🚀 go-pugleaf

I wonder about the reasons for this tax aside from increased tax
revenues (GST & PST on the levy).  It's very interesting that the
Copyright Board (a 3 member unelected panel at this time)has 2 new
appointees, who are ex-broadcasters (conflict-of-interest?).  The
board's 2 new members passed a bill(with strong dissent from the 3rd
longtime member) that reduced rates paid by broadcasters to collectives
(SOCAN) by 15% and has allowed for bypassing the collectives and
negotiating directly with the composer/author (going against the
Copyright Act's practice of "fair" bargaining).  This is a BIG plum for
broadcasters, and has SOCAN up in arms about it (and rightly so).  I
WONDER if this new levy is a way to placate SOCAN with levy based
revenue that they will lose from broadcast ??!! As there are appeals by
SOCAN to the previous ammendments to the Copyright Act, they may hope to
use this levy two-fold; as a defense against the apeal and as an
additional revenue builder (via GST).  It seems quite a coincedence that
the Copyright Board cuts royalties paid to composers and authors and
circumvents the collective society, then turns around and implements a
levy to compensate them for revenues lost from piracy.  What this has
done is shift the burden of payment away from the broadcasters and on to
the general public.  Is it a coincidence that the new majority of
Copyright Board members are ex-broadcasters?

John Ciccone wrote:
> 
> Craig Forsberg wrote in message <3689C5F1.838B8704@home.net>...
> >Kinda funny, but before you replied to this I heard from another source
> >a similar story.  Havta start hunting :)
> 
> Well, it's getting funky in the nation's capital. FWIW, I'm attaching a text
> file issued by the Copyright Board explaining relevant points. It's a bit
> easier to read than the actual Gazette announcements and legislation and has
> some names & phone numbers.
> 
> One interesting point is that it's true that in the past, the gov't might
> expect a max of 12 letters of protest. They've received more than 3,000
> regarding this issue. Their phones are ringing off the hook. I suspect
> this'll all have some effect on the results.
> 
> A more interesting point is that although technically the tariff goes into
> effect Jan 1, 1999, it is NOT yet decided how much that tariff will be. The
> process is that there has to be a hearing in May '99, and the decision will
> likely be made in Fall '99. Subsequently, we could just as easily end up
> with a tariff of 5¢ per blank CD. But since the tariff is retroactive, what
> we're seeing (IMO) is manufacturers possibly gearing up for the worst case
> scenario.
> 
> As one gov't official put it, businesses live every day with 'possibilities'
> of new laws and situations that might affect their pricing. Should they
> always go by worst possible case? To be honest, I'd like to see one of the
> major manufacturers have the balls to maintain current prices (or put in a
> small increase) and completely devastate the market. They'd probably wipe
> out all their competitors that do double their prices on January 1st.
> 
> So as we can see, things are not so cut and dried. 50¢ per 15 minutes
> digital is still just a proposal. That could end up being way out of whack.
> (Further, these proposed numbers are being submitted by Collectives --- not
> the gov't proper, although it's up to the gov't to go through the
> submissions and decide what is in the best interest of the Canadian public
> come autumn.)
> 
> At the end of the day, it might even be manufacturers who have egg on the
> face.
> 
> Just going by this NG thread, consumers are very passionate about this one
> and will hopefully continue to make themselves heard.
> 
> Interesting times.
> 
> Regards,
> John Ciccone
> 
>         INFORMATION ABOUT THE HOME TAPING REGIME
> 
> Thank you for your phone call on the above referenced-issue. Here is some information on the regime. As you will see from what follows below, the issue of whether recordable CDs, or any other blank audio recording medium, will be subject to the levy has not yet been determined.
> 
> 1) Until recently, individuals who taped songs off the radio or made copies of CDs they had purchased, say, for use in the tape deck in their car, infringed copyright. The home taping regime, which is now in force as the result of an Act of Parliament, changed this. Individuals are now allowed to copy a sound recording of a musical work onto an audio recording medium (e.g. an audiocassette) for their own private use.
> 
> 2) Those who own the rights associated to those sound recordings (composers, authors, performers and producers) are entitled to be remunerated for the copies that are being made under it. This means that:
> 
> a) the remuneration is solely on account of private copying taping for one's own personal use;
> 
> b) only persons who own rights in sound recordings of musical works are entitled to share in the remuneration. Owners of rights in other works (computer programs, movies, literary works) are not.
> 
> 3) The remuneration must be paid by manufacturers and importers of "blank audio recording media", in the form of a levy to be imposed on those media, to be collected when they are sold or otherwise disposed of by the manufacturer or importer. Media that are exported from Canada are not subject to the levy. This means that:
> 
> a) the Board must certify a tariff and set a levy, although the final content of the tariff and amount of the levy could be quite different from that the collective societies have asked for;
> 
> b) the levy cannot be imposed on anyone else, nor can it be set "at the retail level", as many persons proposed;
> 
> c) the levy is payable by the importer or manufacturer without regard to its end use. That remains true even if the enduser is licensed to reproduce the works or is able to establish that a qualifying medium will not be used to copy sound recordings of musical works. The Act makes no provision for a refund mechanism of any sort, except in the case of societies that represent persons with perceptual disabilities. However, the fact that some qualifying media may be used for purposes other than rep
> 
> d) the Act exempts from the levies recording media that are sold to a society, association or corporation that represents persons with perceptual disabilities. There can be no other exemption.
> 
> 4) The Copyright Act orders that levies be set and determines how this is to be done. Those who are entitled to receive a remuneration must first associate themselves into one or more collective societies. The societies must file proposed tariffs with the Copyright Board and the Board must publish the proposals in the Canada Gazette as it received them. Anyone is allowed to file an objection. The date to file objections was August 12, 1998.
> 
> 5) Those who ask for the levy and those who object to it will now have the opportunity to file evidence and argument for or against the proposals. Because parties require time to prepare, hearings will not be held until some time in May, 1999. A decision will not be issued until the Fall. The Board is specifically required to set fair and equitable levies.
> 
> 6) The law specifically states that any qualifying medium that is sold by an importer or manufacturer on January 1, 1999 or thereafter will be subject to the levy. This means that:
> 
> a) once the Board's decision has been issued, the person entitled to collect the levy will be able to ask for payment on account of sales going back to the start of 1999;
> 
> b) retailers who raise their prices on stock that they purchased before 1999 will not be required to forward that money to copyright owners.
> 
> 7) The levy will be collected by a single collecting body. That body will be a private organization. What it collects will be paid to the collective societies representing rights owners in the proportions set out by the Board. Once the Board has determined the share each collective society will get, those societies are free to distribute what they receive as they wish. As far as the Board knows, collective societies have not decided whether some or all of the levies will in fact be distributed b
> 
> 8) Only "blank audio recording media" are subject to the levy. To meet the definition, a medium must (a) be of a kind that can be used to reproduce a sound recording, (b) be "of a kind ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose" AND (c) have never had sounds fixed onto it.
> 
> a) The levy can only be applied to qualifying media, which must be blank media. The levy could not, as one person suggested, be imposed on recorded media so that the cost of further recordings is paid for when purchasing the original.
> 
> 
> 
> 9) The conditions outlined above are set out in the Copyright Act. The Copyright Board cannot add to, nor subtract from, any of these provisions. Only another Act of Parliament can do that.
> 
> 10) Any comments about how the regime is set up or any suggestions you may have about changes that you think should be made to the Copyright Act should be addressed to the departments of Industry and Canadian Heritage, whose ministers are responsible for the legislation. The persons to contact are:
> 
> Éloïse Arbour, Policy Analyst, Canadian Heritage, tel (819) 997-5088, email : eloise_arbour@pch.gc.ca
> 
> Albert Cloutier, Policy Analyst, Industry Canada, tel (613) 952-3804, email cloutier.albert@ic.gc.ca
> 
> 11) If you want to know more about what copyright owners are planning to do about their proposals, or if you want to make any comments to them, you can contact the person they have designated as spokesperson for all collectives who filed proposals. He is
> 
> Paul Audley tel (416) 485-3550, email audleyp@total.net
> 
> I hope this anwers your questions. If you want more information, please do not hesitate to contact our General Counsel, Mario Bouchard, who can be reached by phone at (613) 954-6470 or be email at bouchardm@smtp.gc.ca
> 
> Mario Bouchard