Copyright (royalty) Collective Societies

While copyright royalty Collective Societies often claim to represent creator and non-creator copyright holders, they are simply administrative bodies for one narrow business model option. Some of the most well known (and controversial) Canadian collectives include Access Copyright (previously CANCOPY), Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN), and Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC).

A $32 goof turns into a $15,000 nightmare? Complex legislation or political manipulation?

An article by Don Cayo of the Vancouver Sun discusses the CPCC and how a bookkeeping mistake with calculating levies owed to the CPCC became very expensive.

How does a $32 goof -- or even a $567 one -- become a five-figure liability? Well, it turns out, very easily under the terms of the federal Copyright Act.

London Financial Times: YouTube seals UK music royalty deal

A Financial Times article Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in London discusses a deal between YouTube and UK societies that collect royalties for 50,000 composers, songwriters and publishers to legitimize the use of recorded music on Google’s popular video-sharing website.

Buma/Stemra and Creative Commons Netherlands launch a pilot

Press release by Dutch CC-team
Buma/Stemra and Creative Commons Netherlands launch a pilot

More opportunities for music authors to promote their own music

SOCAN To Digitally Track Airplay

The Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN), is being reported by CMJ to be making use of Digital Audio Identification technology (DAI) to better track radio airplay. Not discussed is how the same technology can be used to track other music distribution, including P2P, and is a far more robust and less intrusive method than watermarks or "DRM".

Slyck Interviews David Basskin, director of the CPCC

Drew Wilson of Slyck published a great interview of David Basskin. Only problem is that the example given of sharing with a friend a privately copied CD isn't something that is covered by the levy. Had Drew loaned his original CD to the friend and the friend made their own private copies (never to be shared with anyone else), then that similar (but different) activity would be covered.

Facebook group: Canadians against the Private Copying Tariff

People on Facebook interested to discuss the levy with other people may want to check out the group Canadians against the Private Copying Tariff started by Julianna Yau (Waterloo based stone sculptress with keen interest in copyright and creativity issues).

Copyright collective may yet face the music

Michael Geist's weekly Law Bytes column examines the recent Canadian Copyright Board decision that opened the door to the reintroduction of a levy on iPods as part of the private copying levy. The column argues that while the legal challenges are important, the political repercussions carry greater significance since they may lead to dramatic changes to both the levy and the Copyright Board. (Toronto Star version, Homepage version, The Tyee, p2pnet)

Toronto Star: Copyright decision may bring back MP3 player tax

A Canadian Press article by Sean Patrick Sullivan discussing the always controvercial private copying levy includes quotes from interviews of Michael Geist and David Basskin.

The "iPod tax" - CPCC's proposed levy on devices capable of storing digital audio, and a better way forward

I was called yesterday morning to ask for an interview later in the day about the latest CPCC levy. Since that interview didn't happen, I want to post some of my thoughts on the levy. What I want to say is far more than could have been in an interview anyway.

(See also: p2pnet republishing of article)

Ongoing debate about the proposed levy on audio devices by CPCC.

The Globe and Mail has an article discussing the levy on audio devices such as portable music players, cell phones, and eventually any digital device capable of storing and/or outputting audio.

The music industry won the right to charge small levies on blank CDs and DVDs in the 1990s, arguing that those products were used primarily to copy music and therefore artists deserved a slice of the sales. But the debate over iPods and digital music players is messier, and Canadian laws are partly to blame for muddying things.

While the bureaucrats put "clarifying and simplifying the Act" as the lowest priority in their Section 92 review of the Copyright Act, it should be clear that this should have been the first priority and a key test for all other revisions. Unfortunately the Liberal C-60 went in the opposite direction making things even more complex and impossible to interpret.

Syndicate content