Tape Tax - Nash The Slash

You can get live performance or album reviews on the various musicians, groups and events listed in the reviews index below. You can also read comments and notes about music related issues from various people. If YOU have a live performance review on a musician or musical event that you would like to submit for publication on this page, please do so via email using "Review Submission" as your subject:wezel@interlog.com.

As a long-time independent recording artist in Canada, I am totally perplexed at the absurdity of this new tax on blank tapes and CD-R's.

Performing rights societies and record companies have always taken the high road when it comes to discussing the protection of copyright for their artists. There are many examples of counterfeiting in China and other large markets of Asia and Africa that are not controlled by the rules of "world copyright." This is an unfortunate situation. Every recording artist and record company is justified in being upset about counterfeiting in these territories. However, taxing blank tapes and CD-R's in Canada (the U.S. will follow very soon) does not attend to the problem of counterfeiting, yet it does allow the record companies to get extra revenue out of a more affluent society.

In Europe and North America, many cassettes are used to compile various artists rather than copy entire albums, and in these countries of the "copyright world," counterfeiting is rare because of the heavy legal penalties. Most consumers in North America and Europe are bootlegging, meaning copying without permission. Counterfeiting is the reproduction of the entire commercial package with the intent to fool the public that this is an original product, and to make money from that deceit. This frenzy in Canada to tax and control recordable means is being fueled by the record companies and their unwitting allies, the performing rights societies, who have the right intent, but the wrong approach.
Performing rights societies should be diligent in their pursuit of copyright protection, and in the process, the profits of their artists will increase worldwide. However, these organizations should not be involved in creating profits through taxes on mechanical means such as recordable tapes and CD-R's, as these profits come at a loss to the public at large as well as a loss to recording artists using these very tools to create their product. This might possibly be un-constitutional.

Performing rights groups should remove themselves from this public relations nightmare, and get on with the daunting task of protecting artists' copyright onto satellites and the universe beyond. Who cares about a plastic box being badly copied in China and sold to millions? I have no more control of that than does CMRRA.

The satellite will make the tactile CD redundant. Billions of listeners is the new reality and airplay around the world should be compensated. CD-R's are an absurd addition to the list of taxable recording means. Most of them are being used for storing general data, not music. To put a percentage value on their use opens up the Pandora's box of percentage use of other recording media, whether it's cassette, DAT, video or CD-R. You can't penalize the public for enjoying music.

Considering their relative cost, recording artist's CD's are overpriced on the world market. In England and Europe, the average cost of a commercial CD is $30.00. In North America it is $20.00. Do CD's cost 50% more to manufacture in Europe than in North America ? I don't think so. The price is based on what the market will bear, and music lovers in Europe have always paid an exorbitant price for this simple pleasure.

Do these prices reflect a greater protection for the recording artist or a greater profit for the record companies? By taxing the consumer on the use of blank recordable means, the record companies are making us pay for their own follies in the world market. Canada is the trial territory for this approach, and it will spread to the U.S. It is totally incomprehensible how these extra funds will be distributed. How is it possible for the music distributor, retailer and consumer to put together the necessary information to give these funds to the appropriate artists? It cannot be monitored the same as radio airplay.

Does this mean that every time you make a cassette of your own music, Michael Bolton is going to be two cents richer? What a horrible thought.

The new law says to avoid the tax, either buy in bulk (a record company) or be a counterfeiter (criminal off-shore manufacturer). There is no distribution plan, and the record companies, by appearing to have the artists' interests at heart, will keep all the money until someone blows the whistle. The "recordable means tax" is just another example of music industry greed.
Protecting the rights of recording artists is a noble task for performing rights societies, but as the new technologies of recording, broadcasting and distribution quickly evolve, their response seems desperate and unfair to the consumer at large. They should try to solve the problem of copyright infringement and not the problems of inflated costs and lost revenue.
The recording organizations that are hell-bent on getting more money for their coffers should be aware that the public soon chooses other sources of entertainment when it feels it is being fleeced by high-priced performers. Just look at what's happening to the professional sports industry.

Nash the Slash
Canadian Independent Recording Artist

Comments, suggestions on this Web page: wezel@interlog.com

Top of Page