Appeal Court rejects iPod levy

Advertisement (Why?)

The Federal Court of Appeal has rejected a controversial levy that would have raised the price of MP3 players, cellphones and computers. The FCA, which released its decision Thursday, said the Copyright Board — a regulatory body that determines royalties for copyrighted works — did not have the authority to impose the levy on digital recorders. The levy, which was slated to be introduced in 2008, would have amounted to an additional $5 to $75 depending on the storage capacity of the recorder. "The Copyright Board erred in law when it concluded that it has the legal authority to certify the tariff that CPCC has proposed for 2008-2009 on digital audio recorders," the FCA said in its decision.

The Retail Council of Canada, which opposed the tax, heralded the decision as a victory for consumers and retailers. "Retailers have fought against these levies since their creation in 1997 because it taxes a product based on what a consumer possibly could use it for," Diane Brisebois, president of the RCC, said in a release issued Thursday. Canadian retailers also noted the levy might drive consumers south of the border in search of lower prices. The Canadian Private Copying Collective, an association of composers, recording artists, publishers, and record labels, asked the Copyright Board of Canada in early 2007 to consider applying the fee to MP3 players in Canada.

View: Full Story @ CBC News

(3 replies) #1 Thrawn on 12 Jan 2008 - 02:39

Bad article title man, the tax was targeted digital recorders in general, not ipods in any notable particular as your title indicates. Also, the first paragraph needs to make it clear that this is in Canada, otherwise your clip is confusing. Perhaps the title could mention canada.

Last edited by Thrawn on 12 Jan 2008 - 02:41

#1.1 markjensen on 12 Jan 2008 - 04:30

Perhaps you should write CBC news on this. When Neowin posts news verbatim people bitch and whine. When Neowin edits and changes wording, people bitch and whine.

#1.2 daPhoenix on 12 Jan 2008 - 07:37

It's more like this:
If [something] is/was/will be/ [something] and [something does [something] people whine and bitch.

This can be mathematically reduced to:
People whine and bitch, always about everything.

#1.3 markjensen on 12 Jan 2008 - 20:41

Quote - (daPhoenix said @ #1.2)

...
People whine and bitch, always about everything.

I guess saying it that way is much clearer.

I guess that my post was just me venting and bitching. I hope I don't get warned for it...

(3 replies) #2 X'tyfe on 12 Jan 2008 - 02:41

so basically any storage medium would have grossly gone up in price?

capitalist america for ya

#2.1 strekship on 12 Jan 2008 - 03:27

Did you not read the article? This is in CANADA.

#2.2 subaru69 on 12 Jan 2008 - 09:04

Quote - (strekship said @ #2.1)

Yeah but if the law had passed in Canada next on that slippery slope might have the US and so on. Sure the Irish government has been copying the UK for years.

Last edited by subaru69 on 12 Jan 2008 - 09:05

#2.3 _dandy_ on 12 Jan 2008 - 17:04

Quote - (subaru69 said @ #2.2)

Yeah but if the law had passed in Canada next on that slippery slope might have the US and so on. Sure the Irish government has been copying the UK for years.

We (Canadians) have been paying a levy on blank media for years, yet the US hasn't followed that model.

(4 replies) #3 Ji@nBing on 12 Jan 2008 - 04:51

It would be simple enough to change the title to "Canadian Appeal Court rejects iPod levy". I don't think anyone would complain about you changing the title for clarity.

#3.1 markjensen on 12 Jan 2008 - 05:20

And that would not satisfy Thrawn, who wants it to say "MP3 playback devices" or some such.

#3.2 Turge on 12 Jan 2008 - 16:02

just because cbc.ca (a clearly non-technical Canadian site) makes a stupid move to put iPod in the title to refer to all digital media players, it doesn't mean you can't change the title to clearly indicate what the article is about. Being a Canadian website, people automatically assume it would be in Canada.

1. The first thing people are going to ask is WHERE did this happen?
2. While reading the article, most people will think "This isn't just about iPods, but digital media players.. what the ?

Bottom line is you should have titled the article "Canadian Federal Cour of Appear rejects new digital media players levy" but screwed up.

#3.3 Croquant on 12 Jan 2008 - 16:56

No, I should have kept the title of the article the same as the title the CBC editors assigned to it.
Which is what I did.

#3.4 whistlerxp on 12 Jan 2008 - 18:17

Quote - (Croquant said @ #3.3)

NO.

(3 replies) #4 Tom275 on 12 Jan 2008 - 18:19

I can't believe Americans actually have the audacity to come to a website and then demand that an article title be changed to reflect the fact that it doesn't relate to the United States. Millions of things do not affect the US; it is not necessary to specify.

Also words like "Federal Court of Appeal" (which does not exist in the US), Copyright Board of Canada, and CBC News are all good indicators that the events didn't happen in the US.

#4.1 Tha Bloo Monkee on 12 Jan 2008 - 19:10

Quote - (Tom275 said @ #4)

I didn't think about this, but soon as I read it I thought "he's right!"

Last edited by Tha Bloo Monkee on 12 Jan 2008 - 19:10

#4.2 QuarterSwede on 13 Jan 2008 - 01:18

Last edited by QuarterSwede on 13 Jan 2008 - 01:19

#4.3 QuarterSwede on 13 Jan 2008 - 01:19

I can see your point but that's not what I thought. I was wondering where the heck this took place. Canada, the UK, Denmark!? Adding the country to the title would've clarified period. This is an international website after all.

Although I can see Croquant's view that he keep the title the same as the original article for consistencies sake. His decision makes sense in that light.

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Neowin.net