <pan.2002.03.27.13.08.07.124062.22563@belcarra.com> References: <d90b68a0.0203241950.7ed5f800@posting.google.com> <d9597b4e.0203260505.5724f6a2@posting.google.com> <Nj8o8.215083$kb.12018735@news1.calgary.shaw.ca> <MPG.170af241915314c8989a46@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net> <d90b68a0.0203270544.6295794e@posting.google.com> X-Comment-To: "thararat" <tharat_4@yahoo.com> Newsgroups: comp.security,can.general,van.general Pan-Reverse-Path: richard@belcarra.com Reply-To: richard@belcarra.com Pan-Mail-To: richard@pacdat.net Pan-Server: shaw Organization: Belcarra Messaging Corp Pan-Attribution: On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 05:44:31 -0800, thararat wrote: Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:08:07 -0800 Status: O
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 05:44:31 -0800, thararat wrote:
> tnr <tnr@nospam.org> wrote in message > news:<MPG.170af241915314c8989a46@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>... > > Dear > > Thanks for your comment. > > I think most people have realized that it is wrong to have some one > property for free but I do agree with you that they just ignore without > difficulty. > > I have read one article on the survey of American young people. It shown > that more than half of internet user in USA say that downloading music > or movie is not stealing or infringing intellectual property. However, > my view is that it is not only USA but it is happening anywhere at > anytime.
I heard a young person on the radio last Saturday say to the effect "they (musicians) are already rich, why should we pay them more?" when talking about the Canadian music levy.
We see athletes making millions, rock stars making millions, celebrities of all stripes making millions - because the media focuses on them. What we don't see is:
1 - almost none of them were overnight successes - many worked decades for peanuts to getwhere they are 2 - for every millionaire, there are tens of thousands eating peanutbutter and dog food.
> Recently, the majority of free downloaders is young generations, who > they really believe that internet and technology evolution entirely > provides them with free stuff. So if my assumption is correct, what > should we work out this problem??? Even many countries already have law > but it seem not working at all. My question might be broad but the > answers is not easy to complete.
I firmly believe that it is the education system and the abrogation of parents in their teaching of morals and civic attitudes.
I can proudly say that my kids (17 and 19) buy music and don't give friends copies (they do lend albums, but not often, and not for copying) - same for software. They understand that what comes into our family is largely from work done under copyright, and if everyone stole, we would be living a damned site worse off than we are.
> If you have more comments and are interested on this topic, I would be > appreciated and you can read more comment on my topic : are you breaking > ownership of intellectual property via the internet technology???
I've been dealing with this problem since the mid '80s - because we, in our use of SCO Unix systems were restricted in what we could do in adding software. The base system didn't come with a compiler.
My friend and at that time future partner in our ISP, Stuart Lynne, did development on SCO so had a compiler on his system. He had an archive of pre-compiled Open Source software on his site that people around the world used to download to run on their compiler-less systems.
Many people actually begged us to send them the compiler, saying that SCO was stifling their ability to function.
What happened instead was that the GNU compiler became available and eventually compatible libraries for SCO systems were available, and the rest is history - SCO has pretty much gone by the board, but in a completely legal and market driven action by people who wanted to make a difference (don't get me wrong, there were other reasons besides their charging a lot for the compiler, but IMHO that was a prime one).
What this means for the music industry is another thing. You can't copy creativity (i.e. clone the artist) - and people will be creative no matter whether they get rich or not - just look at all the starving artists out there.
On the other hand, the companies that package the creativity and make a lot more than the artists do off the sales are the ones feeling the pinch. The Internet is changing the way people pay for things. Commodities and highly portable things like IP and easily shippable items are becoming fodder for electronic commerce - taking sales from the local stores and shortening the supply chain from as many as 5 levels to as few as 2 (manufactuer, jobber, wholesale, retail, consumer ->> manufacturer, consumer)
In the music industry, the example is the band that puts its music on a web site and sells (or gives) directly to the consumer. The publishers and recording houses hate this. But this "disruptive" technology is here and there is not a damned thing they can do about except adapt. The music levy is simply sand in the gears - not adaptation.
