When the topic of the blank media levy comes up, often someone will say something like, "Hey, what next, are they going to try to pay authors of books to compensate them for people borrowing the books from libraries instead of buying?" Actually, a program to do just that has been in place in Canada since 1986, and here is its Web site. [Public Lending Right Commission] (11 February 2003)
This was apparently announced on 19 December 2002, but I haven't heard anything about it. Since the objection process for the insanely high blank media levy for 2003-2004 is not yet complete, and here we are, in 2003 already, they needed to decide what to do for the moment. They decided to just carry on the previous rates - $0.29 on cassettes, $0.21 on regular CD-R and CD-RW discs, and $0.77 on CD-R(W) Audio and MiniDisc. No levy on other media. This is a bit of a reprieve for those of us who oppose the proposed new insanely high levy, but we're hardly out of the woods yet: it is only an interim decision until the shouting is over in the objection process. [Interim tariff for the blank media levy] (17 January 2003)
This may not be new, but I don't remember seeing it before - it's a 164-page PDF file containing the official list of blank media levy objectors and their initial objection filings. [Official objections to BML] (5 June 2002)
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance) makes another peculiar statement at the above link; he attacks the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage for her stupid response to the blank media levy (I'm gonna start calling it BML) question the previous day, but then he takes it in a completely different direction by complaining about the Bayer/Apotex Cipro scandal from a few months back. (To refresh your memory, that was the one where the government ordered a batch of anti-anthrax drugs from a company that, for patent reasons, could not legally fulfill the order.) The last sentence of his statement is possibly the most interesting of all: he says that the Minister "does not care that intellectual property only applies to original ideas." Is that a sign that he doesn't consider the music copied onto MP3 players to be original? Unfortunately, I think it may be more a sign of general cluelessness, because he's also calling the levy "a nice try to rake in money" by the Government, apparently unaware that the money doesn't go to the Government. This is the same Member who made the bizarre speech in favour of Internet vigilante justice a few days ago; random behaviour is apparently in character for him. [345 words...] (16 March 2002)
This is why I shouldn't post rants until after reading the day's Hansard. The above link is a question from Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney--Alouette, PC/DR) about the blank media levy; it's interesting because of the direction it came from - I would think that Mr. McNally, who based on his 22 February speech linked below appears to be squarely in DirecTV's pocket, would be right behind the blank media levy. After all, those evil pirates must pay for their bad habits! I guess maybe he objects to it because nothing less than the death penalty for private copying would do - or, maybe I'm simply misjudging him and he's expressing a sensible position because he's actually an intelligent person. You never know. [Blank media levy comes up in Question Period] (15 March 2002)
![[Ad box removed; this image serves to flag pages that need to be updated in my log file.]](/i/boxremoved.png)
![[OPML file]](/i/opml.png){kind=small}
![[RSS syndication file]](/i/rss.png){kind=small}
