alQpr

Michael Geist - Angus Defends iPod Levy Proposal.

IF the “Canadian solution” of a media levy is valid (and I think it is), then there is no logical reason to distinguish in any way between different types of digital memory. In particular, the memory in an ipod is much more likely to be used for music storage than a randomly chosen CD (which is just as likely to be being used for backup of business records or private photo albums as it is for mp3 storage). I favour the ipod levy as it is totally unacceptable that the CDs used to store my personal photographs be subject to a levy when an ipod used almost entitely to store commercial music tracks is not.

In fact, EVERY bit of digital memory should be taxed at the same rate regardless of whether it is a CD, DVD, ipod or computer hard drive, UNLESS its owner has specifically undertaken not to record copyright content on it. But the proviso is essential and must be equally available on all memory types.

This could be achieved by selling specially marked media and devices (much like the coloured tax-free gas that is often sold for agricultural purposes) -  and if this was available, I for one wouldn’t mind if the penalty for abusing it was quite substantial.

This story speaks for itself.

Well I have finally got around to putting in my views at 8:50pm in Vancouver - which is still 10 minutes before midnight in Ottawa so should be within the 48 hour extension that was announced on the Copyright Consultations website on Sunday. …more »

If this is how those who give pious lectures about respecting the rights and “property” of their clients act with regard to the rights and property of the rest of us, is it any wonder that many people refuse to respect any of these rights at all?

Charlie Angus has an article in the Straight.com on copyright reform.

Michael Geist notes that the CIPO is Launching another campaign “Promoting Respect for IP Rights”. But, as I commented on his post, although respect for the Law is an essential foundation for a safe society, the best way to achieve that respect is by making sure that the Law is both fair and seen to be fair.

There is some value in working on the latter, but only after achieving the former. If the “education” initiative is based on promoting the results of a consensus arising out of an open consultation process then it might not be such a bad idea. If it is perceived to be otherwise then it will actually undermine the respect that is seeks to achieve.

Howard Knopf doesn’t like The SAC Double Negative Option Celestial Jukebox, but I have to quarrel with a number of his reasons.

Many of these have to do with defending the existing media levy schemes which unfairly extract funds from people who have no intent of copying copyrighted work and who are provided no option for declaring and committing to avoiding such activity when making the purchase.
Until there is provision for specially marked exempt media, the existing levy scheme is just legalized theft and like any other manifestly unfair law it undermines public respect for the law in general.

Also particularly galling is #6 “It’s inherently socialistic” - not because I have socialist tendencies myself (though I do), but because (a) it’s not, and (b) whether it is or not has no relevance to the effectiveness of the proposed mechanism, so (c) the accusation is just presented as name-calling.

EXCESS COPYRIGHT: More Myths about Myths about File Sharing

This post at squareCircleZ (a very nice enrichment and support website for students and teachers of mathematics) raises the conundrum of how to define 0^0 if all positive x give x^0=1 and 0^x=0.
…more »

globeandmail.com: Your thoughts on copyright in Canada

Michael Geist - Taking Stock of My Fair Copyright for Canada Principles

Illegal Class Notes ~ Stephens Web ~ by Stephen Downes
This refers to a lawsuit in Florida against a company that is selling copies of course notes gathered by previous students. Apparently the professor involved has a package of materials that are sold to students by a publisher and the publisher claims that the “notes” being sold duplicate these copyrighted materials.  Steven Downes, and a number of bloggers he refers to, find this lawsuit objectionable and consider the professor to either be privatizing “ideas” or to have been in some way tricked y the publisher. But in fact it appears that the professor is not averse to the lawsuit so I don’t see how he can be described as having been snookered by the publisher; also, the copyright is being applied not to the ideas but rather to the specific presentation, and to the extent that his material is original that is surely his right. If students copy and freely share their own notes rather than an exact transcription of the instructor’s material then I have no problem with that, but if the note company is selling Moulton’s work for their own profit then I hope they get stopped.

(This does not mean that I have no reservations about a professor requiring students to purchase a text of his own authorship unless the text selection has been made at arm’s length by some independent third party - but that is, I believe, a separate issue.)

Michael Geist has reported briefly on the defense by SAC of its proposal for an internet levy to compensate copyright holders for legalization of file sharing. But what I really want to link to is the first comment following Michael’s report which I believe does a good job of making the case against such levies. I am also glad to see that Ariel Katz seems at least to be aware of some of the very real concerns. This is a point on which Geist sometimes seem to be blinded by his admirable desire to provide a system with full and free flow of information and content. The goal of giving people true ownership of what they purchase is a good one, but having that ownership paid for by granting Letters of Marque for extortion from uninterested third parties is NOT a fair solution.

Why a Great Music Site Died :: Mediacheck :: thetyee.ca

This is Downes’ take on Geist’s comments on CRIA’s break with the CPCC. When I finally reveal my solution to the conundrum of how to fairly and efficiently assign costs to users and compensation to producers, all who should be awed by my achievement will instead be dismissive and contemptuous of my naivete.

David Basskin, Director of the CanadianPrivate Copying Collective, has written a letter to the Star in response to Michael Geist’s earlier comments about the media levy and its prospects of its being extended to mp3 players and perhaps even computer hard drives.

Basskin says “The private copying levy is an important source of revenue for music-rights holders and is an issue of fairness”, and goes on to claim that “The levy is often misunderstood. It is not a tax or subsidy, but payment to individual rights holders for use of music by Canadians in the privacy of their homes. Compensation for use – that’s fair”.

But of course the levy is NOT fair because it extracts funds from people who purchase data storage media for purposes having nothing to do with the products of Basskins’ clients and so in fact it IS a tax and subsidy.

What is particularly frustrating about this is the fact that there is a perfect opportunity for the sellers of music recordings to obtain compensation for whatever pattern of reproduction they expect from their customers, and that is at the point of sale. Extracting that compensation later from others who may have no interest in the product just amounts to artificially lowering the price. This may be good for sales and it may even be in the public interest to subsidize artistic products in some way, but this particular approach to gaining that subsidy is fundamentally dishonest and the legislators who were persuaded to go along with it have been conned and bamboozled.

One other aspect of this situation that is worth mentioning is that many who object to the levy might still be willing to entertain a more honestly defined subsidy - paid from honestly defined taxes. But taxes should be collected by the government not by private organizations.

The peace and wellbeing of society is harmed by laws whose perceived unfairness or unenforceability reduces public respect for the law.

In a large body of legislation it is hard to avoid parts which will appear unfair to some, but it is foolish to unnecessarily enact provisions whose manifest unfairness will be frequently imposed on large segments of the population.

A case in point is the media levy in Canadian copyright law. …more »

In TheStar.com - entertainment - Tax on MP3 players may return, David Basskin, director of the Canadian Private Copying Collective, is quoted as saying:

“When you have bought a CD, you don’t own the music – you own the copy of the music that you’ve purchased,” he says. “You’re not buying the rights to make copies.”

“People are going to do private copying, and the levy legitimizes it and provides compensation to the people who created the music. It’s pretty hard to say why that’s not fair,”

No its bloody well not hard to see at all!!!

{Warning:obscenities coming} …more »

Michael Geist brings some good news in - Complaint Filed With FTC Over Copyright Notices. But it is a bit sad that it is only with the support of big businesses that there is any hope of defending public access rights. If there were no major segment of the economy interested in protecting these rights would they just disappear?

Revisiting the Potential of Free Content ~ Stephen’s Web ~ by Stephen Downes