Enough for now
richard
-- Richard C. Pitt C.E.O. Belcarra Messaging Corp. richard@belcarra.com 604-644-9265 www.belcarra.com Embedded Linux Systems: Design, Creation, Integration Specializing in USB, Flash, and all things TCP/IP
From richard@belcarra.com Tue Mar 26 16:25:14 2002 Subject: Re: Would intellectual properties be in trouble in the Internet environment ??? CD levy From: "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:25:14 -0800 Message-Id: <pan.2002.03.26.16.25.14.985726.22563@belcarra.com> References: <d90b68a0.0203241950.7ed5f800@posting.google.com> <d9597b4e.0203260505.5724f6a2@posting.google.com> X-Comment-To: "Chris" <clawv@hotmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.security,can.general,van.general Pan-Reverse-Path: richard@belcarra.com Reply-To: richard@belcarra.com Pan-Server: shaw Organization: Belcarra Messaging Corp Pan-Attribution: On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 05:05:38 -0800, Chris wrote: Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:25:14 -0800 Status: O
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 05:05:38 -0800, Chris wrote:
> Thararat > > I am well aware of IP rules and regulations, however ever since I have > had my uncapped cable modem installed, I have benifited from the wide > range of free software, music, videos and movies avaliable.
free??? maybe Open Source Software and some out of copyright books and other works, but the vast majority are only "freely available", not free. You should be paying the copyright holders for your use of their property but there is generally no method in place for you to do this; no subscription service, no "donation" address, etc.
There is also no moral incentive because our society has forgotten what morals in this case are.
The CD levy is an attempt to redress this problem. I agree that something needs to be done - I just don't agree with this particular method - and certainly not with the proposed extensions to Flash and micro-hard drives. > > In my view, its not a question of if it is right, because most poeple > know it is wrong, however how can you stop it? You can monitor popular > file sharing programs such as Napster, Morphous and the like, however > once one is shut down, another is born. I have used all these programs > and find them so asy to use, it nearly criminal.
I'm not sure that most people _know_ it is wrong. Some do, some conveniently don't think about it, and many are simply not aware of the possibility that it might be wrong. Having been on the leading edge of the Internet for the last 12+ years, I know from personal experience of having to explain to people just what "free" means - people just don't get it.
> > However if ISP make an effort to block commong TCP ports used for such > programs I belive this may have an effect, however its a complex thing > to enforce and update.
Nothing can be done at the level of the ISP. It is not practical, nor is it desireable to make the ISP the scapegoat (any more than it might have been to make the phone company block phone calls about terrorism or crime)
> > Even if you did shut these sites down, its fairly evident that CD copies > are cheeper and easier to get a hold of. S.E asian countires have > entire shopping malls dedicated to software and music etc, most of which > are having a great deal of trouble shutting them down, in Australia > alike, its fairly simple to copy a cd in a matter of minutes.
It still comes down to one of two things - a moral problem (one of many) and a problem of changes in technology making collection of a royalty problematic.
> > I think IP is hard to enforce, from experience, free, cracked software > is avaliable over many sites, although initially hard to find, sites do > reliable do exist.
Yes, IP is hard to enforce in this technological climate. _Freely available_ cracked software is a symptom.
We've been dancing around the problem for years - and will dance for many more I expect.
> I've had my say, maybe a bit off the point, what do u think??
I'm not sure that the discussion of why certain security problems exist is outside of the topic of comp.security
richard
-- Richard C. Pitt C.E.O. Belcarra Messaging Corp. richard@belcarra.com 604-644-9265 www.belcarra.com Embedded Linux Systems: Design, Creation, Integration Specializing in USB, Flash, and all things TCP/IP
From richard@belcarra.com Sun Apr 21 11:24:44 2002 Subject: Re: Gov reply to: Objection to proposed removeable media levy From: "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 11:24:44 -0700 Message-Id: <pan.2002.04.21.11.24.44.416099.16919@belcarra.com> References: <3CC0AFC2.FC0CC6DE@shaw.ca> <LQ2w8.17516$N16.651684@news1.calgary.shaw.ca> <d1jw8.21764$N16.928279@news1.calgary.shaw.ca> <MPG.172c1f3843c53571989aa8@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net> X-Comment-To: "tnr" <tnr@nospam.org> Newsgroups: van.general,can.general Pan-Reverse-Path: richard@belcarra.com Reply-To: richard@belcarra.com Pan-Server: shaw Organization: Belcarra Messaging Corp Pan-Attribution: On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 01:57:57 -0700, tnr wrote: Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 11:24:44 -0700 Status: O
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 01:57:57 -0700, tnr wrote:
> In article <d1jw8.21764$N16.928279@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>, > soundy@artschool.com says... snip... >> >> I suppose the argument could be made that, since we're now paying for >> the music we're all allegedly stealing, we should be allowed to do so >> freely. After all, the poor artists are now being compensated whether >> we actually do it or not... > > Not only that but what about all the stolen software distributed on cd- > r's and dvd-r's? Shouldn't Canadian software authors be getting apiece > of that. I would think you could mount a reasonable legal challenge > based on the selectivity of the beneficiaries of the levy. Not to > mention taxing the innocent.
