"Perhaps IPO officials, keen to “stick it to the man”, were hoping people will blame the music industry rather than their own mean-spirited interpretation of European copyright law."
What evidence is there that the IPO officials were "keen to 'stick it to the man'"? The music industry would like us to buy the same thing numerous times in different formats which is as ridiculous today (CD->MP3) as it was when I was young (LP->tape). If you buy a copy for yourself, why should you pay per playback device? Could making a copy for your own use not be considered fair use?
I live in a country where blank media has a built-in levy. Oddly enough, most of the blank media I buy is for backups and such of my data, source codes, blah blah, but mostly my own video recordings (which, encoded 'live' are a lot larger in size than a codec that has the luxury of running at 10fps). Most of my MP3s live on a USB harddisc with a copy on an SD card and a DVD-R. That's one active copy and two backups, which might represent a decimal point in the blank media that I have bought. I'm not complaining, I'm just pointing out that a media levy is not necessarily the logical solution.
Finally, consider downloaded music. You have to put those somewhere, so you may end up in the interesting situation of buying a media (SD card, harddisc, etc) with a built-in levy applied, in order to use to store music that you have lawfully purchased. Not a copy for your convenience, the original copy.
Essentially - it seems that "the man" is complaining to be recompensed for his ability to sell the same thing multiple times; something that never should have been required in the first place.