Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media (Apple) Media Data Storage Your Rights Online

Apple to Refund iPod Levy for Canadian Customers 221

Posted by timothy from the also-for-canadian-citizens dept.
The Hobo writes "According to this CBC report, Apple Computer will be starting a refund program for those who purchased their iPod product during the year that a levy of $25 per iPod over 10 GB was collected. The levy was in effect from December 2003 until a year later, when a Federal Court overturned it. Previous CBC coverage here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple to Refund iPod Levy for Canadian Customers More

Apple to Refund iPod Levy for Canadian Customers

Comments Filter:

  • Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HotNeedleOfInquiry ( 598897 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @10:23PM (#13275850)
    But shouldn't the Canadian Government be doing the refunding? They mandated it, they probably took the money from Apple as it was collected, seems like Apple gets screwed twice, along with Canadian citizens.

    • Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Lev13than ( 581686 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @10:34PM (#13275901) Homepage
      But shouldn't the Canadian Government be doing the refunding? They mandated it, they probably took the money from Apple as it was collected, seems like Apple gets screwed twice, along with Canadian citizens.

      The government never collecting any funds - that was handled by the now-looking-for-something-else-to-do Canadian Private Copying Collective [www.cpcc.ca]. Furthermore, the CPCC held all levy proceeds in trust and will be returning them to the manufacturers [cirpa.ca]. Thus, Apple is merely returning money that was never theirs.

      No word, however, on whether Apple return the iTunes Store fees for any Celine Dion tracks purchased in an alcohol-and-tranquilizer-induced fit of misguided patriotism.

      • Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Well, the CPCC isn't exactly lacking in things to do with this levy being overturned. The previously existing levies on all other recording media (CR-Rs, for example) still exists, so they will continue to collect that.

        Actually, Apple will likely profit from this. They will get back the entire levy amount collected by CPCC, but there will likely be a few iPod owners who don't hear about the refund and won't collect.

      • Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        any Celine Dion tracks purchased in an alcohol-and-tranquilizer-induced fit of misguided patriotism

        Drugs are bad, mmmmkay? I think the phrase above provides reason enough...
      • No word, however, on whether Apple return the iTunes Store fees for any Celine Dion tracks purchased in an alcohol-and-tranquilizer-induced fit of misguided patriotism.

        Yeah about that... you should give up on it.
      • No word, however, on whether Apple return the iTunes Store fees for any Celine Dion tracks purchased in an alcohol-and-tranquilizer-induced fit of misguided patriotism.


        Damnit! [justinbuist.org] (Screenshot of iTunes... and yes, I had been drinking.)
      • No word, however, on whether Apple return the iTunes Store fees for any Celine Dion tracks purchased in an alcohol-and-tranquilizer-induced fit of misguided patriotism.

        We understand. It's been a while since Bryan Adams [apple.com].

    • Actually, the consumers were the ones screwed the first time, since Apple passed the levy along to them. So Apple is only getting screwed once (unless you count the lost sales resulting from the levy).

      Also since it was the Canadian Private Copying Coalition (CPCC) who received the money from the levy, it would make sense that they should be the ones to refund the money instead of the Canadian government. But good luck getting it out of them.

    • Oh no! Watch out! *reality distortion field comes online* Ahhh nooo!! *Halo Effect in full force* MUST BUY IPOD! MUST BUY IPOD!!

  • Liability (Score:4, Insightful)

    by under_score ( 65824 ) <mishkin@berteig. c o m> on Monday August 08, 2005 @10:26PM (#13275865) Homepage
    Will this have liability ramifications for music copying using the iPod? I don't know very much about the law behind the levy here in Canada, but I do know that it is meant to compensate the middlemen^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H artists for fair-use copying that does not provide revenue. So if the iPod is in some way not covered by this levy, does that somehow expose iPod users?
    • When the man shows up with a search warrant and asks to examine the contents of my IPOD, he'd better be ready to search my house/car/garage for all CD's I've ripped and misplaced as well.
      I've been looking for them for years anyway.
      Just because you're not legally covered to 'copy and share' the music, doesn't mean you're not allowed to backup and copy for personal use.