It is within the purview of the Copyright act to allow for levies by other industries - they as much as admit this in the preamble to the levy change document. But the software industry has to agree on the creation of an agency similar to CPCC to administer and distribute the levy proceeds.
I'm of the opinion that the people behind CPCC sold the Canadian music industry a bill of goods - and are in it for their own purpose. They admit that they have not distributed one cent of the currently collected amount. To be sure, the same thing has been put in place in about 25 other countries - but the people in Canada seem far more rabid (or have a far longer leash) than their counterparts in for instance the US.
richard
-- Richard C. Pitt C.E.O. Belcarra Messaging Corp. richard@belcarra.com 604-644-9265 www.belcarra.com Embedded Linux Systems: Design, Creation, Integration Proud sponsor of www.cd-linux.org
From richard@belcarra.com Tue Mar 26 15:59:14 2002 Subject: Re: Would intellectual properties be in trouble in the Internet environment ??? From: "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:59:14 -0800 Message-Id: <pan.2002.03.26.15.59.14.91394.22563@belcarra.com> References: <d90b68a0.0203241950.7ed5f800@posting.google.com> <Ogyn8.154748$eb.7816914@news3.calgary.shaw.ca> <d90b68a0.0203250641.591df471@posting.google.com> X-Comment-To: "thararat" <tharat_4@yahoo.com> Newsgroups: comp.security,can.general,van.general Pan-Reverse-Path: richard@belcarra.com Reply-To: richard@belcarra.com Pan-Server: shaw Organization: Belcarra Messaging Corp Pan-Attribution: On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 06:41:08 -0800, thararat wrote: Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:59:14 -0800 Status: O
This is part of a much larger discussion on can.general and can.politics (as well as van.general)
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 06:41:08 -0800, thararat wrote: > Richard Pitt <richard@belcarra.com> wrote in message >> I'm pretty much against the levy - but that does not mean I'm against >> copyright owners getting paid. > Dear,Richard > > Thanks for your worth comment. > > " 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?" > > What you wrote is not wrong, I do agree with you that musicians should > accept technology changes that will contribute their masterpiece to the > public but don't you think that of course some of them have realized > this point, that is a reason they why have campaigned to protect their > properties. Of course, copyright owners could get paid from being an > original and they are willing public can retrieve their works but in > case they do not get any pay from paying royalties, do you think that > they are appreciated public to download their work?? However, I do still > believe that breaking intellectual properties is still a problem and a > big concern in the technology society. > > What I am writing here is not against your point of view but I just > would like to make a comment in another position from your view. > > I am keen to get more value idea on this topic. Thararat
Back in times before the printing press was invented, artists only got paid for performance
After the printing press, they got paid by publishers via a royalty on the works sold, and by performance royalties by people who performed the work in public (this still happens today)
Now we have a printing press in every home (the computer) there is no reason why the artist should not get paid in a similar fashion - everyone who uses the artits' works should ensure that they pay for it. But how?
The problem is that along with the change in technology has come a change in attitudes. The imposition of the levy is the music industry's attempt at fixing their problem (lower or "lost" revenues) - and they don't give a damn about any other impact. Other types of artists (film, photo, software) may want to do a similar thing - and may get the law changed to enable them (if we don't fight back) but none of this addresses the real symptom which IMHO is a lower moral standard, caused by an abrogation of responsibility of parents to a school system which no longer has the ability to teach children morals.
