CRIA Calls for End to Private Copying Levy

[p2p-sharing-rules]

Confirming what has been an open secret for some time, Canadian Recording Industry Association President Graham Henderson has told Billboard Magazine that CRIA would welcome the removal of the private copying levy (article not yet online but thanks to a reader for passing it along). Henderson says that "we don't want a private copying levy that, in effect, sanctions online theft."

The change in position is remarkable if only because CRIA was the leading proponent of the levy throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Having spent 15 years fighting for the levy, it has taken less than half that time for the organization now to want to get rid of it. Moreover, the change pits CRIA against Canadian artists and collectives, who have benefited from more than a $150 million in levy revenues. Indeed, the article contains opposing quotes from David Basskin of CMRRA and Solange Drouin of ADISQ, who both favour keeping the levy.

Three other points worth noting. First, Henderson's quote is an implicit acknowledgment that the private copying levy does cover peer-to-peer downloading for personal, non-commercial purposes. If the public is confused about the state of Canadian copyright law, perhaps it is because CRIA has sought to argue otherwise every chance that it gets. Second, dropping the levy alone is not enough, since Canadians will still legitimately want to make copies of their CDs to other devices such as iPods. CRIA has said they're ok with that copying but the law needs to change to address the issue. The simple fix would be to shift from fair dealing to a broader fair use provision. Third, no one should overlook an additional Henderson quote in the article. In discussing the use of DRM, Henderson says "we are moving into an environment where everything will be either copy-protected or mostly copy-protected." That likely reflects the view of the major international labels, but I'm not so sure it is how the independent labels, who are responsible for 90 percent of new Canadian music, view the future.

Source:michaelgeist.ca

[p2p-sharing-rules]

Canadian music industry: forget the levies, bring on DRM heaven
4/9/2006 10:13:06 PM, by Ken Fisher

Beginning in 1999, the Canadian government mandated a levy on blank audio recording media, including recordable CDs and DVDs. The Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC) was thus formed, charged with both collecting the revenues generated by the levies and disbursing them accordingly. The arrangement was justified as a way to keep royalties when users make use of recorded audio material.

Now Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) President Graham Henderson has told Billboard Magazine (subscription) that his industry wants no part of the media levy, saying that "we don't want a private copying levy that, in effect, sanctions online theft." Henderson here is referring to increasingly common arguments promoting the use of the media levy as a means of permitting P2P downloads for personal use. Henderson and others fear that the CAN$0.21 levy per CD could transmute into carte blanche for "unauthorized" downloads, but that's not the only issue on the table.

For years the CRIA and other music industry groups have supported the media levy because it generates revenue from "personal use" that was still derived (hopefully) from commercial music sales. For instance, the levy was seen as an ideal solution to the "problems" that stem from users ripping CDs and building digital music libraries using music that they had purchased. Now even that basic use is looking suspect in the CRIA's eyes, even though it has nothing to do with piracy at all. Why? It's the technology!

"We are moving into an environment where everything will be either copy-protected or mostly copy-protected," Henderson said.

What's that got to do with it? As I've argued time and time again, it's the whole story. Digital Rights Management, to repeat my argument, is not about stopping piracy, but about shutting down fair use. The aim of shutting down fair use is simple: the copyright owners want to nickel and dime users. Barbara Caplan, co-chair of the Canadian Coalition for Fair Digital Access, put it in other terms:

"Get rid of the levy and let the marketplace fairly compensate copyright holders through the use of DRM and technical protection measures," she said.

Translation: the DRM can handle all issues of "authorization," and monetize them as well. That's not the whole story, of course. To get to the place Caplan wants to be, two other things are needed too: a new copyright regime that explicitly outlaws any and all circumvention of DRM, and a move to "contractual" understandings of ownership. Ergo, while the tip of the hat to the "marketplace" sounds economically principled, this marketplace needs to be created by legally curtailing users' rights. At the center of this will be a reworking of the notion of "authorization." If DRM can handle authorization, then what good is something like a fair use doctrine that spells out what kinds of unauthorized uses are legitimate? Such is the argument of those opposed to fair use.