  • But batteries will cost you $50 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ReformedExCon ( 897248 ) <reformed.excon@gmail.com> on Monday August 08, 2005 @10:29PM (#13275876)
    Apple is a master of customer relations. I don't think you can find any other computer company (maybe the now-defunct Amiga) that engenders the kind of appreciative customers that Apple does. Especially under Steve Jobs, they pull little stunts like this here and there that really bring in the herd.

    But why, then, do they not focus more on also getting the technology right? Many Apple loyalists are happy to overlook some deficiencies in Apple products, but some things like the iPod battery issue are hardly ever resolved to satisfaction.

    I really like Apple, and though I don't own any Apple products, I see them as a very significant counterweight to Microsoft hegemony. They keep Microsoft on its toes, which can only lead to improved products for everyone down the road.

    • Re:But batteries will cost you $50 (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ciroknight ( 601098 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @10:37PM (#13275922)
      Hardly one to comment on the "deficiencies" of the product, especially if you don't even own one.

      I personally see the battery as a natural product limiter. When the battery dies in mine, I'll buy a new one. Simple as that. Even without the battery, the iPod performs great as an external harddisk drive.

      If one cared enough to replace the battery, it's simple enough to send it back to Apple. And really, $50 for a battery that lasts easily a year and a half, with charges that last 10 or more hours, is definitely reasonable enough to me. Obviously not a whole lot of people are complaining because they're still selling like hotcakes. On top of that, it's only the real tech nuts who would never buy from Apple anyways (OMG OGG VORBIS) who really care about such things. Apple put more than enough warnings on their site about the batteries, and are offering to replace them, so I'm not whining.

      Lastly, a rechargable battery is more acceptable than replaceable batteries. Think about how much it would cost to run your iPod if you had to replace batteries every 8-10 hours.
      • "Hardly one to comment on the "deficiencies" of the product, especially if you don't even own one."

        Can I comment? My iBook is on its 5th logic board...
        • Your iBook has absolutely *nothing* to do with an iPod and it's replaceable battery, especially it's logic board.
        • Um, you havn't asked for a full replacement. You can usually do that after the 3rd time that the same part breaks. In this case, it would have gotten you a brand new iBook with a G4 processor instead of that G3. If it breaks again, ask for a replacement laptop, not a fix of the one you have. Apple will be more than happy to upgrade you to what was equivalant since they are probably running out of G3 logic boards for your iBook.
          • "Um, you havn't asked for a full replacement."

            I did and they refused, the 3rd and 4th times it broke.
          • AppleCare states that they will repair or replace a unit under warranty at their discretion. AppleCare also makes no guarantees as to uninterrupted service.

            "Apple will be more than happy to upgrade you to what was equivalant since they are probably running out of G3 logic boards for your iBook."

            Lets see: swap out a logic board they've had in a warehouse for a couple years, or GIVE AWAY a brand new product instead of selling it full retail. You're not thinking right.
        • That really shouldn't happen. After three failures, the policy is to return the whole machine, never to be seen again - and have it replaced by an entirely different-but-equivalent system.
        • My Powerbook and three iPods have worked perfectly from day one. Sorry that you had problems :)
          • My shuffle hasn't had any problems, and it's actually recieved the coveted "ArbitraryConstant has no specific complaints" award, which means it meets my expectations in every way and is the highest praise I have to give.

            But when Apple makes crap I'm going to call them on it. I don't know why people reply to posts like mine with "I've had X for Y years, no problems". Is it to balance out the public impression made when someone's been having issues? Drunkenbatman said it better than me, there's an instinct to
        • My PowerBook is on its third logic board - and it's my second PowerBook, the first having been replaced by this one under warrantee.