richard
-- Richard C. Pitt C.E.O. Belcarra Messaging Corp. richard@belcarra.com 604-644-9265 www.belcarra.com Embedded Linux Systems: Design, Creation, Integration Specializing in USB, Flash, and all things TCP/IP
From richard@belcarra.com Sat Mar 16 20:46:17 2002 Subject: Re: To up the ante... blank media... and taxes From: "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 20:46:17 -0800 Message-Id: <pan.2002.03.16.20.46.17.888310.7284@belcarra.com> References: <3C8DD518.2080300@hydranet.com> <3C918324.45CA960D@intergate.ca> <3C91EA73.6060305@telus.net> <3C91F7F6.E14D9004@telus.net> <1415210350.20020315084454@cirmosci.ca> X-Comment-To: "George, Vancouver" <zs@telus.net> Newsgroups: vanlug.general Pan-Reverse-Path: richard@belcarra.com Reply-To: richard@belcarra.com Pan-Server: vanlug Organization: Belcarra Messaging Corp Pan-Attribution: On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 08:45:33 -0800, George, Vancouver wrote: Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 20:46:17 -0800 Status: O
Page 8 of the "Supplement" states:
60 cents for each audio cassette of 40 minutes or more in length
59 cents for each CD-R, CD-RW or each unit of any other type of recordable or rewritable compact disc of 100 megabyptes or more of storage capacity;
$1.23 for each CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio or MiniDisc
0.8 cents (that is $0.008) per Megabyte of memory in removable electronic memory card, each removable flash memory storage medium of any type, or each removable micro-hard drive;
$2.27 for each DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+RW, DVD-RAM or each unit of any other type of recordable or rewritable DVD;
2.1 cents (that's $0.021) for each megabyte of memory in each non-removable electronic memory card or each non-removable flash memory storage medium of any type incorporated into each MP3 player or into each similar device with internal electronic or flash memory that is inteded for use primarly to record and play music;
-------------
quite a bit different from $24.00 per megabyte in all categories.
On the other hand, I still object and am looking at doing so formally.
I am one of those busy people who normally mutter under my breath at the inanities and stupidities of government and those who push and pull it in the name of special interest groups - many of whom also belly up to the trough to get grants from that self-same governement just to exist! (to the tune of $48Billion per year according to Michael Campbell on CKNW last week - a truly staggering amount - and yes, I heard it twice - _$48 Billion_!!!!)
I am at the point where muttering is turning into shouting out loud (appoplexy, road rage, ulcers, and other ills of our time!!!)
This "Statement of Proposed Levies..." does not introduce new law - that was done when the last update to the Copyright act was done. The Statement merely moves to change the various levies already in place under the "Part VIII of the Copyright Act" (as noted on page 7 of this text)
I fear that the only way to fix this whole thing is to get that part of the act repealed. On the other hand, speaking up at this point might get The Honourable Sheila Copps' attention enough to tell her that not all the population is going to role over and let her pick our pockets.
richard
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 08:45:33 -0800, George, Vancouver wrote:
> Hi, > > Friday, March 15, 2002, Ya`akov N Miles wrote: > >>> I find it amusing that it's now possible to buy an entire portable CD >>> player for less than the cost of a music CD. > YaNM> [...] > YaNM> I would rather spend my money in the CD-R black market than > sponsor YaNM> "Canadian music" if blow comes to blow. > > CTV news: liberal heritage minister, Sheila Copps proposed an amendment, > to the copyright law to levy $24/MB on mp3 players. According CTV it > would double the price of these devices. I'm not sure how would they > calculate the MBs, only the built in ram, or plug in ram cartridges, > perhaps cd's? What is the next step, levy on compact flash cards, > ramdrives? >
-- Richard C. Pitt C.E.O. Belcarra Messaging Corp. richard@belcarra.com 604-644-9265 www.belcarra.com Embedded Linux Systems: Design, Creation, Integration Specializing in USB, Flash, and all things TCP/IP
From richard@belcarra.com Sun Mar 24 21:07:57 2002 Subject: Re: Would intellectual properties be in trouble in the Internet environment ??? From: "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 21:07:57 -0800 Message-Id: <pan.2002.03.24.21.07.57.959838.7284@belcarra.com> References: <d90b68a0.0203241950.7ed5f800@posting.google.com> X-Comment-To: "thararat" <tharat_4@yahoo.com> Newsgroups: comp.security Pan-Reverse-Path: richard@belcarra.com Reply-To: richard@belcarra.com Pan-Server: shaw Organization: Belcarra Messaging Corp Pan-Attribution: On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 19:50:52 -0800, thararat wrote: Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 21:07:57 -0800 Status: O
not worth the trouble to answer - but...
free software does not mean free content. The people who create music, film, video, art, and yes, even computer software, all have to make a living somehow. Copyright is real. Paying royalties is a fact of life.
