Continuing to prove that music rights-holders just don't "get it" is the news that the Canadian Private Copying Collective is pursuing the reinstatement of levies on MP3 players in Canada. You may remember that the CPCC was the body that lobbied hard for the original enactment of a levy on MP3 players that was in effect from December 2003 until the following December: in the end the levy was overturned by Canadian courts, and various companies that passed on the tax to customers were forced to offer refunds. The reason for the overturning was the fact that the levy focused on hard drives, which, in the court's eyes, didn't fall into the category of "audio recording media." The CPCC is now calling for the Canadian Copyright Board to classify MP3 players as a whole under category of "audio recording media," as well as an increase in the levy range from CAD$5 to $75 depending on the capacity of the storage. Fortunately, several experts in the field of intellectual property have stated that it's unlikely the CPCC will get its way: David Fewer, a professor at the University of Ottawa, states that he thinks the CPCC is "really getting quite existential" regarding whether or not players like the iPod are "mediums" or "players." We love a debate on the existentialism of MP3 players as much as the next geek, and when the end result could be a tax that blames all consumers for a problem -- which is supposedly "contained" -- that could be addressed in oh-so-many other ways, you know which side we'd be on.

If you've got someone who loves you, holds down a steady job, helps you out, reads your mail to you, takes care of you, and even gives birth, it's only fair that they enjoy the same rights and liberties as everyone else, right? What if that individual is powered by an Intel processor? Concerns over the status of robots in our society around 2056 have emerged from "one of 270 forward-looking papers sponsored by Sir David King," the UK government's chief scientist. Essentially, folks in favor of robotic rights suggest that if conscience bots are made to interact with humans, they should share a certain level of rights. Currently, the machines we know and love (and fear) are classed as "inanimate objects without rights or duties," but if rights were passed, somehow these creations would be forced to obey traffic lights and potentially pay taxes. Of course, a large concern is ethics towards these creatures, but some say that if robots in society are "correctly managed," it could lead to increased labor output and "greater prosperity." Although this stuff may seem pretty far-fetched right now, the logic behind it could actually grow legs in the (somewhat) distant future, but until there's a robotic candidate on the presidential ballot, we'll just keep on keepin' on.

[Thanks, Fred R. and Laura O.]

There's no doubt that the matter of intellectual property has become more prominent in the age of the internet now that some products -- like music -- have begun to lose their physical properties entirely. This shift has led to an increase in use of licenses designed to protect the IP of certain goods; so when you buy a song from the majority of online music services, that purchase is often accompanied by an agreement between you and the creator of the music. Some argue that manufacturers of electronic products have gone too far with their licenses, an opinion aired over at an article in The New Republic. One particular example of outlandish licensing agreements is that of Canon's EOS-1D which includes a separate agreement related specifically to the software that runs on the camera -- effectively the consumer does not own the software that keeps the camera running; he or she is instead licensed the right to use it. One clause of the disclaimer actually removes Canon's obligation to service or repair the camera if the software fails. These kind of agreements aren't completely watertight: courts can invalidate licenses if the company tries to impose excessive limits, the problem is that often they choose to favor companies over the individuals because it is felt that protection is required for fast moving areas like software design. Ultimately though, the threat of aggressive IP will never overrule the consumer's killer wallet-closing combo move. If consumers are unfairly restricted by certain companies, isn't it logical to assume that people won't buy that company's products anymore?

[Via Against Monopoly]