          My iPod (bought at the same time, two years ago) seems more or less fine. The battery still seems to hold a about the same amount of charge as it did when it was new, although the screen looks a little bit like there is some pressure-damage on it, and occasionally a horizontal line appears for a few minutes after first booting it. I'm considering replacing it within the next

        • Yes, because that never happens with other manufacturers. [brokennewz.com]

          So you got unlucky with Apple. The guy in the story got unlucky with Dell.

          The difference is...?
        • and you've paid for how many of them?

          And apple has extended that recall voluntarily how many times?

          I've also seen them replace smoke-damaged top decks on several ibooks that were sent in for logic board replacement, again for free.

          BTW, you were probably not on your toes with your reading either. Three "covered repairs" means you are entitled to a NEW LAPTOP. Complain and you WILL get a new ibook G4. Failure to be an "informed consumer" means you're just bending over and taking it.
          • "and you've paid for how many of them?"
            I paid about a week each.

            "And apple has extended that recall voluntarily how many times?"

            They did the repair extension when threatened with a class-action lawsuit. I'm not impressed.

            "Three "covered repairs" means you are entitled to a NEW LAPTOP. Complain and you WILL get a new ibook G4. Failure to be an "informed consumer" means you're just bending over and taking it."

            I asked Apple Customer Relations the 3rd and 4th times, and they refused.

      • Stupid logic (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        (You are) Hardly one to comment on the "deficiencies" of the product, especially if you don't even own one.

        I am not a soldier, I guess I'm hardly one to comment on the war.
        I do not own an American car, I guess I'm hardly one to comment on their quality.
        I am not an African American, I guess I'm hardly one to comment on racism.
        I don't use Windows, I guess I'm hardly one to comment on its features.
        I have never been in a terrorist attack, I guess I'm hardly one to comment on terrorism.
        I have never eaten rat po

        • Re:Stupid logic (Score:2, Insightful)

          by ciroknight ( 601098 )
          (You are) Hardly one to comment on the "deficiencies" of the product, especially if you don't even own one. I am not a soldier, I guess I'm hardly one to comment on the war. I do not own an American car, I guess I'm hardly one to comment on their quality. I am not an African American, I guess I'm hardly one to comment on racism. I don't use Windows, I guess I'm hardly one to comment on its features. I have never been in a terrorist attack, I guess I'm hardly one to comment on terrorism. I have never eaten
          • You've never ate rat poison, though I wish you would have.
            That was uncalled for! Let's at least try to be civil.
          • You aren't a soldier. So if you want to comment about battle field conditions, your word is as good as mine. Comment on the war as much as you like, but until you've fought in it, you don't know the details of the device. Most slashdoters make judgements on the iPod without ever using or touching one.

            By that logic soldiers have no say either. Only on their specific role in a specific battle. Anything beyond that and they are no better off than you. The fact is, if you have to actually do something to
        • I do not own an American car, I guess I'm hardly one to comment on their quality.

          American cars are good, plus buying them doesn't hurt American workers. Whereas buying foreign helps create layoffs.

          I have seen this type of argument a lot lately, especially on this site where we would expect the level of argument to be a little higher than somewhere like FreeRepublic or Indymedia.

          Well at least you included both the far right and the far left. :)
          • American cars are good

            Obviously America gets different American cars to the American cars that Europe gets. In my experience they are asphyxiated, with dreadful suspension and brakes, and cheap tacky dashboards. On the up side they generally don't look too bad and are relatively cheap. You get what you pay for. But then I buy Apple hardware because I want to pay for quality.
      • "Many Apple loyalists are happy to overlook some deficiencies in Apple products"

        "I personally see the battery as a natural product limiter. When the battery dies in mine, I'll buy a new one."

        That's the problem with Apple worshipers. They overlook Apple's problems to the point that they think Apple is perfect and Apple has no incentive to perfect their products. I'm not saying that Apple doesn't fix their problems (in time!), and I'm not saying that Apple isn't a great company, but why do people irrationally

        • battery life (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Stu Charlton ( 1311 ) *
          That's the problem with Apple worshipers. They overlook Apple's problems to the point that they think Apple is perfect and Apple has no incentive to perfect their product.

