It was in December 1999 when this was initially announced, before many of the digital music problems had become so well known. The levy of 23.3¢ on audio cassette tapes of 40 minutes or longer (zero for those of shorter length), 60.8¢ on MiniDisc, CD-R Audio and CD-RW Audio, and 5.2¢ on CD-R and CD-RW is expected to raise $9 million in the year 2000. This money is going to the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC) and will be distributed to the eligible authors, performers and makers of recorded musical works copied for personal use in Canada. The effect in Canada was a rise in prices of audio recording media.

Many Canadians are unhappy about this levy. Obviously not all Canadians are going to be using this media for copying copyrighted music, however they are still forced to pay the levy.

This could be easily applied to digital music. Portable MP3 player memory could be levied per megabyte of storage. Even singular downloads could be levied. Sure this would help compensate artists, but what would be the effect on consumers? Or does Canada just have the wrong idea?

Being a Canadian, I heard a lot about this in 1999, but since have heard little. One of the biggest complaints was that independent artists who utilize CDRs, etc., to distribute their recordings and how this was going to bust them financially. This was spearheaded by Sheila Copps, former deputy prime minister of Canada (equivalent to the US vice-president) who has a history of doing really stupid things. Most of the things she starts are unresearched and really needless. For example, she spent millions of taxpayer dollars to give away flags to all that asked for flag day, which falls sometime in February. Now, if you've ever been to Canada in February you probably not want to participate in any flag day events while standing knee-deep in snow and freezing rain. In Canada, we have so many taxes, and on top of provincial taxes we have the wonderful GST (Goods and Services Tax) which Copps said she would abolish or quit as deputy prime minister. Of course she did not - and refused to quit. Not sure of the exact details, but she was turfed from the government, but was brought back as some kind of Heritage minister. Actually she should be misnister of Big Mouths. So, back to the original point, a huge online petition was launched in the summer of 1999, and to the best of my knowledge her little taxation scheme did not pass thankfully.

Born and lived in Finland for over 20 years, I can tell that we _have_ that kind of fees. For audio cassettes, CD-ROMs, etc.. Funny thing is that CD-ROMs that are specifically meant for burning audio CDs (you know those TDK's 74min CD-ROMs, etc..?) have higher fees than regular CD-ROMs Stupid and annoying tax that only serves the major recording companies and not the independent artists.

If I recollect somehow correctly, the fee used to be 1c / minute for CD-ROMs and 2c / minute for audio CD-ROMs.

So by paying these levies aren't you compensating the record companies for your "illegal copies"? Therefore, per compensation it should be legal to make all the copies for whoever you want--heck, sell the suckers, you paid a royaltie on them didn't you?

BTW--the RIAA collects fees on all CDRs and CDR drives, as well as DAT tapes and some other things--assuming you'll be doing something illegal on them--so I feel no guilt making a copy of a CD--after all, I paid the RIAA for it...

Brian

Absolutely! Consumers in the US have been paying levies on blank media for years. Michael Jackson and Garth Brooks can be assured that there will be food on their table tonight. No guilt here.

"heck, sell the suckers, you paid a royaltie on them didn't you?"

You already can! I know you've bitched at me in the past about talking about this, but we seem to be agreeing without realizing. We can sell it right back to the store we bought it from, so they can turn around and sell it again. Three sales, two of them showing a profit, and the artist/label gets paid once.

Please don't argue that the artist has already been compensated by the first sale. We know that. They haven't been compensated for the store's second sale...sold to a person already in the store looking for the album.

Car manufacturers are not compensated for the sale of used cars. Can you imagine how much more money they could take in if nobody bought used cars? That's as far as I'll go on this path because it's apples and oranges. They are both fruits, though.

My whole point for even raising the issue is that it seems somewhat ironic that Napster, which has helped sales in recent years, has been given so much flack, yet the real killer of new sales goes without censure of any kind.

Do the stores have an agreement with the RIAA, like makers of blank media and recording devices?

Car compaines are just plain fruity! =)

`Chad

"The reason we keep having to repeat ourselves is that people like you don't seem to be listening."

"All we can do is repeat ourselves a little bit differently each time we explain it and hope that eventually something will click and you'll 'get it'."

hey mr. daveb...you're a dork. gst stands for government sales tax, and pst is provincial sales tax. pst DOES NOT apply in all provinces (like alberta). and that flag crap you thought up, well, i'll leave it at that... also, the bill never passed, so mr. symonx there can just go to hell...

Er, careful who you call a dork, nameless one. "GST" stands for Goods and Services Tax.