If you think I'm talking out of a hole in my head, see my March article on the trials and tribulations of the blank media levy here in Canada at http://www.pacdat.net/Digital_Rag/2002/March.htm
I'm pretty much against the levy - but that does not mean I'm against copyright owners getting paid.
richard
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 19:50:52 -0800, thararat wrote:
> Dear all, > > After finishing a chat with my friend, I have some doubt on technology > revolution that facilitates our lives more comfortable and enjoyable in > technology society. I was told by some friends that they recently could > not easily find free web sites to download music and movie than ever snip...
-- Richard C. Pitt C.E.O. Belcarra Messaging Corp. richard@belcarra.com 604-644-9265 www.belcarra.com Embedded Linux Systems: Design, Creation, Integration Specializing in USB, Flash, and all things TCP/IP
From richard@belcarra.com Mon Mar 25 14:18:32 2002 Subject: Re: How you can effectively fight the Recordable Media Levy From: "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 14:18:32 -0800 Message-Id: <pan.2002.03.25.14.18.32.149046.25032@belcarra.com> References: <mRNl8.8329$Ff3.1253673@news20.bellglobal.com> <Xns91D6CDBD886D1co2cx41a963442129071@66.185.95.104> <3C982189.2A33684B@IHATESPAMsympatico.ca> <Xns91D77B3DCD437co2cx41a963442129071@66.185.95.104> <a7c445$k51rb$1@ID-46095.news.dfncis.de> <3C99BEB1.5F91BB8@IHATESPAMsympatico.ca> X-Comment-To: "Rob McIntyre" <rob.mcintyre@ihatespamsympatico.ca> Newsgroups: alt.music.canada,can.internet.highspeed,can.general Pan-Reverse-Path: richard@belcarra.com Reply-To: richard@belcarra.com Pan-Server: shaw Organization: Belcarra Messaging Corp Pan-Attribution: On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 03:06:25 -0800, Rob McIntyre wrote: Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 14:18:32 -0800 Status: O
And if you don't sign, then you should put your own comment to the Board at: majeau.claude@cb-cda.gc.ca with a subject containing the words "media levy"
See my page at: http://www.pacdat.net/Digital_Rag/2002/March.htm for my opionions and more links.
richard
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 03:06:25 -0800, Rob McIntyre wrote:
> Paul Goodwin wrote: >> Online petitions are all too easily padded with fake emails or multiple >> signings, as such I don't believe *anyone* with any power to effect any >> change would ever take them seriously, I know I don't. Waste of >> bandwidth. Apply the same energy to getting _real world_ signings & >> phone numbers, not anonymous Hotmail & Angelfire email addresses, and >> there may be a chance of success. > > The online petition asks for a person's full name, city, province and > postal code. These can be used to remove fakes and duplicates. There are > records. >
-- Richard C. Pitt C.E.O. Belcarra Messaging Corp. richard@belcarra.com 604-644-9265 www.belcarra.com Embedded Linux Systems: Design, Creation, Integration Specializing in USB, Flash, and all things TCP/IP
From richard@belcarra.com Sun Apr 21 11:30:00 2002 Subject: Re: Gov reply to: Objection to proposed removeable media levy From: "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 11:30:00 -0700 Message-Id: <pan.2002.04.21.11.30.00.744032.16919@belcarra.com> References: <3CC0AFC2.FC0CC6DE@shaw.ca> <3cc0f49e@rsl2.rslnet.net> X-Comment-To: "Future Assassin" <newgroups@soundselecta.com> Newsgroups: van.general,can.general Pan-Reverse-Path: richard@belcarra.com Reply-To: richard@belcarra.com Pan-Server: shaw Organization: Belcarra Messaging Corp Pan-Attribution: On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 21:53:25 -0700, Future Assassin wrote: Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 11:30:00 -0700 Status: O
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 21:53:25 -0700, Future Assassin wrote:
> I salso read this levy is going to be put on to digital cameras as > well.?