          I think this is a rather broad brush. And contradictory. In one sentence, Apple fans overlook problems in search for approval that Apple has the best "all around" product. In the next sentence, they're perfectionists.

          why do people irrationally ignore the problems and attack anyone who is critical of an apple product?

          If you were to look
          • For example, I have a friend that is pissed he didn't buy an iPod because his DJ locks up on him all the time, he has to carry a paper clip to reset it.

            The Dell needs a paper clip to reset it?

            My irony meter just snapped off. And - just to add something (possibly) useful to the discussion... still using a 3-year-old 2nd gen iPod and it works fine. I think the battery is down from 9 hours to about 4-5 but I rarely use it for that long, so it hasn't been a big issue for me. As far as I know all lithium b

        • I would NOT have bought the ipod mini if I knew this - competing similar products advertised battery lives of close to 20 hours.

          Highlighting the essential word here. I've seen the ads for Sony's MP3 players, the ones with "up to 20 hours of playback! *"

          * The footnote being, of course, that this only applies to very highly-compressed files at around 64mbps, which means more of them will fit in the memory buffer, decreasing HD access, and therefore lengthening the battery life. Once again, you have to rea

    • I don't think you can find any other computer company (maybe the now-defunct Amiga) that engenders the kind of appreciative customers that Apple does.
      You're wrong about Amiga. There was never a great deal of customer appreciation of Commodore, just appreciation of the machine itself.
    • There isn't a single portable HDD-based MP3 player I know of with a replaceable battery. Not to mention it's pretty damn cheap, considering it easily lasts for a couple of years. This is not a problem specific to the ipod, it is common to all small MP3 players with rechargeable batteries. Besides, it's not that hard to replace the battery yourself.

      What other design deficiencies are you thinking about? I can't think of a single one, really. Apple certainly has the best product on the market.
    • This isn't really a PR stunt, or great customer relations - although it is *good* customer relations. Apple are just fulfilling their customer obligations under the Canadian legal system. The only reason they're doing this, and not the Canadian Private Copying Collective (who held the funds) is that Apple know who their customers are!

      But then to link this to batteries..? Where does the logic come from? It's a bit like saying "I like Halo, it's a fun game, but that registry in WinXP just plain sucks."

      Differe
    • Especially under Steve Jobs, they pull little stunts like this here and there that really bring in the herd.

      You mean like the current 2% of the computer-using population that actually owns a Mac? Yeah, way to "bring in the herd", Apple....

      Max
    • So, what battery technology should Apple have used for the iPod that doesn't degrade over time?

      I just recently upgraded my iPod (5GB, no gen-nothin') from the factory 800mAh to a NewerTech 2100mAh and it's great - 10+ hours. I've had the thing for 3+ years, so no big deal.

      It was pretty easy and cost me $30, shipped.

  • 25 Downloads (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @10:35PM (#13275906)
    Shouldn't Apple instead be giving them 25 iTMS downloads? After all, court decisions always result in vouchers -- not cash!
    • You're probably right, but then again giving back as cash looks better as a company, especially since a lot of those users will turn around and purchase tracks on the iTunes site with the money anyways. Not a guarenteed revenue source, but definitely a good one nonetheless.

      It's really win-win for Apple to return the money, either they look good as a company, or they simply recieve the 25 bucks back as profit.

  • That's silly, just keep the levy in place... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Feanturi ( 99866 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @10:35PM (#13275909)
    That way, since I've already paid for crimes I might commit, I can freely go ahead and commit them to my heart's content. Sort of like buying an indulgence.
    • Of course, things don't work this way. Just because they've put a levy on something doesn't mean you have the right to commit the crime that you've pre-paid for.

      (Let me get out of the way up front that I think the levy was a greedy money grab by people that generally don't deserve it. I resent it a lot.)

      If there was a $5000 levy on bullets to compensate the families of victims of gun crime, would you feel that it was your right to go out and shoot someone after buying some bullets? After all, it's already c
      • First, let me say I agree with your point concerning the levy in general: it's a stupid idea, and as you said, "a greedy money grab by people that generally don't deserve it." Well put.

        (Furthermore, if they imposed such a levy on bullets, I probably would consider myself absolved if I went and shot the person who thought said levy was a good idea, with their very expensive bullets. But that's a different issue.)

        The crux of your argument is that downloading music is immoral, regardless of whether there is a
        • There are 2 perspectives.

          1. They assume you're a criminal and fine you in advance through the levy.

          2. The law permits you to copy all the music you want without paying the copyright holder. To ensure there is still an incentive to create the government pays the copyright holder a small amount to compensate them for their work. The technical means to achieve this was a levy on blank audio media.

          #1 is not possible as no crime has been committed.
        • There's another, more subtle point that I forgot to make.

          By allowing the levy to continue, you may recieve a 'moral' credit to download music (which you shouldn't have to pay for anyway :P) but if you let someone else collect the money, the person that really deserves it (ie. the artist whose work you downloaded) will probably never get the money. (Unless you're a fan of the big names like Britney Spears.) You could take that money and give it to the band that you REALLY like. After all, why prop up artists
      • In Canada's case, it's still legal to download and rip music that you've borrowed.

        It's not still legal, it is a right explicitly codified in law, which means it's not just permitted by some grey area like in the US. What pisses me off is, the same CRIA(A) that lobbied for copyright reform now lobbies to revert the law they forced on us, because we get something in return for the money.

        • The only reason that I used the term 'still' is because there have been a few attempts to curtail this right, and agencies have been working to get it taken away. I don't know how much longer it'll last, but for now, I 'still' have the right to download and copy music.

  • A couple definitions (Score:5, Informative)

    by The Hobo ( 783784 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @10:41PM (#13275936)
    Levy = Fee administered by a private organization
    Tax = Fee administered by a government
    • No you have it all wrong.

      To clarify:
      Tax: A bully regulary beats you and takes your lunch money

      Levy: A bully needs to buy his girlfriend a bunch of flowers so he beats you and takes some more on a one off occasion.
    • copyright infringement = fee administered by a pissed off public
    • Levy = Fee administered by a private organization

      Except that as I understand it this so-called levy is backed by government force. Stores aren't allowed to sell imported American CD-Rs and bypass the levy imposed by the 'private organization'.

      That's a tax, plain and simple.

      Max
    • Actually,

      Tax: Fee administered by gov't.

      Levy: place you drive your Chevy to, even though it's dry (singin', "this will be the day that I die.")

      C'mon folks, get with the program.

    • You can try to put kind words on it any way you want, but a tax, is a tax, is a freaking tax, no matter what you do when the government is involved. Things like this don't get pushed with out some paper pusher seeing how it benifits them as well.
    • Enforcement has to be part of administration, so that raises the question - if you don't pay it, who will come to your house with guns?

  • Are they keeping the interest they earned? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FFFish ( 7567 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @11:11PM (#13276048) Homepage
    Mind, the interest might barely cover the costs of processing the tax both coming in and, now, going back out.

  • is it really blank? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by E8086 ( 698978 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @11:47PM (#13276156)
    It seems the iPod was mis-classified by its ability to be used as an external hdd. The iPod isn't sold as blank media. It's marketed as a portable media player. It has an OS w/ the ability to dual boot to linux(ipodlinux.org) software, RAM, hdd, audio support, display and input device. It's closer to being a PDA, configured to be very good at playing audio files, than just a blank hdd/cd/dvd and anything else covered by that canadian tax that I know nothing about.

    "The tariff was...for non-removable memory"

    Depends on how non-removable you consider the ipod memory? There was a post many months ago about removing the microdrive from another audio player and could be used with cameras and PDAs that use microdrive, I think the price of the player was less than that of the flash memory.

    "The CPCC got the levy instituted in the first place because it successfully argued that iPod users were making illegal copies of songs, so money should be collected on behalf of the copyright holders."

    So one could make that claim, but what about the people with well paying jobs who can afford to and do purchase all the music they own. I have no idea where recording off the radio fits in. Good idea Kanuck RIAA, treat all those high paying customers like criminals. iPods cost a lot more before Dec2003 when the taxation was in effect.

    If it were up to me, fortunately for them it's not, I'd make them match the tax refund with an itunes gift card. Their member corporations get more than their share of songs sold on itunes that it wouldn't be a total loss.

  • How about the other digital music players? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mpaque ( 655244 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @12:09AM (#13276229)
    Will Creative be sending refunds to those that bought their players?

    Will both people that bought Dell DJs be getting refunds?

  • Where did the money go? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigberk ( 547360 ) <bigberk@users.pc9.org> on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @12:33AM (#13276316)
    Here is something that really annoys me. These levies go to the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) because they lobbied the government -- and are still actively influencing the Heritage Minister -- to try and convince them that implied theft of Canadian content should go back to the association that represents them.

    This is an abomination of facts on multiple levels. First, the CRIA does NOT represent the majority of Canadian artists. They might represent the largest percent of mass music sales, because they have the largest commercial artists but the CRIA does not represent the majority of Canadian musicians. Many artists are independent of course.

    Second, the CRIA is basically a Canadian flagged arm of the RIAA. If you use the wayback machine's history to look at www.cria.ca before they removed the logos, you'll see that the majority of the artists are under large American labels - Sony, BMG, Warner etc.

    So here is basically what has happened. The American recording industry has opened a wing in Canada, slapped on a Canadian flag, claimed to represent Canadian musicians, pressured government into forcing levvies for implied theft and then stolen that money.

    • "These levies go to the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) because they lobbied the government -- and are still actively influencing the Heritage Minister -- to try and convince them that implied theft of Canadian content should go back to the association that represents them."

      The CRIA (through its member record companies) indirectly gets a minority of the funds.

      As has been pointed out elsewhere, the levy is collected by the CPCC. They distribute the money to songwriters, music publishers

  • You are a criminal (Score:5, Funny)

    by bigberk ( 547360 ) <bigberk@users.pc9.org> on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @12:50AM (#13276366)
    Dear Sir or Madam,

    You are not a customer. You are a criminal sir (or madam)! I'll take your money AND I'll call you a criminal. Who are you to disagree? We have a United Nations backed copyright treaty behind us, support of world governments, and millions of dollars to lobby your government (our government) and pay for lawyers.

    There is no way to argue, we wrote copyright law and we shall amend it as required. Copyright allows us to strictly protect intellectual property for many years after an artist's death, even though even patents for the greatest inventions in the world can only last a couple decades. Copyright is King!

    If you don't like it then I suppose your only recourse would be to refrain from purchasing anything supported by our industry such as audio CDs, but please don't do that because our profit margins are already very weak and we can not survive. Plus we will just claim that you have been stealing the CD content and collect even more cash from you to compensate us for your evil theft!

    We're real assholes that way. What can you do? Pay up, bee-atches. Just remember to keep buying our stuff. Do not ever buy or sell used CDs, the secondary market is theft too!

    Sincerely eh,

    CPCC
    CRIA
    RIAA

  • Too lazy for a refund? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Aqua OS X ( 458522 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @01:14AM (#13276465)
    Now... let's place some bets.

    How many iPod owners will...
    a) be aware that this refund exists; and
    b) be motivated to fill out a form and address an envelope.

  • I got my refund in February (Score:4, Informative)

    by siliconjunkie ( 413706 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @01:42AM (#13276564)
    I live in B.C. and got a 40GB iPod from Future Shop in December 2004. When I read about the levy being repealed (I think it was here on /.) I headed over to Future Shop with my reciept and got $25 charged back to my card with no hassle at all. I figured that the retailer would handle something like this (as they did in my case).
  • Perhaps I'm just dumb, but I rtfa, both of them, and I can't figure out how to access this money?

    Has anyone else found the forms yet?

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Close