The often-criticized Canadian "iPod levy" may return through a new bill proposed in Parliament. The NDP's Member of Parliament for Timmins-James Bay, Charlie Angus, has suggested in bill C-499 that the Private Copying Levy applied to blank CDs and tapes be extended to MP3 players, smartphones and any other device with permanent storage where transferring music is a significant feature. He has claimed that the motion would provide "legal certainty" for fair use rights and would prevent lawsuits or other legal attacks against Canadians, whose guarantees for fair use aren't as established as in the US.

"Digital locks and suing fans are not going to prevent people from copying music from one format to another," Angus said in a release supporting his proposal. "The levy is a solution that works. By updating it, we will ensure that artists are getting paid for their work, and that consumers aren’t criminalized for moving their legally-obtained music from one format to another."

In exchange for the rate hikes, the move would expand the rights for non-commercial use and would protect artists, educators and others from legal action for fair use of the content.

While the measure potentially settles disputes over the reach of copyright, it has already come under criticism for its implications. Apart from artificially inflating the prices of iPods and other devices, it incorrectly casts these devices as copying vehicles and not listening equipment. The Federal Court of Appeals also set a possible precedent in 2008 when it said that the Copyright Board of Canada had overstepped its bounds through the original levy, which as pressed for by the Canadian Private Copying Collective called for as much as $75 extra per device.

The Canadian music industry itself has paradoxically been resistant to an extended levy as well. As the surcharge would be meant to compensate musicians for perceived losses, it would implicitly condone piracy as customers would already be paying for music. It would simultaneously give tacit approval to breaking DRM and other copy protection schemes as customers would not only have the legal right to transfer music but could argue that no harm was being done to the artists in the process. [via Michael Geist]