[OT] Copyright Board of Canada gives thumbs-up to "iPod tax"

[D. Hugh Redelmeier]

| From: James Knott <james.knott-bJEeYj9oJeDQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org>

| While I have made several music CD copies, I own the original on CD, cassette
| or vinyl, with very few exceptions.  Again for the MP3's I made to play on my
| Nokia N800.  This means I've paid at least twice for that music.

You don't get it.  In fact almost no consumer gets it.  So how are
they (we) supposed to obey a law we don't understand?  The sad answer
is: "technical means" (DRM), "self help" (Sony rootkits), and law
suits.

The right answer would be to make copyright laws that are
understandable and could be percieved as fair and reasonable (like
laws about tangible property).  Good luck.

Technically, copyright is (was) about making copies.  The private copying
regime, as I understand it (I could be wrong), is that end users are
allowed to copy music for their own use onto media that have the levy
paid.  Somebody told me that I was wrong and that one is allowed to
copy onto unlevied media, but tentatively I'm sticking with my
original belief.  In any case, the private copying regime was a quid pro
quo for the levy.

You pay for copies, not the contents.  Before the private copying
regime was introduced (1995?), you could not make a legal copy.  For
example, taping from an LP that you owned was not allowed.  Making a copy
onto an MP3 player is (probably) not allowed since there is no levy
paid on the MP3 player.

You've never paid for the music.  You've paid for one copy (original
CD, cassette, or LP) and you've paid for the right to copy onto CDs
(in a sort of diffuse way).
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists