Re: For the record (March 2)
Thought I’d send you a note to let you know I enjoyed your article. It’s an interesting debate and you raised some good questions.
Re: For the record (March 2)
I am surprised that the music industry is intent on filing suit against music downloads. As far as I am concerned, we as Canadians already pay for their music each time we download since on every recording medium — disks, tapes, CDs and DVDs — is a surcharge collected by the government to reimburse the artists. The fact that they are intent on getting even more than they are entitled to is a sure sign of greed, pure and simple.
If they want to make more money then sell more for less. There is no way that it should cost $15 – $20 to produce a single CD. Sell them for $4 – $8 each and they will sell lots more. Consumers are tired of price gouging and the fact that they have moved away from quality. In the 60’s you could by a 45 rpm record with two songs if you didn’t want the album and most albums were comprised of not just one good song and the rest a bunch of trash. I still have old vinyl and the LPs are a far superior collection of music than the CDs of today.
Re: Tax software firm turns to Magma as crunch time looms (March 1)
The last time I looked Revenue Canada was not providing their e-file or Netfile service without cost.
I refuse to pay to file an electronic return so that Revenue Canada can have its cake and eat it too. It has long been recognized that the most expensive element of getting data into machine-readable format is the human resource required to capture it. Revenue Canada gets my family returns on paper and I, fortunately, can deliver it on the way to work.
Perhaps the reluctance to adopt electronic filing is the realization of the double savings that Revenue Canada is seeking.
I think it would be interesting to see what sales of tax-filing software sales has been in the last few years, and what kind of relationship there is to the number of e-filers.
Re: Industry on hold for CRTC VoIP decision (Feb. 17)
In the past when the CRTC took years to make a decision there were usually few real consequences for Canadian business, industry or the consumer. Today it is mandatory that current and future technologies, such as VoIP, be reviewed in depth in a very short time frame of between 6 and 10 months. Coupled with the short review time frame, decisions aimed at the provision of such services that will benefit ALL parties, be they the manufacturer, supplier or end user, must be made. Canada’s telecommunication manufacturers are in the position to further develop and deploy technology that the world will buy.
Bell Canada has, over the past 75 years, made very few mistakes in providing telecommunication services that Canadians want, need and buy. When Bell Canada, a world leader in telecommunications, sees the technological, operational and financial benefit of “”telephone”” services using VoIP technology and is prepared to commit the funding then I feel it is essential that the CRTC get off their collective butts, create a diverse committee of experienced Canadian telecommunication professionals to review the position, impact and long term benefits of VoIP and make a decision.
When Canadians communicate today they have choices. The end user has the option of using the “”communications service”” that best suits THEIR need at the time. The end user can and will make the decision based on their needs and what is available in the market place. How the “”call”” is routed or the technology that is used to route and manage the data being communicated is of no real interest to most Canadians. What is of real interest is the overall quality of the service being used, the speed of connection, the cost of the service and the reliability of both the service and the provider.
If Canadian telecommunication companies can develop, deploy and manage technology that lets Canadians communicate at the speed of light then I feel very strongly that governing bodies such as the CRTC must also communicate rules, regulations and direction at the speed of light.
Re: Vendors fear media levy could extend to hard drives (Jan. 16)
Regarding Neil Sutton’s article on Jan. 16:
ITBusiness.ca would be doing a service to its readers if it stuck to the facts instead of spreading speculative rumours.
For the record, CPCC made it clear in requesting a levy on digital audio recorders that it did not intend that the levy should apply to personal computers, cell phones, or, in fact, to anything other than the internal memory of devices intended primarily for use to record and playback music.
Furthermore, the claim that future iTunes users in Canada will be unfairly burdened is a grand exaggeration. The success of the iTunes music store is also a success for the music industry. It means that artists are being fairly compensated for their work. Canada’s first legal downloading services only became available in late 2003. The CPCC has asked the Copyright Board to reduce the levy to reflect the uptake on these services.
Let’s also remember that iTunes exists to sell more iPods. How many iPods would be purchased if they were not used to copy music? The levy on non-removable memory in the iPod will simply allow music fans to make personal copies of music. The rate of the levy reflects the additional memory offered by the iPod.
Almost a billion tracks of pre-recorded music were copied by Canadians without authorization from the authors, performers and producers of the music between July 2001 and June 2002. The levy is already an important source of revenue for songwriters, music publishers, recording artists and recording companies. Without the levy, this sector would be the only part of the chain that doesn’t receive fair market value for its product.
Claudette Fortier, Chair
Canadian Private Copying Collective
Shane: I receive a lot of newsletters and every once and a while I click on a link that interests me. It is amazing how many times I see your picture. You have a wonderful knack at selecting topics of interest. I believe that this is the first time I have ever complemented anyone on their writing style. You are doing a great job.
Letters to the editor must include the writer’s name and company name along with an e-mail address or other contact information. All letters become the property of ITBusiness.ca. Editors reserve the right to edit submissions for length and content.