A CPC Dedicated Anti "iPod Tax" Election website.

The Conservative Party of Canada has launched an election website devoted to the "iPod tax" issue.

I make no comment on the contents of the website other than to anticipate the misleading comments that will surely issue yet again from certain quarters that the amount sought would not be $75. It is a matter of record that the last - even if ill-fated - attempt by the Canadian Private Copying Collective ("CPCC")  to get the Copyright Board to impose such a "tax" indeed asked for $75 as follows:

 ...for digital audio recorders, $5 for each recorder with no
more than 1 Gigabyte (GB) of memory, $25 for each recorder
with more than 1 GB and no more than 10 GB of memory, $50
for each recorder with more than 10 GB and no more than
30 GB of memory, and $75 for each recorder with more than
30 GB of memory.

(emphasis added)

This is from the Copyright Board's website which simply republished the Canada Gazette of February 10, 2007.

An iPod "Classic" has 160 GB and many other devices well over 30 GB.The proposed tariff did not distinguish between solid state and hard drive memory - nor do the recent attempts to re-float the "iPod tax".

For those with a sense of nostalgia about past unsuccessful CPCC attempts to impose an iPod "tax", consider what I've said in the past:

Now, if you think that’s bad, go back only five years to 2002 for the proposed 2003-2004 tariff that would have imposed $21 per GB. Here’s the exact proposal from the Canada Gazette:

(g) $21 for each gigabyte of memory in each non-removable hard drive incorporated into each MP3 player or into each similar device with an internal hard drive that is intended for use primarily to record and play music.

Now, for those who can’t or won’t do simple arithmetic, I’ll do it for you.

A $21 per GB tariff (“tax”) on a 160 GB iPod “Classic” that now sells for about $270 would be - get ready for this -$3,360.00.

On a one Terabyte eternal hard drive that sells for as low as $69 in Canada, the “tax” would be $21,000.00.

On a three Terabyte terabyte eternal hard drive that now sells for about $220 in Canada, the tariff (“tax”) would now be $63,000.00. This is NOT a misprint.

So much for the forward thinking capacity of the Canadian Private Copying Collective.

This shows the fallacy of taxing technology. And why Minister Moore was right to call the proposed iPod tax "really toxic and, frankly, really dumb". 

BTW, those prices for hard drives are now much less. One can buy a 3 TB external HD for about $179 at at least one big box store in Canada.

By way of disclosure, I should point out that I have long acted for the Retail Council of Canada in successful opposition to an iPod "tax" before the Copyright Board, the Federal Court of  Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada (where leave to appeal was denied to all parties). 

HK

Access Copyright's Election 2011 Toolkit - About Repealing Fair Dealing

Access Copyright is entering the election fray.

Unfortunately, most of what is being said is quite misleading and/or troubling. For example, here is part of what Access Copyright has to say:

By favouring exceptions without compensation over collective licensing, the Bill [C-32] foreclosed any meaningful opportunity for rightsholders to participate in shaping emerging markets for access to content with fair compensation. Its net effect would have been to undermine existing licensing infrastructures and foreclose new revenue streams, forcing rightsholders to hold on ever more tightly to what little control over their works they would have had left instead of promoting increased access
through innovative models of licensing and distribution.

Meanwhile, Canada’s creative and information sectors would have been impoverished as creators and publishers would have been forced out of business, unable to earn a living from their craft and businesses. With Canadian voices silenced, educational institutions would have been forced to rely on American and other foreign sources for teaching materials.

 

While exceptions may be warranted for certain users in certain circumstances, (when reasonable access is otherwise unavailable), there is no need for an uncompensated exception when a work is available at a reasonable price and can be obtained with reasonable effort. In other words, exceptions should be unavailable whenever a licence for the use is available from a collective society.

(emphasis added)
 

That is a very inaccurate description of what Bill C-32 would have done.

But the corollary and conclusion are really remarkable.

Access Copyright apparently believes that we as Canadians should give up on the notion of exceptions for fair dealing for research, private study,  criticism, review, news reporting etc. - never mind satire and parody - if there is a friendly collective lurking out there that is willing to provide a license. Say - for example - for $45 per university student student per year.

Some of the questions posed by certain committee members at the C-32 hearings suggest that Access Copyright is getting through to them on such points. The response from key parts of the educational community was typically tepid.

I have to say that as a member of Access Copyright and as a copyright lawyer, it is embarrassing to see such a position being asserted when it flies in the face of what goes on in other comparable countries and what is good policy for Canada, not to mention about two centuries of common law jurisprudence and common sense.

It does not seem sensible for Canada to consider repealing fair dealing.

Providing mere beer money to most writer members and millions a year to a collective's managers, consultants and lawyers by limiting and/or charging excess rates for access to teachers and students at all levels does not strike one as brilliant policy in a competitive world concerned with innovation in the digital economy. Access Copyright's expenses exceed 25% of its revenues, which is a much higher ratio than collectives such as SOCAN.

Any government that is serious about education in Canada will ensure that copyright exceptions and users' rights in Canada are at least as generous and specific as those in the USA. Since the Copyright Board and the Federal Court of Appeal (at least in the CMEC K-12 decision) are arguably not following either the letter or the spirit the Supreme Court of Canada's landmark CCH v. LSUC decision, we do need Parliament to act - but in the very opposite way to what Access Copyright is suggesting.

So - here is Access Copyright's Election 2011 Toolkit. 

In the great democratic tradition, use it early, wisely and often.  

And as you wish.

HK

Imagine All the Freedom - From Excessive Copyright Claims - PM Harper's Performance Pulled from YouTube

Prime Miniister Harper's video with the wonderful young lady Ms. Maria Aragon has been mostly taken down from YouTube.

Imagine - it included a few bars from "Imagine" by John Lennon.

The copyright lawyers are not amused.

Above  is was a quite delightful duet with the PM and the young lady.. Watch it while you can You can't watch it anymore because the music industry lawyers are doing what they do best - which is to take good things down and/or kill them off.

Whatever one's political stripe - this is really touching and delightful. It won't hurt anyone or any corporation in the music industry. If this can't be on YouTube or similar sites, then copyright law is seriously sick.

"You may say that I'm a dreamer - but I'm not the only one" who thinks it would be a real shame if people can't see and hear things like this in the future.

Imagine -  a world without excessively greedy corporate copyright owners, collectives, and their excessively zealous  copyright lawyers. 

Imagine that  - whoever is the next Prime Minster - will lead a government that will amend Canada's copyright laws to "let it be" for things like this.  

Imagine all the people - who would be happy about this - and maybe even vote for it.

This could yet be the copyright election...

HK

PS - as of Friday, April 8, 2011, the above video is no longer available "due to a copyright claim by Lenono Music." Although the DMCA doesn't apply in Canada, it has effectively reached out to Canada in this and countless other instances.