Levies on blank recording media have existed for some time in Canada (The relevant sections of the Act were enacted in 1997). This was a compromise that was initially struck in order to allow for personal use copying in the first place. That battle was fought some time ago here. This is a regulatory change to modify these levies to take into account new blank media. Incidentally, the majority of these levies go to SOCAN, which as I understand it, ends up distributing the majority to _artists_, and not labels. PK On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 07:00:48PM -0500, Ernest Miller wrote: > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Slashdot article - Canadian Tariffs > > I have to disagree. I think that by accepting these levys on blank media > we lose more than we could possibly gain by decreasing certain copyrights. > After all, accepting such is a tacit admission that personal use copying is > wrong. Furthermore, these payments always increase media industry > conglomeration - one of the main evils of expansive copyright as it is. > > Moreover, I don't think we should give lesser rights to those who use copy > protection. What I object to is giving additional protection to copy > protection. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy@seltzer.com> > To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu> > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 6:50 PM > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Slashdot article - Canadian Tariffs > > > > At 12:16 PM 3/12/02 -0900, Jacob Gemmell wrote: > > >I don't think it is a tariff. Slashdot just mislabeled it. Rather it is > > >a levy. That being said, how is this justified in light of copy > protected > > >CDs? Do recording companies who use copy protection schemes still get > > >thier piece of the pie? > > > > That's a neat question, and might be the first wedge at giving lesser > > copyright rights to those who use technical means to limit use beyond what > > copyright does. Let's make them choose a range of rights in proportion to > > what they give the public -- greater compensation for the publication of > > unencumbered copies, lesser for the vending of DRM-crippled copies. > > > > I hope someone with standing to object will raise this question (although > > apportionment appears to be addressed elsewhere, in the Copyright Act). > > > > --Wendy > > > > >
Attachment:
pgp00006.pgp
Description: PGP signature