Yesterday I heard Tony Clement, Minister of Industry on the CBC. He was commenting on the CRTC decision to uphold usage based internet billing. He claimed that his interest was in ensuring a menu of options for Canadians. He also called upon Bell to share. What is curious to me about these comments is that he seems deaf to the calls from artists to ensure some remunerative potential from digital access to their work in the form of some kind of levy. Artists would also like a menu of options including support for their work, their spaces to create, and a royalty pool/or levy.
The year ends much as it began with a sense that while everything has changed more stays the same. The debate around Bill C-32 continues - with little obvious progress from the outside looking in. Moore and Clement held a press conference where again the "iPod tax" was used to generate media and public attention. They claim they speak for consumers. Yet I have not met anyone who begrudges paying creators for their work - nor for that matter do the Consumers Association, PIAC and the Union des Consommateurs. Artists are also consumers and users of content. Perhaps the theory is that i
On November 2, 2010 Bill C-32 went to 2nd reading in the House of Commons. When asked a direct question by Carole Lavallee of the BQ about the difference between a tax and a levy the Minister replied: "I would say that we are trying to be fair to people, and that means being fair to consumers.
Having read Samuel Trosow's work for sometime I read with interest his analysis of the educational provisions. He makes an extremely valuable point about the conservative risk averse analysis that appears to operate at many educational institutions.