Where the media levy is headed in Canada is anyone's guess, but it likely boils down to which party can paint the best picture for digital downloads. Canada's laws are seen as "outdated" by some (and yet "progressive" by others), inasmuch as they do not afford the kind of lock-down currently possible in the United States, for instance. There is also no shortage of confusion over just what the media levy authorizes, as well.

arstechnica.com

[garmabeaneth]

this all goes back to the Xerox case during the 80's.. now i don't have a the full story on that.. but copying mp3's is deemed the same as the verdit in that case.. might be an interesting read

[p2p-sharing-rules]

Interesting I never heard of the Xerox case during the 80's or know how copying mp3's are deemed the same as the virdict of that case.

[garmabeaneth]

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/5114.cfm

Golem1 (Inactive) 7 April 2004 19:09 Send private message to this user
A few months ago, I phoned the CRIA and left a message for their in-house counsel (lawyer) to contact me about their litigation against ISPs which refused to submit the names and adresses of so-called music file uploaders. I teach a technology and social science course about information technology and wanted to discuss the grounds for their litigation and invite him to the college where I teach to speak to the students about the issues, etc. I would have told him that there were no legal grounds for the litigation being pursued; that the Canadian copyright act is silent about file sharing and that anyone in Canada can make a personal copy of any music they desire. I never did get a return phone call.

The CRIA's lawyers were so incompetent and inept in making a case because there weren't any legal grounds for their case. The lawyers were the biggest winners because they convinced the stupid CRIA to pay them bags of money to pursue a groundless case. Consequently, the CRIA is a sore loser and is now whining for the copyright law to be revised just for them.

The recent court ruling against the CRIA is the correct one. The Federal Court of Canada judge was reading and interpreting the law in accordance with what is actually in the copyright act and in line with the recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling regarding the photocopying of legal publications by the Great Library of the Law Society of Upper Canada. There is nothing in the copyright act which prohibits file sharing of music. As a matter of fact, the recording industry in Canada gave up the enforcement of copyright for a levy applied to all blank recordable CDs and, most recently, the levy has been extended to the memory chip capacity of any device used exclusively for playing music. The greedy recording industry wanted a levy applied to anything capable of storing or copying music but the copyright board refused to allow it. The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that the Great Libray could photocopy copyrighted publications for the use of anyone for research, particularly lawyers, without unreasonably contravening copyright. It was also ruled that providing a photocopier in the Great Library to photocopy copyrighted material was not illegal because the photocopier is also capable of use for legal photocopying and that removing it would be an unreasonable denial of its use for legal use.

Helene Scherrer is whoring for the recording industry if she introduces new legislation to prohibit music and/or any other file sharing. You can bet that the proposed legislation will be so draconian in its copyright restrictions that everyone will be relieved when, after much protest, revisions, and taxpayer expense, it is amended to only further restrict music file sharing. That's the way these things usually work in government and politics.

this is about the closest i could find...

now on to about blank media
http://www.londondrugs.com/Cultures/en- ... Ruling.htm

December 17, 2004

Dear Valued Customers,

At London Drugs, we are very pleased by the recent Federal Court of Appeal's ruling eliminating private copying levies on MP3 players. We believe the court's decision is great news for our customers.

and finally.. private copying is still deemed allowed in canada

http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c20032004fs-e.html

What is "Private Copying"?

Before the Copyright Act was amended in 1998, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright, although, in practice, the prohibition was largely unenforceable. The amendment to the Act legalized private copying of sound recordings of musical works onto audio recording media - i.e., the copying of pre-recorded music for the private use of the person who makes the copy. In addition, the amendment made provision for the imposition of a levy on blank audio recording media to compensate authors, performers and makers who own copyright in eligible sound recordings being copied for private use.

[p2p-sharing-rules]

Thanks Garmy.