I saw that too, and I think it's wrong. This is clearly not a tax. This is a user fee that is directly linked to the industry. It goes to the fund. It goes to production, to produce content that they need, that they are required by law to do, etc. A tax is something that goes into the general coffers of the CRF. That's what the Federal Court ruled, as you know, on the part II fees, as they are called. But in this case there is a clear linkage between the contributions, the system, the user, and how it's being used.
So to call it a tax is, I think, wishful thinking.