No - but it is proposed to be on Flash and RAM cards that can be put into cameras and PDAs. Most cameras come with minimal Flash - you HAVE to purchase more if you want to take more than a few pictures before dumping to some other medium.
> > If that so I'd like to know where are they getting that high quality > crack from.
It's called political power - lobbying. Something that Canadians are only just realizing is what runs the system.
To all who are reading this. Throw off the mantle of Canadian apathy and register your objection. Do it according to the rules so it is effective.
(Arrggg - I sound like a radical - don't mean to, but it is the boiling blood in my veins that are driving me to it - I'm pissed off!!!)
richard
-- Richard C. Pitt C.E.O. Belcarra Messaging Corp. richard@belcarra.com 604-644-9265 www.belcarra.com Embedded Linux Systems: Design, Creation, Integration Proud sponsor of www.cd-linux.org
From richard@belcarra.com Thu Apr 18 19:49:18 2002 Subject: Re: Blank Cd Tax From: "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:49:18 -0700 Message-Id: <pan.2002.04.18.19.49.18.64233.4623@belcarra.com> References: <000d01c1e726$07a1eaf0$8100000a@laptop2> X-Comment-To: "Shaun Hedges" <shaun.hedges@realsecure.net> Newsgroups: vanlug.general Pan-Reverse-Path: richard@belcarra.com Reply-To: richard@belcarra.com Pan-Server: vanlug Organization: Belcarra Messaging Corp Pan-Attribution: On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:11:05 -0700, Shaun Hedges wrote: Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:49:18 -0700 Status: O
Ahhhh... but the point is that this levy is for the music industry for audio recordings only - it is not for video, not for print, not for software. If/when there is a levy for AVI then it will likely be different in scale (compare the needs of a 2 hour video with the amount of royalty the creator gets (similar to an audio CD, about $1.50 each) and under the same reasoning the music industry uses, you might be able to justify a few cents per Gig - certainly not over $2.
richard
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:11:05 -0700, Shaun Hedges wrote:
> Just like computers will never need more than 640K of memory... And > IPV4 namespace is enough for the rest of the internet's life... > > One day, someone will use these things.. If not for MP3's, maybe they > will build avi or some other video technology in that requires mass > amounts of storage, or make them half mp3 player have portable drive, or > something along these lines.. >
-- Richard C. Pitt C.E.O. Belcarra Messaging Corp. richard@belcarra.com 604-644-9265 www.belcarra.com Embedded Linux Systems: Design, Creation, Integration Proud sponsor of www.cd-linux.org
From richard@belcarra.com Sun Apr 21 11:33:16 2002 Subject: Re: Media Tax $21 per gigabyte! From: "Richard Pitt" <richard@belcarra.com> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 11:33:16 -0700 Message-Id: <pan.2002.04.21.11.33.16.500906.16919@belcarra.com> References: <lmpw8.24252$N16.1015851@news1.calgary.shaw.ca> X-Comment-To: "Jimmy Letterman" <daveandjim@jimmyandlee.com> Newsgroups: van.general,bc.general,can.general,bc.politics,can.politics Pan-Reverse-Path: richard@belcarra.com Reply-To: richard@belcarra.com Pan-Server: shaw Organization: Belcarra Messaging Corp Pan-Attribution: On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:21:05 -0700, Jimmy Letterman wrote: Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 11:33:16 -0700 Status: O
Follow the thread in can.general
There is an excellent discussion thread there.
richard
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:21:05 -0700, Jimmy Letterman wrote:
> Is the gov't serious about this recordable media tax? > > When will the tax be enforce? > > Why should the average Joe even have to protest tax. > > Does the federal Liberal party support this new tax as it is now > proposed! > > It's going to increase the cost of a computer by at least $400 more for > a 20 gigbayte computer and tax plus GST and PST. dealer sell $1000 + > media tax $400+GS $70T+PST $70= 540 in tax! When was buying a new > computer a crime or harmful to society?
-- Richard C. Pitt C.E.O. Belcarra Messaging Corp. richard@belcarra.com 604-644-9265 www.belcarra.com Embedded Linux Systems: Design, Creation, Integration Proud sponsor of www.cd-linux.org
From richard@belcarra.com Thu May 2 11:58:57 2002 Subject: Objection Sent - Was Re: Media Levy - Formal Objections by May 8th From: "R |
