Sources have now provided a letter that CRIA sent to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on September 1, 2010, that took the opposite position. Henderson wrote:
“In the aftermath of my appearance before the Heritage Committee, we have been asked time and again for a clarification of what our position is on the extension of the private copying levy to digital audio recording devices such as an Apple iPod. It is unfortunate that this is the case because the statement I made about this at Committee was quite unequivocal and come directly from out website.”
Henderson goes on to quote the website statement that states that “private copying levies can play a role in compensating creators when designed correctly” and that CRIA has “no issue with such levies when they are applied uniquely to private copies of legally obtained music.” Three weeks later Henderson privately told government officials he opposed the extension of the levy.
… based on a clumsy hearsay reference in a third-party document that you are choosing to interpet only one way in order to satisfy your predetermined and ideological dislike for professional artists in general and CRIA in particular.
Keep up the stellar scholarship, professor. Simplify the complex. Confuse the simple.
…
There’s only one practical way to stop this madness. Abolish copyright.
It’s obsolete and counterproductive (except for lawyers).
Nap.
CRIA
Let’s not forget the faces behind the curtain of the CRIA. They are the real problem and constantly simplifying it to ‘CRIA’ is a psychological warfare on their part.
…who are they again? ^_^
…
@Degen: “…professional artists…”
Real artists create because they have something to say to the world.
These are just “professional entertainers”.
Nap.
…
@CndReader: “…who are they again? ^_^ ”
Same as in RIAA? The use of the word “Canadian” is pretty much deceptive…
Nap.
Degan said:”… based on a clumsy hearsay reference in a third-party document that you are choosing to interpet only one way in order to satisfy your predetermined and ideological dislike for professional artists in general and CRIA in particular.”
Degan you are correct it is a bit more complicated than “they are for it”. They are only for the levy if it guarantees them the same or more money then they make on sale. Which doesn’t make sense since it’s a levy for format shifting, something that should be free if I truly am licensing music and not owning it. But then again greed does tend to color their view.
Similar story
Here is a similar story
he Canadian federal government, released the results of an independent study it commissioned on the effects of illegal downloading entitled “The Impact of Music Downloads and P2P File-Sharing on the Purchase of Music.â€
@Degen
Geez dude, Giest bias is very present in this debate, and so is yours. Who cares? We each have our own position in this debate. Those acting with no bias an independent are calling for the legalization and monetization of file sharing. Attacking Geist may feel good, but in reality it makes you look like a complete idiot. Power to the creators! Give me a break dude, you suck at being an advocate, you always have.
If you were such a great advocate for creators than I guess the big major political parties wouldn’t be looking to levy Ipods and legalize file sharing for all due respect. Get a grip, you’re not taken seriously here or anywhere else because of your known obsession with Geist, and your easy to manipulate.
The people Access Copyright have in their ad’s advocating for writers rights, look like they’ve long past their time and belong in a crypt. That’s gone over very well with the tech-savvy crowd I’ll tell you that for a fact.